random question

[scottsmm]

Something just crossed my mind do you think nationalism played a bigger role in WWI or in WWII and why?

[arado234]

Scottsmm you bring up very challenging questions(keep it up).Ive read many(100s)books on World war 2 and none that deal with just ww1.From what ive learnt Nationalism played a big part in Hitlers rise to power but but no means the only one.I found that the single biggest contributer to any war is usually either greed or revenge.

[scottsmm]

my point in saying that was the spark of the first world war came from a couple of things.

1. want to better your counrty

2. huge developments in european weaponry that had european counrtries literally trigger happy (other wise how did all of Europe and a good part of Asia get involved in the conflict in the matter of days)

3. grab land/ establish your country as a superpower (my personal opinion)

of course nationalism was used in both worldwars (mainly throughout propaganda) from both sides to either join the war on your countries side or to feel that you are superior to your enemy really both of these together. For Hitlers rise to power it mainly I think was revenge in the form of nationalism also desperation by the german people. One thing that is for sure is that in WWI European countries were trigger happy but after the first few years they very quickly felt diffrently. One last interesting point of Hitlers rise to power is that Rommuel said "as long as my generation is alive there will be no other world wars" of course he was dead wrong but it proves that after a while the Germans wanted nothing to do with the war and probably wished they didn't get involved in the Serbian conflict. Intresting thought is that the monarch that was assinated caused not only one World War but two and I can't estimate the losses in life and in money over that one assination. Shows that person was important I guess. I forget his name though and don't feel like googling it hahaha. In short I'm not sure if you could say nationalism played a bigger part in WWII then it did in WWI but it's a question that I'm asking trying to get diffrent opinions and see if it really should be one over the other. I also apologize for any misspellings and gramatical errors I make in this message it's past midnight.

[thetwo]

Nationalism in WWI and WWII.

You didn't go for a small question.

I'll start with WWI, if you don't mind and it might be a day or two before I can get to WWII (It is much more complicated)..

I have a professor friend who says that nationalism has killed more people than religion. I happen to think he is wildly mistaken. This same friend is a Francophile and Germanophobe. If you don't know the terms, the first means he loves the French and the second that he hates the Germans. This is common among historians. In fact, it is so common that it has been reflected in how much of European history has been written for centuries.

If you haven't been introduced to an author named Eric Flint, I think you might find a couple of his books interesting. He writes science fiction and recently alternative history. Now why would I bring him up in a serious discussion of the world wars? Because he has accomplished something that has defied the efforts of historians, made European history accessible. I'll explain.

One of the deep seated causes of WWI, although you won't find it in any discussion of the war, was that Germany and the German psyche was forged through more than five centuries of misery, hardship, and suffering. If you've read any military histories of Europe you've certainly come across the term, "North European Plain" at least once. This is a descriptor of the terrain of northern Germany which makes it the natural battleground for larger, more powerful enemies to the east and west. What the term disguises is that those same enemies didn't simply fight there. They had interests in destabilizing the entire region and keeping it that way. Germany as a concept didn't even exist until the 19th century.

Of all the large political and military entities that surrounded, fought over and through, meddled in, tampered with, stole from, slaughtered the people of, and dominated Germany, the French were the worst. Germans were sub-humans and were kept that way. The early European history books were written by, surprise, French authors. These were the basis for the first English-language histories. None of the real histories made it to America except in the bitter stories of immigrants.

What Eric Flint has done is to write modern fiction that brings the Thirty Years War to the masses. If you want to see Germany in that time read "1632" and "1633" and you'll get a very readable glimpse of that hell. This is what forged the Germany of the 19th and 20th centuries. It made the Prussians.

Flint talks about some of the horrors but doesn't go into the depth of them. A couple things that anyone who has eaten German food should recognize are the strong smells and the prevalence of sour tastes. Germans ate rotted and spoiled food (when they had any food) for so long that aspects of this became part of their cultural tradition. Or such is my theory.

To continue this theme for a moment, Bismarck did not unify the Germans as some history texts claim. Hitler did that. Even then the individual states had their own unique flavor and traditions that it is hard for Americans to understand. These were, and to an extent remain, a holdover from the divisive past when foreign powers paid the hundreds of local princes, dukes, counts, to keep a constant state of low-grade tension and animosity going even when war wasn't running loose across the countryside.

(Note: If you want to get an understanding something of an understanding of how the French came to be what we see today, I suggest you do some research into the last Islamic invasion of Europe, 1683, if I have the year right. Battle of Vienna. All the European powers assembled to defend the city, except the French. The French, under Louis XIV, pleaded neutrality then did all in his power to undermine the alliance alliance (helping the Turks). Interesting tale.)

/ /

A few years back there was a weighty tome that claimed to answer the question, "Why World War I happened?". This huge book could be boiled down to two ideas, the naval arms race and the Germans did it. I thought the book was a farce. The British and French diplomats would have told him that in 1914. Do I concur? No.

