Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
favorite ways nazi's might have been stopped
283 views
Skip to first unread message
dumbstruck
Apr 19, 2013, 9:02:47 PM4/19/13
to
What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
your fancy or sheds some light?
My favorite would be simply kicking Himmler's parked, beat-up motorbike
into a canal, I guess in the late 1920's. His rise to power seems largely
connected with this single luxury that he could afford after being fired
as a ranch hand and every other job he tried. He instead of Goebbels was
the trailblazer of Nazi propaganda - not by using brains but by relentless
running of the roads to spread leaflets and organizing. I don't think he
could have replaced it, and it seemed essential not only to the Nazi rise
but led to his creation of an effective shield against local subversion.
My next favorite way would be a mass conversion to nonviolence (or even
Tao pacifism - grin) by the German army and civilians in response to the
first four leaflets spread by the White Rose society in summer of 1942:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/wrleaflets.html
Those are incredibly articulate documents of love for freedom and hatred
of dictatorship by medical students that were roped into part time service
on the Russian front. Hans was German and Alex was actually Russian who
had apparently escaped from Stalin, only to be drafted by Germany against
Russia. Even more inspiring about liberty than the US founders documents,
although I think quoting the inaction guru Lau Tzu was over the top.
Back to Goebbels who was absolutely essential in converting "red Berlin"
into even tolerating Nazi's around 1930. Goebbels was quite left-leaning,
but Hitler co-opted him due to Goebbels powers to seduce an audience. It
was said that the only luxury Goebbels could afford in a bare room apartment
during his poverty days was a full length mirror to practice speeches, which
he turned into violent theater to create media events. Smash that mirror!
Over to Goering vs Ribbentrop. Goering originally didn't want to invade
Czech or Polish areas and called Ribbentrop a warmonger for pushing
for that. Everyone thought Ribbentrop's lies to Hitler would be exposed
and he would lose hawkish influence - I wish the Brits or somebody did.
Goering thought east Europe could be dominated informally; wouldn't it be
nice if he could have only installed puppets no worse than the existing
non democratic powers in the east including an independent Ukraine, etc.
Lastly a really wild speculation about Heydrich... cancel the British
and Czech organized assassination of him. Yes, he along with Himmler was
one of the most depraved figures of history. But it appears he was starting
to "act nice" in being a statesman to rise above Himmler. His sadism seems
to stem from his personal past rather than the usual nazi ideology. He
appeared to be putting depravity aside to gain influence, and thus might
have been in place to opportunistically end the war immediately after
Hitler's (earlier?) death rather than the dragging on by loyal Doenitz.
of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
your fancy or sheds some light?
My favorite would be simply kicking Himmler's parked, beat-up motorbike
into a canal, I guess in the late 1920's. His rise to power seems largely
connected with this single luxury that he could afford after being fired
as a ranch hand and every other job he tried. He instead of Goebbels was
the trailblazer of Nazi propaganda - not by using brains but by relentless
running of the roads to spread leaflets and organizing. I don't think he
could have replaced it, and it seemed essential not only to the Nazi rise
but led to his creation of an effective shield against local subversion.
My next favorite way would be a mass conversion to nonviolence (or even
Tao pacifism - grin) by the German army and civilians in response to the
first four leaflets spread by the White Rose society in summer of 1942:
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/wrleaflets.html
Those are incredibly articulate documents of love for freedom and hatred
of dictatorship by medical students that were roped into part time service
on the Russian front. Hans was German and Alex was actually Russian who
had apparently escaped from Stalin, only to be drafted by Germany against
Russia. Even more inspiring about liberty than the US founders documents,
although I think quoting the inaction guru Lau Tzu was over the top.
Back to Goebbels who was absolutely essential in converting "red Berlin"
into even tolerating Nazi's around 1930. Goebbels was quite left-leaning,
but Hitler co-opted him due to Goebbels powers to seduce an audience. It
was said that the only luxury Goebbels could afford in a bare room apartment
during his poverty days was a full length mirror to practice speeches, which
he turned into violent theater to create media events. Smash that mirror!
Over to Goering vs Ribbentrop. Goering originally didn't want to invade
Czech or Polish areas and called Ribbentrop a warmonger for pushing
for that. Everyone thought Ribbentrop's lies to Hitler would be exposed
and he would lose hawkish influence - I wish the Brits or somebody did.
Goering thought east Europe could be dominated informally; wouldn't it be
nice if he could have only installed puppets no worse than the existing
non democratic powers in the east including an independent Ukraine, etc.
Lastly a really wild speculation about Heydrich... cancel the British
and Czech organized assassination of him. Yes, he along with Himmler was
one of the most depraved figures of history. But it appears he was starting
to "act nice" in being a statesman to rise above Himmler. His sadism seems
to stem from his personal past rather than the usual nazi ideology. He
appeared to be putting depravity aside to gain influence, and thus might
have been in place to opportunistically end the war immediately after
Hitler's (earlier?) death rather than the dragging on by loyal Doenitz.
Alan Meyer
Apr 19, 2013, 10:20:05 PM4/19/13
to
On 04/19/2013 09:02 PM, dumbstruck wrote:
> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
> your fancy or sheds some light?
...
> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
> your fancy or sheds some light?
This is a terribly commonplace and pedestrian thing to say after the
interesting fancies that you have given us but I think if Hitler had
died before the early 30's, or even after coming to power, the war and
the Holocaust might have been avoided.
Those of us who believe that there are historical forces that are
independent of individual wills may be uncomfortable with this, but it
really does seem that Hitler, personally, by his specific actions,
changed the course of history.
I 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. But would
there have been a complete suppression of all parties except the
National Socialist Party if Hitler had died, say, in 1925?
I can imagine that there would have been a wave of antisemitism and even
pogroms in Germany without Hitler. But would there have been a
Holocaust? There was no modern precedent for such a thing.
I can imagine that there would have been a buildup of resentment and a
re-occupation of the Rhineland. But would there have been an annexation
of Czechoslovakia or an invasion of Poland?
There have been other borderline paranoid psychotics who have seized
absolute power in modern times. Stalin and Saddam Hussein come readily
to mind. But Hitler seems to me to have been in a class by himself.
Alan
Don Phillipson
Apr 20, 2013, 10:22:40 AM4/20/13
to
"Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kksrab$6i5$1...@dont-email.me...
> Those of us who believe that there are historical forces that are
> independent of individual wills may be uncomfortable with this, but it
> really does seem that Hitler, personally, by his specific actions, changed
> the course of history.
>
> I 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.
Para. 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
the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.) The diaries of
Harry Kessler narrate this period vividly because he was such
a gossip. As noted elsewhere, leaders in other countries found
German internal disorder (e.g. assassination of Rathenau, 1922)
too confusing to take into consideration.
This partly "explains" Hitler: one of the things he offered
in 1933 (besides antisemitism, national pride etc.) was the
promise of simplicity, which after a decade of riot and anxiety
many Germans wanted.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:kksrab$6i5$1...@dont-email.me...
> Those of us who believe that there are historical forces that are
> independent of individual wills may be uncomfortable with this, but it
> really does seem that Hitler, personally, by his specific actions, changed
> the course of history.
>
> I 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.
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
the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.) The diaries of
Harry Kessler narrate this period vividly because he was such
a gossip. As noted elsewhere, leaders in other countries found
German internal disorder (e.g. assassination of Rathenau, 1922)
too confusing to take into consideration.
This partly "explains" Hitler: one of the things he offered
in 1933 (besides antisemitism, national pride etc.) was the
promise of simplicity, which after a decade of riot and anxiety
many Germans wanted.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Alan Meyer
Apr 20, 2013, 7:22:12 PM4/20/13
to
...
prior to Hitler and that violent and illegal repression of the left had
already been a fact of German political life before Hitler. It would be
naive to imagine this sort of thing would not have occurred in the
1930's even if Hitler didn't exist.
But, do you think it would have been as bad if Hitler didn't exist?
Of 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.
But 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. A much lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of
the same political goals with much less damage to Germany. His 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.
Without 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?
Alan
>> I 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.
...
>> Germany even without Hitler, and there might have been a showdown
>> resulting in the arrest of the Communist Party leadership.
> Para. 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
> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
> and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
> relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.)
Yes. There is no doubt that both left and right wing extremism existed
> 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
> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
> and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
> relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.)
prior to Hitler and that violent and illegal repression of the left had
already been a fact of German political life before Hitler. It would be
naive to imagine this sort of thing would not have occurred in the
1930's even if Hitler didn't exist.
But, do you think it would have been as bad if Hitler didn't exist?
Of 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.
But 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. A much lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of
the same political goals with much less damage to Germany. His 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.
Without 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?
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Apr 20, 2013, 8:37:08 PM4/20/13
to
Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
> > "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >> I 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.
[ Much deleted]
> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
> > "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
> >> I 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.
> Without 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?
there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
by Hitler.
Mike
Don Phillipson
Apr 21, 2013, 10:25:31 AM4/21/13
to
<mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:kkv83i$19t$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
> If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
> there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
> Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
> by Hitler.
Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1 (cf. Wehrmacht
approval of massacring Belgian civilians 1914) but developed uniquely
in WW2, cf. Hitler's "Commissar Order" of 1941 that Russian CP
officials should be shot on capture and earlier deliberate massacres
of Jewish civilians in Poland etc. This was something new in modern
Europe, viz. unknown since the 17th century, and traceable directly to
the unique style of Hitler's government since 1933, demonstrated
earlier by the Roehm Purge and Hitler's declaration (in public, before
the Reichstag) that his word was law (and by Germans' general
acceptance of this constitutional proposition.)
news:kkv83i$19t$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
> If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
> there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
> Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
> by Hitler.
approval of massacring Belgian civilians 1914) but developed uniquely
in WW2, cf. Hitler's "Commissar Order" of 1941 that Russian CP
officials should be shot on capture and earlier deliberate massacres
of Jewish civilians in Poland etc. This was something new in modern
Europe, viz. unknown since the 17th century, and traceable directly to
the unique style of Hitler's government since 1933, demonstrated
earlier by the Roehm Purge and Hitler's declaration (in public, before
the Reichstag) that his word was law (and by Germans' general
acceptance of this constitutional proposition.)
Rich Rostrom
Apr 22, 2013, 7:35:34 PM4/22/13
to
mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
> If the [Weimar] Republic gave way to a right-wing,
But a post-Weimar nationalist regime would
still be reluctant to launch any major war.
Most of the "wrongs of Versailles" were overturned
without fighting.
Germany was pretty badly hurt in WW I, and few
Germans wanted a second dose. Nor was there much
confidence in German victory beforehand. Before
the 1940 offensive, Halder made a private
estimate that the chance of victory was 1 in 10.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
> If the [Weimar] Republic gave way to a right-wing,
> aggressive government, I suspect there still would
> have been a war to "right the wrongs of the
> Versailles Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and
> ferocious as the wars embarked upon by Hitler.
Counter-factual territory, of course...
> have been a war to "right the wrongs of the
> Versailles Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and
> ferocious as the wars embarked upon by Hitler.
But a post-Weimar nationalist regime would
still be reluctant to launch any major war.
Most of the "wrongs of Versailles" were overturned
without fighting.
Germany was pretty badly hurt in WW I, and few
Germans wanted a second dose. Nor was there much
confidence in German victory beforehand. Before
the 1940 offensive, Halder made a private
estimate that the chance of victory was 1 in 10.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Michael Emrys
Apr 22, 2013, 11:46:55 PM4/22/13
to
On 4/22/13 4:35 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Before the 1940 offensive, Halder made a private estimate that the
> chance of victory was 1 in 10.
If he was referring to the war as a whole, he was being optimistic.
> Before the 1940 offensive, Halder made a private estimate that the
> chance of victory was 1 in 10.
Michael
Mario
Apr 23, 2013, 10:57:42 AM4/23/13
to
Michael Emrys, 05:46, martedě 23 aprile 2013:
I suppose his mindset was almost like French generals one.
--
H
--
H
The Horny Goat
Apr 23, 2013, 10:49:59 PM4/23/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:37:08 -0400, mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
>there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
>Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
>by Hitler.
Check out the "Dead Baby Time Line" (DBTL) in the soc.history.what.if
>If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
>there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
>Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
>by Hitler.
archives for a more detailed version of the sort of scenario you are
discussing.
Easiest way to find it is go to Google Groups and enter
soc.history.what-if DBTL or add Johnny Pez who was the primary author
of it. It basically posits no Nazis but an authoritarian regime led by
a DNVP coalition.
The Horny Goat
Apr 23, 2013, 10:51:02 PM4/23/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:20:05 -0400, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>On 04/19/2013 09:02 PM, dumbstruck wrote:
>
>> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
>> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
>> your fancy or sheds some light?
>...
>
>This is a terribly commonplace and pedestrian thing to say after the
>interesting fancies that you have given us but I think if Hitler had
>died before the early 30's, or even after coming to power, the war and
>the Holocaust might have been avoided.
1. Mussolini and Hitler could have personally loathed each other -
this would have had huges changes in how the Spanish Civil War was
fought
2. The French could have clued in that the Ardennes was vulnerable and
been ready to attack north at Sedan, nicely cutting off the bulk of
German armor
3. Hitler could have attempted Sealion - that would DEFINITELY have
shortened the war (and not to the advantage of Germany)
4. There's no Yugoslav coup with the result that Greece doesn't need
to be reinforced and the British offensive in North Africa continues
westwards - I don't think it's logistically possible to drive Rommel
completely out of Africa but perhaps a more successful British
offensive gets Badaglio and others thinking following Mussolini wasn't
such a good idea much earlier than they did
5. No Pearl Harbor and USS Reuben James is avenged (i.e. the US enters
WW2 about 6 months early)
6. The Red Army withdraws more successfully in August/September 1941
with the result their winter offensive pushes the Wehrmacht west of
Smolensk and Kiev. This probably means a war of attrition in 1942
considerably west of the Don.
None of these require major historical changes to bring about.and most
of them could have ended the war in 1943.
wrote:
>On 04/19/2013 09:02 PM, dumbstruck wrote:
>
>> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
>> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
>> your fancy or sheds some light?
>...
>
>This is a terribly commonplace and pedestrian thing to say after the
>interesting fancies that you have given us but I think if Hitler had
>died before the early 30's, or even after coming to power, the war and
>the Holocaust might have been avoided.
this would have had huges changes in how the Spanish Civil War was
fought
2. The French could have clued in that the Ardennes was vulnerable and
been ready to attack north at Sedan, nicely cutting off the bulk of
German armor
3. Hitler could have attempted Sealion - that would DEFINITELY have
shortened the war (and not to the advantage of Germany)
4. There's no Yugoslav coup with the result that Greece doesn't need
to be reinforced and the British offensive in North Africa continues
westwards - I don't think it's logistically possible to drive Rommel
completely out of Africa but perhaps a more successful British
offensive gets Badaglio and others thinking following Mussolini wasn't
such a good idea much earlier than they did
5. No Pearl Harbor and USS Reuben James is avenged (i.e. the US enters
WW2 about 6 months early)
6. The Red Army withdraws more successfully in August/September 1941
with the result their winter offensive pushes the Wehrmacht west of
Smolensk and Kiev. This probably means a war of attrition in 1942
considerably west of the Don.
None of these require major historical changes to bring about.and most
of them could have ended the war in 1943.
Alan Meyer
Apr 24, 2013, 6:20:33 PM4/24/13
to
On 04/23/2013 10:51 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> 1. Mussolini and Hitler could have personally loathed each other -
> this would have had huges changes in how the Spanish Civil War was
> fought
>
> 2. The French could have clued in that the Ardennes was vulnerable and
> been ready to attack north at Sedan, nicely cutting off the bulk of
> German armor
>
> 3. Hitler could have attempted Sealion - that would DEFINITELY have
> shortened the war (and not to the advantage of Germany)
>
> 4. There's no Yugoslav coup with the result that Greece doesn't need
> to be reinforced and the British offensive in North Africa continues
> westwards - I don't think it's logistically possible to drive Rommel
> completely out of Africa but perhaps a more successful British
> offensive gets Badaglio and others thinking following Mussolini wasn't
> such a good idea much earlier than they did
>
> 5. No Pearl Harbor and USS Reuben James is avenged (i.e. the US enters
> WW2 about 6 months early)
>
> 6. The Red Army withdraws more successfully in August/September 1941
> with the result their winter offensive pushes the Wehrmacht west of
> Smolensk and Kiev. This probably means a war of attrition in 1942
> considerably west of the Don.
>
> None of these require major historical changes to bring about.and most
> of them could have ended the war in 1943.
Your take on the question is different from mine in that most of your
> 1. Mussolini and Hitler could have personally loathed each other -
> this would have had huges changes in how the Spanish Civil War was
> fought
>
> 2. The French could have clued in that the Ardennes was vulnerable and
> been ready to attack north at Sedan, nicely cutting off the bulk of
> German armor
>
> 3. Hitler could have attempted Sealion - that would DEFINITELY have
> shortened the war (and not to the advantage of Germany)
>
> 4. There's no Yugoslav coup with the result that Greece doesn't need
> to be reinforced and the British offensive in North Africa continues
> westwards - I don't think it's logistically possible to drive Rommel
> completely out of Africa but perhaps a more successful British
> offensive gets Badaglio and others thinking following Mussolini wasn't
> such a good idea much earlier than they did
>
> 5. No Pearl Harbor and USS Reuben James is avenged (i.e. the US enters
> WW2 about 6 months early)
>
> 6. The Red Army withdraws more successfully in August/September 1941
> with the result their winter offensive pushes the Wehrmacht west of
> Smolensk and Kiev. This probably means a war of attrition in 1942
> considerably west of the Don.
>
> None of these require major historical changes to bring about.and most
> of them could have ended the war in 1943.
points are not about historical changes that might have occurred before
the war started, but changes that might have occurred afterward.
Assuming the war did start in 1939, then I don't see a way for it to end
in 1943. Germany was just too strong. If the French and the Russians
had fought more intelligently they could certainly have done better than
they did. Germany might have been slowed, and might have been stopped
short of the conquests that it achieved in fact. But pushing the
Wehrmacht back into Germany and crushing it would have taken the same
enormous effort that it took in 1944 and '45. Maybe it could have been
achieved by the end of '44, but I can't see it in '43.
