This is one of the things that I'll miss when these boards go away in a couple of weeks, the ability to discuss things like this. I should note that I studied history and international relations in college, so this subject is right in my wheel house. You might not believe it, but scholars from those two disciplines can have very different views on something as presumably obvious as WW II, the Cold War, even the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is much more complex than one might assume. And I want to make it clear that I'm no apologist for Hitler or the Nazis.
But you have to look at it in the context of European history. Before 1945 this was a common thing, as countries often went to war against each other. And one could see that what they were doing was to reacquire territories that had been stripped from them in the Treaty of Versailles. The Rhineland, the Saarland, Austria, the Sudentenland, the Polish Corridor, and Memel were German territories. This fact, along with the simple fact Britain and France were still deeply mired in the Depression, was why they didn't stridently oppose Hitler. I wonder if it had been possible for Chamberlain to know what would have happened because of the war if he would have still done it. Britain suffered terribly from it, and even though they won, it took them decades to recover from the effects.
I also forgot to ask another question in my previous post: if Britain and France HAD to declare war on Germany after invading Poland, then how come they didn't declare war on the USSR after they invaded Poland? Enquiring minds want to know...
However, the war in the Pacific was a different critter. The US had every right to fight the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. If the US had put the brunt of its war effort in the Pacific (instead of in Europe as it did), then that part of the war might have ended sooner (even without the atomic bomb).
That's the problem with doing the "what-if" aspects of history - if you change something you'll never know what will happen. On the other hand, if there had been no WW II, think how different today's world would have been. There wouldn't be desktop computers, smart phones, or the Internet. We'd be wondering if we would ever go to Moon. And there would have been no rock and roll, at least what we think of it today. That's not to say it was worth the deaths of tens of millions of people, but it does make you wonder.
--------
Everyone may have an opinion but very few seem to have an informed one.
reply
share
!!!deleted!!! (23568926)
8 years ago
They're shutting down the message boards?! I wasn't aware. That's unfortunate. Just looked into it, and it seems they can't police people's thoughts and expression enough for it to be "positive" for everyone and their poodle. Pfft. Dark times.
Anyway, I'm not for a moment suggesting WWII (or any war) was simple and with only one interpretation. I'm not at all formally educated, but I've read a ton of history and I'm familiar with the fact it's not clear-cut, thanks. And as I acknowledged, everything concerning the Soviet Union just adds a fascinating layer of grey to it all.
I'd like to say thanks for a spirited debate---debate is being eroded right now, as two extreme ideologies just scream at each other across the fence and silence any opposition. I really can't grasp the kind of mind that would actually get upset over something a stranger said to them over the internet, but apparently folk are so delicate that their precious feelings must be protected, and we can't have these discussions anymore.
Would I sacrifice tens of millions to have rock and roll? Honestly, probably. And with that last middle finger to the fascistic politeness they're rolling over everything, I'm signing off.
reply
share