# Did the Allies of WWI pave the way for WWII?



## Lucky13 (Dec 25, 2013)

When the Treaty of Versailles was signed 28 June 1919, in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, Paris, France, did the Allies inadvertently pave the way for Hitler and WWII?


----------



## A4K (Dec 25, 2013)

Damn straight IMO.


----------



## pattle (Dec 25, 2013)

Yes they did.


----------



## stona (Dec 25, 2013)

Yes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2013)

Simple answer: yes.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 25, 2013)

The historical record is very clear on it. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone of us should rejoice that the same mistake was not repeated in 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 25, 2013)

Yup!


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 25, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> The historical record is very clear on it. YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Everyone of us should rejoice that the same mistake was not repeated in 1945.


Both in Europe and Japan!


----------



## mikewint (Dec 25, 2013)

The immediate legacy of the decision to lay the blame for WWI at Germany’s door was the disastrous Treaty of Versailles ( 1918 ). Of the nations that participated in the drawing up of the treaty, only the United States sought some measure of leniency for Germany, seeing this as the path to a lasting peace in Europe. As it was, while Britain was ambivalent, France under Georges Clemenceau, elder statesman of the Third Republic wanted vengeance. The Treaty explicitly stated that Germany accepted sole responsibility for the war and promised to pay reparations for all the damage done to the civilian populations of the Allies. Germany’s military was to be limited to no more than 100,000 troops, the navy severely cut back, an airforce was forbidden, as was any manufacture or import of armaments. Finally, in an effort to create a buffer zone with France, the Rhineland was to be turned into a demilitarized zone.
Most devastatingly, Germany was forced to pay reparations, initially 226 billion Marks in gold, although this was subsequently reduced to 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921 which is roughly equivalent to $ 385 billion in 2011, a sum that many economists at the time, notably John Maynard Keynes, deemed to be excessive and counterproductive and would have taken Germany until 1988 to pay. The final payments ended up being made on 4 October 2010. the twentieth anniversary of German reunification, and some ninety-two years after the end of the war for which they were exacted. This ruinous amount meant the Germany could not effectively rebuild its own damaged economy. This in turn created a populous impoverished underclass that was ready to listen to and embrace radical revolutionary movement that promised to alleviate the country’s plight and resurrect its fortunes. Perversely, at a time when the allies were demanding this enormous sum, they stripped Germany of 13% of its territory, including Alsace-Lorraine – a powerhouse of the German economy-which reverted to France. With the loss of this region, together with west Prussia, 16% of its coal fields, half of its iron and steel industry, and all of its overseas colonies. Germany faced a ruinous future.
The most important impact of the treaty was the effect it had on German political life. The allies demanded the creation of a civil government, and so the Kaiser and his chancellor were replaced by a parliamentary democracy – the Weimar Republic – which was disliked by moderates and loathed by extremists on both the left and right. Its inability to deal with the economic crises that occurred between 1919 and 1923 left its reputation in ruins among German workers, even after the economy began to pick up in the latter half of the 1920s. In practice, the parliament was so weak that any unscrupulous but determined groups willing to target dissatisfied workers had a good chance of securing power within the republic. 
In any event, the Allies were either unwilling or unable to enforce the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, most importantly the provision on re-armament. Although they made some token effort to ensure compliance, Germany soon began to roll back the terms of the treaty. When a political party arose in Germany in the late 1920s that promised to restore German freedom and pride – the Nazis – the Allies watched and did nothing. Even France, which had a clause inserted in the treaty that allowed for French occupation of the Rhineland should Germany ever attempt to remilitarize it, failed to act when the critical moment came in 1936. Vacillation simply encouraged extremists in Germany, who resented the treaty and interpreted a lack of action by the allies as weakness.
Of all the legacies of the four major powers ruthless imperial policies, the rise of Hitler was the most significant. In many respects, the horrors of the Holocaust and the misery of WWII are directly attributable to WWI and the subsequent ruin of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazis were able to rise to power only because Germans were resentful and beset by economic and political crises. As Professor Richard J. Evans (Regius Professor of Modern History University of Cambridge) writes, the Nazis tapped into the “incredulous horror [of] the majority of Germans [and] the sense of outrage and disbelief the swept through the German upper and middle classes like a shockwave.” Those were some of the people that cheered as Hitler made clear his intentions to discard the lingering military and territorial provisions of the Treaty of Versailles along with a promise to resurrect Germany’s former glory.
Had it not been for the Four Powers Imperial delusions, WWI may never have been fought in the first place. Even if Britain had not intervened, and Germany had defeated France in a European war, the circumstances that bred Hitler would never have eventuated. A German victory would have refashioned the face of Europe, with the next big war likely to have been a clash between Germany and the rising tide of Communism in the east. World War II might have been avoided. And with nothing to hasten the fall of the old imperial powers, the way would not have been so clear for the United States and the USSR to emerge as the two contending superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 25, 2013)

Yes and No 

The Versailles Treaty reparations whilst onerous were not as harsh as some believe. Some historians believe it was lenient particulary when compared to the reparations the Prussians imposed on France after the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. In 1925 the Locarno Treaties improved the conditions of the Versaille treaty and reintroduced Germany to International politics and can be thought of as the start of Appeasement. The Dawes and Young plans renegotiated payments and Germany was lent vast amounts dollars by US banks at generous rates to finance reparations a plan which failed because of the Great Depression when the banks had to call in loans.

In my opinion the German feeling that they hadnt lost the war and the resultant Stab in the back myth was equally important to the rise of Nazism. The real losers of the Treaties of Versaille and Locarno were the Poles and Czhechoslavakia, even in 1925 they both felt that Britain and particulary France had abandoned them for reasons of Realpolitik.

Stab-in-the-back myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## davebender (Dec 25, 2013)

July 1914 decisions leading to WWI were bad.
Entente decisions not to consider negotiated peace during 1915 were bad.
U.S. decision to support Entente war effort economically and diplomatically during 1914 to 1916 was bad.
British decision to encourage Japan to invade China during 1914 was bad.
Versailles Treaty was bad.
Post-Versailles Anglo-French support for Greek and Polish aggression against Turkey and Germany was bad.
Post Versailles French efforts to encourage rebellion in Germany were bad.
British attempts to fight Russian Bolshevik coup via proxy forces were botched.
Smoot-Hawley Tariff was one of the greatest economic blunders in recorded history.
Italian attempt to establish a dominant military position in East Africa was dumb.
1936 France formed a Marxist Government which remained in power for two years! 
1933 Germany needed a Chancellor who would fight communism and fix the economy. That doesn't mean they needed Hitler. 


The list goes on. Our current crop of world leaders appear relatively competent compared to decisions made during 1910 to 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Dec 25, 2013)

.....but we were still dealing with the very issues of July 1914 in the 1990s.


----------



## yulzari (Dec 26, 2013)

Just to put the Versailles Treaty in a French context; the 1870 war ended with 2 of France's provinces being taken into Germany and punitive reparations demanded (and paid) to Germany. The 1914 war ended with France getting it's provinces back and receiving reparation payments.

To try a different spin on it. It was the dissolution of the empires that left problems as the mixed populations, that characterised eastern europe, did not lend themselves to clear national boundaries. We saw the same in after the end of Yugoslavia 70 years later. 

However, it was the politicians applying the habits of their 19th century imperialist youth upon the youth of the 20th century and it's conflicting 'isms'. I just hope that the old leaders of China do not make the same mistake with their 20th century 'ism' youth being applied to a 21st century globalised world.

Why don't I have a 'bacon bar' like everyone else? Or do I but only others can see it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 26, 2013)

The Versailles settlement led directly to the second world war but all this was part of Europe adjusting to Germany emerging as a regional power as opposed to a divided group of principalities. This process is still going on.


----------



## DonL (Dec 26, 2013)

pbehn said:


> The Versailles settlement led directly to the second world war but all this was part of Europe adjusting to Germany emerging as a regional power as opposed to a divided group of principalities. *This process is still going on.*



Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?


----------



## pattle (Dec 26, 2013)

DonL said:


> Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?



Perhaps we could liken the separate German states pulling together into one united German state to todays seperate European states pulling together into a single European state, lets face it by todays standards we are all only really tiny countries in Europe. It's not my place to answer pbehn's quote though.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 27, 2013)

DonL said:


> Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?



donl its my Birthday so I will reply in full later but in short just cast your mind back to when Chancellerin merkel demanded reforms to the Greek economy in return for a German backed bail out of their financial system. Greek demonstrators took to the streets with placards showing Fr.Merkel as a Nazi.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2013)

We the moderators have decided to move the last 3 pages of posts to a new thread.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/1800-1914/american-vs-european-colonialism-39568.html

Why? 

It no longer had anything to do with the topic of Allies in WW1 paving the way for WW2. 

Keep this thread for the topic of WW1 and what led to WW2. If you want to discuss the colonialism of American/Europe do so in the other thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 27, 2013)

What is to dislike about the post?

We moderators felt that the discussion was not in relation to the topic at hand. Seems to me, someone just has a bone to pick.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 27, 2013)

Personally, being the one who started the thread, I think it derailed a bit and took off in a direction, that in one way or another, sooner or later, will involve politics, in which words will exchange, also, colonialism usually involve certain 'actions' that I'm _not_ a fan of...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 28, 2013)

Usually, we shouldn't do a "what if" scenario for micro events.

