Germany and WWII

[anjali]

I just wanted to know your opinion on this topic! Is the German nation to blame for the outbreak of WWII? I mean this depressed nation was promised something by a totalitarian regime that no one else was promising: to regain its pride? Could we blame the whole nation? I think its a quite ambiguous case! I think there is a yes and a no? What do you think?

[RedAnarchist]

The Nazi Party were to blame. They preyed on the depression and turned innocent people into Nazis. Although they were to blame for WW11, the two European Alliances at the turn of the century - The Entente Cordiale (UK, Russia, France) and the other one with Germany and Austro-Hungary were the main reasons for WW1.

[bolshevik butcher]

u could argue that britain, usa and france are, The nazi party rose to power because of the money germany had to pay back to them after the treaty of versie.

[RedAnarchist]

The Treaty of Versailles may have caused the Great Depression as German Marks inflated rapidly in the 1920's.

[monkeydust]

I just wanted to know your opinion on this topic! Is the German nation to blame for the outbreak of WWII? I mean this depressed nation was promised something by a totalitarian regime that no one else was promising: to regain its pride? Could we blame the whole nation? I think its a quite ambiguous case! I think there is a yes and a no? What do you think?

This isn't a straightforward question, and it's almost certainly wrong to place all the blame at Germany's feet.

Certainly German nationalism, still lingering from the 19th century played a part. But part of the blme must also lie with the alies for the messy peace settlements after WW1, as well as the reluctance for powers such as France and Poland to co-operate with Germany.

Obviously the great depression, too, was an important factor.


The Treaty of Versailles may have caused the Great Depression as German Marks inflated rapidly in the 1920's.

Errrr.....no.

Hyperinflation was over by 1924 - the depression didn't occur till late 1929. The link you make between Versailles and hyperinflation is perhaps also a tenuous one.

[Wiesty]

in terms yes. Before the outbreak Britian had many people go over to germany for meetings and things. One guy went over there and was suppose to have the comprimise meeting and signing to stop hitler from going to war, but something happened and the meeting never took place. Also the British priminster right before the war was a dumbass. The war could of been prevented, but with his IQ he could barely switch a light bulb, known alone stop a war.

[LSD]

The German people overwhelmingly supported Hitler.

The German Army fought for Hitler.

Yes, Germany was primarily responsible for the war, although not exclusively.


u could argue that britain, usa and france are, The nazi party rose to power because of the money germany had to pay back to them after the treaty of versie.

Pretty much the entire treaty and more had been reversed by 1938. But Germany still annexed Austria, annexed the Sudetenland, invaded Checkoslovakia...and Poland.....and Belgium...and the Netherlands, and France, and Italy, and Russia, and Egypt, and Romania, and Yugoslavia....

The Versaille excuse was just that. Although it did help get Hitler elected, once in power he had every intention of moving well beyond the "restoration" of Germany.


Certainly German nationalism, still lingering from the 19th century played a part. But part of the blme must also lie with the alies for the messy peace settlements after WW1, as well as the reluctance for powers such as France and Poland to co-operate with Germany.

Yeah, Versaille was crap, but it was dead by the time the war started.


in terms yes. Before the outbreak Britian had many people go over to germany for meetings and things. One guy went over there and was suppose to have the comprimise meeting and signing to stop hitler from going to war, but something happened and the meeting never took place. Also the British priminster right before the war was a dumbass. The ware could of been prevented, but with his IQ he could barely switch a light bulb, known alone stop a war.

I assume you're talking about Chamberlain.

I wouldn't exactly call him a "dumbass", although his policies did prove ineffectual.

To be honest Russia was far more responsible for the war than Britain was. Had stalin not signed the treaty with Germany, Germany would have never invaded Poland.

[Reuben]

it should be noted however that throughout the thirties it was constrantly Russia that was trying to push a tough line against Nazi germany, and generally recieved a passive recalcitrant response from the Euroipean power.s If stalin had felt sure that he would get allied suport in the context of a German Russian war (something which seemed inevitable given the ideological charactero f both coutnries and the military buld up) he perhaps would not have signed a treaty. Russia did however fear the prospect of being forced to go it alone against germany - an understandable fear given that only forces of the left - with no help from Europe's liberal governments - were standing up to fascism in spain.

