was Hitler good for germany?

The infrastructure of most of western Europe had been destroyed or had broken down under the strains of war. Germany, which hadn't been prepared to feed itself before the war, was much worse off during the war, especially as most of their grain had once come from Russia--and they were fighting the Russians. After the Russian revolution, the Germans were able to transfer about one and one half million troops to the western front. These troops were held in reserve, and then sprung on the Allies in a surprise attack. (The Allies knew it was coming, but when and where, and especially how, were not known.) General Gough's English Fifth Army was the first target, and it was quickly shattered. The Germans, launched from San Quentin in Picardy, had the town of Ham as their objective for the first week of the battle. They reached it in two days. The French sent the Fifth Corps of their Armée du Nord, to help shore up the flanks of the broken English line. A shallow but wide penetration can spell disaster--but even a deep penetration of enemy lines will acccomplish nothing if it is on too narrow a front. However, what eventually stopped the German advance at the end of the first week was simple hunger. The Germans had been eating black bread and sausages for years, and both those commodities were filled out with sawdust, because there was just too little farming being done in Germany. When the Germans reached the rear areas of Gough's army, they found bakeries producing fresh white bread for the English. They immediately took over the bakeries, and put the bakers back to work at gun point--and then stayed around waiting for the bread to bake. They found supply dumps with canned sausages, canned ham, canned beef, fresh vegetables, canned fruit, cheese, etc., etc., etc.--and none of it was made with sawdust. The German advance ground to a halt as much because of looting as it did because of timely French intervention.

Before the war, Russia had been the world's largest exporter of grain, more than the United States and Canada combined. But now, that grain was not accessible, and Russia's woes also included a lot of fields run rank because there was no one there to farm them. The Belgians, English and French continued to eat well because American and Canadian farmers got busy selling them all they needed and wanted. American and Canadian factories immediately re-tooled and manufactured arms and ammunition to English and French specificaitons (this was true in America even before we entered the war).

This put an enormous strain on English and French finances. Belgium was the only country which was repaid, and the country had been effectively evacuated so that much of the population, those not in the army, were behind the lines in France. They were able to go back and pick up pretty much where they left off. It took a few years, but things got back to normal pretty quickly for them. France suffered most in the west. The French had always been paranoid about not being able to feed themselves, and they were better prepared for the war in that respect than most countries. But the portion of their territory occupied by the Germans was about one fifth of their farm land, and most of that had been used to grow grain--grain=bread, and bread was the basic food for all of Europe. England had stopped trying to grow its own food two hundred years earlier, and that combined with German u-boat warfare, meant they spent a vast fortune just to feed themselves in that war. Poland had gone out of existence at the end of the 18th century, and when it was recreated after the war, and the Red Army was driven off, it's agriculture recovered pretty quickly.

In eastern Europe, the war did not end with the 1918 armistice. Allies of the "big four" (Italy, England, France and the United States) such as Servia and Roumania took advantage, and invaded neighboring countries. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy was reduced to a tiny fraction of its former territory, and no one felt like giving Austria or Hungary a break after the war.

America and Canada stepped into the food gap, and grain farmers on the prairies of American and Canada made fortunes--they also overextended their credit buying new equipment and new land. But both the Allies and the defeated nations were broke--eventually, they could not continue to import food, and the bottom fell out of the North American bonanza. Bad farming methods also lead to monumental erosion, resulting in the "dust bowl" of the 1930's. Agriculture got back on track in Europe, and the Germans rather quickly got back in the buiness of manufacturing small consumer goods and selling them all over Europe, but particuarly in the devestated regions of central and eastern Europe. The recession in England and France was bad, but not as bad as America and Canada's depression became. Millions, literally, of English, French and Italian soldiers were sent home, and faced unemployment, because the cash was gone, and there was precious little investment capital left to make the switch back to consumer economies which might otherwise have provided employment. In Germany, Ernst Rohm supplied the definciency by using private contributions from rich German industrialists (yes, rich--the war certainly didn't hurt the bank books of those who sell arms and munitions) to set up make-work public projects which gave men a chance to earn a wage; those whom they could not employ, they fed from public "soup kitchens." In Italy, a former editor of a socialist newspaper, Benito Moussolini, took over the government in a political, bloodless coup, and began instituting public welfare programs and public works programs, financing this through a devil's bargain with wealthy capitalists. He used an ancient symbol of the Roman Republic, the faces (a bundle of rods with an axe in the middle, bound by ribbons--you can see one on the back of old dimes minted in this country fifty years ago), and his party became known as the Facist party. Hitler co-opted the Brown Shirt programs of Ernst Rohm, and began imitating Moussolini, which is why the National Socialists (i.e., the Nazis) are referred to as facists.

