Who says WWII's roots can be traced back to the end of WWI?

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Noel

To take land away from the Germans was harsh to split the counrty was wrong if we all take a good hard look at history France,Russia and England have a lot to answer for

First Noel, this is not a political forum. Second, perhaps you need to take a more balanced look at what actually happened.

Are you familiar with what happened at the end of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871? Alsace and Lorraine were taken from France. They had been French for over 200 years. So after less than 50 years, France took them back.

As far as the east goes, are you familiar with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? That was the treaty imposed on Russia by Germany and the other Central Powers when she needed to withdraw from World War I. In that treaty Russia lost huge tracts of land to the Central Powers. It was Germany's intent to deal similarly with France and Belgium had she won World War I.

What land Germany lost in World War I, to a large extent, was land that she had seized in the Franco-Prussian War and the partitions of Poland. Remember those? Prussia, Austria, and Russia stole all of Poland. So a great deal of German land was used to form the new nation of Poland. But that was land that Germany, or more specifically Prussia, had stolen from Poland in the past. Land from Austria and Russia were also taken back by Poland.

The harshest terms imposed on Germany were the financial and military terms, and the loss of face, not the loss of land. In fact parts of the region were given a choice in various plebiscites, and where they chose to be part of East Prussia, they became part of East Prussia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist after the war, as did the Ottoman Empire a few years hence. Neither of those nations chose to invade Poland and USSR. Oh, and Danzig (Gdansk) had been a Polish city at the time of its founding and on and off until taken by Prussia. The fact that 98% of it's inhabitants spoke German cannot change those facts. While the split of Germany was unfortunate, a landlocked Poland would have had to become a client state of either the Soviets or Germany. What kind of option would that have been?

So no, 90 years later Britain, France, and Russia have nothing to "answer for". Germany chose war in 1939, and in 1941 she chose, to invade the USSR. An objective look at history will show that Germany lost World War I, lost territory that she had taken by force in the past, and that also other nations lost territory.

If you read Mein Kampf it is clear that long before he came to power Hitler had designs on the east. Versailles helped him galvanize support amongst the German populace and thus enabled him to commence what turned out to be the most deadly and destructive war in the history of mankind.

[MAGNA]

Add in that there were a large number of people in Germany who felt there should have been no surrender in 1918 and it makes Adolf's job even easier, especially when he follows Mussolini and throws in the racial difference (superiority) as another angle.

[Wolster]

Sorry for cutting off my post half way through, the perils of posting at work!

I think Jim said exactly what I wanted to say a lot better than I did!

[warsdead]

Im currently reading THE THIRD REICH A NEW HISTORY by Michael Burleigh , from what i can gather in his opinion WW2 was inevitable when the Nazis came too power . The Nazis government used the armistice as a spring board for a lot of policies they implemented , it was just a tool , a means too a end , the treaty of versailles was not the driving force for WW2 as many history books say , in actuality Hitler was trying too rid the continent of Europe of its undesirables , RACE WAR. this was Hitler driving force . The treaty was used as a pr tool to justify NAZIS aggression at the start of the war , the underlying issue being the Nazis philosophy of the master race , as an added bonus Hitler subdued the only real danger too his power the German army . So once the public and the army were subdued he could pursue his main objective the slaughter of what he seen as non aryan , people he even stated as infecting the aryan population with their tainted genes

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by warsdead

Im currently reading THE THIRD REICH A NEW HISTORY by Michael Burleigh , from what i can gather in his opinion WW2 was inevitable when the Nazis came too power . The Nazis government used the armistice as a spring board for a lot of policies they implemented , it was just a tool , a means too a end , the treaty of versailles was not the driving force for WW2 as many history books say , in actuality Hitler was trying too rid the continent of Europe of its undesirables , RACE WAR. this was Hitler driving force . The treaty was used as a pr tool to justify NAZIS aggression at the start of the war , the underlying issue being the Nazis philosophy of the master race , as an added bonus Hitler subdued the only real danger too his power the German army . So once the public and the army were subdued he could pursue his main objective the slaughter of what he seen as non aryan , people he even stated as infecting the aryan population with their tainted genes

His ideas are not new or news. The questions are why did the the Weimar Republic fail? What were the conditions that allowed the Nazis the come to power, legally, in 1933?

