Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well they got the chance to fight that next war because the european powers thought ww1 was the war to end all wars. that war had become so destructive no one would dare. course they neglected to factor in a zealous leader that would play on the other countries reluctance to go to war. as hitler in the early years could have been easily stamped out, but they overlooked transgressionover transgression because they feared total war more then anything else.
*sigh*
Goddamn, I hate this country's inadequate education system sometimes.
1) Nobody believed WW1 was the 'war to end all wars'. That was a press lie to keep new recruits joining the various militaries.
2) Hell, it wasn't even REALLY a 'world war'. For starters, with the exception of Graf Spee's Asiatic squadron, the war was almost completely localized to Europe. The actual fighting was more limited in scope than *several* previous wars (Napoleon's campaigns come to mind right away as having a far greater scope than WW1 did, and WW1 as a whole was nearly a mirror of the last Franco-Prussian War, only this time with naval combat in various other oceans). IOW, it was pretty much just a repeat of half a dozen previous wars in Europe.
3) Other countries not willing to go to war wasn't *entirely* the problem, either. The other European powers, in their respective ego trips after enforcing a humiliating truce on Germany, proceeded to make *several* rather egregious over-estimations:
- The the Versailles treaty actually could cripple Germany's military power, and even a country 'stepping over the line' by some margin would still be no threat. That's the biggest reason they 'forgave' German trangressions. They didn't believe the (visibly) small amount that Germany stepped over the line was enough to make a difference.
- The maginot line. Boy, were the French proud of that. Boy, were the French dumb. The Germans went through Belgium LAST time, do you REALLY think they aren't going to do it again? Anyway, it made France rather insular all of a sudden.
- That replacing a country's leaders also replaces the country's attitude and perspective on the world. Germany WANTED to be a world power. It's population and technological might had been growing exponentially for decades, and changing the leaders of a country isn't going to change the fact that it IS on the way to becoming a world power.
4) Hitler was not the problem. ANYBODY would have risen to power in Germany at the time. You don't humiliate a nation like Versailles did to Germany and expect them not to hate you for it. That's the big difference between WW2 and WW1. After WW2 the allies essentially said "Sorry, citizens of Germany. We hate that we had to fight you, but we did, no hard feelings, we'll help you rebuild now". After WW1 the allies essentially said "HAHA!! W3 r0x0r U!!!!11! Germany uR l3wS3rs!!! U g0t pwn3d!! PWn3D!!! HAHA!!", and then continue the problem by not forgiving the war debt when the depression hit (only the US ever did, IIRC). If Hitler had been 'taken out', someone else would have risen.
If the treaty stipulations had been enforced, and Germany wasn't allowed to built up a legitimate army and navy, the world would likely have quickly learned about international terrorism as a means of waging war a LOT earlier. The problem was the treaty itself. England, France, and Russia were all just as guilty of WW1 starting as Germany was - to put all the blame for the entire war and the actions of all other countries on ONE nation was simply wrong to do, and only set up the world for even greater problems.