[pugsville]

Overmuch is made of the Versilles treaty, as Germany actually paid very little and received more in loans than it paid out. It was played up enormously in Germany as was important part of the Pyschological process in Germany, but actually crippling germany economicaly not a huge factor, Germany's economic in the first world war were a joke, they had the same plan as the french make the losers pay. Their economic policies were just extremely dodgy and were bigger effect than the treaty. As for Militarily yes hey had a pretty reduced forces but with very widespread evasion of the treaty right from the start.

Germany had a pretty ramshackle government from Bismark on, conventional popliticians in Germany were a pretty uninspiring lot, it's hard to see any of them making much in the way of radical moves. The Industralist and the Military had a very large distaste of politics they liked a weak government that stayed out of their way, but really didnt want to get involved partly because it was so beneath them and they were pretty conservative in their actions. The Communists were never as big as they appeared and would only suceed in uniting the rest of Germany against them and would lose any internal conflict. And none of the other Nazi leaders showed any real capabilty to control events. It was only in the relatively brief period of maximun economic choas that the Nazi's had a shot and only if the were helped in by other major players. Hindenberg's senility and inaction help as well the election of another head of state could have derailed the Nzi rise. It was in very large part the inability of the other players to take effective charge of the situation of find a workable allanice, the failure of the other parties that gave he Nazi's there chance.

MOst germans werent that focused on the Czechs and Austrains (these were old Austrian-Hungarian not previously part of germany), the Poles were the real focus, there was no real trouble about the western border.
Stalin made his moves after he had his accomidation with Hitler, he was fundamentally a much more cautious person. (he was ruthless and had the same lack of any pity) Stalin was pretty convinced the world was out to get Russia, his foreign policy was much more cautious than Hitler he was more reckless.

[CreamDream]

but actually crippling germany economicaly not a huge factor, Germany's economic in the first world war were a joke, they had the same plan as the french make the losers pay.

You don't know much about the Weimar Republic if you're making this claim. The Treaty of Versailles was directly responsible for the occupation of the Rhineland, and because of this occupation, the German government encouraged workers to strike, and, promised their livelihoods thinking international pressure and internal pressure in France would end said occupation. This in turn was, with a combination of reparation payments, directly responsible for the hyper inflation problem which plagued Germany during the Weimar years. Moreover, the with a weakened Germany economy and a demand for further industrialization to grow their rapidly growing industrial sector, third only behind the UK and United States before WWI in terms of production, why you think Germany's economy was a joke during and before WWI is beyond me, this caused the Dawes Plan to be put into effect, effectively tying Germany and the United States economy. Furthermore, because of the intertwining between the two economies, once the United States economy fell bottom out, Germany was devastated and put in a far worse position during the Depression years than if the Dawes Plan had not been adopted. All of these economic woes were directly connected to the outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles.

[Smilin' Dave]

The Treaty of Versailles was directly responsible for the occupation of the Rhineland

The treaty gave the action a sense of legitimacy, unless I'm mistaken the British didn't back the occupation of the Rhineland. It might have also been an attempt by the French to boost their own post-WWI economic slow down.

the German government encouraged workers to strike, and, promised their livelihoods thinking international pressure and internal pressure in France would end said occupation.

So German government policy becomes the problem. Early German attempts to combat the Versailles system probably did as much damage the the system itself.

directly responsible for the hyper inflation problem which plagued Germany during the Weimar years.

Hyper-inflation was well and truely over by the mid-1920s if I recall correctly. The only economic disasters to follow were a regional agricultural market crash, which was soon overtaken by the Great Depression. Neither of those can be blamed on Versailles (well, directly) and again one of the difficulties of the Germans in the Depression wasn't the Versailles system or its legacy, but a lack of good leadership and stability.

Furthermore, because of the intertwining between the two economies, once the United States economy fell bottom out, Germany was devastated and put in a far worse position during the Depression years than if the Dawes Plan had not been adopted.

I'm confused. First you to point to the Versailles system, now the Dawes plan (which was one of many steps taken to reduce the Versailles system) is being pointed to as the culprit. Surely the cure undid the harm of the 'disease'?

All of these economic woes were directly connected to the outcomes of the Treaty of Versailles.

Yes, but only loosely. Just as WWI wasn't supposed to be the direct outcome of an assassination but was thanks to a range of other factors which dwarfed the one act. The Versailles system certainly did have a significant impact on the German economy (I think it was Keynes who pointed out the loss of the German merchant marine restricted markets and harmed world trade), particularly in the early years, however I would agree with Pugsville in that it wasn't the crippling regime often portrayed.