[komon]

i just don't want to be a fucker here. but the french did occupie the "rhur".till 1922
and weimar republic was against.the facsisme just took over and so it begun thanks to french english and the SDN...the rest is history......

[PRC-UTE]

The German people overwhelmingly supported Hitler.



Hitler lost by a wide margin in most legit elections he participated in. In 1928, the nazis polled less than 3%. Hitler lost by a huge margin to Paul von Hindenburg in 1931. In 1932 their support fell due to the rampant violence that was scaring the German public.

Germany had before the Nazi takeover the largest workers movement in Europe. Streetbattles between communists and socialists against Nazis were common.

The Nazi party indeed had a lot of support. But to say the German people 'overwhelmingly supported Hitler' is wrong. The KPD was a major party as well.


The German Army fought for Hitler.

Many were conscripts, but I agree with your point there.

[LSD]

Hitler lost by a wide margin in most legit elections he participated in. In 1928, the nazis polled less than 3%. Hitler lost by a huge margin to Paul von Hindenburg in 1931. In 1932 their support fell due to the rampant violence that was scaring the German public.

Hitler did force Hindenberg in to a run-off election in '32, but I see your point.

As for the Reichstagg votes, after 1933, the NSDAP was the largest party in the legislature, it wasn't a majority but it was more than anyone else. Also support for the coalition government of Hitler and Hugenberg was remarkably high, I guess after Shleicher and Papen, even Hitler looked appealing!


The Nazi party indeed had a lot of support. But to say the German people 'overwhelmingly supported Hitler' is wrong. The KPD was a major party as well.

Overwhelmingly might be an overstatement at first, but it certainly wasn't later on. Sure the plebicide of 36 wasn't the fairest, but it does give a good window in the German attitudes, less official polls that were conducted at that time especially after 1936 show an amazing level of support for Hitler as well.

After Hitler remilitarized the Rine, he was a hero to every nationalistic German.

The reaction after the fall of France was nothing short of "overwhelming".


i just don't want to be a fucker here. but the french did occupie the "rhur".till 1922

That hardly started the war...


and weimar republic was against.the facsisme just took over and so it begun thanks to french english and the SDN...the rest is history......

How was the NSDAP's rise "thanks to french english"?


it should be noted however that throughout the thirties it was constrantly Russia that was trying to push a tough line against Nazi germany, and generally recieved a passive recalcitrant response from the Euroipean power.s If stalin had felt sure that he would get allied suport in the context of a German Russian war (something which seemed inevitable given the ideological charactero f both coutnries and the military buld up) he perhaps would not have signed a treaty. Russia did however fear the prospect of being forced to go it alone against germany - an understandable fear given that only forces of the left - with no help from Europe's liberal governments - were standing up to fascism in spain.

All true enough, but notice that the Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty wasn't just one of mutual security it was one of mutual imperialism.

What Stalin wanted all along was friendly "buffer states" to ensure that Russia could never be invaded. The allies were negotiating with Stalin up until the day that Ribbentrop's trip was announced. After '38, Stalin could have easily gotten an agreement from the allies, especially the French with whom they had a previous arrangement anyays and who were desperate to sign a treaty against Germany.

Deladier hated Munich and after the Czech invasion, France had the support of the rest of Europe.

Hell, until 1940, italy would have probably signed!!

[Invader Zim]

Any one who blames Germany for either war is severly out of their league. Of course Hitler started WW2 but Hitler would never have actually got into power had it not been for the peace makers after the previous war making a total balls up of the situation. A Fench diplomat famously said that they were just delaying the war for 20 years.

Obviously the great depression, too, was an important factor.

Possibly, but if the US stratagy was taken at Versailles, then the depts which Germany faced and the dependacy on US supliments would not have been as large, and the problem of depression nearly as acute.