Incidentally, the Reuben James incident wouldn't have been sufficient
under any circumstances that I can think of to prod Congress to declare
war. If there were no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken many
more months for Roosevelt to get the US into the war, if he succeeded at
all.
Of all of your points, I think point 6 is the one that had the best
chance of coming true, and would have had the best chance of ending the
war earlier. The best way for point 6 to have come true would have been
for Stalin to have died or been deposed before 1936, saving
Tukhachevsky and the other general officers and enabling the Red Army to
fight MUCH more effectively in 1941 and '42.
It's terribly sad and depressing that there are millions of Russians who
still believe today that Stalin was a great man and a great leader.
Alan
The Horny Goat
Apr 25, 2013, 9:29:34 PM4/25/13
to
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:20:33 -0400, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Your take on the question is different from mine in that most of your
>points are not about historical changes that might have occurred before
>the war started, but changes that might have occurred afterward.
Very true - the Hitler / Mussolini item would definitely have affected
the Spanish Civil War which is certainly pre-war and I see room for
plenty of SCW counter-factuals if we're keying on the prewar period.
>Assuming the war did start in 1939, then I don't see a way for it to end
>in 1943. Germany was just too strong. If the French and the Russians
>had fought more intelligently they could certainly have done better than
>they did. Germany might have been slowed, and might have been stopped
>short of the conquests that it achieved in fact. But pushing the
>Wehrmacht back into Germany and crushing it would have taken the same
>enormous effort that it took in 1944 and '45. Maybe it could have been
>achieved by the end of '44, but I can't see it in '43.
The economic damage a failed Sealion attempt would have caused
(obviously a successful Sealion would have had even greater impacts
but that would be no more likely than me becoming British prime
minister - and I am a Canadian!) particularly in terms of German
inland shipping. It likely would have caused some neutrals to declare
for the allies as well as Hungary and Rumania to stay out if they had
not already joined the Axis.
>Incidentally, the Reuben James incident wouldn't have been sufficient
>under any circumstances that I can think of to prod Congress to declare
>war. If there were no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken many
>more months for Roosevelt to get the US into the war, if he succeeded at
>all.
Bear in mind the Reuben James was one of several German attacks on US
shipping - so the $64000 question is how many German attacks is likely
to bring the US into the war? 1? probably not - 10? very possibly -
50? almost certainly
>Of all of your points, I think point 6 is the one that had the best
>chance of coming true, and would have had the best chance of ending the
>war earlier. The best way for point 6 to have come true would have been
>for Stalin to have died or been deposed before 1936, saving
>Tukhachevsky and the other general officers and enabling the Red Army to
>fight MUCH more effectively in 1941 and '42.
Very true - the 1936-38 purges particularly those of the Red Army was
by no means foreordained. Neither was the destruction of the Red Air
Force on 22-23 June 1941.
>It's terribly sad and depressing that there are millions of Russians who
>still believe today that Stalin was a great man and a great leader.
Time Magazine made Hitler their man of the year in 1939 and based on
their definition that was completely fair. "Great" does not mean
"laudable" and no question the Soviets came closer to defeat in 1941
than on paper they should have.
wrote:
>Your take on the question is different from mine in that most of your
>points are not about historical changes that might have occurred before
>the war started, but changes that might have occurred afterward.
the Spanish Civil War which is certainly pre-war and I see room for
plenty of SCW counter-factuals if we're keying on the prewar period.
>Assuming the war did start in 1939, then I don't see a way for it to end
>in 1943. Germany was just too strong. If the French and the Russians
>had fought more intelligently they could certainly have done better than
>they did. Germany might have been slowed, and might have been stopped
>short of the conquests that it achieved in fact. But pushing the
>Wehrmacht back into Germany and crushing it would have taken the same
>enormous effort that it took in 1944 and '45. Maybe it could have been
>achieved by the end of '44, but I can't see it in '43.
(obviously a successful Sealion would have had even greater impacts
but that would be no more likely than me becoming British prime
minister - and I am a Canadian!) particularly in terms of German
inland shipping. It likely would have caused some neutrals to declare
for the allies as well as Hungary and Rumania to stay out if they had
not already joined the Axis.
>Incidentally, the Reuben James incident wouldn't have been sufficient
>under any circumstances that I can think of to prod Congress to declare
>war. If there were no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken many
>more months for Roosevelt to get the US into the war, if he succeeded at
>all.
shipping - so the $64000 question is how many German attacks is likely
to bring the US into the war? 1? probably not - 10? very possibly -
50? almost certainly
>Of all of your points, I think point 6 is the one that had the best
>chance of coming true, and would have had the best chance of ending the
>war earlier. The best way for point 6 to have come true would have been
>for Stalin to have died or been deposed before 1936, saving
>Tukhachevsky and the other general officers and enabling the Red Army to
>fight MUCH more effectively in 1941 and '42.
by no means foreordained. Neither was the destruction of the Red Air
Force on 22-23 June 1941.
>It's terribly sad and depressing that there are millions of Russians who
>still believe today that Stalin was a great man and a great leader.
their definition that was completely fair. "Great" does not mean
"laudable" and no question the Soviets came closer to defeat in 1941
than on paper they should have.
wjho...@aol.com
Apr 26, 2013, 2:06:14 PM4/26/13
to
On Apr 25, 9:29 pm, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> >.... the Reuben James incident wouldn't have
> > been sufficient under any circumstances...to
sooner than you think had another such incident
occurred after Reuben James..
We were already half at war with Germany
at least a year before the Reuben James incident
occurred in October of 1941. With England on the
ropes during the "The Battle of Britain" in the
summer of 1940, the U.S.public began to
realize that if Britain fell, the U.S. would stand
alone against an alliance of dictators bent on
conquest.
In 1939 a non-aggression pact had been
signed between Gernany and the Soviet Union,
in 1940 the Tripartite Pact was signed linking
Germany, Japan, and Italy. France had fallen,
and every night at dinner time the U,S. public
eagerly listened as Edward R. Murrow in
London, Eric Severied in occupied Paris, and
William L. Shirer in Berlin painted a grim
word-picture by short-wave radio of the war
situation in Europe.
The continuing flow of bad news had a
definite effect on U.S.public opinion, and
also on U.S. foreign policy with FDR shaping
the way. At the beginning of the war in Europe,
most Americans had more curiosity than concern
with regard to the possible outcome. Congress
passed a "Neutrality Act", the "America First"
movement attracted a following as a result of the
Sunday afternoon rantings of Father Coughlin,
the famous "radio priest," and the views of celebrity
Charles Lindbergh. But, IIRC, the influence of
that movement diminished as the war news
in Europe got worse.
The U.S. government's pretense of
neutrality also faded and a U.S. military build-up
was accelerated. The first peace-time draft
became law in October 1940, followed by the
Lend Lease Act and a call-up of Army and Navy
Reservists beginning in early 1941.
Thus, in my view, it would not have
been much of a surprise if, after Reuben
James, another act of aggression by Germany
against the U.S. could have lit the war fuse at
any time,
As for Japan, despite the existing
tensions with that country at the time, the
attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed a surprise.
WJH
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 Alan Meyer wrote:
>
> >.... the Reuben James incident wouldn't have
> > been sufficient under any circumstances...to
> > prod Congress to declare war. If there were
> > no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken
> > many more months for Roosevelt to get the
> > US into the war, if he succeeded at all.
> ....the $64000 question is how many German
> > no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken
> > many more months for Roosevelt to get the
> > US into the war, if he succeeded at all.
> attacks is likely to bring the US into the war?
> 1? probably not - 10? very possibly - 50?
> almost certainly
I believe Congress would have acted much
> 1? probably not - 10? very possibly - 50?
> almost certainly
sooner than you think had another such incident
occurred after Reuben James..
We were already half at war with Germany
at least a year before the Reuben James incident
occurred in October of 1941. With England on the
ropes during the "The Battle of Britain" in the
summer of 1940, the U.S.public began to
realize that if Britain fell, the U.S. would stand
alone against an alliance of dictators bent on
conquest.
In 1939 a non-aggression pact had been
signed between Gernany and the Soviet Union,
in 1940 the Tripartite Pact was signed linking
Germany, Japan, and Italy. France had fallen,
and every night at dinner time the U,S. public
eagerly listened as Edward R. Murrow in
London, Eric Severied in occupied Paris, and
William L. Shirer in Berlin painted a grim
word-picture by short-wave radio of the war
situation in Europe.
The continuing flow of bad news had a
definite effect on U.S.public opinion, and
also on U.S. foreign policy with FDR shaping
the way. At the beginning of the war in Europe,
most Americans had more curiosity than concern
with regard to the possible outcome. Congress
passed a "Neutrality Act", the "America First"
movement attracted a following as a result of the
Sunday afternoon rantings of Father Coughlin,
the famous "radio priest," and the views of celebrity
Charles Lindbergh. But, IIRC, the influence of
that movement diminished as the war news
in Europe got worse.
The U.S. government's pretense of
neutrality also faded and a U.S. military build-up
was accelerated. The first peace-time draft
became law in October 1940, followed by the
Lend Lease Act and a call-up of Army and Navy
Reservists beginning in early 1941.
Thus, in my view, it would not have
been much of a surprise if, after Reuben
James, another act of aggression by Germany
against the U.S. could have lit the war fuse at
any time,
As for Japan, despite the existing
tensions with that country at the time, the
attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed a surprise.
WJH
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Apr 26, 2013, 6:09:44 PM4/26/13
to
wjho...@aol.com <wjho...@aol.com> wrote:
> As for Japan, despite the existing
> tensions with that country at the time, the
> attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed a surprise.
The US was, however, expecting an attack in, at least the PI.
> As for Japan, despite the existing
> tensions with that country at the time, the
> attack on Pearl Harbor was indeed a surprise.
Mike
Alan Meyer
Apr 27, 2013, 3:57:07 PM4/27/13
to
On 04/26/2013 02:06 PM, wjho...@aol.com wrote:
> On Apr 25, 9:29 pm, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 Alan Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> .... the Reuben James incident wouldn't have
>>> been sufficient under any circumstances...to
>>> prod Congress to declare war. If there were
>>> no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken
>>> many more months for Roosevelt to get the
>>> US into the war, if he succeeded at all.
>
>> ....the $64000 question is how many German
>> attacks is likely to bring the US into the war?
>> 1? probably not - 10? very possibly - 50?
>> almost certainly
>
> I believe Congress would have acted much
> sooner than you think had another such incident
> occurred after Reuben James..
...
> On Apr 25, 9:29 pm, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 Alan Meyer wrote:
>>
>>> .... the Reuben James incident wouldn't have
>>> been sufficient under any circumstances...to
>>> prod Congress to declare war. If there were
>>> no Pearl Harbor, I think it would have taken
>>> many more months for Roosevelt to get the
>>> US into the war, if he succeeded at all.
>
>> ....the $64000 question is how many German
>> attacks is likely to bring the US into the war?
>> 1? probably not - 10? very possibly - 50?
>> almost certainly
>
> I believe Congress would have acted much
> sooner than you think had another such incident
> occurred after Reuben James..
I'd like to believe that's right. Maybe it was.
The Roosevelt administration was taking on more "short of war"
responsibilities in the Atlantic and giving more and more aid to
Britain, and these were more and more provocative to Germany. If the
Germans were smart about it, they would have made as many diplomatic
protests as possible and done what they could to launch an anti-war
public relations campaign in the U.S., but would have issued strict
orders to air and sea units to stay as far from possible from American
units.
But Hitler was full of hubris and usually wasn't smart about these kinds
of things. His instinctive response to provocation was bluster and
violence, not diplomacy.
One thing we should note about this issue is that the U.S. had already
started to prepare for war in 1940 and preparations were accelerating.
No Americans got into the fight in any significant way before Operation
Torch, in November, 1942, 11 months after the start of the war.
With continued preparation before the start of war, even if war were
declared 3 or 6 months later than it was, the U.S. might still have been
able to fight by November, 1942, or not long thereafter. It's possible
that the outcome would have been very similar on a timetable that was
not greatly retarded.
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
Apr 27, 2013, 6:24:30 PM4/27/13
to
Mike
Michael Kuettner
Apr 30, 2013, 2:45:19 PM4/30/13
to
dumbstruck wrote:
> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
> your fancy or sheds some light?
>
<snip>
> What are some vulnerable points in the Nazi run up to the destruction
> of Europe that could easily have been reversed... in a way that catches
> your fancy or sheds some light?
>
Rather simple. If the army hadn't schooled and used Hitler as an
undercover informant and given him the order to keep an eye on the
NSDAP, things would have been different.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Les
Apr 30, 2013, 3:00:05 PM4/30/13
to
On Apr 27, 4:57 pm, Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(stuff deleted)
> If the
> Germans were smart about it, they would have made as many diplomatic
> protests as possible and done what they could to launch an anti-war
> public relations campaign in the U.S.
They did maintain at least one radio station broadcast to the US, and
several segments of the US did at least initially have German/Nazi
sympathies. The problem was that by 1940 Germany had expended any
political goodwill they had with most of the US.
Also, the Germans were not particularly good at foreign propaganda.
The Big Lie does not work well when it has to share broadcast space
with competing views, particularly when the enemy propaganda brings up
history.
Some choice examples: the Nazis initially claimed the Communists were
their sworn enemy, then entered a Non-Agression Pact with the
Soviets. That act alone gutted the memberships of both the Communist
and Nazi parties in the US. The US also had Nazi assurances of "their
last territorial demand," followed shortly by news of Hitler annexing
yet another territory. Hitler broadcast a message stating "war would
accomplish nothing," right before he invaded Poland.
Given the above history, having Hitler repeatedly state he has no
interests beyond the Atlantic is going to be taken with a grain of
salt, and when the British "acquire" and release a map of how Germany
intended to section South America, are you going to believe German
outcries that it is a fake?
>, but would have issued strict
> orders to air and sea units to stay as far from possible from American
> units.
Problem: under international law, it was legal for RN ships to fly US
flags, as long as they didn't fight while displaying them. Once the U-
boats start avoiding convoys with US flags, expect the German blockade
to become nothing but a waste of German resources as the RN ships take
advantage of this.
> But Hitler was full of hubris and usually wasn't smart about these kinds
> of things. His instinctive response to provocation was bluster and
> violence, not diplomacy.
(rest of post deleted)
Hitler's diplomacy *was* bluster and violence. He initially got away
with it because of the Allies' reluctance to enter another major
war.
(stuff deleted)
> If the
> Germans were smart about it, they would have made as many diplomatic
> protests as possible and done what they could to launch an anti-war
> public relations campaign in the U.S.
several segments of the US did at least initially have German/Nazi
sympathies. The problem was that by 1940 Germany had expended any
political goodwill they had with most of the US.
Also, the Germans were not particularly good at foreign propaganda.
The Big Lie does not work well when it has to share broadcast space
with competing views, particularly when the enemy propaganda brings up
history.
Some choice examples: the Nazis initially claimed the Communists were
their sworn enemy, then entered a Non-Agression Pact with the
Soviets. That act alone gutted the memberships of both the Communist
and Nazi parties in the US. The US also had Nazi assurances of "their
last territorial demand," followed shortly by news of Hitler annexing
yet another territory. Hitler broadcast a message stating "war would
accomplish nothing," right before he invaded Poland.
Given the above history, having Hitler repeatedly state he has no
interests beyond the Atlantic is going to be taken with a grain of
salt, and when the British "acquire" and release a map of how Germany
intended to section South America, are you going to believe German
outcries that it is a fake?
>, but would have issued strict
> orders to air and sea units to stay as far from possible from American
> units.
flags, as long as they didn't fight while displaying them. Once the U-
boats start avoiding convoys with US flags, expect the German blockade
to become nothing but a waste of German resources as the RN ships take
advantage of this.
> But Hitler was full of hubris and usually wasn't smart about these kinds
> of things. His instinctive response to provocation was bluster and
> violence, not diplomacy.
Hitler's diplomacy *was* bluster and violence. He initially got away
with it because of the Allies' reluctance to enter another major
war.
The Horny Goat
May 2, 2013, 10:29:03 AM5/2/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:00:05 -0400, Les <lesliem...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>Problem: under international law, it was legal for RN ships to fly US
>flags, as long as they didn't fight while displaying them. Once the U-
>boats start avoiding convoys with US flags, expect the German blockade
>to become nothing but a waste of German resources as the RN ships take
>advantage of this.
Hmmmm. Didn't know that was still the case in WW2.
Anyone familiar with Napoleonic era naval novels (i.e. Hornblower,
Bolitho, Jack Aubrey, Thomas Kydd etc) would know that was a favorite
tactic in Napoleonic times and was also used by German Q-ships in WW1.
wrote:
>Problem: under international law, it was legal for RN ships to fly US
>flags, as long as they didn't fight while displaying them. Once the U-
>boats start avoiding convoys with US flags, expect the German blockade
>to become nothing but a waste of German resources as the RN ships take
>advantage of this.
Anyone familiar with Napoleonic era naval novels (i.e. Hornblower,
Bolitho, Jack Aubrey, Thomas Kydd etc) would know that was a favorite
tactic in Napoleonic times and was also used by German Q-ships in WW1.
Michael Kuettner
May 3, 2013, 1:49:38 PM5/3/13
to
Alan Meyer wrote:
> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>> I 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.
> ...
>> Para. 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.
> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>> I 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.
> ...
>> Para. 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
Why do you mention Spartakists in a sentence starting with "Right-wing
factions" ?
>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
There was a civil war going on ...
>> and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
>> relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.)
>
> Yes. There is no doubt that both left and right wing extremism existed
> prior to Hitler and that violent and illegal repression of the left had
> already been a fact of German political life before Hitler. It would be
> naive to imagine this sort of thing would not have occurred in the
> 1930's even if Hitler didn't exist.
>
hand-writing with their "Räte-Republik!.
The lefties were as violent as the righties; but more of the ex-soldiers
preferred the right wing.
"Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
The "Räte-Republiken" were directed against the new democracy in Germany.
The left storm-troopers were as violent as the right ones.
> But, do you think it would have been as bad if Hitler didn't exist?
>
That's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
> Of 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.
>
He was a Socialist first and then national.
