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

[Doc Wilson]

We have hit the very subject that fascinates me the most .... What broke ...what played a part in the rise of such a group.

I have been reading many of the German authors of the period. Specifically those with front line experience. Thomas Nevin's Ernst Junger and Germany Descent into the Abyss 1914-1945... give a point of view that I am still trying synthesize.

My initial take -

The wounded french pride and treaty of Versailles , The League of Nations Plebiscites in Silesia, Prussia and else were... the French and Bolshevik confrontations in the Ruhr valley.

The germans wanted order/security, they wanted their national pride returned, also I think they were newborn babes when it came to really using the liberal democracy that we take for granted. The Reichswehr's political knavery.

By all accounts national socialism would have died in if its infancy if not for all these factors.

[IrishGunner]

The germans wanted order/security, they wanted their national pride returned, also I think they were newborn babes when it came to really using the liberal democracy that we take for granted. The Reichswehr's political knavery.

By all accounts national socialism would have died in if its infancy if not for all these factors.

Exactly, Doc. And the efforts of the allies, the French especially, exacerbated all those points. Coincidentally, there's an article in this month's issue of "Army History" about the US Army's occupation of Germany - specifically Koblenz - that alludes to these exact points. Since it's an official publication of the US Army Center of Military History, this journal tends to avoid being "controversial" - almost to the point of being "ahistorical" in my opinion, but I digress.

The article states in its first paragraph: "The cities slated for Allied occupation on that river (the Rhein) appeared susceptible, prior to the victors' arrival, to the armed, angry stragglers and deserters from the German Army and Navy, as well as a variety of Bolsheviks, Spartacists, and other highly publicized labor organizers who were provoking violence elsewhere in Germany. Indeed, the lack of clear political authority caused by the abdication of the Kaiser and the collapse of the German Army at the end of World War I would lead to outbreaks of revolutionary violence in urban areas across Germany."

While the US occupation maintained order in the narrow areas it occupied; the French exacted "revenge" in their areas. There was no effort to establish a lasting political structure of law and order as there was after WWII. We failed in 1918-23 because we didn't have a wide ranging plan to re-establish Germany as a responsible member of the international community; we either kept the lid on until we could extract (the US) or punished (the French) - with catastrophic results.

Edited October 12, 2010 by IrishGunner

[IrishGunner]

Even more coincidentally, the article on occupation of Germany after WWI in "Army History" journal is followed by one titled: "Neutralizing the Hard Centre of German Militarism: US Military Government and the Wehrmacht's Elite Officers, 1945-1948".

In this article it states: "In March 1946, a new denazification law took effect in the US Zone of Occupation. Promulgated by German leaders but substantially influenced by American military government officials, the new law significantly changed the approach to denazification in the zone. Where previously American authorities had interned German civilians or removed them from influential positions largely on the basis of their membership in various Nazi Party organizations, the new law gave the Germans themselves primary responsibility for denazification... The new law placed less emphasis on excluding Nazis from German political and social life and more on evaluating, punishing, and rehabilitating individuals."

The article continues: "In the meantime, American and German reeducation initiatives had worked on the minds of the German people, and a dialogue on German history, the war, and the Wehrmacht had unfolded free of the voices of the many officers most passionately condemned by the Allies, and, it might be added, by their fellow citizens. Political leadership patterns were also established while they were unable to negatively influence German political life to the extent they had in the past.

Finally, American decisions ensured that when these officers (former high-ranking Wehrmacht generals and staff officers) did return home, they were reintegrated into German society and faced few lasting sanctions. In the end, the absence of tight controls may have well avoided creating a pool of aggrieved outsiders and so best served American interests. German veterans already felt defamed and abused, and the extent of pension activism suggests the stronger measures might have incited even more dangerous resentment and agitation."

Two very different approaches between post-WWI treatment of Germany (punish only) and post-WWII treatment of Germany (punish and rehabilitation). You tell me which one was more successful.

Edited October 12, 2010 by IrishGunner

[Chris Boonzaier]

Two very different approaches between post-WWI treatment of Germany (punish only) and post-WWII treatment of Germany (punish and rehabilitation). You tell me which one was more successful.

But its all a moot point... the post WW2 approach would simply not have worked in 1918. In 1918 a good portion of the population was crying out for communist rule, and another portion for ultra nationalist... by 1945 these leading strains in society kept their mouths shut.

The world had changed, same way the French army of 1939 was not the French army of 1914.

All I hear is "there should have been a better peace in 1918" but so far no realistic example of what it could have been.

[IrishGunner]

But its all a moot point... the post WW2 approach would simply not have worked in 1918. In 1918 a good portion of the population was crying out for communist rule, and another portion for ultra nationalist... by 1945 these leading strains in society kept their mouths shut.