But since it is well documented that Adolf Hitler came within a hairs breath of being killed by a sniper; is it possible that the Wiemar Republic in the 20's and 30's would have turned out different if he had been shot dead?

Was Hitler the proverbial key man to be in the right place at the right time and bring the nazi party to power?

So in essence, not only do the Allied reparations put Germany to the edge, but it was Hitler, and only Hitler himself, that turned a smoldering ire of resentment into a political movement of vengeance?


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2013)

If Sergeant Tandy had gone ahead and turned Hitler's head into a canoe, then the NSDAP's rise to power may have been a bit more difficult.

Hitler was a master of the podium and propeganda, he had charisma and connections and was able to sell a bill of goods to the people who bought into the Nazi idea lock, stock and barrel. The German economy (a sack full of marks got you a loaf of bread) and the lingering memory of WWI's defeat, to name a few key issues, gave the NSDAP a platform to build on. They (through Hitler) offered hope and change and the people saw that as a way to regain their national pride as a whole.

Without him, it's hard to say just where (or how far) the Freikorps/NSDAP ideology would have gone.


----------



## silence (Dec 28, 2013)

I think what AH was able to do was draw together several separate smouldering piles of resentment into one big pile, big enough to ignite. 

Just Hitler? Well, I daresay Goering may have been able to as well: I feel he had the charisma and the energy - at least pre-putsch - and the intellect (witness his performance at Nuremberg) to do so. I rather think that he's so often ridiculed for his mistakes that its easy to forget his successes during the 20s and 30s. But AH had the evil _something_ no one else had.

Of the other major Nazis, the one of whom the idea of being in power really scares me is Heydrich. The rest are too defective or deficient in at least one major way (and I don't mean that pejoratively; they were lacking, say the necessary charisma, or maybe ruthlessness - just some trait or another a would-be usurper needs).

I do think that the Weimar Republic is doomed: it was too toothless and too hated to stand without being propped up.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2013)

When you say AH, are you meaning Adolf Hitler or asshat? 

Goering came into the picture later, in the 20's and early 30's, you had the likes of Hess and Bormann floating at the top of the NSDAP cesspool...


----------



## subkraft (Dec 28, 2013)

In the immediate aftermath of WW1, the Germans immediately began covertly rearming. The submarines are a good example. U boat production was simply shifted off shore, with boats being built to German design and under German supervision in Japan (1920), and Argentina (1921) A Dutch entity was set up manage the process commercially. By 1925, the clandestine German submarine programme was in full swing, dealing with Spain and Italy. True, these boats were not for the German Navy, but crucially the programme was intended to retain and develop capacity. The speed with which they moved on this clearly shows that the Germans placed a high priority on rearming, way prior to Hitler appearing on the scene. Was war intended? Can't comment. But clearly the Germans intended to remain militarily competitive with the rest of Europe in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. (Source: Rossler The U Boat, page 88 and following.)


----------



## pattle (Dec 28, 2013)

silence said:


> I think what AH was able to do was draw together several separate smouldering piles of resentment into one big pile, big enough to ignite.
> 
> Just Hitler? Well, I daresay Goering may have been able to as well: I feel he had the charisma and the energy - at least pre-putsch - and the intellect (witness his performance at Nuremberg) to do so. I rather think that he's so often ridiculed for his mistakes that its easy to forget his successes during the 20s and 30s. But AH had the evil _something_ no one else had.
> 
> ...



I think that it is a very good point about Heydrich, it has never crossed my mind before but now you have made me think about it the more I can see it.


----------



## pattle (Dec 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What is to dislike about the post?
> 
> We moderators felt that the discussion was not in relation to the topic at hand. Seems to me, someone just has a bone to pick.



I don't think we can separate American inter-war foreign policy from this topic because American inter-war foreign policy is equally as relevant as both British and French foreign policy of the same time and for that reason those comments were very pertinent to this thread. What I was saying was that it was a mistake for America to isolate itself during the inter-war years and that colonialism was rather a cheap excuse for this. I think that America realised the mistake of isolationism post World War Two but that while doing so has not admitted that isolationism was a mistake. Had America played a fuller part in World events then its influence may have made a difference, sometimes standing by is just as worse as joining in.
A very good example of the attitude of blaming everyone bar the Americans is displayed in Davebenders earlier post and that is what prompted my own. 
I take the moving of the posts relating to American inter-war foreign policy to a different and wrongly titled thread as a reluctance to accept any criticism of America. 
This is only an internet forum and not the UN, if we can't all discuss things openly without someone getting offended then things end up very one sided.
That is why I disliked the post.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2013)

And if the discussion had stayed at to the points about America you make above that would have been fine. The discussion however no longer was related. Post WW2 events have nothing to do with pre war colonialism.

It is our job to keep posts on topic. 

You can still discuss the other topic, but do so in the other thread.

So how are we not allowing you to discuss things openly, or say things negatively about the US? Has anyone told you that you can't. Has anyone given you an infraction? Nope don't think so. Everyone can state their personal opinions and discuss things openly.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 28, 2013)

I hate McDonald's, Burger King and KFC! Buy Sibylla instead! Pheeeeew....so glad to get that off my chest, feels so much better now!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 28, 2013)

No economic imperialism here .... just good eats

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 28, 2013)

Totally!


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 28, 2013)

We are all going to have to learn Mandarin anyway soon when our Chinese Overlords call in the debts the western world owes them. Szcechuan Chicken and noodles for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Dec 28, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> When you say AH, are you meaning Adolf Hitler or asshat?
> 
> Goering came into the picture later, in the 20's and early 30's, you had the likes of Hess and Bormann floating at the top of the NSDAP cesspool...



In this case "AH" is a rather convenient catch-all!

Goering joined in '22, was given command of the SA, and marched in the '23 Beer Hall Putsch. I think that's early enough. Bormann joined in '27, Hess in '20 but worked in fundraising and such; I'd call him more of a simple aide than a power broker.


----------



## pattle (Dec 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And if the discussion had stayed at to the points about America you make above that would have been fine. The discussion however no longer was related. Post WW2 events have nothing to do with pre war colonialism.
> 
> It is our job to keep posts on topic.
> 
> ...



The point I made in my last post was precisely the same point as I was making in my earlier posts. As to how are you not allowing things to be discussed openly, or to say things negative about the US, the answer to this is by trying to bury these comments in other thread. Maybe my comments were part of a social experiment if so I wonder what the result was. 
I enjoy a bit of banter so feel free to click the dislike the post button, as an added bonus I will once again give you the opportunity to have the last word.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2013)

pattle said:


> The point I made in my last post was precisely the same point as I was making in my earlier posts. As to how are you not allowing things to be discussed openly, or to say things negative about the US, the answer to this is by trying to bury these comments in other thread. Maybe my comments were part of a social experiment if so I wonder what the result was.
> I enjoy a bit of banter so feel free to click the dislike the post button, as an added bonus I will once again give you the opportunity to have the last word.


I'm not sure if you're aware of the fact that baiting the mods and persisting in the idea that the forum defends all things American isn't helping this discussion any.

You may be even surpsrised to know that several of the mods aren't American, too...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware of the fact that baiting the mods and persisting in the idea that the forum defends all things American isn't helping this discussion any.
> 
> You may be even surpsrised to know that several of the mods aren't American, too...



I would give you bacon, but we have apparently censored that now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would give you bacon, but we have apparently censored that now.


----------



## pattle (Dec 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would give you bacon, but we have apparently censored that now.



Thanks, I love you to. Can we be friends again now?

Seriously, I have no hard feelings over this.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2013)

Being a smart ass does not help.

This is the internet, I don't care if you like me or not. Just don't disrupt the forum please. Making childish statements about censoring does not float well in my book. Fortunately most people see the comments the same way.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Being a smart ass does not help.
> 
> This is the internet, I don't care if you like me or not. Just don't disrupt the forum please. Making childish statements about censoring does not float well in my book. Fortunately most people see the comments the same way.




A-Fricken-Men!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 28, 2013)

pattle said:


> I don't think we can separate American inter-war foreign policy from this topic because American inter-war foreign policy is equally as relevant as both British and French foreign policy of the same time and for that reason those comments were very pertinent to this thread. What I was saying was that it was a mistake for America to isolate itself during the inter-war years and that colonialism was rather a cheap excuse for this. I think that America realised the mistake of isolationism post World War Two but that while doing so has not admitted that isolationism was a mistake. Had America played a fuller part in World events then its influence may have made a difference, sometimes standing by is just as worse as joining in.
> A very good example of the attitude of blaming everyone bar the Americans is displayed in Davebenders earlier post and that is what prompted my own.
> I take the moving of the posts relating to American inter-war foreign policy to a different and wrongly titled thread as a reluctance to accept any criticism of America.
> This is only an internet forum and not the UN, if we can't all discuss things openly without someone getting offended then things end up very one sided.
> That is why I disliked the post.



Well then, I guess its time to merge ALL the threads on this entire forum into one continuous thread. Good luck trying to keep up with that - but you'll be free to post whatever you want. Free association!!