That's why he was shot in 1934 when he wanted nationalization of the
big companies like Krupp, Thyssen, etc.
By then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
sponsored by the big money.
Röhm and _his_ SA (they would do what he said, not what Hitler said)
had become a liability.
> But 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.
(a) existing anti-Semitism through the political spectrum in Germany
(b) a common enemy was created
(c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
> A much lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of
> the same political goals with much less damage to Germany.
So 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).
> His 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.
>
the Nazi-party.
All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at Nürnberg.
Look at Himmler, Streicher & cie in that context.
> Without 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?
>
you're talking about.
Dictate 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), high 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 ...
The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
the people were poor.
Then along came "Black Friday".
That lead to votes for extremist parties - Communists and Nazis gained.
With or without Hitler - war would have come.
The right wing conservatives hated the French, Brits & Americans as
fierce as the Nazis did. Which shouldn't come as a surprise after
Versailles.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
May 4, 2013, 4:28:01 PM5/4/13
to
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> If the [Weimar] Republic gave way to a right-wing,
>> aggressive government, I suspect there still would
>> have been a war to "right the wrongs of the
>> Versailles Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and
>> ferocious as the wars embarked upon by Hitler.
>
> Counter-factual territory, of course...
>
> But a post-Weimar nationalist regime would
> still be reluctant to launch any major war.
>
No.
> mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:
>
>> If the [Weimar] Republic gave way to a right-wing,
>> aggressive government, I suspect there still would
>> have been a war to "right the wrongs of the
>> Versailles Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and
>> ferocious as the wars embarked upon by Hitler.
>
> Counter-factual territory, of course...
>
> But a post-Weimar nationalist regime would
> still be reluctant to launch any major war.
>
It would have been before von Seeckt had formed the new
army.
> Most of the "wrongs of Versailles" were overturned
> without fighting.
>
aren't that easy to integrate ...
> Germany was pretty badly hurt in WW I, and few
> Germans wanted a second dose. Nor was there much
> confidence in German victory beforehand. Before
> the 1940 offensive, Halder made a private
> estimate that the chance of victory was 1 in 10.
>
Halder was a conservative who didn't get what the use
of mechanized units could do.
Then there's the use of "Legion Condor" in the Spanish
civil war...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
May 4, 2013, 4:28:34 PM5/4/13
to
Don Phillipson wrote:
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:kkv83i$19t$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
>
>> If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
>> there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
>> Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
>> by Hitler.
>
> Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1 (cf. Wehrmacht
(a) Wehrmacht ? In 1914 ?
> <mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> news:kkv83i$19t$1...@haven.eyrie.org...
>
>> If the Republic gave way to a right-wing, aggressive government, I suspect
>> there still would have been a war to "right the wrongs of the Versailles
>> Treaty", but nothing as ambitious and ferocious as the wars embarked upon
>> by Hitler.
>
> Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1 (cf. Wehrmacht
> approval
(b) what approval ?
> of massacring Belgian civilians 1914)
The units there were "green" recruits.
With bad coordination and Prussian officers.
What happened ?
German units fired at each other. That was (for the officers)
an impossibility. So Belgians had to be the shooters.
Belgian civilians were rounded up in the night, shortly
"court-martialed" and shot in the morning.
When the commanding general of the army - corps found out
later in the day that none of the executed had any weapons at home
and his officers had lied to him, he shot himself.
His name was "von Bülow".
So :
massacre - yes.
"Wehrmacht" - no.
Approval - no.
As for German "frightfulness" :
Wasn't there some little incident in China before WWI accompanied
by some little speech of a degenerate Hohenzollern about "huns" ?
> but developed uniquely
> in WW2, cf. Hitler's "Commissar Order" of 1941 that Russian CP
> officials should be shot on capture and earlier deliberate massacres
> of Jewish civilians in Poland etc.
von Seeckt schooled his army for massacres, your "point" is nonsense.
> This was something new in modern
> Europe, viz. unknown since the 17th century, and traceable directly to
> the unique style of Hitler's government since 1933, demonstrated
> earlier by the Roehm Purge
Just to give some examples :
- the massacre of the Huguenottes
- the massacre (in France) of the Templars
I've selected two French examples to show that Hitler's style of ruling
was neither unique nor confined to Germany.
What had Röhm in common with the other groups ?
Simple : He became too mighty and influental and wanted some of the
promises made to him by the ruler finally fulfilled.
> and Hitler's declaration (in public, before
> the Reichstag) that his word was law (and by Germans' general
> acceptance of this constitutional proposition.)
>
Or are you mixing up the "Notstandsverordnungen" with later things ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Rich Rostrom
May 5, 2013, 1:56:30 AM5/5/13
to
Michael Kuettner <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
> Don Phillipson wrote:
> > Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1 (cf. Wehrmacht
> (a) Wehrmacht ? In 1914 ?
Wehrmacht is anachrohnistic.
> > approval
>
> (b) what approval ?
The doctrine of _schrecklichkeit_ (frighfulness)
as a means of quickly ending resistance was
officially recognized in the Imperial German
Army
> > of massacring Belgian civilians 1914)
>
> To the massacre :
"_the_ massacre"?
Does this refer to
Aarschot, where 156 people were murdered
Tamines (383 murdered)
Dinant (674 murdered)
Andennes (211) murdered)
Louvain (248 murdered, the library with thousands of medieval
and Renaissance books and manuscripts torched, and 10,000
people driven from their homes)
or some of the other towns in Belgium where
civilians were killed in mass shootings?
Hitler approved of all this, BTW. He siad
"The old Reich knew already how to act with firmness
in the occupied areas. That's how attempts at sabotage
to the railways in Belgium were punished by Count von
der Goltz. He had all the villages burnt within a
radius of several kilometres, after having had all the
mayors shot, the men imprisoned and the women and
children evacuated."
> Don Phillipson wrote:
> > Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1 (cf. Wehrmacht
> (a) Wehrmacht ? In 1914 ?
> > approval
>
> (b) what approval ?
as a means of quickly ending resistance was
officially recognized in the Imperial German
Army
> > of massacring Belgian civilians 1914)
>
> To the massacre :
Does this refer to
Aarschot, where 156 people were murdered
Tamines (383 murdered)
Dinant (674 murdered)
Andennes (211) murdered)
Louvain (248 murdered, the library with thousands of medieval
and Renaissance books and manuscripts torched, and 10,000
people driven from their homes)
or some of the other towns in Belgium where
civilians were killed in mass shootings?
Hitler approved of all this, BTW. He siad
"The old Reich knew already how to act with firmness
in the occupied areas. That's how attempts at sabotage
to the railways in Belgium were punished by Count von
der Goltz. He had all the villages burnt within a
radius of several kilometres, after having had all the
mayors shot, the men imprisoned and the women and
children evacuated."
Stephen Graham
May 5, 2013, 5:49:46 PM5/5/13
to
On 5/3/13 10:49 AM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
without even the pretense of a trial.
> "Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
> The "R�te-Republiken" were directed against the new democracy in Germany.
What is indisputable is that fighters from the RFB and Reichsbanner were
treated more harshly by the Weimar justice system than their
counterparts from the SA and Stahlhelm.
>> But, 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.
> That's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
That's a distinct oversimplification. Most Germans of whatever political
stripe wanted revision of Versailles in some fashion. Individual actions
such as the reversion of the Saar were very popular. But that really
doesn't equate to "stood behind Hitler".
> By then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
> sponsored by the big money.
I'm not certain that the original aims of the DAP prior to the advent of
Hitler had much relevance to the stance of the party after he took firm
control. On the other hand, the original DAP doesn't fit very neatly
into the left-right dichotomy. As with most of the v�lkisch parties,
there were elements from all parts of the political spectrum.
> Dictate 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),
Millions of displaced Germans in 1919-20? I think you're conflating the
aftereffects of the two world wars.
> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
> the people were poor.
And that's not accurate either.
> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
>
> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
> There was a civil war going on ...
Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered: shot while in military custody
>>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
>
> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
> There was a civil war going on ...
without even the pretense of a trial.
> "Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
> The left storm-troopers were as violent as the right ones.
The violence may have been equivalent between, say, the SA and the RFB.
What is indisputable is that fighters from the RFB and Reichsbanner were
treated more harshly by the Weimar justice system than their
counterparts from the SA and Stahlhelm.
>> But, 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.
> That's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
stripe wanted revision of Versailles in some fashion. Individual actions
such as the reversion of the Saar were very popular. But that really
doesn't equate to "stood behind Hitler".
> By then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
> sponsored by the big money.
Hitler had much relevance to the stance of the party after he took firm
control. On the other hand, the original DAP doesn't fit very neatly
into the left-right dichotomy. As with most of the v�lkisch parties,
there were elements from all parts of the political spectrum.
> Dictate 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),
aftereffects of the two world wars.
> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
> the people were poor.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 6, 2013, 10:39:27 AM5/6/13
to
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
> Why 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.
>>> the 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.
> There was a civil war going on ...
And the men were in custody, not free on the streets.
>>> and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
>>> relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.)
>>
>> Yes. There is no doubt that both left and right wing extremism existed
>> prior to Hitler and that violent and illegal repression of the left had
>> already been a fact of German political life before Hitler. It would be
>> naive to imagine this sort of thing would not have occurred in the
>> 1930's even if Hitler didn't exist.
>>
> Oh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
> hand-writing with their "R�te-Republik!.
As noted there were left and right wing movements using violence
and often justifying it by what "the other side" were doing.
> The 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.
> "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?
Learn some reality.
> The "R�te-Republiken" were directed against the new democracy in Germany.
left, unless you mean the SA pre 1934?
The 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.
>> But, 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.
Generally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
not a united front.
And 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'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.
>> Of 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.
>>
> R�hm 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.
> He was a Socialist first and then national.
And Hitler decided party policy would be the reverse of that.
> That'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.
> By 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.
> R�hm 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.
>> But 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.
> (b) a common enemy was created
Actually try revived. The new common enemy were the
communists.
> (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. Please 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.
> > A 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.
> After 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.
> So 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.
>> His 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.
> All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at N�rnberg.
during the war produced lots of evidence to show their leader's
involvement.
>> Without 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.
> Dictate 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.
> high 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.
So strangely enough the French and Belgians wanted things from
Germany to cover their losses and repair bills. Go look up the
clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
treaties of the time.
> The "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.
> Then 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.
> With 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.
> The 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.
German trade statistics have a problem given the value changes in the
currency in the 1920's, so the tonnage figures are probably more
consistent.
In 1922 Germany imported nearly 46 million tons of goods, and
exported about 21.5 million, in 1928 the figures were 66 and 45
million.
In 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.
Lots of that trade would have been with the groups claimed to be hated.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
> Alan Meyer wrote:
>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> I 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.
>> ...
>>> Para. 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.
>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> I 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.
>> ...
>>> Para. 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.
> Why do you mention Spartakists in a sentence starting with "Right-wing
> factions" ?
activists in Germany at the time were using violence.
>>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
>
> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
> There was a civil war going on ...
>>> and left-wing extremists persisted (one reason the constitutionalists
>>> relocated to Weimar, to avoid disorder in Berlin.)
>>
>> Yes. There is no doubt that both left and right wing extremism existed
>> prior to Hitler and that violent and illegal repression of the left had
>> already been a fact of German political life before Hitler. It would be
>> naive to imagine this sort of thing would not have occurred in the
>> 1930's even if Hitler didn't exist.
>>
> Oh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
As noted there were left and right wing movements using violence
and often justifying it by what "the other side" were doing.
> The lefties were as violent as the righties; but more of the ex-soldiers
> preferred the right wing.
wing violence more heavily than right wing.
> "Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
Like using violence to remove left wing governments?
Learn some reality.
> The "R�te-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?
The 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.
>> But, 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.
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.
Generally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
not a united front.
And 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's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
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.
>> Of 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.
>>
Actually he was, you can examine his membership records and
his uniforms, he was head of the SA and it was very much Nazi.
> He was a Socialist first and then national.
> That's why he was shot in 1934 when he wanted nationalization of the
> big companies like Krupp, Thyssen, etc.
body of armed men a rival to the Army.
> By then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
> sponsored by the big money.
quite powerful Hitler.
> R�hm 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.
>> But 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
to the enemies list.
> (b) a common enemy was created
communists.
> (c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
spending plans. Please 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.
> > A much lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of
>> the same political goals with much less damage to Germany.
>
> Nope.
Nazis did not like became a source of friction with the rest of
the world, plus of course the loss of talented people.
> After 1934, the right wing under Himmler became dominant.
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.
> So 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).
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.
>> His 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.
for it and carried it out does not change that.
> All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at N�rnberg.
> 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.
>> Without 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.
can be right or wrong, it is all probabilities.
> Dictate 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),
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.
> high 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 ...
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.
So strangely enough the French and Belgians wanted things from
Germany to cover their losses and repair bills. Go look up the
clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
treaties of the time.
> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
> the people were poor.
is a major simplification. As inflation came down and the economy
went up people began to become wealthier.
> Then along came "Black Friday".
> That lead to votes for extremist parties - Communists and Nazis gained.
back of a falling vote.
> With or without Hitler - war would have come.
had objectives of ending the Versailles treaty as part of a "repairing"
Germany policy could have done so without war.
> The right wing conservatives hated the French, Brits & Americans as
> fierce as the Nazis did. Which shouldn't come as a surprise after
> Versailles.
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.
German trade statistics have a problem given the value changes in the
currency in the 1920's, so the tonnage figures are probably more
consistent.
In 1922 Germany imported nearly 46 million tons of goods, and
exported about 21.5 million, in 1928 the figures were 66 and 45
million.
In 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.
Lots of that trade would have been with the groups claimed to be hated.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
Michael Kuettner
May 6, 2013, 2:03:41 PM5/6/13
to
Stephen Graham wrote:
> On 5/3/13 10:49 AM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>
>>>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
>>
>> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
>> There was a civil war going on ...
>
> Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered: shot while in military custody
> without even the pretense of a trial.
>
As I've said, there was a civil war going on ...
> On 5/3/13 10:49 AM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>
>>>> the capital (and were defeated and murdered), and both right-
>>
>> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
>> There was a civil war going on ...
>
> Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered: shot while in military custody
> without even the pretense of a trial.
>
OTOH, look at the deaths they'd caused.
>> "Illegal repression of the left" ? Learn some history.
>> The "R�te-Republiken" were directed against the new democracy in Germany.
>> The left storm-troopers were as violent as the right ones.
>
> The violence may have been equivalent between, say, the SA and the RFB.
> What is indisputable is that fighters from the RFB and Reichsbanner were
> treated more harshly by the Weimar justice system than their
> counterparts from the SA and Stahlhelm.
>
I'd use the term "out of control obscenely more harshly".
Roughly 90 % of Leftist thugs were condemned while nearly 90 % of
Rightist thugs walked free.
>>> But, 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.
>> That's why most Germans (left or right) stood behind Hitler until 1939.
>
> That's a distinct oversimplification. Most Germans of whatever political
> stripe wanted revision of Versailles in some fashion. Individual actions
> such as the reversion of the Saar were very popular. But that really
> doesn't equate to "stood behind Hitler".
>
It was a common denominator.
He promised to right the wrongs and was seen to do so.
Add a perfect propaganda from 1933 onwards ...
>> By then, the NSDAP had changed from their leftist origins to a party
>> sponsored by the big money.
>
> I'm not certain that the original aims of the DAP prior to the advent of
> Hitler had much relevance to the stance of the party after he took firm
> control. On the other hand, the original DAP doesn't fit very neatly
> into the left-right dichotomy. As with most of the v�lkisch parties,
> there were elements from all parts of the political spectrum.
>
was a mixture of crude ideas.
You had some lefties, some righties and a crude mix of ideas.
If the NSDAP had had a firm ideology like the Communists, Hitler
couldn't have formed the party after his image.
That's why I've written elsewhere : "If the Reichswehr hadn't educated
Hitler as an undercover-agent and sent him to this little party, there
would have been no rise of the Nazis".
BTW : They never had a coherent ideology until the end. Rosenberg's
patches were even amusing sometimes.
>
>> Dictate 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),
>
> Millions of displaced Germans in 1919-20? I think you're conflating the
> aftereffects of the two world wars.
>
The problem in English historiography is that they use "German" people
instead of "German speaking" people.
The other problem is that the displaced people of WWI were forgotten
after Adolph's handiwork.
>
>> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
>> the people were poor.
>
> And that's not accurate either.
>
Look at Berlin - the upper middle class danced while the workers did not
even get minimum wages (which were non-existant then).
Look at the country - Junkertum in Northern Germany; the farmers there
were more than just poor.
Manufactories elsewhere where people had to buy their means of
production from an agent (e.g., a loom and wool) at a fixed price while
their product was bought (or not) by the agent at market prices.
Meaning : The poor worker had the risk, the agent had the profit.
That didn't change too much after the Hohenzollern.
Add the fact that the bureaucracy was rather inefficient - it did take
some time to synchronize all the buggers after 1871.
So : you get a "Deutsches Reich" in 1871 under the Hohenzollern, which
still was mostly rural. The delusions of grandeur of the so-called
"Kaiser" didn't help.
Instead of starting reforms they started some wars ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
May 6, 2013, 4:36:06 PM5/6/13
to
Note to moderator :
I have to keep most of the text to keep the context.
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> I 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.
>>> ...
>>>> Para. 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.
Had 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.
In his sentence, the Spartakists are a right-wing group.
>> Why 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.
And no, he doesn't point out that. Sloppy grammar.
>>>> the 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.
That the people responsible for killing them weren't tried is another
matter.
>> There was a civil war going on ...
>
> And the men were in custody, not free on the streets.
>
See above.
And remember the civil war.
<snip>
>> Oh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
>> hand-writing with their "R�te-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.
Rather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
>> The 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.
>> "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.
As for left wing government - are we talking about the R�te-Republiken ?
> Learn some reality.
>
Oh, I have.
Contrary to the Anglo-Saxon version of history, which shows WWI as
"Just War" ...
>> The "R�te-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 ?
Oh my ...
Now, let's see what comes to mind for leftie fighters :
Spartakusbund, Roter Soldatenbund, Revolution�rer Matrosenbund,
Roter Frontk�mpferbund, then the EKKI with its "Proletarische
Hundertschaften".
And, of course, the SA (partly).
