Rise of the Nazi's... fault of the allies?

[IrishGunner]

History? Simple math says you could not have a WW2 without having had a WW1... yeeeesh! :-)

See my post using the "do loop" analogy for more mathematical genius.

And see my previous post that says I don't even know why we call it WWI and WWII since the period of warfare 1939-1945 was simply a continuation of the same conflict that started in 1914.

[IrishGunner]

If the german population by 1918 had suffered as much as the people in Belgium and northern France... we would not have had a WW2...

There is some logic to this point; so, what you are saying is that if the allies were more competent in their war fighting ability - they could have taken the fight to Germany and made the German people suffer. But since they allies couldn't break the stalemate on the Western Front (let alone keep the Russians in the fight because of the Bolshevik revolution); because the allies failed at war fighting for so long - WWII is the allies' fault because it is their fault that German people didn't suffer and they wouldn't have wanted war again.

I also think its a stretch to say that the main reason that Germany is a "pacifist" country today is because they suffered in WWII. France, Britain et al suffered and they are not "pacifist" today - suffering had nothing to do with it. The reason Germany is the country today is because of the "realistic" peace that was imposed after WWII - not because Germans now hate war because they suffered. Although, I have said for a long time since the end of the Cold War, we have been too successful in "pacifying" the Germans.

The post-WWII European continent is the best argument for the line of reasoning that suggests, had the allies imposed a different peace in 1918 - regardless of whether or not they were justified - the chances for a second world conflict would have been significantly reduced.

[Mike Dwyer]

Then, when the Extreme left and extreme right parties were spilling blood and scrambling for power... do you find any mention AT ALL of a German Royalist Party wanting the Kaiser back? Anywhere between 1918 and 1933, was there anyone in germany who seriously wanted him back?

Yes, there were Germans who wanted the Kaiser back, and there still are.

My father told me a story a long time ago that when he was in Germany right after WW2 as part of the army of occupation, there was a rule that ALL German political parties had to register with the local US Army commander prior to being allowed to function. In the area where my father was stationed, the very first party to sign up was a Monarchist Party intent on restoring the German monarchy. There is a functioning Monarchist Society in Germany and Austria right now. They may have absolutely no political power, but they do have members and there is a following.

[Mike Dwyer]

One of the other things I learned from my reading, and I realize this plays off of the German nationalism mentioned earlier, is the massive anti-German feelings and political actions against Germany prior to 1914. The British, French, Russians, and Americans were bound and determined that they were going to be in charge of the world and there was absolutely no place, anywhere on the planet, for the Germans. The allies were allowed to have colonies and subjugate entire populations, but nooooo, Germany couldn't be allowed to join that club! They could have navies that sailed the world, but not Germany! I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but you won't change mine either; Germany wasn't given a whole lot of choices in trying to become a member of the "World Power Club".

[Chris Boonzaier]

Yes, there were Germans who wanted the Kaiser back, and there still are.

My father told me a story a long time ago that when he was in Germany right after WW2 as part of the army of occupation, there was a rule that ALL German political parties had to register with the local US Army commander prior to being allowed to function. In the area where my father was stationed, the very first party to sign up was a Monarchist Party intent on restoring the German monarchy. There is a functioning Monarchist Society in Germany and Austria right now. They may have absolutely no political power, but they do have members and there is a following.

Hi,

there is also a tiny political party in Germany called "the beer Party"... which is the one I would vote for if I could...

Realistically, once the Kaiser had fled, the people in Germany who gave a damn was veeeeery, vereeeery small.

It is sure none of the major forces struggling for power would have kept him as their head...

best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

One of the other things I learned from my reading, and I realize this plays off of the German nationalism mentioned earlier, is the massive anti-German feelings and political actions against Germany prior to 1914. The British, French, Russians, and Americans were bound and determined that they were going to be in charge of the world and there was absolutely no place, anywhere on the planet, for the Germans. The allies were allowed to have colonies and subjugate entire populations, but nooooo, Germany couldn't be allowed to join that club! They could have navies that sailed the world, but not Germany! I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but you won't change mine either; Germany wasn't given a whole lot of choices in trying to become a member of the "World Power Club".

Hi,

A point I would love to argue, but best tossed into "WW1, who started it?" thread.

Best

Chris

[Mike Dwyer]

Hi,

A point I would love to argue, but best tossed into "WW1, who started it?" thread.

