The shame nations of WWII.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But it seems just as likely that a harsher treaty would have had pretty much the same chance of preventing the rise of Hitler as a more lenient one. So why not complain about Germans preventing such a treaty?

I don't doubt a harsher treaty would have prevented a Hitler, IF the allies decided to stay in Germany and guide a new economy and political system. However there was no will to do it. So attempting to be harsh, but at the same time leave Germany alone was a BAD idea.

So Versailles was too harsh, because there was no will to stay in Germany to prevent a Hitler from coming to power. It was harsh enough to allow a Hitler, and thus was too harsh.

[Zero]

Well hitler came to power because the treaty WAS harsh, but the treay wasnt enforced enough to prevent Hitler to gain power and build armaments and such..

[Vanguard]

So in short, we have no idea whether the Versailles Treaty caused the rise of Hitler or not. So there is no point blaming the WW1 Allies for WW2. We should place the blame for the Second World War on the people who started it---------- Hitler and the Germans.

No psychohistorical imperatives forced Germany to start WW2. The ghost of Versailles did not possess Hitler's body and force him to invade Poland. If Germany wanted to avoid a second war, all it had to do was not start one.

[Dr Strangelove]

Sometimes even when winners have disgruntled veterans, i.e., Timothy McVeigh. OTOH McVeigh was forced to vent his rage all by himself, while Adolf had lots of buddies eager to join him.

In the immediate aftermath of the war their was tremendous disillusionment with the old order among veterans of both sides. Everyone felt betrayed by their old leaders. To some extent this disillusionment became permanent throughout the world. The disillusionment actually seemed to help reconcile the common peoples of the two sides for awhile, since both had suffered from the evils of the old imperial system. In Germany however there was a growing feeling among all the classes that Germany had been unfairly singled out. If the war had been the fault of the old order, to which both sides in the war had belonged, then why should the Germans receive the lion's share of the punishment they asked. The fact that the punishment continued so long after the war was particularily resented. This resentment offered a fertile ground for the growth of warped ideologies like Hitler's.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard
So in short, we have no idea whether the Versailles Treaty caused the rise of Hitler or not. So there is no point blaming the WW1 Allies for WW2. We should place the blame for the Second World War on the people who started it---------- Hitler and the Germans.

No psychohistorical imperatives forced Germany to start WW2. The ghost of Versailles did not possess Hitler's body and force him to invade Poland. If Germany wanted to avoid a second war, all it had to do was not start one.

I'm sorry, Vanguard, but this post is so much on conflict with the facts, at least to the extent that I know them, that I just have to say something. Hitler was all about Versailles. His book, Mein Kampf, is filled with it. His speeches were filled with it. His actions when in office were primarily directed at reversing Versailles. To suggest that Versailles had nothing to do with WWII is simply not true.

[Myrddin]

I'm sure Hitler would have complained even about a lenient treaty- it is not the fault of those who drafted the treaty that he came to power

It looks to me as if the Great Depression had more to do with creating the conditions in Germany exploited by the Nazis, than Versailles

[XarXo]

Luxembourg!!! A luxemburguese throw a stone to a hebrew at 1944!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
I'm sure Hitler would have complained even about a lenient treaty- it is not the fault of those who drafted the treaty that he came to power

It looks to me as if the Great Depression had more to do with creating the conditions in Germany exploited by the Nazis, than Versailles

Myrddin, I am not so sure that Hitler would have had an audience if the treaty was consistent with the 14 points. Hitler's main argument was that Versailles was dictated to Germany after a conditional surrender.

[Vanguard]

Well, there was no Hitler around to cause the first war, so obviously the second could have started without him.

Of course this contradicts my statement that Germany was not subject to "psycohistorical imperatives", but, hey, consistancy is tough.

[Tolls]

Imran:
The unconditional surrender was a brainfart from Roosevelt at Casablanca. No one on his side, let alone Churchill and the Brits, knew he was going to pull that one out to the press. And, of course, once said they then had to proceed along those lines or look a bit silly (albeit eventually allowing a small condition for the Japanese).

Ned:
In Mein Kampf his major rants were against the jews and marxists who stabbed Germany in the back (according to him)...also a rant (on and off) about the French occupation of the Ruhr (which had recently happened when the book was written)...and a looooong diatribe on events in Bavaria.

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tolls
Imran:
The unconditional surrender was a brainfart from Roosevelt at Casablanca. No one on his side, let alone Churchill and the Brits, knew he was going to pull that one out to the press. And, of course, once said they then had to proceed along those lines or look a bit silly (albeit eventually allowing a small condition for the Japanese).