I could go on, but I guess that should be enough to make my point.
> The 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.
>>> But, 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.
A little hint : The "Dolchsto�legende" wasn't invented by the Nazis.
They used it most efficiently, but the origins were before them.
> Generally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
> not a united front.
>
Yes, major disagreements between the Left and Right; but united
against Versailles.
> And 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.
Remember :
First 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 ...
>> That'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".
But thanks for making my point.
>>> Of 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.
>>>
>> R�hm 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.
>> He was a Socialist first and then national.
>
> And Hitler decided party policy would be the reverse of that.
>
Yes, that's why R�hm was executed as soon as the SS was strong enough.
Again, thanks for making my point.
>> That'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 R�hm, but not to Hitler.
>> By 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.
We're talking about the time before 1933.
The nice meetings in Bayreuth, where Winnifred Wagner made Hitler
acceptable to Thyssen, Krupp & Cie.
Then the money started to flow and the old rhetoric of nationalizing
the bad capitalists became more and more a liability.
>> R�hm 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. Before 1934, Himmler wasn't ready to take on the SA with his SS.
>>> But 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.
We're talking about Anti-Semitism here. Please do pay attention.
>> (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 ...)
It was endemic in all of Europe and surfaced with sad regularity -
Dreyfuss in France, pogroms in Poland, expulsion of all Jews from
Britain, etc.
He didn't need to revive something. It was there in all of Europe and
the US for quite a long time.
The Commies ?
The "Jewish-Bolshevist plot" was laid on ice until it was time for the
invasion of the Soviet-Union ...
>> (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".
But it helped to get gold, silver and other things the Nazis could sell
to get the money to buy on the international market.
The Reichsmark wasn't accepted as international currency, you "genius".
That's the main reason Hitler annected Austria; without our gold and
international currency reserves, Germany would have broken down in 1938.
The Third Reich was always near the border to breaking down; they needed
the new territories to get the funds to keep their regime going.
> Please 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".
The average wealth was a little higher because they were restricted from
farming, craftmanship and most other things by medieval laws.
So 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.
>>> A 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.
Both of you are thinking of sane "political goals" in context
with Adolph. That doesn't work.
Loss of talented people ? <snort>
The first institutions which were purged from Jews after 1933,
were the universities. They even created "Arian Physics" ...
>> After 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 ? Curious ...
"Placating the army" is a wrong term; he gave them what they wanted
while he worked on replacing the head of them ("von Brauchitsch",e.g.)
"Moved to make" ? Nonsense.
Notstandsverordnungen and the death of the Reichspr�sident.
He didn't move there, he had luck.
>> So 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.
>>> His 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.
>> All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at N�rnberg.
>> 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.
>>> Without 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.
Hitler wasn't the cause, he was a symptom of the times.
Look at all of Europe.
All the states "freed from Austrian dictatorship" waged war against each
other.
Then the newly created Poland under Pilsudski ran amok and fought all
its neighbours.
So we have what ? The victors of WWI drawing arbitrary borders and then
withdrawing after some landgrabs and high reparations.
The climate in Europe wasn't too good and very volatile...
>> Dictate 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.
Went to ? Austria and many on to Germany (remember - Austria was rather
small after the war).
Alsace and Lorraine ? What's that ? Elsa�-Lothringen ?
And there's again the Anglo-Saxon historiography - "Ethnic Germans".
An Australian is an "Ethnic USAn" ? Or what ?
>> high 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.
Shouldn't be too hard, right ?
> So 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.
And they also wanted the k.u.k. - empire to disappear.
Thanks to Wilson they got what they wanted.
The Belgians were more moderate...
> Go look up the
> clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
> treaties of the time.
>
<snort>
Yeah, sure.
Go look up Kerenski-Offensive.
You know, the thing the Brits & French forced ?
Then go and look up what the offensive caused (Lenins success, e,g.).
Then go and look up who financed the Bolshies and why they didn't
object to Brest-Litovsk.
Report back when you've done so...
>> The "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.
See my other post.
Junker & Manufakturen, e.g.
St�dtisches Proletariat is another factor.
>> Then 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. It lead to an extremist party getting enough votes to be able
to get into a coalition with the Zentrums-Partei.
Coalitions are hard to understand for Anglo-Saxons with their two-party
system.
>> With 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.
The 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.
>> The 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've told you what was the common opinion back then; the left wingers
were an annoyance - Versailles was a national disgrace, even for Lefties.
> German 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.
> In 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.
> In 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. Look at the trade between the
k.u.k. empire and Germany. Might give you some insight ...
> Lots 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.
Look at 9/11 and Iraq, e.g.
And that was in an age with better communication and the Internet ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
I have to keep most of the text to keep the context.
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> I 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.
>>> ...
>>>> Para. 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.
>
Had 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.
In his sentence, the Spartakists are a right-wing group.
>> Why 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.
>
And no, he doesn't point out that. Sloppy grammar.
>>>> the 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.
>
That the people responsible for killing them weren't tried is another
matter.
>> There was a civil war going on ...
>
> And the men were in custody, not free on the streets.
>
And remember the civil war.
<snip>
>> Oh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
>> hand-writing with their "R�te-Republik!.
>
> As noted there were left and right wing movements using violence
> and often justifying it by what "the other side" were doing.
>
Rather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
>> The 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.
>
>> "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?
>
As for left wing government - are we talking about the R�te-Republiken ?
> Learn some reality.
>
Oh, I have.
Contrary to the Anglo-Saxon version of history, which shows WWI as
"Just War" ...
>> The "R�te-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?
>
Oh my ...
Now, let's see what comes to mind for leftie fighters :
Spartakusbund, Roter Soldatenbund, Revolution�rer Matrosenbund,
Roter Frontk�mpferbund, then the EKKI with its "Proletarische
Hundertschaften".
And, of course, the SA (partly).
I could go on, but I guess that should be enough to make my point.
> The 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.
>
You're right about the shield from the authorities.
>>> But, 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.
>
A little hint : The "Dolchsto�legende" wasn't invented by the Nazis.
They used it most efficiently, but the origins were before them.
> Generally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
> not a united front.
>
against Versailles.
> And 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.
>
Remember :
First 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 ...
>> That'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.
>
But thanks for making my point.
>>> Of 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.
>>>
>> R�hm 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.
>
<sigh>
Yes, national SOCIALIST.
>> He was a Socialist first and then national.
>
> And Hitler decided party policy would be the reverse of that.
>
Again, thanks for making my point.
>> That'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.
>
>> By 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.
>
We're talking about the time before 1933.
The nice meetings in Bayreuth, where Winnifred Wagner made Hitler
acceptable to Thyssen, Krupp & Cie.
Then the money started to flow and the old rhetoric of nationalizing
the bad capitalists became more and more a liability.
>> R�hm 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.
>
>>> But 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.
>
We're talking about Anti-Semitism here. Please do pay attention.
>> (b) a common enemy was created
>
> Actually try revived. The new common enemy were the
> communists.
>
It was endemic in all of Europe and surfaced with sad regularity -
Dreyfuss in France, pogroms in Poland, expulsion of all Jews from
Britain, etc.
He didn't need to revive something. It was there in all of Europe and
the US for quite a long time.
The Commies ?
The "Jewish-Bolshevist plot" was laid on ice until it was time for the
invasion of the Soviet-Union ...
>> (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.
But it helped to get gold, silver and other things the Nazis could sell
to get the money to buy on the international market.
The Reichsmark wasn't accepted as international currency, you "genius".
That's the main reason Hitler annected Austria; without our gold and
international currency reserves, Germany would have broken down in 1938.
The Third Reich was always near the border to breaking down; they needed
the new territories to get the funds to keep their regime going.
> Please 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.
>
The average wealth was a little higher because they were restricted from
farming, craftmanship and most other things by medieval laws.
So 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.
>>> A 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.
>
Both of you are thinking of sane "political goals" in context
with Adolph. That doesn't work.
Loss of talented people ? <snort>
The first institutions which were purged from Jews after 1933,
were the universities. They even created "Arian Physics" ...
>> After 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.
>
"Junkernland in Bauernhand" after 1945 ? Curious ...
"Placating the army" is a wrong term; he gave them what they wanted
while he worked on replacing the head of them ("von Brauchitsch",e.g.)
"Moved to make" ? Nonsense.
Notstandsverordnungen and the death of the Reichspr�sident.
He didn't move there, he had luck.
>> So 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.
>
>>> His 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.
>
>> All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at N�rnberg.
>> 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.
>
orders" defence.
Eichmann would be a nice example in this context.
>>> Without 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.
>
Hitler wasn't the cause, he was a symptom of the times.
Look at all of Europe.
All the states "freed from Austrian dictatorship" waged war against each
other.
Then the newly created Poland under Pilsudski ran amok and fought all
its neighbours.
So we have what ? The victors of WWI drawing arbitrary borders and then
withdrawing after some landgrabs and high reparations.
The climate in Europe wasn't too good and very volatile...
>> Dictate 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.
>
Went to ? Austria and many on to Germany (remember - Austria was rather
small after the war).
Alsace and Lorraine ? What's that ? Elsa�-Lothringen ?
And there's again the Anglo-Saxon historiography - "Ethnic Germans".
An Australian is an "Ethnic USAn" ? Or what ?
>> high 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.
>
Shouldn't be too hard, right ?
> So strangely enough the French and Belgians wanted things from
> Germany to cover their losses and repair bills.
And they also wanted the k.u.k. - empire to disappear.
Thanks to Wilson they got what they wanted.
The Belgians were more moderate...
> Go look up the
> clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
> treaties of the time.
>
Yeah, sure.
Go look up Kerenski-Offensive.
You know, the thing the Brits & French forced ?
Then go and look up what the offensive caused (Lenins success, e,g.).
Then go and look up who financed the Bolshies and why they didn't
object to Brest-Litovsk.
Report back when you've done so...
>> The "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.
>
See my other post.
Junker & Manufakturen, e.g.
St�dtisches Proletariat is another factor.
>> Then 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.
>
to get into a coalition with the Zentrums-Partei.
Coalitions are hard to understand for Anglo-Saxons with their two-party
system.
>> With 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.
>
The 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.
>> The 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.
>
I've told you what was the common opinion back then; the left wingers
were an annoyance - Versailles was a national disgrace, even for Lefties.
> German trade statistics have a problem given the value changes in the
> currency in the 1920's, so the tonnage figures are probably more
> consistent.
>
> In 1922 Germany imported nearly 46 million tons of goods, and
> exported about 21.5 million, in 1928 the figures were 66 and 45
> million.
>
Germany couldn't produce enough food for the population back then.
> In 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.
>
k.u.k. empire and Germany. Might give you some insight ...
> Lots of that trade would have been with the groups claimed to be hated.
Look at 9/11 and Iraq, e.g.
And that was in an age with better communication and the Internet ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Alan Meyer
May 6, 2013, 6:54:42 PM5/6/13
to
On 05/06/2013 04:36 PM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
...
leave aside questions about whether there was a clearer way to express
it, I think we can all agree that the original author of the paragraph
in question did not intend to conflate the Sparticist League and the
right wing.
>>> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
I think that Stephen Graham and Geoffrey Sinclair have refuted this
convincingly and in detail. I think you have to agree that the killings
of Liebnecht, Rosenburg, and many others were neither an act of war
(they were not killed while holding guns in their hands or even while
resisting arrest), nor a legal execution (they were not given trials,
much less fair trials.) They were captured, beaten (and I think it
would be fair to say tortured), and killed, and their bodies disposed of
or hidden.
Most people would call that murder. If you want to hem and haw about
the semantics, okay, but I think you will agree about the facts.
> But not murder ordered by the state.
That is an interesting point. I'm not aware of any evidence that the
state ordered the murders, though there is evidence that the state
provided money to the Freikorps to suppress the left. So there is some
responsibility by the state.
But perhaps you only meant to say that Yes, people on the left were
indeed murdered, but not by the state.
...
murders by the other side something else, I entirely agree.
However we should note that "only is used when lefties died" is
inaccurate. The Nazis were adept at crying murder when someone of the
right was killed. They even went so far as commit murders and other
crimes of their own, such as the faked raid on the radio station that
was used to justify the invasion of Poland and then blame them on
others. If we take the number of pounds of leftist historiography and
compare it to the number of pounds of rightist historiography published
in the 1930's, we can see that the rightist historians were by far the
most egregious purveyors of shoddy history.
And of course it was quite easy for them to do this when they first
imprisoned or killed all the leftist historians, as they did after the
Nazi seizure of power.
>>> The lefties were as violent as the righties ...
Actually, I don't think that was true in Germany.
I believe there was a lot more brutality, criminality, and violence on
the right than on the left, but that's not based on any studies that
I've seen. If you have some studies to show that I'm wrong I'd love to
see them.
...
was successfully sold to a significant percentage of the German public.
Of course I don't agree that it was correct. Germany was defeated in
the west. Had the war continued there can be very little doubt that the
Allies would have invaded Germany and crushed the German army in 1919,
as they did later in 1945.
A statement that would be far more accurate than the right wing
"stab-in-the-back" theory would be that the revolutionaries saved the
lives of the fighting soldiers by preventing the invasion of Germany,
with all of the death and destruction that invasion would have entailed.
As for the responsibility for the Treaty of Versailles, the real
responsibility for that lies with the Allies. I don't know how any
German government could have resisted it short of restarting the war and
overseeing an even worse outcome. The post war German government had a
gun to its head and was given no choice but to sign.
>>> That'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".
> But thanks for making my point.
I agree with you that many Germans supported Hitler because of the
rebirth of national pride that Hitler offered and which he backed up by
overthrowing the provisions of Versailles. I also agree with Geoffrey
Sinclair that the economic improvement and reduction in street violence
and disorder were factors. I'm inclined to think that, for most people,
these factors were intertwined and not easily separated.
The best book that I have seen about why ordinary Germans supported
Hitler in the 1930's is Peter Frietzche's _Life and Death in the Third
Reich_. He makes his point differently from the way you have, but I
think he offers some evidence and a good analysis supporting both your
view and that of Geoffrey Sinclair.
>>>> But 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.
significant amount of the wealth expropriated from Jews went, not to the
national treasury, but to line the pockets of individual Nazis.
When I wrote that "[Hitler's] war on the Jews made no sense. A much
that, from a political point of view, the general German public was
prepared to assent to, and stand aside for, an antisemitic platform. It
would have been popular in the same way that anti-Negro, segregationist
policies were popular among white Americans in the American South in
those days.
However, brutality and murder against Jews were another story. That was
not needed in order to unite people behind Hitler and was in fact
counter-productive. There is an excerpt of a letter reproduced in Ian
Kershaw's _Hitler, The Germans, and the Final Solution_. It was written
right after Kristallnacht by a Nazi supporter, writing to a Nazi party
Gauleiter, and saying "antisemitism, okay, but not like that!"
Decent Germans were not brought up to approve of thuggery. They didn't
like to see people beaten in the street. They didn't approve of the
burning of synagogues or the humiliation of women and children and old
people, or the general nastiness and brutality of the SA. In fact,
according to Kershaw, Hitler had to give orders after Kristallnacht to
stop the overt violence in order to avoid further antagonizing his own
supporters.
You may be right that the state benefited from stealing the property of
Jews but I think it's clear that Hitler would have had more political
support if he had not gone so far in his attacks on Jews. He could even
have won over sections of the Jewish community itself if he offered them
peace and security in return for their political support. Contrary to
Nazi ideology, most German Jews really were supporters of German
nationalism before it turned so viciously against them.
And of course there is no doubt that the Holocaust was deeply
detrimental to German interests. The resources devoted to it would have
been far better spent on the war.
> Of course it couldn't, you "genius".
...
that all of us refrain from snide remarks and _ad hominem_ attacks.
We're just antagonizing each other when we do that and not winning
anyone to our points of view.
Alan
...
>>> This sentence makes no sense.
>>
>> It does make sense.
>>
> It doesn't.
...
>>
>> It does make sense.
>>
> It doesn't.
> And no, he doesn't point out that. Sloppy grammar.
I think if we confine ourselves to the substance of the argument and
leave aside questions about whether there was a clearer way to express
it, I think we can all agree that the original author of the paragraph
in question did not intend to conflate the Sparticist League and the
right wing.
>>> They weren't "murdered", they were shot.
convincingly and in detail. I think you have to agree that the killings
of Liebnecht, Rosenburg, and many others were neither an act of war
(they were not killed while holding guns in their hands or even while
resisting arrest), nor a legal execution (they were not given trials,
much less fair trials.) They were captured, beaten (and I think it
would be fair to say tortured), and killed, and their bodies disposed of
or hidden.
Most people would call that murder. If you want to hem and haw about
the semantics, okay, but I think you will agree about the facts.
> But not murder ordered by the state.
state ordered the murders, though there is evidence that the state
provided money to the Freikorps to suppress the left. So there is some
responsibility by the state.
But perhaps you only meant to say that Yes, people on the left were
indeed murdered, but not by the state.
...
> Yes. But the word "murder" only is used when lefties died.
> Rather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
To the extent that one calls murder by one side "murder" and calls
> Rather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
murders by the other side something else, I entirely agree.
However we should note that "only is used when lefties died" is
inaccurate. The Nazis were adept at crying murder when someone of the
right was killed. They even went so far as commit murders and other
crimes of their own, such as the faked raid on the radio station that
was used to justify the invasion of Poland and then blame them on
others. If we take the number of pounds of leftist historiography and
compare it to the number of pounds of rightist historiography published
in the 1930's, we can see that the rightist historians were by far the
most egregious purveyors of shoddy history.
And of course it was quite easy for them to do this when they first
imprisoned or killed all the leftist historians, as they did after the
Nazi seizure of power.
>>> The lefties were as violent as the righties ...
Actually, I don't think that was true in Germany.
I believe there was a lot more brutality, criminality, and violence on
the right than on the left, but that's not based on any studies that
I've seen. If you have some studies to show that I'm wrong I'd love to
see them.
...
> Remember :
> First 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 ...
I agree that this right wing interpretation of the end of the first war
> First 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 ...
was successfully sold to a significant percentage of the German public.
Of course I don't agree that it was correct. Germany was defeated in
the west. Had the war continued there can be very little doubt that the
Allies would have invaded Germany and crushed the German army in 1919,
as they did later in 1945.