Hitler lost by a huge margin to Paul von Hindenburg in 1931

You sure you don't mean in 1930? Because as I am aware there was no election in '31. In the 1930 election the NSDAP got something like 6 million votes, about 18-20% of the share.

In 1932 their support fell due to the rampant violence that was scaring the German public.


Thats both true and false, there were two elections in 1932. In the first one they got just under 40% of the vote (I can't remember exactly I think it was 38% but I don't want to you to quote me on that), in the second one that dropped to about a 1/3 of the vote. Even so both are an increase on the 1930 election.


Edit


Ok I found a link with the election results for the Nazi party year by year: -

http://www.thebestlinks.com/Nazi_Party.html

[LSD]

You sure you don't mean in 1930? Because as I am aware there was no election in '31. In the 1930 election the NSDAP got something like 6 million votes, about 18-20% of the share.

He meant the presidential elections of 1932 in which Hitler gained more than 35% of the vote, forcing Hindenberg into a second round.


Any one who blames Germany for either war is severly out of their league. Of course Hitler started WW2 but Hitler would never have actually got into power had it not been for the peace makers after the previous war making a total balls up of the situation. A Fench diplomat famously said that they were just delaying the war for 20 years.

Yeah, Versaille was a piece of crap, but that does not excuse the 50% who voted for the NSDAP, nor the millions more who supported Hitler up until he started losing.

The reaction after Compiegne 2 speaks for itself.

[bolshevik butcher]

One of the main problems was that by 1939 GTermany was too poerfull, if people had taken a hardline against it before that then the war probably wouldn't have happened.

[bolshevik butcher]

*Germany

[bolshevik butcher]

*powerfull

[LSD]

One of the main problems was that by 1939 GTermany was too poerfull, if people had taken a hardline against it before that then the war probably wouldn't have happened.

Probably, but then that can be said for most wars.

p.s. Use the edit button to correct typos!!! Don't write. "correction" posts.

[highway star]

Fascism is the extreme point of imperialism. In European Society Germany leads the industry(heart of society) so Germany leads the European Society. German Kapital knows that it isn't sufficient for capital to strictly bound with the borders of Germany like other kapitals... They know they must join with other European kapitals. And because of their power(industry) they want to lead to this United Kapital. Who ever has the power wants to hold the society. In WW1 and WW2 they tried to join kapital with blood, guns, WAR.They tried to join economies with military. But they could not. But now they are trying to join it with economy... EU... And in this point we can't blame German nation. Because German proleteria was abused/is being abused for participation with capitals. They used nationalism 70 ago. Now they are using democracy, freedom,... Tools are changing but aim is the same.

[Invader Zim]

He meant the presidential elections of 1932 in which Hitler gained more than 35% of the vote, forcing Hindenberg into a second round.


So it would appear.

but that does not excuse the 50% who voted for the NSDAP

Apart from the fact your 6% above the actual figures, I disagree anyway, the figures are irrelevant, even if 100% of the electorate voted for Hitler I still would not blame them, it is foolish to do so. In times of sevear economic depression hard line parties have always done better, this can be studied throught history as a consistant trend.

Hitler offered these people a solution to their problems, and a target for misery, a uniform organised body. To be fair they didn't know what Hitler would do, they knew he would attempt to achieve his "living space" policy, by taking back what had been taken in Versailles, and a bit more to restore national pride. I very seriously doubt they would have voted for him if they could have predicted that 7,000,000 of their number would be killed by the end of WW2, and that Hitler would have systematically butchered a further 12 million people.

No, the fault lies at the root of the problem, the "peace makers" of Versailles.

[PRC-UTE]

No, the fault lies at the root of the problem, the "peace makers" of Versailles.

That's not a credible argument, and it was one originally advanced by neo-Nazi holocaust deniers.

Of course the Germans who voted for Hitler are guilty. I would agree with you that the British Empire and America are guilty for doing sweet FA to stop the progress of fascism (until it stepped on their toes).

