The Unnecessary War

What Did Churchill Mean by "Unnecessary War"?

Would you agree with Churchill that the Second World War was the unnecessary war? I think I would. The forgotten First World War I think is so forgotten only because of the death toll, scale, and easy black and white understanding of the second.

But after the First World War, American military leaders foresaw the threat of Japan AND Russia. It was no surprise to them. The blunder of punishments put Hitler in power. Essentially the terms of peace wrecked the peace.

WWII was just an extension of WWI. Some diplomats hashing out the Versailles Treaty in 1919 said then that France and England would be at war with Germany again in 20 years. They were only off by a few months.

So yeah, WWII was an unnecessary war. If the Allies, including the US did a better job in 1919, WWII might never have happened.

It was an entirely preventable war.

But,

One should note that even with no World War Two the world would hardly have been at peace during this period.

The United States and Japan had been on collision course for years and probably would've fought a major war. Likewise, Japan's long term designs on China would not have changed.

And it is more than likely that a strong, unified Germany and a Soviet Union eager for payback and takeback would've clashed in Eastern Europe in a big way.

stonewall50 said:

What Did Churchill Mean by "Unnecessary War"?

Would you agree with Churchill that the Second World War was the unnecessary war? I think I would. The forgotten First World War I think is so forgotten only because of the death toll, scale, and easy black and white understanding of the second.

But after the First World War, American military leaders foresaw the threat of Japan AND Russia. It was no surprise to them. The blunder of punishments put Hitler in power. Essentially the terms of peace wrecked the peace.

Click to expand...

Yep. But what does it tell us for today?

Dayton3 said:

It was an entirely preventable war.

But,

One should note that even with no World War Two the world would hardly have been at peace during this period.

The United States and Japan had been on collision course for years and probably would've fought a major war. Likewise, Japan's long term designs on China would not have changed.

And it is more than likely that a strong, unified Germany and a Soviet Union eager for payback and takeback would've clashed in Eastern Europe in a big way.

Click to expand...

I don't think a war with Japan would have been very long. In WWII Japan was losing the war in the Pacific and the US was only sending 30% of our supplies and men to the Pacific. Without having to fight Germany if we were sending 100% there Japan would have been defeated pretty quickly.

A Germany and Russia war in the 1943-1944 time frame? That I could see. Stalin would have wanted to push west, Germany would have objected.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

I don't think a war with Japan would have been very long. In WWII Japan was losing the war in the Pacific and the US was only sending 30% of our supplies and men to the Pacific. Without having to fight Germany if we were sending 100% there Japan would have been defeated pretty quickly.

A Germany and Russia war in the 1943-1944 time frame? That I could see. Stalin would have wanted to push west, Germany would have objected.

Click to expand...

And likely Hitler would not have been a leader. That would have changed Germany drastically.

stonewall50 said:

And likely Hitler would not have been a leader. That would have changed Germany drastically.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, without the huge mistakes made at Versailles by the Allies(all of the Allies BTW) there probably would have been no burning need for revenge at France, thus no Hitler. I still think though in the 1944 or so time frame Germany and Russia would have been at war. I don't know how their war would have affected France and/or England. They may have just sat it out, or fought along side of Germany. Without a Hitler, Stalin was by far the most dangerous, paranoid and land grabbing dictator in Europe.

stonewall50 said:

What Did Churchill Mean by "Unnecessary War"?

Would you agree with Churchill that the Second World War was the unnecessary war? I think I would. The forgotten First World War I think is so forgotten only because of the death toll, scale, and easy black and white understanding of the second.

But after the First World War, American military leaders foresaw the threat of Japan AND Russia. It was no surprise to them. The blunder of punishments put Hitler in power. Essentially the terms of peace wrecked the peace.

Click to expand...

Nah. it was a necessary war.

It was necessary because it's there and then that the USSR became a true world power. It's from there that Europeen colonial powers would lose most of their overseas colonies. It was there and then that the Jewish people (in oposition to "jewish individuals") would form an independant nation (that I believe would not have been so well if it wasn't for the Holocaust). It was there that economically, technologically and socially, the rest of the 20th would be decided. And a part of the 21st as well.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

I don't think a war with Japan would have been very long. In WWII Japan was losing the war in the Pacific and the US was only sending 30% of our supplies and men to the Pacific. Without having to fight Germany if we were sending 100% there Japan would have been defeated pretty quickly.

A Germany and Russia war in the 1943-1944 time frame? That I could see. Stalin would have wanted to push west, Germany would have objected.

Click to expand...