[pugsville]

During (not before) WW1 the German economy was living in a fantasy land, they basically let the big colgolomerates make huge profits they were paying vast amounts, printing money and manufacturing debt on a vast scale, the just told themselves win the war and the french would pay.

The payment of striking workings is not something to which the versillies treaty is responsible for.

The Hyperinflation in the early period was direct repsonse to givernment policy.

The Wiemar Republic was a coalition of deverse groups, by paying off various groups and living well beyond it's means (by US loans) any sort of fianacial shock, or the suspension of free money coming in and proping up the Republic internal troubles would follow.

[CreamDream]

The payment of striking workings is not something to which the versillies treaty is responsible for.

The Hyperinflation in the early period was direct repsonse to givernment policy.

I see, you just don't understand how historical analysis works. Ok, Ill go through this step by step. Lets say, for example, the Treaty of Versailles didn't have the occupation of the Rhineland and massive reparations as part of its peace agreement, would the hyper inflation situation occur? The answer is undoubtedly no. There would be no need for the massive loans that Germany took out, loans you admit was a huge cause German economic woes. Moreover, Germany would still have the Rhineland, one of its most productive areas, and, the resource rich Alsace-Lorraine. These areas were vital to the German economy. Almost all nations were borrowing and ran off huge conglomerates during the war, and even after the war, its how war economics work. So why didn't these nations face the same blow back that Germany did? The answer is simple, they were on the victorious side of the Treaty of Versailles.

Hyperinflation was consequence of government policy, but the more important thing is to ask why these policies were instituted to begin with and the answer undoubtedly comes back to the Versailles Treaty

I hope this cleared up a prevailing and widely accepted historical hypothesis for you.

[pugsville]

There is no doubt Versilles treaty was a huge effect on the post-ww1 germany. But much less than is generally made. While in theroy they were slugged with massive debts, they only paid a small fraction almost all of which was obtianed through loans. Loans were also used to fund the Wiemar republic which was not on a sound footing. Failure to set the state on a sound footing made it vunerable when the shock came.

[Smilin' Dave]

Lets say, for example, the Treaty of Versailles didn't have the occupation of the Rhineland and massive reparations as part of its peace agreement, would the hyper inflation situation occur? The answer is undoubtedly no. There would be no need for the massive loans that Germany took out, loans you admit was a huge cause German economic woes.

In the early 1920s most participants of WWI suffered some out of control inflation and all but the US were heavily dependent on loans. Italy's economy in the early 1920s for example. It was after all a big exhausing war, which distorted everyone's economy. Even without Versailles it's likely the Germany government would still have been in great difficulty, and one that was greater than the other participants because it was defeated.

the resource rich Alsace-Lorraine

This wasn't a question of reparations, but part of the general process of removing non-German lands from Germany. It's impossible to think of a peace that would have been acceptible to France without getting Alsace-Lorraine back, short of German victory.

These areas were vital to the German economy.

After overcoming hyperinflation the German economy got on just fine without these regions.

So why didn't these nations face the same blow back that Germany did?

A study of government in each of these nations gives you the answer. Italy's government was a complete mess, with too many parties competing and not much getting done (sound like Weimar Germany to you?) so they ended up with the Fascists. France had similar governmental instability, but had some stability during the Popular Front period etc. Britain was largely business as usual and came out of it business as usual. Stable and effective government is important for dealing with any economic crisis, and neither Germany nor Italy had these.

[Ozzy]

You guys are all focused on Germany and Russia but what about Japan? I personally dont know how and why Japan joined the WW2.

It is said that Atatürk predicted the start of the WW2 with a error of a few months.

In 1932, in a meeting with USA General Mac Arthur, Atatürk expressed his views as a second world war is inevitable and neither Britian, France nor Germany would able to benefit but communism would have most profit. Atatürk said either Mussolini or Hitler would start the war because they dont know what war really means. Atatürk also added "the war will start on 1940, 1941 at most."

[fuser]

I think this is an interesting book to read on the given subject..

[pugsville]

Japan was a real factionalizsed government with Army and Navy factions. (the Army and Navy didnt share resources like Oil and would not even disclosure to each other how much they had in oil reserves). Assinations of politicians for not being sufficently gun-ho happened. The Army more or less invaded manchuria on it's own inititive. There was not a real strong central Authority, just competing interests mainly army, navy, industrial. Japan was modernising and was desperate for resources. China was always seen as in Japans sphere's and Japan had not gotten what it wanted out of ww1, and conflict with western powers over china (particularly the US, but also included germany, which had military missions to the chinese government). As the War in china bogged down , the demand for resources went up (global demand was also going up). The US imposed sanctions for actions in China, thus making Japan desperate for resources. Japan had the choice of conflict with western powers or backing down. Judgeing teh western powers were occupied with Germany and weak, Japan chose to seize the resources it needed. Thus attacking the US.

