(06-22-2015 06:23 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 05:33 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  I had restarted The War, by Ken Burns. It can be streamed on Netflix btw.

What prompted the question was the litany of absolutely unspeakable horrors committed by both the Germans & the Japanese. It is mind boggling, and I'm glad we flattened both of them.

The world needed to be rid of them, and that's not debatable.

Don't know about the Japanese Emperor, but Hitler never comes to power if the Germans were not subjected to a heavily lopsided treaty that destroyed their economy.

That isn't my point. The point is that Hitler was in power, and had to be put down like a rabid dog. The bull**** atrocities committed by the Japanese are almost as egregious.

I can't imagine what the current state of the world would be if this war had not been fought, but it would not be a better place.

(06-22-2015 10:12 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 09:58 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:42 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:23 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  True, it could have easily been avoided.

How?

Yeah, I'd like to hear this, too.

Short of Hitler's mother drowning him in the bathtub, anyway.

Not trying to crush Germany via war reparations for WWI. Had France and England not been so dogged in seeing the Germany suffered, the economic depression that proved to be furtile ground for hitler to succeed would not have existed.

I have to completely disagree here.

The Treaty of Versailles (and Wilson's ridiculously moronic "Fourteen Points"), if anything, left Germany too strong and too independent. There were tons of loopholes in that treaty which allowed Germany to bypass some of the measures meant to restrict them. I.e., Alsace-Lorraine, military presence, etc.

We need to remember that almost all of WWI was fought beyond the borders of Germany, thus it was indeed Germany's neighbors who required the most reconstruction and economic healing following the war. Especially France. One of the reasons France was such a pushover in WWII is that it never recovered from WWI. Hitler knew this and exploited it to the fullest.

Not saying you don't know this, but to understand WWII one must first understand WWI. WWI, for whatever reason, is a relatively forgotten war of remarkable importance. Not only that, it changed the strategy and tactics of warfare more than any war in the past 150-200 years. WWI destroyed generations of people, especially in France, Britain, and Russia (and also Germany, but Germany did not experience the physical and economic destruction that France or Russia did).

1. The severe economic and military sanctions after WWI were without question the single biggest factor in causing WWII. That you're arguing otherwise is sort of surprising, because I have never seen any legitimate source argue that point, and most of them go to great lengths to show just how much of a factor these sanctions were in directly leading to Hitlers rise.

2. That WWI took place almost exclusively beyond Germans borders did have an effect, mainly that Germans could use the fact they were never defeated on their own soil to legitimize the mostly inaccurate 'stab in the back' historical view of their defeat.

No one is arguing that France and others didn't have a right to be unbelievably angry at Germany for the damage done to non-German lands, but that is in no way mutually exclusive with those reparations directly causing WWII. Hitler does not rise to power on such barroom racial theories without these economic/military sanctions. One note that most people don't think about when mentioning the 100,000 limit placed on Germanys military? Hitler's own SA, often referred to as Browncoats, outnumbered the entire German military which allowed them to exert insane pressure in the political arena. That, and the Weimar Republic being blamed for the absurd reparations despite having no part in deciding to end WWI, led to the German government itself being so weak that it allowed for Facism to take hold.

EDIT: Also, the Soviet Union being created nearby helped by presenting a need for Germans to support a party diametrically opposed to them. Which, considering the relatively leftist origins of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi), is just another weird aspect to this story.

(06-22-2015 05:33 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  I had restarted The War, by Ken Burns. It can be streamed on Netflix btw.

What prompted the question was the litany of absolutely unspeakable horrors committed by both the Germans & the Japanese. It is mind boggling, and I'm glad we flattened both of them.

The world needed to be rid of them, and that's not debatable.

Who's trying to debate that?

(06-22-2015 05:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We would have had the A Bomb. jets and Rockets wouldn't have mattered.

We didn't have rockets and jets. We were well behind the Germans in this regard. Nazi Germany is the reason we were able to beat the Russians to the moon.

(06-23-2015 05:42 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 05:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We would have had the A Bomb. jets and Rockets wouldn't have mattered.

