is world war 2 a continuation of world war 1?

Answer 1

There's a great book called The Origins of the Second World War in Europe written by PMH Bell that has a chapter addressing this question. I can't remember his take on the question, but my own personal opinion goes something like this:

WW2 happened largely as a result of WW1, but was not a continuation of that war. The Treaty of Versailles (and especially Article 231 of that document, which is occasionally referred to as the War Guilt Clause), gave considerable impetus to those Germans who felt as though they had been robbed of a victory by politicians. You have to remember that when WW1 ended the Germans were not in Germany, but still deep in enemy territory (if you study WW2 in great depth one of the most important aspects of the battle for the allies is trying to end the war in Berlin, and this is why). In that respect an ordinary German may have considered WW2 round two of the same battle, but I disagree with those who feel that Hitler also saw it that way. In fact, I would wager than most of the politicians at the time saw it as an entirely separate war (as opposed to the alternate 30 Years War theory). The entire reason for war was different (in theory, of course wars are all alike in their most fundamental reason i.e. to kill the other side) and the reasons for engaging each enemy was different from WW1 as well (in WW1 the entrance of the major powers into the war was not anticipated - I once wrote a term paper arguing that Betthman-Hollweg had wanted a regional war, was willing to chance a continental war, but in no way wanted a world war. Hitler, on the other hand, wanted a continental war (he was plotting the invasion of France for a long time), and was quite happy to escalate the affair into a world war by taking on the Russians and thereby the Americans (with whom he declared war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor). In my opinion WW1 helped get WW2 started, but in no way was WW2 a continuation of WW1. There are those who disagree, however, and I encourage you to seek out their opinons.

Hope this helps. Good luck!

Answer 2

WWII was a continuation of WWI . After WWI the victors imposed harsh conditions in Germany. These conditions were fertile soil for radical movements, both left and right. Unfortunately a group of thugs from the far right became empowered by a weak right wing democratic government led by a WWI hero ( Hindenburg).

After Hitler and his criminal cronies, took power, they abolished freedom and rearmed for further struggle. They found a culprit for their woes in Jews, gypsies and communists. Unfortunately the Allies pursued a policy of appeasement that only increased the greed of the Nazis.

After easy land grabbings in the Checkoslavakia and Austria, they went on with an occupation war against Poland after securing alliance from another thug called Stalin.

Poland's attack produced France and Great Britain to finally declare war. Stalin would later regret his former alliance to Hitler , when in June 1941 the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union.

After world war II, The USA's extra generous policy towards Japan and the plan Marshall prevented war again with either Germany or Japan.

Unfortunately Stalin propiciated the cold war, that ended in disaster and decomposition of the Soviet Union. Beyond the plan Marshall, European states created NATO and then the CE to avoid future wars in Europe. ( after 0ver 1,000 years of endless wars they finally figured it out that France was still France, England still England and likewise same as Spain, Germany and all the others).

Nevertheless western powers left matters unsettled in the middle east, and these conflicts are present today and have a direct relation to WWI, WWII and the cold war.

By the way, WWI in turn has it roots among other reasons in the war of 1870 between France and Germany.

Answer 3

The famous words were WW1 is the end of all wars in the wold, but it was not.

In the war the younger state win, and the older loose.

The Spanish war 1936-1939 was after WW1 and continuation of WW2.

Answer 4

Absolutely. The European imperial powers essentially spent themselves out of empire, and German expectations at the time of the cease-fire were, perhaps unrealistically, quite different from what they got at Versailles, when their demobilization made a resumption of hostilities impossible. The post-war period would have been tumultuous at best, but the Guilt Clause and reparations in the treaty made further hostilities almost an inevitability.

Answer 5

It was caused by WWI but was not a continuation. The Treaty of Versailles and the myth of the German army being stabbed in the back was used by Hitler to gain power. Once he was in power, WWII became inevitable.

I say the myth of the German army being stabbed in the back because even Hindenburg, the commander-in-chief of the German army in 1918 and his chief of staff, Ludendorf, told the Kaiser that the German army would collapse in days if there was not a cease fire. The idea of the stab in the back came later as the military men tried to cover up the fact that they had lost.

Answer 6

WWII grow to be a continuation of WWI . After WWI the victors imposed harsh circumstances in Germany. those circumstances have been fertile soil for radical strikes, the two left and superb. regrettably a team of thugs from the a tactics superb grew to become empowered by employing a vulnerable superb wing democratic government led by employing a WWI hero ( Hindenburg). After Hitler and his criminal cronies, took skill, they abolished freedom and rearmed for further conflict. they got here upon a perpetrator for his or her woes in Jews, gypsies and communists. regrettably the Allies pursued a coverage of appeasement that only extra effective the greed of the Nazis. After uncomplicated land grabbings in the Checkoslavakia and Austria, they went on with an occupation conflict against Poland after securing alliance from yet another thug observed as Stalin. Poland's attack produced France and massive Britain to finally declare conflict. Stalin might later experience sorry approximately his former alliance to Hitler , while in June 1941 the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. After international conflict II, the u . s . a .'s extra beneficiant coverage in the direction of Japan and the plan Marshall prevented conflict back with the two Germany or Japan. regrettably Stalin propiciated the chilly conflict, that resulted in disaster and decomposition of the Soviet Union. previous the plan Marshall, ecu states created NATO and then the CE to steer away from destiny wars in Europe. ( after 0ver a million,000 years of countless wars they finally figured it out that France grow to be nevertheless France, England nevertheless England and additionally comparable as Spain, Germany and each and all of the others). even with the undeniable fact that western powers left concerns unsettled in the middle east, and those conflicts are present day in the present day and function a right away relation to WWI, WWII and the chilly conflict. by employing the way, WWI in turn has it roots between different motives in the conflict of 1870 between France and Germany.