There was more than enough stupidity to go around, but the points that I think are most important, the ones that I think tipped the balance, seem to be the ones that the historians overlook or don't want to write about. Historians, in my opinion, either go for answers that are too easy (to suit their prejudices) or go for answers that are too strange. They don't look at the human motivators and how human organizations work. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Here are what I think were the key factors leading up the fateful moment of Archduke Ferdinand's assassination.

1. The British and French tended to look down their noses at the Germans. Even with the British royal family being more German than British (ironic) there was a definite and pronounced arrogance in all dealings with the Germans. Germans were coarse, foul, ate disgusting food, and German was such a harsh language, don't you know.

2. The Germans, also the Japanese, were late-comers to the world stage and wanted their chance at empire (colonies). This was more important to the Japanese, in my opinion, than the Germans, but it was a factor in the decision making of both.

3. The Kaiser had been pushing to modernize German as fast and fully as possible. How fast this was accomplished is still recognized in our history texts. To do this he had to borrow heavily. How heavily? In a strange twist of fate, he had the authority to spend money, but not to generate money. He could not tax. In the years after 1915 the bills were going to come due and the bills could not be paid. I wish I could remember the terminology for how this was structured.

4. The British citizen sees himself as a citizen of Europe and yet separate and better than a European. That little strip of water makes him distinct and the affairs of Europe are not his concern unless and until he chooses to intervene and then his European inferiors had best listen well. This strange dichotomy carries over into British foreign policy. When I've gone back to look at the diplomatic correspondence leading up to the war, it is very strange. It looked like the British were wholly unconcerned and sending mixed signals to both the French and the Germans until after the point of no return. Then and only then did they act decisively. (Same behavior as they displayed leading up to WWII.)

So look at these four items and you can see the human element in all four of them. It's easy to see how they would influence the actors toward certain decisions. If you want me to point to one or two smoking guns, I'd point to 3 and 4, above. The Kaiser had crushing debts that could not be repaid and for all their arrogance, the British couldn't find their backsides with both hands, a flashlight, and a compass when it came to diplomacy.

[scottsmm]

I totally agree with you on the nationalsim causing mord deaths then religion I mean all you have to do there is look at the crusades+ 98% of the other wars every fought by man. Thanks for your very detailed response. But It left one question for me are your fingers sore from typing all that?

[arado234]

Im re-reading a very good book called the German wars 1914-1945(it actually starts about 1890)by D.J.Goodspeed.

One more thing about ww1 was that the French were still major pissed about loosing Alsace-Lorraine and would stop at nothing to get it back.This was when alot of the major alliances started to form and France made the fateful decision to form one with Russia(Duel Entente,it did have conditions of course but Germany started to feel nervous).This also raised Serbian Nationalism fostered by Russia which started to stir the pot.

Because Russia wanted to expand southeastwards and breakout into the Med.and France wanted Alsace-Lorraine back(alone the couldnt do this)they formed the Duel Entente(now they were in a much better position to claim their wants).This started a major chain reaction.Britain,Germany,and Austria wanted to keep the status quo.

This also caused Germany not to resign the Reinsurance treaty with Russia(this treaty really helped keep the peace because it guaranteed Germany and Russia would never attack one another and if Germany attacked France, Russia would attack Germany and if Russia attacked Austria ,Germany would attack Russia).Once Russia signed the Duel-Entente with France the gloves strarted coming off.

Germany and England got along ok at best but after the Boers defeated the Brits.at Mjuba hill things started to turn a little more sour.Then after the Brits. launched the Jameson raid and again got their butts kicked public opinion in Germany really started to turn against the Brits.The Germans sent a telegram to President Paul Kruger of Transvaal(basically south Africa),The telegram read: I should like to express my sincere congrats.that you and your people have succeeded,without having had to invoke the help of friendly powers, in restoring peace with your own resources in the face of armed bands which had broken into your country as disturbers of the peace,and have been able to preserve the independence of your country against attacks from the outside.

The Reference to''the help of friendly powers''seemed to imply the threat of war between Germany and Britain.Both sides newspapers just fanned the flames more by taking shots at one another.

Britain regarded France and Russia as the traditional enemy but after Boer and Jameson events they started to look towards France and Russia as a possible friendship.This in turn gave France and Russia more feeling of power to pursue their goals and things just went downhill from there.Certain countries were just looking for an excuse to start something and the assassination of the Archduke was the match that lit the powderkeg.

Plus all the things thetwo said were also a big part of it.

[thetwo]

Nicely written Arado.

I've dealth with the scott's question so many times my tendency is to cut to the chase. There was much more behind the tensions and animosities and jealosies between the powers.