Ned:
In Mein Kampf his major rants were against the jews and marxists who stabbed Germany in the back (according to him)...also a rant (on and off) about the French occupation of the Ruhr (which had recently happened when the book was written)...and a looooong diatribe on events in Bavaria.

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

True, In Hilter's view, Germany did not loose WWI. She was stabbed in the back by the commie's and the Jews.

It is interesting that he later tried to execute every commie and Jew he could get his hands on whether or not they were in any way responsible for Germany's defeat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

To Hitler, yes. To the rest of Germany, no. Without Versailles, Hitler would never have the support.

His major rants were against the Jews and Marxist who stabbed Germany in the back. But HOW did they stab Germany in the back? By signing the Treaty of Versailles. That is why many Germans went with Hitler, because SOMEONE had to be blamed for that treaty.

[Myrddin]

I thought the 'stab in the back' referred to signing the Armistice, not the Peace Treaty, even though it was recommended by the military and not by politicians

Someone had to blamed for the mess in Germany 10 years after the end of the war, but by then the great depression starts being as much an issue as Versailles

[Ned]

Yeah the Great Depression saw the rise of such radicals as FDR in the US. Therefore, the Great Depression must be a complete and total explanation of Hitler. Versailles and the backstabbing commies and Jews had nothing to do with Germany's swing to the National Socialists who made Versailles, and the backstabbing commies and Jews their issue.

No wait - it must be that Germany is inherently anit-Semetic and was simply waiting for a man of Hitler stripe to run for office.

No, that can't be it. It must be that the German people grew tired of socialism and communism and wanted to elect the one man who would "eradicate" such deluded and sinister people from the earth.

No, none of this fits as a sole explanation. But perhaps all of it contributed to Hitler's rise to power.

[Vanguard]

Since the so-called "stab in the back" was a complete fabrication of a German general staff trying to avoid responsibility for losing the war, it seems likely that the Nazis could have made up some other issue to advance their cause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since the so-called "stab in the back" was a complete fabrication of a German general staff trying to avoid responsibility for losing the war, it seems likely that the Nazis could have made up some other issue to advance their cause.

Yes, it was a fabrication, but the German people BOUGHT it. That was the only reason the Nazis gained followers. They were the only people saying Versailles was a stab in the back by others.

And btw, the stab in the back was both the Armistice and the Peace Treaty. More the peace treaty though.

But the General Staff was smart and let the civilian Reichstag do both.

[Ned]

Actually, By the time Germany surrendered, they had been militarily defeated and were on the brink of total collapse regardless of what was going on inside Germany. So, to the extent that Hitler spread the myth that the German Army did not lose the war, it fit neatly into polishing the image of the General Staff. Perhaps this is one of the reasons they got on so well prior to the war.

[Dr Strangelove]

As Germany collapsed in late October/early November 1918, the ruling conservative parties in Germany resigned and handed control of the government to the socialists, thus guarenteeing that the socialists would be blamed for the defeat.

[Tolls]

Imran:
The stab in the back is clearly directed at the armistice throughout most of the book...Hitler was recovering in Munich at the end of the war and saw what he considered defeatism spreading, usually tied to marxist propaganda. He put 2 and 2 together and decided (along with others) that the army wasn't actually beaten at the front. Meaning they could have continued fighting, and not had a peace imposed on them...whether that peace was Versailles, or a milder one. ANY peace would have been viewed as a travesty, at least any that was likely to come from the allies.

Of course, this was all fabrication and delusion...

[Chris 62]

I think it might be interesting to note that BOTH Britain and France REFUSED to end the food blockade of Germany untill the German representative signed the "dictat" of Versailles.

Both powers were prepared to let Germany starve untill she took TOTAL blame for WWI and agreed to pay reperations that would have gone on till....1970!!!

A shameful buisness, and something the Germans were fully correct to resent.

What did people in Germany think about the Treaty?
When the details of the treaty were published in June 1919 most Germans were horrified.
Germany had not been allowed to the Peace Conference and were told to accept the terms or else. Most Germans had believed that the Treaty would be lenient because of Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points.
Many Germans did not believe that the German army had actually been defeated in 1918 because Germany had not been invaded. One of these people was Corporal Adolf Hitler, who had been in hospital in November 1918 recovering from gas-blindness. Like many others he came to believe that the army had been "stabbed in the back" by the "November Criminals", the politicians who had signed the Armistice which had brought the Great War to an end on 11th November 1918.
Several of the clauses of the Treaty were thought to be very harsh. It was going to be almost impossible to pay the Reparations. In fact, the German government gave up after only one year, and the War Guilt Clause seemed particularly unfair. How could Germany be the only country to blame for the war? After all it had started when a Serbian shot an Austrian.
It was felt that Germany had simply been made a scapegoat by the other countries for all that had happened.

