# Understanding World War 2 requires an understanding of World War I?



## FortYorkRifleman (14 Aug 2015)

Can World War 2 and its causes be understood on its own or should I look into what caused the First World War and its progress from 1914-1918?

Having "studied" the Cold War on my own I find its like an onion; there are layers upon layers of why one event came to be due to previous conflicts/politics etc. I feel like I may run into the same issue here as I intend on researching The Third Reich's rise to power from the early 1930's to the events leading to V Day. Should I take this path of 1930 - 1945 and, if so, will I have a understanding of why The Third Reich rose to power, who Adolf Hitler was as a man and leader, why America stayed out of the war 'till 41, treaties before and after the War etc? Or should I broaden my scope and look at the World Wars as one event from, let's say 1900 to 1945?

Any insight would be appreciated


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

I would say that one book ~ Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World Paperback by eminent Canadian historian and Oxford Professor Margaret MacMillan ~ is indespensible for understanding how and why we got on the path towards World War II. A companion book, also by Prof MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace: The Road To 1914, deals with how we _drifted_ into the First World War but there are lessons in it about how nations and leaders miscalculate. You wil also find much of good value in Part 3 of Elting E. Morison's Turmoil and Tradition: A Study of the Life and Times of Henry L. Stimson which deals with Henry Stimson in the period 1933 until his death in 1950; Stimson was, of course, the US Secretary of War. If you believe, as many do, that war has economic causes then The Economic Consequences Of The Peace by John Maynard Keynes is also a must.


----------



## Lumber (14 Aug 2015)

Many people will say this (and I will agree), that the cause of the 2nd World War was the end of the first.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Aug 2015)

On a less academic note, quite a few intelligent people concluded at the time of the Armistice on 11 November 1918 that they would have to do it all over again in 20 years.

I am not going to get into revisionism, but Allied planning in the summer of 1918 was the Americans would be able to field a large number of trained divisions in mid-1919. This would allow the Allies to overwhelm the Germans and end the carnage. After Amiens, the Black Day of the German Army, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig realized the Germans were a spent force and convinced the Allied military and political leaders to mount a general offensive that ended the war a year earlier than planned.

While this probably allowed the Germans to convince themselves they had not been defeated in the field, but had been undermined by Communists and other agitators, I cannot fault Haig for recognizing the opportunity and convincing the Allies to seize it.


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2015)

Except from an interest viewpoint I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking at the actual events of WW1.  However its causes are of great importance.  So too are the results particularly what happened to each of the major players.  How did Italy go from Ally to Axis?  Important as well is the Spanish revolution because of what the major nations did and more importantly didn't do.  Finally, read the Treaty of Versailles and ask yourself what your reaction would be if the price exacted from Germany were levied against Canada.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Aug 2015)

Excellent thread!

dileas

tess


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (14 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Except from an interest viewpoint I wouldn't spend a lot of time looking at the actual events of WW1.  However its causes are of great importance.  So too are the results particularly what happened to each of the major players.  How did Italy go from Ally to Axis?  Important as well is the Spanish revolution because of what the major nations did and more importantly didn't do.  Finally, read the Treaty of Versailles and ask yourself what your reaction would be if the price exacted from Germany were levied against Canada.



When you say "actual events" do you mean battles? 



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Excellent thread!
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Thanks   Not sure if this would be my hobby but I really enjoy delving into points in our history and learning as much as I can. I may need a second job when I get around to learning about Rome as the books I've compiled in my head to buy is nearing $200


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2015)

You also have to consider how the conditions placed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles lead to the rise of National Socialist movement.

It effected Hitler's thinking so significantly that when the French wanted to negotiate an armistice (read surrender) in 1940, Hitler chose the exact location of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles as the site of negotiations, and had the exact same rail car moved from a museum to be placed on the exact spot that it was located at the 1918 signing.

Although the claim at the time was that this was not an attempt to humiliate the French and exact revenge.


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> When you say "actual events" do you mean battles?
> 
> Thanks   Not sure if this would be my hobby but I really enjoy delving into points in our history and learning as much as I can. I may need a second job when I get around to learning about Rome as the books I've compiled in my head to buy is nearing $200



Library and used book stores are your friends.

And there may be members here who have old dusty copies piling up that their significant others keep complaining for them to get rid of.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Aug 2015)

Rifleman - I have found that the trail you have embarked on is never ending/beginnining.

