[LAz]

Right? It just occurred to me, most supported him... am I wrong?

[Thunderhawk]

Do governments in exile count?
Do we try to establish the views of people and then estimate Europe-wide popular opinion?

[Okonkwo]

Most of Europe supported Hitler... right?

If you discount the puppet states, you have Italy, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Finland that actively supported the 3rd Reich.

If you take every nation into account, this card is pretty self-explanatory:

[LAz]

They were not all puppet countries. Many were popular governments in fact. Lets see who the allies and supporters were...


Finland
Slovakia (they were liberated from the czechs)
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Croatia (plus bosniaks)
Albania
Italy
Spain (not in war, but supportive)
Switzerland (very supportive)
Sweden (supportive too?)
Denmark (also supported, I think)
Soviet Union (supported until attacked)

[guzzipat]

Finland
Slovakia (they were liberated from the czechs)
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Croatia (plus bosniaks)
Albania
Italy
Spain (not in war, but supportive)
Switzerland (very supportive)
Sweden (supportive too?)
Denmark (also supported, I think)
Soviet Union (supported until attacked)

Albania was invaded by Italy then occupied by Germany.
Switzerland was strictly neutral and played it's usual game of profiting from both sides.
Denmark was invaded and had a strong resistance movement.
Slovakia was occupied.
Croatia was a puppet government
Calling the Soviet Union supportive is stretching it a bit. They had a pact for less than 2 years and were at war for 4.
Sweden was neutral.
Bulgaria although nominally an ally, refused to declare war on the Soviet Union and took no part in the attack.
Hungary was part of the azis but tried to negotiate with the allies for peace in 1943, they were occupied by the Germans from March 1944.

So you are left with;
Romania, who tried to stay neutral at first.
Italy
Spain, who was in no position to fight after the civil war.
and Finland, who were not that enthusiastic and never really closed their part of the ring around Leningrad.

[LAz]

Some of those puppet governments were popular... really popular.


Switzerland was by no means neutral. It shot down allied war-planes, and let german ones fly over. Switzerland helped hitler with the anti-jew campaigns, did much trade with hitler, and did other things too that helped the nazis.

Bulgaria was an ally and helped in the invasion of yugoslavia. They liked it. Albania benefited too, so albanians were happy. This is what was going on, these countries were all happy. Heck, romania even sent divisions to invade the soviet union.

Spain and Finland might not have contributed too much, but the fact remains that they were supportive of hitler, as was most of europe.


Slovaks were repressed by the czechs, always. They were very happy to have independence. You can call it puppet, but they had wide support.



The only countries that I would call puppet are like Norway or Serbia... greece, etc...
Those countries that SS divisions are supporters. Hence albania and croatia.



I am not aware that denmark or sweden resisted anything that the germans did? Denmark might have towards the end, but not at first.

[guzzipat]

What evidence do you offer for your assumptions?
I have seen nothing but questional assertions so far.

I can say for sure and prove that;
Britain, France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Luxemburg, Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union actively fought the Nazis, either by direct mitilary means or by acts of resistance.

For you statements to be true you must prove that a population above the number in these countries actively supported Hitler.

What is your point anyway? are you a Nazi appologist?

[LAz]

Yugoslavia signed a pact, and after the serbs overthrew the government that did not sign it, the result was that most of groups in yugoslavia ended up supporting the nazis (the croats were the biggest supporters!).

As was said, the soviet union supported the nazis. They helped nazi economic growth, and benefited themselves from this too. There is a book on this called "feeding the german eagle".




I am not a nazi sympathizer, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that the nazis actually had a shitload of support behind them.

[guzzipat]

Yugoslavia signed a pact, and after the serbs overthrew the government that did not sign it, the result was that most of groups in yugoslavia ended up supporting the nazis (the croats were the biggest supporters!).

As was said, the soviet union supported the nazis. They helped nazi economic growth, and benefited themselves from this too. There is a book on this called "feeding the german eagle".




I am not a nazi sympathizer, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that the nazis actually had a shitload of support behind them.

This is bollocks;
The Partisans in Jugoslavia tied down thousands of German troops and eventually freed the country. By the end of the war the Chetniks were disorganised & discredited. From about late 1942 the Chetniks were inceasingly marginalised.

You again repeat the tripe about the Soviet Union supporting the Nazis, when they were at war for most of the time. If your claim has any substance, I can say that Italy opposed Hitler because they backed the allies from 1943 as did Hungary. Notice I have added neither country to my list.

I asked you to back your claim with evidence that a greater population than the countries I listed actively supported Hitler.
All you reply with is more waffle.
As to the book you refer to, there are millions of books on WW2. Good bad and indifferent, accurate, inacurate and plain wrong.

Either you can provide evidence that a greater population actively backed the Nazis or you have no case.

[LAz]

Yugoslavia had a deal with the germans at first, and then there was a coup.