Feelings like these led to a great deal of unrest in Germany in the years from 1919 to 1922.
Returning soldiers formed armed gangs, the Freikorps, who roamed the streets attacking people. In March 1920 they tried to seize power.
There was an attempted revolution by the Communists in January 1919, the Spartacist Revolt.
There were many murders, including two government ministers, one of whom had signed the Armistice.
A number of extremist political parties were set up, including the German Workers' Party, which Adolf Hitler took over in 1921. He based his support upon the hatred that many Germans felt for the Treaty of Versailles.
The government became more and more unpopular and appeared to be very weak because it was not able to deal with the revolutions and the unrest.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/moder...ersahtm.htm#q3

[Heresson]

No psychohistorical imperatives forced Germany to start WW2. The ghost of Versailles did not possess Hitler's body and force him to invade Poland. If Germany wanted to avoid a second war, all it had to do was not start one.

In fact, Hitler was very moderate German politician wne it comes to Poland. Others, no matter the political options, were much more hostile and openly agressive.
But they say that a barking dog doesn't bite.

[Ned]

This is a massively interesting discussion which makes it clear, if anything can be clear, that the causes of both WWI and WWII are complex shades of grey. WWI was sparked by the assassination of the Archduke, but the flames were stoked by the French and Russian guarantees on one side, and the German on the other.

The seeds of WWII were sown in the events surrounding the close of WWI. This led to the rise of radicalism in Germany on both the left and the right. When Hitler embarked on reversing Versailles, he had the full support of the German people. At every success, his popularity increased. There was only one outcome to this process: complete reversal of Versailles, either by piecemeal reversal by the British and French, at a peace conference or by war.

The Brits initially chose appeasement. Roosevelt suggested a peace conference. But after Czechoslovakia, the Brits drew a line in the sand and said no further or there would be war.

So, the question is, how could WWII been avoided? The answer to that question will tell you who really is responsible for WWII?

[Myrddin]

I blame the Greeks - they started the thread

[Ned]

As I said earlier, Roosevelt said "unconditional surrender." I think Roosevelt had a very good understanding of what was the root cause of WWII.

Also, Truman, Marshall and Eisenhower knew how to win the peace. They provided for material assistence to Germany in '45. They later provided the Marshall plan.

At the same time, we punished the leading Nazi's.

Earlier in this thread we agreed: punish the people responsible. Don't punish the nations.

To the extent there has been peace in Europe for 50+ years, one has to give the United States a lot of credit.

[Vanguard]

I think it might be interesting to note that BOTH Britain and France REFUSED to end the food blockade of Germany untill the German representative signed the "dictat" of Versailles.

Both powers were prepared to let Germany starve untill she took TOTAL blame for WWI and agreed to pay reperations that would have gone on till....1970!!!

A shameful buisness, and something the Germans were fully correct to resent.

Germany agreed to a continuation of the blockade in the Armistice, presumably because she thought it was the best option to take.

But in any event the Allies stopped blockading food about 7 months after the end of the war. Given the fact that Germany had been doing everything in her power to starve Great Britain into surrender for the previous three years, including illegally sinking unescorted ships without warning, I don't see that the Germans have much to complain about.

Germany was primarily to blame for WW1, so the war guilt clause is not unreasonable. Fritz Fisher's book Germany's Aims in the First World War clearly established that it was Germany that wanted war from the Serbian crisis. She thought a Great Power War was inevitable and wanted it to come now, before the Russian reorganization was complete and before France's new three year conscription law increased the strength of the French army.

Reparations only stretched out to 1970 because that is when Germany negotiated them out to. It isn't as if France and Belgium wanted then to be spread out that long. They would have far rather had the money up front. Who wouldn't?

The single nation with the most shameful conduct in the Twentieth Century was........drumroll please...........Germany! She has no right to resent anything from anybody.

[Ned]

Vanguard, still blaming the nations and not the leaders, are we?

[Vanguard]

If there were no damage to France, Belgium, Britain or Serbia in WW1, then it would be sufficient to hold the Kaiser and the German High Command responsible for the crimes commited by Germans in their quest to become a Superpower.