Fascism was popular in France, but it was a huge undercurrent which the government would not acknowledge. Without the alliance of capitalists with an authoritarian state, facism never took off in France. In England, the trades unionists struck repeatedly in the 1920's, and the government hired unemployed former army officers to drive the delivery trucks and to break up the strikers' demonstrations. Since England still had an empire of sorts to which it could export, they limped along getting not much better, but getting no worse.

The case in Germany was no better and no worse than it was in the countries which had defeated it during the war. The Weimar Republic took all of the necessary measures to attempt to pay the reparations, but with right-wing nationalists murdering members of government who, they claimed, had betrayed them at Versailles, the government were getting no respect and no credit. They took the hard measures, they bit the bullet, and the people blamed them when times were bad. When things began to pick up, Hitler got the credit, although it was the Weimar government making the tough decisions and taking the proper steps which put Germany back on its feet.

I will tell you that what i write here is not the mainstream opinion. The mainstream opinion largely remains the German apologist opinion, the contention that the Allies screwed the innocent Germans at Versailles, and that this was the cause of the Second World War. Increasingly, students of the era are coming to different conclusions, and what i offer here is a different perspective on the events and political and economic relationships which played out in the 1920's and 1930's.

The best way to form your own opinion is to read, read, read, and make up your own mind.

your argument that Europe got off lightly compared to America during the time of the Great Depression ignores the fact that America showed a profit from WW1 and boomed after it whereas the British for example had been bankrupted by the war and there was no boom there - a costly victory instead

in fact Britain entered a depression of it's own in the mid 1920's years before America was in one that and came close to a revoloution because of the social strain

add to this the fact that the Great Depression lasted only 4 years between 1929 and 1933 which is a relatively short time

Your contention that the "great depression" only lasted from 1929 to 1933 (it seems that you equate Roosevelt's inauguration with the end of that recession--but it just ain't so) is an absurdity.

Grote wrote

Am I to believe my eyes or your dates. I remember people being dispossessed and seeing their belongings literarily thrown on the street. I remember friends going hungry and stuffing cardboard in their shoes to cover the hole in the sole. I remember seeing the the older guys hanging around because they were unable to find a job. All that as late as 1938.
The true end of the depression for most came with the beginning of WW2 in Europe

Roosevelt's New Deal in 1933 helped end the depression

after this and other legislation that followed soon after, GNP rose steadily and unemployment fell steadily

I do not therefore think what I said was absurd and unless you can put forward a point of view to back up an alternative argument I suggest you find somewhere to post where no critique is needed

as far as world war two ending the depression then all I can say is Americans seem to think that unless their economy is in overdrive then there's a depression on

had America been involved in world war two from the start in 1939 then perhaps Germany would have been beaten quicker but they were eager to make money from it and stay out untill it was safe

classic line from the recent film Pearl Harbour has a scene where the hero phones someone as the bombs begin to fall and says " I think WW2 just started" - well actually no, it started a few years before 1941 but Hollywood prefers films that flatter the American ego

I really think Hitler is getting a bad press here. He had his good side, he was anti communist, liked dogs and was vegetarian. Also very kind to ayrian children, I am led to understand.

