Revisionist History-OT

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

I doubt that there are many people who believe that the Treaty of Versailles was the best way to conclude WWI. Whilst I have a large degree of sympathy for the French, the treatment of Germany, was considered too harsh even by many at the time – and with the benefit of time and hindsight, that feeling has only gained strength.

To many at the time (though not it seems the right people) it did not need hindsight or great powers of vision to realise that such a treaty would cause bitterness and resentment in years to come. In that sense, Versailles did give the German people a reason to be angry at their treatment.

That said, the idea that Versailles = WW2 is just too simplistic a notion and a nice get out of jail card for the Hitler worshippers (and no I am not claiming that any of you are in this camp). Yes there was a second war, yes it was started (regardless of what the likes of David Irving believe) by Germany (the “wronged” party at Versailles) but it took 21-years, it took a worldwide economic depression, it took a sociopathic leader to emerge that was not interested in putting Versailles right, it took a policy of appeasement – in short a hell of a lot of water flew under the bridge between 1918 and 1939. Given the foregoing WWII was hardly a direct result of Versailles.

Curiously, given that Versailles was the reason for WWII to some people, no mention is made of the fact that by 1939 - with the aid of the Western Powers - the treaty had been renounced by the Germans, the restrictions on the armed forces imposed at that time were gone, the Saar, the Rhineland and the Sudeten-German lands were under Reich control, the Anschluss was complete, the Western Allies were falling over themselves to make concessions in colonial and economic spheres to Germany. It is perfectly feasible that a more reasoned leader could have emerged in Germany, and one that could take advantage of the west’s willingness to maintain the peace.

Versailles was a contributory factor to the circumstances in which an Adolf Hitler type character could come to lead a well-educated, first world country like Germany. But in Hitler’s rise to power and his ability to appeal to the masses, Versailles was only one part of his two pronged attack to get Germany behind him. The other was little to do with Versailles – his railing against the so-called Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and those within Germany that had turned traitor and sold the undefeated Fatherland out at the end of WWI.

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

No amount of revisionist twaddle gets that psycho off the hook.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

[BattleMoose]

The treaty of Versailles created the NAZI party, it really is that simple. It created the economic turmoil that allowed for radical politics to emerge.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The treaty of Versailles created the NAZI party, it really is that simple. It created the economic turmoil that allowed for radical politics to emerge.

warspite1

No it didn't. As I said in my post above and you have just repeated - YES it created the circumstances in which extreme politics flourish. Germany was defeated in WWI. No matter the treaty that was agreed (any treaty would to a greater or lesser extent hurt the Germans) the extreme right and left would emerge to fill the void left by the imploding ruling classes and the Hohenzollerns and fight it out. The creation of the Nazi-party was not caused by the Versailles Treaty. It really is that simple.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing





The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

The real failing lies in the fact that the British and French didn't sit down with the Germans, Polish and Czech governments and establish something better to replace Versailles with.

Yes, there was Locarno, but that was a limited success, and was instrumental in sowing the seeds of discontent between the French and Polish.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

You're mistaking "started" with "caused".

Sadly, you not willing to read Taylor doesn't surprise me. Narrowing your viewpoint voluntarily simply because you "don't have time" for the authors is a sad form of self-censorship. I don't like Taylor either, yet I'll read his works. The merits of the author and the merits of the work should be considered independently.

At the end of the day, what do you learn if you only read works that posit the viewpoints you agree with?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.




The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

The real failing lies in the fact that the British and French didn't sit down with the Germans, Polish and Czech governments and establish something better to replace Versailles with.

Yes, there was Locarno, but that was a limited success, and was instrumental in sowing the seeds of discontent between the French and Polish.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

You're mistaking "started" with "caused".

Sadly, you not willing to read Taylor doesn't surprise me. Narrowing your viewpoint voluntarily simply because you "don't have time" for the authors is a sad form of self-censorship. I don't like Taylor either, yet I'll read his works. The merits of the author and the merits of the work should be considered independently.