We didn't have rockets and jets. We were well behind the Germans in this regard. Nazi Germany is the reason we were able to beat the Russians to the moon.

Was he referring to German rockets and jets? If so, I agree the A bomb would have still ended things, but if the Germans did manage to get rockets/jets lots more Americans would have died, and possibly the US mainland would have been within reach by something other than subs.

(06-22-2015 05:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We would have had the A Bomb. jets and Rockets wouldn't have mattered.

Outside of second strike, it's hard to conceive of a scenario where the US drops an A-Bomb in Europe.

(06-23-2015 06:55 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 05:42 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 05:26 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We would have had the A Bomb. jets and Rockets wouldn't have mattered.

We didn't have rockets and jets. We were well behind the Germans in this regard. Nazi Germany is the reason we were able to beat the Russians to the moon.

Was he referring to German rockets and jets? If so, I agree the A bomb would have still ended things, but if the Germans did manage to get rockets/jets lots more Americans would have died, and possibly the US mainland would have been within reach by something other than subs.

While behind, the UK was working on Brayton Cycle engines at the same time. If the ME262 had started seeing meaningful production, those plant would have been a primary bombing target and terrible bomber losses would instead been astronomical.

(06-22-2015 02:47 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 10:12 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 09:58 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:42 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How?

Yeah, I'd like to hear this, too.

Short of Hitler's mother drowning him in the bathtub, anyway.

Not trying to crush Germany via war reparations for WWI. Had France and England not been so dogged in seeing the Germany suffered, the economic depression that proved to be furtile ground for hitler to succeed would not have existed.

I have to completely disagree here.

The Treaty of Versailles (and Wilson's ridiculously moronic "Fourteen Points"), if anything, left Germany too strong and too independent. There were tons of loopholes in that treaty which allowed Germany to bypass some of the measures meant to restrict them. I.e., Alsace-Lorraine, military presence, etc.

We need to remember that almost all of WWI was fought beyond the borders of Germany, thus it was indeed Germany's neighbors who required the most reconstruction and economic healing following the war. Especially France. One of the reasons France was such a pushover in WWII is that it never recovered from WWI. Hitler knew this and exploited it to the fullest.

Not saying you don't know this, but to understand WWII one must first understand WWI. WWI, for whatever reason, is a relatively forgotten war of remarkable importance. Not only that, it changed the strategy and tactics of warfare more than any war in the past 150-200 years. WWI destroyed generations of people, especially in France, Britain, and Russia (and also Germany, but Germany did not experience the physical and economic destruction that France or Russia did).

I have to disagree with your disagreement.

I think Wilson’s 14 points were ignored and the treaty of Versailles did not have loopholes and punished Germany to much.

The issue in the 1930;s when Germany violated the terms was that after the world depression, England and France did not want to go to war again as they valued life more than the Germans.

You are correct that Germany suffered less physical damage in WWI and only left after they had a revolution. However in WWII they had considerable more damage than France. However they had considerable loss of life.

In WWII Germany had more physical destruction than France. The cold war that followed had the rebuilding effort go quicker.

Enter "the brilliance" of the Marshall Plan.

Wilson's Fourteen Points were so incredibly idealistic. They lacked any sense of realpolitik and it becomes painstakingly obvious that upon reading them that he had absolutely NO foreign policy experience.

If I was sitting at the table to discuss the Treaty of Versailles and Wilson presented THAT, I would've looked at him like he had a dick growing out of his forehead.

(06-22-2015 07:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 10:12 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 09:58 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-22-2015 08:42 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  How?

Yeah, I'd like to hear this, too.

Short of Hitler's mother drowning him in the bathtub, anyway.

Not trying to crush Germany via war reparations for WWI. Had France and England not been so dogged in seeing the Germany suffered, the economic depression that proved to be furtile ground for hitler to succeed would not have existed.

I have to completely disagree here.

