Britain 1910 and US 2005

[manu1959]

WWII was a continuation of WWI but it didn't have to happen. The allies were in complete control and were able to dictate the exact terms they wanted; therefore I'd say that the lion's share of blame goes to the allies. To punish the people of a country with perpetual poverty because of the actions of their leaders--leader who have been defeated and ousted from power--is irresponsible. To expect that they will vote for tame, nonmilitant regimes is naive.

At any rate, you can't really point at 1930's Britain and say, "Ah ha! If they'd been real hardasses, Hitler could have been taken out early on!". When in fact you can look just a little further back and see that it was Britain's hardline Versailles treaty which was the foundation of Hitler's rise.

so you blame the treaty not those that chose to use the treaty as an excuse

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yes.

You can say "that's an excuse", but being subjected to near-starvation without end because of your asshole (former) leader is a hell of an excuse! The german people were faced with runaway inflation (as the government printed up money to pay for reparations), crushing taxes, and near-starvation--with no end in sight. Borderline starvation with the current spineless gov't vs. this guy who says we don't have to pay for that anymore. Hmmm. It's not like they knew he was going to embroil them in another world war; they thought he was going to stop with reunifying Germany and ending reparations.

 

[manu1959]

Yes.

You can say "that's an excuse", but being subjected to near-starvation without end because of your asshole (former) leader is a hell of an excuse! The german people were faced with runaway inflation (as the government printed up money to pay for reparations), crushing taxes, and near-starvation--with no end in sight. Borderline starvation with the current spineless gov't vs. this guy who says we don't have to pay for that anymore. Hmmm. It's not like they knew he was going to embroil them in another world war; they thought he was going to stop with reunifying Germany and ending reparations.

you continue to excuse poor behaviour

 

[Annie]

WWII was a continuation of WWI but it didn't have to happen. The allies were in complete control and were able to dictate the exact terms they wanted; therefore I'd say that the lion's share of blame goes to the allies. To punish the people of a country with perpetual poverty because of the actions of their leaders--leader who have been defeated and ousted from power--is irresponsible. To expect that they will vote for tame, nonmilitant regimes is naive.

At any rate, you can't really point at 1930's Britain and say, "Ah ha! If they'd been real hardasses, Hitler could have been taken out early on!". When in fact you can look just a little further back and see that it was Britain's hardline Versailles treaty which was the foundation of Hitler's rise.

Historically you are partially correct about Versailles, but it was FRANCE and Britain that dictated the harsh terms. Wilson played politics much worse than any president in war time. He wanted badly to have a better peace, but the foreign diplomats spun him and his in circles. Then he didn't have a basic understanding of our own legislature, in order to get the League of Nations signed.

Truly though, from all scenarios I have seen, just the ending of WWI would have eventually have led to WWII, too much unfinished business. It's the reason that WWII not only had a better peace treaty, but also it was determined that the only surrenders would be total.