Talk:World War II/Archive Casus Belli

Casus Belli
I'm looking at the Gleiwitz incident listed under this in the summary table, and it's clearly not appropriate. Having a relatively obscure incident mentioned in this box is pointless. What people are looking for here is a marker incident for the start of the war. Casus Belli doesn't mean this, as people pointed out above. However rather than change the name of the entry someone filled in one of the actual 'casus bellis' for the war. What we should do is change the name of the entry to 'starting event' or some such, and put the German invasion of Poland in there. The trouble with listing a Casus Belli is that there are different ones for different countries. For Germany it was the Gleiwitz incident. For Poland, France and Britain it was the German invasion. For the US it was Pearl harbor, for Japan it was - well I don't know, something to do with western colonialism. For Italy it was Ethopia. What we need to do is abandon using 'Casus Belli' in the box and replace with something people understand. DJ Clayworth 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The concept of "casus belli" is useful when war occurs within the framework of an international system, where two countries have a clear dispute, and seek to resolve it within the framework of common values, even when at war with each other. I know it sounds strange to our ears, but this is why "casus belli" exists as a formal concept within international diplomacy. Nations used to disagree about the correct ownership of a specific territory, for example, and would resort to warfare to settle the issue.


 * This was not the case in World War II. For Germany, the issue was whether all norms and international standards of decency were a mere illusion to be discarded, and which had been forcibly imposed on civilization by some supposed Jewish conspiracy. For Japan, the issue was whether they had the right to rule Asia, and to treat conquered peoples like chattel.


 * For Britain, the issue was whether they had the right to live free of dictatorship. the fact that, by the end of the war, the British system of class and imperialism had been totally discredited, was simply a side-effect of the war's intensity, and does not lend any credence to any iota of the Axis war aims or effort. Hence this is why it is a little unfeasible to refer to a "casus belli."


 * By the way, for all of you who seek to provide some "context" for Axis war aims, the preceding is why there is an intrinsic difference in morality between war aims of the Axis, and those of most other countries throughout modern history. The war aims of most countries, though obviously in conflict and sometimes extremely contentious, can still be accorded some context within the realm of modern normal historical trends This includes the Germany of the First World War. This is not true of the Axis countries, or their dictators. this is why you will see us calling for an intrinsically different treatment of these things historically, than of any other set of national aims. Thanks. Sm8900 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Axis behavior was evil espcecially obviously towards Jews but your characterization of motive is still unfair.


 * FOr Japan international economy locked up by colonial powers. COlonial system denied equal access to raw material and markets. Two ways to fix this, either fight all colonialism or build own empire. Their motive of ruling itself no different than Spain, Portugal, Holland, Britain, France motive and except for China what they took over was ALREADY taken over by the British, Dutch and Americans! This very similar to some Germany motives before WWI of building a navy and finding a 'place in the sun.' The character of the colonial system legitimize this logic and make it almost inevitable. Even anti-colonialist like America still have colonies Cuba and Phillipines and quasi-colony 'sphere of influence' in Monroe doctrine.


 * For Britain, issue was not freedom from dictarship but same as in Napoleonic war, Great war and COld war, no domination of Europe continent by any one power. They say England foreign policy hasnt changed for centuries and in this way its true. Greater germany simply too big too populous and too powerful to have balance if not split up. This proven in first war where it took four big countries together to match and defeat Germany, even then Russia was knocked out first, so had to split it up. And now it would be only worse with Austria added. No accident that each wars followed by dismantling and shrinking of germany plus limits on builds as part of treaty. Of course evil character of nazis made the case much easier BUT cause of war again was recreation of greater germany which ITSELF violate the treaty by design.Opiner 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we agree then that 'Casus belli' is not a useful thing to put in the summary box? DJ Clayworth 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree Gleiwitz incident shouldnt be there because incident only staged as a pretext for gettng their land back.Opiner 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting thread. I do think it's rather unfair that the first country to start a war gets to have their casus belli listed alone, to the exclusion of other, truer ones.  On the other hand, I'm a big fan of infoboxes and quick ways of getting the picture, so "invasion of poland" really tells the story for me even though it raises other problems.  If the rules for the template need to be changed maybe we should take this up at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict?  I'd be in favor of leaving casus as an option (for places where it works), and having another field with another name, possibly "Cause" even though the POV-accusations will be neverending. Haber 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think 'Cause' will get us into too much argument, possibly for the good reason that trying to sum up the causes of a complex situation in a single phrase is going to result in oversimplicity. Even "Start" or "first incident" is going to get us back into the argument over whether the war started in 1939 or 1937. I think the best way is to remove Casus belli and replace it with nothing. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with removeing casus belli completely. (Staberinde 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC))


