Good Old Hitler
Rob Davis
group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
regarded as a great man?
=====================
Rob Davis MSc MIAP
Telford Shropshire UK
c...@teleport.com
els...@MAPSON.cableinet.co.uk (Rob Davis) wrote:
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
Only if he could have solved Germany's fiscal problems.
It is difficult to see what he could have done in a world racked by
recession and depression. Germany had nothing to sell except some very
good brains, but that was not unique.
----------------------------------
Fas Est Et Ab Hoste Doceri
----------------------------------
Jeff Heidman
Rob Davis wrote:
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
If you mean that after Czechoslovakia he would have just lived out the
rest of his dictatorial life without going to war with anyone else?
I guess he would be considered great by Germans, but your supposition is
like asking if a scorpion without a stinger is a nice pet. Or like
asking whether or not Charles Manson would be a nice man if he wasn't
such a not-nice man.
Hitler without his megalomania would not have been Hitler, and likely
would never even has risen to power in the first place.
Jeff Heidman
Bart
and religious group. But above all he was a dagerous man, whose soul
purpose was to rule Europe.
However, some of the great men of the past, like Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar, Augustus, Charles the Great and even some popes were at least as
dangerous as Hitler. the big difference: All the others won and Hitler
lost... Should he have won (and should he have lived in a differend era),
maybe our perception of him would indeed have been more positive.
Maybe he was a mastermind, but geniousness comes close to madness... You
have to give him him the fact that he was able to build a German empire out
the remians of a totally lost, politically instable, corrupt and bancrupt
country in less than 10 years.
All this prooves the relativity of what we call 'great man'. We call
someone a great man only because history calls him so. And who wrote that
history???
Greetings Bart
Rob Davis heeft geschreven in bericht
<38154b6c...@news.usenetserver.com>...
>Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
>group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
>regarded as a great man?
>
kom...@webtv.net
Germany's fiscal problems as is stated in another post.
While it is true he decreased unemployment and started solving the
economic problems, it was done by means of the armament industry. After
the 1933 Nazi victory in the elections Hitler immediately started
rebuilding the military from the ground up and implementing a peacetime
draft that would ultimately turn into a wartime one. Most industry was
weapon related except for the Reichsbahn (although that had plenty of
military uses as well.)
Apart from war preparation for war as an economic spark the only way I
believe Germany could have become economically stable would have been
for the allies to forgive Germany of her war reparations. If the Allies
had truly thought in the first place they wouldn't have placed all the
blame for WWI on Germany and burdened her with war reparations. The
Allied victors of WWI are ultimately to blame for Hitler, the Nazis, and
WWII. Without them there would not have been the revenge factor in
Germany from which Hitler rose. They gave birth to Hitler and his
hateful ideology by their unreasonable actions at Versailles. The blame
for WWI rested with many countries not Germany exclusively.
Michael Oswalt
worked economic miracles, they were in preperation for conquest of those
around him. Take away that motovation, the reasons for his sweeping
econcomic changes vanish. The then would have been just another name
barely remembered by historians.
In my opinion.
Michael Oswalt
Glen Hallick
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
Without his venom for groups he hated, "good old Hitler" I think would
have had a tough time coming to power. Thus, no he would not have been a
great man.
Glen Hallick
Martin Clements
kom...@webtv.net wrote:
Lots of good stuff snipped.
If the
Allies
> had truly thought in the first place they wouldn't have placed all the
> blame for WWI on Germany and burdened her with war reparations. The
> Allied victors of WWI are ultimately to blame for Hitler, the Nazis,
and
> WWII. Without them there would not have been the revenge factor in
> Germany from which Hitler rose. They gave birth to Hitler and his
> hateful ideology by their unreasonable actions at Versailles.
On the contrary, the main treaty of versailles was pretty reasonable.
