Nazis, or just Misunderstood?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Oldman731


Babek, you certainly aren't the first to say this.  I just don't understand it, is all, because it seems to be such a non sequitur. It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917.  Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty.  How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?

If I accept the logic that a one-sided peace treaty is a good reason to adopt a brutal, totalitarian government, then I imagine that Germany and Japan should be going Nazi any day now, given what happened to them at the end of WWII.  Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870.  Lord knows what the Irish will do.

- oldman

You have the answer right infront of your nose, but you cant see it?

Allow me to spell it out for you.

In 1917 the Russians were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
In 1919 the Germans were forced into a toejamty peace deal.

What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal?

Could there possibly be a connection?

[Soup Nazi]

We're just misunderstood.  So is just about everyone in this thread.  

NO SOUP FOR ANY OF YOU, ONE YEAR!

[straffo]

Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870

in fact it was almost the case BEFORE 1870 ... thanks to Napoléon III (empereur .... what a toejamy guy)

[babek-]

Originally posted by Oldman731

It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917.  Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty.  How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?
- oldman

Because it was.

A harsh and brutal treaty like Versailles allows radical elements to rise in the society and get power.
Especially when the country is let alone and without help - like it was with Germany after WW1.

You mentioned Russia. I think you know that the country became the Soviet Union after WW1 and with Lenin/ Stalin a totalitary land.

Take the Osman Empire as another example. After the Empire was crippled after WW1 a military leader rose and kemal Pasha became the "Father of all Turks" or in turkish "Ataturk".
He (I hate it to compare this great man with a creature like Hitler) like Hitler ignored the treaty of Versailles - kicked out the allied troops from the occupied west of Turkey and reigned as a totalitary leader.

The terms of the treaty of Versailles made it impossible for Germany to develop a working democracy.
Whole social castes were dishonored and only wished revenge. They saw in the democrats the traitors and were so an easy target for a man like Hitler.
The financial terms were so cruel that Germany was bancrupt - heating up the social problems and putting them to radicals - communists and nazis.
Also german territories were occupied so this fact fueled the wish for revenge in even moderate germans.

After WW2 Germany was not let alone. They got enormeous help from the USA and only a short time after the WW2 West Germany was a prosperous country - even with a higher life-standard than in many allied countries.
The money and wealth killed effectivly the wish for any revenge.
Also we had great politicians who ended long hatreds - like the relation-ship with france which was once called the Erbfeind and who is now the friend of Germany (a fact for which I am very thankful for).

The same in Japan: They got an honorable peace. Their emperor Hirohito was not deposed - what was a very important decision, because the Tenno was a religious important person for the japanese.

Like Germany Japan was treated well and got help from the victorious nations - and also this land became an industrial superpower with great wealth.

Under such good circumstances people like Hitler had no chance to get a ruling position.

So I conclude that if Germany has been treated this way after WW1 it would be very likely that a Hitler would never been the leader of the land.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hortlund
You have the answer right infront of your nose, but you cant see it?

Allow me to spell it out for you.

In 1917 the Russians were forced into a toejamty peace deal.
In 1919 the Germans were forced into a toejamty peace deal.

What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal?

Could there possibly be a connection?

Um.  No.  You may actually be the first to ever suggest that the bolshevik takeover had anything to do with Brest-Litovsk.  The chronology is just a bit off.

- oldman

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Oldman731


Um.  No.  You may actually be the first to ever suggest that the bolshevik takeover had anything to do with Brest-Litovsk.  The chronology is just a bit off.

- oldman

Did I say it had anyting to do with the bolshevik takeover?

So you think that the Russian civil war might have ended differently? You dont think that there might have been more loyalists instead of communists?

Why the act?

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by babek-
The terms of the treaty of Versailles made it impossible for Germany to develop a working democracy.
Whole social castes were dishonored and only wished revenge. They saw in the democrats the traitors and were so an easy target for a man like Hitler.
The financial terms were so cruel that Germany was bancrupt - heating up the social problems and putting them to radicals - communists and nazis.
Also german territories were occupied so this fact fueled the wish for revenge in even moderate germans.

We don't disagree that the Germans wished for revenge.  So did the French after 1870, and lots of other people who have been beaten.  Wanting revenge is one thing.  Going Nazi to get that revenge is quite another.

I agree with your general implication that democracy was doomed in Germany after WWI - in fact, it used to be a joke that "History of Democracy in Germany" was one of the world's shortest books.  I don't see why the Versailles treaty had anything to do with the average German's view of the merits of democracy v. totalitarianism.

The financial terms were ugly on paper, but weren't enforced.  The Weimar government really never made any effort to pay them.  When the French went into the Saar (in 1924?) to try to enforce the treaty, and the English didn't back them up, the whole world knew that Germany was not going to end up paying those reparations.  The Weimar people cut their own throats by simply printing money to pay off the French, thereby triggering their own galloping inflation nightmare.