Many elements within yugoslavia supported the germans.

The partizans were overwhelmingly a serbian army - FACT.




Notice that this is the inter-war forum. Until the summer of 1941, hitler was supported by the soviet union. What don't you understand here?

http://www.amazon.com/Feeding-German-Ea ... 0275963373
There, look into that, you can preview the book. Soviets supported big time.

I do not have the resources that the greater population, of any country mentioned, backed them - nor do I have evidence that the greater population opposed them.

[albionfagan]

It should be added that many were coerced into supporting Hitler, it wasn't necessarily voluntary. Not that it matters, resistance should take precedence.

[Smilin' Dave]

Some of those puppet governments were popular... really popular.

How can you accurately gauge the popularity of a regime with no official opposition, where even tacit opposition can get you killed? Never mind the massive material support by the Nazis to their puppets giving them something of an edge in terms of distributing rents (in the political sense).

Switzerland was by no means neutral. It shot down allied war-planes, and let german ones fly over. Switzerland helped hitler with the anti-jew campaigns, did much trade with hitler, and did other things too that helped the nazis.

Switzerland was also gearing up to repel a German invasion in 1940-41. I'm sure they were being friendly during this (that's sarcasm by the way, since you missed it in my last post).

Bulgaria was an ally and helped in the invasion of yugoslavia. They liked it.

There is a difference between following your own interests that happen to coincide with someone elses, and being their supporter. Given that Bulgaria didn't assist the Nazis in their main project, invasion and occupation of the Soviet Union, I think it is preposterous to simply label them as supporters.

Spain and Finland might not have contributed too much, but the fact remains that they were supportive of hitler, as was most of europe.

Franco was given the option to directly support Hitler by attacking Gibralta, and opted not to. Not exactly supportive.

Finland didn't support the Nazis, but favoured anyone who would sell them weapons to fight the Soviets. As already noted, the Finns didn't even fully participate in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Like the Bulgarians, they were more interested in what they could get for themselves in 1941.

Slovaks...You can call it puppet, but they had wide support.

The Czechoslavian government had fairly wide support too, until the Nazis engaged in a campaign to destabilise the government. That the nominated puppets in that scheme did well out of it in the end somewhat reduces the relevance.

Those countries that SS divisions are supporters. Hence albania and croatia.

Honestly . SS divisions were often raised in countries with strong resistance movements, and the SS units were intended to put down that resistance. Further these tended to be volunteer formations, drawing on a small pool of radicals. They are not indicative of popular support.

Denmark might have towards the end, but not at first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation ... resistance
Look at the percentages for the 1943 general election. The Nazis got a smaller share of the vote than any other grouping.

And for Sweden we find a less than one sided picture, as you might project:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_dur ... the_Allies

This took maybe a minute on Wikipedia.

As was said, the soviet union supported the nazis.

The Soviets came to an agreement with the Nazis, they didn't fully support them. The Soviet army being massed on the border with Nazi Germany wasn't really all that friendly. Since you label Finland a supporter, neither was the Soviet attack there. Or the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Bucovnia.

Since you raise the interwar period, it should also be noted the Soviets originally endorsed a popular front against the Nazis, and sent resources to fight the Nazis in Spain.

I am not a nazi sympathizer

No, you're just a fascist...

[Fasces]

Spain and Finland might not have contributed too much, but the fact remains that they were supportive of hitler, as was most of europe.

Franco was most certainly not supportive of Hitler. The two men did not hide their hatred for one another, and Franco saw Hitler as nothing more than an egomaniac who was taking on far more than he could possibly hold - ultimately a correct prediction.

Finland meanwhile was more anti-Soviet than pro-Hitler, though I suppose an alliance of convenience did exist.

[Igor Antunov]

Britain and France supported Hitler as well before the outbreak of war. A pact was signed. Why is the soviet union's pact focused on and the western one ignored? Ah that's right, the cold war. Biased historic revisionism knows no bounds.

It's important to note that before the outbreak of ww2, hitler was a popular elected leader of a germany that was seen internationally to be opposed to the bolshevik threat of the east, and the western allies sought closer ties until germany decided to swallow poor little poland.

The policy of appeasement spearheaded by britain was on ideological grounds. Germany was after all just another western nation with western ideals pertaining to that time. Had britain allied with germany, and dragged france into the alliance, it would probably still have it's empire intact, and so would france.

Hitler wanted this, Britain wanted this, but the still fresh memories of ww1, and the complex web of alliances along with a still bitter France which was lukewarm to germany and her unpredictable ambitions ensured it was not possible.

It also didn't help that hitler tore up the versailles treaty, perhaps rightfully so, but it made closer ties to western europe difficult, mostly because of france, who was keen to see germany squirm for all the damage she had done to france during ww1.

