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

[Chris Boonzaier]

It is oh so comman to blame the rise of the Nazi's and WW2 on the allied leaders of WW1...

I think that is B.S.

German nationalism was not created AFTER WW1... it was extremely strong BEFORE WW1... and simply continued after WW1.

IMHO the allies did not create manic nationalism in Germany, they simply failed to destroy it in 1918.

So... shoot me down.... :whistle:

[Mike Dwyer]

I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this, but here I go...................

I agree the allies didn't create German nationalism, but I think they did a lot of things that helped pave the way for Adolf and his gang to come to power. If the allies hadn't been so hell-bent on overthrowing Kaiser Wilhelm II and had agreed to a earlier solution to WW1 as the Kaiser wanted (he never wanted the war to begin with), then perhaps, just perhaps, the monarchy would have never fallen and there would have been no place for Adolf and his followers in the German government.

I was taught all my life about the evil Germans and the bloodthirsty Kaiser, and after maturing a bit, and reading a lot, I've learned that was all a load of crap. If you haven't read "The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II" by Giles MacDonogh, you should. I found some things in there about allied behavior towards Germany prior to WW1 that shocked me. I'm not saying Willy was a saint, but he wasn't nearly as bad and I was taught he was. :unsure:

[Chris Liontas]

Wilson bears much of the responsibility of this. Yes, irresponsible reperations with no clear victory did nothing but create WWII.

[dond]

The Germans did it to themselves. They voted for change. Having a former Corporal as the fearless leader was a big change.

[Chris Boonzaier]

I swore I wasn't going to get involved in this, but here I go...................

I agree the allies didn't create German nationalism, but I think they did a lot of things that helped pave the way for Adolf and his gang to come to power. If the allies hadn't been so hell-bent on overthrowing Kaiser Wilhelm II and had agreed to a earlier solution to WW1 as the Kaiser wanted (he never wanted the war to begin with), then perhaps, just perhaps, the monarchy would have never fallen and there would have been no place for Adolf and his followers in the German government.

I was taught all my life about the evil Germans and the bloodthirsty Kaiser, and after maturing a bit, and reading a lot, I've learned that was all a load of crap. If you haven't read "The Last Kaiser: The Life of Wilhelm II" by Giles MacDonogh, you should. I found some things in there about allied behavior towards Germany prior to WW1 that shocked me. I'm not saying Willy was a saint, but he wasn't nearly as bad and I was taught he was.

Hi,

I will keep an eye open for the book, but must say, it is dangerous to form an opinion about the man based on one author, when so many actions and words are to the contrary.

it must be pointed out, Willy fled the country because he thought his own people were going to kick his butt.

What exactly was the earlier solution the Kaiser wanted? I cant remember any realistic peace offerings off hand.

Will get back to this when I get home tonight.

Best

Chris

[Mike Dwyer]

Hi,

I will keep an eye open for the book, but must say, it is dangerous to form an opinion about the man based on one author, when so many actions and words are to the contrary.

it must be pointed out, Willy fled the country because he thought his own people were going to kick his butt.

What exactly was the earlier solution the Kaiser wanted? I cant remember any realistic peace offerings off hand.

Will get back to this when I get home tonight.

Best

Chris

Chris,

I haven't based my opinion on just one author, but McDonogh was the last one I read and I think he did a very even-handed job. He doesn't portray Kaiser Wilhelm as excessively bad, or excessively good, he shows both his bad side and his good side. To be honest, I don't recall the details of the peace offering of earlier times, but I'm pretty sure I read that there were some overtures made in early 1917. The problem was the allies main condition for acceptance was Kaiser Wilhelm had to go, it wasn't open to any negotiation, and at that particular point in time the German government would not accept that as a condition. I had been taught just about all of my life that WW1 was the personal fault of Wilhelm II, but that just isn't factual, yes he had a part, but so did other powers on both sides of the trench line. I guess I was raised on allied propaganda that I accepted as fact, and now I've seen another side of the picture. It's kind of like hearing for many, many years about the bloodthirsty Germans torpedoing the ship Lusitania. How it was a cowardly, cold-blooded, act of murder. Yet facts have now shown that the Germans posted warnings in the press, the ship's owners chose to ignore the warning and intentionally put everyone aboard in jeopardy, the Germans said the ship was hauling munitions in violation of their blockade making it a valid target, which the US and Britain strongly denied. Then a few years ago someone got down there and finally examined the wreck.........and guess what, the hold was full of muntions just like the Germans said way back then. Say it isn't so, our government lied to us???? :whistle:

Edited October 1, 2010 by Mike Dwyer

[Naxos]

It is oh so comman to blame the rise of the Nazi's and WW2 on the allied leaders of WW1...

