Post by Michael KuettnerI have to keep most of the text to keep the context.
Post by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan Meyer...
Post by Don PhillipsonPost by Alan MeyerI can imagine that right wing parties would have become more prominent in
Germany even without Hitler, and there might have been a showdown
resulting in the arrest of the Communist Party leadership.
...
Post by Don PhillipsonPara. 2 above implies that right-wing German parties were in the
1920s not "more prominent" than X and there was in the 1920s no
"showdown" with the Communist faction. Both implications seem
to be unfactual. Right-wing factions with armed paramilitaries
were active from 1919, the Spartakists attempted to capture
This sentence makes no sense.
It does make sense.
It doesn't.
So when other people say it makes sense you immediately announce
all of them are wrong and only you are right.
Post by Michael KuettnerHad he mentioned Hitlers Putsch, I wouldn't have commented.
Had he mentioned the Spartakists with a "while" after the colon it would
have been better.
Great, you must enjoy semantics.
Post by Michael KuettnerIn his sentence, the Spartakists are a right-wing group.
As opposed to people knowing the names of the groups and noting
right wing groups violently opposed left wing groups including
attempts to take over government, and vice versa.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerWhy do you mention Spartakists in a sentence starting with "Right-wing
factions" ?
Because he is pointing out that some left and right wing political
activists in Germany at the time were using violence.
Some ? Most.
Oh good, please indicate the number of left and right wing groups
you think existed, along with those marked as using violence. How
small a group counts? I have no doubt there were a number of
small groups, but only a few large groups.
Post by Michael KuettnerAnd no, he doesn't point out that. Sloppy grammar.
Actually he does, sloppy comprehension is called sloppy grammar.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerPost by Don Phillipsonthe capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
They were in prison, no trial, which means murder.
But not murder ordered by the state.
Oh so essentially if a private citizen kills it cannot be murder?
Just shooting?
Have you informed the local population of this?
Post by Michael KuettnerThat the people responsible for killing them weren't tried is another
matter.
Or essentially another piece of evidence about the difference in
punishments handed out for left and right wing violence.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThere was a civil war going on ...
And the men were in custody, not free on the streets.
See above.
See above.
Post by Michael KuettnerAnd remember the civil war.
And remember the civil law.
unsnip
As noted there were left and right wing movements using violence
and often justifying it by what "the other side" were doing.
And the record of the authorities shows them willing to punish left
wing violence more heavily than right wing.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerOh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
hand-writing with their "Räte-Republik!.
As noted there were left and right wing movements using violence
and often justifying it by what "the other side" were doing.
Yes. But the word "murder" only is used when lefties died.
Really? Strange then to see those accounts of political murder in
Germany, of people from across the political spectrum.
Post by Michael KuettnerRather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
Or rather selective reading of history.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThe lefties were as violent as the righties; but more of the ex-soldiers
preferred the right wing.
And the record of the authorities shows them willing to punish left
wing violence more heavily than right wing.
That's absolutely correct. See my other post.
Yet you were at least ignoring this.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael Kuettner"Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
Like taking imprisoned leaders out of prison and shooting them?
Like using violence to remove left wing governments?
Imprisoned leaders ? See above.
I gather the idea is to simply announce you have decided the
truth and are using the repeat button.
Post by Michael KuettnerAs for left wing government - are we talking about the Räte-Republiken ?
Left wing governments in Germany in the 1920's will do,
you know at state and federal level, however they obtained
power.
Given the various statements you have a way to go.
Post by Michael KuettnerContrary to the Anglo-Saxon version of history, which shows WWI as
"Just War" ...
Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
like the official ones, have decided WWI was a just war, that is
applied to WWII given what the Nazis and Japanese were doing
to people under their control
WWI histories tend to be more along the lines of how could
command be that bad and what a lot of loss for no gain.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThe "Räte-Republiken" were directed against the new democracy in Germany.
The left storm-troopers were as violent as the right ones.
