Actually, the Versailles Treaty did not place sole blame on Germany for starting the war. It just said that Germany and her allies were responsible for the war damages in France and Belgium (and elsewhere maybe) and thus gave a legal basis for demanding reparations.
I’m not disagreeing. But the Versailles Treaty was part of a larger package of measures which, collectively, crippled Germany both economically and militarily.
The reparations payments demanded by Versailles were staggering. Those alone had the potential to cripple the German economy.
During the '20s, Britain and France closed their empires to German imports. That made it much more difficult for Germany to obtain the foreign currency needed to meet its obligations.
The Versailles Treaty prohibited Germany from having more than a token military, which meant that other than the Western democracies, there would be no counterweight to Soviet expansionism in Europe. The Western democracies had no interest in being that counterweight–at least not prior to 1948.
Important parts of Germany were placed under hostile foreign occupation. France was given control of the Rhineland and the Saar, Czechoslovakia control of the Sudetenland, and Poland control of West Prussia. This also made economic recovery more difficult.
For whatever reason, the government of the Weimar Republic was weak. I’m not sure how much of that (if any) represented deliberate intent by the Allies, and how much was due to random chance. But for whatever reason, that government was unable to make the most of Germany’s (admittedly) meager position.
Germany is a net food importer and a net raw materials importer. In order to pay for all that food and all those raw materials, it must be a net exporter of manufactured goods. This means that it’s very vulnerable to other countries simply closing themselves to German exports; as the British and French empires did in the '20s, and as the U.S. did as part of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1929. When the economic pressure of that is added to the economic pressure the Allies exerted with their demands for massive reparations payments, the result was disastrous. (Especially when coupled with the loss of the heart of German industry–the Rhineland–to hostile French occupation.) It was this combination of factors which made the Weimar Republic unable to feed its own people.
In order to postpone its economic problems, the Weimar Republic borrowed large sums of money–especially from the United States. Over the short-term, that borrowing provided it desperately needed infusions of capital. But the underlying economy did not improve during the '20s. Which meant that later on, the Germans were dealing with the above-described economic problems, plus massive interest payments to nations such as the United States. Eventually, Britain and France were able to talk the United States into forgiving their war debts. In exchange for which, they would seek no further reparations payments from Germany. Thus, one of Germany’s most important economic problems was solved before Hitler came to power. However, its remaining economic problems (massive debt payments, markets closed to German exports, an industrial heartland under hostile French occupation) were severe enough to produce the economically disastrous conditions and widespread hunger needed to bring Hitler to power.
@Private:
- the so called “blank cheque” that G gave Austria
- that G needed war in 1914 as R rearmament and railway investments would erode its advantage by 1915
- that G pounced on R’s mobilisation order against Austria as a casus belli, despite knowing that R needed weeks longer than anyone else to mobilise.
I’d be interested to know what your view is on these points ShadowHawk?
Your second point is another way of saying that Russia was aggressively militarizing. Which is true; and the same could also be said of France. As for your third point: Russia mobilized before any of the Central Powers; with the mobilization directed against Austria.
I agree that the blank check Germany gave to Austria was a contributing factor. The same could be said of the blank check France gave to Russia. Serbian support for terrorism was also an important factor; especially given the fact that the targets of terrorist attacks were sometimes members of the Austrian nobility.
But the most important factor in the start of WWI may well have been France. After its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, France began assembling an anti-German alliance. Russia was persuaded to join this alliance, despite the czar having given his word that he would not do so. Britain joined the alliance as well; abandoning its traditional foreign policy of glorious neutrality. The United States would later (unfortunately) join the alliance in 1917.
Diplomatic winds shift, and diplomatic circumstances are subject to change. Having assembled an anti-German alliance, it was in France’s interest to see that alliance used to defeat Germany. If in 1914 Europe had experienced a decade or two of peace, France’s anti-German alliance might have drifted apart. Britain might have gone back to being gloriously neutral, and Russia might have reconciled with Germany. It was therefore in France’s interest to go to war before this happened. That explains the French decision to give a blank check to Russia, and its decision to encourage Russia to support a terrorist state such as Serbia.
Russia was growing its military and transport capabilities (is that the same thing as militarising?) although whether it was aggressive or defensive (as it started from a point of disadvantage) is the debate we would no doubt have.
France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a fear of Germany. If you find that fear understandable then some of those actions become more so.
My memory is that the first declaration of war was by Austria against Serbia. This was despite Serbia having given in to virtually all of Austria’s demands. So the German blank cheque was more immediate to the commencement of hostilities, albeit that the French blank cheque was also contributory.
The fact that Russia attempted the distinction that its mobilisation was only against Austria would only have worked if Germany had not wanted war in 1914 (debatable) and so put their faith in Russian assertions (difficult).