----------



## pbehn (Dec 28, 2013)

DonL said:


> Can you please explain what do you mean with this sentence?



Donl...I will try and also try to get this thread on topic. The influence of the Germanic peoples in Europe has always been profound, English is officially a Germanic language. The very name Germania comes from the Latin for "our brothers" as in Gemini. After the collapse of the Roman Empire the Angles and Saxons populated what is now Great Britain and many other places too. By a chance of geography and politics present day France was always (almost always) the biggest single power in Western Europe. After the Norman invasion of Great Britain French monarchs controlled France Great Britain Ireland and huge swathes of land all the way to the middle east. Eventually internal conflicts lead to the 100 yrs war between France and England and territories won by the crusaders were lost. For hundreds of years the people of present day Germany lived but were never a united entity. At the time of Luis Dauphin the northern German states Netherlands and British fought the French and Bavarians. Then came Napoleon, napoleon destroyed completely the balance in Europe and created the idea of nationalism, not only French nationalism but also German and Italian Nationalism. After the defeat of Napoleon, Bismark was able to unify Germany on nationalist grounds, previously the southern states of Germany were more aligned with France as a catholic State. Following the Franco Prussian war and the unification of Germany and also Italy France was no longer a huge fish in a small pond it was one of a few big fish and didn't like it much. With the defeat of Germany in the first world war in my opinion France did everything it could to take Germany out of the game as an economic and therefore military power. For the British who were always a maritime power rather than a land power they got a nasty shock at the capability of the German navy. The British had no interest in helping a united Germany compete as an industrial power.

I said "the process is still going on" because I believe it is. France is trying to control Germany politically using the second world war into shaming Germany into financing the great Euro project. The British are just as bad wheeling out Adolf every time Germany demands that the money it pays into the Euro project is paid back. 

For the Germans I know no one who was involved in WWII although in previous years I have had a beer with ex POWs (and a great time we had too) however almost every German I know has a Deutschmark coin or note either in his wallet or at home, as I see it modern day Europe and the Euro is seen as a sort of penance they must pay for their forefathers mistakes.

This is a potted history to try to get back on topic and answer a question feel free to pick holes I have no axe to grind here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2013)

Thank you pbehn for moving this back in the right direction.


----------



## DonL (Dec 28, 2013)

pbehn said:


> Donl...I will try and also try to get this thread on topic. The influence of the Germanic peoples in Europe has always been profound, English is officially a Germanic language. The very name Germania comes from the Latin for "our brothers" as in Gemini. After the collapse of the Roman Empire the Angles and Saxons populated what is now Great Britain and many other places too. By a chance of geography and politics present day France was always (almost always) the biggest single power in Western Europe. After the Norman invasion of Great Britain French monarchs controlled France Great Britain Ireland and huge swathes of land all the way to the middle east. Eventually internal conflicts lead to the 100 yrs war between France and England and territories won by the crusaders were lost. For hundreds of years the people of present day Germany lived but were never a united entity. At the time of Luis Dauphin the northern German states Netherlands and British fought the French and Bavarians. Then came Napoleon, napoleon destroyed completely the balance in Europe and created the idea of nationalism, not only French nationalism but also German and Italian Nationalism. After the defeat of Napoleon, Bismark was able to unify Germany on nationalist grounds, previously the southern states of Germany were more aligned with France as a catholic State. Following the Franco Prussian war and the unification of Germany and also Italy France was no longer a huge fish in a small pond it was one of a few big fish and didn't like it much. With the defeat of Germany in the first world war in my opinion France did everything it could to take Germany out of the game as an economic and therefore military power. For the British who were always a maritime power rather than a land power they got a nasty shock at the capability of the German navy. The British had no interest in helping a united Germany compete as an industrial power.
> 
> I said "the process is still going on" because I believe it is. France is trying to control Germany politically using the second world war into shaming Germany into financing the great Euro project. The British are just as bad wheeling out Adolf every time Germany demands that the money it pays into the Euro project is paid back.
> 
> ...



Hello pbehn thank you for your analyse and happy birthday belated.

I don't know how much you are involved in german politics, but France is betting on a very dead horse if they are believing united Euro Bonds will ever be introduced with german politicians. Every politician in Germany knows he will massively loose every election with Euro Bonds, that's a fact from the last election and countless polls.

France has lost it's power over Germany first at 1991 with the German reunification and second with it's very ill economy.
France has at the present enormous economical and financial problems and an aimlessly government.

Mr. Hollande is trieing since near two years with every power and sometimes threats (also with the support from Mr. Obama) to convince the german government for united Euro Bonds, he can do this till the next century without success. With the german citizens at elections, there will be no Euro Bonds.

Also from my understanding the German economy benefits a lot from the Euro, more then most other economies at Europe through our huge trade surplus.

My analyse is, that Germany is at the moment the biggest economical power in Europe and also the biggest political power, because without german money there is not so much going to happen. But the german government takes the political power very carefully, but also has learned to fight for their own interests without much fuss.

In France and England, Mrs Merkel is also known as Madame and Mrs. No and she has promised to the german citizens that she will stay to this No and fight for german interests.
As long as the german economy is this strong nobody (no other country/government )can control to my opinion the german government.

I think Germany is matured and isn't under the control of anybody, but we are fighting for our interest more carefully and much more gentle then at 1914 or 1939 and also we are showing solidarity to a certain point.
But we are far away from being manipulated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 29, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> We are all going to have to learn Mandarin anyway soon when our Chinese Overlords call in the debts the western world owes them. Szcechuan Chicken and noodles for me.



My country has no debts but credits to them.
However, they have never refunded any of them till now if my memory is correct.
I don't think you have to pay

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 29, 2013)

DonL said:


> My analyse is, that Germany is at the moment the biggest economical power in Europe.....



Would that be of those, that traded in their currency for Euro? I know that Sweden and the UK didn't go for it a few years back...don't know if anyone voted against it....

Anyhoo, I think that I'm drifting away from the topic of this thread...


----------



## Njaco (Dec 29, 2013)

You're not the first......


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 29, 2013)

"...I don't think you have to pay..."

There's debt, Shinpachi, and then there's debt within _the family_ ...


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 29, 2013)

Shinpachi said:


> My country has no debts but credits to them.
> However, they have never refunded any of them till now if my memory is correct.
> I don't think you have to pay



I have just been reading an article in the Observer sunday newspaper about the US bond market. Basically Chinese money is the bond market at the moment only the Chinese Govt have the funds to play with. If China had a change of policy and they decided to invest there spare trillions somewhere else then the US and half the rest of the world is going to catch a massive cold. If the bond market collapses and it is thought that US bonds are trading between 2 and 3 times what the natural price should be then the US Federal reserve can not carry on pump priming the US economy as it has been doing. It gives me the shivers to think that the US and European economy hangs by Bejings thread, they would be mad to destroy there biggest market but maybe they could use the threat to squeeze our balls to get there own way. 

Like I said probably best to start Mandarin lessons or at least start teaching it to our primary school kids.


----------



## syscom3 (Dec 29, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> Like I said probably best to start Mandarin lessons or at least start teaching it to our primary school kids.



When you oew the bank a billion dollars, you're in trouble. When you owe the bank a trillion dollars, the bank is in trouble.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 29, 2013)

I need further research but you are forgetting that our goverment owns equivalent amount of the US bond to China and can increase it double if necessary thought it must be limited temporary one. I feel no threats at the moment.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 30, 2013)

".... I enjoy a bit of banter so feel free to ....."

Thanks pattle, I will. The news reported from Athens this morning states the some poor, debt-enslaved individuals machine-gunned the German Embassy overnight. That's it -- strike back at _The Man_ .... 

Hey, Shinpachi, please correct me if I am wrong .... but ... it is my understanding that Japanese Federal Debt (massive) is held in the form of bonds largely purchased by Japanese individuals and institutions .... is that essentially correct ..??

M


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 30, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> "
> Hey, Shinpachi, please correct me if I am wrong .... but ... it is my understanding that Japanese Federal Debt (massive) is held in the form of bonds largely purchased by Japanese individuals and institutions .... is that essentially correct ..??
> M



A keen question, MM 
Japanese bonds are largely owned by the Japanese investment institutions like city banks and, of course, individuals as you point out.

This has nothing to do with your question directly but, imagining your intention, our government owned trillions debts to the domestic investors beside the reparation when the war was over. In spite of being in the devastation, the Japanese goverment paid all debts to those investors by/around 1950. Where did they get such money? USA? No. They imposed new income tax of the same amounts on the same day.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 30, 2013)

"....Where did they get such money? USA? No. They imposed new income tax of the same amounts on the same day."

And the Japanese people themselves have traditionally been great 'savers' have they not ...? 

As I said earlier: " ..There's debt, and then there's debt within the _famil_y.."


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2013)

Didn't Germany suffer a great depression just after the WWI, before the great depression itself, or do I remember wrong?


----------



## Shinpachi (Dec 30, 2013)

You know about our culture very well, MM 

Imperial Japanese Army and Navy were disbanded but the bureaucratic organization survived.
As long as I am a Japanese, I will never buy the Japanese bonds!