and he saved western europe from being overrun by the bolsevik hoards

"No one has done more than Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun), a one-time Soviet military intelligence officer, to show that Stalin was preparing to attack Germany and the West as part of a long-range project for global Sovietization, and that Hitler had no rational alternative but to counter this by launching his own attack."

from

http://www.ihr.org/

it's true that Hitler loved Blondi, he was also an artist so there is no denying he had a humane side and apparently he was something of a raconteur when entertaining his guests at tea but he should have gone for Moscow when he had the chance instead of halting then changing his mind when he was halfway there

although his reasons for doing so were with justification Germany was not equipped for the long haul so it was at a disadvantage from there on in - in other words he wasn't fighting on his own terms anymore

Setanta my friend, you do realize that the pre-w.w.1 period was a time dominated by European imperialistic powers where each was prepared to backstab and profit from the others by whichever means was made available? W.w.1 was not started by Germany, or France or Great Britain, or Russia, or any power for that matter; it was created by the simple tendency that was at large in the respective context. THe people of Germany did not decide to go to war. There was no democratic pole, no referendum to see if the people supported aggression. The Kaiser decided the German Empire would go to war for his own personal reasons, and so it did.
I find this amusing how you use the term german[s] (plural) : "Only the Germans, whose whopping reparations bill was a direct result of their willful destruction" THe willful destruction by the german people yet under the absolute control of a conservative monarch? And the Brittish Government and the French one were any less willful to destroy? You overcredit the Allies. They were in it for their personal political and economic gain as much as anyone else; they were no different. I do not believe it is fair that you put this accusation practically upon a single people when this people was not even in control of what had transpired. (And don't tell me they all cheered when the war began, of course they would seeing how they were all brain washed from the controlled media.)

"i am heartily sick and tired of the German apologists and the constant refrain that the Versailles Treaty created Hitler and the Nazis--that's a line of crap." So I suppose if the treaty of VErsailles and w.w.1 had never taken place, Hitler would never have come to power? Just out of the blue, Germany would go from a peaceful country to a death chanting war factory? What are you talking about? Nothing comes from nothing my friend; there is a reason for everything. Hitler waitted for the opportune moment when the german people were at their worst before making his move since he knew the people would only support him while in utmost misery and thus prepared to listen to anyone to get out of it. Interesting, didn't the treaty of Versailles impose just this upon Germany? The worst of it maybe being the restrictions on foreign trade thus restricting food imports greatly needed in a 3 by 2 foot long germany thus starving a great portion of widows.

Anyway, you do know many things however and I give you credit for this, I just personally dislike it with a passion when I see educated people who still believe the german people is at fault for the world wars.

(Off topic but somehow I think in the far future, these two world wars will be renamed the german wars because it is in a way simply the maturing of the german state from a un unified country of lost potential from the past to a peaceful and free nation with one of the greatest lessons ever learnt under it's belt making it one of the most mature political entities of modern day diplomacy.... just a thought.)

As a preliminary matter--i am not your friend. Perhaps someday that might be true, but today it is not, and it is inappropriate, and has an air of patronizing condescension for you to use that.

I dare say that i realize as well as you what the political and economic make-up of Europe was before the war. Your entire discursus about whether or not Germany was responsible for the war is irrelevant. I've not stated that Germany started the war. Certainly, only a fool would suggest that they bore no responsibility. Germany was the home of the largest, most well-organized and politically powerful socialist party in Europe. Yet they marched off to war in lock-step with the rest of the nation. A pernicious nationalistic patriotism was as evident there as in any nation of Europe. The most proximate villains were the Austrians; the Austrians made their play against Serbia with the secret and explicit support of Imperial Germany.

But as i've said, this is not relevant. It is however, part and parcel of the Versailles diktat myth to suggest that Germany was wrongfully blamed for starting the war. Every treaty signed by the vanquished Central Powers contained a clause which required them to admit culpability as a legalistic device for the imposition of the reparations. German propagandist, mostly enemies of the Weimar government, seized upon this to suggest, wrongly, that Germany had been singled out for blame and had had an unreasonable, even a monstrous, burden placed on them as a result. That you bring up the question at the outset suggests to me that you are as much deluded by the diktat myth as anyone else might be in this present day.



