Let's all ignore Rosselsprung for the moment. He is of the opinion that if a single poster has an opinion he can't answer he has to be insulted and his statements distorted.
See Torquez, I always knew you were a Nazi, and your latest statement proves this beyond doubt. Why do you fear the 100,000 man Reichswehr army?
Logically, because of the natural barbaric nature of Germans and their rabid anti-polonistic culture(according to your most expert opinion that is correct without a single shadow of doubt ), they would undoubtedly invade Poland.
But still, the Polish military in 1939 was not to be sniffed at. Excellent air force and infantry, though a tad antiquated with some cavalry regiments. The Wehrmacht attacked Poland with over 50 divisions. Clearly, the Polish Army was a force to be reckoned with.
However, since you fear the Reichswehr with 10 divisions defeating the Polish Army with 30 divisions(logically, I mean, why else would you say it's "too large an army for Germany" unless you fear it destroying Poland?), you must subscribe to some Nazi philosophies. It was believed that a full blooded Aryan/Herrenmenschen/Superman/whatever could easily defeat a dozen of lesser races. The at least 3-to-1 numerical inferiority of the Reichswehr fits easily into this theory that it would beat the Polish Army based on racial superiority.
I am ashamed at this belief you hold, easily shown to the purifiying light of truth with just a little logical extrapolation. You should know better and not put such stock in the lies of Hitler and the Nazis.
Now, I ask, no, demand that Torquez be severely reprimanded for blatantly spreading Nazi ideology and white supremacism.
See Torquez, I always knew you were a Nazi, and your latest statement proves this beyond doubt. Why do you fear the 100,000 man Reichswehr army? icon_question.gif
Hey Rosse I knew I could count on your unintelligent responce coming from depthts of your ignorance about history.
Had you any knowledge about Germany, you would know that since 1918 Germany tried to rebuild its forces. Having none allowed it couldn't do that.
Logically, because of the natural barbaric nature of Germans and their rabid anti-polonistic culture(according to your most expert opinion that is correct without a single shadow of doubt icon_wink.gif ), they would undoubtedly invade Poland.f
Logically Ross couldn't find any information because he was too excited to insult somebody. So here, as I feel sorry for your holes in knowledge:
"Poland’s existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany’s life. Poland must go and will go — as a result of her own internal weaknesses and of action by Russia — with our aid. For Russia, Poland is even less tolerable than it is for us; Russia will never put up with Poland's existence. With Poland, one of the strongest pillars of the Versailles System will fall. To attain this goal must be one of the firmest aiming points of German politics, because it is attainable. Attainable only by means of, or with the help of, Russia. [...] The restoration of the border between Germany and Russia is the precondition for regaining strength of both sides. Germany and Russia within the borders of 1914 should be the basis for an agreement between us [...]." — Hans von Seeckt, Chief of the Troop Office of the German Army, responsible for shaping German foreign policy, writing after the Treaty of Rapallo (1922).
ou must subscribe to some Nazi philosophiesf It was believed that a full blooded Aryan/Herrenmenschen/Superman/whatever could easily defeat a dozen of lesser races.
Poor Ross-he even doesn't know that Germany rebuilded its army out of its inital obligations.His poor excited brain too busy in inventing insults doesn't even imagine the possibilty that lack of any army at all could hinder German imperialism.Well there is also the case that the Ross is too busy daydreaming about Nazi uniforms and high leather boots to start thinking.
Now, I ask, no, demand that Torquez be severely reprimanded for blatantly spreading Nazi ideology and white supremacism. icon_wink.gif
Oh sorry Ross, seek another date, I am not your dreamboy.
Dude, don't even bother with this Rosseldung character, he is just out to start flames, and be rude. So be it. That is his existence, it does not have to be ours!
~All you touch, and all you see, is all your life will ever be~
If the allies wouldn't have made the Kaiser abdicate and one of his sons would have been made Kaiser,and Germany had remained a monarchy,how do you think the chances of a Hitler comming to power would have been? my opinion,very slight. Yours?
If the Hohenzollern's had stayed as figureheads in a consitutional monarchy then Hitler could still have become Chancellor by constitutional means, but not head of state. In particular, he could not have received an oath of alleigance from the army as long as there was a monarchy. I would suggest that this would have made the likelihood of the Army foiling Hitler's wilder adventurism and overthrowing him before war broke out much more probable.
