Well Alfred, I may not use the big words you do, but at least for the most part I am pleased to see we are saying the same things and I will certainly give you top marks for getting “different nuanced emphases” into a sentence [:)]
More seriously, just a few points:
“This thread is dealing with two quite separate subjects”.
No, it deals with three. The third questioning the premise that the USA caused the Pacific War due to its embargo against Japan. But we will leave that one for the moment and concentrate on your post.
The first topic you mentioned I do not intend to spend much time on. As you allude to in your answer, there is no definitive answer to this question – well Hirohito probably knew but he ain’t telling.
At the end of the day it comes down to which of the options one believes was the one that got the Japanese to surrender - unless you believe that both were required. I will say my piece one final time on that - simply the US ended the Pacific War – a war that they won, but were not responsible for causing or starting.
Moving to the “other subject”, in which you disappointingly dismiss people’s opinions as “hobby horses” – neglecting the fact that those “hobby horses” are reasoned, educated opinions often borne of much reading of a subject - and are equally disregarding of their "superficial" debate. But that is your style – it is what it is so no point going down that avenue again.
Credit where credit’s due – you have brought some good points to the table to add to this incredibly interesting subject.
1. I read AJP Taylor's work on the outbreak of WWII many years ago….. he came to the conclusion that it was the British March 1939 declaration to guarantee Poland which made WWII inevitable. From that point in time there were two set in concrete forces in play and only if one completely backed down, which was completely inconceivable, could a future WWII be averted.
This point goes to support, quite well I think, what I have been arguing about the fact that Versailles DOES NOT necessarily equal World War II. AJP Taylor himself stated that war became inevitable only in March 1939.
2. "Lebensraum" is a term which usually gets thrown about far too loosely. Hitler had a much more sophisticated view of what it meant. Firstly, there was the recovery of the Versailles imposed lost eastern territories. This objective was not really lebensraum to Hitler. What Hitler initially really meant by the term was that Germany needed, for economic reasons, an equivalent of the C19th American western expansion and the benefits that brought to the American economy. Due to geography and politics, for Germany this meant that the increase in market for German product was only possible to the east.
- There is a better word than loosely I think. The sentence would probably be more accurately presented thus: “Lebensraum" and Hitler’s ultimate goal are subjects which are all too often misunderstood and misinterpreted. [The same mistaken assumption was made in this thread and in the MWIF thread].
- I would also take issue with the next sentence which should have been written: “Hitler had a very specific vision of Lebensraum”. I disagree with your choice of language here. There was nothing particularly “sophisticated” about it – but it
was clear in his mind and was his raison d’etre.
- Re the latter half of the paragraph. Indeed, this is exactly what I have been saying over the various threads on this subject and in this debate was mentioned in post 63.
3. Western opposition to Versailles was much less than is being presented. There were some misgivings about elements of it from some of the elites but overall there was no opposition to it. Lloyd George won an election on the slogan of making the Huns pay until the pips squeak. Clemenceau and the French nation saw it as being the equivalent, in effect, of what they had suffered in 1871 at Bismarck's hands. What fundamentally made the Germans so resentful of it was that it bore no resemblance to Wilson's 14 Points which was the basis upon which the October 1918 government of Prince Max had come to power seeking an armistice.
I am not sure of what period of time you are referring to here. I think that you may be referring to the early twenties rather than later. I would recommend
Chamberlain and Appeasement by RAC Parker. Parker makes clear that – certainly in the UK – there was a very real wish to put relations with Germany onto a more normal footing. It is certainly true that this was generally less true of the French – even as the inter-war years progressed.
“Whether the 1919 Versailles Treaty had been made harsher or more lenient would not have made any difference to the German viewpoint. To them Versailles was simply a traditional European power peace treaty, albeit harsher than many but not unusual”.
Indeed, and was the point I made in posts 44 and 70.
4. It is just wrong to say that Versailles was not enforced.
I don’t think anyone did say that (though may have missed it). What was said was that it was not enforced to the letter, and for the length of time envisaged. The points you raise here are all true – and some are referred to in the earlier book I mentioned. However I am not sure the point about the pocket-battleships was quite correct! (but that is splitting hairs).
The final paragraph essentially confirms my arguments in this thread and I cannot really add to what you have said here as they are just extensions of the points I have made including:
- he became Chancellor in January 1933 of a coalition government, and even then only because Hindenburg was assured he would be kept under control by his non Nazi partners.
Hitler fooled his own people as much – if not more – than he fooled the Western politicians he danced around.
- That the Reichstag fire came……….out maneouver his coalition partners, can in no way at all be attributable to the Versailles Treaty.
- Nor can the 1934 SA purge be similarly blamed on Versailles.
As said there is so much that can – and did – happen in 20-years between Versailles and WWII that suggesting the latter was a foregone conclusion thanks directly to the former simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
" - BBfanboy
