Did the Allies of WWI pave the way for WWII?

[pbehn]

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]

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.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

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]

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]

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]

"...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...

 

[yulzari]

Never mind the roads.

Damn savannas. Never should have left the trees.

Ook!

 

[VBF-13]

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]

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]

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.

 

[silence]

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]

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]

Hitler wasn't.

 

[DonL]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.)

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...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).

 

[Njaco]

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.)

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]

"...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)