Causes and Conduction of World War II

“The peace conditions imposed upon Germany are so hard, so humiliating, that those who had even the tiniest hope for a ‘just peace’ are bound to be deeply disappointed. Our condemnation of the lust of power and conquest that Germany displayed during the war is strong and unwavering. But a condemnation of wartime actions must not amount to a lasting condemnation of an entire nation. The question is not whether the Germans have been led astray by their leaders, or whether they have been willing accomplices in the misdeeds of those leaders—the question is, whether it is in the interest of mankind to punish the German people as the Entente governments seem to have decided to do. The Entente evidently desires the complete annihilation of Germany. Not only will its whole commercial fleet be confiscated, but its shipbuilding yards will be obliged to work for the foreigner for some time to come. Whole regions of Germany will be entirely deprived of their liberty; they will be under a committee of foreign domination, without adequate representation. The financial burden is so heavy that it is no exaggeration to say that Germany is reduced to economic bondage. The Germans will have to work hard and incessantly for foreign masters, without any chance of personal gain, or any prospect of regaining liberty or economic independence. This ‘peace’ offered to Germany is a mockery of President Wilson’s principles. Trusting in these, Germany surrendered and accepted peace. That confidence has been betrayed in such a manner that all Germans must now feel that they wish to shake off the heavy yoke imposed on them by the cajoling Entente. And we fear very much that they will soon find the opportunity to do so. Chained and enslaved, Germany will always remain a menace to Europe.”

“When the [crisis] struck, nationalists were quick to identify the cause in [liberalism]. . . . As the crisis spread from country to country, global commerce and the gold standard increasingly came under attack. Once praised as the engine of economic progress and prosperity, international trade was now viewed as a source of foreign contagion. More than ever before, the nation’s economy had to be protected from cheap goods from abroad, and saved from reliance on foreign materials. [Governments raised tariffs] and each time a government [did so], it increased the pressure on others to do likewise. This generated considerable hostility. . . . The failure to cooperate in the face of the economic threat of the early 1930s was a harbinger of the inability of the powers to work together to deal with the threat of aggressive nationalism in the latter part of the decade.”

“The way in which the nuclear weapons that we are now developing are first used will be of fateful importance. Our primary objective once the war is over should be to reach an international agreement on the total prevention of nuclear warfare. From this perspective, using nuclear weapons against Japan may easily destroy all our chances of success. A demonstration of the new weapon might best be made, before the eyes of representatives of all nations, in a desert or on a barren island. Then America could argue, ‘We are ready to renounce the use of these weapons in the future if other nations join us in this renunciation and agree to the establishment of an efficient system of international control.’ If an international agreement is not concluded immediately after the first use of nuclear weapons, this will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race. However, once an international peace agreement is achieved, then the technology and materials accumulated in the process of developing the weapon can be used for important peacetime developments, including power generation and mass production of radioactive materials. In this way, the money spent on wartime development of nuclear technology may benefit the peacetime development of the national economy.”