At the end of the day, what do you learn if you only read works that posit the viewpoints you agree with?

warspite1

I didn't say I only read authors whose view points I agree with. In fact I have confirmed previously the very opposite. However, there are some authors/historians - at both extremes I would choose not to give the time of day to. That is all.

No I am not mistaking at all - you state the Allies caused WWII. I state they did not. The cause of the war in Europe was Hitler's desire for Lebensraum, the cause of the war in the Pacific was Japan's insistence on a Co-East Asia Co-properity sphere. There are your causes - those two nations also started the wars.

Re sitting down and discussing with the Germans the Poles and the Czechs? You know, we all know (because we have hindsight) what Hitler wanted. Are you seriously suggesting there was a compromise solution that would have avoided war? Really? If so I genuinely want - and I mean genuinely - want to hear what that could have possibly been.

You are going to re-negotiate the treaty such that the Czechs lose the Sudetenland, the Poles lose the corridor and? Are you saying Lebensraum is now satisfied? Is that it? Peace in our time?

[Chickenboy]

I'm just curious how those proponents of "Russia's entry caused the surrender of the Japanese" rationalized the threat to the Home Islands from the Red Army. True, the Red Army overran and crushed a vastly undermanned and undergunned Manchuko garrison in the last month of the war. But crushing Imperial Japan's mainland Asian imperial dreams and invading downtown Tokyo are vastly different things.

Just how, exactly, was the Red Army supposed to get millions of troops onto the Home Islands for an amphibious invasion? Their navy was a sliver of an afterthought of a shadow of what the Americans and British had in theater at the time. What credible amphibious chops did the Soviets *ever* have, let alone in the Far East in 1945?

Was the Imperial high command fretting over an amphibious Red Army assault or were they bemoaning the loss of their Imperial Asian hegemony? Did Imperial Japanese headquarters really believe that the Soviets were going to attempt to overrun Honshu by themselves? Were they aware of some unspoken agreement (that never existed) between America and the Soviets for American amphibious lift to move Russian troops to the home islands? Were they more concerned about this hypothetical challenge to the Home Island or, perhaps-just perhaps-were they more concerned about the ongoing , merciless and unrelenting incineration of their cities by the Americans? I suspect that the Imperial Japanese Navy representatives that held sway near the end saw these realities as they were.

The overhead explosion of nuclear devices was not an "oh, by the way" agenda item in the Imperial command's meeting minutes. It's the far more credible explanation for the temporal surrender that followed thereafter.

I agree with those that believe that the Emperor-paradoxically-saved Japan from self-imposed immolation and utter ruin. He alone had the chops and the ability to unite the Japanese for this most unpalatable act of surrender. The nuclear fire that ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki weighed on his mind and gave him the reason and the cause to surrender. No fictitious Red invasion was so weighted.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

The real failing lies in the fact that the British and French didn't sit down with the Germans, Polish and Czech governments and establish something better to replace Versailles with.

Yes, there was Locarno, but that was a limited success, and was instrumental in sowing the seeds of discontent between the French and Polish.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

You're mistaking "started" with "caused".

Sadly, you not willing to read Taylor doesn't surprise me. Narrowing your viewpoint voluntarily simply because you "don't have time" for the authors is a sad form of self-censorship. I don't like Taylor either, yet I'll read his works. The merits of the author and the merits of the work should be considered independently.

At the end of the day, what do you learn if you only read works that posit the viewpoints you agree with?

warspite1

I didn't say I only read authors whose view points I agree with. In fact I have confirmed previously the very opposite. However, there are some authors/historians - at both extremes I would choose not to give the time of day to. That is all.

No I am not mistaking at all - you state the Allies caused WWII. I state they did not. The cause of the war in Europe was Hitler's desire for Lebensraum, the cause of the war in the Pacific was Japan's insistence on a Co-East Asia Co-properity sphere. There are your causes - those two nations also started the wars.

Again, you're confusing "starting" with "causing".

"The cause of the war in Europe was Hitler's desire for Lebensraum"

I'll need to disagree here. The cause of the war in Europe was Versailles. How did Germany lose it's eastern territory? Versailles. It all ties back to Versailles.