Best

Chris

Actually, I hate to argue, Chris! I just couldn't help myself, sometimes I need to shut up.

On your previous comment, I'm sure you are correct that the number of monarchists in modern Germany is very small, a great pity. My point though was I'm sure there were more people who supported Kaiser Wilhelm in 1916 or 1917 than in November 1918, things had gotten very, very bad by then. The downfall of the monarchies of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia were the beginings of the decline of Europe, in my opinion. There are many who would disagree, I'm sure, but that's how I, and others, feel.

Sorry I got this thread off track! :off topic:

[Chris Boonzaier]

Actually, I hate to argue, Chris! I just couldn't help myself, sometimes I need to shut up.

On your previous comment, I'm sure you are correct that the number of monarchists in modern Germany is very small, a great pity. My point though was I'm sure there were more people who supported Kaiser Wilhelm in 1916 or 1917 than in November 1918, things had gotten very, very bad by then. The downfall of the monarchies of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia were the beginings of the decline of Europe, in my opinion. There are many who would disagree, I'm sure, but that's how I, and others, feel.

Sorry I got this thread off track!

No, no! Dont be sorry.

I dont see this as an argument in any way, but as a discussion. I would really appretiate it if you posted that other thought in the "who started it" thread.

IMHO we all read tons of book, but it is only when you discuss and debate what you read and think that it all kinda settles and you can begin to form an opinion.

Back to the original point... I just dont think there was a magic switch between 1917-18 that made the Kaiser a sudden non entity....

Peace after 1918 would never have been possible with a kaiser, he no longer had the support of the people. I wager, even if the war had stopped in 1917... he would not have remained long.

The only hope for Germany post WW1 would have been a democracy.

However, a democracy wont work in a rotten state. Loss of pride, loss of land, debt, political turmoil...

As I posted before, Europe was ripe for totalitarian states... and 3 others managed it WITHOUT having the allies to blame.

We can also talk about the financial ruin in Germany in the late 20s... but lets keep it in perspective...

From Wikipedia...

"The Great Depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped. while international trade plunged by ½ to ⅔. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[3] Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most"

Your forefathers in the USA went through it as well, without having a victory imposed on them by the allies.... ;-)

P.S. The decline of the Monarchy could arguably have been the result of the war, but not the peace.

[Chris Boonzaier]

should it have stayed unpunished after the war?

No one is arguing that Germany should not have been made to pay for it's part in the war; yes, Germany lost - yes, the allies suffered - yes, to the victors go the spoils. However, being magnanimous in victory is just as important as being repentant in defeat. Peace was not served by punishing the wrongs of Germany with the wrongs of the allies. It's the old adage - two wrongs do not make a right.

.........

I might agree with a logical argument that Germany should have the bulk of the blame for starting WWI, but only if we accept that the allies have the bulk of the blame for guaranteeing a repeat in 1939 with WWII by failing to secure their victory with a sensible peace at Versailles.

But what would a magnanimous peace have been?

Lets not forget, Wilsons 14 points, which is often held up as the "lost chance" ALSO had all the things that riled up the Germans between the wars.

Everyone makes fun of Neville Chamberlin for his appeasement of Germany... and many of the same people then say Germany should have been appeased at Versailles to avoid a next war.

The more often I read the 14 points, the less I understand how it could have been thought of as an alternative...

and another thought... Germany was in near revolution in 1918... Communist forces, Nationalist forces, Feeble democratic forces.... they were the disruptive currents flowing through the whole of Europe... with these forces in motion, and even with 90 years of hindsight... I fail to see what could have been an "acceptable " peace.

best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

should it have stayed unpunished after the war?

Granted, there is no way to know if German nationalism would have responded "positively" to more lenient treatment by the allies in 1918; but the evidence is clear what the result of the allies' harsh treatment was - WWII. The argument of whether or not the allies were justified is actually irrelevant to the argument that their actions resulted in WWII. Even if they were "justified" because of the destruction of Flanders, the hope was that it would be the peace to the "War to End all Wars."

I really hesitate to bring this following argument, and I hope it is not taken wrong, but I fail to see the difference between that thought and the argument "By fighting terrorism we are only encouraging them to attack us.."

Should Iraq have been rebuilt after Desert Storm to prevent them from becoming baddies again?

