Originally posted by stumason

Thats a very simplistic view of the origins of the war. yes, the war began by the invasion of Poland, but there were many reasons that led to this eventuality.

And it is Germany who is to blame for these reasons.

Originally posted by stumason
Germany did have legitimate claims to some of the territories of Poland and Czechoslovakia, as it lost them due to the Versailles Treaty.

No, it didn't.

Originally posted by stumason
This treaty could be argued that it was unduely harsh on the Germans, blaming them for a war in which everyone of the Old Powers shared blame. Had the Treaty or the end of WW1 been less harsh on the Germans and been much like any other war prior to WW1, then WW2 would not have happened.

It would happen because Hitler's objective was to 1) conquer the world 2) exterminate the Jews.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

Would you care to debate this then rather than engaging in childish "no they didn't" one liners?

The actual causes of WW1, what happened at the end of the war, what Germany was forced to give up as "punishment" (well, the Victors had to get something out of Germany after 4 years of war) what led to the massive economic woes, the rise of the Nazi's.

Did it ever cross you mind why the map of Europe was changed drastically post-WW1? Why there were millions of Germans living in Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Because it was German territory before it was forced to hand it over at the end of WW1. Imagine, if you can, that the UK had lost a war and was forced to give up Cornwall to the victors. say France for example.

Regardless wether we signed a treaty or not (that is rather akin to signing a contract under duress if you were a person), we would still regard Cornwall as "English" and under occupation by the French. If the situation was left unattended, then some trouble could brew from that fact. Which is exactly what happend.

Ignore the Nazi's for a second and imagine that a less brutal, but equally nationalist regime came to power in Germany. They still would have sought to reclaim what they saw as rightfully German.

The exact thing happened to France prior to WW1. The French were very eager to go to war with Germany to recapture territory they themselves had lost at the end of the 19th century. The British, also, were quite keen to take measures against Germany as they were a rising power and were the only Nation that could come close to challenging British Naval Supremacy in the long term (EDIT: I might add Naval Supremacy in the European Theatre. Globally, it would have been the USA, hence the Washington Treaty)

The assasination of the Arch-Duke provided a (feable but valid) cassus belli for the Triple Entente to goad Germany into War.

Germany was treaty bound to assist the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who attacked the Serbs, who shot the Arch-Duke. The Serbs were protected by the Russians, who were members of the Triple Entente. So a meaningless counter-insurgency conflict by the Austor-Hungarian Empire turned into the biggest war the world had ever seen by dragging in two sides of a polarised Europe.

So, as you can see, blaming WW1 (and ergo WW2) solely on Germany is to ignore the catalogue of cock ups made by politicians on both sides for the first half of the 20th Century (and for the greater part of the 19th). European history is a complex web of alliances, deceit, land grabs and such like, so simply saying "Germany was to blame" is idiotic at best and downright stupid at worst.

care to comment on any of the above, or will you just come back with the one liner again?

[edit on 1/5/06 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
[Thats a very simplistic view of the origins of the war. yes, the war began by the invasion of Poland, but there were many reasons that led to this eventuality.

I would have to agree. To simply sum up the second world war as German agression is not on point. The reality is far more complicated than that. You have to take the 20 and 30's in context and what was done or more importantly not done that lead to the rise of the nazi party in Germany. Yes Germany is responable for actions, but many other nations had a helping hand in the march to war.

Zibi
You do need to provide more than 1 line replies to back up your points. I would be interested in your reponces to Stumasons post.

[edit on 5/1/06 by FredT]

Originally posted by stumason
The actual causes of WW1, what happened at the end of the war, what Germany was forced to give up as "punishment" (well, the Victors had to get something out of Germany after 4 years of war) what led to the massive economic woes, the rise of the Nazi's.

That doesn't justify the German invasion of Poland.

Originally posted by stumason
Because it was German territory before it was forced to hand it over at the end of WW1.

If we're talking about Poland, then I guess you mean Silesia. If so, then I'd like to point out that Silesians didn't want to be under German rule, they wanted to be under Polish rule, and that's why they started the three Silesian insurections. If we're talking about Czechoslovakia, then I'd like to point out that Bohemia was an independent country already in the Middle Ages until it was conquered by Germany, and Slovakia was an independent country already in the Middle Ages until it was conquered by Hungary.

I would have to agree. To simply sum up the second world war as German agression is not on point.

It is. WWII was unprovoked.

You have to take the 20 and 30's in context and what was done or more importantly not done that lead to the rise of the nazi party in Germany.

Who lead to the NSDAP's rising to power in Germany? The Germans voting for this party.

Yes Germany is responable for actions, but many other nations had a helping hand in the march to war.

Who? Poland? Czechoslovakia? Great Britain?

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the most eastern Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany, should become an autonomous area within Poland, organised as the Silesian Voivodship (Wojewodztwo Śląskie).

Incorrect. Only the third Silesian Insurrection occured after the referendum. The first two occured before the referendum. The first Silesian Insurrection occured in 1919 and the second Silesian Insurrection occured in 1920.

May I suggest you brush up on your history if you want to debate this.