Please show us the number of storm troopers that fought for the
left, unless you mean the SA pre 1934?
You haven't any idea where Sturmtruppen originated ?
Actually I have but the SA and Nazis tend to monopolise the
Sturm title part of truppen. I note above you complain about
the use of "Spartakists" to imply in your view right wing
political militia.
Post by Michael KuettnerOh my ...
Spartakusbund, Roter Soldatenbund, Revolutionärer Matrosenbund,
Roter Frontkämpferbund, then the EKKI with its "Proletarische
Hundertschaften".
Now tell us how many of them had sturm in the name, which was
the point.
Post by Michael KuettnerAnd, of course, the SA (partly).
I could go on, but I guess that should be enough to make my point.
Or flounder on failing to note other groups with the name sturm
in them.
If you are going to use storm troopers as a generic name for the
various political militias in Germany then using Nazi as a generic
term for Germans and Austrians in the 1930's and 1940's would
also be acceptable. It would also be misleading.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairThe new democracy in Germany was a target of many in the
political system. And unsurprisingly in the end the right wing
committed more violence, given it had a better shield from
the authorities and became the authorities.
In the end, yes. In the beginning, no.
You're right about the shield from the authorities.
Given the violence in post war Germany, and the fact both sides
were doing it what exactly is the evidence the left wing were
more violent at the time, given the left largely lost?
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerBut, do you think it would have been as bad if Hitler didn't exist?
Yes. Be it left or right, the dictate of Versailles united them.
Actually inter German communal violence had little to do with
outside powers, and a lot to do with the struggle for power
inside Germany. Given the question was about whether the
Nazis meant more or less violence or the same just under a
different banner.
The dictate of Versailles would have led to war, anyway.
No, I note the nationalist need to insert dictate in front of the
name.
Post by Michael KuettnerA little hint : The "Dolchstoßlegende" wasn't invented by the Nazis.
They used it most efficiently, but the origins were before them.
A little hint, the treaty was already being relaxed before the Nazis
were in government Treaties can be renegotiated without war.
Essentially you are taking the line the Germans were basically
going to war despite what anyone did, so Versailles should
have been harsher. And the world should stomp on Germany
on a regular basis to keep them suppressed.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairGenerally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
not a united front.
Yes, major disagreements between the Left and Right; but united
against Versailles.
However they were not killing each other as a way of showing
their opposition to the treaty.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairAnd while most Germans wanted the terms of the treaty changed,
there were lots of disagreements about which clauses, what order,
when and how to do it.
That was seen as the "inefficient bickering" of the new government.
So the Germans were discovering how much more messy democracy
is versus the limited franchise in pre WWI Germany, plus of course
lots of pain to hand out thanks to the new political and economic
situation.
Governments handing out pain tend to find lots of people deciding
to dislike the government.
Post by Michael KuettnerFirst the Socialists killed the fighting soldiers by a stab in the back,
then they install an inefficient republic which signs the treaty of
Versailles.
No, that's not my opinion, that's how it was seen back then.
Rather good propaganda from Hindenburg/Ludendorff ...
Yes, quite clear, they lost the war, handed the peace negotiations
to a new government then blamed the government. It helps that
people love to blame shift, Germany did not lose, it was
betrayed from within.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThat's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
Actually no, they were hardly standing behind Hitler, grateful for the
apparent economic improvement, and the reduction in day to day
street violence, but also worried about where things were going.
It was Chamberlain the Germans cheered at Munich. It was a
very quiet Berlin when war was declared.
That's why I've said "UNTIL 1939".
Munich was in 1938.
Post by Michael KuettnerBut thanks for making my point.
Thanks for making my point. I could add unease about anti
Jewish propaganda, amongst those who had Jewish friends
and acquaintances and the rearmament program.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerOf course we can't know the answer. Maybe another megalomaniac would
have seized power with an equally violent agenda. It might have been
one of the other Nazis, perhaps Ernst Rohm.
Röhm wasn't a Nazi.