The world had changed, same way the French army of 1939 was not the French army of 1914.

All I hear is "there should have been a better peace in 1918" but so far no realistic example of what it could have been.

Chris, come on now; do you really think the solution in 1918 was a good one? You really think that was the best possible and the right course of action? You can't see any alternatives yourself?

And your argument that the 1945 solution wouldn't have worked in 1918 isn't backed up by any substantial facts. Can you cite one good reason why it wouldn't have worked (other than to say the "world changed"). It's too easy to simply say that the "world changed" - sure, it changes every day. That's too simplistic. I've read a lot of histories and you are alone in your argument as far as I can tell. No one believes Versailles was the best solution and almost everyone agrees that its negative aspects contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the resulting second war.

You haven't given any substantial arguments to disprove that the 1945 solution wouldn't have worked in 1918. Now, I will agree that it wasn't possible to implement in 1918 because the British and French wouldn't have accepted that solution. But I have yet to see you argue that conditions in Germany wouldn't have allowed for such a solution - and that it wouldn't have been successful - if the allies had taken such an approach.

For example; if the allied occupation had focused on installing and supporting a reliable German government (banning radical parties, dealing with the real economic issues, etc) instead of simply exacting revenge - tell me what conditions in 1918 prevented that from being successful and demonstrate how those same conditions weren't present in 1945.

All I hear you say is the allies had a right to do what they did and there wasn't any other solution. This is no longer a debate on whether or not the allies had a "right" to exact revenge - that's a moot argument. The debate is on was the 1918 solution a good one - and if so, why did the Nazis still come to power and embark on a revanche inspired second war. Can you explain that?

[Chris Boonzaier]

No one believes Versailles was the best solution and almost everyone agrees that its negative aspects contributed to the rise of the Nazis and the resulting second war.

I never, ever said it was the best solution... but I have yet to here a realistic alternative offered.

And I never said it never CONTRIBUTED to the Nazis... but I do not believed it is responsible for them.

It is just too simple to say " we needed a different peace" without saying what that peace would have been like. Would you have given the poles access to the sea? Parts of France to Germany?

CONTRIBUTED... just like the divorced parents of the manson girls CONTRIBUTED to them becoming unstable... but the divorces are not responsible for them becoming killers....

I mean..c'mon... what a cop out... The Germans should be able to say "Well, we are not responsible for Hitler.... The allies were..." ? Well... who supported him? Who marched for him? Who killed WW2 allied soldiers for him? Who murdered millions of civilians for him?... we gonna blame all that on the allies as well?

1) Lets hear you realistic alternative peace paln for WW1

2) To what % do you blame the allies for the Nazis?

And think of this.... there was not only 1 nationalist party after the war. The Germans had a huuuuge choice of parties who did not like the peace treaty... but they supported the Nazis and their racist / Anti Semitic policies... was there anything in the peace treaty that encouraged auschwitz?

Best

Chris

[IrishGunner]

1) Lets hear you realistic alternative peace paln for WW1

I gave to you dozens of time a realistic alternative; a plan that used the same principles that were used in 1945. Now let's hear you give me realistic reasons why it wouldn't have worked other than the simplistic retort that the "world changed."

2) To what % do you blame the allies for the Nazis?

I never absolved the Germans of their blame nor responsibility. I have only repeatedly said the allies must take their share of the blame and responsibility for the failure of a peace that led to a second war. So, if you want another overly simplistic answer - then let's go with 50/50. The allies failed to come up with a good peace and the Germans reacted badly to a bad peace. Now let's hear your percentage.

[Chris Boonzaier]

And your argument that the 1945 solution wouldn't have worked in 1918 isn't backed up by any substantial facts. Can you cite one good reason why it wouldn't have worked (other than to say the "world changed").

Plenty of reasons....

Germany in 1945 KNEW she had been beaten. that makes a huuge difference.

Germany in 1918 thought she had been betrayed.

A German Colonel once told me that the failure of Stauffenbergs plot was the best thing that could have happened. If he had succeeded and the war had ended differently, there would have been a Dolchstosslegende in 1944 or 1945 as well.... as it is Germany was beaten through and through... the nationalist and patriotic sentiments and lies of 1918 had no ground to grow on.

and...

Do you disagree that in 1918 communism and Ultra nationalism were flavours of the day and noone really had a taste for them in 1945 anymore? After Stalin, Hitler and co.... do you really not think the germans NOW knew better?

[Chris Boonzaier]

So, if you want another overly simplistic answer - then let's go with 50/50. The allies failed to come up with a good peace and the Germans reacted badly to a bad peace. Now let's hear your percentage.