"the cause of the war in the Pacific was Japan's insistence on a Co-East Asia Co-properity sphere."

The Co-prosperity sphere existed to provide Japan with essential resources that the Americans had cut Japan off from. Without those resources, the Japanese could not continue their war with China, and were forced to look elsewhere.

Re sitting down and discussing with the Germans the Poles and the Czechs? Come on mind_messing lets get back in the real world. You know, we all know (because we have hindsight) what Hitler wanted. Are you seriously, and with a straight face suggesting there was a compromise solution that would have avoided war? Really? If so I genuinely want - and I mean genuinely - want to hear what that could have possibly been.

Locarno represented the best opportunity for a lasting settlement. Instead, it left the eastern frontiers of Germany an open question, and that left a bitter taste for the Czechs and Poles. The end of Soviet isolation in European diplomacy also started to cloud the issue after 1922, so if there was ever going to be a compromise solution, it would have been at Locarno.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm just curious how those proponents of "Russia's entry caused the surrender of the Japanese" rationalized the threat to the Home Islands from the Red Army. True, the Red Army overran and crushed a vastly undermanned and undergunned Manchuko garrison in the last month of the war. But crushing Imperial Japan's mainland Asian imperial dreams and invading downtown Tokyo are vastly different things.

Just how, exactly, was the Red Army supposed to get millions of troops onto the Home Islands for an amphibious invasion? Their navy was a sliver of an afterthought of a shadow of what the Americans and British had in theater at the time. What credible amphibious chops did the Soviets *ever* have, let alone in the Far East in 1945?

Was the Imperial high command fretting over an amphibious Red Army assault or were they bemoaning the loss of their Imperial Asian hegemony? Did Imperial Japanese headquarters really believe that the Soviets were going to attempt to overrun Honshu by themselves? Were they aware of some unspoken agreement (that never existed) between America and the Soviets for American amphibious lift to move Russian troops to the home islands? Were they more concerned about this hypothetical challenge to the Home Island or, perhaps-just perhaps-were they more concerned about the ongoing , merciless and unrelenting incineration of their cities by the Americans? I suspect that the Imperial Japanese Navy representatives that held sway near the end saw these realities as they were.

I agree with those that believe that the Emperor-paradoxically-saved Japan from self-imposed immolation and utter ruin. He alone had the chops and the ability to unite the Japanese for this most unpalatable act of surrender. The nuclear fire that ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki weighed on his mind and gave him the reason and the cause to surrender. No fictitious Red invasion was so weighted.

The impact of the Russian invasion was two-fold.

The first, as you addressed, was military. The bulk of the Japanese Army was in Manchuria and China, with them out of the picture, Japan is depending on the mass-mobilization of the population for the defense of the Home Islands.

The second impact was diplomatic. The Japanese leadership had decided that it was the Soviets that would serve as the lever to get the terms they wanted from the Allies. The Soviets entertained this fantasy as a method to keep Japan in the war long enough for them to shift troops eastwards from Germany.

Tokyo essentially told Satō to get the Soviets to act as a middle-man, despite Satō himself knowing it was a pipe-dream. When the Soviets declare war, Tokyo gets a nice big shock because it's last route of escape has been slammed shut in their face.

The overhead explosion of nuclear devices was not an "oh, by the way" agenda item in the Imperial command's meeting minutes. It's the far more credible explanation for the temporal surrender that followed thereafter.

The Emperor didn't seem to think so, at least not in the immediate aftermath of the war. The rescript I posted above is a prime example.

It's not "Hey, the Americans have a wonder weapon so we're calling it quits!".

It's "The Soviets have invaded and the wheels have came off the car!"

Retribution/Nemesis by Hastings goes into a great deal of detail on this.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

To your initial question, tocaff-no. No genuine mea culpa apology should be forthcoming.

We do have a very flexible and face-saving tool available to us today. It's called "the English language". We can manipulate it and use it for good or ill. Statements which support all sides in an argument can be fashioned which are noncommittal, do not place blame and do not even apologize. Sometimes people find succor in such vapid expressions. OK. I'm all for that.