Japan also had to fight China, the Dutch and the British Empire at the same time.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

Well yeah, without the huge mistakes made at Versailles by the Allies(all of the Allies BTW) there probably would have been no burning need for revenge at France, thus no Hitler. I still think though in the 1944 or so time frame Germany and Russia would have been at war. I don't know how their war would have affected France and/or England. They may have just sat it out, or fought along side of Germany. Without a Hitler, Stalin was by far the most dangerous, paranoid and land grabbing dictator in Europe.

Click to expand...

Germany-England relations were far from being hostile before the war: Already, both had sign a naval agreement in 1935 that un-made the Versailles Treaty limitations for the German fleet - with which authority the Brits did this (while they were themselves bound by the Washington and London naval agreement) I still wonder.

As harsh as the Versailles Treaty looked, it was relatively mild when compared to the Brest-Litovsk treaty in which Russia capitulated. What the Germans didn't like about Versailles was the responsability of war - they were right, too: IMO, Russia started WWI.

Unnecessary to what end? It's not really conceivable that the world powers would cease direct confrontations for long, not until catastrophic weapons came into existence. WWII created the inevitable nuclear arms race. If not that conflict, it would've been another.

Now, were the nazis and the holocaust avoidable? Most likely yeah, or at least greatly diminished.

stonewall50 said:

What Did Churchill Mean by "Unnecessary War"?

Would you agree with Churchill that the Second World War was the unnecessary war? I think I would. The forgotten First World War I think is so forgotten only because of the death toll, scale, and easy black and white understanding of the second.

But after the First World War, American military leaders foresaw the threat of Japan AND Russia. It was no surprise to them. The blunder of punishments put Hitler in power. Essentially the terms of peace wrecked the peace.

Click to expand...

The peace imposed on Germany after it lost WWI was in reality not unduly harsh. The real problems were that Germany never reconciled itself to the fact that it had lost WWI and that Germany was simply too big to be a stable element in the European order.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

Well yeah, without the huge mistakes made at Versailles by the Allies(all of the Allies BTW) there probably would have been no burning need for revenge at France, thus no Hitler. I still think though in the 1944 or so time frame Germany and Russia would have been at war. I don't know how their war would have affected France and/or England. They may have just sat it out, or fought along side of Germany. Without a Hitler, Stalin was by far the most dangerous, paranoid and land grabbing dictator in Europe.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Ps

I know. All allies. I hate Wilson. He was a moronic and arrogant ideologue. Reminds me of a president in some nation I know.

stonewall50 said:

Bingo.

Ps

I know. All allies. I hate Wilson. He was a moronic and arrogant ideologue. Reminds me of a president in some nation I know.

Click to expand...

Yeah he reminds me of Bush II also.

Anyway Wilson's problem was when Versailles started he was seen as the moderate voice, he was seen as the rational person at the table. He was going to keep France and England from being too harsh against Germany. But by the end he was as harsh and maybe even more hard nosed than the other Allies. Very strange how he flip flopped. That surprised the Germans, and probably help lead to Hitler and WWII.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

Yeah he reminds me of Bush II also.

Anyway Wilson's problem was when Versailles started he was seen as the moderate voice, he was seen as the rational person at the table. He was going to keep France and England from being too harsh against Germany. But by the end he was as harsh and maybe even more hard nosed than the other Allies. Very strange how he flip flopped. That surprised the Germans, and probably help lead to Hitler and WWII.

Click to expand...

I was thinking Obama. Both very liberal and idealists. Bush was hardly an idealist. Certainly he wouldn't have earned the monicker "too proud to fight." Plus he was hands off with the military. Completely unwilling to touch it. He still did. But it was similar to Obama in that fashion.

stonewall50 said:

I was thinking Obama.

Click to expand...

I knew who you were talking about. Lemmings like you who sit around and listen daily to Limbaugh and Hanity and won't miss an opportunity to criticize this president about EVERYTHING, even in a history forum about WWI and WWII, are as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. Your hatred is boring.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

I knew who you were talking about. Lemmings like you who sit around and listen daily to Limbaugh and Hanity and won't miss an opportunity to criticize this president about EVERYTHING,

Click to expand...

I listen to NPR every morning. I haven't listened to either of those guys since I left working for the state (2009)...because another guy...a democrat...listened to them every single day to get angry I guess. It seems guys like you sit around waiting to call anyone who dissents against the all mighty democrats MUST be a fox fan. And for good measure:



The only other news I get

even in a history forum about WWI and WWII, are as predictable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. Your hatred is boring.

Click to expand...

