if we stayed neutral

[Robesphere]

For as bad as they were, the Nazi's did good for Germany and most Germans. They turned around the economic depression they were suffering from and provided food and clothing for people who didn't have it.

That's nonsense and...

He also pointed out that it was Hitler's lieutenants who came up with the idea of mass slaughtering of human beings, not Hitler himself.

... that's nonsense too. First, the "They did good for Germany/Germans"- thing. Yeah, and a few years after the situation got even worse. Destroyed buildings all over the country, homeless people and tons of deads. How could that be good for Germany or Germans? Then, the "It wasn't Hitler's Idea"-thing: Sure it was his idea. Like in mediaeval times, it had to be a minority who would be guilty to this whole mess about bad economy and stuff. The jews.

[lordblazer]

what would have happened if we never intervened in the german invasion of france and belgium in 1914?

would the russian revolution happen? would germany have sought to conquer it or just to remove it from opposition in the schliefien plan?

would hitler have retired a war hero and never kicked off about the jews? the hyperinflation of the german people (and france when conquered) would never have happened?

wouls britain have been better or worse? better for not having two world wars. or worse for having a massive germany across the border?

When you say we you mean brits right? Becuase I was pretty sure that they wree close to being invaded. What stopped this invasion of the UK was the Germans using most of there resources for the war effort in Russia.
Britain would've been worse because once Germany figured out htat Russia was a lost cause they would've turned to the UK pretty much. If it wasn't for the allie forces boxing in the germans the way they did. There would be no doubt you would be speaking german right about now.

Or maybe somehting would've happened like a british revolution or something kewl like that.

The Allies beat the Japaneese the same way. We boxed them in to the mainland of Japan. Werere we planned to take it for our own. The japaneese saw russia behind them and the USA in front of them. So avoiding soviet rule. They surrendered to the USA (Smart move really they are better off than they were before then.)

[Cloud No.9]

lordblazer i think you are talking about the second world war.

the first world war had a very complicated start and tactical situation. basicly germany's one and only attack and defence strategy was called the schiefflien plan which involved going through belgium and taking pairs in 8 weeks. this gave them enough time to turn the troops around to face the slow to react russians.

the russians revolted in 1917 after a pretty ty war and gave germany huge masses of land (why they never won with these new resources and possible recruits i don't know)

germany never wanted to take britain back then (in fact it was never the plan at the start and mostly during the second world war). it wanted to give france a good hiding and show russia who was in charge of europe. war with britain was inevitable (alliances) but was never wanted. it was feared. at the time britain was the super power. and it would have been an idiot who had any plans to try and invade the worlds most powerful nation, with the strongest and biggest navy, and happened to be an island.

and about the hitler and the final solution thing...

hitler never at any point had absolute command in germany. he spouted ideas and his generals acted in the way they thought best. like hitler would say "we need all the jews out of germany" his generals had many ideas, exile them, imprison them, ghettoise them, starve them, enslave them.

then at the wannasee conference one bright spark had the great idea of gassing them. (sarcasm not anti-semitism). hitler did not attend the conference and never in fact signed anything regarding the final solution. though of course he was aware it was happening. it just happened to fit his bigger picture.

[DeBlayde]

... that's nonsense too. First, the "They did good for Germany/Germans"- thing. Yeah, and a few years after the situation got even worse. Destroyed buildings all over the country, homeless people and tons of deads. How could that be good for Germany or Germans? Then, the "It wasn't Hitler's Idea"-thing: Sure it was his idea. Like in mediaeval times, it had to be a minority who would be guilty to this whole mess about bad economy and stuff. The jews.

Obviously I was merely pointing out something a contemporary and survivor of the time period mentioned. I am not a historian. I am a businessman.

Even more obviously, the benefit to the German people would have been after the immense depression after being saddled with the War Debt of WWI and before the bombing, destruction and division of WWII. Before the War, they turned things around for Germany. Germany simply restarted their expansionistic goals and beliefs they'd held since the 1700's.

It was Hitler who blamed everything on the Jews. And it was Hitler's lieutenant who then took it a step further and suggested they be slaughtered en masse, they and the Gypsies. Hitler did nothing to stop it, though. Like Carl Marx once said, "I'm so very glad I'm not a Marxist." (Meaning, one doesn't personally believe, condone, nor support everything ever attributed to one. Nor did one say or imply things attributed to one.)

[Cloud No.9]

just a wee historical point. germany never had an expansionistic goals in the 1700's. it never existed as a complete entity until 1881 (i think). but until that point was a group of small countries called the holy roman empire.