How about this, then?

"It was unfortunate that weapons such as these were needed to end the Second World War with Japan."

I think everyone will agree that the use of the weapons was not a fortuitous development for mankind. I think everyone will agree that these weapons were, at least partly, responsible for and needed for the Japanese decision to end the war and solicit their surrender.

If that's the apology that the revisionists want, I'd offer that. If that's a bit mealy-mouthed and parsimonious, that's too bad. That's as far as I'd go with any sort of apology.

[warspite1]

Again, you're confusing "starting" with "causing".

Come on mind_messing we have been here with the Sealion thread and the fact you feel the need to put me down. Can we just stop with the confused rubbish. I am not confused - I simply disagree with you okay?

Then perhaps we can continue to debate like grown-ups.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's "The Soviets have invaded and the wheels have came off the car!"

The wheels were coming off the cart years before the Soviets said 'boo'. To say that the continuous, unremitting military setbacks at the hands of the Americans and "Western" Allies was ho-hum and *not* foremost on the minds of the military leadership is a non-starter in my book. By the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki burned, 40% of Japanese cities were ash and cinders. Are we to assume that the military leadership didn't remember this? That they had assumed that as status quo? That they had forgotten that the Americans were likely to beat the Russians to the Home Islands via amphibious invasion?

I can't believe that having a 'diplomatic door' slammed in the face of the Japanese leadership was the cause of their surrender. Sorry. I just don't see their ignorance towards their nation burning from the inside out at the expense of the big, bad nasty Red invasion.

[warspite1]

Locarno represented the best opportunity for a lasting settlement.

I have centred on the 30's. Fair enough you are taking this back a step - and logically so - to the 20's.

I think the problem was that is that the Locarno Treaty came too early. If there was going to be a huge change to Versailles - and remember it would have needed a big compromise - then the French were just not going to agree only seven years after the end of the war. The wounds that caused them - and it was not just the French - to insist on Versailles in the first place, were still too raw.

Again, real world, I just think it was too big an ask to get the victor powers to shift to the extent needed that would satisfy both them and Germany and - importantly - stop the rise of an Adolf Hitler character.

But this in itself still does not mean Versailles MUST EQUAL WWII. There was no guarantee that Hitler was going to win power despite everything that had happened. There was plenty more elections, treaties, depressions, etc etc to play out before we get there. Once we get there - you cannot ignore what Hitler wanted - for the simple reason that Lebensraum was non-negotiable.

[Chickenboy]

Great text of Truman's speech after Nagasaki:

The British, Chinese, and United States Governments have given the Japanese people adequate warning of what is in store for them. We have laid down the general terms on which they can surrender. Our warning went unheeded; our terms were rejected. Since then the Japanese have seen what our atomic bomb can do. They can foresee what it will do in the future.

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

I realize the tragic significance of the atomic bomb.

Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. But we knew that our enemies were on the search for it. We know now how close they were to finding it. And we knew the disaster which would come to this Nation, and to all peace-loving nations, to all civilization, if they had found it first.

That is why we felt compelled to undertake the long and uncertain and costly labor of discovery and production.

We won the race of discovery against the Germans.

Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us.

[wdolson]

The one thread I missed subscribing to starts wobbling on the rails. So far it's stayed civil and I thank you all, but there have been some concerns.

Bill

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The one thread I missed subscribing to starts wobbling on the rails. So far it's stayed civil and I thank you all, but there have been some concerns.

Bill

warspite1

Well Bill I love this subject - its almost as fascinating as the war itself. You have my undertaking I will not be de-railing this thread. I expect it to get robust! but no personal attacks from me.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's "The Soviets have invaded and the wheels have came off the car!"

I can't believe that having a 'diplomatic door' slammed in the face of the Japanese leadership was the cause of their surrender. Sorry. I just don't see their ignorance towards their nation burning from the inside out at the expense of the big, bad nasty Red invasion.

http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501

Read for yourself. That's from a Japanese historian.