[pugsville]

On prophetic visions of the second world war -


Foch was heard exclaiming, “This isn’t a peace. It’s a cease-fire for 20 years!” Twenty years and two months later, England and France declared war on Germany

.

[QatzelOk]

Both world wars were about destroying socialism in Western Europe and maintaining the colonialism drive that had begun a few centuries earlier without industrial weaponry - the latest messiah technology of that time.

Those eurotyrants must have felt so godlike with all that death in their hands.

[Smilin' Dave]

Both world wars were about destroying socialism in Western Europe and maintaining the colonialism drive that had begun a few centuries earlier without industrial weaponry - the latest messiah technology of that time.

Those eurotyrants must have felt so godlike with all that death in their hands.

I've yet to see any post on this topic that questions Hitler/Nazi Germany's pivotal role in bringing about WWII, and they didn't have colonies. Germany's colonies hadn't been particularly significant prior to WWI, and were stripped after that conflict. Logically if the sticking point was colonies, the war would have been fought in those same colonies, and possibly against the population of those colonies since by 1939 they were the biggest sticking point. From a doctrinal point of view their objective wasn't the destruction of socialism as such, more of a re-packaging for nationalist needs, and their war with the Soviet Union was couched in racialist terms. One need only compare how the Nazis treated socialists in camps to how they treated Poles to see that race/nation took a high presedence than ideology in the Nazi system.

Now I know your punchline for all of this is some nonsense about 'bankers/elites' Qatz, but in all this time you have provided no proof for that assertion, and there is much logic to suggest another explantion is appropriate. So I'll try to stick to what is stated.

[QatzelOk]

One need only compare how the Nazis treated socialists in camps to how they treated Poles to see that race/nation took a high presedence than ideology in the Nazi system.

How can you compare something you know nothing about?

The post-war texts regarding the "morality" or "immorality" of Allies and Axis is obviously constructed. Anyone who doesn't think so should forget about learning from history and just watch Spiderman and play video games.

"Learning" about the motives and the ideologies behind the European world wars by reading the texts written by the victors, is like learning about the invasion of Kuwait by reading Saddam's PR people exclusively. It's not "better methodology" than using your common sense to sort through all the obvious self-interest.

The central power of every modern euro society was money and military. And the military can always be bought, so that leaves Austrian and inter-euro banking interests the only Cui Bono for both wars.

This isn't simply my opinion, it is the only Cui Bono of those two wars that can't be easily shattered. Eurobankers used their Austrian connection to drive Germany like a ram into the UK and France in order to get all kinds of concessions including a free colony in Palestine.

To blame Hitler for this particular sequel to the war he almost died in is to follow the cues that are in the storybooks that these same Eurobankers published to cover up their corruption and death-provoking lies.

[Smilin' Dave]

The post-war texts regarding the "morality" or "immorality" of Allies and Axis is obviously constructed. Anyone who doesn't think so should forget about learning from history and just watch Spiderman and play video games.

Nice try Qatz, but contrary to your ignorance-driven conspiracy theory those people survived the different camp systems and wrote about it. Publishers, rather than obsessing over information control, saw they could make a profit by releasing any kind of human interest story. Consider Paul Rassinier, who denied the holocaust in his books (you two would have a lot in common...). So the victims themselves noted the differences. Never mind that this is all largely confirmed by contemporary Nazi government documentation.

"Learning" about the motives and the ideologies behind the European world wars by reading the texts written by the victors, is like learning about the invasion of Kuwait by reading Saddam's PR people exclusively. It's not "better methodology" than using your common sense to sort through all the obvious self-interest.

So what have you read about the topic Qatz? What sources are you using? I seriously hope this isn't just all cooked up in your fevered imagination.

This isn't simply my opinion, it is the only Cui Bono of those two wars that can't be easily shattered. Eurobankers used their Austrian connection to drive Germany like a ram into the UK and France in order to get all kinds of concessions including a free colony in Palestine.

Proof? You repeat this a lot, but provide no proof. Repetition... almost like you are trying to forge a meme rather than explore truth.

To blame Hitler for this particular sequel to the war he almost died in...

