Who Is Responsible for World War 2? Could It Have Been Avoided?

[OTZ]

I never stated otherwise, the fault of the war does lie squarely with Hitler. I am merely saying that Hitler was playing poker, and he bluffed all his way to Poland.

I must have misunderstood your post, my apologies. My interpretation was that it seemed you were trying to assuage blame by stating the Germans/Hitler weren't looking to get embroiled in a larger war.

The Treaty of Versailles was "not that harsh" for a number of reasons:

1. The Germans territorial losses were not particularly harsh; compared to Russian losses in Brest Litovsk, they were hardly a slap on the wrist.

I would discount comparisons for the simple fact that "harshness" is only relative to your own position or standing. In any event - you can view the territorial losses in the context of 19th and early 20th Century political thinking. While the "land" and the colonies the Germans lost may have been minimal, it's what their loss represented that did the damage. Germany was late to the the whole Colonialism party - losing its seat at the table was humiliating. Hitler wanted to re-establish Germany's global influence by re-acquiring colonial outposts...not to mention Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, etc. If the terms of Versaille weren't that harsh, why bother trying to regain lost territory?

2. The reparations paid by Germany were a small fraction of what was paid by France after the loss of the Franco-Prussian War. Germany stopped paying the reparations soon after.

Again, comparing reparations paid by Germany to those of another nation doesn't make a good argument IMHO. Did the Germans stop paying because they couldn't afford to, or because they knew they could get away with not paying?

There's a reason why America and England (private and government investors) dumped tons of cash into Germany during the 20s...

3. Germany was not permanently weakened, while almost every single nation around Germany was severely weakened by the war, revolution or dissolution - such as Austria, Poland and France.

There is a difference between being "permanently weakened" and "severely weakened". Of the countries you name, all suffered in the immediate aftermath of the war, and all could be viewed as being "severely weakened" by it, but I would say only Austria's weakness was permamnent. Poland came out of the war fairly strong IMO. France was weakened due to its post-war economic practices, the problems of which were only compounded by the global meltdown. France was on the road to recovery, along with pretty much every other country affected by WWI in the early 30's.

[gsoxx]

1. The Germans territorial losses were not particularly harsh; compared to Russian losses in Brest Litovsk, they were hardly a slap on the wrist.

That's not an valid argument. Just because you perceive B-L as harder doesn't mean that Versailles wasn't harsh. And why are you suddenly referring to it at all? You were writing about the F-P war, so stick to it.

2. The reparations paid by Germany were a small fraction of what was paid by France after the loss of the Franco-Prussian War. Germany stopped paying the reparations soon after.

Please prove it.
And please show me the compareably strong restrictions which Germany imposed upon France, such as limitation of the army, restriction of research, occupation etc.

3. Germany was not permanently weakened, while almost every single nation around Germany was severely weakened by the war, revolution or dissolution - such as Austria, Poland and France.

What have revolution and dissolution (both happened in Germany too) in other countries to do with the terms of the peace treaty? Nothing.
And A-H was covered in the Paris peace treaties by the Allies too. It was dissolved on the principle of self-determination (which was denied to the germans). So whats your argument here?
Poland was weakened? By what? Its creation?

[The Noble Lord]

Nice post P.A. and very good job with arguments there .
When it comes to the issue of "Could it have been avoided" I have to say that according to all the evidence that we have in front of us we can honestly say that there was no way that WWII could've been avoided because the main protagonist and "'architect" of the WWII, Adolf Hitler was bent on war and nothing and I mean nothing could stop him or make him change his mind.
Similar like the WWI was the war in order to settle the old scores, WWII was the war to avenge the old defeats and humiliation and to destroy the old and bring in the new.
Then you throw in the Stalin and the Russians who wanted to bring the "World Revolution" to Europe and to the world under the leadership of Moscow of course.
Then other players have to be thrown in.
Unfortunately the great tragedy of the WWII was inevitable and unavoidable!

[Alsatian]

I must have misunderstood your post, my apologies. My interpretation was that it seemed you were trying to assuage blame by stating the Germans/Hitler weren't looking to get embroiled in a larger war.

No, no, I was merely stating that point about Hitler not planning, and not being prepared for a World War. There's a common misconception that there was one huge masterminded plan for a World War; there were plans for piece-meal aggression, and that piece-meal aggression ultimately lead to the WW2, no doubt aided by incompetent diplomatic manouvres by the Great Powers.

I would discount comparisons for the simple fact that "harshness" is only relative to your own position or standing. In any event - you can view the territorial losses in the context of 19th and early 20th Century political thinking. While the "land" and the colonies the Germans lost may have been minimal, it's what their loss represented that did the damage. Germany was late to the the whole Colonialism party - losing its seat at the table was humiliating. Hitler wanted to re-establish Germany's global influence by re-acquiring colonial outposts...not to mention Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig, etc. If the terms of Versaille weren't that harsh, why bother trying to regain lost territory?

Of course, "harshness" is a relative term, but I couldn't find a more apt term to describe it. Germany, ironically, benefited from the loss of its colonies - the costs of maintaining them were cut, and naval/political costs as well; the British and the French, were bogged down on the other hand.
Furthermore, the lack of an army was also an ADVANTAGE for Germany - again, cutting costs...

Secondly, German expansion can't be solely attributed to "injustice" in the Versailles Treaty - it was a very useful propaganda tool for Hitler's expansion of the German state, in order to achieve his goal - elevate Germany to be the dominant European power.

Again, comparing reparations paid by Germany to those of another nation doesn't make a good argument IMHO. Did the Germans stop paying because they couldn't afford to, or because they knew they could get away with not paying?

I forget the name of the historian, I will try to dig it up, but he argues that hyperinflation was a convenient excuse - he goes as far as to say that it was grossly exaggerated by Germany in order to avoid paying those reparations.

It should also be noted that Germany would have been very capable of repaying reparations if they rose the taxes on the citizenry as stated in the treaty.

Also, they eventually did get away with not paying those reparations...

There's a reason why America and England (private and government investors) dumped tons of cash into Germany during the 20s...