[albionfagan]

Igor your post is somewhat ironic in that it chastises the bias of western history, which is a fair cop, but then proceeds to propogate the usual psuedo-communist drivel; Britain appeased Germany on ideological grounds I've never heard such garbage. Germany was the European nemesis of Britain, had been since it unified in 1871, on ideological grounds it was shit scared of them. Germany was a burgeoning imperialist nation that didn't give a fuck about the status quo. The anglo-German treaty is hardly comparable to the Nazi-Soviet pact, I agree it showed a willingness to compromise and was naive of Britain. However it did not divide any sovereign nation in two, dismiss the lives of millions of civilians, or provide the predicate for World War Two.

Hitler was always worried about by Britain and especially France, they realised pretty quickly that he would be problem, just look at the stresa front etc. Of course it is true that the western allies were too soft and allowed Hitler too much room, but this does not constitute to them being ideologically supportive of appeasement. In fact I'd say what is so galling about the whole affair is that it went against their ideology.

[guzzipat]

Of course it is true that the western allies were too soft and allowed Hitler too much room,

Not as clear cut as that, no way was Britain ready to fight a modern war in 1936-38.
The home chain radar defences weren't completed till the end of April 1939, there were not enough modern aircraft, fighters or bombers either.

There is still a case that early strong oposition might have made Hitler back off.

[Igor Antunov]

An invasion by france of germany at the start of the war when it's forces were dealing with poland would have ended ww2 then and there. It had the surior military equipment and numbers, but alas the leadership and tactics of the western armies were non-existent.

[Stipe]

Popular support in Croatia overwhelmingly supported the Croatian Peasant Party, whose leadership was offered the opportunity to lead the Croatian puppet state by Hitler. That leadership refused the offer, which is why the Axis had to turn to the Ustaše, whom Mussolini supported, to lead the state despite Hitler's misgivings over their near complete lack of popular support in most of Croatia.

Despite that the Peasant Party leadership chose not to actively resist the fascists, a very large number of its rank and file did and went over to the partisans.

Notions of the average Croatian's wartime support of the Axis are ridiculously exaggerated and are done so for much more recent, explicitly political, reasons.

[peter_co]

Notions of the average Croatian's wartime support of the Axis are ridiculously exaggerated and are done so for much more recent, explicitly political, reasons.

Although, honestly so is the attempt to portray the Ustashe as a foreign imposition with no level of support among the general population. Yes, the Ustashe never had the level of support that say Antonescu's government had in Romania, but neither were they as isolated as Quisling's clique was in Finland. Obviously it's well-neigh impossible to quantify the level of support for the regime, but one can at least enumerate certain groups that are known to have lent active support to the Ustashe. 1) Urban nationalists (obviously the backbone of the Ustashe) encompassed a significant proportion of urban professional and intellectuals. 2) The Church. The local Catholic Church was even vocal in its support of various Ustashe policies that had religious ramifications, not only the removal of Jews, but also the forced conversion of Orthodox citizens of Greater Croatia (and conveniently did not explicitly object to the fate of those who refused until later on). The second factor is significant not only because it identifies the clergy as a source of support, but more importantly, in light of the influence of the Church on the population at large, it is suggestive that a larger proportion of the total population, even among the peasantry would have had at least a positive view of the regime as well, even if they did not actively support them. 3) And finally, not an insignificant number among the peasantry even participated actively in even some of the most uncouth actions of the Ustashe as Croatian and German official records and private accounts indicate, with villagers in many cases assisting Ustashe bands in rounding up Jews and Roma, as well as participating in the brutal lynchings or forced conversion of Serbs, particularly in the early months.

[albionfagan]

Although, honestly so is the attempt to portray the Ustashe as a foreign imposition with no level of support among the general population. Yes, the Ustashe never had the level of support that say Antonescu's government had in Romania, but neither were they as isolated as Quisling's clique was in Finland. Obviously it's well-neigh impossible to quantify the level of support for the regime, but one can at least enumerate certain groups that are known to have lent active support to the Ustashe. 1) Urban nationalists (obviously the backbone of the Ustashe) encompassed a significant proportion of urban professional and intellectuals. 2) The Church. The local Catholic Church was even vocal in its support of various Ustashe policies that had religious ramifications, not only the removal of Jews, but also the forced conversion of Orthodox citizens of Greater Croatia (and conveniently did not explicitly object to the fate of those who refused until later on). The second factor is significant not only because it identifies the clergy as a source of support, but more importantly, in light of the influence of the Church on the population at large, it is suggestive that a larger proportion of the total population, even among the peasantry would have had at least a positive view of the regime as well, even if they did not actively support them. 3) And finally, not an insignificant number among the peasantry even participated actively in even some of the most uncouth actions of the Ustashe as Croatian and German official records and private accounts indicate, with villagers in many cases assisting Ustashe bands in rounding up Jews and Roma, as well as participating in the brutal lynchings or forced conversion of Serbs, particularly in the early months.