[QatzelOk]

needed to occupy large swaths of Europe and Russian to keep his bloated military and police state afloat.

Yes, but Germany needed a bloated military and police state to prevent from being bled dry by French and British banking interests.

That wasn't any German leader's fault.

[Smilin' Dave]

Yes, but Germany needed a bloated military and police state to prevent from being bled dry by French and British banking interests.

That wasn't any German leader's fault.

For someone who rambles about the poor little common man in the world wars, you seem to be doing legitimate resistance movements, built by common people, a massive diservice. I hardly think Soviet partisans for example could be labelled tools of banking interests. Your portrayal of the German economy as victim of foreign powers as always neglects important details, like how Hitler's pre-war build up came close to crashing the economy (suggesting a self imposed crisis), or how the Nazis seized the gold reserves of other countries during invasion (which stinks of robber capitalism without the capitalism).

[William_H_Dougherty]

Your portrayal of the German economy as victim of foreign powers as always neglects important details, like how Hitler's pre-war build up came close to crashing the economy (suggesting a self imposed crisis), or how the Nazis seized the gold reserves of other countries during invasion (which stinks of robber capitalism without the capitalism).

It was a self-imposed crisis. Had Hitler continued to pursue the slow recovery Germany was already on in the early '30s, it is extremely doubtful he would have gotten away with what he did in regards to the constitution. Most Germans were were never comfortable with the police state, they were however very, very greatful for the impressive economic growth Hitler's policies brought about and were willing to overlook the deterioration of their rights to a certain extent.

The only problem is, the spending which drove this wasn't sustainable. As you say, the plunder of most of Europe was essential to maintaining the level of German public expenditures. Had the economy collapsed under Hitler, I think it is fairly obvious the General Staff would have pounced on the Nazis the second there was a significant anti-Nazi opinion in the public.

- WHD

[QatzelOk]

The only problem is, the spending which drove this wasn't sustainable.

Then either the system would have crashed, or the taking of new colonies would have flooded the German treasury with fresh loot.

Sometimes, your nation needs to be pro-active when it comes to colonizing countries who have lots of natural resources but little industry (they are usually the same countries).

Especially if these resource-rich countries have attacked one of your most famous landmarks.

This seems like it was patterned after British/American style imperialism.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Then either the system would have crashed, or the taking of new colonies would have flooded the German treasury with fresh loot.

That is a rather animalistic view of international relations.

I suppose we have to add a caveat here, while the Third Reich might have required colonies to sustain itself, the programmes of extermination they engaged in were neither necessary, and actually undermined, Germany's ability to hold these territories, conduct the war, and therefore, Germany's long-term strategic interests.

This part of the war, the Concentration Camps, the Einsatzgruppen, the Death Camps, these can SQUARELY be laid at Hitler's feet.

- WHD

[Smilin' Dave]

Then either the system would have crashed, or the taking of new colonies would have flooded the German treasury with fresh loot.

Victim Germany needed to invade its neighbours to protect itself from the existential threat of bankers ? Modern states, even pariah states, can manage their economy just fine without having to invade and subjegate their neighbours. You also appear to be confusing chicken and egg here, since it was Hitler's armaments program, commenced 'to obtain colonies', which was doing all the harm to the economy.

The invasion for profit thing also doesn't hold much water. The long term costs of occupation (monetary, strategic etc.) far outweight the benefits. In practice this is exactly what happened to Nazi Germany. For all the gold the Nazis might have been seizing, they were wasting a lot of oil during those invasions, which they were largely purchasing from other countries. And no it wasn't from shady banker cabals, it largely came from Romania and prior to 1941, the Soviet Union.

[QatzelOk]

Modern states, even pariah states, can manage their economy just fine without having to invade and subjegate their neighbours.

Can you name one?

England, France, Spain? They all got rich on colonies.

It seems logical that Germany would have to colonize eastward to accomplish the same level of development playing at the same imperial game.

Germans just weren't allowed to join the club, and a few years afterwards, a new Euro colony got forged into fresh colonial sirloin.

Our propaganda is pretty rich in irony.

[Smilin' Dave]

Can you name one?

I can name two off the top of my head: the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

But I can do better than that:

England, France, Spain?

England's take-off as an economic powerhouse had a lot more to do with its wool trade with continental Europe than colonies. Flanders isn't a colony is it? Relatively speaking the English were late starters to colonialism, and it would seem both France and Spain 'lost' that game in the end despite its supposed advantage. Spain's economy was a joke at the beginning of the 20th Century, and there is much to endorse the idea that Franco built the modern Spainish economy, and he didn't do it through colonial conquest.

