I sometimes wonder if fontaine did it on purpose. It's such an amazing post and feck knows why he didn't edit it after the fact if it truly was a mistake.
75 Years Since Hitler's Death
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I agree that this conclusion is often taken for granted, while it's actually a speculation. Looking at the toxicity of German nationalism & jingoism prior to and during World War I, and the material conditions that led to its status as an impeded global power, it can at least be questioned. The fundamental humiliation for the reactionary wing of German society was defeat against its arch enemies itself, and the trauma of a resulting liberal society. I'm sure this alone would have led to bitter revanchist desires, and hatred against the new order born out of that defeat. Just as a discrepancy between power potential and actual power would have remained, even if it might have been a tad smaller.
What this would have meant for German society as a whole in a hypothetical scenario of milder peace conditions isn't as easy to answer as it's often assumed, imo.
That toxic jingoism and nationalism wasn’t a purely German phenomena, it was present in all the major powers at the time. There weren’t any good guys in WW1, it was the final and ultimate battle of the monarchic age with the ‘Great Powers’ fighting for influence and power. Fun fact some people may not know, after the armistice, the allies continued to blockade Germany under peace terms were finalized, exacerbating a famine that cost another 100,000+ civilian lives post-armistice. Because you know, we were the good guys..
The peace conditions not only forced German to radically change its governing system, but imposed massive territorial changes also.
Here's Europe in 1914:
And then Europe Post War:
Gosh, who'd have thought that carving up a country and leaving it with non-contiguous regions would have caused any problems ("Hey there Danzig! We'll be seeing you later!"). The post war settlement largely resulted in lots of regions with angry German citizens being handed over to other countries, and new countries being created that resulted in massive chaos. They also confiscated the German's African colonial territories, but didn't do anything silly like actually freeing them, they were just added to the colonial empires of the victorious great powers.
But of course a land-grab and forced government change wasn't enough, the victors also wanted recompense of their costs. Fun quote I stumbled across while checking the terms again, by renowned radical extremist, John Maynard Keynes..
John Meynard Keynes said:
Yeah, when people like Keynes think your peace treaty is so shit there should be revolution, it's probably not the best peace treaty. But then again the Daily Mail ran a campaign insisting on heavy reparations, so there's a recommendation we can trust right?
I'm in a quoting mood, so I'll end here with a few more from notables of the time..
Edward House said:
Richard Tawney said:
General Gough said:
Lord Philip Kerr said:
Interesting, thanks @Kentonio.
Interestingly enough, when the Treaty of Versailles didn’t go as far as he’d recommended in weakening Germany, Marshal Foch prophetically said, “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years.”
You’ve really accomplished something when you’ve made a Treaty that roundly despised.
You’ve really accomplished something when you’ve made a Treaty that roundly despised.
@Kentonio
I know all that in principle, and I think you may read more into my post than what's in there.
First of all, I didn't talk of good guys anywhere, and I didn't make any moral comparison to other nationalisms. I also said nowhere that the treaty didn't preshape the form in which the nationalist conflicts of the 1920s/30s took place, which would be silly.
What I meant is that I'm not convinced of a pretty common view that goes something like this: Nazism was by and large a result of 1918 (plus 1929), and something similar wouldn't have happened if the victorious powers had forced a more lenient treaty upon Germany.
My caveat is that some larger trajectories fall under the table when the post-1918 developments are extrapolated like that. In my post I've named two factors I'm pretty sure of: Germany likely remaining in the status of an impeded super power in any case, and the reactionary right wing's revanchism & hatred of liberalism not being conditional. There are more I can think of.
So, referring to these two factors, my last sentence was:
That's at least what I intended to say, perhaps it came across differently.
I know all that in principle, and I think you may read more into my post than what's in there.
First of all, I didn't talk of good guys anywhere, and I didn't make any moral comparison to other nationalisms. I also said nowhere that the treaty didn't preshape the form in which the nationalist conflicts of the 1920s/30s took place, which would be silly.
