Why Was a Second World War So Soon after the First - Essay Example

Running head: IF THE FIRST WORLD WAR WAS, “THE WAR TO END ALL WARS” WHY WAS THERE A SECOND WORLD WAR SO SOON AFTER THE FIRST? Why was there a SecondWorld War so Soon After the First? Insert Name Insert Affiliation Abstract The logical explanation in behind the reasoning as to why World War I and World War II were so close together has two main deciphering factors. The first is in regard to ‘The Treaty of Versailles 1919’ and the negative aspects implemented into the structure of this treaty. The other is due to the unrest that came into being within Germany, directly relative to this treaty. This lead to the rising of the Nazi ‘Adolph Hitler’ and the Nazi party, which had great bearing on the extenuating circumstances in behind World War II, starting so soon after a First World War. The first World War crippled the whole country of France and this once powerful nation demanded retribution, but they pushed it to the very limits of establishing one of the primary causation factors of the Second World War. From a realist perspective, it is in the normal aspectual realm to assume that because France was so depleted economically and politically, the feeling was one of a sense of hopelessness throughout that country (Aldcroft 1997). Therein lies the reasoning by France to demand some form of compensation from Germany in order to regroup and rebuild her lands. The compromises that France wished Germany to make were beyond rationalization, from the Germans perspective of the political issues. The supposed peace ‘The Treaty of Versailles’ was implied to have brought did nothing more than incite rage and fuel the flames of retaliation from the Germans. In actuality, there never really was a period of substantial rest between these historic wars. What did appear to be present, in the literary sense, was a prevalence of disdain and lack of trust from the Germans, in relation to France and her harsh implications. This lack of stability affected the whole European continent. These are some of the literary points that will be researched and theorized in this paper. It will look into the vast reasons why there was a part II of the first World War and what was the main factors leading to it. Three perspectives will be attempted to be intertwined into this literary work which are the: realistic, liberal, and Marxist theorizations that will give the causes as to how, why and what lead to the provocation of the Second World War. If the First World War was “the war to end all wars” why was there a Second World War so soon after the First? It was in 1946 that two main political speaker’s theorizations on the cause of WWII were openly acknowledged. Stalin and Churchill both had ideas into the causation of the Second World War, both holding similarities and differences at the same time. Perhaps this was due to one perspective being a UK one and the other representative of an American view point. Stalin’s is cited as follows: It would be incorrect to think that the war arose accidentally or as a result of the fault of some of the statesmen. Although, these faults did exist, the war arose in reality as the inevitable result of the development of the world economic and political forces on the basis of monopoly capitalism (Snell 1962: p. vii). It would seem that this idea by Stalin is more of a realist type of perception and is duly focused on the very real circumstances that had a major impact in starting the second phase of WWI. Now, Churchills’ existentialist type of view leans the blame of WWII almost entirely on the actions of the Germans and their Nazi beliefs at that specific era of time. His statement into the deciding factor of the cause is cited below: There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented without the firing of a single shot… but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again. (Snell 1962: p.vii). One thing that various views of WWII and how it came about have in common is the one distinguishing fact that each country, either directly or indirectly, fixated blame on the statesmen of the opposing countries, by assuming that there was fault by the enemy by some type of evil design. However, much of history emphasizes that Hitler’s greediness for power and territory ultimately proved to be the deciding factor of WWII. Two German scholars ‘Hermann Mau’ and ‘Helmut Krausnik’ addressed various facts and provided conclusive evidence into the basis that Hitler held supreme responsibility for the Second World War coming into existence (Snell 1962: p.xii). They claim that because of Hitler’s desire to win the territory of ‘Lebensraum’, his attempted feat to also gain control over ‘Prague’, and finally his lack of concern of his actions possibly provoking a second major war, led to the unstoppable outbreak of the subsequent phase of World War II in 1939. Many people declared it to be solely, ‘Hitler’s War’ and stated that his actions were not coincidental but a strategy that he had premeditated in preceding years. The insinuations from many countries, and specifically the French, implying that Germany did indeed have the most astonishing and destructive effect in instigating World War II is reverberated in the following statement by Hitler himself. “I will give some propaganda reason for starting the war: it makes no difference whether or not it’s plausible. When one starts a war, what counts is not right, but victory” (Baumont 1951: p.68). Furthermore, Hitler specifically emphasized that it was “The Versailles Treaty’ that was the main reason for Germany giving pause to retaliation and putting into motion, the motivation of a second World War. This is also substantiated by validated proof in the subsequent message to the Chamberlain of France by Hitler. Germany cannot, “tolerate the continuation of such persecution”, laying the blame on, “those who, after the crime of Versailles, have always obstinately opposed any peaceful revision” of the treaty (Baumont 1951: p.68). There are those in political seats that would argue that Hitler seemed to sometimes favor a more realistic type of perspective, since his own beliefs and judgment calls seemed self-serving. Many statesmen or leaders of a country sometimes do follow in their predecessors footsteps in the realism belief system of political justice. Hitler’s view of realism, if there was any, was one where he was guided by strategic self interest, and