The Treaty of Versailles (and Wilson's ridiculously moronic "Fourteen Points"), if anything, left Germany too strong and too independent. There were tons of loopholes in that treaty which allowed Germany to bypass some of the measures meant to restrict them. I.e., Alsace-Lorraine, military presence, etc.

We need to remember that almost all of WWI was fought beyond the borders of Germany, thus it was indeed Germany's neighbors who required the most reconstruction and economic healing following the war. Especially France. One of the reasons France was such a pushover in WWII is that it never recovered from WWI. Hitler knew this and exploited it to the fullest.

Not saying you don't know this, but to understand WWII one must first understand WWI. WWI, for whatever reason, is a relatively forgotten war of remarkable importance. Not only that, it changed the strategy and tactics of warfare more than any war in the past 150-200 years. WWI destroyed generations of people, especially in France, Britain, and Russia (and also Germany, but Germany did not experience the physical and economic destruction that France or Russia did).

1. The severe economic and military sanctions after WWI were without question the single biggest factor in causing WWII. That you're arguing otherwise is sort of surprising, because I have never seen any legitimate source argue that point, and most of them go to great lengths to show just how much of a factor these sanctions were in directly leading to Hitlers rise.

Germany bypassed the military sanctions, mainly by creating "defense forces" and not referring to it as a "military." Sure, the Rhineland was "demilitarized," but they found loopholes. Hitler, to his credit (extremely difficult to even say those words), pulled Germany's economy out of a historical economic mess pretty damn fast. Hindenburg was an absolute dolt of a leader. The war reparations certainly didn't help things, but Weimar Germany's own domestic economic policy was awful independent of foreign influence.

"Much criticism has been made of the Treaty because it was too harsh on Germany. On the other hand, historians have pointed out that Germany could have been treated a lot more harshly for several reasons:

-Germany only accepted the Fourteen Points when it was clear they were losing the war.
-In the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Germans took away 34% of Russia's population and 50% of its industry and made them pay 300 million gold roubles in reparations.
-Clemenceau wanted the Treaty to be much harsher, with Germany broken up into smaller states, but Wilson stopped this happening.
-The reparations payments cost Germany only 2% of its annual production.
-Germany's main economic problem was not reparations but war debt, which it had planned to pay by winning the war and making other countries pay reparations.
-In 1924, Germany received huge loans from the USA to help its economy recover.
-The years 1924-29 were fairly prosperous for Germany. For example, Germany produced twice as much steel as Britain in 1925.

Some historians believe that the peacemakers did the best job they could, given the difficult circumstances they were in. Other historians believe the Treaty was a disastrous half measure. It damaged Germany enough to cause resentment. However, it left Germany strong enough to seek revenge."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/educa...ound.htm#6

(06-23-2015 06:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  "Much criticism has been made of the Treaty because it was too harsh on Germany. On the other hand, historians have pointed out that Germany could have been treated a lot more harshly for several reasons:

-Germany only accepted the Fourteen Points when it was clear they were losing the war.
-In the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Germans took away 34% of Russia's population and 50% of its industry and made them pay 300 million gold roubles in reparations.
-Clemenceau wanted the Treaty to be much harsher, with Germany broken up into smaller states, but Wilson stopped this happening.
-The reparations payments cost Germany only 2% of its annual production.
-Germany's main economic problem was not reparations but war debt, which it had planned to pay by winning the war and making other countries pay reparations.
-In 1924, Germany received huge loans from the USA to help its economy recover.
-The years 1924-29 were fairly prosperous for Germany. For example, Germany produced twice as much steel as Britain in 1925.

Some historians believe that the peacemakers did the best job they could, given the difficult circumstances they were in. Other historians believe the Treaty was a disastrous half measure. It damaged Germany enough to cause resentment. However, it left Germany strong enough to seek revenge."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/educa...ound.htm#6

Do you think that National Socialism in Germany was able to rise due to the economic condition at the time and were those conditions a product of the Treaty of Versailles? How one answers those questions IMO is what dictates the perceived necessity of WWII.

Regardless of the Treaty's supposed impact, do you feel that a Marshall Plan for Germany after WWI could have prevented the collapse of their economy?