Partly to bolster Germany as a counterbalance to Soviet Russia. Partly due to the stubborn desire to keep the status quo in Europe; let's not forget, a strong Germany was undesirable, but so was a weak Germany - at least in the view of the Western Allies.

There is a difference between being "permanently weakened" and "severely weakened". Of the countries you name, all suffered in the immediate aftermath of the war, and all could be viewed as being "severely weakened" by it, but I would say only Austria's weakness was permamnent. Poland came out of the war fairly strong IMO. France was weakened due to its post-war economic practices, the problems of which were only compounded by the global meltdown. France was on the road to recovery, along with pretty much every other country affected by WWI in the early 30's.

Overall, Germany benefited from the fractionalism of Eastern Europe - one, it removed a common border with Russia, which means no second front in case of war with France. Two, it was able to bully these Eastern European states - which Britain and France were not prepared to defend.

As for Britain and France, Germany did have one important advantage over them - and that was on the home front. The German populace was gripped by nationalism, and a desire to "get even" - while British and French were quite opposed to war.

That's not an valid argument. Just because you perceive B-L as harder doesn't mean that Versailles wasn't harsh. And why are you suddenly referring to it at all? You were writing about the F-P war, so stick to it.

Then by what criteria do we judge harshness?

Please prove it.
And please show me the compareably strong restrictions which Germany imposed upon France, such as limitation of the army, restriction of research, occupation etc.
What have revolution and dissolution (both happened in Germany too) in other countries to do with the terms of the peace treaty? Nothing.
And A-H was covered in the Paris peace treaties by the Allies too. It was dissolved on the principle of self-determination (which was denied to the germans). So whats your argument here?
Poland was weakened? By what? Its creation?

France repaid reparations of 5 billion francs withing 2 years after the Franco-Prussian War, without "destroying" the French economy; these reparations were made by taxing and taking loans from the citizenry.

Germany was charged with 20 billion marks; this was reduced to 8 billion shortly after, and Germany was allowed to pay off part of the debt with coal and food shipments to the Allies; in fact, as the Dawes commission discovered in 1924, had the Weimar Republic raised tax rates to that of the Allies, the reparations could have been easily repaid. Germany perpetuated the myth by claiming that it was only possible to pay off the debt through a mass increase in exports - which scared the crap out of the Allies, with their battered trade balance sheets.

As for the rest, see replies above.

[Alsatian]

Nice post P.A. and very good job with arguments there .
When it comes to the issue of "Could it have been avoided" I have to say that according to all the evidence that we have in front of us we can honestly say that there was no way that WWII could've been avoided because the main protagonist and "'architect" of the WWII, Adolf Hitler was bent on war and nothing and I mean nothing could stop him or make him change his mind.
Similar like the WWI was the war in order to settle the old scores, WWII was the war to avenge the old defeats and humiliation and to destroy the old and bring in the new.
Then you throw in the Stalin and the Russians who wanted to bring the "World Revolution" to Europe and to the world under the leadership of Moscow of course.
Then other players have to be thrown in.
Unfortunately the great tragedy of the WWII was inevitable and unavoidable!

The above statements are debateable, and controversial, on so many levels.

Beginning with Hitler, there's not a hint that Germany wanted war. Germany wanted what it demanded, but Hitler desired to bluff his way out, and achieve his goal. Of course, Lebensraum would eventually come into being - but Hitler had no intentions for a World War.

Stalin had altogether different motivations, not least of them the security of Soviet Russia. "World Revolution", or Permanent Revolution was one of Trotsky's ideals, and was completely rejected by Stalin.

[Comrade the Colonel]

Nice post P.A. and very good job with arguments there .
When it comes to the issue of "Could it have been avoided" I have to say that according to all the evidence that we have in front of us we can honestly say that there was no way that WWII could've been avoided because the main protagonist and "'architect" of the WWII, Adolf Hitler was bent on war and nothing and I mean nothing could stop him or make him change his mind.
Similar like the WWI was the war in order to settle the old scores, WWII was the war to avenge the old defeats and humiliation and to destroy the old and bring in the new.
Then you throw in the Stalin and the Russians who wanted to bring the "World Revolution" to Europe and to the world under the leadership of Moscow of course.
Then other players have to be thrown in.
Unfortunately the great tragedy of the WWII was inevitable and unavoidable!

Thanks. What you are saying here may very well be true, but we'll never know what would actually happen if certain events were played out differently.

[Delta228]

Yes, the war could have been avoided. The blame sits with Hitler/Germany, but Britain and France, mainly France, could have stepped in and stopped Hitler's buildup of arms, especially during the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

And please don't say that the Treaty of Versailles was "harsh". Take a look at the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, and then you will understand the meaning of a "harsh" treaty. Germany gets painted as a victim after WW1, but few take the time to look at how brutal the Germans were towards their defeated enemies.

[Alsatian]

Yes, the war could have been avoided. The blame sits with Hitler/Germany, but Britain and France, mainly France, could have stepped in and stopped Hitler's buildup of arms, especially during the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

And please don't say that the Treaty of Versailles was "harsh". Take a look at the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, and then you will understand the meaning of a "harsh" treaty. Germany gets painted as a victim after WW1, but few take the time to look at how brutal the Germans were towards their defeated enemies.

Furthermore, consider what treaty Germany would have imposed on Britain and France if they had won the war.

[EireEmerald]

The Versailles treaty has been discussed already so I'll say something about the Anglo-French reaction to Hitler's invasion of Poland. The polish leaders had gone to war on the understanding that the Western allies would attack after about two weeks into western Germany in case of an invasion of Poland. Gamelin (supreme allied commander) had talked about deploying Le gros de nos forces to warsaw but this was not delivered, and perhaps had never been said with any honesty. The Anglo-French force looked great on paper- Britain's naval power and the French Army could have (in theory) trampled Germany with relative ease as the German army was busy in Poland. However, The British naval element was moot in a land war and it's land contribution was tiny compared to France. The troubles of the French Army weren't just from recalcitrance in command, but a re-structuring exercise had stripped it's elite formations of offensive capability. An Anglo-French meeting on 12th September 1939 decided the Poles would recieve no support.

