The shame nations of WWII.

[Wernazuma III]

Thanks Guardian, interesting read.

[gsmoove23]

Am I the only one that thinks this topic is ridiculous. Labelling 'shame' nations is a nice easy way to avoid the fact that Nazi supporters flourished in all parts of the Western world before WWII and where they were able to influence or gain power has a lot to do with the political climate of the time and the physical or other influence Germany could exert on that country.

The ideas of Nazism were not unique or unique to Germany or unique to countries who would later collaborate with Germany. They were widespread and could have played out in any part of the world that had gone through the post WW1 chaos of Germany.

[Viking Berserk]

well well, they didn't turn nazi less taken or allied with germany.

[VetLegion]

hey did paiktis get banned or something?



btw., 'co-belligerent'
This word was invented by the Finns I think

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
Vidkun got executed at the end of the war too

Yes, he was. Funny thing is, we didn't have a death penalty in Norway at the time his crimes were commited - not even during war time. The law that allows death penalty to be used against traitors during war time was passed after the war and then used against Quisling and 10 of his followers, thus breaking with the general principle that a law can not be applied to cases that existed before the law was passed. The Supreme Court said that this was an exception and that the new law could be used against the traitors. 11 men were shot, and this is still a cotroversial issue among law students.

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
The last stand was at Narvik, i'll try figure out when they surrendered (might be 10th june).

Between the 4th and the 8th of June, allied ships withdrew about 24 500 men from the north of Norway, including Narvik. Negotiations with the Germans began in the afternoon on the 8th, after the last allied units had left the coast and headed for England. The Germans moved back into Narvik that same evening, after finally realizing that the allies were gone. So, I suppose the fighting ended on the 8th.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Am I the only one that thinks this topic is ridiculous.

No, you're not.
-But the history discussion as such can still be interesting...

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Guardian
No, you're not.
-But the history discussion as such can still be interesting...

Well, I agree there. Didn't want to rain on anyone's parade.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The ideas of Nazism were not unique or unique to Germany or unique to countries who would later collaborate with Germany. They were widespread and could have played out in any part of the world that had gone through the post WW1 chaos of Germany.

Exactly, for many people on the ground Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy provided hope from the despearte economic / post war situation where they found themselves in 1930's. Before the second world war both Hitler and Mussolini trully improved lives of ordinary Germans/Italians. However some other policies were bound to be strange, but which German man or to be soldier thought that a man like Hitler would go on and destory 1/2 of the world and had a plan to exterminate Jews.. etc, etc...

(i can bet that having a system that scanns citizens purchases might sound strange to some people now )

if there was a discussion board like this one in 1937 Germany, most likely people would tell you " you fuc***g lunatic, our government would never do a horrendeous thing like that, didn't we just get out of WWI.

Like Citizen Kane "

I've talked with the responsible leaders of the Great Powers - England, France, Germany and Italy. They're too intelligent to embark on a project which would mean the end of civilization as we now know it. You can take my word from it; there'll be no war!

Who knows, but if this war on terror prolonges into WWIII, and nucear holocaust, maybe present Bush administration will go into history as the most infamous democratically elected government ever. (still not a dictatorship like the German one )

How would we know today? Mistakes are easily pointed out into the events that have passed, still we always manage to make new ones, it just takes some time for history to repeat in one way or the other. Most importantly extremist always exist everywhere, they just need the right moment to capture the stage and to execute their plans during the time they have been given. Thimoty Mc Veigh for a day, Ante Pavelic, or Vidkun Quisling for 3-4 years, Hitler for 10 or 15 , Stalin for 30... well who knows what comes next?

[Guardian]

Some very, very good points here...

It's always easy to point the finger and place the blame in retrospect, but that's only so much bullsh*t if we're still mucking things up even as we do so... -which we are most of the time...

You know, personally, I think it's just a bunch of BS, but if you want to talk about "shame nations of WWII", you also have to consider the fact that if everyone hadn't been so hell-bent on punishing Germany after WWI, there might not have been a WWII, at least not as we know it. -And you also have to consider that even when things did go terribly wrong, the allies all sat on their self-satisfied butts and waited until all hell broke loose before any of them could be bothered to do something about it.

-And how many times have those same mistakes been repeated since then?
More than any of us care to think about, that's for sure! We've just been lucky and the consequences haven't been quite as horrible the last few times. -Or if they have been, it's been on a much smaller scale.

Hence, we're still sitting on our self-satisfied butts and talking about "shame nations of WWII"...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I used Keegan's "Dirty Little Secrets of World War II" as a source.

I thought that was written by one (or actually two) of the toads from Simulations Publications Incorporated (SPI). Ah, here it is Dunnigan and IIRC Albert A. Nofi contributed as well.

[Vanguard]

You know, personally, I think it's just a bunch of BS, but if you want to talk about "shame nations of WWII", you also have to consider the fact that if everyone hadn't been so hell-bent on punishing Germany after WWI, there might not have been a WWII, at least not as we know it. -And you also have to consider that even when things did go terribly wrong, the allies all sat on their self-satisfied butts and waited until all hell broke loose before any of them could be bothered to do something about it.