[LSD]

Apart from the fact your 6% above the actual figures, I disagree anyway, the figures are irrelevant, even if 100% of the electorate voted for Hitler I still would not blame them, it is foolish to do so. In times of sevear economic depression hard line parties have always done better, this can be studied throught history as a consistant trend.

So if times are bad enough, it's "not their fault"?

Sorry, but people don't lose moral responsibility for their actions because there's a depression.

The economic collapse in Germany helps to explain the success of the Nazis but it does not excuse it.


Hitler offered these people a solution to their problems, and a target for misery, a uniform organised body. To be fair they didn't know what Hitler would do, they knew he would attempt to achieve his "living space" policy, by taking back what had been taken in Versailles, and a bit more to restore national pride. I very seriously doubt they would have voted for him if they could have predicted that 7,000,000 of their number would be killed by the end of WW2, and that Hitler would have systematically butchered a further 12 million people.

They knew he promoted virulent racism and anti-semitism, they new he intended on "removing" Jews from government posts, they new he meant to "restore" German society.

They knew enough to understand what he was and voted for him all the same because many of them were anti-semetic as well. It was really quite common in Europe at the time, still is in many areas. To argue that they "didn't know" is half-truth at best, they knew who is was and what he wanted, they just didn't know how he'd go about doing it.


No, the fault lies at the root of the problem, the "peace makers" of Versailles.

But why stop there?

If we trace it back, Versailles was only nescessary beause of German imperialism in WW1...so it was actually Willhelm II's fault.

But then Willhelm woudn't have been in that position if it hadn't been for Bismarck and the unification of Germany, so it was actually Bismarck's fault.

...but Germany wouldn't have had to be militarily unified if the Holy Roman Empire hadn't collapsed, so its actually the fault of the Peace of Westphalia.

...but, the Thiry Years war only occured becasue of the failure of the Peace of Augsburg, which was only nescessary because of the Lutheran Reformation, which only happened because of Catholic Corruption, which was a direct result of Nicean supremecy. And the nicean conference was solely because of Emperor Constantine, who only came to power because of Diocletian's succession scheme, and Diocletian only came to power because of the Crisis of the Third century, which only occured because of an unstable Imperial succession system which is enirely because of Augustine's Principate.

So...who's to blame for Hitler's rise to power? Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14).

Seems insane, no?

That's what happend when you attempt to overbacktrace history.

You can't ignore present conditions as an explanation.

Sure many things contributed to Hitler's rise, but the most important was the support of the German people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Sure many things contributed to Hitler's rise, but the most important was the support of the German people.

The problem with this view is that it ignores the actual class relationships that existed in Germany then or America now.

Germans did not get to "vote" on World War II just as Americans do not get to "vote" on "our" next imperial adventure.

When someone says that "Germans supported Hitler", what that means in practical terms is that Germans failed to engage in massive insurrection to overthrow him.

It's not quite the same thing.

In addition, one has to consider the "quality" of the support for Hitler. I think only a small minority of Germans were "passionate Nazis" and that most of his support came from people who were "conservative"...they expected the Nazis to restore Germany to its position prior to World War I -- even bringing back the monarchy.

Of course, once the Nazis got rolling, such people acquiesced to events that seemed otherwise out of their control.

That's "support" of a kind...but it hardly makes them bloodthirsty beasts.

For what it's worth, the CBS correspondent in Berlin at the beginning of World War II (William L. Shirer) reported that Germans seemed markedly "subdued" when the invasion of Poland was announced. There were no mass popular celebrations as there were, for example, in Berlin and most European cities when World War I began.

I think the U.S. and the U.K. provide good modern examples of the same phenomenon. Short of massive insurrection, there is no way to "stop" the gangsters in Washington and London from further invasions and occupations. (It's no use pointing to elections...because all of the viable candidates will have the same outlook and do the same things.)

So you end up with a rather peculiar "moral formula" -- if you fail to engage in insurrection to stop imperialism, "then" you are "to blame" for the consequences of imperialism.

It may be "morally true"...but it's hard for me to see much historical usefulness in it.