So two of your three examples are incorrect. If I were more familiar with French economics through history, I'm sure I could shoot more holes in that one.

It seems logical that Germany would have to colonize eastward to accomplish the same level of development playing at the same imperial game.

Logic is difficult when you get basic facts wrong. Germany had become a great European power by the early 20th Century despite having few colonies, and those weren't great earners either. Germany's fall is directly related to WWI, where Germany over-extended itself. Despite losing its power, Germany was hardly undeveloped in the aftermath. The idea that Germany could become more developed by committing the same mistakes as WWI on a grander scale is decidedly faulty logic.

Germans just weren't allowed to join the club

Can you point to another European power in the 20th Century that had a 'colony' in another European country? It seems to me that Germany didn't fail to join the club in 1939, but instead started one of its own that was decidedly undesirable even by the mores of the time. The neo-colonialists which joined this club all happened to be fascists ruling through naked violence, or variations there of, which you seem to neglect in your attempt to recast them as victims.

Your narrative also fails to establish why Germany opted for this grab for great power status. It's not like say, Romania, was making a grab for European dominance at the same time. Surely you aren't suggesting that German policy was the reason for setting foot on this path of misfortune (a special path perhaps )?

[QatzelOk]

Flanders isn't a colony is it?

Of England? No, it isn't. I guess owning half the world wasn't nearly as important as Flemish wool to England's wealth.

Franco built the modern Spainish economy

Here I was thinking Spain became a superpower in the pre-modern period because of all that gold they got in their colonies. But you're right: this doesn't matter at all. What matters is that the Spanish economy is sinking like a stone now.

So two of your three examples are incorrect.

Honestly, your examples were so weak, that you're premature "Pwned!" is sort of embarrassing.

[Smilin' Dave]

No, it isn't. I guess owning half the world wasn't nearly as important as Flemish wool to England's wealth.

Your chronology appears faulty here Qatz. England didn't have 'half the world' when it started cashing in of the wool trade with Flanders. It's development of a navy (merchant and military) starts with this point. The wealth needed to outfit a colonial venture came from trade like this. It seems pretty poor logic to say that the colonising powers were weak before they had colonies, given the costs involved. Scotland basically bankrupted itself with its colonial efforts, suggesting that colonies do not always bring power.

Here I was thinking Spain became a superpower in the pre-modern period because of all that gold they got in their colonies.

Spain was already a great power in Europe when it embarked on its colonial adventures. For example they had won many victories against the Italian states. Once again, you have it backwards. Portugal didn't become an unstoppable juggernaught despite its colonial possessions.

Honestly, your examples were so weak, that you're premature "Pwned!" is sort of embarrassing.

I have demonstrated you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. You would be embarrased by this if you felt any shame in your willful ignorance and fabrication. Since we now appear to be stuck discussing your disproven evidence instead of the topic of the thread, I suggest we leave it at that.

[QatzelOk]

Your chronology appears faulty here Qatz.

No. Your use of some kind of "chronology" is inappropriate.

My argument is that Germany - in the 20th Century - just wanted to be like any other Euro superpower.

Then, you went on to describe how England wasn't really a superpower because of its colonies, but only because of Flemish wool. Of course, you meant that England was a semi-superpower before it had colonies. Who cares? Germany was inspired by Modern England and Modern France, as well as colonial Spain (and the Jewish messiah and chosen people texts).

Not only Hitler was inspired by these, virtually all Europeans were - particularly those in the Modern, developed, industrial parts.

I don't know why you're trying to refute this by playing a shell game with historical eras. Perhaps because you agree with it and can't find a real argument to oppose what I'm saying?

Germany went to war because of corrupt and desperate business practices by a handful of elite business institutions. These big-fatcats fucked up, and then sacrificed millions of victims to cover their deeds and to recoup their entitlements.

The very same thing is happening to the USA right now (and it is causing worldwide problems) and the USA will find itself in a major war soon... to cover the incompetence and corruption of the handful. And of course, the commercial media will blame Hugo Chavez or anyone else. to take the heat of its owners and advertisers.

The question in the OP is an infantile one, as is the current "war on terror" narrative.

[William_H_Dougherty]

My argument is that Germany - in the 20th Century - just wanted to be like any other Euro superpower.