Has anything been done to sooth Serbias pride after the NAQTO bombings (Personally I dont think the Balkans problem has been "solved" for ever)

Look, I agree that Germany went into the post war period with terrible preconditions for a happy late 1930s to 1940s, but so did everyone who took part in the war.

Everyone had back breaking debt, everyone had lost many men, everyone was headed for the great depression, some (unlike Germany) had had their land devestated... Germany had on top of that bruised pride, but tough titty, not everyone can win...

Even Harry Potter could not have created the conditions for a peaceful Germany after WW1.

But another thought... since when has it been the task of the victor to rebuild and appease the Looser?

[Chris Boonzaier]

I would like to take this thought back a step....

In 1871 the Germans imposed reperations on the French and took Alsace-Lorraine ...

Could we then claim that France was motivated by this German action and it could be seen as the cause for WW1 ?

:-)

[Chris Boonzaier]

This is interesting...

Great Britain has recently finished paying off her WW2 debt.... but her WW1 debt remains.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

225 Billion of it......

Maybe she should invade poland... :-)

[Claudio]

Wilson's 14 points could have been good if they had implemented fairly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points ), but it was strongly flawed from the beginning. Just to name a couple about the settlement of the borders:

All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

Ok, I might agree that the French wanted to take back what they lost in 1871; but why don't let the people decide in a plebiscite?

A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

Yeah... my ass! The Italians had before WWI signed a triple alliance with the German Empire and Austria-Hungary Empire... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Alliance_(1882) ). They entered WWI on the side of the allies only because they were promised more territorial gains and in the end they got also territories out of their lines of nationality (like Südtirol).

The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

Again my ass... and the Sudeten German and the other German or Hungarian speaking in the old empire have they ever had a chance to develop their autonomous development? Don't think so... they created artificial states like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia in which minorities where not given a chance to express themselves. In Bohemia there were clearly distinct areas where Germans were the majority, same also in Transilvania with Hungarians and Germans. Some areas the plebicites were strongly flawed (see in Upper Silesia, Burgenland, Memel,...)

An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

Ok, but what about the city of Danzic... there lied already a big problem; the city was ethnically German (in the 1923 census 7'896 peoaple out of 335'921 gave Polish, Kashubian or Masurian as their native language) and was put under polish control, although the facto a "free state". Not to mention the German minorities in West Prussia, which were expulsed or suffered of being under Polish rules during the years between the wars.

These are only a couple of example how the treaty was one-sided, bound to fail and sooner or later there have must been a sort of re-adjustment. Not to speak about other points. Like the Chris pointed out that the Germans destroyed the entire economy in the occupied parts of Belgium and France... ok, what about the Naval blockade in which basically only the poorest and less responsable Germans population suffered heavily, especially children and old people for the lack of food...

Who started WWI? I don't think you can single out a responsible... every one wanted the war; the Germans to reach economical, territorial and political supremacy in Central Europe, Austria-Hungary to survive, Russia to help the Serbians and take care of their interests in the Balcan area (see also take over the control of the strait of Bosphorus), France to revenge their defait almost 44 years before, the British Empire to contrast the German Colonial expansion and threat of their Kriegsmarine, Italy to free the last Italian speaking areas under KuK control and even go further in controlling the Adriatic sea, the smaller states in the Balcan who already fought 2 wars before 1914, to reach their own territorial and political gaines, and so on and on.... Every-one was involved in some way.

By the summer of 1914 it was just sufficient that something like the Sarajevo assasination to give way a fire which was going to spread out so quickly helped also by an intricate system of alliances in Europe which were brought to the brink of war by this rather small but fateful event. I completely agree with the statement that WWII it was just a mere continuation of a badly finished first world war... to me it looked to the Germans went through another fateful 30 years war like in the 17th century. What a disaster and waste of people... the whole Europe suffered immensly because of it. In the end who really lost, IMHO, is Europe as whole, which gave way to the new new powers arise to become superpowers (like USA and Soviet Union... later China, India).

Just my 2 cents.

Claudio

Edited October 3, 2010 by Claudio

[Chris Boonzaier]

Nice Post Claudio,

I think we can agree that Wilsons 14 points were no solution.

It raises the question, was there ANY chance of a solution that would have made all sides happy?

As to the continuation of the war... i repeat my challenge... :-)

Which country was at war with germany from 1914 up until the beginning of WW2 (end of September 1939 it was over for them...)