What I meant is that I'm not convinced of a pretty common view that goes something like this: Nazism was by and large a result of 1918 (plus 1929), and something similar wouldn't have happened if the victorious powers had forced a more lenient treaty upon Germany.
My caveat is that some larger trajectories fall under the table when the post-1918 developments are extrapolated like that. In my post I've named two factors I'm pretty sure of: Germany likely remaining in the status of an impeded super power in any case, and the reactionary right wing's revanchism & hatred of liberalism not being conditional. There are more I can think of.
So, referring to these two factors, my last sentence was:
And this is still an open question for me. Its fundamental premise is that alternative historical scenarios are a tricky thing.
That's at least what I intended to say, perhaps it came across differently.
Last edited:
Whenever someone claims that the Peace of Versailles was too harsh, I ask them to look at two other post-war situations involving the Germans. One was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, in which the German Empire forced upon Russia far greater territorial losses than was later forced upon Germany. And then there's the post-WW2 order, in which Germany (along with Japan) lost even more territory and was completely dismantled as a state, split up and occupied by the victors. The takeaway from that might just be that the problem with Versailles wasn't that it was too harsh, but that it was too lenient, or too weakly enforced.
It's also interesting to consider that if Versailles, with its humiliating loss of territory and financial cost, was inevitably going to lead to WW2, then you must also say that the Treaty of Frankfurt, after the Franco-Prussian war, was inevitably going to lead to WW1.
It's also interesting to consider that if Versailles, with its humiliating loss of territory and financial cost, was inevitably going to lead to WW2, then you must also say that the Treaty of Frankfurt, after the Franco-Prussian war, was inevitably going to lead to WW1.
Yeah don't worry, I just get ranty sometimes. Wasn't all directed at your post.
The way I see it is that its a pretty straight row of dominos from Versaille to Nazism. The dismantling of the German Empire and imposing a new form of government was obviously going to leave a huge power vacuum. At that point everybody's best interests are served by doing basically what the allied did after WW2, and aiding the German people to rebuild and stabilize. Given that they were also forcing a change from a monarchy to a democracy it was also morally justifiable, and wouldn't just have been rewarding the people who contributed to causing the thing in the first place.
Instead they created a power vacuum in a huge nation already suffering economic collapse and famine and imposed crippling reparations that ensured that not only would stabilization and recovery be far more difficult for the Germans but that its people would inevitably foster resentment and blame towards their former enemies. This in the wider context of course of a growing world economic crisis and a political environment where Bolshevism had already toppled a giant country to the east and was spreading across Europe, sparking a virulent nationalist response.
German democracy in that environment could only survive with economic stability, and Versaille helped ensure that stability was basically impossible. The only real question for me was whether Germany would fall to nationalism or to Bolshevism, and Germany's national culture reinforced by the inheritance of Bismarck ensured that it went right instead of left.
It's not that Versaille was a single mistake that hadn't been made many times before, simply that it was a culmination of many previous mistakes that had lead to the conflagration of the world. The great powers had made these mistakes over and over, and even after the supposed War to End All Wars, they turned around and did it again. As I alluded to above, the post WW2 arrangements also included the rebuilding of Germany to ensure that democracy actually had a chance. That was a huge change of direction from the previous 'grab what you can' settlements that wars had traditionally resulted in, although obviously even then there was plenty of that included.
I tend to agree with that, but it's not as much fun as arguing.
The contrast between your post further up and Kentonio's pretty much outlines the discussion I had in mind. May pick it up later.
I'm the same, so I understand that perfectly wellYeah don't worry, I just get ranty sometimes. Wasn't all directed at your post.
Another problem with the WWI peace terms is y’all didn’t listen to the Americans, especially after Wilson had a stroke.
The Americans didn't listen to the Americans either. Wilson couldn't even get his own country to join the League of Nations.
Justice and fairness for all!*
*Except the African Americans back home of course.
And the Philippines.