 * I also agree with removing casus belli. Opiner, thanks for your response. What you say is valid; the Axis war aims did have some relation to the general direction of their countries' past resource needs, etc. My point is that underneath their military aggression was a real desire to wipe out their enemies, and entire ethnic groups. That's my point, and that's how this differs from previous European wars. this cannot be grouped even with past wars between monarchs, where say, the issue might be royal succession, teritory, etc.


 * The point is that these dictators were tyrants who moved outside any parameters of public opinion, or even (here's where they differ from many historical monarchs) any conception of international or historical morality. So I appreciate the context on this. I am not differing with all of those points, but it is definite that one cannot group Axis war aims within the same diplomatic category as that of countries which move within historical parameters of international diplomacy, law, and /or public opinion. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Japan cruel to occupied people and prisoners but not have any desire eliminating the ethnic groups that I know.Opiner 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If it were my encyclopedia, I would write "Invasion of Poland", "Attack on Pearl Harbor" and be done with it. But I can live with no casus in the infobox.  Haber 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No more straitforward example of casus belli than attack on Pearl Harbor! Remember it not mean 'cause of war' but actual INCIDENT of war. It gets no clearer than direct attack. America oil and steel embargo was proximate cause of war and forced Japans hand but not an ACT of war.


 * For Germany more complicated because invasion of Poland not direct attack on western powers except in interpretation. Making Poland honorary allied participant is like joining Serbia in triple entente just to say Austria-Hungary starting the great war. Gleiwitz incident only propaganda but how about BOTH invading Poland follow by England and France declaring of war. Its not quite right to say Germany alone start the world war or to say west declare war out of the blue. Include both is short simple and hard to dispute.Opiner 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, here's a thought. The concept of "casus belli" is not used universally for all hostile conflicts. it is used ONLY when two nations have a definable difference of opinion, but when each respects the other's nationhood, and each relate within a framework of diplomacy. Would you identify a "casus belli" for Genghis Khan, when he overran Europe? Or a casus belli for King Leopold when he sought to enslave African tribes? How about a "casus belli" for the Goths and Vandals who overran Rome? Or a casus belli for the Roman Empire, or the Hittites, or the Babylonians, when they sought to conquer the civilized world? Or the Soviets when they invaded various East European countries, to keep them under their heel?


 * Here's another example; I would not ascribe a casus belli to the United States of America, a great and inspiring democracy--when it comes to the wars with Native Americans. The goal there was conquest, pure and simple.


 * The concept of casus belli is out of place here. It does not apply. It's about time we accepted a few simple things. Hitler was a genocidal tyrant. That's it pure and simple. Placing Nazis, the Japanese, and the Fascists in that category is not some attempt to make them a unique exception to all general historical methods. it is not some attempt to place them in a category where they do not receive the same political protections accorded to other nations' military ventures. On the contrary, we are putting them squarely in a historical context.


 * It's just that their proper, correct category is "unabashed self- proclaimed conquerors, driven by one dictator and racial supremacist policies ," and certainly not, say, "complex industrial nations seeking an equable balance of power, as defined by internal national consensus". So refined, subtle concepts like "casus belli" just don't work here. --Sm8900 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there maybe a misunderstanding here. Casus belli not so complicated: only meaning incident when the war start. Doesnt ask about the goals. 'Casus' sounding like 'cause' only the coincidence (dont worry everyone make this mistake.)