Actually he was, you can examine his membership records and
his uniforms, he was head of the SA and it was very much Nazi.
His uniform ? Afrika Korps ? Bought cheap after WWI ?
<sigh>
Yes, national SOCIALIST.
I know this is silly, but as Hitler was a member of the party at the
time and your definition makes Hitler a socialist as well.
Nazi ideology was what Hitler said it was. It changed to suit
Hitler's goals.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerHe was a Socialist first and then national.
And Hitler decided party policy would be the reverse of that.
Yes, that's why Röhm was executed as soon as the SS was strong enough.
Actually more like when Hitler was aware the army and industry were
sufficiently worried about it that they could largely live with the SA
being purged. Plus various representations from other Nazis, plus
Hitler's view about the need for the SA and possible leadership
rivals.
Post by Michael KuettnerAgain, thanks for making my point.
Again, thanks for showing you miss the point. Nazis were members
of the Nazi party, a quite simple but accurate rule, that some were
more socialist than nationalist is known.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThat's why he was shot in 1934 when he wanted nationalization of the
big companies like Krupp, Thyssen, etc.
Plus as head of the SA a rival to Hitler. And the head of a large
body of armed men a rival to the Army.
Exactly. And, as I've written, the SA was loyal to Röhm, but not to Hitler.
Given the SA did not rise up to avenge the killings but rather went
along with the new arrangement your statement is at least
contestable. Hitler was the leader, and members were supposed
to support him as such. What would have happened had the SA
leadership called for a revolt early in the Nazi government is unknown.
Being in government gave the party lots of largesse to hand out,
which helps loyalty.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerBy then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
sponsored by the big money.
Some was sponsorship, some was the result of threats by a now
quite powerful Hitler.
Nope.
Yes.
Post by Michael KuettnerWe're talking about the time before 1933.
Tell us again when the SA was purged? If you are going to
jump backwards and forwards through time you need to tell
people this.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe nice meetings in Bayreuth, where Winnifred Wagner made Hitler
acceptable to Thyssen, Krupp & Cie.
And other policies like spending big on arms and autarky, with
the promise of guaranteed profits and allowing cartels. Even
the end of the street violence.
Post by Michael KuettnerThen the money started to flow and the old rhetoric of nationalizing
the bad capitalists became more and more a liability.
Actually the rhetoric was played down but things like what happened
to Junkers were useful as lessons on government power.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerRöhm and _his_ SA (they would do what he said, not what Hitler said)
had become a liability.
In Hitler's eyes a problem and a rival, not to mention other Nazis
thinking the same thing.
See above.
I gather "see above" should be translated to "no ability to reply"
Post by Michael KuettnerBefore 1934, Himmler wasn't ready to take on the SA with his SS.
You know Hitler rather needed the SA in 1933 and 1934 as part
of the consolidation of power, then needed it to change to further
secure his leadership and support from institutions like the army.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerBut Hitler was much more than just a canny, violent thug. He had some
real talents and he was driven by crazy goals that went far beyond
personal ambition and self-aggrandizement. His war on the Jews made no
sense.
Of course it made sense.
(a) existing anti-Semitism through the political spectrum in Germany
And lots of the world, but usually low level. Also add the left wing
to the enemies list.
The left wing wasn't an enemy of the left wing.
Actually you will find in politics the worst enemies tend to be
officially on your side. And I gather Hitler is now a left wing
person? Another socialist in the Nazi party, or do we have a
lot of bad grammar causing misunderstandings?
Post by Michael KuettnerWe're talking about Anti-Semitism here.
Which strangely enough tends not to split along left and right
party lines.
Post by Michael KuettnerPlease do pay attention.
Please do try and learn something. it is not that hard.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael Kuettner(b) a common enemy was created
Actually try revived. The new common enemy were the
communists.>>
Revived ? Where ? Poland ? ("Pogrom" is a Slavic word, btw ...)
I believe we are discussing Germany, unless a lot of bad grammar
is going on again.