I'd be cautious about ascribing too much significance to the Treaty of Versailles in the establishment of the Third Reich, or falling into the trap of a teleological reading of history. I thought Germany did their best to avoid most of the payments, Weimar borrowed more from the US than they ever paid to the Allies, a lot of their financial problems post-1918 stemmed from the Kaiser Wilhelm II's policy of borrowing to finance the war - and, regardless, by the late 1920s their economy was relatively strong. It was the Wall Street Crash which really created the conditions for Nazism to prosper - in 1928 they could only get 800,000 votes. And even then, nothing is inevitable. Had the Weimar Republic responded to the economic crisis more boldly, rather than an agenda of cuts and austerity, then we perhaps do not see the same attrition of the Weimar parties and a sweltering of support for the NSDAP.
That toxic jingoism and nationalism wasn’t a purely German phenomena, it was present in all the major powers at the time. There weren’t any good guys in WW1, it was the final and ultimate battle of the monarchic age with the ‘Great Powers’ fighting for influence and power. Fun fact some people may not know, after the armistice, the allies continued to blockade Germany under peace terms were finalized, exacerbating a famine that cost another 100,000+ civilian lives post-armistice. Because you know, we were the good guys..
The peace conditions not only forced German to radically change its governing system, but imposed massive territorial changes also.
Here's Europe in 1914:
And then Europe Post War:
Gosh, who'd have thought that carving up a country and leaving it with non-contiguous regions would have caused any problems ("Hey there Danzig! We'll be seeing you later!"). The post war settlement largely resulted in lots of regions with angry German citizens being handed over to other countries, and new countries being created that resulted in massive chaos. They also confiscated the German's African colonial territories, but didn't do anything silly like actually freeing them, they were just added to the colonial empires of the victorious great powers.
But of course a land-grab and forced government change wasn't enough, the victors also wanted recompense of their costs. Fun quote I stumbled across while checking the terms again, by renowned radical extremist, John Maynard Keynes..
Yeah, when people like Keynes think your peace treaty is so shit there should be revolution, it's probably not the best peace treaty. But then again the Daily Mail ran a campaign insisting on heavy reparations, so there's a recommendation we can trust right?
I'm in a quoting mood, so I'll end here with a few more from notables of the time..
Fun fact there is a difference between an Armistice and surrender. What if Germany refused to sign the treaty.
It has to be said, I love a good historical map as much as anyone but you always have to check the dates. This is one from earlier.
https://www.themaparchive.com/german-unification-181571.html
In the run up to 1914 Germany had militarily forced territorial changes on many other nations in central Europe and was going to do so again in spades if it had won.(have you seen its proposed settlement?)
There were no easy solutions in 1919, no great power capable of enforcing a single minded agreement and no will from anyone to pay the bill. The US would not even discuss war debt cancellation never mind some form of Marshall Plan and all the troops wanted to go home if they hadn't left already.
The entire western front of the war had taken place on French and Belgium soil and the armistice was signed before the opposing armies entered Germany. You can't blame France and Belgium for wanting recompense given German production and its towns and cities were all intact while their nations were in ruins. Don't conflate exhausted Germany post WW1 with destroyed Germany post WW2.
Three other Empires had fallen to pieces and many of their constituent parts wanted nation status and were prepared to fight for it.
There was no peace treaty possible that everyone would love coming out of Paris but 20 years is a long time to claim WW2 as inevitable.
Sometimes I forget how violent Europe could be in the last couple of centuries. Thank god we're civilized peaceful people now.
The Hitler and Mannerheim recording is a voice recording of a private conversation between Adolf Hitler, Führer of Nazi Germany, and Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, Commander-in-Chief of the Finnish Defence Forces, during a secret visit honoring Mannerheim's 75th birthday on 4 June 1942 during the Continuation War, a sub-theater of World War II. Thor Damen, an engineer for the Finnish broadcasting company Yle, recorded the first 11 minutes of Hitler and Mannerheim's private conversation. Damen had been assigned to record the official birthday speeches and Mannerheim's responses. However, Damen continued recording—without Hitler's knowledge—after the conversation switched from official to private. It is the only known recording of Hitler speaking in an unofficial tone.