On the other hand, Mussolini in Italy and Antonescu in Romania managed to launch their countries into war even with a monarchy in place. However, both were later sunk by the fact that when they were overthrown the national armed forces remained loyal to the Kings, who were at the centre of the plots to overthrow them. Imagine if on 20 July the army had no oath of alleigance to Hitler, only to a pro-plot Kaiser! The legitimacy of the plotters would not have been in doubt and the consequences entirely different.
I think your point is very well worth considering.
If the Hohenzollern's had stayed as figureheads in a consitutional monarchy then Hitler could still have become Chancellor by constitutional means, but not head of state. In particular, he could not have received an oath of alleigance from the army as long as there was a monarchy. I would suggest that this would have made the likelihood of the Army foiling Hitler's wilder adventurism and overthrowing him before war broke out much more probable.
On the other hand, Mussolini in Italy and Antonescu in Romania managed to launch their countries into war even with a monarchy in place. However, both were later sunk by the fact that when they were overthrown the national armed forces remained loyal to the Kings, who were at the centre of the plots to overthrow them. Imagine if on 20 July the army had no oath of alleigance to Hitler, only to a pro-plot Kaiser! The legitimacy of the plotters would not have been in doubt and the consequences entirely different.
I think your point is very well worth considering.
What about the SS?
Would Hitler/Himmler still be allowed to build up such a "private army" sworn
solely to him?
Would that mean a danger of civil war? With the SS trying to overthrow the Kaiser if Hitler feels to constrained by the Monarchy?
No. I would suggest that the Waffen-SS could hardly have come into existence under those circumstances. The Army, with a different alleigance of its own, would be unlikely to have allowed it.
Hi Sid,
I think Hitler had to have the army,from all i've read,but i don't think he could get it with the Kaiser in charge,i think the Prussians were pretty much monarchist to the core.
M.H.
Without Hitler i don't think there wouldn't have been an SS or anyother of the other bastardly things like the Gestapo,etc.
Surely an SS would have been able to form. In a post war Germany even with the Kaiser or one of his hiers on the throne that would not have stopped the many extremist political parties emerginging along with private armies and freikorp. This would have meant that theoretically a NSDAP could have arisen and an SA which would have then led surely to the SS? What are your thoughts?
Prussian Blue,
As i see it, after the Kaisers abdication Germany had a make shif government and was very unstable alowing every discontent to come out of the woodwork. The army was held in esteem by the people,after all it fought well against practicly the whole world,i think the army would have rallied around the new Kaiser and no one was ready to take on the army,
thats why Hitler always courted the army.
I would distinguish between the SS and Waffen-SS here. Some form of SS already existed before Hitler reached power and would probably still have expanded for political use even under a constitutional monarchy. However, I would suggest that this expansion would probably not have included a significant Waffen-SS element. Without the Waffen-SS element there would be no significant counterweight to the Army.
When the July 1944 Bomb Plot occurred, the plotters had no problem rounding up members of SS agencies in Paris and Vienna, the only two places outside Berlin where their action got properly launched. (Even in Berlin the depot of 1st W-SS Division was deemed unusable in suppressing the plot for fear of causing a clash with elements of the Army.)
1)
"Nobody claims the Germans or anyone else wanted a world war. That is your invention. " Really? You are kidding, right? Sry, this is claimed all the time. In articles, books, documentaries, speeches, movies et al. The shorter and more superficial they are, the more likely they are to claim it. I bet: do a poll in, let's say inBritain, asking the people: "did Hitler want a world war?" I say: the majority (50%+) will answer this with "Yes!"
2)
"It is deemed to have begun at 0445 on 1 September 1939." I am well aware of that. It may be pc and all. But it's completely arbitrary. You might as well take the 3. September 1939 with the French and British declaration of war plus the one of some British dominions. Technically THIS made it a world war, since now it had become a intercontinental conflict. But that would not be pc of course.
3)
"Leaving aside who attacked who first, which is related to the separate war guilt issue, the fact remains that very little of the WWI took place on German soil and the country suffered far less material damage than, for example, France or Belgium. Another inescapable fact is that Germany lost WWI. In those circumstances it is inconceivable that the likes of France or Belgium would not reasonably expect compensation, especially as Germany had herself only months before been imposing harsh terms on defeated opponents like Russia and Romania."
As you obviously have not noticed, I did not much refer to the reparations at all. I was talking about the especially the huge chunk of territority Germany deprived of (putting millions of Germans under foreign rule), the resticition on its military that left it defenseless and the colonies that were taken away. This all went far beyond "compensation".