Hitler's movement glorified death in service of the state, and Hitler idealised those paramilitaries of the 1920s who operated on this principle. This can be sourced from Hitler himself, so don't give this 'post war sources' rubbish you use to blur. To portray Hitler as afraid to died or to expose others to death is just fraudulent or ignorant.

[QatzelOk]

Hitler's movement glorified death in service of the state, and Hitler idealised those paramilitaries of the 1920s who operated on this principle.

"Hitler's Movement" didn't invent the adoration of "death at the service of a vague ideal."

They borrowed it form the martyr/messiah concept of the Christian and Jew Movements.

I use the word "movements" because... did those guys ever run with their own vague ideals!

[Smilin' Dave]

If you can't tell the difference between the cult of death and violence in Fascism or Nazism and in monotheistic religions, they you must be hopelessly ignorant. Perhaps a lifetime of relativism has destroyed your capacity for analysis, for critical thinking.

Now, stop avoiding the point: Where is your proof?

Final chance. Unless you want every post you make about mysterious banker cabals to end up in Conspiracy Theories you are going to have to show everyone why any of this is better than bizzare theories of Japanese world domination or hidden Soviet empires. You can post about whatever you want, but if it doesn't meet the criteria, it doesn't belong here any more.

[QatzelOk]

If you can't tell the difference between the cult of death and violence in Fascism or Nazism and in monotheistic religions, they you must be hopelessly ignorant.

They get an ideal and then they go killing people to steal their land so they can put "the ideal" into action.

Can you please explain the difference between the various cults of death (Abrahamic, Nazi, Fascist, Futurist,) that are based on text-created paradises? Because for me, they are all potentially equal in harm.

[Smilin' Dave]

They get an ideal and then they go killing people to steal their land so they can put "the ideal" into action.

One could reduce them to such an absurd simplicity, but that would be like saying sitting and sleeping are the same action for the same purpose.

The major monotheistic religion's concept of death focuses more on martyrdom amongst their leaders. This martyrdom is usually portrayed as the result of persecution rather than battle. The martyrdom is seen as redemptive for the followers in some way. For example Jesus 'died for our sins', so that Christians could seek forgiveness. The twelth imam offers some future redemption with his return. The examples go on. The martyr is this case isn't a call for action against an enemy, but a call for spiritual betterment. The pacifistic elements on the monotheistic religions are notable in this regard.

In Fascism or Nazism, violence itself is fetishised. Violence from the enemy makes the fascist heroic, violence inflicted feeds the action orientated psychology/politics. The act of violence is the revolutionary act, a blow against rationalism. Martyrs still exist in these movements, but they are usually prompts for action against others. Squadristi or brown shirts who died fighting 'reds' were not a call for redemption, they were justification for more violence. Hitler and Mussolini's latter day followers don't see their deaths as paving the way to a better tomorrow, but as encouragement to 'finish the job'. Codreanu is a slight exception, in that clerical elements were already a significant part of the Iron Guard movement, so he was treated both as a christian style martyr (check out the martyrdom drivel Celtic Communism posted in P&D for proof) and as a call for violent action against the state (ending in the Iron Guard's attempted coup). There is no such thing as a pacifist Fascist or Nazi.

Your comment about taking land is also a bit off with Fascists, most parties were more interested in people and communities, and the dubious joys of military conquest, rather than the land itself. Lebensraum pre-dated Nazism and was adopted again because of it's role in the Nazi vision of the people's future.

[William_H_Dougherty]

Interesting, there are various games people can play to set aside blame from Hitler.

E.g. Hitler made demands of Poland (Danzig + Corridor) that were refused, England and France technically declared war on Germany, the Versailles treaty, specifically the carving off of parts of Germany with majority German populations (that wanted to remain part OF Germany) into the new states of Czechoslovakia and Poland, along with Alscace-Lorriane to France...

The above allowed Hitler to get away with an awful lot, I wouldn't call these legitimate war aims but they definately came across as such to the German population. It becomes apparent in 1941, however, with the occupation of Western and Northern France, the invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece, and eventually the Soviet Union (with no intention of any true "liberation" of the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.) that Hitler was a blatant war monger who actually needed to occupy large swaths of Europe and Russian to keep his bloated military and police state afloat.

The problem of course, is the question, would World War II have happened without Hitler? I think the answer is yes, but it would have been a much smaller, less brutal war.

So I guess the "war" isn't all his fault, but a large portion of the atrocities definately are uniquely the fault of Hitlerism.

- WHD