Anti Semitism in Germany was low level pre WWI and immediately
after, though the propaganda started about the number of
communists who were also Jewish .
Post by Michael KuettnerIt was endemic in all of Europe and surfaced with sad regularity -
So for example you can note the number of state sponsored anti
Jewish policies in say 19th century western Europe, like for example
the laws in Russia? Expulsions, confiscations? The British
repealed their anti Jewish laws in the 19th century.
Post by Michael KuettnerDreyfuss in France, pogroms in Poland, expulsion of all Jews from Britain,
etc.
My we are going back through history. I gather the British have
been regularly expelling Jews since 1290.
Post by Michael KuettnerHe didn't need to revive something. It was there in all of Europe and the
US for quite a long time.
As noted it was low level as in pre WWI in Germany, but it
was revived as major policy in Germany.
The claims about Jewish Communists were around pre WWII.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe "Jewish-Bolshevist plot" was laid on ice until it was time for the
invasion of the Soviet-Union ...
However it was rather big in Nazi ideology pre August 1939.
The switch has been noted and of course the way the treaty showed
Nazi ideology had contradictions.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael Kuettner(c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
Now that is plain stupid, no private wealth could finance the Nazi
spending plans.
Of course it couldn't, you "genius".
Which no doubt explains why you stated it.
Post by Michael KuettnerBut it helped to get gold, silver and other things the Nazis could sell
to get the money to buy on the international market.
Except the amounts were trivial in relation to government expenditure,
and lots of the money was made by private citizens buying at bargain
prices or effectively taking the property without payment.
A well known tactic, spread the benefits around and have more
supporters.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe Reichsmark wasn't accepted as international currency, you "genius".
Fascinating. So those foreign banks holding German currency
reserves were doing so to use them as paperweights? The
artwork was particularly good?
German currency was accepted, to a point, there had to be a
balance in foreign exchange, with things like gold reserves
shifted if required. Balancing foreign trade was something the
Nazis could not do easily given their program.
Post by Michael KuettnerThat's the main reason Hitler annected Austria; without our gold and
international currency reserves, Germany would have broken down in 1938.
As noted essentially it was not the German currency, it was the
Germans achieving a balance between foreign purchases and
foreign sales and using foreign exchange to fund trade deficits.
So armour plate ordered for the RN from Czechoslovakia before
Hitler took control of the whole country, was delivered after
the Nazis took control. It helped the trade balance.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe Third Reich was always near the border to breaking down; they
needed the new territories to get the funds to keep their regime going.
This is well known, and again just like Austria and Czechoslovakia
held foreign currencies so other non German banks held German
currency which was valid.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPlease show us the average wealth of someone
of the Jewish faith in Germany in the 1930's versus the average
German, and each as a percentage of Government revenues.
And again besides the subject, you "genius".
No quite the subject given the claims the Jews had the necessary wealth.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe average wealth was a little higher because they were restricted from
farming, craftmanship and most other things by medieval laws.
So essentially you are announcing you believe Jewish people held
more wealth, rather than showing it. Given the large holdings of
the aristocracy, the allocation of wealth in things like the large
industries, how is the average wealth calculated?
Post by Michael KuettnerSo they became traders and bankers and shop-keepers, eg.
The average wealth was higher than that of a German, but taking the wealth
without recompensation makes it worthwhile.
I presume the idea is to claim the difference was small but theft
is profitable regardless of wealth if you are unpunished and keep
the items stolen.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerA much lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of
the same political goals with much less damage to Germany.
Nope.
Actually yes, given the treatment of the people in Germany the
Nazis did not like became a source of friction with the rest of
the world, plus of course the loss of talented people.
Actually, no.
Actually yes. You know, those Anglo-Saxon "good war" histories
of the second world war.
Post by Michael KuettnerBoth of you are thinking of sane "political goals" in context
with Adolph. That doesn't work.
Given the idea is a postulation about a non Hitler lead government
it is not surprising his idea of sanity is not under discussion.