Sorry for my off-topic, Jan!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Dec 30, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't Germany suffer a great depression just after the WWI, before the great depression itself, or do I remember wrong?



They suffer not a great depression after WWI but they suffer

1. hunger crisis at 1918 and 1919
2. A very big Inflation through the Ruhr fight with France 1923 with the introduction of a new currency after the big inflation.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 30, 2013)

Aaaah.....maybe it's that I'm thinking about, cheers mate!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 30, 2013)

"....They suffer not a great depression after WWI but they suffer..."

... and add to that list an '_almos_t' communist revolution ... with street figning ... and in the sewers too, IIRC


----------



## yulzari (Dec 31, 2013)

michaelmaltby said:


> The news reported from Athens this morning states the some poor, debt-enslaved individuals machine-gunned the German Embassy overnight. That's it -- strike back at _The Man_ ....
> M


Have I gone suddenly dim or was it not the Greeks spending money like they had a German economy who got themselves into the mess when someone noticed the Emperor had no clothes?

Anyway, a warm welcome to the Eurozone Latvia.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 31, 2013)

yulzari said:


> Have I gone suddenly dim or was it not the Greeks spending money like they had a German economy who got themselves into the mess when someone noticed the Emperor had no clothes?



That's our economics. if you cant pay a loan back its the lenders fault and if they don't lend (give) more They are a Neo Nazis (for Germans) or a Neo colonialists (for British). In terms of the thread it is trying to control Euro Economics by emotional blackmail, since Versailles didn't work and WWII isn't going to be repeated any time soon, this is the latest idea for Euro harmony. Its Robin Hood economics take from the rich to give to the poor, except your average German isn't as well provided for as your average Greek....freakin madness


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 3, 2014)

I think that examination would find that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, with the possible exception of the war guilt clause (a clause that was, in many ways perfectly justifiable, albeit severely lacking in tact) were no more severe or less severe than those that were imposed on France after the Napoleonic Wars (the Treaty of Vienna was much, much worse towards the innocent: except for San Marino, every republic in the Italian Peninsula was destroyed and given to the Austrians). 

IMHO, the biggest mistake made by the Entente was that they didn't have their victory parade down Charlottenburger Chaussee to the Brandenburg Gate. This, more than any minor differences in wording, would drive home the fact that the German _Army_ lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 4, 2014)

Interesting and, in many ways, an unexpectedly edifying discussion. A comment perhaps relevant to the original topic about cause and effect: During a recent wine tour (booze Crooze?) down the Mosel and up and down the Rhine (2011, and I heartily recommend it if you ever gat the chance!) I observed the ruins of many picturesque castles on hill tops bordering the river. When I asked our dutch and belgium guides about the cause for their evident disrepair. The answer was inevitably, "_They were destroyed during one or another pre-1850 French invasion._" 

It struck me then that the roots of 20th century conflict could arguably be seen as dating back to Roman times. 

Payback is the bi*ch that keeps on giving or taking as the case may be.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 4, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> I think that examination would find that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, with the possible exception of the war guilt clause (a clause that was, in many ways perfectly justifiable, albeit severely lacking in tact) were no more severe or less severe than those that were imposed on France after the Napoleonic Wars (the Treaty of Vienna was much, much worse towards the innocent: except for San Marino, every republic in the Italian Peninsula was destroyed and given to the Austrians).
> 
> IMHO, the biggest mistake made by the Entente was that they _*didn't have their victory parade down Charlottenburger Chaussee to the Brandenburg Gate.*_ This, more than any minor differences in wording, would drive home the fact that the German _Army_ lost.



As long as the parade was quickly followed by an Entente financed rebuilding program to drive home the fact that Germany's enemies weren't so much enemies as politically expedient scapegoats. European history buffs may comment on whether this simplistic, perhaps naive, Marshal-like plan could ever have _realistically_ happened.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 5, 2014)

One could argue that the 1871 Treaty of Frankfort paved the way for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. 

Apart from reparations, 1.5 million French citizens had to be come German to remain in their own homes. 0.5 million left as refugees including my grandparents. France remained occupied by German forces until the reparations were paid.

Officially WW1 ended in September 2010 when Germany finally paid off the last of it's due payments.

Mind you Britain is still owed over £100 billion for WW1 loans (at today's value).

Britain also owes the USA £1 billion, which is about £1 per day per British soldier fighting the first 4 years of the war. Bloody good value I say. You try getting soldiers at that rate of pay.

_'Shilling a day, bloody good Pay. Bloody lucky to get it too!'_


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 5, 2014)

"...It struck me then that the roots of 20th century conflict could arguably be seen as dating back to Roman times..."

If only they hadn't built all those damn _roads_...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## yulzari (Jan 9, 2014)

Never mind the roads.

Damn savannas. Never should have left the trees.

Ook!


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 10, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't Germany suffer a great depression just after the WWI, before the great depression itself, or do I remember wrong?


There was a serious breakdown, a widespread impoverishment, that led to a failure of law and order, how about that? In a nut, Lucky, I'll even call it "anarchy." If it wasn't, it was pretty darn close.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 12, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> There was a serious breakdown, a widespread impoverishment, that led to a failure of law and order, how about that? In a nut, Lucky, I'll even call it "anarchy." If it wasn't, it was pretty darn close.



I've read in many places that one problem that Weimar had was that it could not trust the security forces, including the army, to maintain order. For example, the security services did very little to curb the _Freikorps_, a group that had heavy responsibility in breaking law and order. An Entente parade through the streets of Berlin would have driven home that the army had lost. A robust occupation may have made it possible for Weimar to break the _Freikorps_, which would have removed the law and order breakdown.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 12, 2014)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> As long as the parade was quickly followed by an Entente financed rebuilding program to drive home the fact that Germany's enemies weren't so much enemies as politically expedient scapegoats. European history buffs may comment on whether this simplistic, perhaps naive, Marshal-like plan could ever have _realistically_ happened.



I think a robust occupation would have helped, too. One of the driving forces behind groups like the nazis was that Germany didn't lose, but was betrayed. I'd also have required Kaiser Bill to sign the surrender, and not recognize the new German government until he did so. If he doesn't, then von Ludendorf, von Moltke, and Falkenhayn, and von Hindenburg do so _publicly[\i]. Prinz Wilhelm was too young -- only 11 -- to be considered._

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## silence (Jan 13, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> I think a robust occupation would have helped, too. One of the driving forces behind groups like the nazis was that Germany didn't lose, but was betrayed. I'd also have required Kaiser Bill to sign the surrender, and not recognize the new German government until he did so. If he doesn't, then von Ludendorf, von Moltke, and Falkenhayn, and von Hindenburg do so _publicly[\i]. Prinz Wilhelm was too young -- only 11 -- to be considered._


_

Actually, I'd say the opposite was needed - a Marshall Plan rather than grinding the boot. It seems the allies just kinda said, "Ok, now you're a democracy. Make it work but don't forget you also owe us a ton of money." How many nations got a representative democracy right the first time vs. how many screwed it up?

The blockade should have been called off immediately after the Armistice: Germany was beaten and they knew it. If you keep kicking a foe when he's down, you're just whetting his appetite for getting even._


----------



## DonL (Jan 13, 2014)

I agree with silence.

The Freicorps also maked sure, that Germany was a republic and not a Sowjet communism regime. 
They helped the republic to knock of red revolutions all around the country.
After the treaty was signed and the Weimar Republic got the Reichwehr the Freicorps were dissolved or chased from the regular Army.

Weimar was occupied from France at Rhineland occupation 1923, how long do you want to occupy a country as big as Germany with 80 millionen people?
Also you are aware the Nazi's came to power through elections, how do you want to prevent such a election?

A complete occupation would have caused a "civilian or terrorism" war against the occupier, especially France.
This had caused massacres on civiliands and occupier soldiers, it would have been very bloody from both sides.

The germans were kidded from the Allied's with the Wilson notes and the armistice. With a complete occupation all would be made much more worse.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 13, 2014)

Hitler wasn't.


----------



## DonL (Jan 13, 2014)

As chancellor he was ellected as President he did a coup 1934.
Do you realy want to occupy Germany more then 10 years? Who will paying for this occupation?
Do you realy think Germany could pay the reparations (which they couldn't from reality) and also pay for a occupation?


----------



## Njaco (Jan 13, 2014)

Hitler was not elected.

On 30 January 1933, Hitler was named chancellor. He was not elected.

On 1 August 1934, the cabinet had enacted the "Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich". This law stated that upon Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. 

On 2 August 1934, President von Hindenburg died. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor).

He was never elected.

As for occupation, I am not understanding you.


----------



## DonL (Jan 13, 2014)

You are aware of the constitution of the Weimarer Republic?

There were emergency acts for the President.
Hitler as chancellor was in agreement with the constitution, also the nazi party won two ellections.

I haven't read anything that the Allieds had critized or protested against the Weimarer constitution or that special regulation were at the Versaille Treaty.

So how do you want to prevent Hitler as chancellor from the Allied side?
My argumentation to a occupation was to the post of swampyankee


----------



## silence (Jan 13, 2014)

Njaco said:


> Hitler was not elected.
> 
> On 30 January 1933, Hitler was named chancellor. He was not elected.
> 
> ...



1. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the duly elected President, von Hindenburg.