[DeBlayde]

yeah, and each of those little Baronies were constantly battling with their neighbors, constantly trying to expand their borders.

and then the Saxons from that particular area were also very expansionistic in the 5th century AD.

[Raistlin]

Just a question, where would the Great Depression have fallen into all of this? I don't remember it's exact causes...did World War I have a major effect on it? I'm wondering what would have happened if this alternate timeline you mentioned happened - would the effects of the Depression be felt more, or would it not have happened at all?

This was already answered - though somewhat erroneously. Yes, the Great Depression probably still would've happened, because the war and its effect had no direct relation to it. It was caused by our own stupidity.

Basically, banks give out loans for business investments, right? But these are restricted by the free market economy - if a lot of investments hit it off, a lot of money comes in, the loans are repaid in full with interest, and more money can be given out. However, if the loans don't do so well, the money comes in slower, interests rates on the loans raise, and less are given out. The government wanted a way to keep interest rates down and have more loans in order to increase business investments, which would increase production, which would boost the economy. So the government started the Federal Reserve, which pooled all the banks' money together, and then the banks were told to accept any and all loans, and not worry about how much money was left. Because before, banks were also restricted by how much money they physically possessed - now they weren't.

The upshot is that all the banks combined loaned out more money than actually existed, since there was very few, if any, limits on credit. With businesses "booming," more people invested their fake money in the stock market, which boomed as well. People made fortunes - on paper, though a lot of the money never actually existed. An economy based on the equivalent of Monopoly money can't last for long, as the sudden collapse of Wall Street and the subsequent Great Depression showed.

At least, that's been the general idea of that my reading on this subject has led to.

[Traitorfish]

This was already answered - though somewhat erroneously. Yes, the Great Depression probably still would've happened, because the war and its effect had no direct relation to it. It was caused by our own stupidity.

Not quite true- part of the cause was to do with the money lost during the Russian Revolution, which was caused partly by WW1. Many investors, particularly the French, lost money when their property was seized by Lenin's Red Army. But your completely right about everything else.

EDIT:

just a wee historical point. germany never had an expansionistic goals in the 1700's. it never existed as a complete entity until 1881 (i think). but until that point was a group of small countries called the holy roman empire.

Actually, the Holy Roman Empire was a very large, powerful nation. It was founded by Charlemagne, and existed in an on-off sort of way, until it was finally destroyed by Napoleon at the start of the 1800s.
Under leaders such as Frederick Barbarossa, it was very expansionistic- Brabarossa conquered northern Italy and took part in the crusades.

When you say we you mean brits right? Becuase I was pretty sure that they wree close to being invaded. What stopped this invasion of the UK was the Germans using most of there resources for the war effort in Russia.

The Germans couldn't invade, beacuse early action by the British navy confined the German fleet to it's ports early in the war. The British blockade dominated the German coast, and the British had complete domination of the North sea after the victory at Jutland.

Without Hitler, the Nazi movement wouldnt have gotten into power

Hitler played off existing feelings within Germany- if Hitler hadn't lead the Nazis, someone else would have. At cetain points in history, some things are inevitable.

[Cuchulainn]

America didn't have that great an impact in the Great War so not much would have changed. The Russian Empire made peace with the Axis in 1917 after the Communist uprising so they pulled out regardless and there was a Communist Russia regardless.

Don't forget America only entered in 1917 against it's better judgement. The war MAY have lasted a bit longer but the stangle hold on Germany was tightening nonetheless, and this is despite Germany advances in 1918.

The big mistakes were post-war. The Reparations against Germany crippled and starved that nation to a point where political extremes were getting voices and ears to listen. It's arguable but I'm convinced if Clemenceau's insane Reparation demands were not adhered to, we would never have seen the NSDAP come to power in 1932. The original Reparation demands were actually much worse but for Woodrow Wilson's intervention.

WWI was a whole different cattle of fish to WWII. It was an empire building race that led to hostilities and Germany was not the twisted ideology it grew to become. It was a case of the Kaiser wanting to build an empire & Britain trying to keep her's.

America only came into play in a big way in the political aftermath and it came out much better than Britain, France & Italy.

To Cloud: The German Empire was created by Bismarck in 1871 after Prussia had defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War. Previously there had existed principalities of Prussia, Bavaria, Württemberg, Saxony etc. each with their own Kings. Bismarck united all of these states to create Germany. The Holy Roman Empire's grip on Germania died in 1806 when Napoleon stormed Europe. In 1918 the Deutscher Bund was formed in Vienna as a loose organisation to fill the void left by the collapse of Rome and the defeat of Napoleon. This would never last due to the rivalry between the Kingdom of Prussia and the Austrian Empire and when Bismarck united Germany, Austria did not become one of the German States.