4)
"The Germans were, indeed, one of the great nations of Europe. Indeed, there were about the same number of Germans in Europe as there were British and French combined! When Germany was also the most militarised nation in Europe, as evidenced by its qualitative edge over its opponents in WWI, then one cannot be surprised that its military wings were clipped severely when it was defeated. The only point of argument is not if or whether, but by how much. "
Although you seem to be unaware of it: the German military was scarcely bigger than the French one when WWI started. The French followed a policy of achieving parity in arms with Germany (and came quite close to it)...and allying with Russia which had an army twice the size of Germany at the same size. It was Germany that felt itself threatened, not France (because Germany was feeling cornered WAS the reason why the war was declared against Russia and France). And, I have to add that Germany did NEVER attack or threaten to attack France or one of its colonies, not even ten years before WWI started when France was politically largely isolated in Europe.
In any case, your notion of Germany being the "most militarized nation of Europe" is wrong. A myth that is believed by many but wrong nonetheless. France spent significantly more money for its military then Germany per single inhabitant.
And as far as the statement of "Germany's wings being clipped" is concerned...more correct would be the formulation "completely cut off".
5)
"I fail to understand your surprise that Europe became the sphere of influence of the victors after WWI. This is what victory is all about! What do you expect them to do? Suffer more casualties than Germany, suffer more material damage than Germany and then fail to take advantage of the possibilities earned by these sacrifices?"
Well, Sid. I do suspect sometimes (especially when I read certain posts) that it was a stupid mistake of Prussia to be such gracious a winner in 1870, when France came away so lightly. Considering the the long history of constant French aggression against German states, the last one conducted by Napoleon and also considering that the war in 1870 had been caused, started, declared and lost by France as well, one should have used the opportunity to find a sort of final solution for the French problem. There would have been no WWI that way. Grave mistake. France (and Britain) unfortunately were not that gracious winners when they had the upper hand.
But of course, what has graciousness and fairness to do with it? Nothing it seems. Only that France and Britain still seem to claim moral superiority, even for WWI. Considering your post, you seem not one of those who believe that, as I notice with delight. And I completely agree. France and Britain were ruthless Imperialists, who were basically interested in power, nothing more, nothing less.
However, there is one other reason why they should not have turned Europe as blatantly into their sphere of influence as they did: simply because it was stupid. It was stupid because with this, these two had simply bitten off more than they could chew. They were too weak to hold on to Europe. One reason was Germany: it's simply to large a nation (compred to France and Britain, even for both combined) to be held down forever (France and Britian together had not been able to defeat Germany in the first place, far from it. That should have been a warning).
The second reason was the Sovietunion. Out of some reason France and Britain seemed to behave as if this Empire was somehow safely contained within its borders by some mysterious and invisible force. Or as if French and British messing around with Eastern Europe would be something they would tolerate forever. Did the idea never occur to them that this kind of behaviour was downright a challenge for the Russians (that they called themselves "Soviets" at the time was in no way important for this, Russia would not tolerate this before or after the Soviet era...assuming it has the power to do anything against it - which it had back then).
That Germany and the Sovietunion would ally, at least for a time wasn't that surprising from a geopolitical point of view. And even if Germany would have been held to the Versailles treaty and would not have had an army that could defend it...the Sovietunion was powerful to act alone. And it would have, Stalin was massively arming his country from the early thirties on, not because of Hitler (who certainly was a handy excuse of course). Most probably he would have attacked before 1945 and liberated Europe to the rhine or even to the channel from parlamentarism. And that would have effectively ended Britains Great Power status as well.
In the long run, the most rewarding strategy would have been to establish a fair and just peace order in Europe that accepted Germany as a power of equal right compared to France and Britain. This would have kept German revanchism at bay as well as a potential aggression of the Sovietunion (against which Germany could have been balanced so that France could feel safe). In other words: WWII would not have happened.
This may be less a case of hindsight 20/20 then one might think. Far too many warning voices could be heard even from the Allied side when the Versailles treaty was signed.
6)
"A major problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that there was no time limit on most of the terms. The Saarland was promised a plebiscite after 15 years and got it. However, there was no term to the military restriction imposed on Germany and so nothing for the Germans to look forward to by way of relief. It was into this vacuum that Hitler stepped. "
Quite right. As I said: stupid. If such a crushing treaty had to be imposed then with timelimit. And instead to use punishments to reduce Germany's economic power a (hypothetical) clever Western Allied side should have let Germany some colonies. This would have costed Germany money and would have been seen as an act of graciousness for which the Germans would have been thankful at the same time. The British for example, repeatedly considered handing Tansania back to Germany, because it simply was not worth any effort. To do this at some time in the twenties would have been a clever move that would have indebted Germany and would have given the democratic government one badly needed success.