2. The Enabling Act of '32 was passed by the Reichstag 441-84, making the Nazi government effectively a dictatorship. The caveat is that legally, this law would disallow the later Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich of '34, which merged the Chancellorship and Presidency. However, no one objected, which could be read as tacit approval of the law by the Reichstag.

3. On August 19, 1934, 88.1% of the 45.5M German voters approved of the merging of the offices of the Presidency and Chancellor, cementing the dictatorship.

Items 1 and 2 are the results of a _representative democracy_ (which I think is the key re: elections); item 3 is the result of a popular vote. Either way I think one can reasonably argue that Hitler was, in fact, elected. Along a similar model the British Prime Minister is appointed by the House of Commons majority, who themselves are representatives. However, the PM is not directly elected but, in effect, named. (Our Brit buddies will hopefully correct any errors I made.)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 14, 2014)

"...Our Brit buddies will hopefully correct any errors .."

Canadian parliament works like British parliament. The political party elects a leader to take the party into a general election. If successful, that leader is the Prime Minister (but also an 'ordinary' elected Member of Parliament for the riding that he or she represents).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 14, 2014)

silence said:


> 1. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the duly elected President, von Hindenburg.
> 
> 2. The Enabling Act of '32 was passed by the Reichstag 441-84, making the Nazi government effectively a dictatorship. The caveat is that legally, this law would disallow the later Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich of '34, which merged the Chancellorship and Presidency. However, no one objected, which could be read as tacit approval of the law by the Reichstag.
> 
> ...



This teaches me to completely read a post before clicking anything.

I still can not see where Hitler was elected.

Hindenburg, although 'duly elected', *appointed *Hitler and that does not mean Hitler was elected by association. There was intrigue getting Hitler appointed as Chancellor but there was never an election held with him as a candidate. Unless my definition of "elected" is skewered. 

So Hitler becomes Chancellor and the NDSAP gains about 43% of the seats in the Reichstag. They proceed to make procedural changes within that will make it easier for Hitler to gain power such as the Enabling Acts and Law Concerning the Highest State Office. The vote of August 19, 1934 is still not a direct 'election'. It was a vote on procedure and not 'electing' Hitler although the outcome was that Hitler gained full power. He still was not elected. 

I still stand by my original post. Hitler was not elected.


----------



## pbehn (Jan 15, 2014)

michaelmaltby said:


> "...Our Brit buddies will hopefully correct any errors .."
> 
> Canadian parliament works like British parliament. The political party elects a leader to take the party into a general election. If successful, that leader is the Prime Minister (but also an 'ordinary' elected Member of Parliament for the riding that he or she represents).



In the UK after a general election the Queen invites the party leader with the most support to form a government, the term Prime Minister is quite new, it used to be "First Lord of the Treasury" The new prime minister chooses a "cabinet" which is in effect the government. In the case of a declaration of war the cabinet decides and presents parliament with the fact. (I think that is how Churchill worded it)


----------



## silence (Jan 15, 2014)

Njaco said:


> This teaches me to completely read a post before clicking anything.
> 
> I still can not see where Hitler was elected.
> 
> ...



Ultimately, my point is that - if I understand parliamentary procedures correctly - AH's ascension to power was along the lines of, eg, Churchill's. Now, was Churchill not then "elected," or, as party leader effectively appointed? The NSDAP, was also the party in power, though by virtue of a coalition rather than a single party.

SO AH was not elected the way an American president is, but it seems to me there are a lot of similarities to the way a British PM attains office.

But maybe I/we am/are splitting hairs here. It might be a better question to ask if he came to power legally and under the existent system at the time rather than was he elected.


----------



## gumbyk (Jan 15, 2014)

silence said:


> Ultimately, my point is that - if I understand parliamentary procedures correctly - AH's ascension to power was along the lines of, eg, Churchill's. Now, was Churchill not then "elected," or, as party leader effectively appointed? The NSDAP, was also the party in power, though by virtue of a coalition rather than a single party.
> 
> SO AH was not elected the way an American president is, but it seems to me there are a lot of similarities to the way a British PM attains office.
> 
> But maybe I/we am/are splitting hairs here. It might be a better question to ask if he came to power legally and under the existent system at the time rather than was he elected.


While he may not have been _directly_ elected, he was the leader of the majority party.

Here in New Zealand (and many other countries, as I understand it), the Prime Minister is just that (Top Minister). If they resign mid-term, then we do not have a new election, the party appoints a new leader in Parliament. This, as I understand it is the difference between a Prime Minister and a President. A Prime Minister doesn't have any more powers than any other minister in the Government.

So, was Hitler elected? No. Did he legitimately come to power under a democratic system? Yes


----------



## parsifal (Jan 15, 2014)

Versailles contributed to the road to war, but the decision to go to war was all germany. 


Some argue that Versaille was an unfair treaty. Perhaps. It could have followed the 14 points more closely. I doubt that woud have avoided another war though. Versaille failed because it allowed radical elements within Germany to hoodwink the majority into believing that germany had been tricked into surrendering, the so called "stabbed in the back" lie. 

ermany was treated lightly and leniently after the war, because of American reservations mostly, and this leniency was the fatal mistake of the treaty. I agree with Pershing. in order to drive the point home unequivocally, the offensives of late 1918 that were at last making progress, needed to be continued and unconditional surrender achieved. Whatever the further costs to the allies, this, in my view was the only option after four years of blood letting

Germany needed to experience occupation and total defeat and control by an allied commission, not dissimilar to the post 1945 administration. Continued existence of the german state as an entity needed to be questioned, to scare the bejeesus out of these trouble makers Then we might have had some justification for the terrible losses Germany caused the world over that 30 year period. 

I dont compromise on bullying issues. sorry guys

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 15, 2014)

Maybe I am splitting hairs and maybe I'm just dense. A person who is appointed by someone who was elected does not mean that he, himself is elected just by association. Maybe its just the American sense of the term 'elected' that I'm stuck on. When someone asks for the population to vote for him and the population casts a vote then the person is elected. I just don't understand this European sensibility of the term 'elected' meaning that the party in power appoints you a position then you are elected. I'll just leave it at that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Jan 15, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Versailles contributed to the road to war, but the decision to go to war was all germany.
> 
> 
> Some argue that Versaille was an unfair treaty. Perhaps. It could have followed the 14 points more closely. I doubt that woud have avoided another war though. Versaille failed because it allowed radical elements within Germany to hoodwink the majority into believing that germany had been tricked into surrendering, the so called "stabbed in the back" lie.
> ...



Rubish!

The reparations, the humiliation, the total disarmament of the german military, so that germany was defenseless even against a polish attack and the singlesided war guilt of the versaille treaty next the Rhur occupation of 1923, all this was the forerunner of the radical elements called Nazi's and the forerunner to WWII.

The best proof is, how this was handled after WWII and how it worked for the germans.



> Then we might have had some justification for the terrible losses Germany caused the world over that 30 year period.



I would like to see the justification for the european people that cost the terrible losses of the France imperialism under Bonaparte and the British imperialism from 1600 - 1900!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 15, 2014)

> I would like to see the justification for the european people that cost the terrible losses of the France imperialism under Bonaparte and the British imperialism from 1600 - 1900!



Thats not within the scope of this thread. And if you can't respond nicely to someone's post without getting upset, maybe you should find another forum. I'm tired of the lack of respect you show other members and their opinions.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

The treaty itself is often talked about and criticised and yet many dont have a detailed knowledge of its content.


One of the most controversial elements to the treaty, and perhaps the real reason why it is still reviled in germany as being "unfair" was the war guilt clauses. Known as article 231, it required "Germany to accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). 

The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2014). At the time some economists, notably John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace", and said the figure was excessive and counterproductive. However Sally Marks has shown these reparations figures to be lenient as far as the extent of war damage that was actually caused. It was a figure often blamed for the German economic melt down in early 30's, but as marks shows, was well within the capacity of the German economy. what was not taken into account was the very poor economic leadership shown by the germans in the post war period. More significant to the german economic failure was their own mismanagement of the economy, the printing of money they did not have caused their economy to enter melt down rather than the strains of the reparations payments. in any event, reprations in 1922 were not really taking effect. The reparations were a sum designed as a sum to look imposing but was in fact not, because of the deferred payment system that took effect almost immediately. Marks argues that reparations had little impact on the German economy and analyzed the treaty as a whole to be quite restrained and not as harsh as it could have been.

The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left none contented: Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and the renegotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and finally the postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. The reparations paymentsa were suspended during the hitler years, with less than a third paid off at that point, and were not completed until well after WWII. Blaming the German descent into barbarism because of the reprations is therefore a cop out, furphy conveniently trotted out with depressing regularity by hitlerian apologists, because most people omit to actually study the treaty .

The territorial concessions extracted out of germany were of great angst within Germany, and are often paraded as evidence of the pique that underpinned the treaty. Certainly it was a treaty full of nastiness, but in comparison to other contemporary treaties, was really a very tame and benign imposition on Germany. They were also entirely consistent with Wilsons 14 points. Versaille was not inconsistent with Wilsons very reasonable charter with regard to its territorial concessions. One of the fourteen points had included

"5.A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all German territories , based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined. 

