WWII Russia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England. Hitler had a good economics, because he fueled the machine of war. He opened factories for Tanks and weapons, indoctrinated the people and took back the Ruhrgebied. If France and England had retaliated immediatly, there would have been no economic upliving. He was a leader that united the people by giving them someone to hate, he was no leader, he was a manipulator and a dictator. He even tried to overthrow the goverment before, but was arrested and it failed. These are only the individual actions.. no context here.

There was no decent bone in that man's body... [stuff]

---

So you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.

Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.

In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar

---

Indeed. The biggest cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles. The nations of Europe largely seemed to completely ignore their own very recent history. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 kept Europe out of major war for 100 years, and how did it do it? By not punishing the people for the leaders' actions. Yet, that's precisely what they did in Versailles and as a result Germany fell into economic ruin, and basically paved the way for a nationalistic leader like Hitler to take control.

Though the motives behind the Treaty of Versailles are somewhat understandable. Europe was devastated by the first World War and wanted to avoid another conflict on that scale at any cost. By creating an incredibly weak Germany, the Entente forces hoped to prevent any further conflict. It was complete overkill though and definitely was a major contribution to WWII's outbreak (and as a result of appeasement, the most obvious direct contribution).

Quote:

---

Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England.

---

You cant attribute one reason for Hitler gaining power, especially one that is not even true. Hitler was elected to power, but not because of the problems due to Raymond Poin Carie's invasion of the Ruhr. What you must remember is that Stresseman helped to recover Germany's economy during the Ruhr period by introducing the Rentenmark and by signing the Dawes Plan etc. That is why the 'Golden Twenties' followed that. Germany had solved its problems, it was recovering.

But that all changed on one terrible day in 1929. Im talking about the Wall Street Crash. That changed everything. Stresseman had died, and the economy crashed. Elections came and the people were looking towards someone with extreme measures and big promises. That person was Hitler. That is the main reason why he got elected to power. Of course, there were many other reasons, and Hitler did not immediately gain power. But he did not gain power because of the Ruhr. The main impact of the Ruhr and reparations and the whole Treaty of Versailles was that it made a lot of Germans hate the French, British, Americans even more. In terms of crippling Germany, it failed.

Quote:

---

There was no decent bone in that man's body, he, the same as Stalin, used the SS to oppress the people into voting for him.

He got into office by manipulation, and stayed there by indoctrination and oppression. He basically build a country that can only survive on warfare, how would that make a stable economy when you dont assault another nation?

---

Thats not true. Even before he was waging war his people were saying how greatly the economy had improved under him. They would say phrases such as 'Hitler has taken away our freedom. Our freedom to starve.'

Quote:

---

They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place.

---

Wilson wasnt that great either. He was far too idealistic, and his solutions were often impractical. If Clemencau or Lloyd George had tried to help the Germans in such a way, their people at home would have launched huge protests and kicked them out of office. The only way the people could get elected was by saying stuff like 'We shall squeeze the Germans till the pips squeek, and then squeeze again!' The again, Lloyd George was more reasonable than Clemencau. Clemencau ideally wanted Germany divided into lots of little states, with no armies!



Anyway, in summary, people often present a simplified account of the events leading up to World War II. There were in fact two periods of economic problems. There was hyper inflation during the invasion of the Ruhr and then there was recovery. Then there was the Great Depression (due to the Wall St Crash) and that is when Hitler came to power.


Of course, I havent mentioned stuff like the Kapp Putsch or the Spartacist Uprising that happened before 1920. I should however mention the Beer Hall Putsch aka The Munich Putsch. Hitler got put in prison for it during 1924. So 1923 was the year of the occupation of the Ruhr. The hyper inflation happened during that 1923-24 period. Hitler tried to sieze power then, but failed and was imprisoned. So for those of you who thought that was what lead to Hitler coming to power, you are wrong. Hitler obviously couldnt have been elected then - he was in prison. It was only in 1933 that he was able to sieze power, after the Great Depression.


You may be wondering why it took so long for him to gain power. After all, the depression was in 1929. That is because his ascent to power wasnt simple. There were a whole series of elections and problems. Von Papen, Schleicher, Bruning were all involved. Eventually Hitler got it. But he only acheived true power when Hindenburg died. He then proclaimed himself as Fuhrer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England. Hitler had a good economics, because he fueled the machine of war. He opened factories for Tanks and weapons, indoctrinated the people and took back the Ruhrgebied. If France and England had retaliated immediatly, there would have been no economic upliving. He was a leader that united the people by giving them someone to hate, he was no leader, he was a manipulator and a dictator. He even tried to overthrow the goverment before, but was arrested and it failed. These are only the individual actions.. no context here.