(It wasn't done in the end. Possibly because Tansania was necessary to realize Cecil Rhodes dream of a continuous British territory from Cairo to Capetown - not that anyone ever used that landroute for traveling purposes. But it looked good on a map.)
7)
"However, despite this lack of set term, almost all of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles had lapsed by 1939, some of them before Hitler came to power in 1933. The problem that became apparent in 1939 was that
Hitler did not merely want to reverse the Treaty of Versailles, but to extend German control into non-German areas. In March 1939 he occupied Bohemia-Moravia, which was almost entirely populated by Czechs. On 1 September 1939 he attacked Poland with the firm intention of completely extinguishing the Polish state. Neither of these events had anything to do with the Treaty of Versailles. They were naked aggression".
Actually, very few provisions of the Versailles treaty had lapsed before Hitler. And nothing of the truly important ones. The right to have an army had not. None of Germanies European territories had been handed back. The demilitarized Rhineland stayed an open door for the French so that occurances as those of 1921/23 could be repeated anytime. (Those were naked aggressions, too, by the way. Completely illegal, even according to the Versailles treaty). And Germany had not regained one single of its colonies (which would have been psychologically quite important).
As far as Bohemia-Moravia and Poland is concerned, they were naked aggressions, true. But to put that into perspective: both France and Britain had done things like this as well in their history. Various European states had conducted aggressions of this kind during the 20ties and 30ties. Poland for example. Italy did, too (even in Europe: Albania). And even apart from this: both of these respective aggressions were not undertaken alone by Germany. Poland took is part of Czechoslovakia (some other eastern European states snatched there piece, as well). And the Sovietunion cooperated with Nazi Germany when it attacked Poland. And took its share. But only against Germany war was declared by France, Britain and a bunch of Dominions.
I don't want to go into the discussion "why?" here. But one should keep that in mind as an informed historian. There is no reason to complain as loudly about Nazi Germany's aggression as it is usually done...when one sees things in perspective.
In any case: the result of WWII were nearly 40 million dead in Europe alone. Eastern Europe was firmly under the paws of the mist totalitarian dictatorship the world had ever seen afterwards...for an unforseeable amount of time. (Don't forget that no one could know back it in 1945 that Stalin would not live for another 30 years. Or that his sucessor would be not as bad as he was - if, let's say, Beria had taken over the scepter.) And France and Britain were among those who had caused this. That should be the reason for some reflection and prehaps some self-criticism among the French and British. But there is not too much of it (take your post as an example). Lot's of shoulder patting instead. That isn't quite as it should be. And as large the number of those that share the delusion of WWII as a "job well done" may be - after 60 years it's about time to wake up.
8]
"I repeat: "I would suggest that the Treaty of Versailles is more an excuse than a reason for Hitler and WWII".
Sry, no. Without the treaty of Versailles there would have been no Hitler. That is downright certain. (Why? How about this: in any fair peace treaty Germany would have been allowed an army that would have been able to defend its borders. There would have been no de-militarized Rhineland as open door into Germany for the French. Ergo, there would - could - not have been incidents like the those of 1921/23 when French and Belgian troops occupied large chunks of Western Germany. And without the one of 1923 there would not have been the "regional coup d'etat" during which Hitler gained nation-wide attention for the first time - this incident is closely related to the French occupation of the Rhine and Ruhr area in the same year. And the result of it all, Hitler's trial which he used to gain fame, his imprisonment during which he collected his thoughts and wrote "Mein Kampf"...this was a vital stepping stone on his way to power. Your (interestingly typical British) "Hitler-would-have-most-probably-come-to-power-anyway" notion is quite unlikely. (And there was no "Ersatz-Hitler" in sight who would have done the job if Hitler would not have made it, either).
But I can give back the compliment: I am quite certain that, if Britain would have received a similiar treatment as Germany in 1919, this humiliated nation would have also been likely to turn to a strong charismatic wanna-be leader holding speeches in the English pubs. Even if such a one had promoted a doctrine that would have been an amalgamation of notions like British superiority over other people, social-darwinism, xenophobia, eugenics, nationalism, populism and revanchism (the first five of these are not exactly alien to the British mindset anyway - no need to loose a war first) under one catchy phrase (let's say "British Patriotism" abbr. "BritPat"). Which is symbolized by a red, blue and white flagg in which the various crosses of the Union Jack are changed to look more like Swastikas. Even if this charismatic man would have looked vaguely like Charlie Chaplin.