The question is- would an attack into western germany have toppled Hitler? We have to put ourselves into Gamelin's shoes- there was no doubt many things that he had to be consider, notwithstanding the temporary paralysis of spearhead French units. One was the cost of a 1914 scenario all over again- would he have enough troops to break through in Germany, or would the offensive be ground down into a stalemate? The First War had cost millions of French and British lives; was Poland really worth going through all that again? Additionally, Poland herself was not helpless- they had a modern army and were capable of repulsing spearhead units from their infantry support somewhat better than the Allies did during the invasion of France.

The biggy that must have given pause for the thought wasn't Germany but the Soviet Union. The two were enjoying the fruits of the Nazi-Soviet pact- would the Soviet Union actually join Germany against the British and French? This isn't so ridiculous as it seems. Stalin's worries were to the east on the Manchurian border against the Japanese; when the peace was signed with Tokyo on the 15th September the next day his forces rolled into Poland. Certainly no coincidence. I was taught at school that the Nazi-Soviet pact simply gave Stalin time to build up his forces for the expected Nazi onslaught but this is looking at History backwards- there was no real reason to break the pact as it suited both participants rather well. Stalin could turn to Finland and the baltic countries and Hitler the West. It can't have escaped Stalin that by supporting Germany against the western allies it would have emptied Poland of German troops and been a chip at the bargaining table to secure his support. It was gangsterism at it's finest.

The question 'could it have been avoided' doesn't really ask much. As for who is responsible, you could argue at almost any part of the timeline who or what was most instrumental. I for one tend to see the Wall Steet Crash as the catalyst for it, but the true 'culprit' only really comes down to one man.

One of the biggests miistakes of world war two for me was really even before the war had ever started, the french not taking the opportunity and attacking Germany in the last 30s. France at that stage had a better and larger army than germany. The maginot line was a joke and a waste of money.

[Lützower]

Of course, "harshness" is a relative term, but I couldn't find a more apt term to describe it. Germany, ironically, benefited from the loss of its colonies - the costs of maintaining them were cut, and naval/political costs as well; the British and the French, were bogged down on the other hand.
Furthermore, the lack of an army was also an ADVANTAGE for Germany - again, cutting costs...

Lol you wish away the unjustified stealing of Germany's colonies by saying Germany benefited financially from losing them. I've never heard such an absurd statement. That a souvereign nation isn't allowed to maintain an army was also beneficial to Germany in your opinion. Sure, if I cut your dick off it may be also beneficial for you in the end since you'll never need to worry about girls any more and you'll get an excellent singing voice. That's the same absurd logic.

The Germans felt humiliated by that treatment and they had been right.

Secondly, German expansion can't be solely attributed to "injustice" in the Versailles Treaty - it was a very useful propaganda tool for Hitler's expansion of the German state, in order to achieve his goal - elevate Germany to be the dominant European power.

German expansion just before the war, was no expansion but retaking German lands. Only with the Czech it went too far. Strange you neglect the right of self-determination of people if it doesn't fit into your argumentation.

I forget the name of the historian, I will try to dig it up, but he argues that hyperinflation was a convenient excuse - he goes as far as to say that it was grossly exaggerated by Germany in order to avoid paying those reparations.

Fine, a single historian expresses his opinion. I'll name you 10 others which say differently. So what?
Germany was bruised and battered by economic crises in the 20ies like all other European countries, but the Germans had to pay reparations during those hard times, too.

It should also be noted that Germany would have been very capable of repaying reparations if they rose the taxes on the citizenry as stated in the treaty.

You simplify a lot. Don't you think that the German politicians knew quite well, what they were doing. A Republic which was forced upon the people can't just raise taxes as they wish.

Also, they eventually did get away with not paying those reparations...

Germany paid reparations, not all of them but a big part. When they got away with it, the entente had realised that it wasn't possible for Germany to pay.

Partly to bolster Germany as a counterbalance to Soviet Russia. Partly due to the stubborn desire to keep the status quo in Europe; let's not forget, a strong Germany was undesirable, but so was a weak Germany - at least in the view of the Western Allies.

The "stubborn" desire to keep the status quo had maintained the peace for a long time. It was the idea which stood behind the Congess of Vienna after Napoleon's deafeat. It strange how you defend the untolerable: you disregard the right of self-determination completely.

Overall, Germany benefited from the fractionalism of Eastern Europe - one, it removed a common border with Russia, which means no second front in case of war with France. Two, it was able to bully these Eastern European states - which Britain and France were not prepared to defend.

What? Again you show extreme lack of acceptance for the will of other people to rule themselves. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk freed Finland, the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Georgia from Soviet oppression. When the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was void, because of Versaille, the first things the Soviets did, was conquering Georgia and Ukraine and occupying them again. Hurray! Naturally Germany benefited, too, from best-LKitovsk, but from todays perspective it granted a lot of eastern Europeans freedom and self-determination, while you defend Russia occupying these countries. Whereas Germany doesn't didn't have the right to retake even German lands in your opinion.

As for Britain and France, Germany did have one important advantage over them - and that was on the home front. The German populace was gripped by nationalism, and a desire to "get even" - while British and French were quite opposed to war.

What are you talking about? Before the outbreak of WWI all countries had been gripped by nationalism and all supported going to war. Socio-historic studies have proven the fascination and support for war in all involved countries.

If you're talking about WWII you're even more wrong, because many Germans didn't want to go to war, since they feared the outcome would be even worse than the one of WWI. It's really strange how one-sided your views on history are. Germany and the Germans are to blame for everything, that's more than just silly.

France repaid reparations of 5 billion francs withing 2 years after the Franco-Prussian War, without "destroying" the French economy; these reparations were made by taxing and taking loans from the citizenry.

Germany was charged with 20 billion marks; this was reduced to 8 billion shortly after, and Germany was allowed to pay off part of the debt with coal and food shipments to the Allies; in fact, as the Dawes commission discovered in 1924, had the Weimar Republic raised tax rates to that of the Allies, the reparations could have been easily repaid. Germany perpetuated the myth by claiming that it was only possible to pay off the debt through a mass increase in exports - which scared the crap out of the Allies, with their battered trade balance sheets.