My "hatred" is also accurate. You compared bush to Wilson which is reaching. It is boring. It is predictable. And truly inaccurate. I would compare him to the blustery TR, but that would be a disservice to TR who in my view was a much better president.

stonewall50 said:

I listen to NPR every morning. I haven't listened to either of those guys since I left working for the state (2009)...because another guy...a democrat...listened to them every single day to get angry I guess. It seems guys like you sit around waiting to call anyone who dissents against the all mighty democrats MUST be a fox fan. And for good measure:

The only other news I get



My "hatred" is also accurate. You compared bush to Wilson which is reaching. It is boring. It is predictable. And truly inaccurate. I would compare him to the blustery TR, but that would be a disservice to TR who in my view was a much better president.

Click to expand...

I only mentioned Bush because I knew YOU were unfairly and inaccuracy comparing Wilson to Obama.

WWI was 100 years ago, nothing that happened then can be compared to any president nowadays. It's apples and oranges.

MVictorP said:

IMO, Russia started WWI.

Click to expand...

How so?

Prior to August 10, when she was attacked by Austria-Hungary, all Russia had done was move troops.

In the week prior to that Germany had declared war on France and invaded in to Belgium.

I don't really see how Russia did anything to immediately precipitate the First World War.

If you're talking about the First Balkans War as a precursor (I don't really know what else you could mean) I would argue that most of Europe had territorial and colonial ambitions in the preceding decades that destabilized the region as much as anything Russia may have done.

What I think "caused" WWI, as much as anything else, was the intricate web of alliances that Bismarck had built during the waning decades of the 19th century.

When he left office and then died there wasn't anyone in Europe between his passing and beginning of the war two decades later who could hold a candle to him as a statesman.

He built a house of cards, as it were, which he had the skill to manipulate, but when that task fell to lesser men they could neither manage it nor extricate themselves from it effectively.

When the cards began to fall there was nobody there with the skill or ability to keep them up in the air.

Boom.

I also think it had a lot to do with the fact that NOBODY thought WWI was going to be anything even remotely like what it became.

The shooting started in August and at that time you probably could have counted on one hand the number of knowledgeable people in the world who would have thought that it'd last past Christmas.

Folks figured that they'd slap each other around a little bit, there'd be some winners and some losers, borders would be rearranged a little bit, not unmanageable reparations would be paid, and life would go on much as it had in the couple centuries before the war.

What it became, in Russia, on the Western Front, and especially in American banks couldn't have been foreseen by anyone.

SenorXm/Sirius said:

I only mentioned Bush because I knew YOU were unfairly and inaccuracy comparing Wilson to Obama.

WWI was 100 years ago, nothing that happened then can be compared to any president nowadays. It's apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

You CAN compare the 2. That is why we have history classes. It can't predict the future, but you can find similarities. Wilson and Obama, similar. I'm hardly the first to say that.

soot said:

How so?

Prior to August 10, when she was attacked by Austria-Hungary, all Russia had done was move troops.

In the week prior to that Germany had declared war on France and invaded in to Belgium.

I don't really see how Russia did anything to immediately precipitate the First World War.

If you're talking about the First Balkans War as a precursor (I don't really know what else you could mean) I would argue that most of Europe had territorial and colonial ambitions in the preceding decades that destabilized the region as much as anything Russia may have done.

What I think "caused" WWI, as much as anything else, was the intricate web of alliances that Bismarck had built during the waning decades of the 19th century.

When he left office and then died there wasn't anyone in Europe between his passing and beginning of the war two decades later who could hold a candle to him as a statesman.

He built a house of cards, as it were, which he had the skill to manipulate, but when that task fell to lesser men they could neither manage it nor extricate themselves from it effectively.

When the cards began to fall there was nobody there with the skill or ability to keep them up in the air.

Boom.

I also think it had a lot to do with the fact that NOBODY thought WWI was going to be anything even remotely like what it became.

The shooting started in August and at that time you probably could have counted on one hand the number of knowledgeable people in the world who would have thought that it'd last past Christmas.

Folks figured that they'd slap each other around a little bit, there'd be some winners and some losers, borders would be rearranged a little bit, not unmanageable reparations would be paid, and life would go on much as it had in the couple centuries before the war.

What it became, in Russia, on the Western Front, and especially in American banks couldn't have been foreseen by anyone.

Click to expand...

WELL said.

People have kind of forgotten Bismarck. Hell they forgot the whole damn war. Ask them about Belleau wood and unless they are a U.S. Marine...they will probably ask you why you are talking lumber.

But I agree very much on the entangling alliances and lack of Bismarck. I like the statement I heard about the kaiser Wilhelm himself...instead of talking small with a big stick...he was blustery and carried a blunderbuss.

But who caused the war? I blame France and Russia and Germany. In no particular order. All three expanded a regionalized conflict because of their ambitions.

Well it is an interesting hypothetical. But what most here are forgetting is that the US saw the British Empire as a threat, so a war between those too could also have been in the cards.