The allies blamed Germany for the war because her militarism had caused
the grouping of countries into blocks, and because her actions
precipitated the war, which they had aggressive plans for (the invasion
of France through neutral countries). Very few people outside of Germany
criticised the terms of the treaty at the time. That the terms were
viewed in the way they by Germans was due largely to the way in
which they were presented to the German people by right-wing
parties. That this would happen to the extent it did was not
forseeable in 1919. Many of the other circumstances which led to the
rise of the Nazis were not directly realted to Versailles - eg 1929
Stock Market crash, causing depression and unemployment.
Surely some of this hate against the allies must have come from the
experience of 4 years of bloody war, and the continued allied blockade
which kept Germans starving until 1920. But the story of these things
was changed by the Germans - they weren't stabbed in the back, their
generals said they couldn't fight any more. Much of the territory they
lost was territiory they had just acquired from Russia. They needn't
have starved in the blockade had their farmers not cashed in on high
prices during the war and sold their livestock - Germany was
self-sufficient in food before 1914.
Germany could have gone in many different ways in 1918 - 33. The fact
that they chose the Nazis and ultimate war was their own fault, but was
certainly not inevitable in 1919. The same hate could have, and nearly
did, create a communist government, although they could have chosen to
keep democracy. That the Weimar republic was saddled with the
reputation of defeat and Versailles was down to the German generals who
insisted on surrender but refused to carry it out themselves - was that
the allies fault as well?.
>The blame for WWI rested with many countries not Germany exclusively.
True - others should have done more to stop it, but Germany has the
prime responsibility for her own actions.
Martin
--
Never argue with an idiot.They drag you down to their level, then beat
you with experience.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jet the Cat
>
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
Probably not "great" in the sense of being a world-respected statesman,
but there's no doubt in my mind that his voice would be attentatively
listened to. The need to do business with a vibrant German economy
would also make it difficult for foreign governments to be too
intrusively critical of Germany's "legitimate internal affairs". Yep,
as your question is asked, Adolf is almost certain to attract some
criticism for being a bit of a despot, but hey there're plenty of those
around the world today and the fact that they're a bit rough around the
edges rarely stops other governments from seeking to maintain "cordial
relations". Overall in 1999 Adolf would probably be regarded as "an
architect of modern Europe who was obliged by force of circumstances to
adopt certain unitarian practices in order to found and progress an
economically progressive German state." (Hope the diplomatise is
suitably euphemistic....?)
casita
The cost of building and maintaining a military force and not using
it would have crippled Germany.
Take away his military and prejudice and what have you got?
He was an amateur who liked architecture. Many people in Germany could
have
advanced Germany economically. With economics comes political global
influence.
I have always been of the opinion that Germany will always prosper as long
as it avoids military adventures. They are damn good soldiers, but will
always loose.
Georg Schwarz
> On the contrary, the main treaty of versailles was pretty reasonable.
> The allies blamed Germany for the war because her militarism had caused
> the grouping of countries into blocks, and because her actions
this is a quite controversal topic among historians. I don't think that
the above assertions are to be taken as facts.
--
Georg Schwarz sch...@physik.tu-berlin.de, ku...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Institut für Theoretische Physik +49 30 314-24254, FAX -21130
Technische Universität Berlin http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
Doug Skrecky
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
>
inter...@aol.com
els...@MAPSON.cableinet.co.uk (Rob Davis) wrote:
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
>
No way was this individual any good. His so called successes were
built on excessive pride...never a good and lasting thing. Thinking
about Christian religion, one could make a good argument that Hitler
was really the devil incarnate who proved that evil can turn even the
most devout desciples to fesces. I've been reading history for over 35
years, I think everything Hitler did has been done before and since.
This man was a cheap chip house painter at the right place at the right
time. No prince this one.
Jeff N
els...@MAPSON.cableinet.co.uk (Rob Davis) wrote:
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
If Hitler had not chosen a group to target, no one in post WW 1 Germany
would have listened to him and he would have never gained power. He'd
have been an odd footnote in the political swirl of Weimar Germany. If
he were noteworthy at all.
--
"Vini, vidi, velcro."