Germany deserved everything it got after WW1--- and more: They basically started the war in their rush to implement the "France First" strategy; they slaughtered civilians in retaliation for legitimate acts of war by the Belgians; they introduced submarine warfare, gas warfare and aerial bombardment; and they imposed peace treaties on other nations far more onerous than the treaty imposed on them. Then they weaseled out of paying reparations by deliberately inflating their currency.

But you have a point that, if you impose a victor's peace, then you have to impose a victor's peace. The allies should have enforced the treaty to the letter. But ultimately a nation does not assume the "shame" or guilt of another by its failure to impose its will on it. The shame still lies with the nation who commits the offense.

[Heresson]

- What about Soviet, which ruthlessly killed or deported its own citizens? Which invaded Finland and swallowed the Baltic countries and parts of Poland?

It deported and killed Polish citizens as well.
Don't forget about that.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Guardian

You know, personally, I think it's just a bunch of BS, but if you want to talk about "shame nations of WWII", you also have to consider the fact that if everyone hadn't been so hell-bent on punishing Germany after WWI, there might not have been a WWII, at least not as we know it.

Not everyone, there was Woodrow Wilson. If only they had listened to him. It just goes to show- you should always listen to an American president. Tjey know what they're talking about.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Vanguard

Germany deserved everything it got after WW1--- and more

That may well be, but what purpose did it serve?

-And, if it served any purpose at all, was it worth another war that turned out even worse by far than the first one?

I'm not saying that people are not responsible for their own actions or that the guilty don't deserve to be punished, I'm just saying that there are times when punishment - however justified it may seem - is not the right thing to do.

Some times we have to rise above the "shame / guilt / punishment" mindset, let old bones rest where they fell and concentrate on building a better future. -Or, if we have to punish somebody, then at least take it out on individuals, not nations.

If we can't do this, then whatever peace we make will only ever last so long... it's only a matter of time before somebody who feel they were unjustly punished for some crime or another will come back to punish their punishers, and so forth and so on...

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Not everyone, there was Woodrow Wilson. If only they had listened to him. It just goes to show- you should always listen to an American president. Tjey know what they're talking about.

In another thread some time ago I said that Woodrow Wilson was my favorite American president. But he is not at all popular with the Apolyton Americans. Most of you seem to think he was the worst or one of the worst presidents ever. And one of the reasons was that he was an internationalist

[Ned]

Ah, the lessons of history.

1) Germans are responsible for WWI
2) They lost
3) Versailles was justified
4) Pres. Wilson did not want to punish Germany - no one listened
5) We should have punished individuals, not nations
6) Versailles made Hitler possible
7) Strict enforcement of Versailles could have prevented WWII
8) The Allies did not want to strictly enforce Versailles because many felt it was unjust
9) The failure to enforce encouraged even greater demands
10) WWII resulted
11) The Germans are responsible for WWII

Point 11 does not follow ineluctably from the sequence of events, does it?

After WWII, we punished the Nazi's and rebuilt Germany - at least the US had learned something from history.

And, what does this tell us about Iraq?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It tells us that

1) Iraq was responsible for Kuwait
2) They lost
3) But Saddam stayed
4) Pres. Bush listened to the Saudis
5) We should have punished individuals, not nations
6) somewhere around here comes OBL poosible, even though that seems to be Afghaistan campaign

Hey it tells us we have just been punishing a nation for last 10 years, while ME was breeding fanatics to attack us.

So we will attack them again, and WWIII will result.

[Hurricane]

That in order to take out Saddam prevent a new dictator from claiming the throne, Iraq needs to be rebuilt after a war. Sadly, I don't think US or anybody else is willing to do that.

[Tolls]

"Not everyone, there was Woodrow Wilson."

...and Lloyd George...and Churchill. Both warned of the almost inevitable repercussions of a severe treaty, chiefly when it came to the redrawing of the borders in the East. Indeed they both pointed out that these border changes (for the formation of Czechoslovakia and Poland) would be the flash points for a future war with Germany.

[Ned]

Tolls, IIRC, the self-determination of Eastern Europe was one of President Wilson's fourteen points.

Are you saying that Lloyd George and Churchill opposed the breakup of the German and Austrian Empires?

[Tolls]

They opposed some of the border restructuring since that would inevitably lead to Germans being in one of the new states. A lot of the border work was essentially arbitrary...it was to take a lot of work from the League of Nations to sort much of it out, but there were still loads of problems. The Sudetenland was one...

They weren't opposed to self determination, but that the structure of that had to realise that eastern europe is far from homogenous. All they saw happening was a version of the lines-on-maps that had dominated European treaties for the past x-hundred years.

Lloyd George was also opposed (IIRC) to the severity of the financial terms.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've forgotten whether Lloyd Gearge was one of Britain's deligates to Versailles, but the Brits definitely wanted their pound of flesh from Germany. Think about it. If France alone had demanded punitive treatment against combined American and British resistance then the treaty would have been far different. I also recall that when British newspapers got wind of Wilson's proposals they really raked him over the coals. Wilson crossed the channel to bring his case to the British people and was literally laughed out of England. Heck, even Sigmund Freud, a loyal Austrian, considered Wilson's efforts at conducting a reconciliation among the powers of Europe to be the product of a neurotic mind.