Post by Michael KuettnerLoss of talented people ? <snort>
I gather the idea is to tell us on average the Jewish people had
better education but it really does not matter they were lost
as assets for Germany. As long as their financial assets stayed.
You know, something like 1% of the population under usual
definitions of Jewish, and more than that under Nazi
definitions. Ones you claim had above average wealth
which must mean above average skills to earn that wealth.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe first institutions which were purged from Jews after 1933,
were the universities. They even created "Arian Physics" ...
I gather the idea is to announce people like professors are not
an asset. The Nazis did not think so, the Anglo Saxons had
an "intellectual capital" mobilisation plan that saw movement
from places like universities into war related research. The
Nazis tended to draft people into the army.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerAfter 1934, the right wing under Himmler became dominant.
Alternatively Hitler altered party priorities to placate big business
and the army in the early 1930's, with a few displays of government
power like the nationalisation of Junkers. Then Hitler moved to
make the soldiers personally loyal to him and then to become head
of the army.
Hm, if the Junkernland were nationalized, why did the SED use the slogan
"Junkernland in Bauernhand" after 1945 ?
Junkers aviation. It was in all the papers at the time.
No just someone using Junkers the label instead of looking for a
company named Junkers.
Post by Michael Kuettner"Placating the army" is a wrong term; he gave them what they wanted
Giving people what they want = placating them
Post by Michael Kuettnerwhile he worked on replacing the head of them ("von Brauchitsch",e.g.)
Actually those plans came about much later than 1934 and partly due
to chance, given an "improper" wife.
Post by Michael Kuettner"Moved to make" ? Nonsense.
The oath of loyalty to Hitler personally comes to mind.
Post by Michael KuettnerNotstandsverordnungen and the death of the Reichspräsident.
He didn't move there, he had luck.
Given the known age and health of the President luck had little
to do with it, beyond, if anything, the President lasting long enough
that Hitler had good control of power.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerSo the "Herrenmensch" became dominant - which had nearly nothing
to do with the original goals of the NSDAP (socialism for the German
people became rule of the Herrenmenschen).
Whatever the Nazis believed before Hitler took charge, afterwards it
was Hitler who decided, and his needs of the moment tended to make
doctrine come second, the great anti communist signing a treaty with
the USSR for example.
As I've said before, there was no doctrine or ideology in the NSDAP.
No there was doctrine, a number of the Nazis tried, Hitler dictated
a book for example, but in reality Hitler decided things based on
his needs at the time. Like the treaty with the USSR.
And there was core ideology Nazis agreed on, like anti Semitism.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerHis decision
to kill "incurables" was sick and politically absurd (in Len Deighton's
novel _Winter_, a Nazi lawyer charged with drafting the law asks, "Do we
have to kill someone with an incurable pain in the ass?") He launched a
revolution.
It wasn't "his" decision. It was the decision of the upper echelon of
the Nazi-party.
The killing program required Hitler's approval, that others pushed
for it and carried it out does not change that.
Yes. But it wasn't ordered by Hitler.
So there are documents that show people like Himmler authentically
claiming it was their idea, done without any orders from Hitler? Where
are those documents?
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerAll that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at Nürnberg.
Look at Himmler, Streicher & cie in that context.
The trouble for their claims was the people that reported to them
during the war produced lots of evidence to show their leader's
involvement.
Indeed. But all tried the "Hitler is to blame" because "I only followed
orders" defence.
Eichmann would be a nice example in this context.
Did you know about Goering and his attitude at the trials? He chose
to go down saying he fought the good fight.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerPost by Alan MeyerWithout Hitler, maybe someone else would have taken his role and done
the same thing, or even worse, if we can imagine what worse might be.
But I'm thinking that it's more likely that it wouldn't have turned out
that way. A hodge podge democracy might have limped along. Or maybe
more likely, a right wing military dictatorship might have emerged.
