The shame nations of WWII.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But it seems just as likely that a harsher treaty would have had pretty much the same chance of preventing the rise of Hitler as a more lenient one. So why not complain about Germans preventing such a treaty?

I don't doubt a harsher treaty would have prevented a Hitler, IF the allies decided to stay in Germany and guide a new economy and political system. However there was no will to do it. So attempting to be harsh, but at the same time leave Germany alone was a BAD idea.

So Versailles was too harsh, because there was no will to stay in Germany to prevent a Hitler from coming to power. It was harsh enough to allow a Hitler, and thus was too harsh.

[Zero]

Well hitler came to power because the treaty WAS harsh, but the treay wasnt enforced enough to prevent Hitler to gain power and build armaments and such..

[Vanguard]

So in short, we have no idea whether the Versailles Treaty caused the rise of Hitler or not. So there is no point blaming the WW1 Allies for WW2. We should place the blame for the Second World War on the people who started it---------- Hitler and the Germans.

No psychohistorical imperatives forced Germany to start WW2. The ghost of Versailles did not possess Hitler's body and force him to invade Poland. If Germany wanted to avoid a second war, all it had to do was not start one.

[Dr Strangelove]

Sometimes even when winners have disgruntled veterans, i.e., Timothy McVeigh. OTOH McVeigh was forced to vent his rage all by himself, while Adolf had lots of buddies eager to join him.

In the immediate aftermath of the war their was tremendous disillusionment with the old order among veterans of both sides. Everyone felt betrayed by their old leaders. To some extent this disillusionment became permanent throughout the world. The disillusionment actually seemed to help reconcile the common peoples of the two sides for awhile, since both had suffered from the evils of the old imperial system. In Germany however there was a growing feeling among all the classes that Germany had been unfairly singled out. If the war had been the fault of the old order, to which both sides in the war had belonged, then why should the Germans receive the lion's share of the punishment they asked. The fact that the punishment continued so long after the war was particularily resented. This resentment offered a fertile ground for the growth of warped ideologies like Hitler's.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Vanguard
So in short, we have no idea whether the Versailles Treaty caused the rise of Hitler or not. So there is no point blaming the WW1 Allies for WW2. We should place the blame for the Second World War on the people who started it---------- Hitler and the Germans.

No psychohistorical imperatives forced Germany to start WW2. The ghost of Versailles did not possess Hitler's body and force him to invade Poland. If Germany wanted to avoid a second war, all it had to do was not start one.

I'm sorry, Vanguard, but this post is so much on conflict with the facts, at least to the extent that I know them, that I just have to say something. Hitler was all about Versailles. His book, Mein Kampf, is filled with it. His speeches were filled with it. His actions when in office were primarily directed at reversing Versailles. To suggest that Versailles had nothing to do with WWII is simply not true.

[Myrddin]

I'm sure Hitler would have complained even about a lenient treaty- it is not the fault of those who drafted the treaty that he came to power

It looks to me as if the Great Depression had more to do with creating the conditions in Germany exploited by the Nazis, than Versailles

[XarXo]

Luxembourg!!! A luxemburguese throw a stone to a hebrew at 1944!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
I'm sure Hitler would have complained even about a lenient treaty- it is not the fault of those who drafted the treaty that he came to power

It looks to me as if the Great Depression had more to do with creating the conditions in Germany exploited by the Nazis, than Versailles

Myrddin, I am not so sure that Hitler would have had an audience if the treaty was consistent with the 14 points. Hitler's main argument was that Versailles was dictated to Germany after a conditional surrender.

[Vanguard]

Well, there was no Hitler around to cause the first war, so obviously the second could have started without him.

Of course this contradicts my statement that Germany was not subject to "psycohistorical imperatives", but, hey, consistancy is tough.

[Tolls]

Imran:
The unconditional surrender was a brainfart from Roosevelt at Casablanca. No one on his side, let alone Churchill and the Brits, knew he was going to pull that one out to the press. And, of course, once said they then had to proceed along those lines or look a bit silly (albeit eventually allowing a small condition for the Japanese).

Ned:
In Mein Kampf his major rants were against the jews and marxists who stabbed Germany in the back (according to him)...also a rant (on and off) about the French occupation of the Ruhr (which had recently happened when the book was written)...and a looooong diatribe on events in Bavaria.

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tolls
Imran:
The unconditional surrender was a brainfart from Roosevelt at Casablanca. No one on his side, let alone Churchill and the Brits, knew he was going to pull that one out to the press. And, of course, once said they then had to proceed along those lines or look a bit silly (albeit eventually allowing a small condition for the Japanese).

Ned:
In Mein Kampf his major rants were against the jews and marxists who stabbed Germany in the back (according to him)...also a rant (on and off) about the French occupation of the Ruhr (which had recently happened when the book was written)...and a looooong diatribe on events in Bavaria.

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

True, In Hilter's view, Germany did not loose WWI. She was stabbed in the back by the commie's and the Jews.

It is interesting that he later tried to execute every commie and Jew he could get his hands on whether or not they were in any way responsible for Germany's defeat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Versailles plays a pretty minor part...a part that any treaty the allies would have imposed would have played.

To Hitler, yes. To the rest of Germany, no. Without Versailles, Hitler would never have the support.

His major rants were against the Jews and Marxist who stabbed Germany in the back. But HOW did they stab Germany in the back? By signing the Treaty of Versailles. That is why many Germans went with Hitler, because SOMEONE had to be blamed for that treaty.

[Myrddin]

I thought the 'stab in the back' referred to signing the Armistice, not the Peace Treaty, even though it was recommended by the military and not by politicians

Someone had to blamed for the mess in Germany 10 years after the end of the war, but by then the great depression starts being as much an issue as Versailles

[Ned]

Yeah the Great Depression saw the rise of such radicals as FDR in the US. Therefore, the Great Depression must be a complete and total explanation of Hitler. Versailles and the backstabbing commies and Jews had nothing to do with Germany's swing to the National Socialists who made Versailles, and the backstabbing commies and Jews their issue.

No wait - it must be that Germany is inherently anit-Semetic and was simply waiting for a man of Hitler stripe to run for office.

No, that can't be it. It must be that the German people grew tired of socialism and communism and wanted to elect the one man who would "eradicate" such deluded and sinister people from the earth.

No, none of this fits as a sole explanation. But perhaps all of it contributed to Hitler's rise to power.

[Vanguard]

Since the so-called "stab in the back" was a complete fabrication of a German general staff trying to avoid responsibility for losing the war, it seems likely that the Nazis could have made up some other issue to advance their cause.