I think that is B.S.

German nationalism was not created AFTER WW1... it was extremely strong BEFORE WW1...

Yes, as was French, British and any other Nationalism.

German Nationalism does not equal Nazi-ism. Nationalism is an element and a symptom of National-Socialism but not it's cause. Intolerance, Hatred and Racism are the cause.

[IrishGunner]

To be honest, I don't recall the details of the peace offering of earlier times, but I'm pretty sure I read that there were some overtures made in early 1917. The problem was the allies main condition for acceptance was Kaiser Wilhelm had to go, it wasn't open to any negotiation, and at that particular point in time the German government would not accept that as a condition.

Unfortunately, getting rid of the Kaiser was a prime condition in the ultimate peace and another reason the allies can be blamed for WWII. If Winston Churchill's opinions count for anything, he said, "The war would never have come, unless under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on the vacant thrones."

A combination of a power vacuum in German and the crippling reparations - both meant to crush Germany forever - clearly set the conditions for revanche by the Germans. Of course, that didn't have to mean Hitler and his own brand of nationalist megalomania that led to the Holocaust et al; however, I am convinced that the "unfair" (yes, unfair) set of conditions imposed upon the Germans by the allies, set the conditions for a German leader to rise to power based upon nationalist revanche. WWII was inevitable starting on 28 June 1919 in Versailles and really started on 29 September 1938 when the appeasing allies met with Hitler in Munich. The allies got a second chance. However, appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain et al in 1938 was the equivalent of the Kaiser Whilhelm's "blank check" telegram to Franz Josef in 1914. To turn Chris Boonzaier's phrase on how WWI started to how WWII started, Hitler wanted to grab some boobies and instead of saying, "No, Adolf that's not polite," the Allies said, "Ok, Adolf it's okay, go ahead and grab some Czech boobies and get it out of your system." Typical British miscalculation - Adolf wasn't satisfied.

I will say this, one thing the European allies had right in 1918, given Germany's inherent strength, she would return to a position of power after WWI and this had to be dealt with. If there is any doubt, look at post-WWII Germany and its rise to be again a European power - albeit an economic power. Fortunately, the WWII allies got it right and learned the lesson from their WWI predecessors.

[IrishGunner]

Yes, as was French, British and any other Nationalism.

German Nationalism does not equal Nazi-ism. Nationalism is an element and a symptom of National-Socialism but not it's cause. Intolerance, Hatred and Racism are the cause.

Here, here. Completely agree.

[Eric Stahlhut]

Unfortunately, getting rid of the Kaiser was a prime condition in the ultimate peace and another reason the allies can be blamed for WWII. If Winston Churchill's opinions count for anything, he said, "The war would never have come, unless under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on the vacant thrones."

A combination of a power vacuum in German and the crippling reparations - both meant to crush Germany forever - clearly set the conditions for revanche by the Germans. Of course, that didn't have to mean Hitler and his own brand of nationalist megalomania that led to the Holocaust et al; however, I am convinced that the "unfair" (yes, unfair) set of conditions imposed upon the Germans by the allies, set the conditions for a German leader to rise to power based upon nationalist revanche. WWII was inevitable starting on 28 June 1919 in Versailles and really started on 29 September 1938 when the appeasing allies met with Hitler in Munich. The allies got a second chance. However, appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain et al in 1938 was the equivalent of the Kaiser Whilhelm's "blank check" telegram to Franz Josef in 1914. To turn Chris Boonzaier's phrase on how WWI started to how WWII started, Hitler wanted to grab some boobies and instead of saying, "No, Adolf that's not polite," the Allies said, "Ok, Adolf it's okay, go ahead and grab some Czech boobies and get it out of your system." Typical British miscalculation - Adolf wasn't satisfied.

