The Treaty of Versailles was the Main Cause of WW2

Thanks, Justin.C1. World =/= Europe While it is obvious that World =/= Europe, the entire conflict cannot be referred to a World War if it were not for Hitler's invasion of Poland. According to the Merriam-Webster, the definition of "World war" is, "a war engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world" (17, emphasis added). Notice the part, "all or most of the principal nations of the world". Prior to the invasion of Poland, not too many principal nations were involved in battles. When Hitler invaded it, many nations, such as the United Kingdom, France, Canada and Australia (Canada and Australia are nations in a different continent) got involved within a few days (18). Then, Hitler declared a war on on the US and the Soviet Union years later (19). One must also keep in mind that Japan and Italy formed the Axis powers one year after the invasion of Poland, making the global conflict a clash between the Allied and the three-way pact (20). After the formation of the Axis powers at the beginning of WWII, Hideki Tojo and Mussolini attacked many other countries. These acts of tyranny committed by Italy and Japan were simply PART of the very war whose genesis was marked by the invasion of Poland. Even though the Germans and the Japanese never fought side by side, what matters is that they all had the common goal of defeating the Allies.If we remove Hitler from the picture, could we really say that all these major nations would have joined the fight? Would Italy have been able to instigate battles without the support of its German ally?Simply put, Hitler (whose motives were inspired by the austerity of the Versailles Treaty) caused the spark that led to many allied nations (PRINCIPAL Allied nations from DIFFERENT CONTINENTS) to oppose it. Because of him, the major nations known as Italy and Japan teamed up with Germany, turning the entire situation into a global clash between the Allied and Axis coalitions.C2. HitlerOne thing we must understand is that in history is generally caused by great men or women. This is true because the masses take certain actions under the guidance of those people.Con also says, "The Treaty alone could not have brought it about." Well, obviously, the Treaty ITSELF could not cause the war, because a treaty is merely an agreement that's written on paper. To understand this more clearly, one can think about the the U.S Bill of Rights for example. Now, the Bill of Rights ITSELF didn't guarantee personal freedoms, as it was simply a piece of paper containing the first Ten Amendments (21). It's the RATIFICATION of it that did the job. The ratification was carried out by the politicians at that time. However, we still say that the Bill of Rights is the cause (or the reason why) for people to have more freedom, albeit it's the people (the politicians) who did the work. The same logic is applied for the cause of WWII. Just as the ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred by the reason of its very presence, Hitler's plans were carried out because of the existence of the Treaty that angered Germans. Written papers can't do the job. They need influential people to take certain actions (either for it or against it).. So, it stands to reason that the Treaty caused the war by making people like Hitler work against it in this case.C3. Appeasement PolicyEven though the INTENT of the Treaty was to prevent people like Hitler from invading other countries, the problem is that it was counter-productive. Remember, we're talking about the very same pact that caused not only Germans to be angry, but also caused the British to be easygoing with Hitler's conquests. The intent of the Treaty is completely irrelevant, because the fact is that the Treaty was so harsh that it predisposed both of the nations to break the rules. If the Treaty was not so hard on Germany, would Hitler have been able to manipulate a bunch of angry Germans? Remember, his radical solutions only appealed to the masses because of the conditions after the effects of the Versailles Pact (Spielvogel 819). Again, the Treaty SHOULD HAVE prevented Hitler's conquest, but we must also keep in mind that the interpretation of text can be subjective in general (So, the Treaty would give people different feelings of how they would interpret it). Many could see it as an unreasonable agreement, and its harshness led the British to think that Germany was reasonably trying to satisfy its need for power by violating it. C4. The buck stops where?As mentioned by Con himself, this can seem ridiculous when taken to a certain point. Although WWI led to the Treaty which caused WWII, we cannot say that WWI is the MAIN cause of WWII. We cannot say that the issues prior to WWI are the MAIN causes of WWII either. This is because neither WWI nor its previous causes led to the problems I mentioned in the first round. Unlike the Versailles agreement, WWI itself did not cause Germany to be burdened with debt to other nations, nor did it cause Germans to be angry. On the other hand, the Treaty is responsible for these things. The Treaty itself is what provided the foundation for Hitler's agendas.What about the reverse? No, the treaty didn't "merely" cause economic strife. It also caused Germans to get separated (its lands were removed) and humiliated by the Allied forces.Con also asks, "Isn't the strife itself really to blame for the war?"Again, the difference is that the Treaty increased the strife to the point that Germany harbored feelings of hatred towards its adversaries. In the process, German masses were also easy to be manipulated by radicals like Hitler. Wars don't normally have to be concluded with treaties being hard on one specific country. Moving on, my opponent says, "One could even go so far as to say that the true cause of the war itself was the decision by the UK and US (and Canada) to fight back." My opponent supports this by citing a mere idiom, which is not a reliable source. The real issue is that Germany is the one who started/caused the situation by invading Poland. The response of fighting back is not the cause, or the starting point. (Cause is synonymous with start/origin (22)). They fought back AS A RESULT of German tyranny.Con's argument is also problematic since the idiom "it takes two to tango" is "something that you saywhich means if two people were involved in a bad situation, both must be responsible" (23). This idiom only says that both Germany and the Allies are responsible, not that the Allies started the war by fighting back.Lastly, I never blamed ONE "cause of a cause for being the reason the entire war happened." I said that the Treaty is the MAIN cause of WWII, which implies that there are other causes for it, but not as grand as the Versailles pact.ConclusionI have shown that..1. The invasion of Poland marked the beginning of WWII. It made many principal nations get involved from many different parts of the world. Also, Mussolini and Tojo invaded other nations DURING WWII.2. Hitler could not have carried out his plans if it were not for the Treaty's "injustice". I could also argue that the ratification of the Bill of Rights couldn't have occurred without the politicans, but we can still say that the Bill of Rights is the reason why we have more freedom. 3. The appeasement policy occurred due to the "injustice" regarding Germany's conditions. I explained that the Treaty can be interpreted subjectively, and those interpretations have caused people to react differently, despite the INTENTION of those who authored the Versailles agreement. 4. Any other event in the "chain" cannot qualify as the MAIN cause because they themselves didn't lead to German resentment and be in debt to the Allies. Also, UK, US and Canada didn't start this violent situation in fighting Germany back.Your turn, con.Sources:17. http://tinyurl.com...18. http://tinyurl.com...19. http://tinyurl.com...20. http://tinyurl.com...21. http://tinyurl.com...22. http://tinyurl.com...23. http://tinyurl.com...