Did the Allies of WWI pave the way for WWII?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.)
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWII Destroyers?
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
WWII Reconnaissance Vehicles?
Replies
16
Views
872
Thumpalumpacus
A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
816
GreenKnight121
I
Help needed with the translation of my WWII Japanese Going To War Banner
Replies
8
Views
1K
ironmannf
I
Menu
Log in
Register