Was he really a good orator? Sure there are lots of his genuine speeches that would have been recorded?
He was undoubtedly a very effective speaker. There are numerous speeches of his you can watch but unless you understand German they won’t be of any use.
This is why I asked hoping members here who speaks German can enlighten me.
He was a masterful orator, but the clip above is the only example of him speaking normally. If you listen to his speeches you'll hear the difference immediately even if you don't understand what he's saying. Here's one:
Also the real important question has yet to be asked: what did Hitler look like without the ‘tache? Worth a google
I think it was the anti semitic elements and also how the Nazis killed the jews. Millions of them in the chambers just because they were Jewish. Of course other ethnic people were also killed too. Stalin and Polpot also killed millions but not because they were of their ethnicity and not in the manner the Nazis killed.
Oh Stewart Lee has let himself go.
What happened in Cambodia with him though... they were beating people to death with spades, garden hoes, and clubs in the killing fields. They killed kids by bashing their heads against tree trunks. Such a primitive contrast to the industrialized killing that was eventually used by the Nazis.
He looks rather well.
To a degree, but it’s also worth remembering that a lot of the holocaust wasn’t that industrialized either. The camps (rightly and understandably) get most of the attention, but there were huge numbers of innocent people murdered in extremely primitive ways that wouldn’t have been at all out of the way in Cambodia. Like Odessa where they packed Jews into warehouses and after they realized shooting wasn’t working effectively because of the packed bodies, just set the buildings on fire.
Even in the camps a huge proportion of the deaths were due to disease and starvation rather than direct execution. It was all incredibly sordid and filthy. It’s one of the things that annoys me about how movies like to portray the Nazis as clinical and efficient. They were neither of those things particularly, they were thuggish, brutal and wildly inefficient for the most part.
That’s why I said “eventually”. That’s beside the point for me though, I’m aware of the inefficiencies and brutality of the Holocaust, but I’m not trying to argue anything about it. It is just interesting to me that the Khmer Rouge were essentially a massive, genocidal Luddite movement that rejected modern technologies and decided that 2/3 of the population of their own country had to die to achieve their desire for a country basically traveling back in time.
Speaking of:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...part-one-the-film-directing-playboy-29548505/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...part-two-the-film-directing-playboy-29553860/
Right, and that's basically a defining feature of the Nazis. It was the wild west of totalitarian government, with poorly defined roles and the explicit encouragement of internal competition. It's also why they made a million different kinds of tanks, with a million different things that could (and did) go wrong with them - and also why they built so few tanks in the grand scheme of things. When the Soviets were on the offensive in the latter stages of the war, an official decree came down that German tanks could be used until they broke down, but that there was no value in trying to repair them. I think the Brits decided something similar after the war, when doing trials with captured German tanks.
They made the jerrycan though, which was perhaps their greatest invention.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...part-one-the-film-directing-playboy-29548505/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...part-two-the-film-directing-playboy-29553860/
Right, and that's basically a defining feature of the Nazis. It was the wild west of totalitarian government, with poorly defined roles and the explicit encouragement of internal competition. It's also why they made a million different kinds of tanks, with a million different things that could (and did) go wrong with them - and also why they built so few tanks in the grand scheme of things. When the Soviets were on the offensive in the latter stages of the war, an official decree came down that German tanks could be used until they broke down, but that there was no value in trying to repair them. I think the Brits decided something similar after the war, when doing trials with captured German tanks.
They made the jerrycan though, which was perhaps their greatest invention.
Last edited:
Yeah sorry, wasn’t trying to imply you didn’t know that stuff, I just get sidetracked with talking about this stuff sometimes. Bad habit.
I think we still have them in isis now. It's amazing how a group like that can survive in this modern age.
That's actually a great comparison. And perhaps ironically, both groups were enabled by American wars.
An interesting read
RIP big man