But
it need not have been as sick, as aggressive, as criminal as the
Hitlerian regime. Certainly the right wing conservatives of the upper
classes were nothing like Hitler.
What do you think?
I think that you have only the foggiest notion about the things
you're talking about.
Actually given the what if nature of the question the reality is no one
can be right or wrong, it is all probabilities.
Nope.
Yes.
Post by Michael KuettnerHitler wasn't the cause, he was a symptom of the times.
No, given the trend in western Europe was for more representative
government and less prejudice. And a lot of no more war based
on the results of WWI.
I have.
Post by Michael KuettnerAll the states "freed from Austrian dictatorship" waged war against each
other.
Oh this one again. I gather either the idea is the Austrians should
have continued to rule or the Austrians were incompetent, failing
to prepare the countries for independence?
Please detail all those wars, remember every one of the new
countries has to make war on all the others.
Post by Michael KuettnerThen the newly created Poland under Pilsudski ran amok and fought all its
neighbours.
I gather Germany, Lithuania are ruled out as Austria-Hungary
did not control them, does Hungary count?
The Czechs called the conflict with Poland the 7 day war, 23 to 31
January 1919, the Czechs attacked over Poland organising elections
in a disputed area.
The war with Germany is called an uprising, one of many in German
controlled territory. I look forward to talking about the other wars
within Germany at the time.
It will be interesting to see what the Poland Hungary war was, with
Hungary offering troops to help Poland stop the Bolshevik armies
at the time.
Post by Michael KuettnerSo we have what ? The victors of WWI drawing arbitrary borders and then
withdrawing after some landgrabs and high reparations.
You mean the various votes? The borders the WWI victors
had influences over were far from arbitrary. The Polish USSR
border were settled by war.
Oh yes, would you have preferred the WWI victors to have
colonised central Europe instead of withdrawing?
Post by Michael KuettnerThe climate in Europe wasn't too good and very volatile...
Except it settled down into the usual inter war stability, aided by
economic improvements and general agreement any future war
would be worse then WWI, which meant most wanted to avoid
one.
Hence despite all the propaganda Germans were not interested
in a major war in 1938 or 1939.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerDictate of Versailles, some millions of displaced people (that's the
Anglo-Saxon euphemism for German-speaking people whose property was
stolen by the newly founded states),
Please tell us where all the displaced people came from and went to,
including ethnicity in the 1918 to say 1922 period, remembering the
internal and external wars that were going on. How many were ethnic
Germans displaced from Alsace and Lorraine for example? Also from
what became Poland.
Came from ? From the newly created (pardon : freed) states.
So I gather you have no idea of numbers, including a breakdown
by ethnicity, as various groups moved or were displaced but you
are sure it was lots of German speakers and apparently no one else.
Post by Michael KuettnerWent to ? Austria and many on to Germany (remember - Austria
was rather small after the war).
So how many people migrated, given things like the German
speaking population in Czechoslovakia largely stayed?
Post by Michael KuettnerAlsace and Lorraine ? What's that ? Elsaß-Lothringen ?
A) that is their name now, and for most of modern history.
B) English language keyboards lack certain German letters.
Post by Michael KuettnerAnd there's again the Anglo-Saxon historiography - "Ethnic Germans".
Yes, given people of other ethnic groups were displaced.
By the way note your use of Anglo-Saxon? As it was
one big unified group?
Post by Michael KuettnerAn Australian is an "Ethnic USAn" ? Or what ?
You would have to speak to Washington about that. Alternatively
with something like 25% of the current population born overseas
pinning down general ethnicity is rather hard.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael Kuettnerhigh reparations plus occupation
of the Saarland didn't really lead to love towards the French and the Brits.
Add the status of pariah for the countries who had lost the war ...
I suppose you are aware as the Germans retreated and then left France
they took as much as the could and destroyed much of what they could
not take. Flooding coal mines for example, petty things like destroying
Medieval castles.
Give us some examples.
I have, the flooding of the coal mines. It was so bad the allied
logistics people factored it into the 1944 plans.