his moral considerations were secondary, to say the least. However, some political figures feel realism, in the political sense has gotten a raw deal. As the past events of the Cold War era have dictated, idealism, whether the left liberal point of view or another, has shown that humanitarian interventionism or the neoconservative version, that sways countries to utilize their diplomatic power to promote their own values does not shelter them from the moral pitfalls that might follow from their actions. Also, the expansive history of Europe, from 1914-1945 demonstrates how those statesmen who had realist views were too arrogant and were blind sighted, which lead to some horrific consequences such as, World War I and subsequent World War II. When history takes a clear and concise look back into World War II and the ramifications in behind it, several different theories of how and why it occurred come into play. There has already been discussion on the realist theory but there are others that hold value in deciphering the reasons behind the massive World War Era’s. This literature could go on and on as to France blaming Germany, Germany placing fault on Poland, the United States claiming no one wanted to listen to reason in order to avoid this historically catastrophic war. However, when the Socialist perspective is utilized to analyze the causation behind it all, it is discovered that many of the opposing countries against Hitler looked at his tyranny as an abnormal and unnatural characteristic of war. He destroyed anything and everything that was not considered German perfection, in his mind. Socialists would say he was a crazed dictator who thrived on the abnormal monopolies of mayhem and bloodshed without a direct and clear purpose other than destruction. His military goals were unrealistic and bent on world dominance which, from a socialist perception would have meant that both continents of the world, Western and European would have faced a total genocide at Hitler’s hands (Marxist Theory 2005). Socialists do believe, however that human error (such as Hitler’s) can be corrected through social reforms to stabilize any injustices created by adverse actions, as in World War II. Much of the technological capabilities and nuclear research is justified by many socialists. If it would not have been for the threat of utilization of nuclear missiles and other various war strategizing elements, there is no clear rationalization as to where the world would be today. Although, there are theorists who believe that the usage of nuclear technology is to chancy it has been found to be a solid shield of protection against many oppositions even though it has not been put to direct use. It is the fear in itself of a nuclear missile being detonated that keeps many glory seeking dictators (such as Hitler was) at bay and keeps a set of political governance and respect among neighboring countries of Europe or anywhere in the world. The Marxist theory of the Second World War demonstrates how Stalin was presumed to ‘not be a great leader’ but instead one with callous disregard for human life, unless it was within his own self interests. He was historically known as Hitler’s ‘quartermaster’ and the followers of Marxism depict him as one who had strong power in dignifying the reasons of the Second World War, be they wrong or right (Woods 2005). With the end of 1930 came the realization that a World War II was inescapable. It was a man named, ‘Leon Trotsky’ that implied all those who were dedicated to the Marxist view had no choice but to uphold the support for the Soviet Union (Woods 2005). Stalin had proclaimed that he was attempting to avoid the horror of a Second World War when in fact his maneuvers, “did not remove the war danger but enormously increased it” (Woods 2005). In fact, Stalin made a pact with Hitler due to actions of the British to protect his own diplomatic worth. It was in 1938 that the British Prime Minister Chamberlain signed the infamous Munich agreement allowing Hitler to swallow Czechoslovakia. The British ruling class was effectively giving Hitler the Green light to attack the USSR (Woods 2005). From this, Stalin recognized the imminent danger so to avoid war in his own land he urged Hitler to begin focusing his conquests eastward since he had already acquired an occupation of Nazi forces in the lands of ‘Rhineland’ and ‘Austria’. Because of the Munich agreement and the pact that Stalin made with Hitler it gave him a tremendous power of control over the European continent. It was directly relative to these circumstances that Hitler acquired the strength through Russia’s pact, that he was systematically able to begin taking even further reign over many countries. However, though Stalin claimed his actions were for a good cause, he was viewed as a traitor by many statesmen of opposing countries, and somewhat within his own country as well. Stalin’s claim was that his intentions in signing the pact were done in order to protect Mother Russia but in reality, and with a socialist ideal point of view, his actions were undermining calculations that were solely misplaced and disregarded any compassion for those of other countries. His was one of a simplistic framework, set up hastily, in order to continue a ‘diplomatic game’ (Woods 2005). In conclusion, it is obvious that all of the countries involved in World War II had a specific part to play in it coming about to start with. As the United States had stated, if only there would have been more attentive ears to find the voice of reason in it all it would have never escalated into such a destructive phase in history to being with. But greed, lack of compassion, obstinacies, and hate by all of the countries involved equals the logical, social, and realistic explanation as to why this war happened so close to the first. References Aldcroft, Derek. (1997). ‘The Versailles Legacy.’ History Review No.29 Baumont, Maurice. (1951). ‘History’s case against Hitler: A French View’ Presses Universitaries de France 3rd Edition Marxist Theory. (2005). ‘Socialist Action’ Retrieved from: http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/theory.html Accessed on 1 December 2005 Snell, John. (1962). ‘The Outbreak of the Second World War: Design or Blunder’ D.C. Heath, Boston Woods, Alan. (2005). ‘Stalin and the Second World War’ Retrieved from: http://www.marxist.com/stalin-tyrant-death-three050303.htm Accessed on 1 December 2005 Read More