I will say this, one thing the European allies had right in 1918, given Germany's inherent strength, she would return to a position of power after WWI and this had to be dealt with. If there is any doubt, look at post-WWII Germany and its rise to be again a European power - albeit an economic power. Fortunately, the WWII allies got it right and learned the lesson from their WWI predecessors.

:cheers:

[Chris Boonzaier]

Unfortunately, getting rid of the Kaiser was a prime condition in the ultimate peace and another reason the allies can be blamed for WWII. If Winston Churchill's opinions count for anything, he said, "The war would never have come, unless under American and modernising pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on the vacant thrones."

I think this argument overlooks a very, very big point....

Willy did not leave Germany with the allies hot on his heels.... his armies were collapsing, units were rebelling... and he did not even trust his soldiers to protect him in his flight... they had to specially task Sturm Bataillon Rohr to do it... ans apparently even there they were not to keen to cover the kaisers butt.

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?

BEFORE the Kaiser fled, all of his sons made it clear that not one of them was willing to take his place on the throne....

So... I put forward the thought,that even if the allies were to have wanted the kaiser, the germans would not have wanted him... there was a simmering revolution, and neither party was rooting for the kaiser....

[Chris Boonzaier]

Yes, as was French, British and any other Nationalism.

German Nationalism does not equal Nazi-ism. Nationalism is an element and a symptom of National-Socialism but not it's cause. Intolerance, Hatred and Racism are the cause.

And Rascism is just a by product of the national socialist beast... Lets imagine Hitler was not a racist, lets imagine he was a Jewish German... but that all his OTHER ideals and goals remained the same, Take back parts of France, the Danzig corridor, get land in the east, etc. etc. etc...

You would have had WW2 minus the holocaust, and it would have been bad enough...

Germany were plain and simply bad losers after WW1... there is nothing they would have been happy with.

Fascist dictators are NOT a by-product of being beaten by the allies... Italy got one in 1922... Russia became totalitarian in 1918... it was par for the course for angry disenchanted populations... is there any reason to think that Germany would be less susceptible than Italy or Russia or Spain ? What can we blame THEIR totalitarian regimes on? With Russia, Italy or Spain we blame it on the population... but in germany on the allies?

[Chris Boonzaier]

Fortunately, the WWII allies got it right and learned the lesson from their WWI predecessors.

I agree but for a totally different reason...

Germany came through WW1 Unscathed... it lost troops.. be we all know a nation at war can happily ignore that as long as the folks at home dont suffer....

France, Belgium, Russia suffered intensely, not ONLY by loosing soldiers, but by their COUNTRY suffering.

US Brigadier General Robert A. Doughty quotes Andre Tardieu in 1922.....

"The war bled us terribly. Out of our population of less than 38 000 000 there were mobilised 8 500 000. 5 300 000 of them were killed or wounded (1 500 000 killed, 800 000 Mutilated, 3 000 000 wounded), not counting 500 000 men who have come back from german prisons in very bad physical conditions.

Almost 4 000 000 hectares of land were devastated, together with 4 000 towns and villages, 600 000 buildings were destroyed, among them 20 000 factories and workshops. 5 000 km of railroads and 53 000 KM of roads. About 1 400 000 head of cattle were carried off. Altogether a quarter of our productive capital was annihilated.

The financial consequences of the annihilation of all these resources bear down on us heavily today. The war cost us 150 Billion Francs. The damage to property and persons comes to 200 Billion. Our ordinary budget has increased from 4.5 Billion to 25 Billion. Our debt from 35 Billion to 330 Billion.

To measure what we have undergone, suppose that the war had taken place in America, and that you had suffered proportionately. You would have had 4 000 000 of your men killed and 10 000 000 wounded.. All your industries from Washington to Pittsburgh would have ceased to exist. All your coal mines would have been ruined. That is what the war would have meant to you. That is what it has meant to us"

THIS is what makes nations weary of war... not sending their soldiers of to die in another country.

Bob Lemke posted on the great war forum some time ago about how the Germans suffered in 1918 during the opening phases of the occupation... Black French colonial troops digging crap holes on the lawns of a fine hotel in Baden-Baden!!!!!! For Chrst sake! That represents the homeland suffering??????