There was no decent bone in that man's body... [stuff]

---

So you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.

Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.

In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar

---

Germany started the first world war! How can they not be held accountable for that? The french and english did go over the top, but they just got out of a war that ruined their countries. And as everyone will know, terms are for the victorious. They suffered because of a war Germany started, and they could decide what they wanted in compensation. By sucking Germany dry they could never support another war. You have to understand that this was the first WW and such large wars weren't normal. They were afraid of Germany rising again, and looking at history, and understandable and justified fear.

And I did say that the people would do anything with the promises of Hitler, but that doesnt make him a great guy because he took advantage of it.

Really vivisteiner? I thought Germany recovered fromt he depression because Hitler created an economy by fueling money into the war industry and giving people jobs making arms of war. I didnt know they recovered before that, well, you learn something everyday.

^Germany cant be held accountable for World War II. Only Hitler can.

But France and Britain and America can all be held accountable for Hitler being elected to power. France and Britain crippled Germany and stirred a feeling of hate towards them, especially with france's invasions of the Ruhr. America's Wall St Crash also messed up the German economy (which was heavily reliant on the American economy).

France, Britain and America were also partly responible for World War II being so bad once Hitler reached power. They screwed up the league of nations, they used a terrible policy of appeasement ultimately let Hitler toy with them left, right and centre. (They were so afraid of War)

Then again, if Hitler had only wanted Anschluss it wouldnt have been so bad. Ultimately, the vast majority of the blame lies with Hitler.


EDIT:

Quote:

---

Really vivisteiner? I thought Germany recovered fromt he depression because Hitler created an economy by fueling money into the war industry and giving people jobs making arms of war. I didnt know they recovered before that, well, you learn something everyday.

---

You're not wrong about that, although you exaggerated its importance. Hitler still did spend a lot of money strengthening his army, navy and airforce during peace time and that helped boost his economy. But notice how his economy became so much greater without waging any wars. He didnt need a war to have a strong economy. Of course, once he started invading, Germany's economy really started skyrocketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

Wilson wasnt that great either. He was far too idealistic, and his solutions were often impractical.

---

It wasn't the world's best idea, but it certainly more lenient on the Germans. I was merely using it as a reference to what would've been further from LOLRAGEQUIT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight

Germany started the first world war! How can they not be held accountable for that? The french and english did go over the top, but they just got out of a war that ruined their countries.

---

Actually, no they didn't, not that it's the point being argued. The start of the first World War began with the assassination of Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. Russia declared war on the rebels, which forced the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente to head into effect, which caused a chain of war declarations. Germany never started anything; they followed the suit of Austria-Hungary, which withdrew (or was very close to it) from the war due to a number of reasons, iirc, internal strife and displeasure with the war. With Italy having betrayed the Alliance a while ago, and AH unable to contribute, Germany found itself fighting against a number of enemy nations, alone. Methods taken against AH were not nearly as fierce, among one of them being a split between the two countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

France, Britain and America were also partly responible for World War II being so bad once Hitler reached power. They screwed up the league of nations, they used a terrible policy of appeasement ultimately let Hitler toy with them left, right and centre. (They were so afraid of War)

---

To be perfectly fair, the States did not join the League of Nations, which is a fault of its own, but not necessarily related to having dealt with Germany, and was not quite nearly as involved in the punishment of Germany. At that point, the States were rather isolationist, due to the Depression, and didn't even get anywhere close to out of Depression until the Pacific Theater broke out.

Quote:

---

To be perfectly fair, the States did not join the League of Nations, which is a fault of its own, but not necessarily related to having dealt with Germany, and was not quite nearly as involved in the punishment of Germany. At that point, the States were rather isolationist, due to the Depression, and didn't even get anywhere close to out of Depression until the Pacific Theater broke out.

---

If the league of nations had actually done something when Hitler occupied the Rhineland and broken the Treaty of Versailles and started invading, then WWII could have been stopped in its tracks. One of the reasons why the league was so weak was because America prefered isolationism.

The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it was a nothing treaty. It didnt cripple Germany enough to prevent if from being a threat and it promoted German anger towards France, Britain and America. But once it was made they should have least upheld it. Hitler was disobeying the treaty left, right and centre. And the rest of the world just watched.


Oh lol, just realised AK was talking about Germany starting WWI, not WWII. And yeah, Tavrobel is right about that. Although that was only the trigger. The main problem began when the arms race began. There was no point building so much weaponry if you werent going to use it!

I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.

Also the United States wasn't simply isolationist due to the Depression; the United States reverted to its policy of isolationism following the first World War. Economically, there was a system of tariffs in place that meant that it was difficult or expensive to get foreign goods in the United States (many countries responded with similar policies in respect of American goods) and politically the US refused to join the League of Nations, whilst (I believe) placing stricter regulations on immigration. I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few.