HCALTMANN
<[Hitler] worked economic miracles
It was not Hitler, but Hjalmar Schacht. -- Heinz
HCAl...@aol.com (Heinz Altmann)
"I have no desire to win, only to get things right." A.J.P. Taylor
Glenn A. Steinberg
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
Once you eliminate practically everything he did (targeting Jews and
Gypsies and starting a war), you've pretty much asked an entirely
different question -- if Hitler hadn't been Hitler would he today be
regarded as a great man? If anyone had led Germany through the
difficult time of the 1930s and 1940s successfully without genocide and
war, they would probably be considered a great man (or woman) today.
But Hitler wasn't that person. He approached the problems of his times
the way he approached them, and it wasn't the right way morally (since
aggression and genocide are generally considered evil) or pragmatically
(since it led to Germany's defeat and partition).
inter...@aol.com
Martin Clements <cle...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, the main treaty of versailles was pretty reasonable.
> The allies blamed Germany for the war because her militarism had caused
> the grouping of countries into blocks, and because her actions
> of France through neutral countries). Very few people outside of Germany
> criticised the terms of the treaty at the time. That the terms were
That's because they benefited from it, or it didn't cost them anything.
> viewed in the way they by Germans was due largely to the way in
> which they were presented to the German people by right-wing
> parties. That this would happen to the extent it did was not
Yes and NO! The Germans had suffered at the hands of foreigners for
centuries. France ran over German principalities regularly, burning
homes, raping women, forcing men to serve in French armies. A large
part of Napoleon's armies were coerced from German populations. Even
England had been in on the act, forcing Hessian slave soldiers to fight
their fight in America. Sweden lay Germany waste for a 100 years. Even
the Spaniards had their turn in history. This is what the German people
were thinking of when Hitler took advantage of their history as victims
to use it to his own advantage. The bottom line is, German society has
always been prosperous and everybody always wanted a piece. Even
today, the country has to pay for its past sins. Which other country
is coerced into doing this? Many of them don't even pay for goods
received.
> was changed by the Germans - they weren't stabbed in the back, their
The Germans have been screwed over since way back. The Kaiser and
Hitler were another set of parasites that fed off the fruits of their
labors.
> Germany could have gone in many different ways in 1918 - 33. The fact
> that they chose the Nazis and ultimate war was their own fault,
Hmmm...they had one election, that was very close, with the majority
voting for someone else. It's just that the Nazis where the largest
fraction. If the election had been about war and peace, I think peace
would have won hands down. They stumbled into war, led by the Pied
Piper of vanity and pride.
> did, create a communist government, although they could have chosen to
> keep democracy. That the Weimar republic was saddled with the
Democracy has had a long tradition in Germany. So has social justice of
sorts. So have getting results. They voted for getting results quick,
and paid for it dearly.
> >The blame for WWI rested with many countries not Germany exclusively.
>
> True - others should have done more to stop it, but Germany has the
> prime responsibility for her own actions.
The blame for WWI rests with the European aristocracy, which was German
to a good percentage admittedly. It was so full of itself strutting
like peacocks that they didn't see the shotgun of history in their face
in 1914. It was a watershed, maybe even necessary to get the world to
modern democracy.
Donald Phillipson
> Was not Hitlers whole platform based upon militarism? . . .
> Take away his military and prejudice and what have you got?
> He was an amateur who liked architecture. Many people in Germany could
Probably not: other unique elements include:
1 -- Race theory;
-- on Jews and Slavs;
-- denial of civil rights to any "inferior" race;
-- willingness to exterminate opposition and use
general police terror as a tool of social control (unique in
history before Lenin.)
2 -- Repudiation of democracy;
-- "Fuehrerprinzip" = duty of obedience to the Leader;
-- Nazification of all social institutions (professions,
law code, boy scouts, housewives.)
3 -- Hitler's particular ideas of history, possibility of
turning back the clock, the "Third Reich" as a
modernized adaptation of Charlemagne's European empire etc.