When I speak to Germans none of them says "we dont like war because it is bad and the allies rebuilt us after the war."... when I speak to the wifes Grandmothers generation... what taught them to not want another war was the Allies bringing it home to them... Bombers, Troops fighting through to the Elbe... cities in ashes...

Its things like that that taught the French and Belgians to be weary of war in 1918... and the Germans in 1945.....

[Naxos]

Germany were plain and simply bad losers after WW1... there is nothing they would have been happy with.

Perhaps accepting the more conciliatory view of the United States towards German reparations and listening to Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference would have resulted in a more realistic Peace treaty. It might have given the country a chance to stabilize and prevented the rise of the Nazis.

Quote: ... Of the many provisions in the (Versailles) treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to $400 Billion US Dollars as of 2010, a sum that many economists at the time deemed to be excessive ... it would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay

Edited October 2, 2010 by Naxos

[Chris Boonzaier]

Perhaps accepting the more conciliatory view of the United States towards German reparations and listening to Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference would have resulted in a more realistic Peace treaty. It might have given the country a chance to stabalize and prevented the rise of the Nazis.

Quote: ... Of the many provisions in the (Versailles)treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231–248 (later known as the War Guilt clauses), to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to $400 Billion US Dollars as of 2010, a sum that many economists at the time deemed to be excessive.[2] This was a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive because it would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay

It pays to carefully read Wilsons 14 points.... If Wilsons Points HAD been adopted, things would still have been very much the same....

All the gripes the nationalists had would still have been there... from the Danzig corridor to the French getting back Alsace - Lorraine....

Wilsons points are often held up as the solution... but all the grievances from loss of land to reduction of the army are still in their....

As to the reparations..... Germany suffered NOT AT ALL in the war, other than her war dead. Read my post above.... parts of Belgium and France were obliterated.... is it realistic to expect them to pay for the damage themselves?

Belgium had guaranteed neutrality for Buddahs sake... the attack on Belgium in 1914 makes Pearl Harbor look honorable.... !

There is noone who can blame ANYONE other than Germany for the "rape of Belgium". Think about it for a second... devastation of a neutral country... should it have stayed unpunished after the war?

France and Belgium in crippling debt because the war was fought on their territory... and you want Germany not to land in debt by having to pay her share?

Not fair amigo!!!!!!

[IrishGunner]

And Rascism is just a by product of the national socialist beast... Lets imagine Hitler was not a racist, lets imagine he was a Jewish German... but that all his OTHER ideals and goals remained the same, Take back parts of France, the Danzig corridor, get land in the east, etc. etc. etc...

You would have had WW2 minus the holocaust, and it would have been bad enough...

Germany were plain and simply bad losers after WW1... there is nothing they would have been happy with.

Fascist dictators are NOT a by-product of being beaten by the allies... Italy got one in 1922... Russia became totalitarian in 1918... it was par for the course for angry disenchanted populations... is there any reason to think that Germany would be less susceptible than Italy or Russia or Spain ? What can we blame THEIR totalitarian regimes on? With Russia, Italy or Spain we blame it on the population... but in germany on the allies?

I declare this as victory for my persuasive skills since you finally made an intelligent counter-point instead of just saying "boobies".

[IrishGunner]

The war bled us terribly.

And you can't blame all that on the Germans - Paschendalle and other battles that wasted so many lives uselessly was just as much the fault of incompetent allied commanders. How one prosecutes a war is just as influential on the outcome as how it got started.

The point that we are all trying to make in counter to what I understand as your point (it's all Germany's fault) is that there are multiple factors and plenty of blame on both sides for the war and its effects. By blaming the Serbs and Russians for their part in starting the war - as well as Bismarck's alliances - or the Americans for coming in too late or demanding on "democracy and self-determination" as part of the peace - as well as how the allies "enforced" the peace had just as much to do with the outcome as Germany's nationalism, the Kaiser's megalomania, Britain's imperialism and appeasement etc etc etc. There is plenty of blame on all sides both for the start of WWI, the so-called peace and for the inter-war period fiascos that all led to WWII. History is clear; without WWI and its effects, there would be no WWII. Had WWI been fought, won, and the peace enforced differently - there would not have been the second. The way things went with WWI - by all parties allied and entente - guaranteed WWII. Not just Germany's actions alone.

