Vic Dale wrote: ...
Well ask yourself; Was capitalism in crisis at that point? I think it definitely was.
Why? The economies of most capitalistic countries were pretty well on the road to recovery by the mid 30s. Germany was the major exception and that was because of the economic and rearmament policies of the Nazis.
War is not caused through bloody mindedness, or even stupidity, ... War has it's foundations in economy...
Some of it is certainly economic but other things have been major contributors.
...Protectionism is the general precursor to war ...
I'd like to see some proof of that.
...Vietnam was fought because the USA thought it could take over the colonial possessions of France.
Hardly. It was well recognized in the US by that point in time that colonies were not worth it. Indeed the US was in the process of getting rid of it's colonies after world war II.
All of the colonial wars were fought on the one side for economic freedom from the oppressive power of the colonists and on the other for continued economic dominance.
Not all colonial powers were oppressive. Indeed some were better than the governments that preceded or succeeded them. In many cases it was power rather than cash that was clearly the driving cause. Money is one measure of power but hardly the only one.
WWI was fought over colonial possessions in China and Africa.
It's going to take a lot more back up than just your word to make me believe that one.
WWII was fought precisely to prevent Hitler gaining economic dominance in Europe,
There was little evidence that Hitler had any chance of gaining economic dominance in Europe. Indeed the German economy had some sever problems in the 30s.
...which would have followed as surely as night follows day had he been permitted to reunite East and West Prussia ready for an assualt on the Ukraine, ...
Why would reuniting Prussia result in economic dominance. German was still short on raw materials and in serious credit crunch.
Ukraine has no strategic importance, ...
??? are you serious?
Does anyone really still hold to the view that Hitler was a war monger?
Hitler was a anotorious wet-pants - a manic depresssive - who found himself at the head of an economically powerful nation, which BTW had developed it's means of production long before he came to power.
Well maybe his stated aim to aquire the Ukraine as mentioned above and his building up the military to do so plus his use of it to invade several of his neighbors is a bit of a clue in that regard.
The Ruhr provided natural resources in abundance
Germany had adequate supplies of some resources in particular coal. The Ruhr hardly has an abundance of most natural resources though.
the need to re-tool and gear up had developed Germany into a world-beater by 1935. It was calculated that the then German economy could produce for the needs of the whole of the advanced world if her factories had been run at full capacity. That was not Hitler's acheivement, he simply inherited a means of production second to none.
Sorry but the German economy and production were no where near that strong. Indeed economically Germany was no where near the US and not even up to Britain. If Germany was going to produce even enough stuff for Europe she would have needed a massive infusion of raw materials which the Germans had pretty much cut themselves off from....
Germany was a divided nation, ....
It's not at all clear to me that the division between East Prussia and the rest of Germany was all that serious economically.
The depression had raised tarriff barriers as each nation sought to protect their own trade, so she would not be able to increase her share of the market.
But some of the barriers were falling as the depression receded and forces were in place to drive them even lower.
...I don't think it needs to be explained how in a world which could not support two ailing empires that if one were to be rubbed out, the other might survive for while longer feeding off it's corpse.
Ailing doesn't mean dieing. Even if one does fall that may not help the other.
... Neither was of military importance, their only value being economic....
First you state all wars are economic then you make a statement like this???
The last vestiges of control which Versailles could exert over Germany were economic and the aims of Hitler in securing the road-link between East and West Prussia and the port of Danzig, were purely to gain economic independence. ...
No they weren't. Germany had a link it just didn't have one that it controlled. economically there was no difference.
We can clearly see from the above that every development in the lead-up to WWII was economic.
No. What you've shown is that some of the developments leading up to the war were economic. And that you have tunnel vision.
Hitler was known to be too weak to wage war in 1938, yet Britain began to rearm. Why so? Who could possibly be a threat? I think it is likely that despite outward appearances, the antagonisms between Britain and France had become acute. France had lost her dominance in Western Europe, what would be next; North Africa? Hence the naval build up at Oran.
Incredible. Hitler was hardly know to be too weak in 38 and it was clear that he was putting a huge amount of resources into rearming. Modern militaries take years to build and Hitler was clearly doing his utmost to rebuild Germany's. In fact doing enough that Britian needed to respond.
... European rearmament had begun as early as1935, long before Hitler marched into Austria. The only major world development at this time was the economic depression which set in after the Wall Street crash of 1929.
Ignoring Hitler's statements and the German rearmament that started almost as soon as the Nazis gained power.
..it impacted Germany less than other nations because of her need to tool-up and her government's decision to assist industry where it could.
It's impact on Germany was worse than some countries.
As regards Churchill's Germanophobia he was denouning German economic developments in Europe ...
Denouncing someones economic developments hardly constitutes proof of hatred. Germany was doing what they could to minimize the impact of reparations this was hardly in Britain's best interest so Churchill not being thrilled with them is not a surprise.