Every "war" has history that causes it.  And events are not just battles - it can be diseases, inventions, famines, cash shortages, promiscuous Popes, itinerant preachers, volcanoes, rumours of wars, establishment of institutions, the change of direction of institutions.

Welcome to a lifelong pursuit.  And you will spend a fortune on books.  (And friends will learn to be wary about lending them to you).


----------



## cavalryman (14 Aug 2015)

A perennial subject, that.  I recall writing a paper in my first year of the War Studies program some two decades ago to the effect that the root causes of WW2 can be directly traced back to the ending of WW1 and the Versailles Treaty.  Mr Campbell's recommendations re: the two Margaret MacMillan books is spot on.  I've read both, though I'll confess that _1919 _was a tougher slog than _The War that Ended Peace_.  I'll add William Shirer's _Rise and Fall of the Third Reich _to the list of useful references, if only to get a sense of the atmosphere in Germany in that benighted era.  I love history... even after thirty years of marriage, my wife still doesn't understand why my vacation reading list includes a number of non-fiction titles.  Thank God for the Kindle eReader  ;D


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2015)

Both Cupper and Kirkhill expressed what I meant by results.  Another for instance, with regards WW1, what effect did the flu epidemic that started in the days immediately following hostilities contribute to many nations withdrawing into themselves as leaders and families died in large numbers.  The enormous death toll and the corruption within both the officer ranks and amongst the enlisted troops (who were often treated as slaves) was the final straw which led to the Russian revolution.  The resulting war which involved Britain and Canada and others contributed to our ignoring Germany's growth and belligerence because of our leaders fears that the miasma would spread.  And so on.  I don't refer at all to the battlefield results, horrific though they sometimes were.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (14 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Rifleman - I have found that the trail you have embarked on is never ending/beginnining.
> 
> Every "war" has history that causes it.  And events are not just battles - it can be diseases, inventions, famines, cash shortages, promiscuous Popes, itinerant preachers, volcanoes, rumours of wars, establishment of institutions, the change of direction of institutions.
> 
> Welcome to a lifelong pursuit.  And you will spend a fortune on books.  (And friends will learn to be wary about lending them to you).



I think I've spent more on books than I have on my last girlfriend. I don't know what I'll do if and when I get posted somewhere.  



			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> A perennial subject, that.  I recall writing a paper in my first year of the War Studies program some two decades ago to the effect that the root causes of WW2 can be directly traced back to the ending of WW1 and the Versailles Treaty.  Mr Campbell's recommendations re: the two Margaret MacMillan books is spot on.  I've read both, though I'll confess that _1919 _was a tougher slog than _The War that Ended Peace_.  I'll add William Shirer's _Rise and Fall of the Third Reich _to the list of useful references, if only to get a sense of the atmosphere in Germany in that benighted era.  I love history... even after thirty years of marriage, my wife still doesn't understand why my vacation reading list includes a number of non-fiction titles.  Thank God for the Kindle eReader  ;D



William Shirer's book is on my list as I am really interested in how the German population voted in, lived under and eventually lost faith in The Third Reich. That, in itself, is a story I have been interested in since learning of World War 2.



			
				YZT580 said:
			
		

> Both Cupper and Kirkhill expressed what I meant by results.  Another for instance, with regards WW1, what effect did the flu epidemic that started in the days immediately following hostilities contribute to many nations withdrawing into themselves as leaders and families died in large numbers.  The enormous death toll and the corruption within both the officer ranks and amongst the enlisted troops (who were often treated as slaves) was the final straw which led to the Russian revolution.  The resulting war which involved Britain and Canada and others contributed to our ignoring Germany's growth and belligerence because of our leaders fears that the miasma would spread.  And so on.  I don't refer at all to the battlefield results, horrific though they sometimes were.



I hadn't thought of that before. I had no idea a flu contributed to all of that.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2015)

This project is larger and deeper than you probably realize. National Socialism itself is the outgrowth of various philosophical and economic movements which can be traced back ito the 1800's, and the "mass political movements" which marred so much of the early 20th century (including Fascism, National Socialism, Bolshevik Communism etc.) were also a result of major shifts in demographics from farms to cities and communications technologies (mass media, radio and movies).