As for the rest, see replies above.

I'll have to comment the rest of it later...

Yes, the war could have been avoided. The blame sits with Hitler/Germany, but Britain and France, mainly France, could have stepped in and stopped Hitler's buildup of arms, especially during the remilitarization of the Rhineland.

No it could not, France was in no position to do so and it would have led to war, just as the Germans invading Poland a few years later.

And please don't say that the Treaty of Versailles was "harsh". Take a look at the Treaty of Brest Litovsk, and then you will understand the meaning of a "harsh" treaty. Germany gets painted as a victim after WW1, but few take the time to look at how brutal the Germans were towards their defeated enemies.

As Alsatian you diregard the freedom it gave to a lot of people which had been occupied by Russia (Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia) By the way even Lenin himself said that Brest-Litowsk was a positive momentum, since it allowed the Soviets to stabilise their power in Russia, while they expected the Germans to lose in the west,which would make the whole treaty of Brest-Litovsk null and void. It happened as expected and the Soviets were able occupy the Ukrainians and Georgians unchallenged again. In no way was Brest-Litovsk "brutal", maybe harsh towards the Soviets, while it granted freedom and self-determination to many opressed people. Where are your arguments, where are the facts in your post? I see nothing more than opinion and even more silly stereotypes by portraying the Germans as "brutal".

[Mangalore]

...

France repaid reparations of 5 billion francs withing 2 years after the Franco-Prussian War, without "destroying" the French economy; these reparations were made by taxing and taking loans from the citizenry.

Germany was charged with 20 billion marks; this was reduced to 8 billion shortly after, and Germany was allowed to pay off part of the debt with coal and food shipments to the Allies; in fact, as the Dawes commission discovered in 1924, had the Weimar Republic raised tax rates to that of the Allies, the reparations could have been easily repaid. Germany perpetuated the myth by claiming that it was only possible to pay off the debt through a mass increase in exports - which scared the crap out of the Allies, with their battered trade balance sheets.

As for the rest, see replies above.

This is wrong.

Initially Germany was charged with paying about 125 goldmark in total and first demands were to pay 20 billion until 1921. The Dawes plan then reduced it further to a economic viable option. Why? You forget that the German state of 1918 was essentially bankrupt and indebted beyond all belief because essentially germany believed the same the Allies believed: That the loser could pay the bills. Which in hindsight was nonsense.

In 1929 the Young plan postulated reparation payments that would amount to 110 billion until the 1980s. The Allies did not reduce things, they modified the way germany could pay this stuff.

Germany had no goldmark or foreign currency to give to the Allies that would hold up to a gold standard. The only way to aquire it was through exports (where else should it come from? The reichsmark was carried around in carriages to buy loaves of bread... okay a bit melodramatic here.)

The constant reshuffling and latter abandonment of the payment gives a glimpse how realistic the demands were. Germany got off better than it could have hoped for but only because it really wasn't that good off and the Great depression destroyed any hopes germany's economy could recover in a way that those reparations could be realistically paid. Germany of the 20s or 30s wasn't precisely well off economically. Even if its economy was still greater than France's this only demonstrates how ed everyone was.

Case in point however, the French reparations taxed on a relatively unscathed country do not compare to a heavily indebted, bankrupt and instable nation after a long protracted war. 5 billion franc is way different than demands of 100-200 billion goldbacked currency (even the really paid ~24 billion). Germany did pay a similar amount within the first years, but the idea that a country could or would pay reparations openended for decades was surreal to begin with. The Allies didn't even know how much to demand up until ten years latter. It seems obvious to me that those reparations would have stopped one way or another before any of those ridiculous sums would have been paid.

Only effect it really had was to weaken the new german republic internally and externally by isolating them in the international field while they got flak from virtually everyone domestically.

German expansion just before the war, was no expansion but retaking German lands. Only with the Czech it went too far. Strange you neglect the right of self-determination of people if it doesn't fit into your argumentation.

It was really more than rightful retaking of German lands. The postwar order was simply a mess that created enough frictions between any of the newborn nations. That a now completely debased Austria and her former German lands elsewhere now looked to the Greater German solution could have been anticipated, given that Austria Hungary completely fell apart.

Wether anyone had any right to retake anything is secondary to the fact that the postwar order created plenty of ethnic friction.

[Alsatian]

Lol you wish away the unjustified stealing of Germany's colonies by saying Germany benefited financially from losing them. I've never heard such an absurd statement. That a souvereign nation isn't allowed to maintain an army was also beneficial to Germany in your opinion. Sure, if I cut your dick off it may be also beneficial for you in the end since you'll never need to worry about girls any more and you'll get an excellent singing voice. That's the same absurd logic.

"Unjustified stealing"? How about starting a goddamned war, killing millions of Allied soldiers and devastating Belgium and half of France? What's next, the division of Germany after WW2 was "unjustified".

As for not having army or colonies, DUH, of course it decreases costs - it may diminish German pride, but boohoo, cry me a river.

God, you German apologists make me sick.

The Germans felt humiliated by that treatment and they had been right.

They lost a war. Deal with it, cry in a corner. This is the kind of propaganda Hitler employed.

German expansion just before the war, was no expansion but retaking German lands. Only with the Czech it went too far. Strange you neglect the right of self-determination of people if it doesn't fit into your argumentation.

Self-determination? Anshluss? Munich? Poland?

Give me a break, you might as well put a swastika on your sleeve.

Fine, a single historian expresses his opinion. I'll name you 10 others which say differently. So what?
Germany was bruised and battered by economic crises in the 20ies like all other European countries, but the Germans had to pay reparations during those hard times, too.

And Britain and France had to repay enormous debts; on top of that, France had to deal with the destruction of half of its land and industry.

You simplify a lot. Don't you think that the German politicians knew quite well, what they were doing. A Republic which was forced upon the people can't just raise taxes as they wish.

German politicians knew quite well, that they could play around with the Allies, which they did.

Germany paid reparations, not all of them but a big part. When they got away with it, the entente had realised that it wasn't possible for Germany to pay.

Yeah... right...