Also, the outbreak of WWI is difficult to attribute to a single cause. Obviously the alliance system (Triple Entente and Alliance) exacerbated things, as did rearmaments with countries such as the UK vastly improving its navy. There's also the nationalist element that saw Franz Ferdinand assassinated, dragging the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia into direct conflict. You can also add into that mix Imperialism in general, gunboat diplomacy (the Agadir Crisis, etc) as well as general political rivalries.

Quote:

---

I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.

---

Hmmm, you make some good points.

I would argue that Germany wasnt crippled, it was weakened. Sure, the occupation of the Ruhr was pretty much a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, and that lead to hyperinflation and so on. But, and this a big but, Germany recovered in quite a few years due to Stresseman and negotiations such as the Dawes Plan. That period after the deoccupation of the Ruhr was known as the Golden Twenties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Twenties

The fact that Germany recovered so fast, the fact that Germans enjoyed the highest recorded standards of living according to some sources, shows to me at least that the Treaty of Versailles did not cripple Germany effectively. If Germany had been crippled it would not have recovered in such a short space of time. I do see your point that militarily it was still pretty weak, but economically it wasnt. And the fact that it was economically stable allowed for Hitler to build his army up. Of course, if Hitler had been prevented from doing so, history would be very different.


errr...wait..you're a history teacher aren't you. Maybe I shouldnt be arguing. :p

Quote:

---

Also the United States wasn't simply isolationist due to the Depression; the United States reverted to its policy of isolationism following the first World War. Economically, there was a system of tariffs in place that meant that it was difficult or expensive to get foreign goods in the United States (many countries responded with similar policies in respect of American goods) and politically the US refused to join the League of Nations, whilst (I believe) placing stricter regulations on immigration. I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few

---

Yeah, the US had a history of isolationism. Interesting, I didnt know about that immigration stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few.

---

If I remember what my history teacher taught up, the first one, Quota Act of 1921 limited the quota to 3% of immigrants from the census in either 1900 or 1910 (my leaning is toward the latter). The follow up, 1924, set it to 2% of immigrants from the census in 1890. The major immigration boost and the flowering of the Progressive Era did not occur until after 1890, when people realized that "hey, the States are actually a good place to live, screw famine." This in effect slashed immigration numbers to a screeching halt. However, my history teacher seemed to put the two Acts in the context of mostly preventing Asian immigration, as opposed to immigration in general, which makes sense, when put next to the numerous legislation attempts to limit the integration of Asians in the Western US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

The fact that Germany recovered so fast, the fact that Germans enjoyed the highest recorded standards of living according to some sources, shows to me at least that the Treaty of Versailles did not cripple Germany effectively. If Germany had been crippled it would not have recovered in such a short space of time. I do see your point that militarily it was still pretty weak, but economically it wasnt. And the fact that it was economically stable allowed for Hitler to build his army up. Of course, if Hitler had been prevented from doing so, history would be very different.

Yeah, the US had a history of isolationism. Interesting, I didnt know about that immigration stuff.

---

I believe that they should have been more than sufficient. However, with the outbreak of the Great Depression, there was a general alleviation of debts to a certain degree for all parties involved (though not completely). However, the rise of the German economy was too fast for it be "Hitler is just damn good at it," that something else, perhaps on a societal level, helped to push the economy forward. Even with a weak military, a strong economy is more than enough to produce a large army very quickly. I would attribute more toward the appeasement aspect of Europe that WWII actually began, and that the economy was also supported by the new revenue caused by appeasement, along with debt forgiveness.

Isolationist to the extreme, but never to the extent of most of the Eastern Asia countries. I can't remember the exact deal or concept name, but there seemed to be this policy of that each hemisphere would only deal with their hemisphere. US messed with South America, and half of the things in the Pacific Ocean (such as the Philippines), while Europe would deal with Europe, Africa, and Asia. A typical New World-Old World split. One could argue that it's not truly isolationism, but for the sake of history, American and European relations were less than open to the idea of "let's be friends." A begrudging acknowledgment of US sovereignty was not gained on the British side until 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, at which point, Napoleon seemed to recognize the States on the same level as any other economy. We had what he wanted (the good old Yankee Dollar) and he had what we wanted (New Orleans).

Quote:

---

I would attribute more toward the appeasement aspect of Europe that WWII actually began, and that the economy was also supported by the new revenue caused by appeasement.