The point is not what were Hitler's intentions once he came to power; those are clearly spelled out in Mein Kampf which was written while Hitler was in prison, long before he came to power. Sure, Hitler used Versailles as a tool. He understood quite well the power of propaganda. Germany was humiliated by Versailles, her armed forces limited severely, territory lost, harsh reparations imposed. The reparations led directly to the currency collapse of 1923-1924 when paper notes weren't worth the paper on which they were printed. People's life savings were wiped out. Hitler promised a return to glory for Germany. The glory that had been "stolen" by Versailles.

World War II may have been inevitable whether or not the Nazis came to power, as there may still have been "scores" to be settled in Europe, but Hitler's rise to power played well on them.

Hitler's intent to rid Germany of "undesirables" is also well known, although ironically Germany's Jews fared far better than did Poland's or those of the occupied portions of the Soviet Union. Hitler still had to answer to his own populace, and many Mischlinge (those of Jewish and non-Jewish ancestry) avoided deportation altogether. Significant numbers even served in the military.

Hitler's desire for Lebensraum in the East was a centerpiece of his plan. Getting rid of the local Untermenschen was a necessary component. How that was to be achieved was not completely set in stone in advance, but included a combination of "Germanization", deportation further east or to the Russian Arctic areas, extermination, and working them to death. Some who were cooperative were to be allowed to remain to work as slaves to German "settlers". Jews, Gypsies, communist party officials, and certain others were given "special treatment" by the Einsatzgruppen. But the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was not decided upon until after the initial large scale success of Barbarossa. Aktion Reinhard started in 1942 after the Wannsee Conference, though I agree that the idea was in Hitler's mind before that.

But in the final analysis, while Hitler's intent was to gain Lebensraum and thin (or even eliminate) the population of Untermenschen, the seeds of discord that allowed Hitler to come to power were sown in Versailles. Without those conditions, Hitler may well have been another footnote in a dusty book about Germany in the 1920's/1930's.

[PanzerBob]

Yes Jim, I agree, the afore mentioned book sounds like it maybe trying simplify things by boiling the whole kettle of fish down to racism.

Warsdead could jump in here, as I have not read the book.

I believe even without the omnipresent racism within the Nazi Party, the Nazis could have achieved power and still found plenty of motivation and support for war. Racism was just a vile part of the whole mix. Even the Aryan Superiority components to Nazism could have been rewritten to suit the "racial" needs of the Nazis. So IMHO saying WWII was a Race War is wrong and the events leading up to were only racially driven is wrong as well. If that were the case, WWII would have had a much different ending.

One must never forget the Rest of World's attitude towards races and religions in the preceding years before WWII and long before that. And unfortunately plaguing us yet today.


Bob out

[Kiwiguy]

Couple of things I've read over the years. Everybody knows the much debated suggestion that Hitler's mother was raped by their Jewish landlord.

There was also a suggestion that jewish bankers in Munich worked in collusion with the French in WW1 to bring the war to an end. Never quite managed to pin down the historical truth of that, but sounds worth investigating.

In the hyperinflation of 1924 the German people lived through the same misery as Zimbabwae is now. It must have destroyed the pride of a proud nation. Then Hitler came along and restored pride. Showed he could get away with defying France and Britain in 1937-39 and he must have inspired national pride. People who had suffered mass unemployment and social unrest were not too concerned to question his methods when the alternative political choices were so weak kneed.

Rightly or wrongly I can understand that there must have been underlying resentment against the Jewish Germans. It wouldn't have been too hard for the NSDAP to tap into that feeling.

[warsdead]

Im sorry of course there was many other reasons for world war 2 . Social collapse that defeat had brought , economics , but if we boil it down it leads back too one individual . Hitler's was driven by prejudices , his main goal through out his political career was too rid the world of "life unworthy of life " . He was driven by pure hate nothing else if the pure aryans failed in this monumental task then they deserved too be wiped from the face of the planet . So for all the social / economic reasons it all came back too one man ,Hitler . The german people were against war .i.e the invasion of poland , france the lowlands , these people were more interested in the economic situation at home then conquering Europe . It brings us back too Hitler and his Race war

[warsdead]

A man who had sole control of the nation . Who now had the tools too implement his goal of a aryan Europe .

[warsdead]

"Yes Jim, I agree, the afore mentioned book sounds like it maybe trying simplify things by boiling the whole kettle of fish down to racism."

Oh god no its not one of those books . It is well worth a read. It embraces every aspect of life under Nazis rule . At the end of the day it's what the reader picks up which in a lot of cases is not always what the author was aiming for . I would highly recommend it .