I am a Silesian myself, so dont dare to tell me the history of Silesia.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

Originally posted by Zibi
Incorrect. Only the third Silesian Insurrection occured after the referendum. The first two occured before the referendum. The first Silesian Insurrection occured in 1919 and the second Silesian Insurrection occured in 1920.

Regardless, the referendum clearly showed that the majority of people who lived there were German. The uprising's were the minority that were unhappy with the democratic outcome of the referendum.

This still proves your original point as wrong were you stated that those in this area overwhelmingly wanted to leave Germany. This was clearly not the case.

I am a Silesian myself, so dont dare to tell me the history of Silesia.

I didn't. I said History. Whilst you might be adequate in the history of your corner of the world, you clearly do not know anything about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars.

Your spouting off alot of half-baked ideas and utter nonsense about the causes of WW1 and WW2, which has now been revealed to be as a result of you being Silesian.

Your views are clearly biased against Germany, for whatever reason and you do not listen to sound analysis of the causes for the two wars. Merely blaming Germany out right serves no purpose but to reinforce your own bigotry.

Originally posted by stumason
Regardless, the referendum clearly showed that the majority of people who lived there were German. The uprising's were the minority that were unhappy with the democratic outcome of the referendum.

True, however that doesnt justify German invasion of Poland.

Originally posted by stumason
you clearly do not know anything about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars.

You are the one who knows nothing about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars. You are the one who said that German invasion of Poland was justified.

Originally posted by stumason
You're stating nonsense about the causes of WW1 and WW2

I wasn't talking about the causes of WWI, I was only talking about the causes of WWII.

Originally posted by stumason
you do not listen to sound analysis of the causes for the two wars.

You are stating nonsense.

Originally posted by stumason
Your views are clearly biased against Germany

I dont hate Germany. I just dont tolerate people who justify Germany for starting WWII.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

You are the one who knows nothing about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars. You are the one who said that German invasion of Poland was justified.

No, I didn't. Seem to have some sort of communication problem with you. I said the invasion could be justified. Slight difference there.

From a German perspective, the treatment they got at the hands of the victors at versaille sowed the seeds for the carnage that was to come.

You know, it does pay to to be able to see another's point of view. Something to which you seem somewhat incapable.

I wasn't talking about the causes of WWI, I was only talking about the causes of WWII.

Ignoring WW1 will not allow you to have anywhere near a balanced understanding of what happened in the build up to WW2. Until you can understand that, there is no point debating it with you.

You are stating nonsense.

Really? Care to point out exactly what is "nonsense"?

I dont hate Germany. I just dont tolerate people who justify Germany for starting WWII.

Dude, I didn't. As stated above. I don't know how many times I can say this, but I'll try again.

The causes for WW2 are deeply rooted in what happened immediately follwoing the end of WW1. Yes, Germany "started" the war, technically, but it should by no means shoulder the entire burden. The blame lays firmly with the treatment of Germany at versailles and in the inter-war years.

That is where the seeds of War and Nazism were sown, as a direct result of WW1.

That is where debating the cause of WW1 comes in, as that was by no means Germany's fault and the punishment she received after the War was disproportionate and designed soley to curb the German Imperial ambitions to favour of those very same ambitions from France and Britain.

OK that's enough now.

The topic is :

Why hasn't Germany got nukes?

Not the underlying causes of WWII. Please no more off-topic posting.

Thank you.

Jak

Originally posted by stumason
Germany did have legitimate claims to some of the territories of Poland, Czechslovakia and Austria, as it lost them due to the Versailles Treaty.

Right. It was lost from the treaty, along with their right to re-arm which was lost.

This treaty could be argued that it was unduely harsh on the Germans,

Thats what the germans did argue, and thats why they let a dictator like hitler come to power. Fact is, Germany got involve in a war (the great war), and lost it. Pretty stupid of them, eh?

blaming them for a war in which everyone of the Old Powers shared blame.

Only germany made germany invade chechslovakia and poland. Not the treaty or allies.

Had the Treaty or the end of WW1 been less harsh on the Germans and been much like any other war prior to WW1, then WW2 would not have happened.

Or it might've happened anyway, but with a Kaiser instead of a Fuhrer.

The versailles treaty is what resulted in the germans re-arming, not arming. They had been defeated in war and the people that went through hell to stop them wanted to make sure that they didn't use their armies for agression yet again. Versailles didn't cause ww2, it was simply used by the germans as justification for ww2. If versailles hadn't disarmed the germans, then they wouldn't've had to re-arm, they'd just be armed, and would've used their long standing army to fight the war anyway. Hell, it might've been worse, if they did it very quickly after the great war, when war technology was still focused on trenches. Imagine trying to stop something like the nazis and the holocaust while trench warefare was the method???? There wouldn't be a jew or slav left in eastern europe.


And as far as nukes, the Nazis simply couldn't develop them. They tried, but didn't get very far at all.

Perhaps, if the versailles treaty hadn't been so harsh, they'd've had a stronger economy, stronger army, and a more sensible war plan, and would've developed the bomb long before anyone else even thought of it.

