Second World War
The Oxford Companion to British History
|
2002
|
|
© The Oxford Companion to British History 2002, originally published by Oxford University Press 2002. (Hide copyright information)
Copyright
Second World War. Germany made the Second World War: a necessary condition was a nationalist German government ready, even eager, to use force. Hitler did not create the social and economic conditions that gave him power, but he brilliantly exploited them to develop a state usable for his own purposes, which went further than most Germans would consciously have ventured. The Nazis, who preached violence to forge unity between social classes, included those whose first aim, to increase German power in the world, required the co-operation of the military, the civil service, and industrialists, and also Nazis whose first, egalitarian, aim was to destroy the influence of those privileged groups. Hitler reflected and helped to win the dominance among Nazis of those who wanted international power. His coming to power was with the help of German conservatives who combined with the Nazis to resist socialists, in preference to working with socialists to block the Nazis.
Hitler's strength lay in the support of voters; many voted Nazi through despair at the depression of 1930–2. Arguably, it was the consequence of the treaty of
Versailles after the First World War and its insistence on reparations payments by Germany which forced the maintenance of deflationary policies to keep up the exchange value of the mark, as well as recent memories of the catastrophic inflation of 1923, itself even more plausibly the result of the enforcement of reparations. Hitler, and the expansionist German nationalists he stood for, seemed a result of Versailles. Most British opinion concluded that those, especially the French, who had tried to enforce Versailles were to blame and that to soften the nationalism of Hitler's Third Reich the remaining grievances of Versailles should be remedied. Hence, British ‘appeasement’. Towards Germany, even towards Hitler, conciliation seemed better than confrontation. France should be restrained and the anti-fascism proclaimed by the Soviet Union checked. Without the United Kingdom (and the British empire), restraint on the militarily reviving Germany could not be effected and though French governments attempted to work with Italy and the Soviet Union, Italy was weak in resources and the Soviet Union struggling to exploit its own. As Hitler understood, British policy determined how far he could move towards a ‘purified’ German nation, self-sufficient and militarily invulnerable, without engaging in war. Until 1939, with British acquiescence, Hitler won success after peaceful success: restoring compulsory military service, creating an air force, remilitarizing the Rhineland, absorbing Austria, annexing the German-inhabited areas of Czechoslovakia, and then, in March 1939, destroying Czechoslovakia altogether. Hitler's growing support in Germany, as foreign success went with full employment, steadily increased his freedom of action.
In Britain, however, appeasement became unpopular. Neville
Chamberlain, its leader, felt obliged to threaten force to compel German restraint and insisted that change to German benefit should take place only by way of negotiation. On 31 March 1939 he pledged Britain to defend Poland, and tried, at last, to build a ‘peace front’. Chamberlain's policy was to persuade, or coerce, Hitler into acceptance of moderate change which would leave intact Britain's capacity to defend her independence. The British aim was to preserve the European balance of power, Hitler's to destroy it. In 1939 the British obstructed him. But the alliance attempted between Britain, France, and the USSR failed. Probably Stalin observed Chamberlain's reluctance to make a Soviet alliance because it would be too provocative to Germany and wreck chances of renewed Anglo-German concord. Stalin thought it safer to make his own bargain with Hitler, took up appeasement, and agreed to help Hitler to destroy Poland.
After an attempt to persuade Britain not to interfere, Germany attacked Poland, in theory to solve German grievances about Polish mistreatment of ethnic Germans, in fact to increase German resources, ‘living space’. At dawn on 1 September 1939 began what became the Second World War. On 3 September Britain and France declared war on Germany. The unusually vicious nature of the German government already made morally desirable the defence of European balance.
As expected, Poland did not last long against German attack and was partitioned with the USSR. Anglo-French strategy was defensive, waiting to build up their armed strength. In May and June 1940 it went badly wrong. France, defeated by a German attack in May 1940, whose main weight was further south than anticipated, surrendered in June. Italy joined Germany, tempted by the prospect of participation in a prospective peace conference. Hitler could now organize Europe to support the German war effort. Everything seemed possible: the British would surely give in. Carefully calculating, while offering inspiring calls to arms, Churchill led the cabinet to resist, assuming, correctly, that the navy and air force could prevent German troop landings in sufficient force to occupy England in 1940 and that US economic help would enable protracted defence. The victory of the
RAF in the Battle of
Britain in 1940 blocked invasion, but in 1941 German submarines nearly defeated Britain; British code-breaking came to the rescue in June.
