The Most Devastating Event to Nazi Germany

Of course you’d say that you’re English. The fact is that NAfrica represents the only theater of the war in which the Brits had any unilateral success so of course they feel it is the most important, but clearly it wasn’t. You forget that it was in Russia where Germany based the majority of its armed forces. Italy-10 divisions, France 20-30 depending on the time, Russia-200+. Needless to say that at the height of the war in 1943-44 the Germans had over 75% of their forces committed against Russia. Had the Brits faced the Germans one on one they would have had no chance. If the Americans and Brits had faced the bulk of the German army in France assuming they hadn’t gone to war with Russia it would’ve taken a long time to bring down the third reich, and a situation like that in WWI may have developed. So I stand by what I said before, had the Germans not gone to war with the Americans or Russians then at some point they could’ve forced peace on the remaining powers. For example, if Barbarossa never happens then the sub campaign in the Atlantic may have succeeded in forcing the capitulation of the English without invasion of Britain being needed, and once the Uk backs out of the war there would’ve been no reason for the Germans to go to war with the US.

Hitler could have at least doubled the size of his army if he had not been so strong on his racism, not just the Jews but also Russian POW’s (some of whom did fight) and Slavs and other occupied countries.

If HItler had carried out Sealion it would have been instead of Russia (or at least stalling it for a few years).

Sea Lion wouldn’t have worked either way. Britian has a vast supply of men to draw upon from Canada what they really lacked in the first few years was equipment such as guns, ammo, tanks etc. However, years down the road this would have been lessened.

As for using POWs to fight they would never have done that because it is a clear violation of international law which the Germans obeyed religiously but for a few exceptions. Their atrocities came in areas they thought were grey areas they thought they could exploit. Additionally, the Germans could never have used Jews to fight, first the entire regime was built on Anti-Semitism and more importantly Anti-Semitism directed at Bolshevik Russia. An often heard complaint of Communism by the Nazis was that the Bolsheviks were pawns of a greater Jewish conspiracy.

@MuthaRussia:

And F_alk,
Vergebung mein, fur ichsein mude! :-?
"Forgive me, For i was tired!
…Hope i wrote that right! :-?

Not at all :)

Vergebung gewährt unter der Bedingung, daß du nicht mehr versuchst, Deutsch zu sprechen, bis du ein weiteres Jahr Untericht genossen hast.

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

No way. The nazi’s were successful because of deep long seeding anti-semitism in Germany. However, this was not unique to Germany though as it existed in France, Spain, and Italy as well. I would be very interested to see some links to the historians you refer to or books they’ve written because I would take issue with their conclusions just on face. The Nazi party was not that different from the dozens of partys that developed in post war Germany that preached the doctrine of Germany got screwed at Versailles lets undo it by force if needed. The main difference between the Nazis and everyone else was they claimed the German people were ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Jewish people especially the Bolshevik Communists/Socialists which were the cause for the revolution and thus Germany’s defeat.

Yes as for example take the Norwegian constetution from 1814… it states that no jew is to be allowed acess to Norway… Anti-semitism is rooted in far more countries then just the ones you mentioned.

exactly. Hitler could not have risen to power without anti-semitism. the jews were his scapegoat, which he used to unite the german people around him, and support his actions. after he took power though, he probably could have stopped the anti-semitism when they went to war, because by that time, the german public’s focus had shifted off of the jews.

Except this presupposes that Hitler and the Nazi elite were not very anti-semetic which they were. It’s really easy to say they could’ve stopped, but remember that at the time America had Jim Crow laws. If we’d begun to lose the war would we have abandoned Jim Crow in order to win. I really don’t think so. In fact, during the first 6-12 months of the war we were losing yet there wasn’t any great call to put black soldiers side by side with their white brothers. We kept Black soldiers in a lesser and subservient position because it fitted our social needs at the time. The same was absolutely true with Germany.