8.All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

9.A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

13.An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. 

To anyone but a german, these are reasonable adjustments to the map of Europe, given the trouble and suffering of the precedeing 4 years. in the years that followed, Wilsons 14 points, particulalry these territorial adjustments were railed against by the new fascist leadership, and used by them as reason for going back to war, but how does that compare to the peace imposed on the defeated russia under Brest Litovsk. under that grotesque document, dictated on a prostrate Russia by an exultant and cruel german regime, the germans attempted to enslave more than 62 million Russians under the Imperial Jackboot, occupying nearly 25% of Russian territory (about 3.4 million sq miles) with no rights of self determination and no regard to the wishes or ethnicity of the people being enslaved. Reparations under Brest Litovsk were about 4 times those imposed under Versailles, and were designed to destroy the Russian economy. had that treaty been retained (one of the Versailles requirements was that it had to be abrogated by Germany), and we will simply never know if Germany would have relaxed its reparations provisions to a more reasonable level. 

By comparison the Versaille treaty forced the germans to cede about 7% of its territory and lose about 700000 of its popilation that were at least ostensibly based on ethginicity and the principal of self determination .

Put this all together and the lie that Versailles was somehow instrumental in causing WWII, or that it was an especially vicious and uncompromising peace, is exposed for the untruth that it is. it was tough, but not tough enough. neither was it conciliatory as had been intended by Wilson. It was very much the compromise peace decided upon amongst the allies. what it did do was rub germany's nose in the dirt without inflicting enough real pain as to make a difference to her war making potential. so in the end, you ended up with a country with its nose out of joint, and not wounded as far as military power was concerned


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

Wow, never been called a hitlerian apologist before...

Been called a lot of things, but never that.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Jan 16, 2014)

> To anyone but a german, these are reasonable adjustments to the map of Europe, given the trouble and suffering of the precedeing 4 years. in the years that followed, Wilsons 14 points, particulalry these territorial adjustments were railed against by the new fascist leadership, and used by them as reason for going back to war, but how does that compare to the peace imposed on the defeated russia under Brest Litovsk. under that grotesque document, dictated on a prostrate Russia by an exultant and cruel german regime, the germans attempted to enslave more than 62 million Russians under the Imperial Jackboot, occupying nearly 25% of Russian territory (about 3.4 million sq miles) with no rights of self determination and no regard to the wishes or ethnicity of the people being enslaved. Reparations under Brest Litovsk were about 4 times those imposed under Versailles, and were designed to destroy the Russian economy. had that treaty been retained (one of the Versailles requirements was that it had to be abrogated by Germany), and we will simply never know if Germany would have relaxed its reparations provisions to a more reasonable level.



Do you are realy sure about this?

At the treaty of Brest Litovsk, their was not a single peace of money/reparations to Germany.
Please show us from official papers your claim of the reparations

Also Germany had not annex one peace of territory from Russia.
If you look on a map today, the same countrys are there as it was rueled at the treaty of Brest Litovsk with the same national people,
Finnland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine and Polen wasn't to any time a real part of Russia.

To your mathematics and claims about german economic and economic leaders, they are very far from any reality. The inflation came through the war debts, the *reparations* and the Ruhr fight, from nothing else. All other is a lie!
To your information, Germany has paid the last rate of the reparations of the Versaille Treaty *2010*
210 million Euros

Your post is the next anti german propaganda post and very far away from any reality.
To me it isn't understandable, how someone can write at the year 2014, things that are this far away from any truth and after countless of international historians, which have proved the total opposite.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

You can get your point accross without directly calling someone a liar. We have been over this. 

Of course calling people hitlerian apologists isn't much better. 

I see where all of this headed. Don't need a crystal ball.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 16, 2014)

"...I see where all of this headed...."


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wow, never been called a hitlerian apologist before...
> 
> Been called a lot of things, but never that.



i never called you that, and never believed it.

everything Ive written is on topic and does not attack anyone. it attacks issues. Deal with that, instead of getting offended over something i never intended it to be. debate with me by all means, and I give you my word i will respect your opinions. i probably wont agree with them, but when did that become an issue around here, especially for you. i know you are much better than that


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You can get your point accross without directly calling someone a liar. We have been over this.
> 
> Of course calling people hitlerian apologists isn't much better.
> 
> I see where all of this headed. Don't need a crystal ball.



not with me it isnt. i cannot see certain other members comments and pay no attention to anything they may say or how they may react. its going to stay that way. if I misbehave, by all means do as is right, but dont judge me on the misbehaviour of other members that for a long while now i have put on my ignore list.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Russia (the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey), which ended Russia's participation in World War I. The treaty was signed at Brest-Litovsk (now Brest, Belarus) after two months of negotiations. The treaty was forced on the Soviet government by the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. By the treaty, Soviet Russia defaulted on Imperial Russia's commitments to the Triple Entente alliance.

According to Spencer Tucker (World War I) Russia ceded Baltic States to Germany, recognized the independence of Ukraine (prior to that had been part of imperial Russia, as it again was under the communists, and agreed to pay six billion German gold mark in reparations (a different figure to other sources that i have, but the reparations were payable "up front" and at that time quite beyond Soviet russias capacity to pay). Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator. Russian-Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests". When Germans later complained that the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was too harsh on them, the Allies (and historians favorable to the Allies) responded that it was more benign than Brest-Litovsk. Under the treaty, the Baltic states (other Russian Duchies that were part of Imperial russia, these were not returned to Stalin until June 1940) were meant to become German vassal states under German princelings. They were no more german than they were russian, but at least Russia had some recent historical claims to these lands.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 16, 2014)

I think this thread needs to be put in the cooler for a bit before the Ban Hammer comes out.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> i never called you that, and never believed it.
> 
> everything Ive written is on topic and does not attack anyone. it attacks issues. Deal with that, instead of getting offended over something i never intended it to be. debate with me by all means, and I give you my word i will respect your opinions. i probably wont agree with them, but when did that become an issue around here, especially for you. i know you are much better than that



Sure you did. Basically you said that people who believe that Germany should not have received all the blame, that Germany was not fully defeated and that the treaty of Versailles helped lead to WW2 are hitlerian apologists. Your words not mine. I believe those things, so I am what you called those people. If that is not what you mean with your words, them choose them more wisely.

Like you I am not going to beat around the bush. 

There is no point in debating it with you. We both know each others stance on the topic, we both wont budge.

And believe me, I am no offended by such trivial matters. What it does to the respect I feel is a whole other matter...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> not with me it isnt. i cannot see certain other members comments and pay no attention to anything they may say or how they may react. its going to stay that way. if I misbehave, by all means do as is right, but dont judge me on the misbehaviour of other members that for a long while now i have put on my ignore list.



I call it like I see it too. 

Do as you feel is necessary. I will do as I...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Sure you did. Basically you said that people who believe that Germany should not have received all the blame, that Germany was not fully defeated and that the treaty of Versailles helped lead to WW2 are hitlerian apologists. Your words not mine. I believe those things, so I am what you called those people. If that is not what you mean with your words, them choose them more wisely.
> 
> Like you I am not going to beat around the bush.
> 
> ...



I think you are misunderstanding me. For the record, I assume the offending comment was



> Blaming the German descent into barbarism because of the reprations is therefore a cop out, furphy conveniently trotted out with depressing regularity by hitlerian apologists, because most people omit to actually study the treaty .


 i 

You are claiming I said you are a hitlerian apologist from that statement. It doesnt exist in the statement, ive publicly started that isnt my intent, but still you want to make an issue of it. Ive asked you if I am in breach of the forum rules by that, you have not raised it, so I assume this is just a personal thing I need to deal with. 

I can see that this is a statement that could be misinterpreted. The point i wanted to make in that statement, rephrased, is that peoplle who blame the treaty for the rise of hitler are simply making excuses for him. people who argue that external powers as manifested in the treaty were responsible for the rise of hitler are still just making excuses for him. hitler came to power by machiavellian manipulation of discontent within Germany, and that discontent arose out of the germans making a decision to go to war, and then suffering because they lost the war. As it turns out, Gernany made a bad choice going to war in1914, and then made a bad choice listening to a madman. In that I make no comment as to why Germany went to war, and who was to blame for the outbreak of war. They went to war and they lost. That is a basic fact, no opinion, no blame. Tell me, why do you think Hitler came to power. are you one of these people that blame Britain for germany's choices? The British (and other nations), owe the germans nothing. They went to war, lost, and then had to suffer the consequences. They (the Germans) have to deal with that. 

I would say, the german people need to man up and accept responsibility for their own poor choices in life 

Nobody outside of germany owes them a single favour. germany went to war,was responsible for much suffering and many deaths, lost, suffered a relatively benign peace, and because of all that decided collectively to throw their lot in with a madman. There is nothing judgemental about that. im not even going to the issue of cause the war, who was responsible. thats a whole different issue. The Germans chose war, lost, suffered a penalty and then made bad choices in response. no foreign power is to blame for that . they have only themselves to blame for all of that.

You obviously have an issue with me using the term "Hitlerian apologist". Though it is an accepted term, i wont use it if you are offended by it and do apologise. I will rephrase it , people who try to blame outside countries for the rise of hitler are just trying to shift blame away from Germany. people who blame Versaile as an unfair treaty need to actually read the treaty and compare eggs to eggs, by comparing its provisions to the way the Russians were treated by the germans at Brest Litovsk. 