The "stubborn" desire to keep the status quo had maintained the peace for a long time. It was the idea which stood behind the Congess of Vienna after Napoleon's deafeat. It strange how you defend the untolerable: you disregard the right of self-determination completely.

Except when it failed abysmally in 1936, 1938, 1939...

What? Again you show extreme lack of acceptance for the will of other people to rule themselves. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk freed Finland, the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Georgia from Soviet oppression. When the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was void, because of Versaille, the first things the Soviets did, was conquering Georgia and Ukraine and occupying them again. Hurray! Naturally Germany benefited, too, from best-LKitovsk, but from todays perspective it granted a lot of eastern Europeans freedom and self-determination, while you defend Russia occupying these countries. Whereas Germany doesn't didn't have the right to retake even German lands in your opinion.

WHAT??? BL Treaty gave those lands to Germany; they got self-determination from the Allies.

What are you talking about? Before the outbreak of WWI all countries had been gripped by nationalism and all supported going to war. Socio-historic studies have proven the fascination and support for war in all involved countries.

Of course. Except Germany started the war through its warmongering, and the blank cheque given to Austria...

If you're talking about WWII you're even more wrong, because many Germans didn't want to go to war, since they feared the outcome would be even worse than the one of WWI. It's really strange how one-sided your views on history are. Germany and the Germans are to blame for everything, that's more than just silly.

Excuse me for seeing history without the that accompanies it.

As Alsatian you diregard the freedom it gave to a lot of people which had been occupied by Russia (Finland, the Baltic states, Ukraine and Georgia) By the way even Lenin himself said that Brest-Litowsk was a positive momentum, since it allowed the Soviets to stabilise their power in Russia, while they expected the Germans to lose in the west,which would make the whole treaty of Brest-Litovsk null and void. It happened as expected and the Soviets were able occupy the Ukrainians and Georgians unchallenged again. In no way was Brest-Litovsk "brutal", maybe harsh towards the Soviets, while it granted freedom and self-determination to many opressed people. Where are your arguments, where are the facts in your post? I see nothing more than opinion and even more silly stereotypes by portraying the Germans as "brutal".

Again, WHAT??? BL was considered a blemish in Communist history by Lenin and Trotsky; infact, it almost destroyed Trotsky's career. Secondly, the freedom was given by the ALLIES, not by Germany.

Jesus, man...

This is wrong.

Initially Germany was charged with paying about 125 goldmark in total and first demands were to pay 20 billion until 1921. The Dawes plan then reduced it further to a economic viable option. Why? You forget that the German state of 1918 was essentially bankrupt and indebted beyond all belief because essentially germany believed the same the Allies believed: That the loser could pay the bills. Which in hindsight was nonsense.

In 1929 the Young plan postulated reparation payments that would amount to 110 billion until the 1980s. The Allies did not reduce things, they modified the way germany could pay this stuff.

Germany had no goldmark or foreign currency to give to the Allies that would hold up to a gold standard. The only way to aquire it was through exports (where else should it come from? The reichsmark was carried around in carriages to buy loaves of bread... okay a bit melodramatic here.)

The constant reshuffling and latter abandonment of the payment gives a glimpse how realistic the demands were. Germany got off better than it could have hoped for but only because it really wasn't that good off and the Great depression destroyed any hopes germany's economy could recover in a way that those reparations could be realistically paid. Germany of the 20s or 30s wasn't precisely well off economically. Even if its economy was still greater than France's this only demonstrates how ed everyone was.

Case in point however, the French reparations taxed on a relatively unscathed country do not compare to a heavily indebted, bankrupt and instable nation after a long protracted war. 5 billion franc is way different than demands of 100-200 billion goldbacked currency (even the really paid ~24 billion). Germany did pay a similar amount within the first years, but the idea that a country could or would pay reparations openended for decades was surreal to begin with. The Allies didn't even know how much to demand up until ten years latter. It seems obvious to me that those reparations would have stopped one way or another before any of those ridiculous sums would have been paid.

Only effect it really had was to weaken the new german republic internally and externally by isolating them in the international field while they got flak from virtually everyone domestically.




It was really more than rightful retaking of German lands. The postwar order was simply a mess that created enough frictions between any of the newborn nations. That a now completely debased Austria and her former German lands elsewhere now looked to the Greater German solution could have been anticipated, given that Austria Hungary completely fell apart.

Wether anyone had any right to retake anything is secondary to the fact that the postwar order created plenty of ethnic friction.

I will quote from this quite informative book:

"The Treaty of Versailles"
By Manfred Franz Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, Elisabeth Gläser

Curiously, it was usually in the political interests of both German and Allied leaders to obscure reality and to present reparations and to present reparations demands as more onerous than they actually were. Leaders of continental victor states needed to convince their electorates that they had obtained considerably more than they really had; Weimar politicians equally exaggerated both to tell the German people what they wanted to hear about the horrors of Versailles and to convince world opinion that reparations were unjust and unpayable. Thus the orchestrations of both sides combined to heighten the distortion

Beyond doubt, the Allies failed between November and May to bring defeat home to the German people or to prepare them for the consequences of the defeat. Nor, less surprisingly, did the German cabinet. Thus the German people entered upon that state of denial that Ernst Troelstch called "the dreamland of the Armistice Period".

The Weimar republic constantly pleaded weakness and poverty, falsifying its trade statistics to buttress its argument. However, as time would conclusively demonstrate, under the Versailles Treaty Germany remained the continent's greatest power, especially economically.

P.S. Rightful retaking of lands? Come on, that's just absurd apologism. Germany should have prepared to deal with the consequences of losing a World War which they share the most responsibility for starting.

[Lützower]

"Unjustified stealing"? How about starting a goddamned war, killing millions of Allied soldiers and devastating Belgium and half of France? What's next, the division of Germany after WW2 was "unjustified".

How about France and Britain going to goddam war, because of Serbia? Check out your own actions before blaming all on Germany. That's really silly and it has been done for too long, which doesn't make it more right.
Oh yes, the division of Germany after WWII was also unjustified. Two wrong doings don't make it good in the end.

As for not having army or colonies, DUH, of course it decreases costs - it may diminish German pride, but boohoo, cry me a river.

God, you German apologists make me sick.