A statement that would be far more accurate than the right wing
"stab-in-the-back" theory would be that the revolutionaries saved the
lives of the fighting soldiers by preventing the invasion of Germany,
with all of the death and destruction that invasion would have entailed.
As for the responsibility for the Treaty of Versailles, the real
responsibility for that lies with the Allies. I don't know how any
German government could have resisted it short of restarting the war and
overseeing an even worse outcome. The post war German government had a
gun to its head and was given no choice but to sign.
>>> That'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".
> But thanks for making my point.
rebirth of national pride that Hitler offered and which he backed up by
overthrowing the provisions of Versailles. I also agree with Geoffrey
Sinclair that the economic improvement and reduction in street violence
and disorder were factors. I'm inclined to think that, for most people,
these factors were intertwined and not easily separated.
The best book that I have seen about why ordinary Germans supported
Hitler in the 1930's is Peter Frietzche's _Life and Death in the Third
Reich_. He makes his point differently from the way you have, but I
think he offers some evidence and a good analysis supporting both your
view and that of Geoffrey Sinclair.
>>>> But 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.
...
>>> (c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that a very
>>> (c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
significant amount of the wealth expropriated from Jews went, not to the
national treasury, but to line the pockets of individual Nazis.
When I wrote that "[Hitler's] war on the Jews made no sense. A much
lighter weight antisemitism would have achieved all of the same
political goals with much less damage to Germany.", what I meant was
that, from a political point of view, the general German public was
prepared to assent to, and stand aside for, an antisemitic platform. It
would have been popular in the same way that anti-Negro, segregationist
policies were popular among white Americans in the American South in
those days.
However, brutality and murder against Jews were another story. That was
not needed in order to unite people behind Hitler and was in fact
counter-productive. There is an excerpt of a letter reproduced in Ian
Kershaw's _Hitler, The Germans, and the Final Solution_. It was written
right after Kristallnacht by a Nazi supporter, writing to a Nazi party
Gauleiter, and saying "antisemitism, okay, but not like that!"
Decent Germans were not brought up to approve of thuggery. They didn't
like to see people beaten in the street. They didn't approve of the
burning of synagogues or the humiliation of women and children and old
people, or the general nastiness and brutality of the SA. In fact,
according to Kershaw, Hitler had to give orders after Kristallnacht to
stop the overt violence in order to avoid further antagonizing his own
supporters.
You may be right that the state benefited from stealing the property of
Jews but I think it's clear that Hitler would have had more political
support if he had not gone so far in his attacks on Jews. He could even
have won over sections of the Jewish community itself if he offered them
peace and security in return for their political support. Contrary to
Nazi ideology, most German Jews really were supporters of German
nationalism before it turned so viciously against them.
And of course there is no doubt that the Holocaust was deeply
detrimental to German interests. The resources devoted to it would have
been far better spent on the war.
> Of course it couldn't, you "genius".
> And again besides the subject, you "genius".
You are not alone in making remarks like this but I'd like to suggest
that all of us refrain from snide remarks and _ad hominem_ attacks.
We're just antagonizing each other when we do that and not winning
anyone to our points of view.
Alan
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
May 7, 2013, 12:12:43 AM5/7/13
to
Michael Kuettner <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote:
> (c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
Except that most of the property was transferred to German ownership, rather
than directly to the government.
Mike
> Alan Meyer wrote:
> > But 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
> (b) a common enemy was created
Well, there was communism.
> > But 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
> (b) a common enemy was created
> (c) a deficit-spending economy needs cash. The Jews had it ...
than directly to the government.
Mike
Stephen Graham
May 7, 2013, 1:57:34 AM5/7/13
to
On 5/6/13 11:03 AM, Michael Kuettner wrote:
Instead they were in the custody of the Garde-Kavallerie-Schutzen
division, which was in a debatable status between government military
unit and Freikorps at the time. Shooting unarmed individuals without
trial is generally viewed as murder.
>> The violence may have been equivalent between, say, the SA and the RFB.
>> What is indisputable is that fighters from the RFB and Reichsbanner were
>> treated more harshly by the Weimar justice system than their
>> counterparts from the SA and Stahlhelm.
>>
> That's nearly correct, except for "more harshly".
> I'd use the term "out of control obscenely more harshly".
> Roughly 90 % of Leftist thugs were condemned while nearly 90 % of
> Rightist thugs walked free.
Thus the characterization of events as illegal repression of the left.
>> That's a distinct oversimplification. Most Germans of whatever political
>> stripe wanted revision of Versailles in some fashion. Individual actions
>> such as the reversion of the Saar were very popular. But that really
>> doesn't equate to "stood behind Hitler".
>>
> Of course it did.
> It was a common denominator.
> He promised to right the wrongs and was seen to do so.
> Add a perfect propaganda from 1933 onwards ...
You seem to be claiming that it's a black and white division: either you
completely oppose everything that Hitler and the NSDAP did or you
completely support them. Nothing in between. Whereas we know that the
internal German debate about the Versailles Treaty was nuanced. There
were individual measures that were quite popular: reclaiming the Saar or
the perceived economic turnaround (though there was a significant degree
of reservation about the methods employed). There were other measures
that were very mixed: military reoccupation of the Rhineland caused a
lot of anxiety on most peoples' part but was popular once they got away
with it. It's a very mixed bag.
> If the NSDAP had had a firm ideology like the Communists, Hitler
> couldn't have formed the party after his image.
This rather ignores a number of examples of Communist parties with
charismatic leaders who reshape the party.
> That's why I've written elsewhere : "If the Reichswehr hadn't educated
> Hitler as an undercover-agent and sent him to this little party, there
> would have been no rise of the Nazis".
Or Hitler would have drifted into volkisch politics in that time period,
with any one of a number of small little groups.
>> Millions of displaced Germans in 1919-20? I think you're conflating the
>> aftereffects of the two world wars.
>>
> No, not really.
> The problem in English historiography is that they use "German" people
> instead of "German speaking" people.
> The other problem is that the displaced people of WWI were forgotten
> after Adolph's handiwork.
a) We're speaking specifically of Germany in this case.
b) You'll still need to specify where these millions of displaced
German-speaking individuals were and how the peace process caused their
displacement. Be specific.
>>> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
>>> the people were poor.
>>
>> And that's not accurate either.
>>
> Of course it is.
> Look at Berlin - the upper middle class danced while the workers did not
> even get minimum wages (which were non-existant then).
That's an interesting claim, given that implementation of
industry-standard minimum-wage agreements was a hallmark of Weimar
economic policy.
> Look at the country - Junkertum in Northern Germany; the farmers there
> were more than just poor.
Yes, the German agricultural sector was generally inefficient. It was
not a dominant factor in Weimar economics.
In general, while groups of individuals had a miserable time of it in
the 1920s, overall real wages recovered to pre-war levels by 1927 and
continued to grow over the next year or so. In general, Germany was a
reasonably prosperous industrial economy.
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered: shot while in military custody
>> without even the pretense of a trial.
>>
> As I've said, there was a civil war going on ...
And if they'd been shot while actively fighting you might have a point.
>> Liebknecht and Luxemburg were murdered: shot while in military custody
>> without even the pretense of a trial.
>>
> As I've said, there was a civil war going on ...
Instead they were in the custody of the Garde-Kavallerie-Schutzen
division, which was in a debatable status between government military
unit and Freikorps at the time. Shooting unarmed individuals without
trial is generally viewed as murder.
>> The violence may have been equivalent between, say, the SA and the RFB.
>> What is indisputable is that fighters from the RFB and Reichsbanner were
>> treated more harshly by the Weimar justice system than their
>> counterparts from the SA and Stahlhelm.
>>
> That's nearly correct, except for "more harshly".
> I'd use the term "out of control obscenely more harshly".
> Roughly 90 % of Leftist thugs were condemned while nearly 90 % of
> Rightist thugs walked free.
>> That's a distinct oversimplification. Most Germans of whatever political
>> stripe wanted revision of Versailles in some fashion. Individual actions
>> such as the reversion of the Saar were very popular. But that really
>> doesn't equate to "stood behind Hitler".
>>
> Of course it did.
> It was a common denominator.
> He promised to right the wrongs and was seen to do so.
> Add a perfect propaganda from 1933 onwards ...
completely oppose everything that Hitler and the NSDAP did or you
completely support them. Nothing in between. Whereas we know that the
internal German debate about the Versailles Treaty was nuanced. There
were individual measures that were quite popular: reclaiming the Saar or
the perceived economic turnaround (though there was a significant degree
of reservation about the methods employed). There were other measures
that were very mixed: military reoccupation of the Rhineland caused a
lot of anxiety on most peoples' part but was popular once they got away
with it. It's a very mixed bag.
> If the NSDAP had had a firm ideology like the Communists, Hitler
> couldn't have formed the party after his image.
charismatic leaders who reshape the party.
> That's why I've written elsewhere : "If the Reichswehr hadn't educated
> Hitler as an undercover-agent and sent him to this little party, there
> would have been no rise of the Nazis".
with any one of a number of small little groups.
>> Millions of displaced Germans in 1919-20? I think you're conflating the
>> aftereffects of the two world wars.
>>
> No, not really.
> The problem in English historiography is that they use "German" people
> instead of "German speaking" people.
> The other problem is that the displaced people of WWI were forgotten
> after Adolph's handiwork.
b) You'll still need to specify where these millions of displaced
German-speaking individuals were and how the peace process caused their
displacement. Be specific.
>>> The "Golden Twenties" in Germany were for the upper class; the mass of
>>> the people were poor.
>>
>> And that's not accurate either.
>>
> Of course it is.
> Look at Berlin - the upper middle class danced while the workers did not
> even get minimum wages (which were non-existant then).
industry-standard minimum-wage agreements was a hallmark of Weimar
economic policy.
> Look at the country - Junkertum in Northern Germany; the farmers there
> were more than just poor.
not a dominant factor in Weimar economics.
In general, while groups of individuals had a miserable time of it in
the 1920s, overall real wages recovered to pre-war levels by 1927 and
continued to grow over the next year or so. In general, Germany was a
reasonably prosperous industrial economy.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 7, 2013, 1:44:52 PM5/7/13
to
"Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
news:km93lc$2t0$1...@dont-email.me...
> Note to moderator :
> I have to keep most of the text to keep the context.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> I can imagine that right wing parties would have become more
>>>>>> prominent in
>>>>>> Germany even without Hitler, and there might have been a showdown
>>>>>> resulting in the arrest of the Communist Party leadership.
>>>> ...
>>>>> Para. 2 above implies that right-wing German parties were in the
>>>>> 1920s not "more prominent" than X and there was in the 1920s no
>>>>> "showdown" with the Communist faction. Both implications seem
>>>>> to be unfactual. Right-wing factions with armed paramilitaries
>>>>> were active from 1919, the Spartakists attempted to capture
>>>
>>> This sentence makes no sense.
>>
>> It does make sense.
>>
> It doesn't.
So when other people say it makes sense you immediately announce
> I have to keep most of the text to keep the context.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:km0t13$uce$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Alan Meyer wrote:
>>>> On 04/20/2013 10:22 AM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>>> "Alan Meyer" <ame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> I 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.
>>>> ...
>>>>> Para. 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.
all of them are wrong and only you are right.
> Had 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.
> In his sentence, the Spartakists are a right-wing group.
right wing groups violently opposed left wing groups including
attempts to take over government, and vice versa.
>>> Why 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.
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.
> And no, he doesn't point out that. Sloppy grammar.
>>>>> the 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.
Just shooting?
Have you informed the local population of this?
> That the people responsible for killing them weren't tried is another
> matter.
punishments handed out for left and right wing violence.
>>> There was a civil war going on ...
>>
>> And the men were in custody, not free on the streets.
>>
> See above.
See above.
> And remember the civil war.
> <snip>
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.
wing violence more heavily than right wing.
>>> Oh, the poor lefties. Luxemburg/Liebknecht left some rather bloody
>>> hand-writing with their "R�te-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
>>> hand-writing with their "R�te-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.
Germany, of people from across the political spectrum.
> Rather shoddy historiography, isn't it ?
>>> The 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.
>>> "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.
truth and are using the repeat button.
> As for left wing government - are we talking about the R�te-Republiken ?
you know at state and federal level, however they obtained
power.
>> Learn some reality.
>>
> Oh, I have.
> Contrary to the Anglo-Saxon version of history, which shows WWI as
> "Just War" ...
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.
>>> The "R�te-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 ?
Sturm title part of truppen. I note above you complain about
the use of "Spartakists" to imply in your view right wing
political militia.
> Oh my ...
> Now, let's see what comes to mind for leftie fighters :
> Spartakusbund, Roter Soldatenbund, Revolution�rer Matrosenbund,
> Roter Frontk�mpferbund, then the EKKI with its "Proletarische
> Hundertschaften".
the point.
> And, of course, the SA (partly).
> I could go on, but I guess that should be enough to make my point.
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.
>> The 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.
were doing it what exactly is the evidence the left wing were
more violent at the time, given the left largely lost?
>>>> But, 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.
name.
> A little hint : The "Dolchsto�legende" wasn't invented by the Nazis.
> They used it most efficiently, but the origins were before them.
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.
>> Generally going around hurting people indicates major disagreements,
>> not a united front.
>>
> Yes, major disagreements between the Left and Right; but united
> against Versailles.
their opposition to the treaty.
>> And 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.
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.
> Remember :
> First 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 ...
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.
>>> That'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".
> But thanks for making my point.
Jewish propaganda, amongst those who had Jewish friends
and acquaintances and the rearmament program.
>>>> Of 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.
>>>>
>>> R�hm 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.
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.
>>> He was a Socialist first and then national.
>>
>> And Hitler decided party policy would be the reverse of that.
>>
> Yes, that's why R�hm was executed as soon as the SS was strong enough.
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.
> Again, thanks for making my point.
of the Nazi party, a quite simple but accurate rule, that some were
more socialist than nationalist is known.
>>> That'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 R�hm, but not to
> Hitler.
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.
>>> By 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.
> We're talking about the time before 1933.
jump backwards and forwards through time you need to tell
people this.
> The nice meetings in Bayreuth, where Winnifred Wagner made Hitler
> acceptable to Thyssen, Krupp & Cie.
the promise of guaranteed profits and allowing cartels. Even
the end of the street violence.
> Then the money started to flow and the old rhetoric of nationalizing
> the bad capitalists became more and more a liability.
to Junkers were useful as lessons on government power.
>>> R�hm 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.
> Before 1934, Himmler wasn't ready to take on the SA with his SS.
of the consolidation of power, then needed it to change to further
secure his leadership and support from institutions like the army.
>>>> But 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.
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?
> We're talking about Anti-Semitism here.
party lines.
> Please do pay attention.
Please do try and learn something. it is not that hard.
>>> (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 ...)
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 .
> It was endemic in all of Europe and surfaced with sad regularity -
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.
> Dreyfuss in France, pogroms in Poland, expulsion of all Jews from Britain,
> etc.
been regularly expelling Jews since 1290.
> He didn't need to revive something. It was there in all of Europe and the
> US for quite a long time.
was revived as major policy in Germany.
> The Commies ?
The claims about Jewish Communists were around pre WWII.
> The "Jewish-Bolshevist plot" was laid on ice until it was time for the
> invasion of the Soviet-Union ...
The switch has been noted and of course the way the treaty showed
Nazi ideology had contradictions.
>>> (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".
> But it helped to get gold, silver and other things the Nazis could sell
> to get the money to buy on the international market.
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.
> The Reichsmark wasn't accepted as international currency, you "genius".
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.
> That's the main reason Hitler annected Austria; without our gold and
> international currency reserves, Germany would have broken down
> in 1938.
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.
> The Third Reich was always near the border to breaking down; they
> needed the new territories to get the funds to keep their regime going.
held foreign currencies so other non German banks held German
currency which was valid.
> > Please 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".
> The average wealth was a little higher because they were restricted from
> farming, craftmanship and most other things by medieval laws.
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?
> So 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.
is profitable regardless of wealth if you are unpunished and keep
the items stolen.
>>>> A 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.
of the second world war.
> Both of you are thinking of sane "political goals" in context
> with Adolph. That doesn't work.
it is not surprising his idea of sanity is not under discussion.
> Loss of talented people ? <snort>
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.
> The first institutions which were purged from Jews after 1933,
> were the universities. They even created "Arian Physics" ...
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.
>>> After 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 ?
> Curious ...
No just someone using Junkers the label instead of looking for a
company named Junkers.
> "Placating the army" is a wrong term; he gave them what they wanted
> while he worked on replacing the head of them ("von Brauchitsch",e.g.)
to chance, given an "improper" wife.
> "Moved to make" ? Nonsense.
> Notstandsverordnungen and the death of the Reichspr�sident.
> He didn't move there, he had luck.
to do with it, beyond, if anything, the President lasting long enough
that Hitler had good control of power.
>>> So 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.
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.
>>>> His 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.
claiming it was their idea, done without any orders from Hitler? Where
are those documents?
>>> All that "Only Hitler was to blame" was an excuse at N�rnberg.
>>> 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.
to go down saying he fought the good fight.
>>>> Without 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.
> Hitler wasn't the cause, he was a symptom of the times.
government and less prejudice. And a lot of no more war based
on the results of WWI.
> Look at all of Europe.
> All the states "freed from Austrian dictatorship" waged war against each
> other.
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.
> Then the newly created Poland under Pilsudski ran amok and fought all its
> neighbours.
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.
> So we have what ? The victors of WWI drawing arbitrary borders and then
> withdrawing after some landgrabs and high reparations.
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?
> The climate in Europe wasn't too good and very volatile...
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.
>>> Dictate 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.
by ethnicity, as various groups moved or were displaced but you
are sure it was lots of German speakers and apparently no one else.
> Went to ? Austria and many on to Germany (remember - Austria
> was rather small after the war).
speaking population in Czechoslovakia largely stayed?
> Alsace and Lorraine ? What's that ? Elsa�-Lothringen ?
B) English language keyboards lack certain German letters.
> And there's again the Anglo-Saxon historiography - "Ethnic Germans".
By the way note your use of Anglo-Saxon? As it was
one big unified group?