:-))

[Hauptmann]

Nice Post Claudio,

I think we can agree that Wilsons 14 points were no solution.

It raises the question, was there ANY chance of a solution that would have made all sides happy?

As to the continuation of the war... i repeat my challenge... :-)

Which country was at war with germany from 1914 up until the beginning of WW2 (end of September 1939 it was over for them...)

:-))

The Principality of Andorra.

Dan

[Hauptmann]

One of the other things I learned from my reading, and I realize this plays off of the German nationalism mentioned earlier, is the massive anti-German feelings and political actions against Germany prior to 1914. The British, French, Russians, and Americans were bound and determined that they were going to be in charge of the world and there was absolutely no place, anywhere on the planet, for the Germans. The allies were allowed to have colonies and subjugate entire populations, but nooooo, Germany couldn't be allowed to join that club! They could have navies that sailed the world, but not Germany! I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but you won't change mine either; Germany wasn't given a whole lot of choices in trying to become a member of the "World Power Club".

As mentioned in my other thread the same basic thing happened to Japan. The big powers at that time had no interest in letting the Japanese have colonies or an empire either. And that worked out really well too, didn't it?

Dan

[Chris Boonzaier]

The Principality of Andorra.

Dan

You da man!!!!!

[Chris Boonzaier]

"The allies were allowed to have colonies and subjugate entire populations, but nooooo, Germany couldn't be allowed to join that club! They could have navies that sailed the world, but not Germany! I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but you won't change mine either; Germany wasn't given a whole lot of choices in trying to become a member of the "World Power Club"."

That is not strictly true.

German simply got into the colony game too late... by the time she was interested, all the good real estate was gone... and germany got the leftovers....

Look at her african colonies... no prime real estate there at all.

Why?

Bismark did NOT want them... in fact, he hoped france would... that France would concentrate her energies on getting Colonies and leave Germany to do its thing in Europe.

So the Germans only became interested in Colonies around 1880... and there was little left...

Its as if I got the idea today... "Manhaten island sounds good... i think I will go build a house on the beach there...." and then complain noone wants to give me any space...

If the germans missed the colonial boat they can thank Bismark. Anyway, they had it all figured out at the Berlin Conference mid 1880s... rules were set and agreed on, germany was not excluded on any level.

Best

Chris

[Chris Boonzaier]

"The massive anti-German feelings and political actions against Germany prior to 1914."

There are legitimate reasons that Russia, France and a whole host of other countries did not like Willy.

He did his level best to assure that... so I pleed no contest.

But I disagree that there were exclusively Anti German feelings.... Europe was full of nationalist, jingoistic feelings. To view the "Anti German" feelings as something unique is IMHO wrong. The Germans had "anti French" feelings, and together the Austrians and germans had "anti Russian" feelings....

So any nation can play the hurt feelings card in the pre WW1 era.

best

Chris

[Hauptmann]

You da man!!!!!

I know.

Dan

[joe campbell]

"The Great Depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped. while international trade plunged by ½ to ⅔. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[3] Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most

[IrishGunner]

But what would a magnanimous peace have been?

Lets not forget, Wilsons 14 points, which is often held up as the "lost chance" ALSO had all the things that riled up the Germans between the wars.

The more often I read the 14 points, the less I understand how it could have been thought of as an alternative...

best

Chris

I don't think you will find anywhere in my posts have I made an argument for the 14 Points as an alternative. However, the guiding principle behind the points is that there were conditions in Europe - caused by all the parties - that led to the war. the Points were also delivered in a speech to Congress in January 1918 to help convince the American people that entering the war in 1917 was for moral purposes. They were the American conditions for participating in the war. And I guess since American conditions weren't fulfilled at Versailles, we should have declared the Europeans in default of their loans and immediately demanded repayment. And you know that is a nonsense statement because that wouldn't be in America's interest. Just as it was nonsense to cripple Germany with reparations - by the way, which are NOT one of the 14 Points.

Actually, the first three points do provide the environment to reach a more lasting peace (let's take the remaining territorial issues out of the mix):

1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.
2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

Number 1 and Number 3 set the conditions for a magnanimous peace; something that the allowed the new democratic republic in Germany to survive and economic conditions that gave all nations a chance to recover from the devastation of the war. So, I can only repeat my long posts above to say that had the allies thought more about "peace" and less about "punishment and revenge" at Versailles they could have come up with a different alternative that didn't make Germany pay until the pips squeaked. I'm not saying Germany shouldn't have paid something, but it wasn't in the allies long term interests to go as far as they did.

