The first three points can be all filed into an "effects of the war" category.I would add America's refusal to join the League of Nations. Incapable political leaders?Well,some were capable, but on the wrong side mostly. I think the inevitable part of WWII occurred in the Pacific. The new technology point is interesting.I don't feel people really think,"Oh,look, new weapons!Let's use them."Is that what he meant?
No. First of all new technology allowed Germany to build up an army as fast as they did, secondly new weapons allowed for their blitzkrieg tactics.
Yeah, but WWII is a bit easier to figure out than WWI. Perhaps I should have said "We didn't know the correct procedure on how to effectively 'step down' Germany at that point". That, and a worldwide economic depression.
I've always felt that the ludicrously unfair terms of the Treaty of Versaille, (in which Georges Clemenceau and, to a lesser extent, Lloyd George were the prime movers), were a significant factor in WWII in that they created the conditions for Hitler to argue his case that Germany had been harshly treated. His criticism of the politicians in the Reichstag was made possible... they were part of the 'November criminals' together with communists and international Jewry... who had committed the 'Dagger blow'. It must have also been obvious to Hitler that the right could do pretty much what it wanted and nobody was going to argue... with strong Fascist parties in Italy and Spain being given free rein and, in many quarters, even supported because they were 'anti-communist' it looked a safe bet that no one would argue.
Pretty much sums everything up, and to further your point the fact that most German soldiers during WW1 weren't aware that Germany was closer to defeat than they were to victory, only gave Hitler's "Stab in the Back" ideal more popularity. And like most have already posted, the main weakness of the Treaty of Versailles was the fact that the US Senate would vote against joining Wilson's proposed League of Nations, which could be argued, would have prevented Hitler's eventual rise to power. And with regards to Japan, them attacking the US is something that bewilders most historians. Some would argue the US and other Big Nations forcing the Asian nations to "Open" their markets was one of the main causes.
I partly agree Andy. The Germans felt humiliated and Hitler played on that. But again it was a combination of factors, you can't really say this or that caused WWII.
Could you expand on this? While I agree that a "stronger" league might have helped, Hitler left the league. I'm not sure that the participation of a very pacifistic and isolationist US would have made much difference. I can see a much stronger argument that the great depression that undermined American banks and caused them to pull the loans they had made to Germany was a major contributing reason for Hitler's rise. I am very interested in your POV however. I don't think that "most historians" are bewildered on this point. Japan was being starved of oil and other critical raw materials. It could not seize the Dutch East Indies, which was the best Pacific basin source of oil, without bringing the US to war. Most of the historians I know and have read see the Japanese as being in a box they could not get out of. Add to this the fact that very few Japanese had any knowledge of America (Yamamoto was an exception), and you have a situation that is ripe for startegic miscalculation.
Maby if British was run by Jews most would know about Auschwitz, like Americans. But anyway, so what? I find it great that at least 50% have heard of it. And let's face it most have heard of the holocaust if they actually went to school. But so what anyway? What difference does it make? Britain is still going to be ruled by the same type of politicians (who would have heard of it and know it quite well more so than British culture of the 21st century) since Parliament is one big click allowing only toffs in. Does it really matter? no
i agree - the results of the poll paint a misleading picture of awareness in this country, if you asked "what was the holocaust" and then "what was auschweitz" you'd get a very high score on the 1st question and a much higher result on the second than if you just asked them blind "what was auschweitz"
obviously versailles, with hindsight, is a clear cause - but i'm sure you can understand why it was put in place in the first place. the trouble is that once it was there it couldn't be dismantled until it was already too late.