But there was damage done, wasn't there? Considerable damage in fact, much of it willful. If the Kaiser and the German generals had been willing to pay for it all, then that solution would be fine with me. But since that was clearly not a realistic solution, Germany had to pay.

And, in any event, why shouldn't the Allies have held the German nation to account? Germany had no problem imposing such terms when she was the victor. You seem to have a lot of sympathy for Germany, but absolutely none for Germany's many victims

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Germany agreed to a continuation of the blockade in the Armistice, presumably because she thought it was the best option to take.

The best option?
They had zero choice.

But in any event the Allies stopped blockading food about 7 months after the end of the war.

After millions of weakened Germans were dead from a pandemic that was helped along by extensive malneutrition in Germany.

Given the fact that Germany had been doing everything in her power to starve Great Britain into surrender for the previous three years, including illegally sinking unescorted ships without warning, I don't see that the Germans have much to complain about.

The war was over.
Also, there was NOTHING illeagal about submarine warfare, as ENGLAND broke the agreement first.
The agreement was a ship was NOT to radio the postion of a submarine if it was stopped and targeted, they simply to exit the vessal on the ship's boats, and the sub would later signal the enemy of the survivor's postion.
British vessals did not adhere to this at all, they signaled on sight, and thus Germany resorted to unrestricted warfare.
Cause and effect brought on by British action.
Be careful of whom you accuse of breaking the law first.

Germany was primarily to blame for WW1, so the war guilt clause is not unreasonable.

Nonsense, Conrad of Austria is the primary culprit.

Fritz Fisher's book Germany's Aims in the First World War clearly established that it was Germany that wanted war from the Serbian crisis.

Inconsistant with the established facts.
The Kaiser even personally intervened with Austria, and was elated when Serbia accepted all the Austrian demands but one.
CONRAD stated "Austria must wage war for political reasons", and declared war on Serbia, which then activated it's alliance with Russia.
Russia's mobilization activated Germany, Germany in turn activated France.
To blame Germany for these events is ludicrous.

She thought a Great Power War was inevitable and wanted it to come now, before the Russian reorganization was complete and before France's new three year conscription law increased the strength of the French army.

The general staff said it would be more advantagous to wage war before those events, as winning would be more difficult afterward, not that they should start a war first.

Reparations only stretched out to 1970 because that is when Germany negotiated them out to.

The original payment plan meant that not only would Germany have to turn over it's entire GNP every year for the next 20 years, but it would have to borrow heavily in addition to meet the payments.

It isn't as if France and Belgium wanted then to be spread out that long.

No, they wanted Germany bankrupt and in default, as they could then seize German industry.

They would have far rather had the money up front. Who wouldn't?

Anyone who understands economics.

The single nation with the most shameful conduct in the Twentieth Century was........drumroll please...........Germany! She has no right to resent anything from anybody.

Wrong again, Russia holds the title, only due to the Revolution and Stalin, and the occupation of central and eastern europe.
Germany in WWII is certainly the worst nation of the period, but to equate Imperial Germany to that model is simply incorrect.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard
If there were no damage to France, Belgium, Britain or Serbia in WW1, then it would be sufficient to hold the Kaiser and the German High Command responsible for the crimes commited by Germans in their quest to become a Superpower.

But there was damage done, wasn't there? Considerable damage in fact, much of it willful. If the Kaiser and the German generals had been willing to pay for it all, then that solution would be fine with me. But since that was clearly not a realistic solution, Germany had to pay.

And, in any event, why shouldn't the Allies have held the German nation to account? Germany had no problem imposing such terms when she was the victor. You seem to have a lot of sympathy for Germany, but absolutely none for Germany's many victims

As you can see from my posts, I think penalizing Germany was a factor in causing WWII. I also think the Marshall plan is one of the reasons there is peace in Europe today. In a similar case, MacAurther did a lot to help Japan and became extremely popular. The Japanese clearly have a lot of good will towards the US because of the way we treated them after the war.l

I think we should learn from history and not repeat its mistakes. But I see that we still disagree on this lesson.

[Vanguard]

The best option?
They had zero choice.

No. The Germans could have fought on if they wanted to. They just would have lost.

And in the meantime the blockade would have continued, Germans would have continued to die and, in the opinion of the aristocratic German officers, a Red revolution would have swept the country. So they accepted the armistice because they thought that accepting it was better than forfeiting their family holdings to the Reds. The whole starvation and death thing might also have been minor factors in their decision making.

After millions of weakened Germans were dead from a pandemic that was helped along by extensive malneutrition in Germany.