Post by Michael KuettnerShouldn't be too hard, right ?
Try and find the book A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman.
Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria appealed to Ludendorff to spare the
castle at Coucy, which neither side had used, it was in a poor state
of repair anyway. All it did was make Ludendorff aware the place
existed, 28 tons of explosives carefully placed by engineers blew
the structure apart.
Little things like that tend to make lenient peace treaties rather
hard to find. You know the group hate thing you seem fixated
on.
Add the stripping of the countryside as the Germans retreated.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairSo strangely enough the French and Belgians wanted things from
Germany to cover their losses and repair bills.
No, not really. The French wanted "Revanche" for 1870/71.
Ah I see you are jumping back and forwards in time again, we are
back to pre WWI stereotypes. The Germans bombed one of their
cities, claimed the French had done it and declared war. That
really bad mobilisation plan that required the invasion of Belgium.
By the end of the war the French not so much wanted but needed
money to rebuild and cover losses.
Post by Michael KuettnerAnd they also wanted the k.u.k. - empire to disappear.
Actually lots of people wanted out of the Empire. One of
the perennial problems of empires.
Not to mention the results of that war with Prussia.
The Austrians were unsurprisingly the least interested in the
Empire dissolving.
By the way the German speaking centric view of the world seems
clear, though of using cs. és k, the Hungarian view? Given the
term came about because of Hungarian pressure.
Post by Michael KuettnerThanks to Wilson they got what they wanted.
I do like the idea the German speakers are such helpless
beings, forever unable to do things for themselves, at
the mercy of foreigners. Not for them to do things to
provoke neutral powers.
Actually the Germans initially rejected the Wilson offer then found
out much had been withdrawn when they finally decided to accept
it. After all Wilson had not agreed the terms with the other
countries fighting Germany.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe Belgians were more moderate...
Or alternatively they had less damage to cover.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairGo look up the
clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
treaties of the time.
<snort>
Yeah, sure.
Yes exactly, rather similar to Versailles in many ways, but a lot
more territory.
Post by Michael KuettnerGo look up Kerenski-Offensive.
You know, the thing the Brits & French forced ?
They forced it to fail?
The Central powers who were fighting the Russians at the time were
passive bystanders?
So how do you think the offensive was forced upon the Russians?
As opposed to the Russians deciding they needed a victory to
stop the army disintegrating? Going to mention the artillery sent
by Japan, another of the WWI allies?
Post by Michael KuettnerThen go and look up what the offensive caused (Lenins success, e,g.).
Fascinating, the non Germans caused Lenin? Like the way he
was sent in a sealed rail carriage across Germany so he could
enter Russia? So the defeats inflicted on the Russian Army by
the Central Powers had no effect on the Russian Revolution?
Post by Michael KuettnerThen go and look up who financed the Bolshies and why they didn't
object to Brest-Litovsk.
Strangely enough the Germans were encouraging the Bolsheviks
since they had a platform of ending the war. And the Bolsheviks
did not object to Brest-Litovsk as it firstly enabled them to
concentrate on consolidating power in other areas and secondly
because they were confident Germany would be unable to keep
control of the seized territory. Both worked, another German
inspired victory to use your method of blame appointing.
Except Anglo-Saxon is exchanged for German.
Post by Michael KuettnerReport back when you've done so...
Go read the treaty. Report back when you've done so.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThe "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
the people were poor.
By modern standards this is correct, by the standards of the day this
is a major simplification. As inflation came down and the economy
went up people began to become wealthier.
Yeah, sure.
Oh good, agreement.
I have.
Post by Michael KuettnerJunker & Manufakturen, e.g.
Städtisches Proletariat is another factor.
Cryptic comments do not make for evidence.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThen along came "Black Friday".
That lead to votes for extremist parties - Communists and Nazis gained.
Then they went backwards, Hitler ended up as chancellor on the
back of a falling vote.
No.