Again if we had done that with France after the Prussian-French war, I wonder what you'd say then. For sure not "it dimished France's pride, but boohoo, cry me a river". It's obvious how you feel prefectly ok with victor's justice, especially the policy of France, whose goal was to cripple Germany, while you simply neglect that it has been an importand factor for the following war.
Simple minded people who feel perfectly comfortable with blaming all on Germany make me sick!

They lost a war. Deal with it, cry in a corner. This is the kind of propaganda Hitler employed.

France didn't win a single war out of own strength in the 20th century. But feeling as victor in both wars and then taking cowardly bitter revenge backed by the other Allies. Deal with that you self-righteous beeing.

Self-determination? Anshluss? Munich? Poland?

Give me a break, you might as well put a swastika on your sleeve.

Yes, self-determination, which can be granted to others but not to the Germans, right? Your pathetic attempt to portray the wish for self-determination as Hitler like Nazi policy really excludes you from any serious discussion. As I said, Poles and Czech were "generously" granted the rule on Germans and German territories

How about putting a red star on yours?

And Britain and France had to repay enormous debts; on top of that, France had to deal with the destruction of half of its land and industry.

You could also blame it on the French themselves, who went to war with Germany. Germany didn't have any goals in the west, while France had the goal to take revenge for the German-French war, to take Alsace & Lotharingia and to cripple Germany permanently by annexation of undoubtly German lands on the left side of the Rhine such as the Saarland and parts of the Rhineland. Who's the real greedy and warmongering?

WHAT??? BL Treaty gave those lands to Germany; they got self-determination from the Allies.

WTF? Have you ever read the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Here is a very credible source in German:
http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/brest/index.html

Art. 3.
Die Gebiete, die westlich der zwischen den vertragschließenden Teilen vereinbarten Linie liegen und zu Rußland gehört haben, werden der russischen Staatshoheit nicht mehr unterstehen; die vereinbarte Linie ergibt sich aus der diesem Friedensvertrag als wesentlicher Bestandteil beigefügten Karte (Anlage 1). Die genaue Festlegung der Linie wird durch eine deutsch-russische Kommission erfolgen.
Den in Rede stehenden Gebieten werden aus der ehemaligen Zugehörigkeit zu Rußland keinerlei Verpflichtungen gegenüber Rußland erwachsen.
Rußland verzichtet auf jede Einmischung in die inneren Verhältnisse dieser Gebiete. Deutschland und Österreich-Ungarn beabsichtigen, das künftige Schicksal dieser Gebiete im Einvernehmen mit deren Bevölkerung zu bestimmen.

Art. 6.
Rußland verpflichtet sich, sofort Frieden mit der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik zu schließen und den Friedensvertrag zwischen diesem Staate und den Mächten des Vierbundes anzuerkennen. Das ukrainische Gebiet wird unverzüglich von den russischen
Truppen und der russischen Roten Garde geräumt. Rußland stellt jede Agitation oder Propaganda gegen die Regierung oder die öffentlichen Einrichtungen der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik ein.
Estland und Livland werden gleichfalls ohne Verzug von den russischen Truppen und der russischen Roten Garde geräumt. Die Ostgrenze von Estland läuft im allgemeinen dem Narew-Flusse entlang. Die Ostgrenze von Livland verläuft im allgemeinen durch den Peipus-See und Pskowschen See bis zu dessen Südwestecke, dann über den Lubanschen See in Richtung Livenhof an der Düna. Estland und Livland werden von einer deutschen Polizeimacht besetzt, bis dort die Sicherheit durch eigene Landeseinrichtungen gewährleistet und die staatliche Ordnung hergestellt ist. [...]
Auch Finnland und die Aalandinseln werden alsbald von den russischen Truppen und der russischen Roten Garde, die finnischen Häfen von der russischen Flotte und den russischen Seestreitkräften geräumt [...]
Die auf den Aalandinseln angelegten Befestigungen sind sobald als möglich zu entfernen. Über die dauernde Nichtbefestigung dieser Inseln sowie über ihre sonstige Behandlung in militärischer und schiffahrtstechnischer Hinsicht ist ein besonderes Abkommen zwischen Deutschland, Finnland, Rußland und Schweden zu treffen; es besteht Einverständnis darüber, daß hierzu auf Wunsch Deutschlands auch andere Anliegerstaaten der Ostsee hinzuzuziehen sein würden.

Nowhere Germany is taking the lands for itlsef, clearly Germany advocates the Fins, Ukraininas and Balts here. Especially importand is the above bold marked part of the quote. Translated: Germany and Austria-Hungary plan to decide on the future of the mentioned territories in accordance with the people of these territories.

Of course. Except Germany started the war through its warmongering, and the blank cheque given to Austria...
Excuse me for seeing history without the that accompanies it.

You see simply see history the way it fits into your mindset. The blank cheque theory is wrong and outdated in todays historic discourse.

Again, WHAT??? BL was considered a blemish in Communist history by Lenin and Trotsky; infact, it almost destroyed Trotsky's career. Secondly, the freedom was given by the ALLIES, not by Germany.

Brest-Litovsk was seen as humiliating by the commies LATER, but with the same logic as you used above (the allies "helped" Germany by forbading it to maintain an army and by stealing its colonies) I can say that it helped the Soviets in the end to stabilise their pwoer in Russia, since it gave them peace, when they needed it the most (which is much more reasonable than the rubbish you posted). It's known that Lenin himself said, that the BL-Treaty was a "positive momentum" which helped the Soviets a lot in the end. I expalined earlier, why Lenin saw it like that. If the war on the east would have continued, maybe the Soviets would have been annihilated in Russia, so it was better for them to agree in order to strengthen control over Russia, while expecting Germany to lose in the west, which would allow them to retake the lost regions later again (which hadn't been Russian anyway!) - et voilà that's exactly what happened.

Sadly, the sources like the one of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk don't fit into your argumentation and mindest. In order to settle things in the east, Versaille took a lot of borrowing from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which had granted freedom and self-determination for Fins, Balts, Ukrainians and even Gerogians before. But since Germany was ed in Versaille there was no one left to cheque the Soviets in the east, with the result, that the Soviets after stabilising, immediately occupied Ukraine and Georgia again.