Now.  If what you're suggesting is that the Germans were shamed/embarrassed/angered by losing the war, that they had very little experience with anything other than authoritarian government, weren't really that eager to try it out, anyway, and were ready to go to any extreme to make themselves feel important and powerful again, while in the process getting back at the people who beat them....I would be prepared to believe that.

- oldman

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hortlund


Did I say it had anyting to do with the bolshevik takeover?

So you think that the Russian civil war might have ended differently? You dont think that there might have been more loyalists instead of communists?

Why the act?

Heh heh.  Three questions you ask.  Three answers I will give.

1.  Yes.  "What happened to Russia after the toejamty peace deal?
What happened to Germany after the toejamty peace deal? Could there possibly be a connection?"  Leaves little room for any other conclusion.

2.  Actually, I do not think the civil war would have ended differently.  The Whites were too disjointed, and too discredited by the past fifty years' experience, and offered too little to the average peasant/worker.  Much as with WWII, so long as the Soviets maintained the will to resist, they were going to prevail.

3.  I am not really sure what you mean by "why the act?"  I really do not see a connection between the development of Soviet domestic oppression and Brest-Litovsk.  Honest.

- oldman

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Oldman731
I don't see why the Versailles treaty had anything to do with the average German's view of the merits of democracy v. totalitarianism.

Because versaille forced Germany to become a pariamentary democracy?

Kinda like if the US would be focred into a peace deal forcing the US to drop its constitution and become a monarchy...would it be popular?

[babek-]

Originally posted by Oldman731


The financial terms were ugly on paper, but weren't enforced.  The Weimar government really never made any effort to pay them.  When the French went into the Saar (in 1924?) to try to enforce the treaty, and the English didn't back them up, the whole world knew that Germany was not going to end up paying those reparations.

The Rheinland was occupied - one of the very important parts of Germany.

The Weimar Republic was not able to force the occupation forces out.
They didnt dared to send troops.

It was Hitler who did it. Although he knew that the german army at this time wouldnt have a chance against the french troops he sent them. My grandfather told me stories that in the night the troops sneaked back and marched the next day in aagain to show a greater number of the real forces.
Also the numbers of the vehicles were changed - so spies reported a higher number of german troops than really were in action.
The whole bluff of Hitler worked, because France and UK didnt  wanted a war against Germany.

And Hitler presented himself as the savior of Germany.

If germany would have allowed to rebuilt itself after WW1 and with its potential become a wealthy country Hitler wouldnt have get a chance to get the position of a chancellor.

But sadly the allies softened up to Germany when he was already in this position and accepted all his demands.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Because versaille forced Germany to become a pariamentary democracy?

Kinda like if the US would be focred into a peace deal forcing the US to drop its constitution and become a monarchy...would it be popular?

Heh heh.  So you're saying that the Germans became Nazis to spite the Allies?  Well, now, that DOES sound sensible to me.

- oldman

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by babek-
The Weimar Republic was not able to force the occupation forces out.
They didnt dared to send troops.

It was Hitler who did it.

But by then - 1936 - Hitler had already been elected and, as detailed by Hortlund elsewhere, had legally installed himself as dictator.  So I don't see how his reoccupation of the Rhineland had anything to do with his being picked to run the country in the first place.

- oldman

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Oldman731


Heh heh.  So you're saying that the Germans became Nazis to spite the Allies?  Well, now, that DOES sound sensible to me.

- oldman

Im not sure why you are acting dumb. Because I know that you understand that that is not why I meant.

Is this some new debate-tactic of yours?

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Im not sure why you are acting dumb. Because I know that you understand that that is not why I meant.

Is this some new debate-tactic of yours?

No.  I'm just not picking up on your argument.  Somewhere back in this thread I said (I hope) that I can't find a logical connection between the Versailles Treaty and Germany's ultimately-suicidal installation of Hitler as dictator.  You and Babek haven't done much more than say, "Well, hey, the Germans were really mad at the end of WWI and felt that they got treated unfairly, and times were tough, so of course they elected an obvious nut-case who'd written a book explaining what a nut-case he was, and who had already done jail time for trying to start a revolution to implement his nut-case philosophy.  And it only stands to reason that they would make him dictator-for-life, so that they could declare their allegiance to him, and that they would support his declaration of the world's most dreadful war and the extermination of people they thought were unpleasant, because, after all, the Versailles Treaty was unfair."

I don't get it.  I really don't.  It hasn't ever happened anywhere else (at least, not in the past 200 years or so).  It's like having David Dukes become President of the US.  No, I take that back, its far worse than that, it's worse than having the Ku Klux Klan or the Weathermen becoming our government.  It is something that I have never been able to comprehend, and blaming it on a peace treaty which, by the Germans' own standards, should not have surprised them, strikes me as a colossal cop-out.

- oldman