(06-24-2015 06:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 06:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  "Much criticism has been made of the Treaty because it was too harsh on Germany. On the other hand, historians have pointed out that Germany could have been treated a lot more harshly for several reasons:

-Germany only accepted the Fourteen Points when it was clear they were losing the war.
-In the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Germans took away 34% of Russia's population and 50% of its industry and made them pay 300 million gold roubles in reparations.
-Clemenceau wanted the Treaty to be much harsher, with Germany broken up into smaller states, but Wilson stopped this happening.
-The reparations payments cost Germany only 2% of its annual production.
-Germany's main economic problem was not reparations but war debt, which it had planned to pay by winning the war and making other countries pay reparations.
-In 1924, Germany received huge loans from the USA to help its economy recover.
-The years 1924-29 were fairly prosperous for Germany. For example, Germany produced twice as much steel as Britain in 1925.

Some historians believe that the peacemakers did the best job they could, given the difficult circumstances they were in. Other historians believe the Treaty was a disastrous half measure. It damaged Germany enough to cause resentment. However, it left Germany strong enough to seek revenge."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/educa...ound.htm#6

Do you think that National Socialism in Germany was able to rise due to the economic condition at the time and were those conditions a product of the Treaty of Versailles? How one answers those questions IMO is what dictates the perceived necessity of WWII.

Regardless of the Treaty's supposed impact, do you feel that a Marshall Plan for Germany after WWI could have prevented the collapse of their economy?

I think economics played a part in it of course, but not all of Weimar Germany's economic miscues were a result of war reparations. Hindenberg was an inept political leader. Their policies were awful. A lot went into the rise of National Socialism in Germany....1000 page books have been written about it.

Second Question....possibly. Impossible to know that. I imagine it would have at least "mitigated" negative impacts. But the real Marshall Plan that blueprinted unprecedented economic gains......I don't necessarily think we would've saw that.

(06-24-2015 05:06 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 06:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 06:19 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  "Much criticism has been made of the Treaty because it was too harsh on Germany. On the other hand, historians have pointed out that Germany could have been treated a lot more harshly for several reasons:

-Germany only accepted the Fourteen Points when it was clear they were losing the war.
-In the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Germans took away 34% of Russia's population and 50% of its industry and made them pay 300 million gold roubles in reparations.
-Clemenceau wanted the Treaty to be much harsher, with Germany broken up into smaller states, but Wilson stopped this happening.
-The reparations payments cost Germany only 2% of its annual production.
-Germany's main economic problem was not reparations but war debt, which it had planned to pay by winning the war and making other countries pay reparations.
-In 1924, Germany received huge loans from the USA to help its economy recover.
-The years 1924-29 were fairly prosperous for Germany. For example, Germany produced twice as much steel as Britain in 1925.

Some historians believe that the peacemakers did the best job they could, given the difficult circumstances they were in. Other historians believe the Treaty was a disastrous half measure. It damaged Germany enough to cause resentment. However, it left Germany strong enough to seek revenge."

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/educa...ound.htm#6

Do you think that National Socialism in Germany was able to rise due to the economic condition at the time and were those conditions a product of the Treaty of Versailles? How one answers those questions IMO is what dictates the perceived necessity of WWII.

Regardless of the Treaty's supposed impact, do you feel that a Marshall Plan for Germany after WWI could have prevented the collapse of their economy?

I think economics played a part in it of course, but not all of Weimar Germany's economic miscues were a result of war reparations. Hindenberg was an inept political leader. Their policies were awful. A lot went into the rise of National Socialism in Germany....1000 page books have been written about it.

Second Question....possibly. Impossible to know that. I imagine it would have at least "mitigated" negative impacts. But the real Marshall Plan that blueprinted unprecedented economic gains......I don't necessarily think we would've saw that.

Those are good answers IMO because I don't know either. I just feel that the only unavoidable conflicts are against implacable foes. Cases like the Mongols or Native Americans fighting westward expansion. Basically cases where death is guaranteed regardless of if a people fight or not.