I am pleased beyond expression to have provided you an amusing moment. Wilhelm's "absolute control" is less autocratic than what you have written suggests. I will point out once again that even the most left-wing members of German society and their legislators fully supported the war. In point of fact, although the French and the English had been conducting informal staff talks since 1905, it was by no means certain that England would send an expeditionary force to the continent. It required the German invasion of Belgium to trigger that reaction. Your thesis here reads as though there were some great prize to be won, and that the Allies set out as avariciously to secure that prize as had done the Austrians and the Germans. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even the huge reparations imposed on the Germans would not have repaid the cost to the Allies, and the initial amount calculated in Paris in 1919 was reduced for political reasons, because the Allies feared the consequences for central Europe if Germany failed to recover economically. Once again, you assume that i accuse the German people of responsibility for the war. I do not, and i have not. I am more than aware however, of the "sin of omission" on the part of the left in Germany for their enthusiastic support of the war effort. Your contention that there were a "controlled media" in Germany in 1914 is an absurdity.

Try to get this through your head--i'm not contending that the German people were responsible for the war. I am pointing out that political exploiters of German sentiments after the war made a false claim that the German people had been blamed for the war, that this was a part of the Versailles diktat myth, and that said myth was an ideological cancer which ate into the German polity in the inter-war period. Ironically, this myth persists far more today in the English-speaking world than it does in Germany, which has largely come to terms with its past.



This is such an illogical passage as to almost defy a response--almost. It is quite unlikely, of course, that Hitler would have come to power if the Imperial administration were still in place in the 1920's and -30's. Given that the spark which lit the powder keg was the third such incident in the Balkans, and without Russian intervention on behalf of Serbia would likely have simply been the third Balkan War--it is likely that something like World War I would have happened sooner or later, and likely sooner rather than later. Given that it did happen, the Versailles Treaty was remarkably lenient, the more so as little effort was made to enforce it. The Germans did not pay a tenth part of the reparations. The climate in which Hitler arose was not one which he created, it was one which he merely exploited, being the superb natural gutter politician that he was.



Once again, i am not your friend, and i resent the tone implied by your use of the locution. Nothing which i have written remotely suggests that what happened in Germany happened "out of the blue." Your inability to comprehend what i have written in no way obliges me to defend a position i have never taken.



This strongly suggests that you know very little about the rise of Hitler, and little to nothing about the accomplishments of the Weimar government.



No.



In fact, there were no such international trade restrictions. Herbert Hoover arrived in Europe in 1919 to oversee the distribution of food throughout the war-ravaged continent. This is another part of the myth of the Versailles diktat, that people starved due to the venal cupidity of the Allies. You need to read more history, and less propaganda.



It seems that i need to point out once again that i have never contended that the German people started the Great War. Certainly they were no innocents, but i've never contended that they were soley responsible for the war, that they "is at fault for the world wars."

I have no comment on your closing speculation other than that it appears farcical to me.

Firstly I must ask you Setanta to not speak so harshly to a post not meant to be accusative. Please note I will not tolerate open insults or the tone by which you have previously addressed me. THis is a warning or discussion ends here. I on my part admit it was rather thoughtless of me to address a complete stranger a friend without once thinking that this may be offensive to the latter so for this I apologize and would kindly ask you to forget it since I do it out of habit to everyone and not out of mockery of yourself.
Secondly, before I can say anything else, I need to tell you straight out that you do not know everything and personally dislike the conceded attitude by which you answered my commentary. I used to post on another forum but left for the simple reason that I found the people cocky beyond reckoning without any sense of what a discussion consists of and always resorting to insults. Please do not create the same image for this site which I have recently joinned as you can see.

Certainly, only a fool would suggest that they bore no responsibility Who is this targetted to? Stop putting words in my mouth.