As for Sorte you’re absolutely right, but in Germany it was always a bit more virulent. I attribute this to the great antagonism that has historically existed between the slavs and germanic peoples and unfortunately jews got lumped in all the same. However, the example you provided of Norway is good, but lets not forget that one of the reason relatively few French or Italian jews died in the holocaust was because Spain, Franch and Italy all had inquisitions whose intent was to drive the jews from Europe. In fact the inquisition in Italy and Spain was still legally sanctioned although not in reality.

@i_killed_mufasa:

They could have built the regime without anti-semitism, indeed histrians have discovered that on the whole that was the least attractive aspect of Nazism to the German people.

I have read that as well.

@AgentSmith:

No way. The nazi’s were successful because of deep long seeding anti-semitism in Germany.

Untrue

However, this was not unique to Germany though as it existed in France, Spain, and Italy as well.

True

The Nazi party was not that different from the dozens of partys that developed in post war Germany that preached the doctrine of Germany got screwed at Versailles lets undo it by force if needed. The main difference between the Nazis and everyone else was they claimed the German people were ‘stabbed in the back’ by the Jewish people especially the Bolshevik Communists/Socialists which were the cause for the revolution and thus Germany’s defeat.

Half true.

The Nazis were successful because the economic crisis was ending, the efforts done by the last “democratic” chancellor were taking effect, and they were reducing unemployment by state actions and enterprises (mainly using plans of that last deomcratic chancellor).
Also, they were successful because the democracy never was really strong and embedded in the society. From start on (!) the legend of the “stab in the back” (which is the armies back!) was around. A social democrat actually “started” it, directly after the armistice, where he said to soliders that the “armies were unbeaten in the field”.
So, the democrats had to sign the Versaille treaty (a clever move by the right wing militarists who were responsible for the situation), and thus the birth of the Weimar Republic coul not be worse. The right wing always had revisionists thoughts, the Reichswehr was not allowed to be a conscript army, thus turned into a “state within the state” under control of the right wing militarists.
The last part of the success of the Nazis is the following: the right wing was for long dominated by the old “imperial” elites, aristocrats and such.
By them, the Nazis were seen as a bunch of uneducated wild men. After some internal power struggle in the old right wing (following the last “emocratic” chancellor, who ruled by presidential emergency decrees, there were two “classic” right wing chancellors, ruling the same way)…
one of the “winners” in that struggle convinced the old President (Hindenburg, the WWI hero) that they should “engage” Hitler and his NSDAP, flank him with “classic” right wing ministers and thus use him.
Unfortunately, they gave him two minister posts, one of them being the minister of the interior. That - and the following (last) election - destroyed the right wings dream of “taming” Hitler, and he took full control.
(A last point of Hitlers success is that the Versaille treaties punishment ended during his time… with part of that being negotiated earlier, but of cours propaganda changed that impression). As well, there was a strong fear in large parts of the population that “bolsheviks” could take over, and only a strong man could halt them. Hitlers success was mainly based on his support by the “petty bourgeois”, and all who feared that they would lose even more by the economic crisis.

So, there was a “stab in the back”, but it was not a “Nazi-only” doctrine, but common in the whole right wing, and quite accepted in the population.

@Janus1:

exactly. Hitler could not have risen to power without anti-semitism. the jews were his scapegoat, which he used to unite the german people around him, and support his actions. after he took power though, he probably could have stopped the anti-semitism when they went to war, because by that time, the german public’s focus had shifted off of the jews.

Untrue. They were his scapegoat, but as i_killed_musafa said, that was a point that was more a “minus” in the eyes of part of the population (esp. the educated and elites): Jews fought for Germany in WWI, Germany was proud of culture and had no place for “barbarians”…
but most considered the anti-semitism as something they had to take (and that the situation would turn “normal” again, once the Nazis had (not only gained but) secured the power). They thought that this “evil” was the lesser one compared to the economic rise and the “good things” that Hitler achieved in their eyes.

