The Instigator
sathvikbasri
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thebestdebate
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

was germany responsible for the second world war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
thebestdebate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Education
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 295 times Debate No: 90921
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

sathvikbasri

Con

I feel Germany is not responsible for the second world war. Though many historians argue the Hitler's unstoppable greed for more land dragged the countries into war. I personally feel that it was the Allies and the failure of the League of Nations that caused the second world war. At every point in time the Allies had the chance to stop the war. For example, during the militarization of Rhineland, France and Britain who had the power to stop them, however, it was Britain's laid back attitude which caused the loss of Rhineland.
thebestdebate

Pro

Hello, sathvikbarsi! This quite an interesting debate topic and I do look forward to it. Know in this debate that I am referring to the European front of the War, not the Asian front, which is arguably a whole different war.

Here we have quite an interesting point. Con claims that the Allies’ “laid back attitude” towards Germany’s aggression was the source of WWII. This makes a little bit of sense, but it doesn't hold much water. We need to take another look back into history. World War Two began on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded the nation of Poland [1]. France and England Declared war two days later. However WWII didn't spontaneously occur, there were several factors that played into it. First, tensions in Europe were already high. WWI had left most of Europe in shambles, and nations had little reason to trust each other, especially Italy and Germany. Secondly, there was Germany's aggression. Germany had been taking political and military action to annex Czechoslovakia, Austria, and other smaller territories. The Allies were quite upset, but they took no physical action to prevent Germany from annexing any more territories. These were the largest components in leading to WWII, without a doubt.

With these things being said, Con argues that the Allies apathy towards Germany is what spurred WWII. That is wrong. We must remember that WWI left Europe in shambles, and Germany was one of only a few European nations that were managing to pick up the pieces. Knowing this, Germany had decided to throw its power around and gather territory. Most of the Allies (England and France primarily) had little power to make Germany stop, so all they could say was no. What Con must realize is this: that wasn't apathy. The Allies had attempted to make Germany stop, but hadn't the power to do so. It was not apathy, but rather the inability to do anything. Therefore, WWII was not caused by the Allies, but rather a power-hungry and unchallenged Germany. Of course the Allies didn’t stop Hitler and his plans, but that doesn’t leave them responsible. Furthermore, Germany remains the nation that began the fighting. The invasion of Poland was the first military incursion of WWII, and this was committed by Germany. The invasion marked the beggining of the war, seeing as Germany was the nation to invade, the war is a result of Germany.

Con argues that the Allied apathy was the force that spurred Wolrd War Two, but in reality it was only a gateway that Germanytook advantage of. Germany is the cause of World War Two. Thank you. Please vote Pro.


Sources

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Debate Round No. 1
sathvikbasri

Con

I fully agree with your point pro. But have taken a glance or tried to find the reason of Germany's reason for aggression.

The main cause, Treaty of Versailles. England and France were both insecure of the land Germany had and the the strength of the military. Their insecurity led to the dreaded Treaty of Versailles which sowed the seeds of the second world war.

Another cause of the second world war is that the League of Nations failed in maintaining peace. Examples: When the Japanese invaded China, the league had two choices: to gather the league army and stop them or stop trade. At that time leaders felt that any use of force would result in war. Since no one wanted to stop trading, the Japanese succeeded in what they wanted to do.

As you see, the world war started by Germany began in 1939 but the one the Japanese started was in the early 1930's.
Please vote Con
thebestdebate

Pro

I understand your point better now but I still disagree. I will address your points directly.


"The main cause, Treaty of Versailles. England and France were both insecure of the land Germany had and the the strength of the military. Their insecurity led to the dreaded Treaty of Versailles which sowed the seeds of the second world war."

I do agree that the Treaty of Versailles was an influence in Germany's aggression prior to WWII. I would imagine that the Germans were not happy about accepting full responsibility the the first world war. However, their aggression was still the source of war. Germany, although they had a reason for invading Poland, didn't need to invade. The conditions given to Germany through the treaty didn't leave them with no choice but to capture neighboring territories with military force. They still invaded, so they really started the war.


"Another cause of the second world war is that the League of Nations failed in maintaining peace. Examples: When the Japanese invaded China, the league had two choices: to gather the league army and stop them or stop trade. At that time leaders felt that any use of force would result in war. Since no one wanted to stop trading, the Japanese succeeded in what they wanted to do... As you see, the world war started by Germany began in 1939 but the one the Japanese started was in the early 1930's."

You are correct with your history. The Japanese had been fighting in Asia for some time before WWII officially started. However, the world wasn't at war then. The fighting between the Japanese in Manchuria was only with China. This war was isolated and no one was getting involved. The world war began when Germany invaded Poland and England and France declared war. At that point everybody got involved. Also, I had mentioned that the war in Asia and the war in Europe were two different wars. Many historians agree. "In the 1930s, both countries adopted aggressive militaristic attitudes toward their respective regions. This led to a rapprochement and, eventually, a political and military alliance that included Italy: the "Axis". During the Second World War, however, the Axis was limited by the great distances between the Axis powers; for the most part, Japan and Germany fought separate wars, and eventually surrendered separately [2]." I use this as an example because it shows how isolated the wars were. So saying that the Japanese started WWII is a very poor argument.

I think it should be apparent that Germany caused WWII. Thank you.

Sources
1) http://www.slate.com...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
sathvikbasri

Con

sathvikbasri forfeited this round.
thebestdebate

Pro

I extend all my points. Germany did not need to invade Poland or collect territories. They did, and that leaves them responsible for the second world war. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
sathvikbasri

Con

sathvikbasri forfeited this round.
thebestdebate

Pro

Yet again, I extend all my points. Germany did not need to invade Poland or collect territories. They did, and that leaves them responsible for the second world war. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
sathvikbasri

Con

sathvikbasri forfeited this round.
thebestdebate

Pro

thebestdebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SkyLeach 9 months ago
SkyLeach
the answer is both yes and no
they were directly responsible by their choices
they were indirectly forced into a no-win position by world economic evolution and the decisions of the Austrian Empire in WWI
The economic evolution basically meant fight or be everyone's whipping boy for the next century. Either way they would lose but at least with war they stood a chance of winning.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ssadi 9 months ago
ssadi
sathvikbasrithebestdebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited 3 out of 5 rounds while Pro forfeited only 1 round, so conduct goes to Pro!
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
dsjpk5
sathvikbasrithebestdebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff more times than Pro, so conduct to Pro.