> An Australian is an "Ethnic USAn" ? Or what ?
with something like 25% of the current population born overseas
pinning down general ethnicity is rather hard.
>>> high 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.
logistics people factored it into the 1944 plans.
> Shouldn't be too hard, right ?
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.
>> So 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.
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.
> And they also wanted the k.u.k. - empire to disappear.
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. �s k, the Hungarian view? Given the
term came about because of Hungarian pressure.
> Thanks to Wilson they got what they wanted.
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.
> The Belgians were more moderate...
> > Go look up the
>> clauses in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as another example of
>> treaties of the time.
>>
> <snort>
> Yeah, sure.
more territory.
> Go look up Kerenski-Offensive.
> You know, the thing the Brits & French forced ?
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?
> Then go and look up what the offensive caused (Lenins success, e,g.).
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?
> Then go and look up who financed the Bolshies and why they didn't
> object to Brest-Litovsk.
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.
> Report back when you've done so...
>>> The "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.
> See my other post.
I have.
> Junker & Manufakturen, e.g.
> St�dtisches Proletariat is another factor.
>>> Then 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.
up every election? That contradicts the voting records.
> It lead to an extremist party getting enough votes to be able
> to get into a coalition with the Zentrums-Partei.
> Coalitions are hard to understand for Anglo-Saxons with their two-party
> system.
political parties, look up England in the early 20th century.
>>> With 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.
> The 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.
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,
>>> The 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" ?
one making generic claims about blanket hatreds.
> I've told you what was the common opinion back then;
> the left wingers
> were an annoyance -
USSR.
> Versailles was a national disgrace, even for Lefties.
>> German 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.
>> In 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.
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".
>> In 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.
foreigners.
> Look at the trade between the k.u.k. empire and Germany.
> Might give you some insight ...
and the "the truth is out there" gets thrown in for a laugh.
>> Lots 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.
claimed to be hated.
Rich Rostrom
May 7, 2013, 3:46:14 PM5/7/13
to
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
This is not quite true. There was a great
quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
both British and American circles - especially the
latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
agitation by fanatic nationalists.
This view held strongly even through WW II and for
many years afterward. The contrast between the
comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
revive this position in 1988, he was widely
criticized.
It should also be noted that a substantial body
of _German_ historians hold that Germany was
responsible for the war - and surely it was
"just" for the Allies to resist German aggression
and put and end to the aggressor regiem.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 8, 2013, 9:21:48 AM5/8/13
to
"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...
presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
idea of just war is even further removed.
I presume the fanatic nationalists were present in all or
most countries involved, again, not a reason to claim just
war. If anything the opposite, we treated them as less
than human.
> This view held strongly even through WW II and for
> many years afterward. The contrast between the
> comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
> monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
So essentially everyone was busy making peace in 1914
except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
This rather contradicts European, and world, history, where
human groups (Empires/Nations/Tribes) ultimately tend to use
war to resolve disputes, or simply take things when they think
they can.
WWI was essentially no more than European/World politics
as normal, looking back over the centuries.
> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> criticized.
The histories I have encountered have never claimed WWI to
be a just war.
> It should also be noted that a substantial body
> of _German_ historians hold that Germany was
> responsible for the war -
Given the documentation around, the encouragement of an
attack on Serbia by Austria-Hungary, the mobilisation plan
that required Belgium be invaded, the Germans deserve a
lot of the blame for the outbreak of WWI. The Austro-
Hungarian Empire decision for reasons of Empire to
invade Serbia is the starting point.
> and surely it was
> "just" for the Allies to resist German aggression
> and put and end to the aggressor regiem.
I would draw a line between right to resist aggression and just.
To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
winner.
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
>> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
>
> This is not quite true. There was a great
> quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> both British and American circles - especially the
> latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> agitation by fanatic nationalists.
Hang on, if the war was caused by the merchants of death,
>
>> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
>> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
>
> This is not quite true. There was a great
> quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> both British and American circles - especially the
> latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> agitation by fanatic nationalists.
presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
idea of just war is even further removed.
I presume the fanatic nationalists were present in all or
most countries involved, again, not a reason to claim just
war. If anything the opposite, we treated them as less
than human.
> This view held strongly even through WW II and for
> many years afterward. The contrast between the
> comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
> monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
This rather contradicts European, and world, history, where
human groups (Empires/Nations/Tribes) ultimately tend to use
war to resolve disputes, or simply take things when they think
they can.
WWI was essentially no more than European/World politics
as normal, looking back over the centuries.
> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> criticized.
be a just war.
> It should also be noted that a substantial body
> of _German_ historians hold that Germany was
> responsible for the war -
attack on Serbia by Austria-Hungary, the mobilisation plan
that required Belgium be invaded, the Germans deserve a
lot of the blame for the outbreak of WWI. The Austro-
Hungarian Empire decision for reasons of Empire to
invade Serbia is the starting point.
> and surely it was
> "just" for the Allies to resist German aggression
> and put and end to the aggressor regiem.
To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
winner.
Haydn
May 8, 2013, 10:15:02 AM5/8/13
to
Don Phillipson wrote:
> Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1...
> [...]
German "frightfulness" military actions against civilians in occupied
territories date from the Franco-Prussian War, 1870-71.
The French had raised a large body of partisan militia, the
franc-tireurs, who would prove effective as guerrillas on various
occasions, and the impression they made on the Germans was deep and
lasting. Possibly lasting into WWI and WWII (see also the German
massacres of Belgian civilians in 1940).
Military "frightfulness" against civilians, and by no means on the part
of the Germans only, was far from unknown throughout 18th and 19th
centuries. Insurgency and guerrilla, or socio-political unrest and
revolt, always and intrinsically entail indiscriminate violence on
civilians.
Haydn
> Seconded. German "frightfulness" dated from WW1...
> [...]
This was something new in modern
> Europe, viz. unknown since the 17th century...
German "frightfulness" military actions against civilians in occupied
territories date from the Franco-Prussian War, 1870-71.
The French had raised a large body of partisan militia, the
franc-tireurs, who would prove effective as guerrillas on various
occasions, and the impression they made on the Germans was deep and
lasting. Possibly lasting into WWI and WWII (see also the German
massacres of Belgian civilians in 1940).
Military "frightfulness" against civilians, and by no means on the part
of the Germans only, was far from unknown throughout 18th and 19th
centuries. Insurgency and guerrilla, or socio-political unrest and
revolt, always and intrinsically entail indiscriminate violence on
civilians.
Haydn
Haydn
May 8, 2013, 11:03:56 AM5/8/13
to
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> criticized.
Niall Ferguson is an apologist of the British Empire, R.I.P., and from a
> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> criticized.
British imperial perspective both world wars have been tragic, though
probably unavoidable, mistakes. In both wars Britain needed a full
American commitment to prevail over an adversary which was and is simply
in another - superior - league. And which today and after two world wars
is the ruling European superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed at
preventing Germany from reaching in 1914.
Full American commitment in WWI sanctioned in geostrategical and
military terms what was already an economic reality, ie. the US world
predominance. The shift was so marked that in the following world war
Britain even needed full American commitment to reopen the Mediterranean
Sea route blocked by Italy, that is to achieve victory in a theater
vital to her but secondary on a global scale. And at every demand for
more support the Americans tightened the noose around Britain's neck a
little bit more.
So with the benefit of enormous hindsight Ferguson is right. Had Britain
abstained from backing France (which was backing Russia, which was
backing Serbia) and from going to war in 1914, there would have been no
world war - probably no world wars at all. Germany would be what she is
today, the only first class power in Europe, and maybe there still would
be there a British Empire of sorts.
Haydn
Michael Emrys
May 8, 2013, 11:18:18 AM5/8/13
to
On 5/8/13 7:15 AM, Haydn wrote:
> Military "frightfulness" against civilians, and by no means on the
> part of the Germans only, was far from unknown throughout 18th and
> 19th centuries.
There was certainly plenty of it in the Indian Wars on the American
> Military "frightfulness" against civilians, and by no means on the
> part of the Germans only, was far from unknown throughout 18th and
> 19th centuries.
frontier. Massacres and even genocide were far from unknown. Short of
that, mass removals of natives from lands that were held to be desirable
by the whites were common.
Michael
Bill
May 8, 2013, 12:36:28 PM5/8/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:03:56 -0400, Haydn <mrbrid...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Rich Rostrom wrote:
>
>> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
>> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
>> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
>> criticized.
>
>Niall Ferguson is an apologist of the British Empire, R.I.P., and from a
>British imperial perspective both world wars have been tragic, though
>probably unavoidable, mistakes. In both wars Britain needed a full
>American commitment to prevail over an adversary which was and is simply
>in another - superior - league. And which today and after two world wars
>is the ruling European superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed at
>preventing Germany from reaching in 1914.
>
Well, except that Germany still isn't the European superpower,
despite wanting to be...
wrote:
>Rich Rostrom wrote:
>
>> But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
>> have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
>> revive this position in 1988, he was widely
>> criticized.
>
>Niall Ferguson is an apologist of the British Empire, R.I.P., and from a
>British imperial perspective both world wars have been tragic, though
>probably unavoidable, mistakes. In both wars Britain needed a full
>American commitment to prevail over an adversary which was and is simply
>in another - superior - league. And which today and after two world wars
>is the ruling European superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed at
>preventing Germany from reaching in 1914.
>
despite wanting to be...
Rich Rostrom
May 8, 2013, 1:38:53 PM5/8/13
to
"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote;
point, with regard to the historians of the
1920s and 1930s. At that time the generally
accepted view was that WW I was a ghastly
mistake and not a just war.
Though I question how universal that view was.
The American reaction to the war was extremely
negative, at both elite and popular levels.
There was a very negative reaction in Britain
at the elite level, but I'm not sure it was
so strong at the popular level. Britain's
much deeper and costlier involvement would
ISTM be an obstacle to that.
> > This view held strongly even through WW II and for
> > many years afterward. The contrast between the
> > comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
> > monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
>
> So essentially everyone was busy making peace in 1914
> except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
The feeling among many people in the 1920s and
1930s was that the war was engineered by just
such sinister forces.
BTW, I get the impression you think you are arguing
with _me_. I am trying to explain a common belief of
that period, not making that claim.
> > But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> > have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> > revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> > criticized.
for the death and destruction, in addition to war
crimes such as the Belgian massacres.
Suppose a gang of criminals from down the road attack
one's town - breaking into houses for loot, causing
fires, killing citizens and police who resist them.
Is it sufficient to drive them out of the town, and
leave them free to try again?
We'll say that a later gang did all that, _and_
raped, tortured, and mutilated women, butchered
children, and deliberately vandalized churches,
schools, and libraries, making the first gang
look moderate.
Is the first gang therefore less "evil"? Is it any
less appropriate that they be destroyed?
"Using war to decide a winner" was the choice
of Imperial Germany. The Allies had no choice but
to resist Germany - until a winner was decided -
or concede victory to Germany. It was not until
the failure of the Kaiserschlacht that Germany
was willing to accept less than victory.
> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote;
> > "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
> >> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
> >
> > This is not quite true. There was a great
> > quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> > both British and American circles - especially the
> > latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> > in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> > agitation by fanatic nationalists.
>
> Hang on, if the war was caused by the merchants of death,
> presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
> idea of just war is even further removed.
Well, obviously. I was _agreeing_ with your
> >
> >> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
> >> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
> >
> > This is not quite true. There was a great
> > quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> > both British and American circles - especially the
> > latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> > in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> > agitation by fanatic nationalists.
>
> Hang on, if the war was caused by the merchants of death,
> presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
> idea of just war is even further removed.
point, with regard to the historians of the
1920s and 1930s. At that time the generally
accepted view was that WW I was a ghastly
mistake and not a just war.
Though I question how universal that view was.
The American reaction to the war was extremely
negative, at both elite and popular levels.
There was a very negative reaction in Britain
at the elite level, but I'm not sure it was
so strong at the popular level. Britain's
much deeper and costlier involvement would
ISTM be an obstacle to that.
> > This view held strongly even through WW II and for
> > many years afterward. The contrast between the
> > comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
> > monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
>
> So essentially everyone was busy making peace in 1914
> except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
1930s was that the war was engineered by just
such sinister forces.
BTW, I get the impression you think you are arguing
with _me_. I am trying to explain a common belief of
that period, not making that claim.
> > But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
> > have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
> > revive this position in 1988, he was widely
> > criticized.
> I would draw a line between right to resist aggression and just.
> To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
> was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
> winner.
Germany initiated the war, thus being responsible
> To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
> was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
> winner.
for the death and destruction, in addition to war
crimes such as the Belgian massacres.
Suppose a gang of criminals from down the road attack
one's town - breaking into houses for loot, causing
fires, killing citizens and police who resist them.
Is it sufficient to drive them out of the town, and
leave them free to try again?
We'll say that a later gang did all that, _and_
raped, tortured, and mutilated women, butchered
children, and deliberately vandalized churches,
schools, and libraries, making the first gang
look moderate.
Is the first gang therefore less "evil"? Is it any
less appropriate that they be destroyed?
"Using war to decide a winner" was the choice
of Imperial Germany. The Allies had no choice but
to resist Germany - until a winner was decided -
or concede victory to Germany. It was not until
the failure of the Kaiserschlacht that Germany
was willing to accept less than victory.
Rich Rostrom
May 8, 2013, 1:50:20 PM5/8/13
to
Haydn <mrbrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Had Britain abstained ... from going to war in 1914,
Germany in 1914 was an economic power, as it is now,
but also a _military_ power, and eagerly sought to use
force to wield authority over others.
Germany today is a _pacific_ power, exerting no
authority by force over any one else. It is only
Germany's economic prowess that gives it influence
today.
That change was the result of German defeat in two
gigantic wars. The probable outcome of British
abstention in 1914 would be German victory in war,
affirming the policy of using military force for
national advantage.
It seems very doubtful to me that this would lead
to a peace-loving Germany which respected the
rights of other countries and peoples.
> Had Britain abstained ... from going to war in 1914,
> there would have been no world war - probably no
> world wars at all. Germany would be what she is
> today, the only first class power in Europe...
> world wars at all. Germany would be what she is
Germany in 1914 was an economic power, as it is now,
but also a _military_ power, and eagerly sought to use
force to wield authority over others.
Germany today is a _pacific_ power, exerting no
authority by force over any one else. It is only
Germany's economic prowess that gives it influence
today.
That change was the result of German defeat in two
gigantic wars. The probable outcome of British
abstention in 1914 would be German victory in war,
affirming the policy of using military force for
national advantage.
It seems very doubtful to me that this would lead
to a peace-loving Germany which respected the
rights of other countries and peoples.
Stephen Graham
May 8, 2013, 2:01:10 PM5/8/13
to
On 5/7/2013 10:44 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
> news:km93lc$2t0$1...@dont-email.me...
> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> 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.
readers tend to misinterpret the general term national socialism by
fixating on the second word in the phrase. The common thread between the
various groups in the late 19th century when the term came into use was
the emphasis on the ownership of economic assets by members of the
nation, e.g., ethnic Germans. The precise economic theory underlying
that was less important. Thus the spectrum of economic ideologies we
find in the early NSDAP.
Haydn
May 9, 2013, 9:25:20 AM5/9/13
to
Rich Rostrom wrote:
> Germany today is a _pacific_ power, exerting no
> authority by force over any one else. It is only
> Germany's economic prowess that gives it influence
> today.
Economic prowess _is_ power. Wars can be waged by economic means and
> Germany today is a _pacific_ power, exerting no
> authority by force over any one else. It is only
> Germany's economic prowess that gives it influence
> today.
without firing guns. And nation-based power politics still is in full
force in Europe, despite all rhetoric about community, unification,
common interests and more unwarranted claims like that.
Guns may not be firing, but Germany - or rather, her economic and
political leadership - has ably turned the demise of Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War to her advantage by remodeling the continent
into a peculiar version of the Japanese Sphere of Asian Co-Prosperity
(Orwellian doublespeak at its best). Neighboring nations are used as
colonies which absorb German export and pay for it by literally selling
themselves and all of their assets to the Master Race and its
Euro-centered financial system.
The Eurozone is a zone of economic war without quarter wherein the weak
succumb to allow the big guy to thrive. And all that is going wrong is
blamed on the underdog, with more than a streak of racism that may
remind someone of the classic German typification of other nations (lazy
Greeks, inept Portuguese and so on).
True to form and as if to reassert the notion that history never teaches
them anything, the German continental leadership is proving as brutal
and narrow-sighted as other times in the past - in all likelihood this
system will end up in a German and European catastrophe, as in 1918 and
in 1945.
> It seems very doubtful to me that this would lead
> to a peace-loving Germany which respected the
> rights of other countries and peoples.
physical size and economic assets, Germany is and has always been bound
to dominate Europe.
The problem with the Germans is that once at the top of the European
world, historically they have hardly made a wise, enlightened use of
their natural predominance. Post-war (West) Germany might appear as a
peace-loving country respecting other countries and peoples as long as
it was splitted into two parts as a consequence of the 1945 collapse.
The splitting and the Cold War conditions around her kept her drive to
power, so to speak, in cold storage. The Reunification of 1989 let the
beast out of the cage, and the Fourth Reich is at war again.
Haydn
Michael Emrys
May 9, 2013, 12:14:38 PM5/9/13
to
On 5/9/13 6:25 AM, Haydn wrote:
> Guns may not be firing...
And I count that as a good thing. I had not heard post-unification
Germany described in the terms you use, and have no comment on your
assertions at this time. But even if the situation is as bad as you
insist, I'd still say that by a long yard it is far better than the
situation that prevailed in Europe during and after two world wars.
Germany may be as aggressive as ever, but at least they seem to be
expressing it in more pacific ways. Let us hope that the means to curb
and contain that aggression can be equally pacific.
Michael
> Guns may not be firing...
And I count that as a good thing. I had not heard post-unification
Germany described in the terms you use, and have no comment on your
assertions at this time. But even if the situation is as bad as you
insist, I'd still say that by a long yard it is far better than the
situation that prevailed in Europe during and after two world wars.
Germany may be as aggressive as ever, but at least they seem to be
expressing it in more pacific ways. Let us hope that the means to curb
and contain that aggression can be equally pacific.