 * Disagreeing with you about Japan whose motives much more conventional and not revolutionary than Nazi Germany or Fascism Italy. Really two seperate wars. Mostly opportunism using Europeans at war so not have to be confronting the France and British Empire whose colonies Japan were taking. Only ONE independent country Japan invade after 1941 (can you guess who?) as in main one China war alrady going on for a while. Dont forget Russia and England also invading the China not too long before, Russia to take and England to make them buying drugs! To single Japan out for evil we can say, occupation more brutal than average EUrope occupation, mistreat the prisoners and used the sneak attack against America. In the style of marxism maybe say they had reactionary parts about empire without progressive trends (yet). Otherwise just disputes about which empire unjustly rule over the colony people with similar race attitude towards them.Opiner 03:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Casus belli
I'm sure this has been discussed at least once before in the gargantuan archives that we have for this article, but I still need to ask: why is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor listed as a reason for the start of the war? Surely it was a reason for American entry into the war, but a casus belli for the war itself? Not really. Hopefully we can get a good discussion going on this. If not, I will wait for two or three days then simply remove it as it seems very inappropriate (and just factually wrong too).UberCryxic 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just leave it dude no need to reinvent the wheel. Haber 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it should be removed, as it took place years after the war began. --NEMT 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that attack of Pearl Harbor is not needed there. German invasion of Poland is enough for casus belli as it started WW II. Although I have thought that maybe Molotov-Ribbentrop pact should be also added behind it in brackets. (Staberinde 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC))


 * Interesting point, but I don't know if that would really be needed. The solitary casus belli of ww2 is the invasion of poland - which likely would've taken place with or without a soviet/nazi non-aggression deal. --NEMT 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually changed the article and introduced Pearl Harbor as a "casus belli". Having seen the comments here, I was probably wrong to do this. I had a look at the WW1 article, and this does not mention the sinking of the Lusitania as a cause. So it is now clear to me. If someone likes to remove Pearl from the cause of the war, that's OK by me. If it hangs around, I will remove it myself. Wallie 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

German-soviet invasion of Poland can be considered to be a fulfilment of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact(which was signed a week before invasion started). I doubt that Hitler would have made pact with his main ideological enemy if he would had though that Poland can be invaded without it. Btw, I removed pearl harbor from casus belli. (Staberinde 15:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

Thiis absolutely correct: Hitler would not have invaded Poland without the approval of Stalin. To have done so would have meant an automatic war with the Soviet Union, for which he was not ready in 1939. Another small point-the connection between the Lusitania sinking and American entry into WWI is a long established myth. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. America did not enter the war until April 1917, during the second phase of the unrestricted U-boat warfare. White Guard 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The connection of the Lusitania and America entering the war is hardly a myth. An excuse, maybe. Who knows why the United States entered the war. Only Woodrow Wilson would know the answer to that one. However, the Lusitania is an important fact, and not just a myth. To say that Hitler needed Stalin's permission to invade Poland is really strecthing the imagination. Wallie 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The US entered the Great War after the initiation of a new phase of unrestricted U-boat warfare by Germany in 1917, and the subsequent attacks on American shipping, nothing at all to do the sinking of the Lusitania two years before. Any historian will tell you that the reasons for the declaration of war were not known only to President Wilson, as you seem to believe, but were made clear to Congress.  I did not say that the sinking of the Lusitania was a myth; I did say that the connection between this sinking and the American entry into the war was.  Please read carefully and think clearly.