There is no real evidence that the pandemic was made any worse by the blockade. France lost almost exactly the same number of lives per capita to the flu as Germany did.

In fact a number of scholars are of the opinion that hunger in Germany was a result of German governmental inefficiency rather than any real shortage of food. Indeed several observers in Germany in 1919 saw no evidence at all of hunger, except in cities where rail communications had been disrupted by communists or proto-fascists. Certain revisionists even present credible evidence that caloric intake was higher in Germany than in Great Britain in the same period.

The war was over.

No. An armistice was in effect. Technically Germany could have restarted the war if she found the peace treaty unacceptable. She would have lost, of course. But that is neither here nor there. The Allies were, after all, trying to win the war. You can't blame them for doing that.

It should also be noted that on the Eastern Front Germany continued to wage a rather considerable war against various nationalist forces and internally numerous civil battles were fought. The allies did not know what the government of Germany was going to be, nor if it would accept a peace treaty. It was only prudent to maintain their advantages. In any event, when it became apparent that the war was, in fact, over, the Allies lifted the blockade of food. Which is more than the Germans did for the Soviets.

submarine warfare

No, Germany simply claimed this.

The original payment plan meant that not only would Germany have to turn over it's entire GNP every year for the next 20 years, but it would have to borrow heavily in addition to meet the payments.

Do you people just make these so-called "facts" up as you go along? Total reparations amounted to no more than three times German national income. Later negotiations reduced the total to slightly more than Germany's post war GDP. Given the fact that Germany had used half of her national income each year to fight the war, she could, using the same effort, have paid the entire reparations bill in 5 years or so. (This section has been edited to increase ambiguity. Note that estimates of national income are highly debatable.)

This was, of course, not realistically possible due to the need to export goods to obtain gold, and other factors. But there was no reason why Germany could not have comfortably paid the entire reparations bill in twenty years, especially given the fact that she had no military to support.

Germany inability to finanace reparations payments was solely due to her unwillingness to impose an income tax. I can understand the unwillingness of the German people to pay a tax that would have gone directly to France and Belgium. But their desires have no higher a priority than the unwillingness of the French and Belgian taxpayer to pay for the same thing. Why don't you feel sympathy for the French and Belgian taxpayers who actually did end up paying to repair the damage caused by the Germans? Damage caused by Germany's attempt to conquer France quickly and milk her for enormous reparations for......no damages to Germany?

Conrad of Austria is the primary culprit

The Kaiser even personally intervened with Austria, and was elated when Serbia accepted all the Austrian demands but one.
CONRAD stated "Austria must wage war for political reasons", and declared war on Serbia, which then activated it's alliance with Russia.
Russia's mobilization activated Germany, Germany in turn activated France.
To blame Germany for these events is ludicrous

The Kaiser waffled back and forth, as did Conrad. Ultimately it was the German generals who forced the Austrians and the Kaiser into a preventative first strike.

Russia's mobilization was an important point, but mobilization is not a casus belli. Russia had mobilized before and no war resulted. As Fisher and others have revealed, German state papers, though contradictory in certain regards, make it clear that it was Germany who took the decisive stance for war. If you have opposing evidence, please state the sources.

The general staff said it would be more advantagous to wage war before those events, as winning would be more difficult afterward, not that they should start a war first.

This is untrue. You make it sound as if they were simply advising on contingencies, when in fact they were strongly arguing in favor of a preemptive strike. The German generals were NOT disinterested civil servents simply providing information to the decision makers. They were, in fact, the primary cause of the war.

No, they wanted Germany bankrupt and in default, as they could then seize German industry.
quote:

Do you have any evidence for this? Didn't think so.

Germany in WWII is certainly the worst nation of the period, but to equate Imperial Germany to that model is simply incorrect.

Well, of course it would be hard for any nation to measure up to the high standard of evil set by the Third Reich. I don't think we can hold other nations to that level of performance. It just isn't fair.

Imperial Germany tried her best, however. She violated treaties, murdered civilians, bombed and shelled undefended cities, imposed peace treaties far more drastic than she herself was subject to and then weaseled out of reparations while the German people enjoyed a lower tax rate than either Britain or France. Not a Hitlerian record by any means. But none the less a fairly impressive set of villainies.

I think penalizing Germany was a factor in causing WWII.

The Second World War had the same cause as the First. Germany wanted to become the pre-eminent power in Europe by reducing France to insignifigance and by seizing land and resources in the East. German governments viewed a climactic Teutonic-Slavonic struggle as her destiny, both before WW1 and 2.

Given this, not penalizing Germany would not have prevented a Second War.