Private Panic wrote:
Russia was growing its military and transport capabilities (is that the same thing as militarising?)
Growing one’s military capabilities is normally seen as the same thing as militarizing.
although whether it was aggressive or defensive (as it started from a point of disadvantage) is the debate we would no doubt have.
I do not profess to know whether Russia’s motives in militarizing were aggressive or defensive. It’s possible that, at least in some instances, there was not a major distinction between the two. For example, a national leader might think, “If we are weak, we will get conquered. So we must become strong to avoid that.” So that sounds nice and defensive and everything. Except that same leader might think, “Once we become strong, we will then have the chance to conquer those who are weak.” The distinction between defensive and offensive thinking isn’t always warranted. Also, there is the possibility that some leaders of major European nations felt war to be inevitable.
France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a fear of Germany.
You are correct, but have not gone far enough. It would be more accurate to say that France’s actions before both world wars were driven by a centuries-old anti-Germanism. A deep-seated, fixed belief that anything bad for Germany must be good for France. That whatever relations between Germany and France might be over the short term, eventually things would deteriorate and come to blows. (Which was why, from the French perspective, a weak Germany was so important.) A French policy of maintaining a weak Germany had begun hundreds of years earlier, when France divided Germany into 300 small pieces. (The Treaty of Westphalia.) Between the Treaty of Westphalia and 1940, France’s policy was consistently to seek a weak and divided Germany. That philosophy was at the heart of the Versailles Treaty. It is also why Germany was eventually united by Prussia. Prussia is about as far away from France as you can be and still be in Germany–and was thus less vulnerable to French military influence than western Germany.
This was despite Serbia having given in to virtually all of Austria’s demands.
Serbia accepted some demands and rejected others. In that particular instance, I think Serbia’s leaders were being more reasonable than Austria’s leaders. Serbia’s past track record of harboring anti-Austrian terrorists worked against it. The people making decisions about Austria’s foreign policy (the Austrian nobility) were the same people who’d just been targeted in the recent assassination. Typically, if you go after people’s families, they become less than reasonable in their response.
So the German blank cheque was more immediate to the commencement of hostilities
That is not necessarily the case. Serbia was emboldened by the Russian guarantee; and Russia was emboldened by the French guarantee. Austria was emboldened by the German guarantee. I could be mistaken, but I think that if any of those guarantees had not been given, hostilities would not have commenced.
The fact that Russia attempted the distinction that its mobilisation was only against
Austria would only have worked if Germany had not wanted war in 1914 (debatable)
and so put their faith in Russian assertions (difficult).
A certain amount of German thinking was driven by the desire to be a good ally to Austria. German leadership didn’t want to leave Austria to its fate, if Russia was mobilizing against it. Both Germany and Austria were aristocracies; and they had a good relationship with each other.
Could you guys start a new thread?
YEA start something like “Poland and not Germany started world war two” Those were real funny especially if you add in Heydrichs narrative of the Gleiwitz incident like it was a fact.
@Imperious:
YEA start something like “Poland and not Germany started world war two” Those were real funny especially if you add in Heydrichs narrative of the Gleiwitz incident like it was a fact.
…or what about this > It was France that started two world wars, not Germany, and when it went wrong USA had to bail them out.
How about a thread on: " Churchill forced Germany into invading country after country looking for food to feed Herman Goering" Or “If it wasn’t for Hitler, Germany would have staved to death due to that devil Winston Churchill” Or “The Allied rebuilding of postwar Europe was the greatest crime of History which cost 1 billion lives”. any of these are viable candidates for comedy.
here is a typical neo nazi espousing this garbage…
Here, here, IL!
To address the points made by IL–not once in this thread (or in any of my posts here these last few years) have I cited a neo-Nazi or other extremist source. My references have consistently been from highly respected mainstream sources; or at worst from Wikipedia. The key claims made by Wikipedia have been buttressed by other, more prestigious mainstream sources.
I can understand repeating Allied lies if one doesn’t know they’re lies. I did that myself, back before I’d learned better. But I’d always been guided by the conviction that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that one can learn what that absolute truth is by studying hard enough. There are those here who don’t seem to share that conviction. Those who seem to believe that the truth is whatever they want it to have been; or whatever the Allied propagandists made up. For example: I have shown that the Nazis simply could not have fed everyone within their borders; and that the reason this was the case was the Allied food blockade. IL’s response to that truth was to attack me, personally, for having pointed it out. He then proceeded to simply ignore that particular truth in his moral calculus regarding who was right or wrong in the war. Of course repetitions of Allied propaganda (as he and others have done in this thread and elsewhere) are going to feel right to those who have spent their entire sentient lifetimes exposed to such propaganda. The question we should be asking is not whether Allied propaganda feels right. Rather, we should ask to what extent, if any, that propaganda was based on objective reality.