[nkindianhobo]

I believe that World War II could not have been avoided. I think this is because of the state Germany and the rest of the world was at the time that Hitler gained power. All over the globe, countries were suffering the Great Depression, where economies were in horrible countries and people were left homeless and on the street. One of these countries was Germany. Germany’s economy took an especially hard hit because of the Depression because it already owed America and other countries debts because of WWI, and because its economy depended on the economy of others. Alas, when major countries like the U.S. suffered, the debts Germany owed them were suddenly due, and as a result Germany began mass producing their currency. This put them in a deeper state of depression since their money was continuously worth less and less. So with all the poverty and depression, German citizens needed a leader – someone to take them out of their turmoil. This as we see now, was Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler rose to power and one of his goals was to rid the world of Jews and create more living space for Germans. He was bent on these two aspirations, and his ambition to create more German living space would lead to expanding and conquering, which obviously means war. Moreover, Hitler was bent on having a war, and I doubt anything could have stopped him. Also, there were other players in this equation too. For example, there was Stalin who wanted to bring the “World Revolution” to Europe. Also, World War II was a war use to settle old scores – it was the war to avenge old defeats and establish a new way of life over the old. There were many conditions that made the war inevitable. For example, all over the world, countries were suffering from the Great Depression, which made them extremely vulnerable to a leader figure like Hitler. Also, the Treaty of Versailles was very strict and limited Germany in many ways. Hence, I think this is why Germany broke it – it was so strict that it almost spurred the war in the German mind. And lastly, World War II was an opportunity for some countries, like Germany to avenge their old defeats. The timing made it perfect – countries were vulnerable to attack and the thought that Germany could create a new way of life was too tempting for Germany to resist. This is why I believe the war could not have been avoided.

[nemgod]

They didn't?

No they didn't. WW1 started due to issues between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia. Both of these states had powerful allies which went so far as to try to avoid conflict.

But the total mobilisation of Russian forces scared the hell out of Wilhelm (who was at one point willing to allow a partly mobilised Russia fighting Austro-Hungarian empire) that he felt he had no choice but to fight Russia and therefore France too. He even tried to stop Stliefen (sp) plan so to keep Britain out but was unsuccessful.

[Alsatian]

How about France and Britain going to goddam war, because of Serbia? Check out your own actions before blaming all on Germany. That's really silly and it has been done for too long, which doesn't make it more right.
Oh yes, the division of Germany after WWII was also unjustified. Two wrong doings don't make it good in the end.

Yeah... No.

It is accepted by most historians that Germany shares the primary responsibility for WWI.
You're blaming France and Britain? Shlieffen Plan much?

Even Wiki has the info, read up:

"In 1961, the German historian Fritz Fischer published the very controversial Griff nach der Weltmacht, in which Fischer argued that the German government had expansionist foreign policy goals, formulated in the aftermath of Social Democratic gains in the election of 1912, and had deliberately started a war of aggression in 1914. Fischer was the first historian to draw attention to the War Council held by the Kaiser Wilhelm II and the Reich's top military-naval leadership on December 8, 1912 in which it was declared that Germany would start a war of aggression in the summer of 1914.[57] Both the Kaiser and the Army leadership wanted to start a war at once in December 1912, but objections from Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, who while supporting the idea of starting a world war, argued that the German Navy needed more time to prepare, and asked that the war be put off until the summer of 1914.[58] The Kaiser agreed to Tirpitz's request.[59] In 1973, the British historian John Röhl noted that in view of what Fischer had uncovered, especially the War Council meeting of December 8, 1912 that the idea that Germany bore the main responsibility for the war was no longer denied by the vast majority of historians[60], although Fischer himself later denied ever having maintained that the war was decided upon at that meeting.[61] Annika Mombauer in contrast to Röhl observed in her work on Helmuth von Moltke that despite a great deal of research and debate "there is no direct evidence to prove that military decision-makers understood December 1912 as a decisive moment at which a future war had been agreed upon".[62]
Fischer's discovery of Imperial German government documents calling for the ethnic cleansing of Russian Poland and the subsequent German colonization in order to provide Germany with Lebensraum (living space) as a war aim, has also led to the widespread acceptance within the historians' community of a basic continuity between the foreign policies of Germany in 1914 and 1939.[63][64]
Fischer alleged the German government hoped to use external expansion and aggression to check internal dissent and democratization. Some of his work is based on Dr. Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg's "September Programme" which laid out Germany's war aims. Moreover, and even more controversially, Fischer asserted a version of the Sonderweg thesis that drew a connection between aggression in 1914 and 1939. Fischer was later to call Bethmann-Hollweg the "Hitler of 1914". Fischer spawned a whole school of analysis in a similar vein known as the Primat der Innenpolitik ("primacy of domestic politics") school, emphasizing domestic German political factors. Some prominent scholars in this school include Imanuel Geiss, Hans-Ulrich Wehler,Wolfgang Mommsen, and Volker Berghahn."


"West German historian Andreas Hillgruber argued that in 1914, a "calculated risk" on the part of Berlin had gone awry.[68] Hillgruber argued that what the Imperial German government had attempted to do in 1914 was to break the informal Triple Entente of Russia, France and Britain, by encouraging Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia and thus provoke a crisis in an area that would concern only St. Petersburg. Hillgruber argued that the Germans hoped that both Paris and London would decide the crisis in the Balkans did not concern them and that lack of Anglo-French support would lead the Russians to reach an understanding with Germany. Hillgruber argued that when the Austrian attack on Serbia caused Russia to mobilize instead of backing down as expected, the German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg under strong pressure from a hawkish General Staff led by General Motke the Younger panicked and ordered the Schlieffen Plan to be activated, thus leading to a German attack on France. In Hillgruber’s opinion, the German government had pursued a high-risk diplomatic strategy of provoking a war in the Balkans that had inadvertently caused a world war.[69]"

Again if we had done that with France after the Prussian-French war, I wonder what you'd say then. For sure not "it dimished France's pride, but boohoo, cry me a river". It's obvious how you feel prefectly ok with victor's justice, especially the policy of France, whose goal was to cripple Germany, while you simply neglect that it has been an importand factor for the following war.