To giver you a more modern example, trying to discern "why" Vladimir Putin is taking the actions he does in Ukraine and the "near beyond" eventually resulted in my delving into the writings of Russian Philosophers like Vladimir Solovyov, who lived and worked at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century (going the other way, there are still areas of disagreement as to the causes of ancient conflicts like the Peloponnesian War as well...).

What you will eventually need to do is parse your subject a bit more closely and look at an aspect of what happened, otherwise you will be overwhelmed in details and lose the thread of your argument.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (14 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This project is larger and deeper than you probably realize. National Socialism itself is the outgrowth of various philosophical and economic movements which can be traced back ito the 1800's, and the "mass political movements" which marred so much of the early 20th century (including Fascism, National Socialism, Bolshevik Communism etc.) were also a result of major shifts in demographics from farms to cities and communications technologies (mass media, radio and movies).
> 
> To giver you a more modern example, trying to discern "why" Vladimir Putin is taking the actions he does in Ukraine and the "near beyond" eventually resulted in my delving into the writings of Russian Philosophers like Vladimir Solovyov, who lived and worked at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century (going the other way, there are still areas of disagreement as to the causes of ancient conflicts like the Peloponnesian War as well...).
> 
> What you will eventually need to do is parse your subject a bit more closely and look at an aspect of what happened, otherwise you will be overwhelmed in details and lose the thread of your argument.



I definitely felt that way learning about the Cold War as I went from the Vietnam War, to Canada vs Russia in hockey, to Star Wars and going back to Hollywood's "black list" and McCarthism. To be honest I think that's what made it fun and interesting was these detours and I imagine I'll be making several here. I really am trying to narrow my focus but it didn't really work before; I still have no clue when the Cold War actually started and everyone I speak with, from old Professors and teachers, the elderly in my condo who lived in the USSR during the era and online/book sources don't help much.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Aug 2015)

I might also add Ian Kershaw's book _The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Hitler's Germany_ if you want a glimpse of the final year of the 3rd Reich from the point of view of the ordinary Germans, i.e.  the consequences of WW1 coming full circle


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2015)

>Can World War 2 and its causes be understood on its own or should I look into what caused the First World War and its progress from 1914-1918?

It depends on whether you mean "World War 2" or "World War 2 in Europe".  For the former, you will have to look further afield in time and space.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Can World War 2 and its causes be understood on its own or should I look into what caused the First World War and its progress from 1914-1918?
> 
> It depends on whether you mean "World War 2" or "World War 2 in Europe".  For the former, you will have to look further afield in time and space.



At the moment I am looking at Europe and eventually Japan's rise to power and the Pacific Theater


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> At the moment I am looking at Europe and eventually Japan's rise to power and the Pacific Theater




Then Brad's point becomes even more important: When did the Second World War start? Was it 1939 when Germany invaded Poland? Or, perhaps, it started in 1937 when Japan invaded China, proper. But, wait, how about 1931? That's when Japan invaded Manchuria. And that all makes Paris 1919 more important because Prof MacMillan also outlines, in Chapters 23 and 24, the Chinese and Japanese positions and proposals and, equally relevant today, she explains, in Chapters 26 through 29, the origins of the the mess in the Middle East, too.






Japanese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919

          (Canada was given, with the other overseas Dominions, representation on the British Empire delegation to the Conference. She was given two seats in the Conference, and these were occupied alternately by Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden,
           Sir George Foster, the Hon. A. L. Sifton, and the Hon. C. J. Doherty.)


Edited to add Chapter references.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 Aug 2015)

Mr. Campbell, for the last 15 years I have been looking into why the world is the way it is in regards to America's dominance, why the Middle East is almost always in turmoil be it the Israel issue, Pan Islamic civil war, etc., and ultimately are we, as a species, mature enough to remember our past and not make the mistakes that led to World War 2. When I started researching back when I was 13 (yes, 13) I looked at the people in history books, documentaries and even living veterans of the Second World War as being almost cavemen like in that how can people get to a point where we allow tens of millions to die for the will of one man. I saw them as being from a time when people didn't know better until I matured and realized we really haven't. The question I wanted to know was is it possible for this generation to mimic the past and come to a point where a Third World War is possible? 