@MuthaRussia:

Was it understandable?
I think i’m forgetting to put the verbs at the beginning!

It was as understandable as “Romanes eunt domus”. And please: don’t put the verbs at the beginning. Instead, conjugate them properly :) … and don’t translate too literally: “Für” is only a preposition, while “for” is also a conjunction (that’s how you used it in that sentence). And third, if you don’t have the Umlaute on your keyboard (like ä,ö,ü), substitute them by adding an “e”: ä -> ae, ö -> oe, ü-> ue. The “ß” can be replaced by a “ss”.

@F_alk:

Also, they were successful because the democracy never was really strong and embedded in the society. From start on (!) the legend of the “stab in the back” (which is the armies back!) was around. A social democrat actually “started” it, directly after the armistice, where he said to soliders that the “armies were unbeaten in the field”.
So, the democrats had to sign the Versaille treaty (a clever move by the right wing militarists who were responsible for the situation), and thus the birth of the Weimar Republic coul not be worse. The right wing always had revisionists thoughts, the Reichswehr was not allowed to be a conscript army, thus turned into a “state within the state” under control of the right wing militarists.
quote]

True but neither was the British for that part… they were still imperialistic in there ways which shines out in the treaty…
forcing a growing imperialist nation to disband it’s navy, army and colonies, not to include stealing most of there infrastructure for your use in expansion(becoming the largest empire the world had ever seen) on the part of the british and the French was not correct at Versaille… That could be stated as a cause for WW2…

GG

I don’t really understand your first sentence.

The problem with the treaty was: it left Germany strong enough to start a war later, but was punishing enough to build up a lot of resent.
Thus, in this combination only, a revanchist war became possible.
I mean, remember, there were radical protests, socialists upheavals and such … in the old empire. That was quite a thing. YOu have to recall that there never was such a strong social movement. I even say that the movement that led to the fall of the Berlin wall was not comparable to that one. The germans were really really tired and sick of the war. But, they all fell for the propaganda, especially as they “only” lost on one front, and won on the east. … With the peace of Brest Litovsk being the main reason why the western allies were so harsh to germans (just as harsh as they were to the Soviets)

@F_alk:

I don’t really understand your first sentence.

The problem with the treaty was: it left Germany strong enough to start a war later, but was punishing enough to build up a lot of resent.
Thus, in this combination only, a revanchist war became possible.
I mean, remember, there were radical protests, socialists upheavals and such … in the old empire. That was quite a thing. YOu have to recall that there never was such a strong social movement. I even say that the movement that led to the fall of the Berlin wall was not comparable to that one. The germans were really really tired and sick of the war. But, they all fell for the propaganda, especially as they “only” lost on one front, and won on the east. … With the peace of Brest Litovsk being the main reason why the western allies were so harsh to germans (just as harsh as they were to the Soviets)

what old empire are you referring to? The German Empire started in 1871 so at the time IMHO it wasn’t exactly new…

Falk, most of what you said about the rise of nazism was accurate. I guess it is true that the anti-semitism was rampant among the right wing, and the left wing was neutered by signing the treaty of versailles. However, the key distinction between the nazis and every body else was their implication of a link between bolshevism, jews, and thus liberals. This basically is what I was getting at before. Without antisemitism the Nazis would’ve had a difficult time linking their left wing opponents with Bolsheviks and it was the antipathy towards Communism and Soviet Russia that put Hitler in power.

Now a better question from my point of view is how might the world be different had the two world wars been avoided. I argue that much of the technological and social progress made in the 20th Century was due largely because of the devasting effects on the social order WWI and II had. Therefore, had WWI and II been avoided the world especially Western Europe and America would remain much as they were circa 1900. Much in the way the Civil War in the United States led to positive social changes, like the abolition of slavery, the two wars had a similar affect.

But I would like to see what others have to say on this.

WWI had more of a negative effect though, in causing WWII. nothing was solved after WWI, so WWII was inevitable. WWII it can be argued had mostly a positive effect.