I am afraid, Sid, the treatment Germany received after WWII had quite a lot to do with bringing the Nazi dictatorship and WWII about. This treaty might even have caused a second worldwar if the democracy in Germany would have survived.
My regards.
"Tell my mother I died for my country. I did what I thought was best."
1) If it were really the case that books, articles, documentaries and speeches, etc., claim that Hitler wanted a world war, you will presumably have no trouble coming up with a few verifiable quotes to that effect from such sources.
Hitler wanted war, there is no doubt, but of the winnable, self-contained variety. However, I have seem nothing that states he wanted a world war. A world war is just what happened as a cumulative consequence of Hitler's actions. It was nobody's aim, not even his.
2) No. The war became an international conflict at 0445 on 1 September, unless, of course, like Hitler, you don't recognise the existence of the Polish state.
3) The colonies Germany lost became League of Nations Mandates, not formal parts of the empires of Germany's foes.
The terms of the Treaty of Versailles did not try to extract compensation in full from Germany on the grounds that Germany could not pay for all the damage done. This is explicit in the treaty, if you read it. On top of this, even such compensation as was provided for was never paid in full and Germany was released from the terms before Hitler came to power.
Interestingly, Hitler didn't draw the same conclusions about the wisdom of imposing a 100,000 man metropolitan army on defeated opponents. Have you read the terms he imposed on the French in 1940?
Certainly Versailles put a few million Germans under foreign rule, but nowhere near as many as the foreigners (Poles, French, Danes, etc.) living on the same territories who were freed from German rule. Where populations were mixed, this was inevitable to some degree. I do agree that greater respect for plebiscite results would probably have regained Germany some territory at the expense of Poland, but this would have been relatively minor.
4) Nope. I am fully aware that the active German Army was not much bigger than the French Army at the outbreak of war. I have the metropolitan German active army at 50 divisions and 840,000 men and the Metropolitan French active army at 47 divisions and 770,000 men.
However, several points must be borne in mind. Firstly, France had to maintain a standing army similar in strength to Germany's to avoid being overwhelmed as she had been in 1870. Secondly, she had colonial commitments Germany did not. Thirdly, although her active metropolitan army was close to Germany's in strength, her reserves were much fewer. Germany mobilised 3.8 million men at the outbreak of war, while France mobilised 2.9 million.
If Germany felt threatened it was because Kaiser Wilhelm II had dismantled the alliance system set up by Bismarck and added Britain to the list of potential foes by pursuing a massive warsship building programme (incidentally an area not included in the above army statistics and one where German strength was much greater the France's). This isolation was the result of Wilhelmine policies. In short, it was to a great degree a self-induced paranoia.
I am not at all wedded to the 100,000 man Versailles Army. However, as I posted above, "The only point of argument is not if or whether, but by how much" Germany's military wings should be clipped. I presume you do not expect that Germany would suffer no penalty at all in terms of military strength?
5) What "final solution" of the French problem in 1870 would you propose?
6) The characters of the main protagonists in WWI were not as clearly differentiated as in WWII. Nevertheless, I would not agree that their motives and responsibilities were equal. The British were more interested in a ballance of power, at least on the European continent. They were thus in favour of the status quo. The French were seriously outmatched by Germany in terms of military potential, but desperately wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. However, Wilhelmine Germany, which had overflowed ethnic German territory in every direction (except the south, where Germanic Austria was in a similar situation of overflowing ethnic German territory) retained expansionist ambitions on the world stage, hence its massive fleet building programme to challenge Britain.
WWI was started by Austria-Hungary, backed by Germany, attempting to extend its Balkan empire at the expense of Serbia on the pretext of the assassination in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the heir to its throne by a Serb. If I remember rightly, Bosnia-Herzegovina had been annexed by Austria-Herzegovina as recently as 1908 and Serbia was the only non-German ally on the route of the Berlin-Baghdad railway. The Central Powers, while not wanting a European war, were definitely expansionist and on the strategic move before WWI.
I don't think that you are differentiating sufficiently between France and Britain between the wars. It was France that set up a system of strategic alliances in Europe. Britain largely withdrew from direct involvement in European alliance systems.
), they would undoubtedly invade Poland. 
It was believed that a full blooded Aryan/Herrenmenschen/Superman/whatever could easily defeat a dozen of lesser races. The at least 3-to-1 numerical inferiority of the Reichswehr fits easily into this theory that it would beat the Polish Army based on racial superiority.