It is however, part and parcel of the Versailles diktat myth to suggest that Germany was wrongfully blamed for starting the war.
You clearly state here that Germany was not wrongfully blamed for the war. You justify every Versaille condition placed on Germany. You recognize that the conditions consisted of the loss of a great portion of what was still the Prussian Kingdom at the time (thus forcing mass immigration) and the war reparation costs placed on the governement which would then be taxed from the people. Maybe you have failed to notice that this hurt the german people and punished them. If you are justifying the punishment of the German people, you are putting them to blame unless you agree with unjustifiable punishment which would then fall under cruelty. For this reason, every blaspheme you ranted on about how you're not blaming the german people is a poor excuse of a joke and needs to end right now. (Take note of the now)

seized upon this to suggest, wrongly, that Germany had been singled out for blame They were singled out and blamed.

Your thesis here reads as though there were some great prize to be won, and that the Allies set out as avariciously to secure that prize as had done the Austrians and the Germans. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So you're saying France and Britain went to war with nothing but the noblest intentions in mind? Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? France and Britain saw themselves as the world super powers and did not like the idea of sharing the platform thus had every intention of nuking Germany and taking all the plunder. You aren't by any chance familiar with what happened to all of Germany's colonies following the war are you? Guess to who those went to. You seem to have the image carved in your head that the Allies were not corrupt in the least and fought only to defend their land. This is blasphemy. THere is no good in war, criminals were to be found in all governements and this you cannot contest.
Ironically, this myth persists far more today in the English-speaking world than it does in Germany, which has largely come to terms with its past. The german people has learned that there is no right in war and that it brings nothing but sorrow and shame. They've learned this, how about you?

This is such an illogical passage as to almost defy a response--almost. You miss the point. I was simply asking you if you honestly think w.w.2 would have taken place if it wasn't for the treaty of Versailles. Can you give me one piece of evidence or reason that would sugest it would still have transpired if the treaty was in fact fair, just and reasonable? (Good luck!)

Nothing which i have written remotely suggests that what happened in Germany happened "out of the blue. Yes it does. You're saying the treaty of Versaille did not cause w.w.2; what did then? You have no concrete support to this claim. The mere fact that you even think it terms of blame suggests that you believe one entity did something without proper reason, such as the German Empire commencing the Great War. THere is always a reason. You seem to disagree, this is what I call out of the blue, so once again stop this "I didn't say that" nonsense.

This strongly suggests that you know very little about the rise of Hitler, and little to nothing about the accomplishments of the Weimar government. Do more research.

Quote:Interesting, didn't the treaty of Versailles impose just this upon Germany?

No.

One again do more reasearch, and please do attempt in getting some breathing talking sources who either have parentage who lived through that period or did so themselves.

In fact, there were no such international trade restrictions. Herbert Hoover arrived in Europe in 1919 to oversee the distribution of food throughout the war-ravaged continent. This is another part of the myth of the Versailles diktat, that people starved due to the venal cupidity of the Allies. Wrong. There were foreign trade restrictions. I also believe Hebert Hoover was not bias in the least. COUGH COUGH. (SARCASM) Starvation in Germany is not a myth. Some aspects may be exagerrated as any other element in history but it is no myth.

Anyway I'm tired of your idiocy so I'll stop defending what I said now. I imagine you will attempt to change what I've said to a completly mutulated meaning so do not expect me to answer such crap were you to choose to answer so.
May I also suggest you start looking at history with a broader sense and not always that which is displayed in your children pamphlets which I assume is your primary information source.

The correct term would be accusatory--and if that were not your intent, then you need to review your use of language. Because i do not see any other tone in this sentence of yours: "Anyway, you do know many things however and I give you credit for this, I just personally dislike it with a passion when I see educated people who still believe the german people is at fault for the world wars."--than to accuse people here, and me in particular in that you have extensively quoted what i wrote, of perpetrating a contention about the "fault" of the German people, which contention i have never made.