But first things first. Without the war there would most likely be no Israel. People tend to forget that the treatment of jews in Germany under Hitler up to around 1938 was quite normal treatment in the UK, US, France and else where. Jews were not liked and had to hide in society.

Then there was the whole racial purity issue. Eguenics pretty much came from the US but Hitler and Nazi Germany discredited that whole idea very well. Without this discrediting then racial purity laws would have continued and grown in places like the US, and many parts of Northern Europe where they were popular.

Segregation in the US most likely would have continued. It is not a coincidence that the end of US segregation happened around the time the first European African colonies were given their freedom. These colonies would most likely have stayed under colonial rule for much longer than they did. The US pressured France and the UK to free these places and that would not have been possible if the UK and France had remained strong both political, but also financially and militarily.

US military power.. would most likely not have happened. The isolationist movement had made sure of that. Now that of course would have changed if Japan had attacked, but Japan only attacked because of the US "spreading its wings", which the isolationist movement in the US congress would have prevented much better since there was no war in Europe. Not even sure Roosevelt would have been re-elected.

The Soviets well. God only knows how that would have turned out. China would be Japanese most likely, but I doubt the Japanese would go up against the full might of the British Empire or French Republic ..or even the Dutch.

And then there was dear Churchill... a very flawed hero. He not only admired Hitler.. yes that is a fact... but he was also a racist and anti-Semite. Had the situation around Germany not been like it was, then I cant see him changing his mind much. It was only after 1938 he changed his tune on Hitler for example. Not even sure he would have been elected Prime Minister to be honest. He was seen as a massive failure.. which he was in many ways. And he certainly would never ever give up Empire.

PeteEU said:

Well it is an interesting hypothetical. But what most here are forgetting is that the US saw the British Empire as a threat, so a war between those too could also have been in the cards.

Click to expand...

I don't really think so. They weren't enemies and had more to gain through trade and a common language. The whole "war between UK and U.S. Ended after the war of 1812 and the formation and permanent creation of the U.S. navy.

But first things first. Without the war there would most likely be no Israel. People tend to forget that the treatment of jews in Germany under Hitler up to around 1938 was quite normal treatment in the UK, US, France and else where. Jews were not liked and had to hide in society.

Then there was the whole racial purity issue. Eguenics pretty much came from the US but Hitler and Nazi Germany discredited that whole idea very well. Without this discrediting then racial purity laws would have continued and grown in places like the US, and many parts of Northern Europe where they were popular.

Click to expand...

"Racial purity" wasn't really popular as far as Jews go here in the states. We had Jewish senators and congressmen the by The First World War. In fact some were on the side of Woodrow Wilson.

Segregation in the US most likely would have continued. It is not a coincidence that the end of US segregation happened around the time the first European African colonies were given their freedom. These colonies would most likely have stayed under colonial rule for much longer than they did. The US pressured France and the UK to free these places and that would not have been possible if the UK and France had remained strong both political, but also financially and militarily.

Click to expand...

I don't think segregation had much to do with our wars. The military DID help, but it is hard to tell.

US military power.. would most likely not have happened. The isolationist movement had made sure of that. Now that of course would have changed if Japan had attacked, but Japan only attacked because of the US "spreading its wings", which the isolationist movement in the US congress would have prevented much better since there was no war in Europe. Not even sure Roosevelt would have been re-elected.

Click to expand...

The First World War really made us the only power for a little while, but I agree about Japan being a huge factors.

The Soviets well. God only knows how that would have turned out. China would be Japanese most likely, but I doubt the Japanese would go up against the full might of the British Empire or French Republic ..or even the Dutch.

And then there was dear Churchill... a very flawed hero. He not only admired Hitler.. yes that is a fact... but he was also a racist and anti-Semite. Had the situation around Germany not been like it was, then I cant see him changing his mind much. It was only after 1938 he changed his tune on Hitler for example. Not even sure he would have been elected Prime Minister to be honest. He was seen as a massive failure.. which he was in many ways. And he certainly would never ever give up Empire.

Click to expand...

I really don't think there would have been cause to elect him had the peace not been botched. Socialism was a fear in Europe. And Germany too. After the war? He may have come to power, but he may not have had the ammunition to get people to follow him. Good points all the way through

LeoVlaming said:

The peace imposed on Germany after it lost WWI was in reality not unduly harsh. The real problems were that Germany never reconciled itself to the fact that it had lost WWI and that Germany was simply too big to be a stable element in the European order.

Click to expand...

The Reichswehr was limited to only 100,000 men, not nearly enough to preserve stability in Germany - hence, the street battles between communists and Nazis. The reparations that Germany had to pay were unfair, since every European country had varying degrees of responsibility for World War I.