Ultimately I began looking backwards in time rather than reading books that tried to predict the future and found it much more helpful in making me understand things. I think getting a firm understanding of WWI, especially the Paris Peace Conference, then going forward is where I will begin.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2015)

The true cause of both world wars?

Cats.

Cat faeces is a prime source of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii.  Among the effects of this parasite in humans?   Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia and suicidal behaviour.  At a national level, such behaviours may manifest themselves in declarations of war.

Germans show infection rates nearly triple those in Canada, five times those in the USA, and eight times those in the UK. (See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090203#pone-0090203-t001)  Clearly, the Germans were driven to war by the parasites in their cat poo.

Therefore, the only reasonable solution solution to prevent further European wars is the eradication of cats.


Given the low incidence of toxoplasmosis in Japan, further research is required to determine the cause of war in Asia.



EDIT to add: Anyone with experience with cats would not be surprised that they secretly conspire to eradicate humanity.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (16 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The true cause of both world wars?
> 
> Cats.
> 
> ...



Thats... um very interesting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The true cause of both world wars?
> 
> Cats.
> 
> ...




Actually, I blame the Irish ...  :highjack:

Well, I really blame the French, but _I believe_ (sort of seriously) that the "Irish Question," in its various forms, preoccupied British (mostly English) political class for 50_ish_ years, two generations, in the 19th and very early 20th centuries and this led to the Brits taking their _strategic_ eye off the _strategic_ ball (puck, if you like).

For the better part of 450 years the Brits had _managed_, through some combination of periodic wars, a 'balance of power' _strategy_ and, mostly, a policy of 'splendid isolation,' to keep the continent, and the world at bay. But the French were crafty: they were unhappy about having made one strategic blunder after another for 550 years (they had been screwing up for just slightly longer than the Brits were (usually accidentally) being brilliant) and they decided to make another grave strategic mistake, but this time they needed to have the Brits onside, with the Russians. The result was the _Entente Cordiale_, signed in 1904, which I regard as the greatest British strategic blunder since January 1066 (when the _Witenagemot_ decided to offer Edward the Confessor's crown to Harold Godwinson (rather then to William of Normandy or at least to someone with a good claim to the throne), and which I believe was a major force in making the First World War as bad (and big) as it was ... when, in all likelihood, it could have been just another in a series of Franco-Prussian wars, all with the same result.

But cats are also a plausible explanation.  :nod:


----------



## dimsum (16 Aug 2015)

If you're going to go down the road of the Chinese v. Japanese bit in the Pacific, look farther back to the 1800-1900s when China was the "sick man of Asia" in the latter bit of the Qing Dynasty.  That also explains the German, British, Portuguese, and other influences (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.) in that region.

Of course, that then opens up another Pandora's box of French Indochina, Burma, India and such.  

Enjoy!


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If you're going to go down the road of the Chinese v. Japanese bit in the Pacific, look farther back to the 1800-1900s when China was the "sick man of Asia" in the latter bit of the Qing Dynasty.  That also explains the German, British, Portuguese, and other influences (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.) in that region.
> 
> Of course, that then opens up another Pandora's box of French Indochina, Burma, India and such.
> 
> Enjoy!



Sun Yat Sen, Boxer Rebellion, Japan's conscious emulation of Britain (Islands off of China vs Islands off of Europe) and rejection of the upstart Yankee democrats.

All excellent fodder.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> the greatest British strategic blunder since January 1066 (when the _Witenagemot_ decided to offer Edward the Confessor's crown to Harold Godwinson (rather then to William of Normandy or at least to someone with a good claim to the throne), and which I believe was a major force in making the First World War as bad (and big) as it was



Wow, talk about taking the long view (sorry, could not resist!)

On many other threads, people like Edward, Kirkhill and others have pointed out that a lot of behaviour is driven by "cultural" factors, which means that Germans are not likely to look at the same situation or set of data the way the French would (for example). Most of these cultural differences are quite old and very deep; the Spanish settlement of North America had a far different outcome from the French, Dutch or British settlements, carrying on cultural memes from the home territories into the New World, and often leading to similar outcomes in the New World as in the Old. You really can't teach old dogs new tricks.

Perhaps the best single introductory work on how culture shapes societies might be Samuel Huntington's book "Who are We?", which looks at the settlement of North America and particularly the foundation of the United States as the result of a specific group of people from a specific time and place settling North America in enough numbers to plant their values and grow them in fresh soil (the British Protestant Dissenters in the late 1600's to the mid 1700's).