 * For Germany to have invaded Poland without the agreement of Stalin would have meant war with the Soviet Union, with the western Allies unsubdued in the rear; not even Hitler was that mad. The chief aim of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as far as the Germans were concerned, was to neutralize Russia. The objective for Stalin was to increase Soviet security by pushing his borders westwards.  Can I suggest that you take time-out do some serious reading before you decide to make any more of these interventions?  I think you are best to avoid appearing ignorantly ill-informed, for the sake of your own self-esteem, if nothing else.  White Guard 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be getting on Wallie's back now. Wallie is not "ill-informed," and definitely not stupid enough to be making "interventions," that are not reaching your expectations. Respect him, he works hard. Oyo321 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Read again what 'the Wallie' has written. You say he is not ill-informed?  My expectations are that people at least know what they are talking about, and thus earn my respect.  A fool may work hard at being a fool.  Above all, I hate anyone to look like 'a Wallie.' My advice to you is to resist the temptation. White Guard 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is some confused thinking here. "The Second World War" is a bucket term for what was in reality two (or more) separate large-scale regional conflicts. The Pacific conflict became a "world war" after Pearl Harbour when major extra-regional powers (the US and Britain+Empire) became involved. Similarly, the Nazi-Soviet pact laid the groundwork for the invasion of Poland and the consequent entry of France+Empire and Britain+Empire. Both can be validly held as triggers for war- but not the same war. Badgerpatrol 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The dates of the Second World War are 1939-1945, just as the First World War is 1914-1918, notwithstanding the late American entry.. All the revisionism and hair-splitting in in the world will not change that. White Guard 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not making any judgements as to whether he (or you) is in my opinion ill-informed or not- please actually read what I wrote. My advice to you is to mind your attitude and get on with editing the article. Badgerpatrol 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly some confusion here: the opening remarks were not addressed to you, Badgerpotrol, but to the previous user. I would have thought it would have been obvious from the context, but I suppose I should have separated them out.  My apologies if I caused you any offence, but the attitude I take will always be determined by the responses I receive.  White Guard 23:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Observations now arranged to allow a more accurate reading. White Guard 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber removed Molotov-Ribbendrop pact from casus belli saying: ""casus" not = "cause". read dictionary.". So i started thinking why the hell is "german invasion of Poland" considered to be casus belli? I mean it was casus for France and UK, that's true but those countries joined war at 3rd september. War started at 1st sempember. So what was casus for german invasion of Poland? There are 2 possibilities, Polish corridor or Gleiwitz incident. I mean its ridiculous to have german invasion of poland as casus belli for german ivasion of poland. (Staberinde 12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Good point. So why not include Pearl Harbor again? Haber 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WW II started in 1939 not in 1941 (Staberinde 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC))


 * Ok. I don't completely agree, but I like having Gleiwitz incident in there. Haber 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a new section on this at the bottom of the page. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes to War aims section
There are some recent changes to the section on 1939 German War aims which I would like to comment on. The following paragraph on German war aims, which included lebensraum and persecution of Jews, was changed.

The chief aim of the German expansionist policy at the time was the acquisition of Lebensraum, or territorial empire at the expense of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As the war developed and military victory became more and more unrealistic, the German leadership focused its attention on the elimination of European Jewry (see Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities). + The chief aim of the German policy at the time was the reacquisition of German territories taken by the Treaty of Versailles, and the addition of ethnic German regions of former Austria-Hungary to form a Greater Germany.

it was replaced with the following paragraph simply describing the aims of reacquisition of territories and redressing the inequities of the Versailles treaty.

The chief aim of the German policy at the time was the reacquisition of German territories taken by the Treaty of Versailles, and the addition of ethnic German regions of former Austria-Hungary to form a Greater Germany

It was explained with the following edit summary: "(Ridiculous to say Germany was trying to gain Lebensraum at eastern expense BEFORE the war!)"

sorry, but I must disagree with this edit. I understand your reasoning, and I respect you right to your views. However, the paragraph never claimed to be a description of Germany's stated war aims. As the paragraph overtly makes clear, it was summarizing German real war aims as they were at the beginning, and even as they were when they changed much later in the war. Therefore, there is no reason to remove the text on lebensraum. Clearly, this was part of German aims, and Hitler's plans, at the very beginning. This plan was stated in Mein Kampf. It is widely accepted that German strategy and war aims were intended to lead to these goals all along.

It is not relevant to describe their stated goals as if they were as valid as their real goals. Yes, Germany had not stated all of its war aims at that point. However, they were no less significant at that point, even if not stated. You might as well state that Hitler really wanted peace, because after all, he met with Chamberlain!