---

But I always considered the rise in the economy to have preceded the appeasement. To me it seemed as if the economy was already rising, and appeasement just helped it along its way. I mean, the most obvious case of early appeasement was in the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland. Even if you count them allowing Hitler to build up his army that only goes as far back as 1934. But before then the economy, to my knowledge, was already improving. It was improving despite the fact that all those reparations had been paid. Granted, Germany hadnt payed the full original quotient, but that was out of an agreement, not a breaching of terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

But I always considered the rise in the economy to have preceded the appeasement. To me it seemed as if the economy was already rising, and appeasement just helped it along its way. I mean, the most obvious case of early appeasement was in the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland. Even if you count them allowing Hitler to build up his army that only goes as far back as 1934. But before then the economy, to my knowledge, was already improving. It was improving despite the fact that all those reparations had been paid. Granted, Germany hadnt payed the full original quotient, but that was out of an agreement, not a breaching of terms.

---

I edited my post, because I thought that what you had interpreted would have been my thinking that they had done something less than ethical to get where they were, whereas I believe them to be two different things that contributed, not necessarily related. I'm not absolutely sure on my dates when the rest of Europe seemed to decide to give Hitler what he wanted as long as it "okay, please just this one more thing." But the economic uprise wouldn't have taken place in the late twenties or carried over, it would've had to occur concurrently with Hitler's policies.


However, it's been four years since I took World History, and my US History class was less than generous on the European Front (which my teacher argued that he had already covered it in World History). My US History teacher seemed to treat WWII on the US v. Japan side of things, and he also provided us a nice little introduction to WWII Japan, with things such as the 5-5-3 Plan, the economic incentives for declarations of war, and the Greater Eastern Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which mostly consists of the Japanese treating other Asian countries in a less than humane manner; it disturbingly reflected sentiments of European Imperialism, except rather than White-White or White-Black, it was Asian-Asian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivisteiner

Quote:

---

I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.

---

Hmmm, you make some good points.

I would argue that Germany wasnt crippled, it was weakened. Sure, the occupation of the Ruhr was pretty much a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, and that lead to hyperinflation and so on. But, and this a big but, Germany recovered in quite a few years due to Stresseman and negotiations such as the Dawes Plan. That period after the deoccupation of the Ruhr was known as the Golden Twenties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Twenties

The fact that Germany recovered so fast, the fact that Germans enjoyed the highest recorded standards of living according to some sources, shows to me at least that the Treaty of Versailles did not cripple Germany effectively. If Germany had been crippled it would not have recovered in such a short space of time. I do see your point that militarily it was still pretty weak, but economically it wasnt. And the fact that it was economically stable allowed for Hitler to build his army up. Of course, if Hitler had been prevented from doing so, history would be very different.


errr...wait..you're a history teacher aren't you. Maybe I shouldnt be arguing. :p

---

I'm not a history teacher, but I'd like to be one =p Couple of years off that, I don't start university (a year late) until September! At the moment, I'm just a bit of a nerd with a passion for history.

I suppose my point was that Versailles did cripple Germany and it was only as a result of actions in the 1920s that these effects were somewhat balanced out. Obviously Germany did gain greater prominence on the international stage through eventual membership of the League of Nations and through the Kellogg-Briand Pact and Streseman worked some real magic to sort Germany out, but I'd say they were in spite of Versailles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tavrobel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heath

I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few.

---

If I remember what my history teacher taught up, the first one, Quota Act of 1921 limited the quota to 3% of immigrants from the census in either 1900 or 1910 (my leaning is toward the latter). The follow up, 1924, set it to 2% of immigrants from the census in 1890. The major immigration boost and the flowering of the Progressive Era did not occur until after 1890, when people realized that "hey, the States are actually a good place to live, screw famine." This in effect slashed immigration numbers to a screeching halt. However, my history teacher seemed to put the two Acts in the context of mostly preventing Asian immigration, as opposed to immigration in general, which makes sense, when put next to the numerous legislation attempts to limit the integration of Asians in the Western US.

---

I must admit, It's been a while since I actually studied the USA in the 1920s, 30s and 40s and the actual figures and acts escaped me (which is why I was so far off with the percentage). Thanks for the extra information. My point was really along the lines that, by limiting the extent of immigration to the USA, the nation itself was adopting a relatively isolationist stance as it was decreasing its relative role internationally by refusing immigrants, metaphorically closing the door to foreigners somewhat. As for the foreign nationals that benefited from those acts, I just knew off the top of my head that there happened to be a rather large number of Brits who moved over to the US at that point and just plucked Poland out of there as a country that probably had fewer people who had immigrated. Certainly makes sense in regard to Asian immigration though. Again, thanks for the info.

well i got a 95 on the project :D thanks you guys i wouldnt of had this grade without your help :)

Was Stalin the one who made the prisoners attack?

I realise this is late, now, I just want to know. Or re-know, as it may be.