Typically, a religion will contain factual claims, as well as moral conclusions based on those claims. Often, it will also contain a story about how that religion came into being. A story which, if believed, demonstrates the validity of the religion, and the evil of those who oppose it. While the Allied propaganda effort is not generally considered a religion in the traditional sense, it contains the above-described elements of a religion. There are factual claims intended to support the good-versus-evil mythos. There are moral conclusions based on those factual claims. “Eugenics is wrong because the Nazis believed in it,” for example. Large numbers of WWII history books are written with the deliberate intent of making the Allies look better than they were, and the Nazis worse than they were, in order to promote the Allied view. If (for example) Soviet mass murders are mentioned at all–which is far from guaranteed in any Allied-friendly history book–we are not told the names of the victims, shown their pictures, or told anything about their life stories. Soviet and Western democratic war crimes are either omitted completely or (at best) treated as statistics. Nazi war crimes are treated as tragedies. Extenuating circumstances (such as Allied-imposed famine conditions in German-held Europe) are simply ignored.
Personally, I find the Allied religion shallow, hypocritical, and insipid. That does not mean I’m a Nazi. People had views about morality before Allied propagandists created their worthless religion. They will go on having views of morality long after the Allied religion is dead and buried. In the meantime, there will be those here who will treat me as a heretic. What they fail to realize is that being a heretic is the only acceptable option, if the religion in question does not (and was never intended to) reflect morality or truth.
You should worry more about NAZI lies, the kind espoused by them to excuse themselves from some of the worst crimes in History….at Nuremberg and as such nonsense to excuse behaviors in Hitlers speeches. If Hitler could not feed everybody, he could just easily surrender, stop killing everybody, stop invading every nation, stop feeding Herman, and stop causing everyone else to starve by sinking merchant ships. to blame the agents that stopped the idiot Hitler from killing millions is no greater than reasoning of a child.
To use and advocate this line of reasoning is a travesty in light of the real facts.
Imperious Leader wrote:
You should worry more about NAZI lies
If you can be more specific about which Nazi lies you think I should be worrying more about, perhaps we can have a discussion.
If Hitler could not feed everybody, he could just easily surrender
Neither Britain nor the U.S. nor the Soviet Union ever offered Hitler any peace terms other than unconditional surrender. After Operation Barbarossa, that unconditional surrender was to be to all the Allies, including the U.S.S.R. There is no reason at all to believe that unconditional surrender would have stopped the killing. On the contrary: the killing continued in West Germany (Morgenthau Plan) and East Germany (Soviet atrocities and ethnic cleansing efforts) after the war was over. Surrendering unconditionally would also have been a case of rewarding bad behavior (the Allies’ use of famine as a weapon).
stop killing everybody
Far from “killing everybody,” Hitler did not kill enough people to eliminate the famine conditions the Allies had created. As a result of his failure to solve Germany’s food problems, large groups of people–such as Soviet POWs working in German weapons factories–could not be adequately fed.
and stop causing everyone else to starve by sinking merchant ships
Suppose Hitler had halted u-boat attacks against Allied merchant shipping. Do you think the Allied leaders would have reciprocated by ending their food blockade of Germany? I don’t.
If on the other hand the British people had gotten hungry enough, perhaps they would have voted their warmongering politicians out of office, and replaced them with different, more honest and peaceful politicians. I realize the German attacks against Allied merchant shipping might have seemed like a case of fighting hunger with hunger. But unless Hitler had had the wisdom to go forward with von Manstein’s planned invasion of Britain, I don’t really see what other options he had to end the Allies’ murderous food blockade.
to blame the agents that stopped the idiot Hitler from killing millions is no greater than reasoning of a child.
Prevention of mass murder was never, ever the Allied intent. Had the Allies not wanted millions of innocent people to die, they would never have imposed their murderous food blockade in the first place. They knew that many more Poles would die with the blockade than without it. Yet they imposed it anyway, supposedly in their overall efforts to “help” Poland. Allied leaders showed about as much sympathy to Polish or other victims of their own food blockade as they had a decade earlier to the 7 million Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor. Which is to say, no sympathy at all. To describe the Allies as opposing mass murder is absurd.
To use and advocate this line of reasoning is a travesty in light of the real facts.
As I hope this thread has made clear, the Allies’ actions can only be justified if the real facts are ignored.
Neither Britain nor the U.S. nor the Soviet Union ever offered Hitler any peace terms other than unconditional surrender.