20/80

You dont REALLY believe a WW2 peace could have worked do you?

Think of it... for it to work you would have had to occupy all of Germany as was done after WW2. Germany was a powder keg with left and right wing Freikorps jumping to kill each other.... would you let them have done their thing... or played sherrif? Continued the war until you had silenced the radicals? Just another small difference between 1918 Germany and 1945 Germany...

[Chris Boonzaier]

And another point that 1918 was different to 1945.... Alsace Lorraine, Polish corridor, Free Hungry, etc. etc.... did not have to be done after WW2... would you have left it out in 1918 as well?

[Chris Boonzaier]

Indeed, the lack of clear political authority caused by the abdication of the Kaiser and the collapse of the German Army at the end of World War I would lead to outbreaks of revolutionary violence in urban areas across Germany."

So... who does the author suggest took over? Call the king back? wave the wand and create a democratic hero?

There was no charismatic democratic, rational, wise and good leader to step up and fill the void. Dont think that can be blamed on the allies.

best

Chris

[IrishGunner]

was there anything in the peace treaty that encouraged auschwitz?

Show me where I said the Versailles Treaty specifically encouraged Auschwitz. But clearly the bad peace created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power - leaving the Germans to their own devices as it were. And there is ample evidence that the conditions after Versailles shaped Hitler's thinking. So, sorry Chris, but still a 50/50 split up to this point.

Up to this point, Germany still could have made some better choices and they didn't; but it you want to take the argument as you said previously - the world had changed in the 20 years between 1918-1938. One thing that I am sure we will agree upon once Hitler was in power- but I don't think it is directly in this debate - the role of the allies in the debacle was over (well, if we subtract the appeasement argument) - for the most part anyway. Once the German people, and especially the German military leadership and intelligentsia, realized what Hitler was about - after 1940 in my opinion - they did nothing to stop the madness. Versailles cannot be blamed for the German blind-eye to concentration camps etc. (Or even the multitude of blind-eyes by non-Germans in the occupied territories like Poland.) And the allies of 1914-1918 cannot be blamed that it took the Germans until 1944 to try a coup. But if you want to start another thread, we can debate when the Allies of WWII knew about the death camps and why they didn't react more forcefully earlier on. So, at this point, 95% of the blame goes on Germany's head for Hitler's actions after he came to power - but the Allies knew and could have done more - so they get 5% of the blame. Before Hitler came to power - the allies still get equal blame.

[Chris Boonzaier]

was there anything in the peace treaty that encouraged auschwitz?

Show me where I said the Versailles Treaty specifically encouraged Auschwitz. But clearly the bad peace created the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power - leaving the Germans to their own devices as it were. And there is ample evidence that the conditions after Versailles shaped Hitler's thinking. So, sorry Chris, but still a 50/50 split up to this point.

Up to this point, Germany still could have made some better choices and they didn't; but it you want to take the argument as you said previously - the world had changed in the 20 years between 1918-1938. One thing that I am sure we will agree upon once Hitler was in power- but I don't think it is directly in this debate - the role of the allies in the debacle was over (well, if we subtract the appeasement argument) - for the most part anyway. Once the German people, and especially the German military leadership and intelligentsia, realized what Hitler was about - after 1940 in my opinion - they did nothing to stop the madness. Versailles cannot be blamed for the German blind-eye to concentration camps etc. (Or even the multitude of blind-eyes by non-Germans in the occupied territories like Poland.) And the allies of 1914-1918 cannot be blamed that it took the Germans until 1944 to try a coup. But if you want to start another thread, we can debate when the Allies of WWII knew about the death camps and why they didn't react more forcefully earlier on. So, at this point, 95% of the blame goes on Germany's head for Hitler's actions after he came to power - but the Allies knew and could have done more - so they get 5% of the blame. Before Hitler came to power - the allies still get equal blame.

Hah!

We are slowly agreeing... more or less...!

OK... have a few posts above as to why I dont think the peace of 1945 would have fitted... shoot my points down at your leisure... I need to go take my weekly shower....

[IrishGunner]

So... who does the author suggest took over? Call the king back? wave the wand and create a democratic hero?

There was no charismatic democratic, rational, wise and good leader to step up and fill the void. Dont think that can be blamed on the allies.

best

Chris

Who should have ruled Germany wasn't the point of article; it's argument was that due to the power vacuum, occupation forces had to provide security and political structure.

And certainly, the allies had no influence on German males born in the years of the late 1870's who could develop charisma, democratic values, rational and wise leadership. Hell, I'd argue that in 1918 there were damn few men in Britain or France who demonstrated those traits; but again that's another debate.