And like it or not, we are debating this issue....on your terms. i am disappointed that you are offended by my opinions incidentally, but Im not going to agree with you just to make you happy either. That would be diingenuous


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

I remove my post for the good of this forum...

My thoughts on this matter however do not change.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

So, if versailles contributed to WWII, was there a better way of ending WWI

Adler, please dont respond


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> So, if versailles contributed to WWII, was there a better way of ending WWI
> 
> Adler, please dont respond



Not only do you want to tell me what to do, whether I like it or not...

...now you are going to bait me?

Please do respond.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

Respond if you like. I just read the deleted post, where you made it plain about how you feel about me. I just wanted to make it clear im not responding to your comments

whats wrong with asking what was better than Versailles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> Respond if you like. I just read the deleted post, where you made it plain about how you feel about me. I just wanted to make it clear im not responding to your comments
> 
> whats wrong with asking what was better than Versailles



I edited that post too, because it was rather harsh and believe it or not I still have respect for you. 

Nothing is wrong with the question. Where did I say it was?

Oh wait, I was instructed not to respond. Since you are telling me what to do, whether I like it or not...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

so we are clear, im not trying to tell you what to do and i am not wanting anymore conflict. 


Please feel free to respond, or not, to the question posted, or anythng else that you want to discuss.

I understand that you are upset, and that im on thin ice, and that you dont agree with me. I understand you dont like me. i understand i offended you and I understand you believe I am here to cause trouble.

i understand, but i want to get this debate back on track if at all possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2014)

parsifal said:


> so we are clear, im not trying to tell you what to do and i am not wanting anymore conflict.
> 
> 
> Please feel free to respond, or not, to the question posted, or anythng else that you want to discuss.
> ...



PM sent...


----------



## parsifal (Jan 16, 2014)

so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII


----------



## planb (Jan 17, 2014)

surprised this thread is still open


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 17, 2014)

parsifal said:


> so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII


Maybe the Treaty didn’t make the conditions, but neither did it help alleviate them. Germany was left crushed, humiliated, and to pull itself out of the hole. What better way to get to where it needed to be in a hurry than by letting some dictator come in and take charge? People tend to forget how that “Man of the Year” in Time Magazine came in and turned that country around. They tend to forget how he instilled pride, gave the citizens work, put food on their tables, and even gave them the time for leisure activity. Given the cruel and callous way he went about it, that's imminently understandable.


----------



## Marcel (Jan 17, 2014)

I think I have dejavu, have discussed this before, I think 



parsifal said:


> so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII



My opinion:

I think the Western Allies clearly showed after WWII how it was done.

If you want peace, you need to take away the cause of war. So you help you former opponent building his economy, you make sure he becomes a good trading partner and you guarantee his safety while his army is in tatters.

Harsh measurements in a peace treaty is, as someone said: "like keep on kicking your opponent when he's already down". It keeps the anger alive and is a certain way to a next war. 

As you see, my opinion is strongly the opposite of what you suggest, but then again, I'm more a pigeon than a hawk, if you understand my figure of speech 

Versailles was stupid and non-constructive. In no way did it anything to prevent the rise of extremism, on the contrary, it helped them. There was no help to Germany like after WWII. How did they ever expect Germany to stay a nice democracy? Hatred between Germany and the rest of Europe was not just enhanced or at least not lessened by the words of the treaty. So yes, Versailles was a major cause of WWII, if only by being such a complete and utter failure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 17, 2014)

"...Versailles was stupid and non-constructive. In no way did it anything to prevent the rise of extremism, on the contrary, it helped them. There was no help to Germany like after WWII. How did they ever expect Germany to stay a nice democracy? Hatred between Germany and the rest of Europe was not just enhanced or at least not lessened by the words of the treaty. So yes, Versailles was a major cause of WWII, if only by being such a complete and utter failure..."

I agree with much of your post, Marcel, but this entire thread has p***y-footed around a major distinction between WW1 and WW2 and that is, that the "peace" of 1945 only came to Germany and Japan after their complete and utter destruction. It was possible for some (any) in Germany *in 1918* to believe that their country and people had _not_ been utterly defeated on the_ battlefield_ (as opposed to the Peace Table, for example. In 1945 the outcome of the war was obvious to anyone living in Germany, Japan (and elsewhere).

Reconstruction was possible (Marshal Plan) and Christian charity, too (Berlin Airlift) because the destruction was so absolute and the march of Communism so relentless and encompassing.

War serves to teach lessons ... whether_ "Touch me and you'll regret it"_ or _"I'm stronger than you and don't forget it"_. If a nation loses a war and doesn't learn the _correct_ lesson from their loss .... resentment and delusion are born ... and seeds are sewn for the next conflict. France after the F-P War a perfect example. 

In the 1904-05 Russo-Japan War - the Japanese _won_ the war handily (at great cost) but felt they _lost_ at the Peace Table in Portsmouth, NH. It left a very bitter taste that regurgitated over time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2014)

so to answer the original question; "did the allies of WWI pave the way for WWII". and specifically how much of a role did versailles play. In answer to the first part, thre is near unanaimous agreement, the allies of WWI did contribute to WWII, and, the treaty of versailles was also a causal factor for the road to the second war. 

What is at issue, and seems to sharply divide this place, is whether versailles contributed to further war, by reason of it being too harsh, or just too "nasty". or, whether Germany in 1918 was allowed, by the incomplete nature of its defeat....its ability to sit at a negotiating table i think, to harbour feelings of wrong doing, of betrayal, and all the rest of that creed, and threby sow the seeds of discontent, that by the rise of Hitler allowed or paved the way to war. There may even be some who believe the return to battle by the germans was completely justified...not the subsequent event, the massacres and the like, but the decision or intent to go back to war. 

My position on this is pretty clear, but as the foregoing discussion shows, it is one very open to dispute, and even within my own mind I have some lingering fears and doubt. My two bobs worth is that germany in 1914 decided to throw the war dice, and rolled badly. They did not win. Culpability for starting the war has nothing to do with it, all the nations of 1914 that went to war did so willingly, and presumably with some idea of the risk that they may lose. They (the germans) suffered a defeat, and internally were being torn to pieces. versailles comes along. as a treaty compared to its contemporaies, Versailles was relatively benign, but it had deliberate "revenge clauses", clauses that did not have any real teeth, or at least, not enough to really hurt the Germans and remove their war making potential, but clauses designed to humiliate the germans which in the end only increased their focus on war as a solution.

To avoid the 2nd conflict, the allies needed to either lose the war, broker some kind of lenient peace (but what that would entail escapes me), or go in harder and secure an unconditional surrender. From there they needed to follow a program similar to the post world war II occupation and reconstruction progrmans...a period of intense economic and social rebuilding, designed to remove the latent militarism in German society, with a vibrant and critical economy and social structure to match. The allies proabably needed to occupy Germany for at least a decade to make a difference, and possibly even longer. There should have been no nasty occupation, rather an assertion of total authority in germany but with a clear intent and focus on resonstruction and restructuring rather than subjugation of its people. The German people needed to be given hope for a better outcome and eventual freedom, rather than be removed of all hope. The problem with this plan though is not that it wouldnt work, the experiences of post WWII show that it can, its that it would require a lot of resources that in 1918 might not have been available. Britain was nearly bankrupt, as i think most of Europe was as well. Not sure that the US commanded the world economy to the same extent that they did in 1945, but certainly they had not suffered as much as other countries. Japan was virtually unscathed so might have contributed, but that might have been politically unnacceptable. What might have been possible was at best a sort of hybrid of what happened in the Soviet zone in 1945, and the rest of Germany post 1945....a sort of impoverished, but liberal 2nd order economy, that in some ways might be more dangerous than what actually transpired....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2014)

VBF-13 said:


> Maybe the Treaty didn’t make the conditions, but neither did it help alleviate them. Germany was left crushed, humiliated, and to pull itself out of the hole. What better way to get to where it needed to be in a hurry than by letting some dictator come in and take charge? People tend to forget how that “Man of the Year” in Time Magazine came in and turned that country around. They tend to forget how he instilled pride, gave the citizens work, put food on their tables, and even gave them the time for leisure activity. Given the cruel and callous way he went about it, that's imminently understandable.



I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.

and the people believed. 

At least that is my opinion based on what little I know of Germany in those times.


----------



## DonL (Jan 17, 2014)

Njaco said:


> I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.



And the people believed. 

You are forgetting the Ruhr occupation/Ruhr fight. The Ruhr fight was the last nail to the german inflation, it was also the try from France to occupy the whole Rheinland. This was very alive of every german citizien. They know they were helpless without the UK and the USA against France and Polen. That is next to the great depression a very important trigger point!


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2014)

Like I said, I'm not an expert about those times. I was not aware that the Ruhr occupation was a touchy subject - similar to Danzig? I guess all these factors were problematic but how much really was a sore point and how much did Hitler incite?