You get out of these discussions what you put into them; if you don't like this kind of tone, don't use it on others.



Fine, end the discussion. If you patronize me in your tone, you'll get the like in return. Tough titty.



We are not face to face here. Online discussions require a circumspection which is not necessary in face to face conversation. That being said, i doubt that i'd take kindly to the use of such a locution from a stranger who then proceeds to criticize me for saying what i have not said.



It is good to know that irony is not dead; or, at least, that irony exists even when unintended. Having assured me of your goodwill, you then accused me of conceit. (Concede means to acknowledge someone's point or to acknowledge a victory--the word you wanted was conceited.)



If you wish to be treated with respect, then you need to be more careful of what you write. At no time have i accused the German people of starting wars. Your entire discursus depends upon a contention that i have done so. I have not. When you address someone as you have addressed me, and speak as though to the uninformed, in obvious ignorance of the point i was making, you can hardly expect that your remarks will be cheerfully received. Once again, i have not blamed the German people for the war. Once again, your haughty reply, as though addressing someone who knows little of the subject, one about which i have carefully read for more than forty years, is hardly commensurate with your assurances of goodwill.



Taking that sentence out of context may be convenient for bolstering your wounded vanity, but it is false. My remark in context was to point out the responsibility of German society as a whole for the climate in which militarism thrived there--while sticking to my main point, that i have not accused the German people of starting that war.



No, i clearly state that this contention was a part of the Versailles diktat myth. The point, which you are either unable or unwilling to see is that the Versailles treaty did not blame Germany for the war, and therefore, the contention that Germany was blamed for the war is a part of the myth.



First, some historical accuracy is in order. The Prussian Kingdom ceased to exist with the creation of the Empire. There were no forced immigrations of Germans. Those who chose to leave Alsace and Lorraine did so because those provinces were transferred to France, from whom they were taken in 1871. Those who left East Prussia, as it was called, chose do do so, after it was returned to Poland, having been taken by Prussia during the three partitions of Poland. I don't know where you get your information, but it has more and more the ring of propaganda. No German citizen was forced to immigrate.



This series of comments verges on the surreal. If the German people were hurt, it was not by forced immigration, because that did not occur. If their pride was wounded, big deal, they needed to get over it. They invaded France without justification in 1870, defeated them militarily, shelled Paris for months when the people refused to surrender to them, and then imposed a "reparation" of 700,000,000 gold francs on them--which the French paid. The Germans invaded Belgium, they invaded France, they willfully destroyed cities, towns, mines, factories, ancient libraries and buildings, and they were required to pay for the damage done. That is not unjustified punishment. Once again, you seem to spout someone's propaganda. It's not even a very clear statement of the Versailles diktat myth, although it is clearly inspired by such nonsense. It's no joke--the Germans got off very lightly for the willful destruction they visited on Belgium and France, and lighter still in that they did not pay the reparations. Your use of the word blaspheme is way off the charts. Do you think this is some kind of religious discussion? Do you have some kind of religious devotion to the good name of the German people? I have rarely seen something so absurd in a discussion of history. Don't tell me what must or must not end, now or at any time. You have no authority at this site or with me.



This is a completely false statement on your part. The Neuilly Treaty signed by Bulgaria contained the same clause. The Treaty of St. Germain signed by the Austrians contained the same clause. The Trianon Treaty signed by the Hungarians contained the same clause.



I "come up with stuff" through a lifetime of careful reading of history. France went to war because she had a mutual defense pact with Russia, not the mention the little matter of being invaded by the Germans. England went to war because she was one of the guarantors of Belgian neutrality, along with France and Germany. When the Germans invaded Belgium, England's obligation as a guarantor was to send an army to defend Belgium. Your subsequent statements to the effect:



Can only be called naive in the kindest construction. Apart from there being no atomic weapons in 1918, the portions of the Rhineland handed over to France in the treaty were reparations for the destruction of French industry and mining. The portion of France occupied by the Germans in the period 1914-1918 contained 25% of her farmland, 75% of her industry and 90% of her coal mines. The Germans in retreat blew up factories and mines not already destroyed by the war. Calling it plunder once again has the stench of propaganda. You make it sound as though innocent Germany were minding her own business when she was suddenly set upon and robbed by French and English thugs. This is not an historical view, it is fairy tale.