French pride was wounded; as for Germany - do you not realised, compared to the other powers, it actually got the BETTER end of the stick?

Simple minded people who feel perfectly comfortable with blaming all on Germany make me sick!

Historical research =/= simple mindedness

France didn't win a single war out of own strength in the 20th century. But feeling as victor in both wars and then taking cowardly bitter revenge backed by the other Allies. Deal with that you self-righteous beeing.

Your point is? France didn't take its revenge. By all means, they wanted to march all the way to Berlin.
You fail to remember, that the majority of the war was fought on French SOIL, and that Germany was the AGGRESSOR.

Yes, self-determination, which can be granted to others but not to the Germans, right? Your pathetic attempt to portray the wish for self-determination as Hitler like Nazi policy really excludes you from any serious discussion. As I said, Poles and Czech were "generously" granted the rule on Germans and German territories

WHAT???

Invasion =/= self-determination, sorry. Take your Nazi logic elsewhere.

How about putting a red star on yours?

You could also blame it on the French themselves, who went to war with Germany. Germany didn't have any goals in the west, while France had the goal to take revenge for the German-French war, to take Alsace & Lotharingia and to cripple Germany permanently by annexation of undoubtly German lands on the left side of the Rhine such as the Saarland and parts of the Rhineland. Who's the real greedy and warmongering?

Huh? Germany INVADED FRANCE!!! Do you comprehend that? Germany was the aggressor in both wars. Nothing less, nothing more.

WTF? Have you ever read the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Here is a very credible source in German:
http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/brest/index.html
Nowhere Germany is taking the lands for itlsef, clearly Germany advocates the Fins, Ukraininas and Balts here. Especially importand is the above bold marked part of the quote. Translated: Germany and Austria-Hungary plan to decide on the future of the mentioned territories in accordance with the people of these territories.

Lol. Which is why Germany stationed 1 million troops in the conquered territories to hold "democratic elections"? Give me a break.

Also, a German source from 1918? Lol.

You see simply see history the way it fits into your mindset. The blank cheque theory is wrong and outdated in todays historic discourse.

Actually, it isn't .

Brest-Litovsk was seen as humiliating by the commies LATER, but with the same logic as you used above (the allies "helped" Germany by forbading it to maintain an army and by stealing its colonies) I can say that it helped the Soviets in the end to stabilise their pwoer in Russia, since it gave them peace, when they needed it the most (which is much more reasonable than the rubbish you posted). It's known that Lenin himself said, that the BL-Treaty was a "positive momentum" which helped the Soviets a lot in the end. I expalined earlier, why Lenin saw it like that. If the war on the east would have continued, maybe the Soviets would have been annihilated in Russia, so it was better for them to agree in order to strengthen control over Russia, while expecting Germany to lose in the west, which would allow them to retake the lost regions later again (which hadn't been Russian anyway!) - et voilà that's exactly what happened.

Umm.. peace helped them stabilise their power -the treaty itself was enormously harsh.

Sadly, the sources like the one of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk don't fit into your argumentation and mindest. In order to settle things in the east, Versaille took a lot of borrowing from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which had granted freedom and self-determination for Fins, Balts, Ukrainians and even Gerogians before. But since Germany was ed in Versaille there was no one left to cheque the Soviets in the east, with the result, that the Soviets after stabilising, immediately occupied Ukraine and Georgia again

Sadly, you are a Nazi fanboy who is blinded by nationalism. You fail to see that Treaty of BL was not for the self-determination of Eastern Europe, but to allocate those territories under German and Austrian territories.

No they didn't. WW1 started due to issues between the Austro-Hungarian empire and Serbia. Both of these states had powerful allies which went so far as to try to avoid conflict.

But the total mobilisation of Russian forces scared the hell out of Wilhelm (who was at one point willing to allow a partly mobilised Russia fighting Austro-Hungarian empire) that he felt he had no choice but to fight Russia and therefore France too. He even tried to stop Stliefen (sp) plan so to keep Britain out but was unsuccessful.

No. See above.

[Maverick]

Wow. Half of you think it was unavoidable.

Had Chamberlain not capitulated to Hitler's demands initiating a string of diplomatic and military successes that kept Hitler alive the War never would have happened. It really is simple as that, Hitler was an easy target for assassination and very unpopular with key high ranking officers before Munich.

And the Second World War lead to the Cold War which we're still paying for, giving those madmen unlimited money, power and freedom of action. And how are we going to take it back? Not to mention we narrowly escaped a nuclear war, luckily the Boss had a stroke and his Commissars had the humanity not to call a doctor and let the bastard die. And the Cold War lead to all these dirty Wars and eventually the War on Terror. The Generals love Wars like that because there's very little fighting to be done but still a lot of money and power.

[King Peter I]

I would just like to add to this thread that Jozef Pilsudski, the Marshal of Poland, predicted that Hitler would make war in Europe. With France, he wanted to invade Germany in 1933. Poland would invade from the west and France from east. France said they don't want to fight and so 6 years later WWII started.

Just wanted to show how France did not want to stop Hitler.

[Alsatian]

I would just like to add to this thread that Jozef Pilsudski, the Marshal of Poland, predicted that Hitler would make war in Europe. With France, he wanted to invade Germany in 1933. Poland would invade from the west and France from east. France said they don't want to fight and so 6 years later WWII started.

Just wanted to show how France did not want to stop Hitler.

Nonsense. What Poland wanted was greater strategical power and relevance. As well as security; being sandwiched between Russia and Germany is not such a good thing.

Furthermore, how do you justify an invasion of Germany in 1933? It would have been unthinkable.

[King Peter I]

Nonsense. What Poland wanted was greater strategical power and relevance. As well as security; being sandwiched between Russia and Germany is not such a good thing.

Furthermore, how do you justify an invasion of Germany in 1933? It would have been unthinkable.

Lol, Poland was one of the powers in 1933. Poland knew that to be safe it has to defend its borders. To defend your borders you need to make sure that the enemy does not want to invade. France and England were supposed to help Poland, not save.