It’s important to understand the entire historical record. Hitler did not have to balance different interest groups, or to seek consensus; he did not need to worry about setting out credible claims for a world audience.

He was perfectly free to orchestrate events and the mass media, and to distort the truth as he saw fit. It's important to understand the meaning of storm troopers, fascism, Nazi terror, etc. it means that we cannot treat German statements of aims the way we would treat other nations’. Historical methods change when public statements are made by tyrannical, deceitful one-man dictatorships, which use terror as a tool, as opposed to consensus-driven democratic governments, which can only use persuasion and logic.

So these historical considerations are not driven by emotion, as one might suspect, but rather by the desire to be accurate to the historical record, in its entirety.--Sm8900 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont have a problem with you as editor. To be clear I am NOT any way pro-nazi only sympathize with German NATIONAL aims that unfortunately got caught up with the NAzi ideology program because they were the only ones willing to reprresent them and then used the anti-Semitism to make the Jews scapegoat for these problem which France and England were real culprit.


 * SO NOW thats out of the way. Quote Mein Kampf for Hitler aim is fine BUT thats not the same as the Germany aim. Hitler had only power as head of Germany. and although was dictator could not base going to war on something not meaningful to the people. And key words AT THAT TIME. Germany said we are uniting our people and getting our land back and theres really no evidence it was not sincere except the Hitler writings BUT no one taking those seriously at that time. I am not trying to censor anything about Hitler or the war. The Mein Kampf musing have their place. Only trying to prevent anachronism of describing events by what we know or assume now. Even then its not proven. Truth is no one know what would happen if Germany allowed to regain polish corridor and reunite. We can say probably but its still a guess.


 * As for Hitler wanting peace or not well that is very broad. He didnt want peace with Slavs or with Jews obviously BUT is there any evidence he didnt want peace with England? This was said again and again that it not his intention to fight England. He call British Enpire 'the cornerstone of civilization' and in his race-based viewpoint where Aryans 'culture-creators' theres no reason to think he didnt mean it. He didnt want peace enough to kee his Munich deal I agree with that. Seems reasonable to think hed rather get his goals without fighting England though AND if England could be sure the plan was to attack Russia maybe they would have let him.


 * So I think we should take the German policy AT THAT TIME at face value because face value is credible motive too and is enough to edxplain what happen AT THAT TIME the outbreak of the war.Hitler personality distorting war aims came later and their should be section to discuss his fixed idea of attacking Russia for Lebensraum.


 * ps. off the topic but, Rational german leader also would have wanted land back, would have fought and probably declare victory after June 1940 (with help of and friendship for Germanys valued Jews!) Chance of England fighting on if Germany willing to leave France Belgium and Scandinavia on its own somewhere around zero!Opiner 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying. I see that you do have positive motives, and I appreciate your positive remark to me. however, one thing is quite clear. Hitler wanted war. That is obvious. German policy at that time was orchestrated to re-militarize Germany. And the overall context was to reach the point of attacking Russia.


 * To say he wanted peace with England sort of begs the question. That may be the one country he didn't plan to fight. But he clearly wanted a German Empire in most of Europe and Russia.


 * I would like an entry which reflects the most obvious aspects of Nazi goals. If we want to say what justifications they used, that's fine. But we should also reflect the overall context of the dramatic re-working of German society, toward militarism, rampant anti-Semitism, and also a clear plan of military aggression throughout 12-month period which began in Sept 1939.. --Sm8900 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, in regard to the question of whether the aims of germany at that time might possibly differ or be distinct from the aims of Hitler, there are probably very few cases in all of history when the views of a single man, as dictator, played as great a role in the views, attitudes, and actions of a single nation; or also, that the machinations of one person played as great a role in the actions of the leaders of most of the major countries negotiating with germany at that time. --Sm8900 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Causes
The causes section seems to have evolved into something very abrupt and superficial, laying the entire European war on the failure of the League of Nations. I have reverted to an older version that introduces more factors.

The next section (War 1939) also has a lot on causes, much of which seems subjective and unsourced to me. I don't have the time now to give it a proper editing, but I did want to draw our attention to it. Haber 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)