[GePap]

In the summer of 1914 everyone wanted war. The Germans were the first to act, as they had to do, gievn tehir strategic situation, but I hardly see any evidence that France or Russia or England or anyone else did squat to try to really avert it.

So saying: its the German's fault is simplistic at best. After all, it was the Austrians who were looking for an excuse to smack Serbia around and that was the bit that started the whole process going forward, and itsd not like the Allied powers had nothing to gain from war.

As for WW2: The support the Germans got from various interested groups in Europe is hardly surprising. Rabid anti-Cmmunists joined their call for the extermination of Bolshevism, raging anti-semites joined the cll to destroy Jews, rabid nationalists took to heart their ideas of national cleansing, and eveyday people who wanted to get on with thier lives under the new regime went on with them. To think that everyone would and should turn out with a gun to fight evil Nazis for every square foot is foolish.

On the issue of Finland: Co-beligerant is a fine term for the relation. both were fighting the same enemy, but the regimes hardly shared similar aims. The Finns were trying to retake lands invaded by the USSR in 1939 aftre all. And they did refuse German calls for them to move past their 1939 border during the attak agaisnt Leningrad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with GePap. The Germans were no worse than any other major country in WW1.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I agree with GePap. The Germans were no worse than any other major country in WW1.

Your not supposed to do that! We disagree fervently on everythng else! (well,except Islam, but..) You must take that back!

[Ned]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
It tells us that

1) Iraq was responsible for Kuwait
2) They lost
3) But Saddam stayed
4) Pres. Bush listened to the Saudis
5) We should have punished individuals, not nations
6) somewhere around here comes OBL poosible, even though that seems to be Afghaistan campaign

Hey it tells us we have just been punishing a nation for last 10 years, while ME was breeding fanatics to attack us.

So we will attack them again, and WWIII will result.

OFITG, I agree that not taking out Saddam and instead setting up the sanctions regime was a huge mistake - very much like the mistake the Allies made at the close of WWI. Rather than punishing Saddam, we punished Iraq and left Saddam in power.

But, like Chamberlain, we now find ourselves in the position of whether to enforce the sanctions regime or to appease. The consensus view of history is that Chamberlain and the French should either of called a European conference to reassess Versailles, or should have enforced it strictly.

I think the lesson we should learn from this in the case of Iraq is that we have no choice now but to enforce the U.N. resolutions -- or else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your not supposed to do that! We disagree fervently on everythng else! (well,except Islam, but..) You must take that back!

[Vanguard]

That may well be, but what purpose did it serve?

-And, if it served any purpose at all, was it worth another war that turned out even worse by far than the first one?

You are assuming that the Versailles treaty caused WW2. But it didn't. Germany had renounced all the Versailles terms well before 1939, and no war broke out.

WW2 was caused by Hitler's ambition to seize land in the East and establish a German super-power by slaughtering the current inhabitants and replacing them with German settlers. Versailles was not totally irrelevent to the rise of Hitler, but his election was certainly not the inevitable result of the treaty.

And, once again, Versailles was not an unfair peace. It was a more generous settlement than Germany imposed on France in 1870 or on Russia in 1917. And it was certainly much fairer than the terms that France would have had to agree to if she had been defeated in WW1. German complaints about Versailles were nothing more than arrant hypocrisy from the acknowledged masters of the art.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Lars-E

In another thread some time ago I said that Woodrow Wilson was my favorite American president. But he is not at all popular with the Apolyton Americans. Most of you seem to think he was the worst or one of the worst presidents ever. And one of the reasons was that he was an internationalist

What are my eyes seeing? Finally someone else who likes old good Wilson? Reminds me that I have a Woodrow Wilson theme for my profile over at AoE2.com.

[Ned]

But Vanguard, what was the Polish Corridor but German territory given to Poland by Versailles?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are assuming that the Versailles treaty caused WW2. But it didn't. Germany had renounced all the Versailles terms well before 1939, and no war broke out.

WW2 was caused by Hitler's ambition to seize land in the East and establish a German super-power by slaughtering the current inhabitants and replacing them with German settlers. Versailles was not totally irrelevent to the rise of Hitler, but his election was certainly not the inevitable result of the treaty.

And why was Hitler even close to be elected? Because of Versailles. That is what his party campaigned on, that is what they won their greatest support on.

And, once again, Versailles was not an unfair peace. It was a more generous settlement than Germany imposed on France in 1870

So taking Alsace and Lorraine was the same as taking back Alsace and Lorraine, taking a vast chunk of land from Eastern Germany, prohibiting a German navy & restricting the German army to a miniscule force (two provisions that were unprecedented in any peace), and last, but not least, massive reperations.

Looking at the Russian peace, again just a minor land transfer, nothing else.

Contrary to what Versailles revisionists say, it was a horrid peace.