I have yet read where you accept that the allies have some blame in this - regardless of whether or not they won. Until you can at least see that there are no angels in this story, the debate is essentially over. The Germans are at fault, the allies are at fault, all are at fault.

[IrishGunner]

I really hesitate to bring this following argument, and I hope it is not taken wrong, but I fail to see the difference between that thought and the argument "By fighting terrorism we are only encouraging them to attack us.."

Should Iraq have been rebuilt after Desert Storm to prevent them from becoming baddies again?

Has anything been done to sooth Serbias pride after the NAQTO bombings (Personally I dont think the Balkans problem has been "solved" for ever)

Look, I agree that Germany went into the post war period with terrible preconditions for a happy late 1930s to 1940s, but so did everyone who took part in the war.

Everyone had back breaking debt, everyone had lost many men, everyone was headed for the great depression, some (unlike Germany) had had their land devestated... Germany had on top of that bruised pride, but tough titty, not everyone can win...

Even Harry Potter could not have created the conditions for a peaceful Germany after WW1.

But another thought... since when has it been the task of the victor to rebuild and appease the Looser?

Yes, you should hesitate to make these arguments because they are off topic, emotional, and wrong. But since you raised them, here goes:

"By fighting terrorism we are only encouraging them to attack us.."

This is a misdirected statement; this issue is not whether or not we should fight terrorism, but HOW we fight terrorism. The HOW implies that we should do it with an understanding of the underlying causes - economic and otherwise; waging unrestricted warfare and imposing an unjust peace will only create more terrorists. This is the same argument I've used in the way the allies pursued peace in 1918 - they only created conditions that made Germany "attack us" again.

Should Iraq have been rebuilt after Desert Storm to prevent them from becoming baddies again?

There is a strong argument that it wasn't necessary to rebuild Iraq in 1991because it wasn't truly destroyed; the war was stopped when the objective was met - the liberation of Kuwait. There was no attempt to cripple Iraq for its invasion because it was recognized that would only further destabilize the region. On the other hand, there is a strong argument that we should have went all the way in 1991 because we only had to do it in 2003. So, now should we make Iraq suffer because we "won"? No, we are rebuilding Iraq because a crippled Iraq is a destabilizing in the region. (And let's not go further off topic by discussing in this thread whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place."

Has anything been done to sooth Serbias pride after the NAQTO bombings (Personally I dont think the Balkans problem has been "solved" for ever)

Serbia has had every opportunity; Croatia complied with the war criminal demands and are now a member of NATO. Serbia is where Serbia is because Serbia can't get on with business. Using your argument about punishing the loser, we should drive them into complete oblivion. That hasn't happened because it's not in our interests; although they have been punished - just as Germany has been punished, but not pushed into a further destabilizing situation.

Everyone had back breaking debt, everyone had lost many men, everyone was headed for the great depression, some (unlike Germany) had had their land devestated... Germany had on top of that bruised pride, but tough titty, not everyone can win...

Yep, everyone was suffering - tough titty - because everyone had a part in causing the war in the first place - if the allies had accepted their fault and not pushed it all on Germany, the would have had a chance at a better peace.

Again, until there is acceptance that the allies were guilty too - not exclusively Germany - the debate is moot.

[IrishGunner]

The only hope for Germany post WW1 would have been a democracy.

However, a democracy wont work in a rotten state. Loss of pride, loss of land, debt, political turmoil...

Agreed. And what chance did the allies give Germany to work it's way out of a "rotten state" of affairs and give democracy a real chance to succeed? None. Because they only had revenge on their simple minds.

Of course, I altered the idea of "rotten state" to one of a "rotten state of affairs" - because I'm assuming you don't really mean that Germany was rotten to the core and inherently evil and therefore incapable of democracy. (Or did you?)

[IrishGunner]

I would like to take this thought back a step....

In 1871 the Germans imposed reperations on the French and took Alsace-Lorraine ...

Could we then claim that France was motivated by this German action and it could be seen as the cause for WW1 ?

:-)

No, not as a cause of WWI - because that's in the other thread.

But...clearly part of the cause of the bad peace treaty after WWI. This clearly was part of the reason the French sought crippling reparations. Another reason that "reparations" are a bad idea.