But since you asked, I'll toss out a name; how about Gustav Stresemann - who just happened to be share the 1926 Nobel Peace Prize with France's Aristide Briand for their efforts at reconciliation? He despised the Diktakt of Versailles like all Germans, but felt the only way forward was to try to work within its provisions. Had the allies given him more support - maybe he would have had a chance - like supporting his efforts to reduce the crippling effects of reparations. He supported the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which demonstrated to many that Germany might be willing to try a peaceful approach. In return for some relief of reparations, the allies could have demanded he deal more strongly with the Beer Hall Putsch conspirators - remember those guys? One of Stresemann's key failures, but had the allies been engaged in working honestly with Stresemann in building a democratic state able to survive and "pressured" him with carrots and sticks; maybe Hitler would have rotted forever in Landsberg prison. But, no, something like that never entered the revenge hungry allies. Unfortunately, Stresemann died in 1929 - but he was Chancellor in 1923; six years is a long time to make changes. So, now tell me why Stresemann wasn't any good.

Interesting quote:

If the allies had obliged me just one single time, I would have brought the German people behind me, yes; even today, I could still get them to support me. However, they (the allies) gave me nothing and the minor concessions they made, always came too late. Thus, nothing else remains for us but brutal force. The future lies in the hands of the new generation. Moreover, they, the German youth, who we could have won for peace and reconstruction, we have lost. Herein lies my tragedy and their, the allies' crime. —Stresemann, to diplomat Sir Albert Bruce Lockhart in 1929

Edited October 12, 2010 by IrishGunner

[IrishGunner]

Hah!

We are slowly agreeing... more or less...!

OK... have a few posts above as to why I dont think the peace of 1945 would have fitted... shoot my points down at your leisure... I need to go take my weekly shower....

Hah - no, we are not agreeing at all - unless you agree that the allies insisting on the Versailles Treaty are to blame for the rise of Nazism.

And I've shot down your "few points" already - and challenged you to come up with some realistic ones other than the "world changed."

Yea, it's 1am here - I should go to bed.

[IrishGunner]

After Stalin, Hitler and co.... do you really not think the germans NOW knew better?

We aren't talking about NOW; we are talking about 1918. But if you think we should have "punished" Germany the same way in 1945 that we did in 1918, then the world would be a different place and I fear an even scarier place.

Because that's what you are saying - if the Germans are totally to blame - then we should have punished them in 1945 the same way we did in 1918. Plain and simple; their fault, their responsibility, they pay the full price and be damned of the consequences.

Yes, we punished the country in 1945, but fortunately we also rehabilitated the country. It would have been just as difficult in 1918 as it was in 1945; and I think it could have been done without an occupation of the entire country. And just maybe if the allies expended a little more effort, millions of lives would have been spared between 1939-45. It's all speculation of course - as is the whole thread. But on 11 Nov 1918 a second world war was not inevitable; the allies could have made a difference. But on 18 Jun 1919 a second war became inevitable; the allies failed. But Hitler wasn't necessarily inevitable on that date either; that became inevitable in 1923 because the failed peace treaty led to a broken system that just got worse and worse for the Germans until Hitler seized power. The allies had several chances to break the chain before 1938, but they were wedded to their failed revengeful treaty and blind hope.

Edited October 12, 2010 by IrishGunner

[dond]

The 1945 solution would not have worked in 1918 because the Germans did not consider themselves beaten. That is why the "stab in the back" myth gained so much traction. Had the Allies refused to accept an Armistice and continued pounding the German forces until they admitted defeat then a different peace could have been imposed. You have to decisively defeat someone before you can impose your terms on them and have them accepted as a good alternative.

[IrishGunner]

You have to decisively defeat someone before you can impose your terms on them and have them accepted as a good alternative.

So, there was no peace solution at all that would have been good in 1918 because the allies didn't beat Germany decisively? Okay, if that's your argument, then the rise of the Nazis is still the allies fault because they should have gone all the way to Berlin, crushed Germany and devastated its territory (just like France and Belgium) to ensure that there would have been an acceptable good alternative. They failed to complete the job, then tried to impose a treaty doomed to fail because they didn't complete the job; therefore, their failure still set the conditions that led to the rise of the Nazis. Because the allies didn't decisively defeat Germany, any peace was doomed, and therefore, the conditions were still set for the rise of the Nazis. Not a very logical line of reason is it? But that's what you are opening up with your argument.