Answer 7

Only indirectly. Many factors involved with the surrender agreement of the Germans at the end of WW1 contributed to the German discontent which led them to war.

Answer 8

Yes and No, you see, WWl was Germany wanting to expand. When they lost, Hitler, who flew into power, used the fact that the Old Germany was whipped down and not treated fairly to gain support, then, he too had his eyes set on controlling Europe but Brittan and the USA were big stumbling blocks to the Reich.

Answer 9

Most likly you would many varied opinions among historians.

One Historian of the hightest caliber, Christ, although never writing down his view of history, nevertheless did make some startling projections in history. The brief references here referred do not include the complete context nor the many historical links available.

Several of the biographers of Christ wrote some graphic presentations of the enormity of World Wars 1,2 and further-

Please note Luke the physcian, Matthew Tax Collector and Mark --Fisherman?

In reference to the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus foretold the complete demise of it and Jerusalem in totality. But his foregleam of the future reaches into our time-with the idea of "conclusion of the things"--referring to the corrupt humanity and its corrupt machine.

(Matthew 24:3) “3 While he was sitting upon
the Mount of Olives, the disciples
approached him privately, saying: “Tell us,
When will these things be, and what will be
the sign of your presence and of the
conclusion of the system of things?””

(Matthew 24:7-8) “7 “For nation will rise
against nation and kingdom against kingdom,
and there will be food shortages and
earthquakes in one place after another.
8 All these things are a beginning of pangs
of distress.”


(Mark 13:1-4) “13 As he was going out of the
temple one of his disciples said to him:
“Teacher, see! what sort of stones and what
sort of buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to
him: “Do you behold these great buildings?
By no means will a stone be left here upon a
stone and not be thrown down.” 3 And as he
was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the
temple in view, Peter and James and John and
Andrew began to ask him privately: 4 “Tell
us, When will these things be, and what will
be the sign when all these things are
destined to come to a conclusion?. . .”

7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be
the sign when these things are destined to
occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that YOU are
not misled;...... Furthermore, when YOU hear of wars and disorders, do not be terrified. For these
things must occur first, but the end does
not [occur] immediately.” 10 Then he went on
to say to them: “Nation will rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom.

The popular and accepted view of Historians, statesman in the time before 1914 was as follows:

German statesman Konrad Adenauer said:

“Thoughts and pictures come to my mind,
. . . thoughts from the years before 1914
when there was real peace, quiet and
security on this earth—a time when we didn’t
know fear. . . . Security and quiet have
disappeared from the lives of men since
1914.”25 People living before 1914 thought
that the future “would get better and
better,” reported British statesman Harold
Macmillan.26 The book 1913: America Between
Two Worlds notes: “Secretary of State Bryan
said [in 1913] that ‘conditions promising
world peace were never more favorable than
now.’”27

***
“It is indeed the year 1914 rather than that of Hiroshima which marks the turning point in our time.”—René Albrecht-Carrié, The Scientific Monthly, July 1951.

“Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin. They see the human race, like the hero of a Greek tragedy, driven on by angry gods and no longer the master of fate.”—Bertrand Russell, The New York Times Magazine, September 27, 1953.

“The modern era . . . began in 1914, and no one knows when or how it will end. . . . It could end in mass annihilation.”—The Seattle Times, January 1, 1959.

“In the year 1914 the world, as it was known and accepted then, came to an end.”—James Cameron, 1914, published in 1959.

“The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since.”—Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977.

“In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them.”—The Economist, London, August 4, 1979.

“Civilization entered on a cruel and perhaps terminal illness in 1914.”—Frank Peters, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 27, 1980.

“Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.”—British statesman Harold Macmillan, The New York Times, November 23, 1980.

The optimisum by many after WW I was indeed also great by the League of Nations being formed.

The same could be said of WW II, with the UN in tact.

So the point of all of this presentation is that after each major war in our time the promise of "the War to end all Wars" has continued since World War I.

But Jesus use of the idea of pangs of distress" is in reference to a pregnant woman--In accord to his words Jesus definetly inticated a great continuance of "pangs of distress"--included great plagues, & other things to wreak havoc(Reference to these other
things is to be found at Revelation 5:2-7-in symbolism by the ride of "the four horseman of the apocolapse" or revelation)
The major change that would come about(we are not in any way seeing that great change or relief as a pregnant woman would have once the baby is born.) would have to be a world wide relief for mankind.

I hope you did not mind me taking this liberty even though its thrust is Biblical, there would seem to be enough of history in it of food for thought.

THA

Answer 10

Sorry I don't know about this