In 1941 Hitler decided to attack the USSR before the defeat of Britain. In 1940 President Roosevelt, hesitantly, had decided to try to keep Britain fighting. In 1941, therefore, Hitler feared that the war in the west might escalate into war with the USA and decided, after tentative attempts to make a new bargain with Stalin, to defeat the USSR first. His advisers expected success in 1941. It went wrong. Roosevelt, concerned to maintain a world balance of power, gave help to the USSR. The ‘Lend-Lease’ Act permitted him to supply countries at war without payment. Like Churchill he strove to keep the Red Army fighting. The Red Army wore down the German army while the Americans made tanks, aircraft, and ships; hence Hitler's defeat.
In the 20th cent. Japan maintained expanding population by trade, either by co-operating in the international structures or by forceful seizure of raw materials, especially fuel. In 1930–45 the Japanese authorities used force to counter trade barriers erected by foreign countries, threatening British and Dutch rubber, tin, and oil. The US government, working to maintain a world balance of power in 1940 and 1941, tried to check Japan by denying raw materials. The Japanese, with the threat from the USSR met by the Germans, decided to seize essential resources. In December 1941 encouraged by Germany, Japan attacked the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor and invaded Malaya, Burma, and the Dutch East Indies. Hitler, conscious that the USA was already an opponent, and still hopeful of victory over the USSR, clarified the conflict by declaring war on the USA. The Second World War involved Germany, Italy, and Japan against the USA, USSR, and the British empire, with France overrun by Germany, and China, divided between nationalists and communists, uncertainly united in resistance to Japanese attempts to control Chinese resources and trade.
The British empire and the USA fought a world war. Both gave priority to defeating Hitler. The main effort against Japan came from the USA. The failure of the Chinese to defend territories from which Japan could be attacked reduced the British role in Burma from the expansion of the line of communications to China to the defence of India and the eventual reassertion of British power in Malaya and Singapore.
In Europe the American army hoped to concentrate all Anglo-American resources in the United Kingdom to invade Europe at the earliest date possible. Churchill and the British thought Germany must first be weakened by campaigns in north Africa and Italy. Roosevelt agreed with Churchill in order to avoid delay in bringing
some US forces into action in the European theatre; partly he wanted to maintain US public interest in the war against Hitler, partly to demonstrate US eagerness to take some burden off Soviet forces. Thus, their main operations were delayed and British and US ground forces became fully engaged against the German army only after the landings in Normandy in June 1944. By September 1944 the allies had defeated Germany; Anglo-American forces closed to the Rhine, the Red Army had taken Romania, territorial losses and bombing ended German ability to sustain war for much longer. However, SS coercion and fear of the allies, especially the Soviets, enabled Hitler to delay the end until May 1945.
In the Pacific, Japan, too, continued the war long after defeat brought about by attacks by US submarines on transport ships and US bombing attacks on Japanese industry. Japanese authorities, led by the emperor, accepted defeat only after the use of two atomic bombs, developed in time in the USA.
In Europe the war created a partition, which lasted for more than 40 years, between communist states, influenced or controlled by the USSR, and societies dominated by more or less tempered liberal capitalism. The partition came surprisingly peacefully, though with particular problems in Poland, accepted in the end as belonging to the communist sphere, and with increasing tension for a time in Germany, where an administrative partition agreed during the war lasted for several decades. In the East partition brought devastating and protracted conflict in China, where communists triumphed in civil war; in Korea, split in two, after a fierce war; and in Indo-China, where conflict lasted for decades. Here, as in Europe, capitalism is recovering among ‘communist’ states, but in Asia liberalism is less evident.
Germany, Italy, and Japan, the defeated countries, are today more agreeable to live in and far more prosperous than were the countries that precipitated the bloodshed of the Second World War. All, so far, are more tolerant societies. The Nazis demonstrated to rational human beings the dangers of the menacing idiocy of racial prejudice by carrying it through to its chilling conclusion in the mass murder of Jews, as enemies of ‘Germanic and Aryan purity’.
In 1940 the United Kingdom, inspired by Churchill, continued to fight. The British preferred American domination to Hitler's. In 1945 the USA became the greatest power in the world, and, with the collapse of the Soviet empire in the 1990s, perhaps the only super-power.
R. A. C. Parker
Bibliography
Bell, P. M. H. , The Origins of the Second World War in Europe (1986);
Calvocoressi, P., Wint, G., and and Pritchard, J. , Total War: The Causes and Courses of the Second World War (1989);
Iriye, A. , The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific (1987);
Parker, R. A. C. , Struggle for Survival: The History of the Second World War (Oxford, 1989);
Weinberg, G. , A World at Arms (Cambridge, 1994).
Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.
|
Prince Haakon's in the house; Norway's future king makes the rounds in Minnesota.(NEWS)(Editorial)
Newspaper article from: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN); 10/19/2005; 543 words
; ...be the centennial of Norway's royal family. Haakon's great-grandfather, Haakon VII, came to Norway when the country peacefully ended its ties to Sweden in 1905. Haakon's a lot like the country he represents: traditional...
|
|
HAAKON THE BEARABLE IS HEADING FOR SEATTLE.(News)(Column)
Newspaper article from: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Seattle, WA); 3/8/1999; ; 700+ words
; ...visit to Seattle of Crown Prince Haakon of Norway. He's coming as guest...began with his great grandfather, Haakon VII - the first-round draft pick to...Swedish oppressors in 1905. Prince Haakon's dad, Harald V, continued the...
|
|
Norwegian King says he has no information that would support claims of book about King Haakon.(Brief Article)
Newspaper article from: M2 Best Books; 10/14/2004; 557 words
; ...would not have been the son of King Haakon VII. The author Tor Bomann-Larsen reportedly claims in his book about King Haakon that Olav was not his son. The current...after a referendum and became King Haakon VII, his wife Maud becoming Queen and...
|
|
Norway's newborn prince named Sverre Magnus
News Wire article from: AP Worldstream; 12/5/2005; ; 439 words
; ...prince's family. Crown Prince Haakon's middle name is also Magnus...Norway, and ruled under the name Haakon VII. The young prince was born Saturday...hours after his birth. Even though Haakon has an older sister, Princess Martha...
|
|
Norwegian crown princess gives birth to future queen
News Wire article from: AP Worldstream; 1/21/2004; ; 508 words
; ...Haakon. Both are 29. Even through Haakon has an older sister, Princess Martha...Danish prince, who took the name Haakon VII, to be its first king. Since then...and Harald V, with Crown Prince Haakon slated to someday become the fourth...
|
|
Unregal young royals spark debate on Norway's monarchy; Republic: If prince acts like everyone else, some wonder, who needs him?
Newspaper article from: Telegraph - Herald (Dubuque); 6/10/2001; ; 700+ words
; ...further tarnished by Princess Martha, Haakon's sister, being photographed in...Unlike their kin in Britain - Haakon and his sister are descended from...first king of modern Norway, King Haakon VII, ascended the throne in 1905 and...
|
|
Royalty just like us
Newspaper article from: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; 6/17/2001; ; 700+ words
; ...further tarnished by Princess Martha, Haakon's sister, being photographed in...Unlike their kin in Britain -- Haakon and his sister are descended from...first king of modern Norway, King Haakon VII, ascended the throne in 1905 and...
|
|
Norway Crown Prince begins four-day visit to Tanzania
News Wire article from: AP Worldstream; 4/20/2004; ; 368 words
; ...and Zanzibar. On Friday, Prince Haakon will hold talks with Zanzibar's...not include a meeting with Prince Haakon, a presidential spokeswoman Maura...Danish prince, who took the name Haakon VII, to be its first king...
|
|
A Fairytale's Ending - The Royal Family Tree.(Norway)(Brief Article)
Magazine article from: World and I; 9/1/2001; ; 583 words
; Haakon VII (1872--1957)=Maud (1869--1938) Haakon was a Danish prince and married...was the daughter of King Edward VII. Her mother was Princess Alexandra of Denmark, which made her Haakon's cousin. They had one child...
|
|
A very special monarchy
Magazine article from: Scandinavian Review; 10/1/2002; ; 700+ words
; ...illustrious reigns of three monarchs-Haakon VII, Olav V and Harald V-and a unique...new king, having taken the name Haakon VII, with Queen Maud and their two...to ascend the throne. Upon King Haakon's death in September, 1957, after...
|
|
Haakon VII
Book article from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
Haakon VII 1872-1957, king of Norway...Sweden in 1905 and took the name Haakon. He married Princess Maud, the daughter of Edward VII of England. During the German...1940-45) in World War II, Haakon headed a government in exile...
|
|
Magnus VII
Book article from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
Magnus VII (Magnus Ericsson), b.1316, d...63). He succeeded his grandfather, Haakon V, in Norway; at the same time he was...forced him to recognize (1343) his son Haakon (later Haakon VI) as his successor in Norway, over...
|
|
Norway
Book article from: A Dictionary of World History
...Hardrada's claim to the English throne. The reign of HAAKON IV brought order and, from 1254, Norway traded with...in June 1905, and Prince Charles of Denmark elected as HAAKON VII . A Liberal Party government introduced women's suffrage...
|
|
Norwegian campaign
Book article from: The Oxford Companion to World War II
...invading force, the cruiser Blücher , was sunk by the guns and torpedoes of the Oscarsborg fortress. King Haakon VII (1872–1957) and the government, which at 0530 had rejected a German ultimatum to surrender, profited...
|
|
subversive warfare
Book article from: The Oxford Companion to World War II
...or by adding slogans to them such as the variants on H7, by which Norwegians signified loyalty to their exiled King Haakon VII (1872–1957), or the ubiquitous V for Victory sign. Broadcasting was more important and more effective...
|