Michael
Mario
May 9, 2013, 2:51:33 PM5/9/13
to
Haydn, 15:25, giovedￜ 9 maggio 2013:
> Defeat in war, per se, does not change warmongers into lambs.
> Due to her physical size and economic assets, Germany is and
> has always been bound to dominate Europe.
>
> The problem with the Germans is that once at the top of the
> European world, historically they have hardly made a wise,
> enlightened use of their natural predominance. Post-war (West)
> Germany might appear as a peace-loving country respecting
> other countries and peoples as long as it was splitted into
> two parts as a consequence of the 1945 collapse. The splitting
> and the Cold War conditions around her kept her drive to
> power, so to speak, in cold storage. The Reunification of 1989
> let the beast out of the cage, and the Fourth Reich is at war
> again.
Well, don't be afraid, soon the USA-China alliance will beat
them and will bring all of us freedom and prosperity.
Delenda Germania!
:-)
--
H
> Defeat in war, per se, does not change warmongers into lambs.
> Due to her physical size and economic assets, Germany is and
> has always been bound to dominate Europe.
>
> The problem with the Germans is that once at the top of the
> European world, historically they have hardly made a wise,
> enlightened use of their natural predominance. Post-war (West)
> Germany might appear as a peace-loving country respecting
> other countries and peoples as long as it was splitted into
> two parts as a consequence of the 1945 collapse. The splitting
> and the Cold War conditions around her kept her drive to
> power, so to speak, in cold storage. The Reunification of 1989
> let the beast out of the cage, and the Fourth Reich is at war
> again.
them and will bring all of us freedom and prosperity.
Delenda Germania!
:-)
--
H
Bill
May 9, 2013, 5:38:15 PM5/9/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 09:25:20 -0400, Haydn <mrbrid...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Guns may not be firing, but Germany - or rather, her economic and
>political leadership - has ably turned the demise of Soviet Union and
>the end of the Cold War to her advantage by remodeling the continent
>into a peculiar version of the Japanese Sphere of Asian Co-Prosperity
>(Orwellian doublespeak at its best). Neighboring nations are used as
>colonies which absorb German export and pay for it by literally selling
>themselves and all of their assets to the Master Race and its
>Euro-centered financial system.
>
I don't suppose for one moment that you have any sort of evidence for
that remarkable statement, do you?
wrote:
>Guns may not be firing, but Germany - or rather, her economic and
>political leadership - has ably turned the demise of Soviet Union and
>the end of the Cold War to her advantage by remodeling the continent
>into a peculiar version of the Japanese Sphere of Asian Co-Prosperity
>(Orwellian doublespeak at its best). Neighboring nations are used as
>colonies which absorb German export and pay for it by literally selling
>themselves and all of their assets to the Master Race and its
>Euro-centered financial system.
>
that remarkable statement, do you?
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 10, 2013, 10:14:56 AM5/10/13
to
"Stephen Graham" <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:auvho7...@mid.individual.net...
revival and redefinition of socialism in current US political
debate?
Countries that have left of centre parties calling themselves
names like socialists tend to go with the national part of the
Nazi name, given the platform implementation in the 1940's
especially.
> The common thread between the various groups in the late 19th century when
> the term came into use was the emphasis on the ownership of economic
> assets by members of the nation, e.g., ethnic Germans. The precise
> economic theory underlying that was less important. Thus the spectrum of
> economic ideologies we find in the early NSDAP.
I think the Nazis never actually put together a coherent doctrine,
along the lines of the communists etc. Hitler essentially decided
things on a needs of the moment, and seems to have discouraged
attempts to create a written doctrine.
The pursuit of private profit, essentially greed, was considered the
reason the population was treated badly, hence public ownership
would remove much of the greed motive. The evidence had not
really been understood that organisations defend and support
themselves, and in particular their senior members, well ahead
of their supposed clients, regardless of whether the system is
private, public or religious.
news:auvho7...@mid.individual.net...
> On 5/7/2013 10:44 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:km93lc$2t0$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> 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.
>
> Robert Paxton makes the point in his _Anatomy of Fascism_ that modern
> readers tend to misinterpret the general term national socialism by
> fixating on the second word in the phrase.
Would most of those commentators be in America, given the
>> "Michael Kuettner" <Michael....@gmx.at> wrote in message
>> news:km93lc$2t0$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> 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.
>
> Robert Paxton makes the point in his _Anatomy of Fascism_ that modern
> readers tend to misinterpret the general term national socialism by
> fixating on the second word in the phrase.
revival and redefinition of socialism in current US political
debate?
Countries that have left of centre parties calling themselves
names like socialists tend to go with the national part of the
Nazi name, given the platform implementation in the 1940's
especially.
> The common thread between the various groups in the late 19th century when
> the term came into use was the emphasis on the ownership of economic
> assets by members of the nation, e.g., ethnic Germans. The precise
> economic theory underlying that was less important. Thus the spectrum of
> economic ideologies we find in the early NSDAP.
along the lines of the communists etc. Hitler essentially decided
things on a needs of the moment, and seems to have discouraged
attempts to create a written doctrine.
The pursuit of private profit, essentially greed, was considered the
reason the population was treated badly, hence public ownership
would remove much of the greed motive. The evidence had not
really been understood that organisations defend and support
themselves, and in particular their senior members, well ahead
of their supposed clients, regardless of whether the system is
private, public or religious.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 10, 2013, 10:16:50 AM5/10/13
to
"Haydn" <mrbrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:518a64fd$0$1369$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...
The second is regarded as just, given Hitler's plans for society.
> In both wars Britain needed a full American commitment to prevail over an
> adversary which was and is simply in another - superior - league.
Why does Russia/USSR, France etc, go missing? Germany was
over 50% larger in population terms pre WWI and WWII. Though
the British economy was higher per capita.
How about Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Italy and Japan when they
were supporting Germany, it was not a one on one situation.
> And which today and after two world wars is the ruling European
> superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed at preventing Germany from
> reaching in 1914.
So if Russia turns off the gas etc. Germany will have no problems?
Actually Britain has long lived with European superpowers, it moves
to stop them doing things like building fleets that create the ability
to attack Britain, or setting up alliances to try for its idea of balance
of power.
> Full American commitment in WWI sanctioned in geostrategical and military
> terms what was already an economic reality, ie. the US world predominance.
Fundamentally in the 19th century Europe pulled a lot of the world's
wealth into the continent and then spent it and more on wars in the
20th century.
> The shift was so marked that in the following world war Britain even
> needed full American commitment to reopen the Mediterranean Sea route
> blocked by Italy, that is to achieve victory in a theater vital to her but
> secondary on a global scale. And at every demand for more support the
> Americans tightened the noose around Britain's neck a little bit more.
This is essentially a zero sum game view. Part of the problem for
Britain during the war is a key ally, the one that would have helped
keep the Mediterranean open, was knocked out early. Whereas
the German ally was still active until 1943, and was not as easy
to defeat as poplar history states.
Next is much of British foreign exchange was earned by being a
finance centre and the large merchant fleet, both had real
problems recovering post WWII. Add the people's of the
Empire were busy saying we fought for freedom, so we want
our own government.
> So with the benefit of enormous hindsight Ferguson is right. Had Britain
> abstained from backing France (which was backing Russia, which was backing
> Serbia) and from going to war in 1914, there would have been no world
> war - probably no world wars at all. Germany would be what she is today,
> the only first class power in Europe, and maybe there still would be there
> a British Empire of sorts.
There is a British Empire of sorts, it is called the Commonwealth. As
for the idea Germany would be where she is today, the outcome of
a WWI with no Britain early is more likely to be modern Germany
includes most of 1930's Poland, with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
still having some form of existence. Boosted by wealth transfers
from defeated countries.
Then imagine the depression still hits and Germany does the Japanese
approach, expansion. Like bits of the British Empire.
news:518a64fd$0$1369$4faf...@reader2.news.tin.it...
> Niall Ferguson is an apologist of the British Empire, R.I.P., and from a
> British imperial perspective both world wars have been tragic, though
> probably unavoidable, mistakes.
The first world war is regarded as a mistake by just about everybody.
> British imperial perspective both world wars have been tragic, though
> probably unavoidable, mistakes.
The second is regarded as just, given Hitler's plans for society.
> In both wars Britain needed a full American commitment to prevail over an
> adversary which was and is simply in another - superior - league.
over 50% larger in population terms pre WWI and WWII. Though
the British economy was higher per capita.
How about Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Italy and Japan when they
were supporting Germany, it was not a one on one situation.
> And which today and after two world wars is the ruling European
> superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed at preventing Germany from
> reaching in 1914.
Actually Britain has long lived with European superpowers, it moves
to stop them doing things like building fleets that create the ability
to attack Britain, or setting up alliances to try for its idea of balance
of power.
> Full American commitment in WWI sanctioned in geostrategical and military
> terms what was already an economic reality, ie. the US world predominance.
wealth into the continent and then spent it and more on wars in the
20th century.
> The shift was so marked that in the following world war Britain even
> needed full American commitment to reopen the Mediterranean Sea route
> blocked by Italy, that is to achieve victory in a theater vital to her but
> secondary on a global scale. And at every demand for more support the
> Americans tightened the noose around Britain's neck a little bit more.
Britain during the war is a key ally, the one that would have helped
keep the Mediterranean open, was knocked out early. Whereas
the German ally was still active until 1943, and was not as easy
to defeat as poplar history states.
Next is much of British foreign exchange was earned by being a
finance centre and the large merchant fleet, both had real
problems recovering post WWII. Add the people's of the
Empire were busy saying we fought for freedom, so we want
our own government.
> So with the benefit of enormous hindsight Ferguson is right. Had Britain
> abstained from backing France (which was backing Russia, which was backing
> Serbia) and from going to war in 1914, there would have been no world
> war - probably no world wars at all. Germany would be what she is today,
> the only first class power in Europe, and maybe there still would be there
> a British Empire of sorts.
for the idea Germany would be where she is today, the outcome of
a WWI with no Britain early is more likely to be modern Germany
includes most of 1930's Poland, with the Austro-Hungarian Empire
still having some form of existence. Boosted by wealth transfers
from defeated countries.
Then imagine the depression still hits and Germany does the Japanese
approach, expansion. Like bits of the British Empire.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 10, 2013, 10:37:47 AM5/10/13
to
"Haydn" <mrbrid...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:518b8ef3$0$37126$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...
> Economic prowess _is_ power. Wars can be waged by economic
> means and without firing guns.
Not war, power, and therefore ability to push people into doing
> means and without firing guns.
what you want.
Though note there is another balance of power, which is if you
owe a little and cannot repay you are in trouble, owe a lot
and the lenders are in trouble.
> And nation-based power politics still is in full force in Europe, despite
> all rhetoric about community, unification, common interests and more
> unwarranted claims like that.
be the powers of Europe versus those of the nations within Europe.
And this will also often be about blame shifting.
> Guns may not be firing, but Germany - or rather, her economic and
> political leadership - has ably turned the demise of Soviet Union and the
> end of the Cold War to her advantage by remodeling the continent into a
> peculiar version of the Japanese Sphere of Asian Co-Prosperity (Orwellian
> doublespeak at its best).
Euro Zone?
> Neighboring nations are used as colonies which absorb German export and
> pay for it by literally selling themselves and all of their assets to the
> Master Race and its Euro-centered financial system.
Essentially Germany has been more export orientated than much
of the rest of Europe, and has developed a highly efficient and
high quality export sector to be able to pay European wages and
cope with currency appreciation that comes with trade surpluses.
Once a country adopted the same currency as Germany it was
exposed to needing to do similar efficiencies. Germany is certainly
benefiting at the moment, not because of the exports to the rest
of Europe, but because the European economic situation is helping
keep the Euro low which is really helping German exports to the
rest of the world.
> The Eurozone is a zone of economic war without quarter wherein the weak
> succumb to allow the big guy to thrive. And all that is going wrong is
> blamed on the underdog, with more than a streak of racism that may remind
> someone of the classic German typification of other nations (lazy Greeks,
> inept Portuguese and so on).
is essentially trying to merge a number of different economies that
had different problems but with one currency there is much less
scope for country specific solutions. On top of this comes
political cooking of government books in some cases.
It is currently somewhere between total independence and the
sort of economic connections the states in the USA have with
each other and Federal Government economic policies and
prerogatives, like taxation.
> True to form and as if to reassert the notion that history never teaches
> them anything, the German continental leadership is proving as brutal and
> narrow-sighted as other times in the past - in all likelihood this system
> will end up in a German and European catastrophe, as in 1918 and in 1945.
in any case the US and Russia have military forces available.
> Defeat in war, per se, does not change warmongers into lambs. Due to her
> physical size and economic assets, Germany is and has always been bound to
> dominate Europe.
natural resources, and the population size, comes what is done
with the resources. Bad German governance would mean much
less progress.
> The problem with the Germans is that once at the top of the European
> world, historically they have hardly made a wise, enlightened use of their
> natural predominance.
of the world number 1, given whichever grouping it is there is always
the times it uses that power to move things in its favour. Unfair.
Also be aware of the world number 1 blind spot. It sees people
mimicking it, and assumes people want to be exactly like it, so it
helps them, even if it kills them when trying. Taking the bits you
like is not the same as wanting to be clones. Then add the we
are number 1 we can take what we want.
> Post-war (West) Germany might appear as a peace-loving country respecting
> other countries and peoples as long as it was splitted into two parts as a
> consequence of the 1945 collapse.
> The splitting and the Cold War conditions around her kept her drive to
> power, so to speak, in cold storage. The Reunification of 1989 let the
> beast out of the cage, and the Fourth Reich is at war again.
in a reverse of things like the "lazy" tags used for other nations.
It runs to the usual blame the foreigners, we did and are doing
nothing wrong, we should continue as normal.
Fundamentally the austerity measures that Germany is certainly
pushing are clearly hurting. Those measures were originally
supported by other groups like the International Monetary Fund.
Britain is hardly being dictated to by Germany, it is using
austerity and the British economy is still 2.5% smaller than in
2008, and worse on a per capita basis. I note the IMF has
now come out and noted each 1 Euro cut in government
spending probably cost 1.5 Euros worth of economic activity
and so austerity was over done. The IMF has a tendency to
come up with high pain solutions, it really seems best to avoid
it becoming involved.
A key economics paper that predicted bad effects from large
government debt has been shown to be at least exaggerated
and possibly wrong. It provided a basis for urgent debt
reduction policies. Then add the political ideology that big
government is bad government. Do not waste a good crisis,
use it to downsize government, or at least the bits that are
not liked.
Politics in Europe for quite a time into the future will be more
about sharing pain than gain. At the moment it is a judgement
about how much pain to inflict now, via spending cuts, versus
later via money needed to repay debts, and what that means
to future government tax requirements and spending ability.
We know more about economies than in the 1930's, we also
know via results like Japan over the last 20 years that stimulus
is not some linear thing, it can go good things and it can simply
be wasted. Handing out money to the poor is generally the
best option to boost economic activity, as by definition the
poor usually have to spend all their income.
Similarly there are current lessons of what happens when
governments find themselves with large debts.
There is also the problem economics is far from being a science,
and its models having a way to go before matching models from
say engineering or biology. At worst some economic models
assume people are so rational and so aware of their future needs
an economic crisis cannot happen.
The situation is multi layered. Most Western Governments
have a long way to go to make the current economic
orthodoxy of government being a counter cyclical investor,
running surpluses in the "good" years and deficits in the
"bad" years, and ending up with zero accumulated debt
over the economic cycle. That all is bad year debt repaid in
good years, with lots of debates about how good or bad
the current year is. Most Western Government debt levels
are so high the only way to reduce them quickly would be
to renounce the debts, which would really create interesting
results in the financial system and require a balanced budget
since it would become rather hard to borrow more money.
Or maybe go to something like WWII levels of taxation, with
as much of the revenue as possible being put into repayments,
what that would do to the populations involved would be
highly stressful at least.
In reality it means debt will need to be repaid over decades,
coping with several bad years each decade, along with a
big crash sometime in the next century, one that if it happens
will be great depression levels, because this time China,
India and the rest of Asia have largely escaped, next time
they would probably not.
Overlaid on the debt is demographics, population growth
is a quick way of increasing economies but this is not
occurring in Europe. People are also living longer and our
new knowledge of how to live longer has steadily increasing
price tags when put into practice. Higher percentages of
western populations are moving from producers to consumers.
It requires a more expensive education than before to
obtain good jobs, and it means entering the work force
later. If people still then want to retire at the same age
as their parents on average then they need to work out
how to stretch the money from a shorter working career
over a longer time period, including higher medical bills
towards the end. It can be done, both in terms of personal
standards of living and the taxation levels and what
government services are provided. Essentially the more
efficiently people can work the easier the monetary trade
offs will be, what that might do to stress levels while at
work is another matter.
The US has an additional complication, as its share of the
world economy declines the value of its currency is more
and more determined by the performance of the rest of
the world. Greece shows an extreme example of what
happens when your currency is priced by some other
mechanism than local economic activity. At some point
there will need to be a shift, to pricing in non US dollars
whether that is a group of currencies or a synthetic world
currency, sort of like gold has been used over time.
The following is neither a complaint nor a boast. It is a
report on longer term policy.
In the late 1980's Australia moved to follow places like
Singapore by introducing compulsory saving for retirement,
9% of salaries were put into the system, it is increasing to
15%. It now means at least the first few years of retirement
is largely self funded and that time is growing, so cutting the
time spent on pensions. Also the age at which people
qualify for the pension is slowly going up.
In the 1990's and early 2000's state and federal governments
moved to budget surpluses and elimination of accumulated
debt. To the point a sovereign wealth fund has been created.
Essentially trying to invest some of the money coming from
trade with Asia, mainly China. One irony is the financial
system still requires government bonds, so the Federal
Government still needed to borrow money to create enough
government bonds, not to cover expenses.
It has also helped the economy has kept growing since the
domestic recession of the early 1990's and population growth
has been amongst the highest in the western world and a times
the world. Next it also helps that early 1990's interest rates
of around 18% did horrible things to the banks, including a
two of near death experiences of the "big 4". The result was
a combination of tighter bank regulation, a culture of avoiding
exotic financial instruments, concentration of banking which gave
enough control of domestic pricing so bank profits were strong
without needing to take big risks and finally some luck.