4 -- Unique personal magnetism and skill as an orator, able to win
the personal loyalty of both ambitious individuals (e.g. Himmler)
and "the masses."
None of these seems reducible simply to "militarism," although
many used militarism as a tool.
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Road, Carlsbad Springs, |
| Ontario, Canada, K0A 1K0, tel. 613 822 0734 |
Niklas Tvtterman
Davis) wrote:
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
If you look at the "good" he did, i.e. boosting the industry, building
the autobahns etc. you will quite soon notice that the biggest
advantage gained from these actions directly improved the ability
to mobilise an army. I don't think this had happened unless the
ultimate goal had been to conquer a good part of Europe.
To do this, a good industrial base was not enough. He had to
convince the people that an offensive war was justified - and
that was partly made by playing the game "we vs. them" with
racial classifications etc. The rest is history.
I don't believe that Hitlers approach really left any other plausible
action that could be used in a "what if..." discussion. You must
remember that he was fanatic in his issues already during WW I.
If I recall correctly, he states in Mein Kampf something like "When
I heard that the war [WW I] had broken out, I fell on my knees and
thanked God for giving me a chance"
The only possibility for speculation would be that Hitler had not
picked up a bunch of ideas when he lived in Vienna (or earlier).
But then he wouldn't be the Hitler we know, and I doubt that
he had had the drive to become the top dog.
--
"Who is this general failure, and
why is he reading my disk ?"
Niklas Tvtterman | http://www.sit.fi/~nico
Remove "nosuchanimalasspam" from my IN%
Brian Pickrell
>
> Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
> group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
> regarded as a great man?
Frankly, you have to get into a war to be regarded as a great man.
Let's look at the top U.S. presidents: George Washington, Abraham
Lincoln, FDR, maybe Harry Truman. Every one of them got America into a
war, Truman's administration spanned two.
My guess is that any dictator, in any foreign country, who didn't get
his country into a war would today be very obscure in the
English-speaking world. Take What's-His-Name for example.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pickrell.................What does not kill me only makes
...............................me stranger.
...............................
casita
>Supposing that Hitler had not targeted an ethnic, religious or other
>group as a hate subject, and WW2 had not happened, would he today be
>regarded as a great man?
Putting his hatreds aside, he was militaristic. Sooner or later he was
going to cross the line and take Germany into war. Otherwise he would
probably have been harmless, but I do not see how a war could be avoided
with Hitler in power.
-Mayo,H.H.
>On the contrary, the main treaty of versailles was pretty reasonable.
>The allies blamed Germany for the war because her militarism had caused
>the grouping of countries into blocks, and because her actions
>precipitated the war, which they had aggressive plans for (the invasion
Wilson, Hoover, and many others declared, both publicly and privately,
the terms disgraceful, selfish, and the foundation of another war.
The stock market crash did precipitate the Nazi rise, but the reparations
had already destroyed the German economy once in the 20s, and set the
popular mind of Germans against the Versailles treaty as the cause
of their downfall.
Larry Mayo
Donald Phillipson
> If Hitler had not chosen a group to target, no one in post WW 1 Germany
> would have listened to him and he would have never gained power. He'd
> have been an odd footnote in the political swirl of Weimar Germany. If
> he were noteworthy at all.
Readers beware: the main "group" Hitler chose as his
target when seeking power (1923-33) was Communists -- not
the Jewish race. Antisemitism was simply not a political
issue in the Weimar republic. (There was no secret about
Nazi policies towards Jews, but Germans never voted on this.)
Jeff N
ethnic, or other. I believe communists fall into the category of
other. Hitler used the politics of victimization and scapegoating to
good and proven effect. Had he not done so I doubt he would have been
succesful at all.
Jeff N
--
"Vini, vidi, velcro."
Martin Clements
inter...@aol.com wrote:
> Yes and NO! The Germans had suffered at the hands of foreigners for
> centuries. <snip> This is what the German
people
> were thinking of when Hitler took advantage of their history as
victims
> to use it to his own advantage.