You are apparently unaware of just how badly the Germans treated the people of southwest Africa. That they were no better off once Botha and South Africa got their hands on the territory would be a subject for debate, but whether or not i am either ignorant of the facts, or naive about the motivations of those involved is not apparent as you suggest. Once again, you use the term blasphemy. This has religious significance for you? This is ludicrous. Germany lost her colonies because she lost the war. She prosecuted that war in Africa, invading the neighboring colonies of the other powers, including that of Portugal, which was not even involved in the war, until Lettow-Vorbeck invaded. That there were venal and selfish men in all governments is not to be disputed. I have not, however, contended that the Germans were criminal, and consider the contention that the Allies acted from criminal motives to be absurd. The closest to criminality in the conduct of the war, however, was the behavior of the German Army in Belgium and France. You are either ignorant of that behavior or you chose to ignore it. It matters little to me what the cause is, you clearly proceed from an unrealistic assessment of the war, its causes and its results.



The German people have learned these lessons--is it a part of your your self-proclaimed courteous debating style to suggest that i do not know this?



Oh, i got your point alright, and it is naive in the extreme. There could have been no possibility of Germany just walking away, saying we quit, and being left alone. It does not matter whether or not the treaty were signed at Versailles, or elsewhere. Germany sued for terms to avoid an invasion of the country. They did so after having wreaked horrible destruction on Belgium and France. To suggest that somehow they were unfairly treated by being required to pay for the damage they had done is nonsense. That they did not pay the reparations to which they agreed is simply more evidence of the political power of the Versailles myth. That the Second World War in Europe would have been far less likely to occur had there been no myths--the "we were never defeated in the field" myth and the Versailles diktat myth--is a reasonable contention. That the Versailles treaty created the Second World War is the heart and soul of the Versailles diktat myth.



The myths that Germany was not defeated in the field and the myth that the Versailles treaty imposed an onerous and unfair burden on an innocent German people created the political conditions which Hitler and many, many others exploited. The treaty itself was not responsible, the unrealistic view of it by Germans was responsible.



Which is exactly as much concrete support as you have advanced for your "blasphemy" thesis--god, that cracks me up.



My point all along, which you are either unable or unwilling to understand, is not that i blame Germany for the Great War, but that Germans claimed, incorrectly, that they had been blamed for the war, and that the Versailles Treaty was punishment for having done so. It was not. It was an attempt, which eventually failed, to make the Germans pay for the damage they had done in Belgium and France. For your "concrete support" i suggest that you read a recent excellent study of the entire treaty process for all of the Central Powers, entitled Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, Margaret MacMillan, London, J. Murray, 2001.



The reason in fact was Austria's decision to bully Serbia, and impose upon them terms which they would find unacceptable. Read The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman, Random House, New York, 1962, some time. The Serbians caved in to every Austrian demand, so the Austrians kept making demands until they found one which Serbia would not accept--Austrian courts and Austrian judges trying Serbs in Serbia. This finally gave the Austrians the excuse for war they sought. They had already talked to the Germans, and gotten their backing. When Serbia was attacked, Russia declared war on Austria. When Russia declared war on Austria, Germany declared war on Russia. When this occurred, France declared war on Germany. Any contention that Germany's actions against France were defensive is ludicrous, and beggared by the fact that they sent six armies into France and Belgium, and only left one in the east to face the Russians. England did not enter the war until Germany invaded Belgium. Once again, don't tell me to stop writing things, you just make yourself look ridiculous, because you have no authority.



This is hilarious. You need to follow your own advice.