[Naxos]

... and you want Germany not to land in debt by having to pay her share?

Not fair amigo!!!!!!

Come-on Chris, neither did I say nor imply the above

[Chris Boonzaier]

Come-on Chris, neither did I say nor imply the above

You MUST.. otherwise my argument fails!

Just kidding, I just want to argue the point that the "If Wilsons 14 points..." and "if Germany had not been faced with crippling debt" are for me fehl am Platz.

Wilsons 14 points had all the gripes the nationalists were against, and huge debt was not unique to Germany...

Anyone know when Britain paid off her last war debt? was not too long ago.....

[Chris Boonzaier]

I declare this as victory for my persuasive skills since you finally made an intelligent counter-point instead of just saying "boobies".

I prefer saying "boobies"... its my feel good mantra.... :-)

[Chris Boonzaier]

History is clear; without WWI and its effects, there would be no WWII.

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

[Chris Boonzaier]

[Had WWI been fought, won, and the peace enforced differently - there would not have been the second. The way things went with WWI - by all parties allied and entente - guaranteed WWII. Not just Germany's actions alone.

I want to leave the origins of WW1 to the appropriate thread, otherwise we will bog down... but let me float the folling thought...

An army cannot wage war without the population behind them...

A Population like Germany, pride and ego bruised because they loose the war, but not having suffered (in the respect that their houses, possesions, factories and jobs are destroyed) would be willing to go to war again to restore pride.

A population like Germany in 1945 had suffered. Cities destroyed, houses bombed, etc. etc.... and 50 years later they are still shocked and hate the thought of war.

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...

[Naxos]

Wilsons 14 points had all the gripes the nationalists were against ...

Yes, but disagreeing is normal and accepted in politics - it does not mean One will start another world war over it.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Naxos

[Naxos]

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

:lol:

[IrishGunner]

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.

As for violating Belgium's neutrality as part of the Schlieffen Plan to knock France out of the war quickly - yep, that was wrong. However, let's remember why the Germans wanted to knock France out of the war quickly - the bigger enemy was Russia, who as argued in previous posts mobilized in support of Serbia's actions, which precipitated Austria's actions, backed by Germany's assurances. If Russia had not mobilized, Germany would not have had to make the move in the west against France. We can stay within this "do loop" forever in the discussion - what a "do loop" shows us is that the actions of each had an effect on the origins, the prosecution, and the peace.

No nation is innocent in this "do loop" - but take one nation out of the loop and the loop is broken - without any judgment on which node in the loop is the main or only reason for the ultimate effect. The allies had the chance to break the "do loop" after in 1918; however, their actions perpetuated the disastrous "do loop". Did they have right to exact payment - maybe they did, but they would have served their own purposes and interests better by NOT "punishing" Germany in the way that they did.

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." If a lasting peace to the "War to End all Wars" was truly their goal - Wilson included - then they should not have tried to "destroy" Germany. They wanted revenge pure and simply. They had no interest in bringing Germany back into the community of responsible nations. They wanted a pound of flesh - and maybe they were justified in that desire. But it was the wrong thing to desire - because it guaranteed the rise of revanchism in Germany and a renewal of war. Could Germany have simply rolled over and died - be a "good loser" as you say? They weren't given the chance to be a "good loser". How can you expect them to be a "good loser" in a "bad peace." Maybe if the allies had given them a "good peace" - or as others have said a "realistic peace" - the German people could have been "better losers." After all, as you argued well, the German people had no desire to keep the Kaiser. Given the chance without crippling reparations - note I said "crippling" not the total elimination of reparations - even the question of "fair" isn't relevant. The allies weren't "fair" to their own nations - fair would have been securing the future of nations that had been "bled dry" from WWI. Instead their leadership guaranteed that even before the anemic continent had recovered, they would have to bleed again. The point is that it was more in the allies lasting interests to be more "forgiving" at Versailles. Not because it was "fair" for Germany, but because it was the right thing to do for their own war weary populations. By being "rapacious" in their own right, the allies never gave Germany a chance to be a "good loser." And the allies suffered for their own actions.

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.