Imagine that, the Kaiser with nukes!??!

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Nygdan]

On Nuclear Weapons

posted by Nygdan

posted by stumason: “Perhaps, if the Versailles Treaty had not been so harsh, the Germans would have had a stronger economy and would have developed the A bomb before anyone even thought of it. Imagine that, the Kaiser with nukes!?

And as far as nukes, the Nazis simply couldn't develop them. They tried, but didn't get very far at all. [Edited by Don W]

1942's Manhattan Project under Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves, US Army Corps of Engineers, builder of the Pentagon, produced 1 uranium bomb and 2 plutonium bombs by August, 1945. It is said that the Project’s manufacturing facilities located at Oak Ridge TN and Hanford WA used 10% of all the electricity in the United States of America. Los Alamos NM was the planning and assembling facility. One plutonium bomb was tested at the Trinity site, Alamorgodo, NM, on July 16, 1945.

The quick development of the bomb was made possible by the electricity available from the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Columbia River Electric Authority. Say Thank You, FDR. No other country had that much excess electric capacity available in that time period. That is why neither Germany nor Japan (nor the USSR then) could have produced an A bomb.

Nygdan, I've said my piece on this thread about the issues surrounding WW1/WW2, which clearly have gone unheaded as your arguments seem to follow some sort of fuzzy logic, assuming the same things would have happened in any case had things happened differently (sounds silly, doesn't it? ).

Anyhoo, adhering to JAK's request to remain on topic, I will keep stum on this matter, or if you prefer, we could continue the debate in another thread. Up to you, could be a good one

Originally posted by donwhite
No other country had that much excess electric capacity available in that time period. That is why neither Germany nor Japan (nor the USSR then) could have produced an A bomb.

Thats intersting, I hadnt' realized that it required that much electricity!

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by donwhite
No other country had that much excess electric capacity available in that time period. That is why neither Germany nor Japan (nor the USSR then) could have produced an A bomb.

Thats intersting, I hadnt' realized that it required that much electricity!

that was because the USA went for the " brute force " apporoach -- using the first techique that showed ANY promise of producing useable uranium ,

there are far more efficient and elegant ways to produce WG uranium , but at the time the chosen method was the one they were confident in -- so that got used

they also used thier federal silver reserves [ 15k tons ] as electrical windings

in short the US road to enriched uranium was quite brutal and inefficuent -- but it was also obvious from the start that it was likley to work .. and so with the resources to spare [ and more besides ] the US felt safe throwing money and materials at it , confident that it would produce results

posted by ignorant_ape: “ . . the USA went for the "brute force" approach - using the first technique that showed ANY promise of producing useable uranium. There are more efficient and elegant ways to produce WG uranium. At the time the method was the one they were confident in. They also used the federal silver reserves [15,000 tons] as electrical windings. The US road to enriched uranium was quite brutal and inefficient but it was obvious from the start it was likely to work and with the resources to spare [and more besides] the US felt safe throwing money and materials at it , confident that it would produce results.” [Edited by Don W]

Thank you for the very informative up-date on the weapon that ended WW2. Our way.

Whilst Germany might not have nukes they are one of a handfull of nations which are technologically advanced, have an existing nuclear industry and, most importantly, have large stockpiles of Plutonium.

Other nations which spring to mind are Switzerland and Japan.

They might not actually have bombs but it wouldn't take them long to make 'em if they chose to do so.

posted by Mudshark: “Germany might not have nukes; they are technologically advanced, have a nuclear industry and large stockpiles of plutonium. Other nations are Switzerland and Japan. They might not have bombs but it wouldn't take them long to make 'em if they chose to do so. [Edited by Don W]

1. So why are those nations willing to remain “unarmed” with nuclear bombs, where others are not willing to do so?

2. I hear power plant uranium is 3.5% “pure” whereas bomb grade uranium is 70% pure. That by running low purity uranium through enough centrifuges the impurities can be removed and the stuff remaining gains in purity.

3. Plutonium I don’t know about.

1. So why are those nations willing to remain “unarmed” with nuclear bombs, where others are not willing to do so?

2. I hear power plant uranium is 3.5% “pure” whereas bomb grade uranium is 70% pure. That by running low purity uranium through enough centrifuges the impurities can be removed and the stuff remaining gains in purity.

3. Plutonium I don’t know about.

1. Good question. In the case of both Germany and Japan there are the obvious 'restrictions' on what they can do with their military since WW2. As for Switzerland... dunno. I guess they feel secure enough tucked away in their mountain fortress... :-)

But, these countries are hardly 'unarmed' as such. I don't doubt that all three of those I mentioned could put together devices very quicky. I'm only guessing here but I'd say weeks or months rather than years. One of the most difficult and time consuming parts of building a bomb is creating high quality fissile material - either enriched Uranium or Plutonium. These nations already have large quantities of ready-to-go, off-the-shelf Plutonium.

2&3. Plutonium is the 'rich mans' equivalent of Uranium. It's harder to make etc but it packs a bigger punch when used in bombs.