Germany´s defeat in WW2

[Penelope_Grey]

[Split from the "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" thread - Gizzmoe]

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference. Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.
The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

At the end of World War 2 like melnibonian said, the defeated nations were given the chance for a better future.

[bradclark1]

The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

I think you need to pick up any history book of WW1 and read it.

[melnibonian]

The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

I think you need to pick up any history book of WW1 and read it.
I have the feeling that Mrs Grey is talking about the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty. In WWI Germany lost but the terms imposed on them were not proportional to the level of their defeat. The German General Staff claimed throughout the 1920s and 30s that Germany was not defeated and that the communists betrayed the Empire, but that of course was a lie. Germany did not suffer the devastating and total defeat though that the peace terms were implying, but did lose the war (or as a number of Generals thought the 1st Half of the match).

[Penelope_Grey]

melnibonian, you are definately somebody who gets me. :)

Yeah Germany lost, but they took the brunt of the harshness of the versailles treaty, because France wanted Germany punished harsh as they suffered quite badly at the hands of the German forces.

While Germany was not beat as in beat beyond all shadow of doubt, the treaty treated them as the main villain, they were forced into peace and that created future problems, the coming of Hitler etc etc. Which was what I was driving at.

[Happy Times]

melnibonian, you are definately somebody who gets me. :)

Yeah Germany lost, but they took the brunt of the harshness of the versailles treaty, because France wanted Germany punished harsh as they suffered quite badly at the hands of the German forces.

While Germany was not beat as in beat beyond all shadow of doubt, the treaty treated them as the main villain, they were forced into peace and that created future problems, the coming of Hitler etc etc. Which was what I was driving at.

The new rising of nationalism could probably have been prevented only by occupation, like after WW2 in Germany and Japan.

[bradclark1]

While Germany was not beat as in beat beyond all shadow of doubt
As a people Germany was defeated. The civilian population was down to eating what they normally fed their livestock. They were sealed off from foreign trade, they were down to using school children as replacements. All equipment was worn out due to lack of metal. The list could go on.
Could Germany have held the line for a little longer? Yes they could because of the nature of trench warfare but that would have been for a limited time only, and what would have been the point.
You don't have to kick the doors down in Berlin to prove they were beat beyond a shadow of doubt.
As far as Versailles, that paved the way for WW2. Versailles and it's repercussions made Hitler.

[Penelope_Grey]

Very true, but at the time of Germany's surrender, the Army was still capable of fighting. Which is why Hitler argued Germany had not really been beat, he was bending the truth but in a straight out military battle the Germans were not actually humbled at all. Also, Der Fuhrer went to great lengths to make Germany as self-sufficient as possible for WW2.

[bradclark1]

Also, Der Fuhrer went to great lengths to make Germany as self-sufficient as possible for WW2.
No, that was impossible. For petroleum, metals, minerals and grain he depended on foreign trade. The U.S. was his main supplier for grain. The U.S.S.R for copper, zinc, rubber etc. Romania for oil.
Thats what drove Hitler to attack the U.S.S.R was control of their abundant natural resources.

[bigboywooly]

As I see it was the victors of WW1 made it easy for a man like Hitler to get to power
Treaty of Versailles left Germany a broken nation and humiliated

Up pops Hitler with his lets blame the commies and the Jews
Add to that he starts rebuilding the armed forces - against the treaty - and providing some sort of hope , result - the German nation was hooked
Once he had the power it was easy to control it with his own loyal organizations

A couple of simple operations to regain former territories taken by the treaty and the man is seen as a great leader that will lead the Germans to glory again

The rest is history

My tuppence worth

[Skybird]

Hitler brought people back into work. In a time of desperate economical crisis, this was of existential importance for many families.

I do not want to excuse the consequences. The info is just an very important part of the explanation.

[August]

Hitler brought people back into work. In a time of desperate economical crisis, this was of existential importance for many families.

I do not want to excuse the consequences. The info is just an very important part of the explanation.

Quite right. People today know how evil Hitler and his henchmen really were but at the time that was all in the unknowable future. They saw him as a person who could get their country out of a crushing depression and back on their feet.

[STEED]

It was all laid out in his book, I remember the comments of a German man who said "He will do all that and more." One of the few who saw Hitler for what he was, evil.

[squigian]

Ah, Mein Kampf; possibly one of the most boring and rambling books I've ever attempted to read.

You're all right of course. Peace must be imposed by someone, but imposed fairly. Clause 231 was a big mistake, as was Article 48 in the Weimar constitution. Hitler had legitimate power throughout his tenure, a fact often ignored.

[STEED]

Ah, Mein Kampf; possibly one of the most boring and rambling books I've ever attempted to read.

Your telling me. :lol:

I passed up on his unpublished second book which you can get, no thanks. :zzz:

[Heibges]

Hitler brought people back into work. In a time of desperate economical crisis, this was of existential importance for many families.

I do not want to excuse the consequences. The info is just an very important part of the explanation.

Quite right. People today know how evil Hitler and his henchmen really were but at the time that was all in the unknowable future. They saw him as a person who could get their country out of a crushing depression and back on their feet.

This is not totally true. The Nazi's did well in the election of 1928.

The Nazi's did very poorly in the elections of 1932. Hitler would not have become Chancellor if not for the scheming of other Conservative party in Germany. The Germans were already sick of the Nazi's when they seized power.

[August]

Hitler brought people back into work. In a time of desperate economical crisis, this was of existential importance for many families.

I do not want to excuse the consequences. The info is just an very important part of the explanation.
Quite right. People today know how evil Hitler and his henchmen really were but at the time that was all in the unknowable future. They saw him as a person who could get their country out of a crushing depression and back on their feet.
This is not totally true. The Nazi's did well in the election of 1928.

The Nazi's did very poorly in the elections of 1932. Hitler would not have become Chancellor if not for the scheming of other Conservative party in Germany. The Germans were already sick of the Nazi's when they seized power.

Yeah i guess when you make promises people expect you to deliver... :D

[d@rk51d3]

Hitler brought people back into work. In a time of desperate economical crisis, this was of existential importance for many families.

I do not want to excuse the consequences. The info is just an very important part of the explanation.


Spot on.

The people had no work, no food, no life, no purpose. They were offered and given these things, but at a terrible cost.

[The Avon Lady]

[Split from the "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" thread - Gizzmoe]

No you don't "create" peace, you force it. There is a big difference. Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.
The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

At the end of World War 2 like melnibonian said, the defeated nations were given the chance for a better future.
We've jumped threads here.

For the record, let me remind you that the topic was nukes and whether they can bring about peace. The A-bombs dropped on Japan resulted in the surrender of Japan in WWII. The surrender of Germany resulted in the Treaty of Versailles in WWI. Cart before horse. The sequences are completely relevant and therefore these particular events are incomparable.