So coming into the latest crash there was little government
debt, the banks had largely avoided the new financial
instruments, and in fact have continued to declare record
profits while saying things like business is tough, to which
the business organisations reply it is tough because of bank
fees.
As the economy was still doing reasonably well the short
term stimulus measures largely worked and Asia kept buying,
unemployment 5.5%, inflation 2 to 3%, economic growth
2 to 3%, but you need to take into account population
growth, on a per capita basis things went backwards for a
short time.
So the country has 4 of the 7 AA rated banks (Canada has
the other three), one of the few AAA rated governments,
interest rates just cut to 2.75%, Asia still buying and sending
tourists, Koala power rules, so things should be running
nicely and in one sense they are.
I should have opened with welcome to South Switzerland,
safe haven for lots of the world's cash. The Australian
dollar is though to be over valued by at least 25%. As
a result export earnings in local currency terms are
dropping, and local companies cannot compete as well
with imports. The flow on effect is a drop in tax receipts
to the lowest level as a percentage of the economy in
decades. Governments are finding it hard to move back
to surplus and in any case the public mood is such
stimulus will probably be much less effective. Essentially
instead of 3 to 4 years of Federal Government budget
deficits the forecasts are now like 10 years unless they
up taxes/cut spending and increase the risk a self inflicted
slowdown which would cut revenues further. If you like
the floating exchange rate is going its job, in this case
exporting the problems of the rest of the world, sort
of burden sharing. The high exchange rate does risk
putting the economy into a recession, despite the earlier
efforts and luck.
So do not think the current economic problems are going
to be solved quickly, nor neatly, nor that the financial
systems are thinking that much about populations. It
is not "Germany", it is all of us. Starting up the blame the
<group> is a good way to end up in wars.
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:03:13 PM5/12/13
to
On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:18:18 -0400, Michael Emrys <em...@olypen.com>
wrote:
RW
wrote:
> There was certainly plenty of it in the Indian Wars on the American
> frontier. Massacres and even genocide were far from unknown. Short
of
> that, mass removals of natives from lands that were held to be
desirable
> by the whites were common.
There was the Belgian Congo.
> frontier. Massacres and even genocide were far from unknown. Short
of
> that, mass removals of natives from lands that were held to be
desirable
> by the whites were common.
RW
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:03:53 PM5/12/13
to
On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:16:50 -0400, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> The first world war is regarded as a mistake by just about
everybody.
Except for a number of European nations who gained independence in
<gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
> The first world war is regarded as a mistake by just about
everybody.
1918.
RW
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:04:36 PM5/12/13
to
On Thu, 09 May 2013 17:38:15 -0400, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
beneficial to German export sector, less to Southern Eurozone members
who historically relied on weakening their currencies (when they had
them) to keep competitive. He also does have a point that until
recently, the policy of the European Central Bank was driven very
much by German (and neoliberal) economic principles. But this is
changing now, and will change even more in the future.
RW
wrote:
> I don't suppose for one moment that you have any sort of evidence
for
> that remarkable statement, do you?
He does have a point that the Euro monetary policy was very
for
> that remarkable statement, do you?
beneficial to German export sector, less to Southern Eurozone members
who historically relied on weakening their currencies (when they had
them) to keep competitive. He also does have a point that until
recently, the policy of the European Central Bank was driven very
much by German (and neoliberal) economic principles. But this is
changing now, and will change even more in the future.
RW
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:05:06 PM5/12/13
to
> (Orwellian doublespeak at its best). Neighboring nations are used
as
> colonies which absorb German export and pay for it by literally
selling
> themselves and all of their assets to the Master Race and its
> Euro-centered financial system.
And also exporting loads of stuff to Germany. Poland sells around 30%
as
> colonies which absorb German export and pay for it by literally
selling
> themselves and all of their assets to the Master Race and its
> Euro-centered financial system.
of its exports to Germany.
> The Eurozone is a zone of economic war without quarter wherein the
weak
> succumb to allow the big guy to thrive. And all that is going wrong
is
> blamed on the underdog, with more than a streak of racism that may
> remind someone of the classic German typification of other nations
(lazy
economic problems of its own, also in its banking sector, and many of
the demands it made of Greece were driven by the urge to protect its
own fragile institutions.
> The splitting and the Cold War conditions around her kept her drive
to
> power, so to speak, in cold storage. The Reunification of 1989 let
the
> beast out of the cage, and the Fourth Reich is at war again.
and Poland.
RW
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:05:36 PM5/12/13
to
> in another - superior - league. And which today and after two world
wars
> is the ruling European superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed
at
> preventing Germany from reaching in 1914.
Germany today is nowhere near the sort of dominance Kaiser Wilhelm
wars
> is the ruling European superpower, exactly the status Britain aimed
at
> preventing Germany from reaching in 1914.
was seeking.
RW
Roman W
May 12, 2013, 10:06:04 PM5/12/13
to
On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:46:14 -0400, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> This is not quite true. There was a great
> quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> both British and American circles - especially the
> latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> agitation by fanatic nationalists.
FWIW, in 1914 the City of London was begging the UK government not to
<rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote:
> This is not quite true. There was a great
> quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
> both British and American circles - especially the
> latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
> in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
> agitation by fanatic nationalists.
enter the war.
RW
dumbstruck
May 12, 2013, 10:31:54 PM5/12/13
to
On Friday, May 10, 2013 4:14:56 AM UTC-10, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> I think the Nazis never actually put together a coherent doctrine,
> along the lines of the communists etc. Hitler essentially decided
> things on a needs of the moment, and seems to have discouraged
> attempts to create a written doctrine.
IIRC in the 20's the Nazi's had a long (numbered?) list of principles
> I think the Nazis never actually put together a coherent doctrine,
> along the lines of the communists etc. Hitler essentially decided
> things on a needs of the moment, and seems to have discouraged
> attempts to create a written doctrine.
which Hitler refused to update as their views changed in the 1930's.
His stated rationale was to emulate the success of the Catholic church
in keeping the gospel sacred and unchanging, if not their practices. He
also emulated the church with it's 2000 year success in terms of their
own saints days and pageantry.
As for socialist agenda, "The Third Reich in Power" by Evans details
amazingly socialist laws passed in the mid-thirties... like for instance
turning farming upside down for not only large landowners. Not always
enforced, especially when economically disruptive, and discarded when
the pragmatics of war preparation took precedence.
> The pursuit of private profit, essentially greed, was considered the
> reason the population was treated badly, hence public ownership
> would remove much of the greed motive. The evidence had not
> really been understood that organisations defend and support
> themselves, and in particular their senior members, well ahead
> of their supposed clients, regardless of whether the system is
> private, public or religious.
the leftest Goebbels crazy by becoming supportive of industrialists
without really matching his deeds with words. I think such a gulf
still can be found today, where everyone says corporations should
not be able to influence gov't policy, but we all benefit from such
companies bringing liberating technology about by lobbying to smash
complacent regulations protecting status quo.
Geoffrey Sinclair
May 13, 2013, 9:23:26 AM5/13/13
to
Repost, as it has failed to appear, sorry if it turns up twice.
Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...
true". And the alternative explanation makes it less just. I
presume the original explanation was the wartime one, German
aggression.
> Though I question how universal that view was.
> The American reaction to the war was extremely
> negative, at both elite and popular levels.
So far as I can tell it was universal and can be best seen in the
lack of enthusiasm for war in the 1930's at all levels, from
government leaders to the general population around Europe
and in most other countries that fought in WWI.
> There was a very negative reaction in Britain
> at the elite level, but I'm not sure it was
> so strong at the popular level. Britain's
> much deeper and costlier involvement would
> ISTM be an obstacle to that.
No, the reaction was negative at popular level, the costs had
been too high, the results too low. It was further compounded
by the treatment of the returned men, the system did not have
the resources to help many who needed it, plus the failure to
live up to promises of a better life in general.
>> > This view held strongly even through WW II and for
>> > many years afterward. The contrast between the
>> > comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
>> > monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
>>
>> So essentially everyone was busy making peace in 1914
>> except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
>
> The feeling among many people in the 1920s and
> 1930s was that the war was engineered by just
> such sinister forces.
I do not know about the many people, we know today
almost every major event has an associated conspiracy
theory. In one sense it sounds like the sort of story the
communists were saying.
> BTW, I get the impression you think you are arguing
> with _me_. I am trying to explain a common belief of
> that period, not making that claim.
No I am querying your view, you stated it was a view from the
1920's and 1930's and for you to hold it as an adult back then
would mean you being aged around 100. Congratulations by
the way if the age is correct.
>> > But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
>> > have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
>> > revive this position in 1988, he was widely
>> > criticized.
>
>> I would draw a line between right to resist aggression and just.
>> To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
>> was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
>> winner.
>
> Germany initiated the war, thus being responsible
> for the death and destruction, in addition to war
> crimes such as the Belgian massacres.
We know Austria-Hungary initiated the war, with full
German support and encouragement.
Massacres were real, they were also exaggerated, a fact
that became known post war and helped decide the war
had been bad, populations do not like being told lies.
> Suppose a gang of criminals from down the road attack
> one's town - breaking into houses for loot, causing
> fires, killing citizens and police who resist them.
>
> Is it sufficient to drive them out of the town, and
> leave them free to try again?
The trouble with this analogy is did Germany essentially loot
and steal and kill the people of Alsace and Lorraine when
they became part of Germany, or were they treated as
citizens?
> We'll say that a later gang did all that, _and_
> raped, tortured, and mutilated women, butchered
> children, and deliberately vandalized churches,
> schools, and libraries, making the first gang
> look moderate.
>
> Is the first gang therefore less "evil"? Is it any
> less appropriate that they be destroyed?
Society thinks so, hence different punishments for different
crimes. The Zulu criminal code is supposed to have the
usual crimes, but only one penalty, being found guilty of any
crime meant the death penalty, the only option being the
method of execution.
> "Using war to decide a winner" was the choice
> of Imperial Germany.
Yes and Austria-Hungary.
> The Allies had no choice but
> to resist Germany - until a winner was decided -
> or concede victory to Germany. It was not until
> the failure of the Kaiserschlacht that Germany
> was willing to accept less than victory.
I agree, I have no problems with this, I also note that had Germany
won the issues were that of Versailles, money and possibly control
of territory, with Hitler it really was national survival.
Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-...@mx05.eternal-september.org...
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote;
>> > "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
>> >> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
>> >
>> > This is not quite true. There was a great
>> > quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
>> > both British and American circles - especially the
>> > latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
>> > in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
>> > agitation by fanatic nationalists.
>>
>> Hang on, if the war was caused by the merchants of death,
>> presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
>> idea of just war is even further removed.
>
> Well, obviously. I was _agreeing_ with your
> point, with regard to the historians of the
> 1920s and 1930s. At that time the generally
> accepted view was that WW I was a ghastly
> mistake and not a just war.
Sorry, in that case I misunderstood, focusing in the "not quite
>
>> "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.2...@rcn.com> wrote;
>> > "Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinc...@froggy.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Interestingly enough none of the Anglo-Saxon versions of history,
>> >> like the official ones, have decided WW I was a just war...
>> >
>> > This is not quite true. There was a great
>> > quasi-pacifist reaction in the 1920s and 1930s, in
>> > both British and American circles - especially the
>> > latter. The professed causes of the war were dismissed
>> > in favor of plots by the "merchants of death" and
>> > agitation by fanatic nationalists.
>>
>> Hang on, if the war was caused by the merchants of death,
>> presumably so they could sell more armaments, then the
>> idea of just war is even further removed.
>
> Well, obviously. I was _agreeing_ with your
> point, with regard to the historians of the
> 1920s and 1930s. At that time the generally
> accepted view was that WW I was a ghastly
> mistake and not a just war.
true". And the alternative explanation makes it less just. I
presume the original explanation was the wartime one, German
aggression.
> Though I question how universal that view was.
> The American reaction to the war was extremely
> negative, at both elite and popular levels.
lack of enthusiasm for war in the 1930's at all levels, from
government leaders to the general population around Europe
and in most other countries that fought in WWI.
> There was a very negative reaction in Britain
> at the elite level, but I'm not sure it was
> so strong at the popular level. Britain's
> much deeper and costlier involvement would
> ISTM be an obstacle to that.
been too high, the results too low. It was further compounded
by the treatment of the returned men, the system did not have
the resources to help many who needed it, plus the failure to
live up to promises of a better life in general.
>> > This view held strongly even through WW II and for
>> > many years afterward. The contrast between the
>> > comparatively benign German Empire and the wholly
>> > monstrous Third Reich seemed to confirm it.
>>
>> So essentially everyone was busy making peace in 1914
>> except a bunch of fanatics and greedy armaments makers?
>
> The feeling among many people in the 1920s and
> 1930s was that the war was engineered by just
> such sinister forces.
almost every major event has an associated conspiracy
theory. In one sense it sounds like the sort of story the
communists were saying.
> BTW, I get the impression you think you are arguing
> with _me_. I am trying to explain a common belief of
> that period, not making that claim.
1920's and 1930's and for you to hold it as an adult back then
would mean you being aged around 100. Congratulations by
the way if the age is correct.
>> > But in later years, explicit challenges to this view
>> > have arisen. When Niall Ferguson attempted to
>> > revive this position in 1988, he was widely
>> > criticized.
>
>> I would draw a line between right to resist aggression and just.
>> To make it a just war, one side has to be more evil than Germany
>> was in 1914, to justify the human cost in using war to decide a
>> winner.
>
> Germany initiated the war, thus being responsible
> for the death and destruction, in addition to war
> crimes such as the Belgian massacres.
German support and encouragement.
Massacres were real, they were also exaggerated, a fact
that became known post war and helped decide the war
had been bad, populations do not like being told lies.
> Suppose a gang of criminals from down the road attack
> one's town - breaking into houses for loot, causing
> fires, killing citizens and police who resist them.
>
> Is it sufficient to drive them out of the town, and
> leave them free to try again?
and steal and kill the people of Alsace and Lorraine when
they became part of Germany, or were they treated as
citizens?
> We'll say that a later gang did all that, _and_
> raped, tortured, and mutilated women, butchered
> children, and deliberately vandalized churches,
> schools, and libraries, making the first gang
> look moderate.
>
> Is the first gang therefore less "evil"? Is it any
> less appropriate that they be destroyed?
crimes. The Zulu criminal code is supposed to have the
usual crimes, but only one penalty, being found guilty of any
crime meant the death penalty, the only option being the
method of execution.
> "Using war to decide a winner" was the choice
> of Imperial Germany.
> The Allies had no choice but
> to resist Germany - until a winner was decided -
> or concede victory to Germany. It was not until
> the failure of the Kaiserschlacht that Germany
> was willing to accept less than victory.
won the issues were that of Versailles, money and possibly control
of territory, with Hitler it really was national survival.
Stephen Graham
May 13, 2013, 3:00:01 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/10/2013 7:14 AM, Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
> "Stephen Graham" <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:auvho7...@mid.individual.net...
> "Stephen Graham" <gra...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:auvho7...@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Paxton makes the point in his _Anatomy of Fascism_ that modern
>> readers tend to misinterpret the general term national socialism by
>> fixating on the second word in the phrase.
>
> Would most of those commentators be in America, given the
> revival and redefinition of socialism in current US political
> debate?
There's certainly that tendency in the US. But then there's also the
>> readers tend to misinterpret the general term national socialism by
>> fixating on the second word in the phrase.
>
> Would most of those commentators be in America, given the
> revival and redefinition of socialism in current US political
> debate?
common slander of associating anyone you don't like with the NSDAP or
just fascists in general.
> I think the Nazis never actually put together a coherent doctrine,
> along the lines of the communists etc. Hitler essentially decided
> things on a needs of the moment, and seems to have discouraged
> attempts to create a written doctrine.
having a published and consistent ideology didn't serve most of the
parties well. You could craft something for a particular election that
might serve you well but it would just catch up to you at the next
election. The other big lesson was that actually being part of the
government was a bad idea. So we can see that the NSDAP actually did the
smart thing by not having an ideology and spending most of the time out
of government.
> The pursuit of private profit, essentially greed, was considered the
> reason the population was treated badly, hence public ownership
> would remove much of the greed motive. The evidence had not
> really been understood that organisations defend and support
> themselves, and in particular their senior members, well ahead
> of their supposed clients, regardless of whether the system is
> private, public or religious.
support of the unemployed, good for creating the angry mob in the
street. The NSDAP base by the late twenties and early thirties was often
the middle class (or ex-middle class) who were in favor of capitalism
for themselves but not necessarily for larger organizations, thus the
corporatist elements. However, neither of these groups really had any
money or would donate enough to actually run a political party. For
that, as the non-Marxist Weimar parties all learned, you needed big
business or agriculture, and had to cater to their demands.
Stephen Graham
May 13, 2013, 5:07:59 PM5/13/13
to
On 5/12/2013 7:31 PM, dumbstruck wrote:
> IIRC in the 20's the Nazi's had a long (numbered?) list of principles
> which Hitler refused to update as their views changed in the 1930's.
25 points dating from 1920, i.e., before Hitler became party leader. As
> IIRC in the 20's the Nazi's had a long (numbered?) list of principles
> which Hitler refused to update as their views changed in the 1930's.
with many things dating from before the 1923 putsch attempt, it had only
a limited connection to the NSDAP of the late 20s and 30s.
> As for socialist agenda, "The Third Reich in Power" by Evans details
> amazingly socialist laws passed in the mid-thirties... like for instance
> turning farming upside down for not only large landowners. Not always
> enforced, especially when economically disruptive, and discarded when
> the pragmatics of war preparation took precedence.
Most importantly, the electoral and social base of the NSDAP was the
dispossessed middle class and smaller farmers. Policies were crafted to
appeal to them, as well as generally improving perceived economic benefit.
Secondly, the NSDAP knew that the large agricultural estates were
inefficient whereas the medium-sized farms of western Germany were more
efficient. The general pursuit of autarchy mandated a more productive
agricultural section.
Thirdly, the NSDAP was always very conscious of the domestic issues that
handicapped the German and Austro-Hungarian regimes during the First
World War. Avoiding those issues, such as malnutrition, was a priority.
0 new messages