I think, when comparing 1914 Germany to 1914 France or 1914 England, it is admittedly a bit rich to conclude that Germany was somehow the evil "world dominating war monger".

However, it is unfortunate that the Kaiser didn't take heed of Bismark's repeatedly stated stance that colonies were not worth the blood of German Grenadiers. So yes, "colony-envy" definately played a role in the First World War.

Germany went to war because of corrupt and desperate business practices by a handful of elite business institutions. These big-fatcats fucked up, and then sacrificed millions of victims to cover their deeds and to recoup their entitlements.

Germany went to war because A) their Chancellor was a psychopath who thought Slavs were subhuman, B) the stimulus policies of the 1930s could only be sustained on a short-term basis, and C) as eavily industrialized as Germany was, it lacked the base resources required to sustain this level of industrialization without becoming overly reliant on foreign powers.

A + B + C = Declaration of War against Poland and the Soviet Union.

I suppose there is a D) The Nazi hierarchy knew there was an imminent economic and resource crisis and was painfully aware that the military would most likely dispose of them the second the population became disenfranchized with the regime.

- WHD

[QatzelOk]

their Chancellor was a psychopath

Yes, he was a cartoon character and evil.

This is exactly what I am saying is not credible as an "excuse" for why 100 million working class men had to die in Europe in the 20th Century. "Crazy leaders" and "dumbness" aren't really credible.

These are just the excuses that the business elite use to cover their own morbid incompetence and callous disregard for nature in all its manifestations.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Yes, he was a cartoon character and evil.

No, he was a psychopath. There are many of them, about 1% of the human population. Calling someone such doesn't make him/her a cartoon character.

This is exactly what I am saying is not credible as an "excuse" for why 100 million working class men had to die in Europe in the 20th Century. "Crazy leaders" and "dumbness" aren't really credible.

By itself it is not, and if you've read my posts I indicate that I believe after WW1 there would have been SOME major European conflict regardless of Hitler or the Nazi Party. However, the scale and character of that war, such as the widespread massacre of civilians as a war goal in and of itself, definately had something to do with the Nazi leadership.

These are just the excuses that the business elite use to cover their own morbid incompetence and callous disregard for nature in all its manifestations.

This is the typically vague and unfalsifiable statement of a nazi-sympathizer. Somehow, people like you really do believe that Germany was a victim in WW2. The sufferring of occupied Europe and Russia means nothing to you.

- WHD

[QatzelOk]

There are two main theories about the causes of major world wars.


1. The rich start to lose control of their sheep, so they terrorize them and kill all their young leaders to regain their submission.

2. A crazy man who is evil brainwashes millions of people into being zombies with his moustache.


I'm far more inclined to support theory # 1.

[Smilin' Dave]

There are two main theories about the causes of major world wars.

I would say there is more than two, wouldn't you Qatz? Further your two theories are not mutually exclusive if you scrub out the cartoonish elements.

My argument is that Germany - in the 20th Century - just wanted to be like any other Euro superpower.

Exactly, and I demonstrated that not a single colonial power you could cite was not already a European power prior to obtaining colonies. The point, which you are conveniently ignoring, is that these countries were successful in large part because of domestic economics and reform. Nazi Germany on the other hand was a disaster waiting to happen in domestic economics, which if we accept your argument was paradoxically caused by it's war-like preparations. If we ignore your argument, then there is no paradox: Hitler didn't care about the economic aspect at all, he was acting on other motives, hence the thought process that allowed such a lop-sided development is entirely understandable.

Not only Hitler was inspired by these, virtually all Europeans were - particularly those in the Modern, developed, industrial parts.

Hitler drew far more inspiration, and clearly had more respect for, fascist Italy of the 1920s which was not a European power, and pursued colonies that had no economic or strategic value. Does Mein Kampf outline a scheme for a colonial European power as you suggest? It does not. Instead it outlines a racial dream (or nightmare from any other perspective) of conquering others depicted as a threat, with the 'colonies' not for economic advantage, but as 'living space'. Which in turn fits in nicely with the agrarian/communal concepts that rattled around the Nazi party. These 'colonies' were also not depicted as part of a competition with any other nation, in fact one powerful nation, the United States, is conspicuously absent from the text.

I don't know why you're trying to refute this by playing a shell game with historical eras.

You either fail to comprehend what I have explained to you, or you choose to ignore it in favour of a strawman.