Wrong. They ( Germany) had till 11am on the 3rd to get out of Poland. Hitler didn’t budge. The Soviet Union offered in October 41 by asking Hitler what would be the terms for surrender
(discussed or negotiated between Stalins staff and Hitlers staff) , and the result was the cost was too great.
Also, Germany didn’t need to get any peace terms. Rather she needed to stop invading every country and return to her borders. Germany didn’t deserve any peace terms because of the nature of her transgressions. Unconditional Surrender was offered because it fit the crime of fighting a war of extermination.
Far from “killing everybody,” Hitler did not kill enough people to eliminate the famine conditions the Allies had created. As a result of his failure to solve Germany’s food problems, large groups of people–such as Soviet POWs working in German weapons factories–could not be adequately fed.
Hitler was able to feed the fat lemming Herman, proving Germany had no famine issues. Also, Germany could just say “we will stop invading countries and stop killing every race we don’t like” and have plenty of food. Germany created the conditions of rationing food due to her acts against the international community. You should be blaming Germany for creating the condition in the first place.
Suppose Hitler had halted u-boat attacks against Allied merchant shipping. Do you think the Allied leaders would have reciprocated by ending their food blockade of Germany? I don’t.
If Hitler surrendered, the Allies would have ended the blockade. Just like a criminal who was told to put down the gun and starts pointing at the police…resulting in a dead suspect. You love to keep missing that point as much as i love to keep reminding you of it.
If on the other hand the British people had gotten hungry enough, perhaps they would have voted their warmongering politicians out of office, and replaced them with different, more honest and peaceful politicians. I realize the German attacks against Allied merchant shipping might have seemed like a case of fighting hunger with hunger. But unless Hitler had had the wisdom to go forward with von Manstein’s planned invasion of Britain, I don’t really see what other options he had to end the Allies’ murderous food blockade.
This is what Hess went to England for and what he said, yea lets use the reasoning of NAZI’s and their talking points. Hitler just could have surrendered and Herman could be fed three buffets a day and get plenty of perfume for his fat body.
Prevention of mass murder was never, ever the Allied intent. Had the Allies not wanted millions of innocent people to die, they would never have imposed their murderous food blockade in the first place. They knew that many more Poles would die with the blockade than without it. Yet they imposed it anyway, supposedly in their overall efforts to “help” Poland. Allied leaders showed about as much sympathy to Polish or other victims of their own food blockade as they had a decade earlier to the 7 million Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor. Which is to say, no sympathy at all. To describe the Allies as opposing mass murder is absurd.
Hitler should have just left Poland alone. They had all the food they could eat before September 1939, before Hitler stole everything. Blame Hitler for attacking Poland and killing every Jew in Poland, not the Allies. The Allies are only guilty of opposing Hitlers invasion of Poland.
As I hope this thread has made clear, the Allies’ actions can only be justified if the real facts are ignored.
I hope this thread has made clear that if you commit a heinous crime against humanity, the international community will use all means to defeat you and to blame them for defeating you is the reasoning of a child.
@Imperious:
The Allies are only guilty of opposing Hitlers invasion of Poland.
So, the Allies actually were guilty of something ?
Kurt, I sincerely hope you don’t feel like you are being branded as a heretic for stating your opinions and views based on what seems to be an enormous amount of invested learning. While I may not agree with everything you say, I will always, happily defend, to the death, your right to say it in an open, public forum without violent discourse. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through these arguments and hope they continue in as much fashion as they have, previously, without anyone becoming too butt hurt.
Additionally, I can agree that many historical events have and should always be reevaluated and constantly discussed to not only determine newly discovered things, but to also better understand exactly what transpired. For example, as a Southerner, I was raised on and taught in school that the US Civil War was not completely predicated upon slavery. That, there were many other things that led to the secession which did not directly involve slavery. On the other hand, many of my northern friends have confided in me that they were not taught the same way, and they and I were surprised at this. The same goes for the initiation of the Great War. Where, Serbia’s Black Hand group takes most of the blame. We all now understand that there were a great many things that built that house of cards and that the Archduke’s assassination was just one of the many cards within that house that caused it to collapse.
Kurt, I sincerely hope you don’t feel like you are being branded as a heretic for stating your opinions and views based on what seems to be an enormous amount of invested learning. While I may not agree with everything you say, I will always, happily defend, to the death, your right to say it in an open, public forum without violent discourse.
I agree.
Nobody says for him to shut up, what we do say is his ideas are ridiculous and entertaining at the same time. We also have the responsibility to extrapolate this so he doesn’t go further in the deep end and think these positions solid reasoning because they are not. That can only help him in the long run.
Absolutely, I get it. That was just my two cents. Carry on. 8-)