I prefer a more direct explanation: the highest sectors of the German ruling class hired Hitler to save their asses...which he did. If they attempt to excuse themselves by saying that they didn't know "he would go so far"...well, I'm unreceptive to that "excuse". They certainly knew that he intended to crush both the communists and the German trade unions...and that was "good enough" for them.

As it happened, they profited spectacularly both from the Reich and the war...some of them even made money off the holocaust itself.

I find the German ruling class guilty of World War II.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[MiniOswald]

My god Lysergic Acid Diethylamide has become a redstar clone with that last post of his.

[komon]

history is always written by the winners....... :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
don't get me wrong here.

[Invader Zim]

So if times are bad enough, it's "not their fault"?

Well done.

but people don't lose moral responsibility for their actions because there's a depression.

Like I said, they did not know what would happen, unless you believe they had the power to accuratly predict the future, then your point about moral obligations, whatever they may be, is irrelevant.


The economic collapse in Germany helps to explain the success of the Nazis but it does not excuse it.

So you are blaming millions of desperate people for turning to extreamism when conventional politics fail? When your children are starving then it will be interesting to see if you turn to extreamism if it offers you "way out".

They knew he promoted virulent racism and anti-semitism

If you hadn't noticed there is a huge difference between racism and genocide.

because many of them were anti-semetic as well.

Of course they were, they were poor reletivly uneducated people, racism and ignorance walk hand in hand. The exact same could be said of the working class of today, many of whom are racist.

To argue that they "didn't know" is half-truth at best, they knew who is was and what he wanted, they just didn't know how he'd go about doing it.

That is just not true, they understood that Hitler and his party would attempt to lower the welfare of the Jews and try and raise their own, and that is all they knew.

Versailles was only nescessary beause of German imperialism in WW1

Pardon? German imperialism had little to do with cause of the first world war. Your just swallowing 80 year old propaganda. The cause of the firstworld war was a dated alliance system, where the Slavs in Russia wished to protect the Serbians against the Austro/Hungarian empire. Russia declared war on the Austrians, Germany as Austia's allie declaired war on Germany. France had an alliance with Russia and hated Germany because of he defeats at the hands of Bismark. Britain and France were allied, so she joined the war when Germany infringed an obsolite treaty.

German imperialism had nothing to do with the causes of the great war. Her attempts to match Britains naval power certainly caused tension, as did her desire for an empire. But only tension, what caused the war was growing hostility between the Serbs and the Austro/Hungarians.

But then Willhelm woudn't have been in that position if it hadn't been for Bismarck and the unification of Germany, so it was actually Bismarck's fault.

Don't try and be a smart alec. It doesn't suit you. But if you want to go back that far your wrong anyway. German unification had more to do with French imperialism and Austrian incompetance than it did Bismarks policies. Napoleon did more towards German unification than even the 1848 revolutions.



That's what happend when you attempt to overbacktrace history.

yeah but the difference is were not going back to far, were going back 14 years, stating the peace settlement of 1919 was directly responcible for the rise of the Nazi party in 1933. That is not over tracing, but finding the causes, and histroains do that repeatedly with all sorts of issues.

Your determination to find fault with the german working class, dispite the obvious guilt of the European ruling class is rather shocking, but more importantly flawed.


PS your points also fail to take into account the huge election frawd which Hitler used to get into power, with his parties large scale blackmail and harrasment policy frightening people into voting for him. it also worth noting that Hitler was never even elected into office by the majority of the electorate. So blaming the German people for voting for him is ridiculous.

[LSD]

Like I said, they did not know what would happen, unless you believe they had the power to accuratly predict the future, then your point about moral obligations, whatever they may be, is irrelevant.

Oh come on.

By that argument, people aren't responsbily for anything because they can never be sure how things will turn out.

Nazi propaganda always targeted Jews and foreigners, while the German people didn't know how far Hitler would take it, they did know that he would he take an active policy of institutionalized racism.


That is just not true, they understood that Hitler and his party would attempt to lower the welfare of the Jews and try and raise their own, and that is all they knew.