The Germans were not much worse off in this than many mainland european
countries, many of which had been invaded, embroiled in wars not of
their making, and generally sacked by marauding armies. For many, that
was life in europe. But it would seem rather weird for the Nazis to hark
back to pre-Napoleonic troubles when they had the "Diktat" of Versailles
right on their doorstep to complain about. Certainly later Nazi
propoganda showed the Germans as being a strong force slowly unified
throughout history into a great state, not as weaklings who could be
drafted into anyone's army at will.
The bottom line is, German society has
> always been prosperous and everybody always wanted a piece. Even
> today, the country has to pay for its past sins.
Ooh - that's a big debate! Certainly the recognition of their past sins
has formed the generally decent and prosperous society Germany is today.
Which other country
> is coerced into doing this?
Most countries really - e.g. we all had to pay for the cold war for
forty years, as a direct result of actions carried out at the end of
WW2.
> The Germans have been screwed over since way back. The Kaiser and
> Hitler were another set of parasites that fed off the fruits of their
> labors.
Yes, but the Germans chose hitler to screw them. They thereby decided,
wittingly or not, to screw everyone else around them even harder!
>
> > Germany could have gone in many different ways in 1918 - 33. The
fact
> > that they chose the Nazis and ultimate war was their own fault,
>
> Hmmm...they had one election, that was very close, with the majority
> voting for someone else.
Yes, but in any country with more than 2 parties it is normal for the
largest minority to be elected, without having an absolute majority.
It's just that the Nazis where the largest
> fraction.
Yes, because more people voted for Hitler than for any other party.
Under the election system of the time THEY CHOSE HITLER.
If the election had been about war and peace, I think peace
> would have won hands down. They stumbled into war, led by the Pied
> Piper of vanity and pride.
If it had been an election of about war and peace, it would have been
the first in history !! Extremists (and many others) who want to be
elected have a habit of not being sincere about their actual aims, so
you need discernment to see what they are aiming at. Even if they
didn't know Hitler wanted war, they did know he would overthrow
democracy, because he told them. They also knew it would be wise not to
be a communist, trade unionist, christian or jew if Hitler took over -
and they still chose him!
> The blame for WWI rests with the European aristocracy, which was
German
> to a good percentage admittedly. It was so full of itself strutting
> like peacocks that they didn't see the shotgun of history in their
face
> in 1914.
No - perhaps they wouldn't recognise a "shotgun of history" if they saw
one.
Regards,
Martin
--
Never argue with an idiot.They drag you down to their level, then beat
you with experience.
Jerome A. Schroeder
casita <cas...@home.com> wrote in message news:7tujni$b...@dgs.dgsys.com...
liberal, socialist, jewish, or conservative.
Hitler was a source of inspiration to greedy authoritarians all over the
world, including the US, France and England. Their descendants are with us
still.
A successfull Hitler might have emboldened American, British & French
Fascists and rightwingers.
Jerry
Jerome A. Schroeder
emphasis on WW1 are off topic, Versailles and Brest-Litovsk are acceptable
as long as a sufficient connection is made to WW2]
> > Yes and NO! The Germans had suffered at the hands of foreigners for
> > centuries. <snip> This is what the German
> people
> > were thinking of when Hitler took advantage of their history as
> victims
> > to use it to his own advantage.
>
> The Germans were not much worse off in this than many mainland european
> countries, many of which had been invaded, embroiled in wars not of
> their making, and generally sacked by marauding armies. For many, that
> was life in europe. But it would seem rather weird for the Nazis to hark
> back to pre-Napoleonic troubles when they had the "Diktat" of Versailles
> right on their doorstep to complain about. Certainly later Nazi
> propoganda showed the Germans as being a strong force slowly unified
> throughout history into a great state, not as weaklings who could be
> drafted into anyone's army at will.
>
My poeple are Germans who came over to the US at the turn of the century.
I am proud of my German heritage and even grew up speaking German.