So knowing and understanding something about the cultures of the peoples involved should be illuminating in discovering the "why" they chose course of action "A" rather than "B" in a specific situation.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I blame the Irish ...  :highjack:
> 
> Well, I really blame the French, but _I believe_ (sort of seriously) that the "Irish Question," in its various forms, preoccupied British (mostly English) political class for 50_ish_ years, two generations, in the 19th and very early 20th centuries and this led to the Brits taking their _strategic_ eye off the _strategic_ ball (puck, if you like).
> 
> ...



My understanding for the U.K. entering WWI had to do with Belgium. Belgium was a British creation after Waterloo and they had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium's sovereignty. When Germany invaded, Britain had no choice and declared war.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Aug 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> My understanding for the U.K. entering WWI had to do with Belgium. Belgium was a British creation after Waterloo and they had a treaty guaranteeing Belgium's sovereignty. When Germany invaded, Britain had no choice and declared war.



True enough, but there had been a century of diplomacy by all parties that eventually had created an untenable situation. One could argue that Europe, almost as much as Asia and the Middle and Near East, was an artificial construct with boundaries crossing ethnic, linguistic and religious lines. These to a large part were the result of several hundred years of power-brokering by anybody who cared to. Heck, lets blame the first wandering band of homo sapiens who crossed out of Africa into the Middle East a long time ago.

In truth the world made a mess of the twenties and thirties, and doesn't seem to be doing much better almost a century later.


----------



## Pusser (17 Aug 2015)

Of all the answers above only one (ERC) has alluded to the Franco-Prussian war.  I would argue that the humiliation suffered by France in 1871 was at least one of the reasons France insisted on humiliating Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which in turn, was a leading cause of the rise of national socialism, etc, etc...


----------



## cavalryman (17 Aug 2015)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Of all the answers above only one (ERC) has alluded to the Franco-Prussian war.  I would argue that the humiliation suffered by France in 1871 was at least one of the reasons France insisted on humiliating Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which in turn, was a leading cause of the rise of national socialism, etc, etc...


Which led to Hitler forcing the French to sign the terms of surrender in 1940 in the same railcar at Compiegne where the 1918 Armistice was signed, as a way of returning the humiliation...


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Which led to Hitler forcing the French to sign the terms of surrender in 1940 in the same railcar at Compiegne where the 1918 Armistice was signed, as a way of returning the humiliation...




......And we have gone full circle:



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> You also have to consider how the conditions placed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles lead to the rise of National Socialist movement.
> 
> It effected Hitler's thinking so significantly that when the French wanted to negotiate an armistice (read surrender) in 1940, Hitler chose the exact location of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles as the site of negotiations, and had the exact same rail car moved from a museum to be placed on the exact spot that it was located at the 1918 signing.
> 
> Although the claim at the time was that this was not an attempt to humiliate the French and exact revenge.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ......And we have gone full circle:



OODA loop cycle time = 64 hrs.


----------



## YZT580 (17 Aug 2015)

Revenge.  If that were the only reason then the war could have been ended in 1940.  Germany had received pay-back.  Negotiations could have ended it there.  Problem was there was a madman in charge in Germany.  It was his ability to rise to the top and the machinations of those who propelled him into that position that created the necessary foundations for WW2.  But that was only Germany.  Why did Italy join in and what about Japan?  They actually benefited from the Treaty of Versailles.  Perhaps ignoring Germany and studying the steps that led those to nations into a second war would provide the real answers.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2015)

An interesting philosophical look at the reasoning which made WWI so terrible, and which continued to cause WWII:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FA05Aa01.html



> Tolkien's Ring: When immortality is not enough
> By Spengler
> 
> Alone among 20th century novelists, J R R Tolkien concerned himself with the mortality not of individuals but of peoples. The young soldier-scholar of World War I viewed the uncertain fate of European nations through the mirror of the Dark Ages, when the life of small peoples hung by a thread. In the midst of today's Great Extinction of cultures, and at the onset of civilizational war, Tolkien evokes an uncanny resonance among today's readers. He did not write a fantasy, but rather a roman-a-clef.
> ...


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (18 Aug 2015)

Would never have seen it as a existential crisis for the Germans post World War II.


----------