Once again, you need to follow your own advice. As it happens, i was raised by my grandparents, and my grandfather served in France in the First World War. My history teacher in middle and high school was a fanatical Hitler lover, and i began studying this entire period very early in my life, more than forty years ago. The thoroughly unrealistic set of statements you make about the war and its aftermath suggest that you have not done any research, you have simply read propaganda, which you are now repeating here, without authority, and expect to have your statements from authority taken at face value.



So now you slander Herbert Hoover. You know nothing of the man, that is obvious. Certainly there was starvation in Germany. They were starving before the war ended. It was not possible to make up the lack of food stuffs which existed before the war ended. Nevertheless, Hoover did his damnest to feed the Germans just as he did his damnest to feed everyone else in Europe who needed help. It was an enormous task, and he deserves to be remembered for all eternity for the effort he made.



Once again, we have an example of your courteous debating style. Nice that you've given yourself a free pass to ignore the shredding of what passes for an argument on your part.



How very presumptuous of you. These pamphlets to which you refer, is that the sort of material you consult? You have yet to cite a single source for your rant. What you have offered here is not history, it is propaganda, and pathetic propaganda at that.

Set you are something of a (pedantic) star

dont frighten off the small fry, they after all, are the future of a2k

unfortunately

OK, OK . . . but this sure stinks of neo-nazi propaganda, and i thoroughly hate being taken to task for things i did not say . . .

Can i just poke him a little?

For having done forty years research you must have wasted a lot of time. lol!

I made it to the part where you said the prussia kingdom ceased to exist in 1871 and started laughing, sry I couldn't finish your essay. For the record, the german monarchs of Germany continued to reign until 1918 under the Kaiser, the kingdom of prussia ended in 1931 I believe. It had it's last addition in 1929, I don't recall what the added mini state was called. See you claim to know so much but you miss a simple detail such as this. Poor guy. Anyways, the point here being you said no citizen was forced to immigrate. THat you can even imagine that if they continued living under polish control they wouldn't be victims of dsicrimination is amazing. It would be the same with Poles under German control. Life was harsh under foreign control both ways, just as the french of Alsace and Loraine (10$ that you can't pronounce that) were abused under the control of the german empire. Immigrating because of border changes was the wisest thing to do and that you cannot comprehend this proves to me you're simply very unintelligent.
I have a suggestion for you my senile companion, try thinking of what happenend before. (If you don't understand what this means, just muse if you might over what the French and others had done to the Germans for centuries before and why )You might eventually understand why these wars happenned.
PS: The next time you need to define "brain-washed" to someone, just pose for them, you reak of it.

You are embarrassing yourself every time you attempt to contend you know anything about history. Don't tell me to shut up, you have no authority. Not only can i pronounce Alsace and Lorraine, i can spell the words correctly as well. You seemingly cannot make a distinction between volutary immigration and forced immigration. So you resort to more insults. Criticism of Germany is not blasphemy; by the same token, defending Germany is not neo-nazism. Continuing the attempt to foist the Versailles diktat myth off on others reeks of neo-nazi propaganda. You babble nonsense that sounds very much like a confused secondary school version of state-sponsored nationalistic myth, and not history. For example:



This information was easily found in seconds at Answers.com. But you can't be bothered to do basic research such as that, because it would lead you to actually read some history, as opposed to spouting the neo-nazi propaganda you've been trying to peddle here.

The best way for you to avoid embarrassing yourself would be to follow you own badly written advice: ". . . shut up with your cocky tone." English isn't your native language, is it? If it is, then you have even more reason for embarrassment.

You never fail to make me smile

I'm glad i amuse you . . . for someone who believes in fairy tales and calls them history, that's an accomplishment . . .

You spend to much time bitching at me and not enough reading history kid. Don't bother answering.

Once again, you issue orders without authority. I'm no kid, not at age fifty-five. It is obvious that you've little to no history, but loads of horseshit propaganda. Come back and discuss this after you've done about twenty years of reading in reliable history, something which wasn't issued by the neo-nazi press.