Perhaps because you agree with it and can't find a real argument to oppose what I'm saying?

Although strawmen are usually not depicted as secretly being in agreement with the opposition. Has your conspiratorial thinking spun out to the point where you and I are unwittingly acting in concert on some scheme?

Germany went to war because of corrupt and desperate business practices by a handful of elite business institutions. These big-fatcats fucked up, and then sacrificed millions of victims to cover their deeds and to recoup their entitlements.

This seems problematic, since Nazi Germany's economic policy was not driven by industrialists. Instead the earliest actor was Hjalmar Schact, a (former?) head of the state bank, in contrast to your past claims about international bankers versus nation-states. The 'hand outs' the industrialists got were in the form of contracts which the government could never have hoped to make good on, which hardly seems to be in their interest.

The question in the OP is an infantile one

This has apparently not deterred you from attempting to answer it. However if you are tired of this, I think you already know where the exits are.

"Crazy leaders" and "dumbness" aren't really credible.

These are just the excuses that the business elite use to cover their own morbid incompetence and callous disregard for nature in all its manifestations.

Why arn't they credible? History has many examples of incompetant and even mentally ill leaders. You, as always, have not made any effort to prove your assertion. Instead you blame a cabal of businessmen... who paradoxically can be incompetant?

[William_H_Dougherty]

1. The rich start to lose control of their sheep, so they terrorize them and kill all their young leaders.

2. A crazy man who is evil brainwashes millions of people into being zombies with his moustache.

Thats interesting, despite probably 100,000 pages worth of history I've read on the Second World War, I've never come across either of those theories.

Both of them are silly.

- WHD

[QatzelOk]

History has many examples of incompetant and even mentally ill leaders.

Yes, but History is never clear on just how much "leadership" these mentally ill pawns were really capable of.

If you believe Edward Bernays, the "leaders" we see on TV have about as much authority as Mel Gibson or Oprah Winfrey.

Perhaps less.

So that we had "crazy" leader or "incompetent" leaders during hard times, is probably because that's what the business community wanted to work with.

[Smilin' Dave]

I see I'm getting the conspiracy theory response again.

I think you would struggle to find a medium as pervasive and all encompassing as T.V is today in the 1920s and 1930s. Radio and newspapers just cannot compare as a media experience, and in terms of their distribution I suspect it was less universal. In Germany itself mass radio ownership was something the state sponsored, rather than the 'business community'. Further, given many accounts of incompetant or mentally ill leaders pre-date the mass media age by a large margin (Ivan the Terrible for example), your conspiracy theory doesn't really serve as an adequete explanation.

Can you provide a clear and coherent account of the role of 'big business' in Germany's path to war? You seem to have moved away from the claim that it was the work of external forces, but still insist business leaders were responsible.

[pugsville]

Prior to the First World War, Germany was doing quite nicely economically, and was already a major power industrial nation. Colonies were often regarded as being a major advantage in terms or economic power, but mostly they were a huge drain on resources for little in return. One of the major factors in the first world war was the fragility ineffective German government without defined powers or relations between the major actors. The Kaiser was a weak, vain, impulsive man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Germany really didnt get very high quality people in political positions, while in Industry and the Military and Science they were able to oragnize and compete and surpass much of the world, politics attracted a small group of ineffective men. There power structures were disogranizsed and made responisble government hard, couple with a bad draw in the lottery of Kaiser spelt trouble. Germany economically and Industrially was making huge strides, given effective government, it would have done quite nicely.

As for the crazed conspiracy of Bankers and the Rich, who and how did they influence events? German Capital was intensely nationalist and it had little to do with international markets. Most people belived that a war would be devastating economically, (that was why everyone thought a war could not last more than a few months as the sheer expense would cripple everyone) There was a huge manipulation in regards the Arms industry and the build up, where much money was made, but most major powers did so on very nationalist basis, major powers had domestic firms produce armaments it was a clear matter of policy, Russia paid 2-5 times to build ships in Russia rather than England. Once the war was one capitalist forces were very prompt and took full advantage of the situation in most countries and profited quite nicely.

The Biggest case for Bankers influencing policy was the French-Russian alliance they had little in common, and generally didnt like each other, but both were neighbours of the German Army (and both bordered a lot of the british empire) but once france had loaned big amounts to Russia, there was a urge to help Russia and protect the investment.

The Second World war leadup, after the collaspe of 29, international trade was pretty slight in the 30s. Most world trade was either internal or in kind.