So, still using this argument; do you believe we could have applied the same Versailles solution with success in 1945 simply because we "decisively defeated" Germany? In your line of reason, Versailles was good, we just didn't defeat Germany so it wasn't workable. So, why didn't we use Versailles principles in 1945? (Because we learned our lesson, that's why.) Left to its own devices in 1945 (just as it had been in 1918), Germany would have returned to the community of nations with a Versailles like treaty because it was beaten, right? Germany would have seen punishment as a good alternative simply because they had been defeated, right? Beat me into oblivion and I'll think any peace you impose is a good alternative? I fail to to see the logic in this line of (un)reasoning. It just doesn't hold any water even in a psychological sense let alone a historical sense. I might accept the punishment because I no longer have the means to resist, but I probably won't be satisfied.

Again, if you look at the reconciliation attempted by Stresemann and Briand, there is ample evidence to show that - although Germany was not beaten into a pulp - Germany could have accepted a reasonable peace in 1918. One only has to go back to the Concert of Europe to find another example of this peace solution.

Oh, and define "decisive" - the fact that fighting ceased and Germany was forced to accept terms it considered unreasonable was pretty "decisive" in my book. They completely disarmed - you can't impose your will on someone who isn't willing to stop fighting; but Germany did stop fighting and did disarm. You don't need to beat someone into submission to achieve "decisive" victory; you just have to get them to accept your terms. Germany accepted the Versailles terms. Pretty decisive. Decisive and scorched earth are not one in the same. Read Clausewitz.

And no matter what you think - when someone is forced to accept terms to which they don't completely agree - they are bitter. You find a lot of bitterness in 1945 as well. But we dealt with the bitterness in a more rational, magnanimous way.

You think the peoples of eastern Germany were happy with the peace imposed upon them by the Soviet Union simply because they were beaten? Germany was defeated sure enough and they had no choice to accept the terms. The Soviet Union suffered and won; they had the right to impose the peace they desired and the Germans had better damn well think its a good alternative since they lost fair and square. And they better be satisfied with it. That's your argument - you still believe it?

[IrishGunner]

It's just occurred to me that this debate has reached stalemate and we are firmly entrenched in our positions - just like the combatants of WWI. So, it seems to me that since Chris started this whole thing (as he would argue is the case of Germany starting WWI), he now has to surrender and accept my terms (just as he would argue is the case of Versailles)!

Of course, since he doesn't think he's been decisively defeated, he won't like it! :whistle:

[Naxos]

It's just occurred to me that this debate has reached stalemate and we are firmly entrenched in our positions - just like the combatants of WWI. So, it seems to me that since Chris started this whole thing (as he would argue is the case of Germany starting WWI), he now has to surrender and accept my terms (just as he would argue is the case of Versailles)!

Of course, since he doesn't think he's been decisively defeated, he won't like it!

Détente ?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Naxos

[IrishGunner]

Détente ?

Yea, I'm afraid with all this mental exertion might result in a cataclysmic explosion of our heads! :lol:

[dond]

Clausewitz, read it, and 100s of other books on military strategy and history. European history is filled with peace settlements, usually followed within 20-30 years with another contest of strength. Negotiated peace never satisfies anyone. Only when the loser acknowlegdes total defeat can a solution be implemented. Cases in point: the American Civil War and WW2. Both played out to unconditional surrender and both have brought enduring peace of a sort. On the other hand, negotiated peace where there was no clear loser has a worse track record for peace. Look at Vietnam, Gulf War 1, and all the Arab-Isreali Wars for examples of failed peaces. The problem with war is that politicians start them and then try to meddle in them when the military (the SMEs) are on the brink of decisive results. Had we pushed another 100 hours in the first Gulf War we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Of course, our state department could always bore the enemy to death......

[IrishGunner]

Only when the loser acknowlegdes total defeat can a solution be implemented.

I hesitate to trust in absolutes.

Had we pushed another 100 hours in the first Gulf War we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Of this I might agree...

[dond]

And I will concede that "total" may be a bit too strong. Perhaps "decisively" is a better choice.

Edited October 13, 2010 by dond

[IrishGunner]

As much as I might hate to admit it - Chris Boonzaier and dond could be smarter than they look.

I've found reference to the following article:

"Germany in Defeat, 1918 and 1945: Some Comparisons and Contrasts" James M. Diehl in the "History Teacher" v22, n4, Aug 1989

Analyzes how Germans viewed defeat after the two world wars, and how these perceptions influenced subsequent political developments. Compares questions of guilt and responsibility following the two wars. Examines the growth of democracy, its defeat after World War I, and success after World War II. Discusses the influences of the occupation governments.

I can't find the full text online (well for free anyway); although here's a link to the first page: http://www.jstor.org/pss/494765

Would be a good read I'm sure; anyone able to get a copy of this article?