Nevertheless, I am also aware that there is a streak of brutality in 20th
century Germans that cannot be explained away.
I'm always amused when I hear Germans whine about their treatment at
Versailles, yet their behavior at Brest-Litvosk was scarcely different. If
you were a small country, they didn't even bother with negotiations. True,
the allies behaved badly, but the Krauts weren't holy innocents themselves.
Still, I think that it was a mistake for the United States to enter WWI on
the side of the allies. The Kaiser and his crew weren't holy innoncents,
but their behavior on the world stage was not any worse than that of the
Brits and French, and infinitely better than the "poor suffering Belgians."
Still, the US got in and the resulting German defeat made almost inevitable
the rise of Nazism or something similar. If the Germans had drawn or won
WWI, the US might well have been faced with a fascist France or Britan, and
allied with Germany in WWII.
I've occasionally suspected that all the civilized and liberal Germans
migrated to the New World in the 19th century leaving the Germans a
distillation of what was left. Goose-stepping order takers.
Jerry
Henri H. Arsenault
thousand years, Hitler was in the top five, (based on interviews with some
important people and a sopuning on the Internet - it is not clear how the
choices were made).
The justification given was that Hitler more than anyone else contributed
to the destruction of the European system of civilization as it existed
before him. Whether one likes it or not, he must be put in the same class
as Genghis Khan, amng those who singlehandedly changed History. Yes, he
was a great man, albeit a great evil man.
Henri
CRH III
Martin Clements <cle...@my-deja.com> wrote in article <
> On the contrary, the main treaty of versailles was pretty reasonable.
Well really nobody liked it. The British thought it to harsh, the French
not harsh enough. Wilson was appalled. The only winners were maybe the new
leaders of the states that grew out of Central Europe. "Never has such an
opportunity been lost so pathetically".
Jerome A. Schroeder
> Wilson, Hoover, and many others declared, both publicly and privately,
> the terms disgraceful, selfish, and the foundation of another war.
> The stock market crash did precipitate the Nazi rise, but the reparations
> had already destroyed the German economy once in the 20s, and set the
> popular mind of Germans against the Versailles treaty as the cause
> of their downfall.
>
exactly guilt free either. The French demanded lebenty leben million francs
and the krauts said "We'll give lebenty leben million francs." The ensuing
deliberate inflation harmed the German middle and working classes far more
than the French and probably made inevitable the rise of the Nazis.
Jerry
casita
>would he today be regarded as a great man?
What nice things did Hitler ever do for anybody? He was Germany's worst
enemy. He ordered Albert Speer to turn Germany into an industrial desert.
Who was Germany's worst enemy, Air Marshall Harris, or Adolph Hitler?
Louis Capdeboscq
>the rise of Nazism or something similar.
So basically you argue that whatever else happened, there was going to be
something similar to Nazism after Germany had lost WWI ?
>If the Germans had drawn or won
>WWI,
They couldn't have "drawn", especially after 1917 when Russia was knocked
out of the war.
>the US might well have been faced with a fascist France or Britan, and
>allied with Germany in WWII.
??? why a "fascist" Britain ? There _might_ be a "fascist" France after a
defeat, but more likely the country would implose into civil war and
definitely give up revenge. Besides a "fascist" France would not threaten
to
conquer all of Europe, especially one that would have had to sign the
appropriate version of Brest-Litovsk...
Louis Capdeboscq
>> something similar to Nazism after Germany had lost WWI ?
>Yes, I think it was in the cards. Just as it seems that fundamentalism is
>on the rise in today's era, there seemed to have been a movement toward
>authoritarian governments in the first half of the century.
I disagree. Imperial Germany was (slowly) becoming more democratic, and
Weimar was definitely not more authoritatian than in the previous century.
The only country that turned from a democracy to an authoritarian state was
Italy. All the rest were generally more democratic. Of course, in the
1930's
Germany and Spain joined in, and Italy tightened up, too.
But for a movement _toward_ authoritarism, there should have been _less_
authoritatian governments before "the first half of the century". History
suggests this was not the case.
So I see no reason why Germany was bound to become Nazi, or hysterically
nationalist. As I wrote, it seems obvious that the country would want to
regain its first place on the continent, which its population and economy
assured it. That would mean rearmament, end / reduction of reparation
payments (as it happened), and _possibly_ some _small_ border adjustments.
None of this would require Hitler, and none of this would lead to a world
war (it took a lot of "border adjustments" by Hitler before the Allies
decided to oppose him).
>> ??? why a "fascist" Britain ? There _might_ be a "fascist" France after a
>> defeat, but more likely the country would implose into civil war and
>> definitely give up revenge. Besides a "fascist" France would not threaten
>> to conquer all of Europe, especially one that would have had to sign the
>> appropriate version of Brest-Litovsk...
>Remember Napoleon? Remember the French Revolution?
Yes, I do. The way I remember it, the French Revolution won. It was not
crushed by foreign powers, it was toppled by Napoleon. And besides at the
time France had the largest population in Europe (just after Russia, but
really close to it), and was the richest country around. Before Britain
even. That helped...
>If a defeated Germany
>could conquer France in 20 years, there is no reason to doubt that the
>reverse could be true.
It seems that we don't remember the same history. In the one I know about,
the "defeated Germany" (I assume you mean Prussia) "conquered" France along
with a coalition that included virtually everybody else in Europe, and
namely British Austrian and Russian forces. Besides, British history books
will tell you that Blucher didn't win Waterloo, Wellington did... :)
In 1914, Germany had twice the population of France, twice the GDP and
about
three time the industrial capacity (measured in steel + coal production).
Say Germany doesn't lose WWI, this means that Alsace-Lorraine remains
German, some other provinces become German (and those along the German
border were the richest and most industrialized ones), so I see no way for
such a "Nazi" France to take on Germany and Britain.
So I've yet to understand why the side losing WWI would automatically be in
a position to initiate WWII 20 years later.
>France had a strong fascist component between the
>wars,
Not at all. France had a strong extreme-right movement that predated WWI.
It
was an anti-Republican movement, but they were really Monarchists, not
Fascists. And besides, they weren't all that strong. They staged a
demonstration in 1934, after which the Socialists and Communists found it
fitting to say that the Republic had almost fallen to a "Fascist" coup.
Which triggered the Popular Front.
Then (as now), the importance of the extreme-right movement was just as
much
a product of the strategy and propaganda of traditional political parties
as
an actual fact. Basically, the French Conservatives used the extreme-right
as a political tool (support it underhand when a left-wing coalition had
power to disrupt the government, then be elected and "restore order"), just
as the Germans thought they could use Hitler. It just happened that there
was no French Hitler and the leaders of the traditional French conservative
parties were more experienced than their German counterparts, so the
results
were different.
>and A defeated Britain could well have gone the same route.
But why ?
Drazen Kramaric
>By the time the Reds got rolling through Germany the GIs were well established in the West to
>put the brakes on them before they swarmed to far.
I am not sure your statement is correct. Germany was already entered
by Soviet troops by the time first US troops reached German border.
>The Reds also knew what had been done to Dresden in support of their advance, could be done to the
>Kremlin if they got too greedy.
You're keep repeating this statement, but I found no evidence that
Stalin ever restrained himself due to alleged fear of Bomber Command.
He saw much of his country overrun by most vicious army that ever
existed and he didn't back down. Why should he fear Allied bombers
then?
Drax
Patclint2
he was far larger than ordinary. So was Adolf Hitler. So was Ghengis Khan. Or
Joseph Stalin. All of them were killers, but all of them were great men. They
were larger than normal, and extraordinary at what they did.
Stalin was a greater man than Hitler in that he killed far more people, far
more ruthlessly than the German boogeyman.
Yet Adolf gets all the points for "EVIL."
All depends on who is writing the history and who is publishing that kind of
history.
--Clint Willson