Really, are you saying the popular vote for the Nazis kept going
up every election? That contradicts the voting records.
Post by Michael KuettnerIt lead to an extremist party getting enough votes to be able
to get into a coalition with the Zentrums-Partei.
And the vote for the Nazis was falling.
Post by Michael KuettnerCoalitions are hard to understand for Anglo-Saxons with their two-party
system.
Know something? Anglo Saxon countries do have more than 2 major
political parties, look up England in the early 20th century.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerWith or without Hitler - war would have come.
Actually that simply is an assumption, a right wing government that
had objectives of ending the Versailles treaty as part of a "repairing"
Germany policy could have done so without war.
No.
Actually yes.
Post by Michael KuettnerThe question of Danzig couldn't been solved in peace; especially since
the Poles were in Pilsudski mode and over-estimated their capabilities
after several wars against their neighbours.
Translation the population of Danzig was making a quite
comfortable living for themselves under a direct League of
Nations mandate.
Meantime the area around the city was officially Polish, I gather
the idea is the Poles are supposed to hand over the land and the
people there if Germany asks for it.
Essentially Danzig could be used as a reason for war with Poland,
or negotiations could be successfully concluded.
As for the Poles over estimating their capabilities in 1939 that is
simply incorrect. They had long worked out Germany was
powerful enough to invade, hence the way they went for
international guarantees. Unfortunately Hitler decided the
guarantees were not going to be honoured, unlike every other
member of the government bar Ribbentrop.
To obtain his war with Poland Hitler let Stalin out of the USSR,
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairPost by Michael KuettnerThe right wing conservatives hated the French, Brits & Americans as
fierce as the Nazis did. Which shouldn't come as a surprise after
Versailles.
Actually the right wing conservatives as a group were more likely to
hate left wingers in Germany, then in terms of externals Polish people
before hating, probably in order, the French, the British and the Americans.
Indeed the Americans were trading with Germany and loaning money,
which later would be a problem when the depression hit.
What has reality to do with prejudice and "common perception" ?
I gather it is because you have problems with reality. You are the
one making generic claims about blanket hatreds.
Post by Michael KuettnerI've told you what was the common opinion back then;
No you have simplified opinion to the point of misleading.
Post by Michael Kuettnerthe left wingers
were an annoyance -
Which no doubt explains all the violence and the worry about the
USSR.
Post by Michael KuettnerVersailles was a national disgrace, even for Lefties.
It was a convenient excuse and it was being relaxed.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairGerman trade statistics have a problem given the value changes in the
currency in the 1920's, so the tonnage figures are probably more
consistent.
Yes.
So far so good.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairIn 1922 Germany imported nearly 46 million tons of goods, and
exported about 21.5 million, in 1928 the figures were 66 and 45
million.
And if one looks a little closer, many of those tons were foodstuffs.
Germany couldn't produce enough food for the population back then.
Irrelevant to the fact Germany was trading and with the groups
claimed to be hated. Especially so in terms of food given how
much of the food on the international markets came from those
"Anglo-Saxons".
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairIn terms of sea cargo shipments in 1913 German ports cleared
nearly 35,000,000 tons, in 1920 it was about 12.5 million, it
bottomed out in 1922 at 6.5 million, rebounded to 31 million in
1923 and stayed about that level in 1924 and 1925.
Those were just the foreign shipments.
I gather the idea is to say foreign shipments did not go to/from
foreigners.
Post by Michael KuettnerLook at the trade between the k.u.k. empire and Germany.
When? Why not post the figures yourself? Did it all go by sea?
Post by Michael KuettnerMight give you some insight ...
It gives me plenty of insight, the way the trade figures are ignored,
and the "the truth is out there" gets thrown in for a laugh.
Post by Michael KuettnerPost by Geoffrey SinclairLots of that trade would have been with the groups claimed to be hated.
As I've said - common perception and reality don't necessarily overlap.
I note the failure to cope with the contradiction, trading with groups
claimed to be hated.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.