----------



## DonL (Jan 17, 2014)

Danzig was a very minor problem, forced from the Nazi's but a problem.
The Ruhr occupation and the try from France to make the occupation permanent was an whole other issue to the german citizen.
The singlesided war guilt, the humiliation, the helpless military situation under the treaty of versailles, the Ruhr occupation, were all factors to rise revenge, proud and hate!
And not democracy, appreciation and peace.


----------



## VBF-13 (Jan 17, 2014)

Njaco said:


> I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.
> 
> and the people believed.
> 
> At least that is my opinion based on what little I know of Germany in those times.


I think that's a pretty good synopsis. Add to it that this was a very sophisticated propaganda machine that took advantage of every opportunity and left very little to chance, and there you have it, I think, in a nut.


----------



## silence (Jan 17, 2014)

For Germany losing the Ruhr, imagine the effect on the US economy of suddenly losing the industrial power of Silicon Valley and the LA basin in the middle of an economic recovery - or maybe all of California.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 17, 2014)

parsifal said:


> so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII



1) Germany needed to be occupied.

2) Wilhelm, personally, needed to sign the surrender documents.

3) von Ludendorf Co had to _publicly_ announce that the German Army was defeated in the field. Make them go on a speaking tour to every city in Germany with a population of more than 15,000.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DonL (Jan 17, 2014)

Which Army could do this with which effort of money and blood?
Also there is the possiility of civilian resistance, with civil underground war, similar to Belgium.
Germany of 1918 is much larger then Germany of 1945 without a Red Army, also the KuK Army existed with german national people.


----------



## meatloaf109 (Jan 18, 2014)

parsifal said:


> so to answer the original question; "did the allies of WWI pave the way for WWII". and specifically how much of a role did versailles play. In answer to the first part, thre is near unanaimous agreement, the allies of WWI did contribute to WWII, and, the treaty of versailles was also a causal factor for the road to the second war.
> 
> What is at issue, and seems to sharply divide this place, is whether versailles contributed to further war, by reason of it being too harsh, or just too "nasty". or, whether Germany in 1918 was allowed, by the incomplete nature of its defeat....its ability to sit at a negotiating table i think, to harbour feelings of wrong doing, of betrayal, and all the rest of that creed, and threby sow the seeds of discontent, that by the rise of Hitler allowed or paved the way to war. There may even be some who believe the return to battle by the germans was completely justified...not the subsequent event, the massacres and the like, but the decision or intent to go back to war.
> 
> ...



Bravo!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 18, 2014)

"....Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended."

_Perhaps_, , if you are willing to overlook Germany's clandestine military adventures in tank and air warfare in Russia - with the Russians - paid for by the Germans. This, of course, was to circumvent the terms of Versailles but speaks to the underlying delusion .... "if we can't get what we want one way, we'll get what we want another way..." no matter who we have to play with to do so. Remember, _Hitler _isn't even on the scene, he's still pursuing his writing career behind bars, IIRC. 

[Off topic] In my mind one of the root cause for Stalin's purges of the military was to root out Russians who had had dealings with the Germans during this period, in much the same way many _returning_ Russian POWs were destroyed in 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 18, 2014)

Michael, you need to read about Von Seeckt, a brilliant but sinister character if ever there was one.

I dont believe that in 1929 Germany truly harboured too much ill intent toward their neigbours. They had an army of just 100000, (with secret means of rapid expansion), no tanks, no airforce and virtually no Navy. Even Poland was militarily stronger than Germany at that stage. but undoubetedly the seeds of resurgence and revenge were already being sown, not least as plans and progressive ideas. men like Guderian were already thinking through their theories and applications for war. Nothing wrong with that, but it just illustrates the latent militarism that Hitler was able to harnes a few years later. If you compare that to say Britain, virtually no serious thought was being put into major conflict at that time, at least in the military. 

All that was needed in Germany was a spark to light the flame......


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jan 18, 2014)

silence said:


> Actually, I'd say the opposite was needed - a Marshall Plan rather than grinding the boot. It seems the allies just kinda said, "Ok, now you're a democracy. Make it work but don't forget you also owe us a ton of money." How many nations got a representative democracy right the first time vs. how many screwed it up?
> 
> The blockade should have been called off immediately after the Armistice: Germany was beaten and they knew it. If you keep kicking a foe when he's down, you're just whetting his appetite for getting even.





DonL said:


> I agree with silence.
> 
> The Freicorps also maked sure, that Germany was a republic and not a Sowjet communism regime.
> They helped the republic to knock of red revolutions all around the country.
> ...



I interpreted SY's 'Robust occupation' as one that was essentially benign: an occupation that would rebuild whatever infrastructure that might have suffered on account of the war and would provide any needed security for budding democratic institutions. Done properly, an occupation might be seen as benevolent. Of course, that's a completely anachronistic path option and without the home front suffering WW2 scale depredations, even a '_benign_' occupation would probably have been counterproductive.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 18, 2014)

No, no, no: the _Freicorps_, by all reports, detested the Republic. They were one of the most powerful forces preventing Weimar from governing effectively, mostly because they bought all the bull**** about the "stab in the back" and because the people responsible for Germany starting and losing the war bugged out rather than sign the armistice, surrender documents, or the peace treaty.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 18, 2014)

silence said:


> Actually, I'd say the opposite was needed - a Marshall Plan rather than grinding the boot. It seems the allies just kinda said, "Ok, now you're a democracy. Make it work but don't forget you also owe us a ton of money." How many nations got a representative democracy right the first time vs. how many screwed it up?
> 
> The blockade should have been called off immediately after the Armistice: Germany was beaten and they knew it. If you keep kicking a foe when he's down, you're just whetting his appetite for getting even.



The trouble was that the Versailles Treaty, regardless of how mean-spirited it may have been (less so than Brest-Litovsk and even the treaties proposed by Germany in the West, as late as mid-1917), the Entente did not follow up in any way that would have countered the right wing propagandists who claimed Germany was betrayed, not defeated. Certainly, raise the blockade (after Germany's defeat it was pointlessly vindictive), but make sure that the victorious Entente had (hopefully well-behaved) occupation troops. 

A few countries did get it right the first time: Czechoslovakia and Austria both had functioning (albeit, most certainly, imperfect) parliamentary systems by the 1930s.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 18, 2014)

DonL said:


> And the people believed.
> 
> You are forgetting the Ruhr occupation/Ruhr fight. The Ruhr fight was the last nail to the german inflation, it was also the try from France to occupy the whole Rheinland. This was very alive of every german citizien. They know they were helpless without the UK and the USA against France and Polen. That is next to the great depression a very important trigger point!



Interesting article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 18, 2014)

"...the Entente did not follow up in any way that would have countered the right wing propagandists who claimed Germany was betrayed, not defeated."

This is essentially true ... the follow up (we have learned) is just as important as the hard-knock contact ....

Something to keep in mind, however, by 1918 the world was in the midst of a global pandemic (influenza) that would kill more people in 18-20 odd months than WW1 had .... and nobody knew how it was spreading ....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 19, 2014)

"....read about Von Seeckt, a brilliant but sinister character if ever there was one."

Just did ..... with guys like him running around in Germany and Germany's allies ..... one get's a sense of _the inevitability_ of events for Germany and the world in the 20th century.

Thanks, Parsifal, keep _coool_ 

MM

EDIT:

"...an occupation that would rebuild whatever infrastructure that might have suffered on account of the war ..."

Belgium and France needed the 'Marshall-type' assistance .... Germany was hardly touched ... _physically_, IIRC


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2014)

there were direct economic aftershocks from the war, arising from the destruction of things...farms, roads factories and the like. Marshall could help with that. There were seconday effects, in that many nations had foregone investment in economic and military development. An example of that wass Frances naval and mercantil shipbuilding industry. It needed a major injection of funds to modernise. so too her aircraft industry. Marshall could probably help with that as well

but there were things that a Marshal Plan could not have helped. Even though the WWI losses were a fraction of those of the next war, combined with the flu pandemic, they were considerably highers, and tended to be concentrated in a fewer number of nations. All the European nations were just about bankrupt, and all had suffered major manpower losses. this was largely before the emancipation of women. A Marshall plan could not replace the fallen sons of France (or any other country), which meant she did not have the manpower to "go to work" and fix some of her war problems. 

for France, there was something else though, something that would prevent her from being effective in the 2nd war. I think it manifested itself most immediately in the falling birth rate in france, but it also affected the national morale. this was certainly reflected in the highly unstable political situation in France between the wars. 

Psychologically, I think this affected Frances ability to embrace and look for change. Her army attrified, resisted change, failed to replace older officers with new forward thinking ones. I think that can be linked to her wartime experiences. Certainly some of that arose from a warped victory dosease ("why change what aint brok")m but htough she had won, it came at a terrible cost to her, and this I think affected tghe national mood for a very long time. It might also explain where all those surly French waiters get their attitude from as well.....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 19, 2014)

".....for France, there was something _else_ though ...."

There certainly was .... France was burnt out. History _catches up_ with countries just as time catches up with humans (.. especially SMOKERS ... )

I fear the same fate is befalling/has befallen GB as we speak.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Jan 19, 2014)

quite possibly re the brits. Certainly all sense of power has long left the building for the poms. id like to think they retain some sense of pride and moral position, but maybe im just dreaming.


----------