That is enough!

"lower the welfare of the Jews"???

Even Hitler didn't use that kind of euphemistic language! He blatantly anounced that he intended on removing Jews from public and business life. He said that he would purify German blood, and "restore" the German nation.

Read editorials from before the election, read the Munich Post from 1933. They knew what Hitler intended.

People knew, they simply didn't care because "lowering the welfare of the Jews" appealed to them.


So you are blaming millions of desperate people for turning to extreamism when conventional politics fail? When your children are starving then it will be interesting to see if you turn to extreamism if it offers you "way out".

Again, moral culpability does not disappear in "desperate times". On the contrary, it is in these times that morality matters the most.

Germans in the depression had choices, they made a particulary bad one.


yeah but the difference is were not going back to far, were going back 14 years, stating the peace settlement of 1919 was directly responcible for the rise of the Nazi party in 1933. That is not over tracing, but finding the causes, and histroains do that repeatedly with all sorts of issues.

True enough, and the role of the treaty is an essential part of understanding the NSDAP's rise, but, again, it cannot be taken as the exclusive cause.

Look at it this way, the terms of Versaille influenced the German people. As did the depression, as did the instability of the Weimar governments.

But influence does not absolve responsibility. Again, it explains but doesn't excuse.


Your determination to find fault with the german working class, dispite the obvious guilt of the European ruling class is rather shocking, but more importantly flawed.

Well, I'm sorry you're "shocked", maybe you're misunderstanding.

The "European ruling class" was responsible for the war, but so were the German people!

Not all of them, of course, because many struggled against the Nazis, many died because of it.

But a significant number of the German people, and I would say the majority, supported and acquiested to the Nazis.

Ignoring that fact is pure historical revisionism.

It is also rather patronizing to assume that the working class cannot be at faut! People of all classes are equally human, and equally able to make mistakes.

Were the working class as culpabable as the rulling class? Of course not. But they were culpable.

Believe me, there's plenty of blame to go around.


PS your points also fail to take into account the huge election frawd which Hitler used to get into power, with his parties large scale blackmail and harrasment policy frightening people into voting for him. it also worth noting that Hitler was never even elected into office by the majority of the electorate. So blaming the German people for voting for him is ridiculous.

Hitler's appointment as chancellor was in keeping with Weimar tradition of granting the position to the leader of the largest party in the Richstagg, which Hitler was.

Hitler may not have gotten "50% plus 1", but he got pretty damn close. What's more, over the next decade, he managed to hold on to that power, mostly due to the acceptance of the German people.


That's "support" of a kind...but it hardly makes them bloodthirsty beasts.

I never claimed that Germans were "bloodthirsty beasts", nothing of the kind!

The question was "Is the German nation to blame for the outbreak of WWII?"

Were all Germans "bloodthirsty"? Of course not.

But the responsibility was there, and denying that the German people were at all morally culpable for Hitler's rise to power and his maintanance of that power for almost seven years prior to the outbreak of war is ludicrous


It may be "morally true"...but it's hard for me to see much historical usefulness in it.

Well, the original question was hardly a "historically useful" one. Anjali asked a moral question, so I provided a "morally true" response.


I find the German ruling class guilty of World War II.

Absolutely.

I entirely agree, the rulling class of Germany was far more "guilty" than the working classes, but I don't accept that they were solely responsible.


For what it's worth, the CBS correspondent in Berlin at the beginning of World War II (William L. Shirer) reported that Germans seemed markedly "subdued" when the invasion of Poland was announced. There were no mass popular celebrations as there were, for example, in Berlin and most European cities when World War I began.

You mean like after the Anchluss? Or the remilitarization of the Rhine? Or the defeat of France?

The German people didn't celebrate the outbreak of the war because they feared they'd lose. After the memories of the last war, they were understandable concerened. Their reaction after June of 1940 is much more telling.

Nationalism is a very powerful force.


My god Lysergic Acid Diethylamide has become a redstar clone with that last post of his.

Except, of course, we seem to completely disagree! :lol: