Humiliation - primary cause of WWII ?

General WWII era German military discussion that doesn't fit someplace more specific.
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Humiliation - primary cause of WWII ?

Post by CEE »

Laurence Rees, the author of The Nazis:A Warning From History , on a recent visit to Norway was interviewed on a weekly celebrity show. When asked what was the primary reasons for WWII he stated that cause nr.1 was humiliation- humiliation for having lost WWI, humiliation for the demands placed upon it by the Treaty of Versailles and the ensuing poverty that struck the nation. Without these there would have been no WWII.

I have read that Lloyd George once said that the demands placed upon Germany were unjust and that they would surely lead to another war.

What thinks the literati ?
Lorenz
Patron
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:10 am

Post by Lorenz »

That has been the excuse offered up by the Nazis, non-Nazi German nationalists, German war veterans and their followers and apologists since the beginning of the war, but especially after the war. It is their stock alibi. It very conveniently shifts the blame from them to the backs of those nations that defeated Germany in World War I and then dictated the terms of peace and imposed reparations. Post - WW I "humiliation" certainly played an important role in the events in Germany leading up to World War II, but to says that this was the sole cause is absurd. There are hundreds of books on this subject that express a wide variety of opinion, and you might want to take a look at them. After all, "cause and effect" is the principal grist of academia.

--Lorenz
phylo_roadking
Patron
Posts: 8459
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:41 pm

Post by phylo_roadking »

Not "humiliation" per se, but as a huge cause, is what was taught in British Schools at secondary level for 50 years or so. Don't know if it has changed now.

But the Treaty had so many effects that its impossible to lump it all under "humiliation" The economic effects were hard realities, not just the way the German felt about it. The territorial losses - not just her colonies abroad but to the new Poland - weren't just humiliation, they were harsh political realities. The limit on army size while humiliating, left the country almost unable to defend itself let alone police itself against violent revolution of many falvours, until the Freikorps stepped in. Etc., etc., ....

As Lorenz says, this is far too huge to be encapsulated into one sweeping stement that reduces it to almost the level of them feeling - "put out".
"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." - Malcolm Reynolds
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Post by CEE »

Thank you both for answering

One still can not get away from the fact that the general disarmament pledge of Versailles was fraudulent as no nation was going to disarm to Germany´s level. It seems apparent it was applied to her alone and apparently in perpetuity. What other nation even if it is considered an unquestionable aggressor can be expected to accept a state of bondage indefinably. Psychology would make it even less inclined to do so if it does not consider itself the bully. In 1922 Lord Buckmaster stated: " to induce any nation, however evil and abominable they might be , to lay down their arms on one set of terms, and then, when they were defenseless, to another set, is an act of dishonor which can never be effaced."

It seems the British sense of honour was still fairly active in 1922!

If deliberate chicanery was employed towards Germany in relation to her terms of surrender and later to keep her weak as long as possible, it was surely no worse for Hitler to use deceit to make Germany strong as quickly as possible?

By 1939 Hitler had mainly on his own initiative and against the opposition of the General Staff had resurrected a conscript German Army and Air Force, remilitarised the Rhineland, absorbed Austria and annexed the bulk of Czechoslovakia. He had almost nullified anti German features of the Versailles Treaty to the Germans natural delight!

Was there anything essentially wicked in Hitler occupying the Polish Corridor? If there was, the wickedness was no greater than France´s relentless ambition from 1870 to 1918 to recover Alsace and Lorraine. I think the Germans had as valid a claim to the Corridor as France had to Alsace and Lorraine. Since the victors of Versailles, who included both the British and French, had recognized this right of prior possession in France´s favor in regard to the two provinces their charge of criminal aggression against Germany- and certain German individuals- for applying the same type of claim to the Corridor seems quite hypocritical to me.

Humiliation might not be an adequate excuse, but it weighs!
dduff442
Supporter
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Post by dduff442 »

Hi CEE,

I googled the Buckmaster (who he?) quote and tracked down the book 'Unconditional Hatred' by Russell Grenfell (who he?) on a Neo-nazi website.
Thus,
Lord Buckmaster declared that:"...to induce any nation, however evil and abominable they might be, to lay down their
arms on one set of terms and then, when they were defenseless, to impose another set,
is an act of dishonour which can never be effaced."
The British conscience and sense of honor was still fairly active at that date (1922).
If, then, deliberate chicanery was employed towards Germany in relation to the terms of surrender,
and later in order to keep her weak as long as possible, it was surely no worse for Hitler
to use deceit to make Germany strong as quickly as possible. One set of lies can be held to
justify another set in international politics. But the bulk of the British critics who were rabid
about Hitler's use of the lie as a strategical weapon had probably never heard of the Fourteen
Points trickery or of the "general disarmament" clause of the Treaty of Versailles. Their indignation
was thus comprehensible, even if misplaced.
By March of 1939 Hitler, mainly by his own personal initiative and even against the opposition
of the General Staff, had resurrected a conscript German Army and Air Force, remilitarized
the Rhineland, absorbed

Austria, and annexed the bulk of Czechoslovakia. He had almost nullified anti-German features
of the Versailles Treaty, to the Germans' natural delight.
Can't you even bother to write your own posts? Incidentally, he was plain old Stanley Buckmaster at the time he made the speech in question. That doesn't sound so impressive though, does it?

Regards,
dduff
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Post by CEE »

Hi dduff442,

Don´t see why the opinions written by a captain in the Royal Navy make him a neo-nazi or myself one for that matter. Am I an anti-Semite for not liking Israels behavior towards the Palestinians?

Lord Buckmaster or good ol´Stanley? I couldn´t care less.

I suppose you are right about not writing my own post, but as I don´t disagree with him it was so much easier... .

Eric
dduff442
Supporter
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Post by dduff442 »

Hi,

Quoting this without attribution doesn't make you a neo-nazi, it makes you a plagiarist.

Regards,
dduff
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Post by CEE »

That puts me among 2/3 of the population as far as their knowledge of WWII goes.

Cheers,
Eric
Pirx
Associate
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:46 am
Location: UK/Poland

Post by Pirx »

CEE wrote: I think the Germans had as valid a claim to the Corridor as France had to Alsace and Lorraine.
Why you think so?
amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas
dduff442
Supporter
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:04 pm

Post by dduff442 »

Hi CEE,

You're trying to wriggle off the hook with sophistry. You stole someone else's work and tried to pretend it was your own. That's plagiarism and has to do with you and no one else.

Regards,
dduff
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Post by CEE »

Hi,

Because at the time Alsace Lorraine was a great deal more German than French and the Polish Corridor had been German for a century and a half. What about wholly German Danzig?
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi CEE,

Humiliation is a state of mind. It does not have to be based on reality.

Contrary to legend, Versailles was not an excessively unjust peace without precedent, there was almost none of it still in force when Hitler attacked Poland and those few bits that were still in force were not the reason he did so.

However, in order to get into power Hitler and other German nationalists insisted on feeling humiliated and on making as much of the electorate as possible feel equally humiliated in order to get their support. Hence the propagation of the "Stab-in-the-Back" myth levelled at Jews in particular and the legend that Germany was never defeated, just swindled under the Armistice.

I would suggest that the sense of humiliation was real, but the grounds for it were much less so. What did Germany expect after losing the bloodiest war of aggression in history? A reward? Defeated nations lose both land and treasure. That is the very nature of defeat. Prussia, in particular, knew this well from both having suffered an imposed peace at French hands in 1807 and having imposed one on France in 1871. (Both, incidentally, also involved heavy reparations.)

Cheers,

Sid.
Pirx
Associate
Posts: 975
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:46 am
Location: UK/Poland

Post by Pirx »

CEE wrote:Hi,

Because at the time Alsace Lorraine was a great deal more German than French and the Polish Corridor had been German for a century and a half. What about wholly German Danzig?
Warsaw from century and half was Russian. Krakow from century and half was Austrian (Austro - Hungarian). Poznan from century and half was German. There was no single acre that was "Polish" from century and half. Maybe whole Poland becouse of that had no reason to exist?
And Danzig? Danzig wasn't in Poland 1919-1939. And Sid has "great german map" from 1910 or something where cleary we can see that in "corridor" majority were Poles.

Hitler did not demand "corridor" from Poland (officialy) but exteritorial highway and railway. And first demand was in autumn 1938.
amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Pirx,

Yes. Just to confirm that both a massive German atlas from 1900 and a 1934 Nazi era ethnic atlas of "Germandom" show that the bulk of the so-called "Corridor" was not majority ethnically German.

I have mentioned them before of Feldgrau. If anyone wants details I am happy to supply them.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
CEE
Supporter
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2003 7:14 am

Post by CEE »

i gather however that a large amount of these populations welcomed the Germans, or... .
Locked