[scottsmm]

yes the two I don't always have short response questions. Arado234 I would say always anwsers my questions though thetwo, and by the way Arado234 good solid response. You should always cut to the chase as my questions are usually meant to evoke good logical responses. But what I find intersting about this question is it's only about 10 words yet people could write page after page and still be able to write another page. It also has lead-way so that you could debate in the end what I believe is that WWI had many causes and because of the failure of the treaty of versailles and the Germans feeling inferior to there western and possibly eastern neighbors+ an insane man (Hitler of course) who was bond to try his best to redeem Germany lead to the second world war. In this formula for death nationalism was at the center stage throughout both World Wars and on the propaganda battlefront for both sides. So thetwo and Arado234 do you agree that this shows what role nationalism played in both world wars?

[arado234]

Nationalism did play a big part in both wars but in my opinion the''other two''(greed and revenge)played just as big a part if not more.

World War2 in someways is more complicated(as thetwo says)but imho someways its not.

When Hitler went into politics he picked a time when the whole world was a mess because of the depression.People were desperate.He was a very smart man in some ways because he knew what buttons to push and when.Nationalism being one of them.

[thetwo]

There is a tendency among historians to think that what happens more recently is more significant. This is foolish.

With the exception of a more or less unified Germany and newer technology, if you squint and change the dates on the diplomatic correspondence the build up to WWI might have been occurring in any of several different centuries. European power politics.

You can see the same dynamics on any middle school playground. Bullies, egos, dominance games, gossip, sniping, posturing, lying, awkward seduction, even more awkward alliances, long-term feuds, short-term cooperation.

Long on hormones, short on brains. The people with more money stand out. The people with less money hope they don't get stepped on.

After a year passes (in school) or a generation (two decades in Europe) the cycle repeats with slight variations on the themes.

[arado234]

thetwo I hope the last statement you made never comes to pass because of the destructive power of todays weapons.

[Blashy]

The causes of ALL war is plain and simple... GREED. Simply used in disguise in other ways (religion, nationalism, etc...).

A friend of mine says if Religions were banned you would have almost no wars... I do not agree, the greedy bastards would just find another cause to use to attain their objectives.

My theory is simple, eliminate that one single emotion of GREED in humans and you have a perfect world.

[SeaMonkey]

Although it is certainly a factor my dear Blashy, the most prominent contribution to war is (IMO) misjudgement.

[scottsmm]

Greed is a major cause of war nobody in there right mind would ever question you Blashy about that, but the problem is there is no way to get rid of that emotion or to prove that it's been the cause of all wars that have been started by man. But what we do know and can most likely agree with is greed has been responsible for most human wars and can been seen under the umbrella of many diffrent things (religion, misjudgement, nationalism, etc).

[scottsmm]

I make to many gramatical errors when I do posts later on in the day. I apologize for any errors I've made. I guess I'm more of a morning person.

[Rocko1]

Greed is not a bad emotion if it is tempered with common sense. Greed is a motivator for humans to do some really amazing and good things. Think about some medical break throughs that would not have happened if a company could not make money for the risk and expenses they had. The fact is that resources are an important reason to go to war. To sit here and deny human nature is idiotic and not realistic. You just want to make sure that you are on the winning side of such a war and that it does not take more resources to win than you gain. That you will find is at the heart of any great commander of armies throught history.

[SeaMonkey]

Thank you Rocko! No human in "their right mind" wants to go to war but would rather negotiate bloodlessly to get what they think they need.

Many times the brinksmanship gets rather heated and threats are made, not really meaning to be carried out, but to emphasize a position in hopes the other side "blinks" first.

I'm sure we all here of played a little poker....bluffing is part of the game. Its to bad when your bluff is called because of your "misjudgement" of the others intentions.

[scottsmm]

Rocko1 good point however we are not talking about medical fields. By the way I'm not denying human nature it's just greed is the want to get more and more and eventually you find out that because of your selfish greed you have doomed your country because your want to better it had actualy buried your own country six feet under with no way to dig itself out. In other words in World War Two if Hitler only wanted to take a part of the world he would have succeded at that but he continuely wanted more until his own alliance couldn't win and as a result Germany, and Japan were left in ruins with Italy not faring to much better. You can see this by going to these countries and looking at there infrustructure and then asking yourself why are all there buildings only about 50 years old at the most?

[arado234]

I got a good question:When does it become enough?Lets say one country does achive "it''all.Then what?

[scottsmm]

First Arado for Hitler it never was enough that's what I think greed is the continuing non-stopping want to do better and better. Secondly if Hitler did achive it, then in less your 100% Aryan German your not alive because you either died in a concentration camp or your parents where killed before you were born. Thank god I had to use the word "if".

[scottsmm]

If it wasn't someone with the greed and insanity of Hitler my guess is in an outside country away from the mother countries people would rebel to re-gain there country and will probably succeed.

[jon_j_rambo]

The current war is the pull for the New World Order of Socialism.

[thetwo]

Scott, I remembered two nights ago that I had not posted my promised reply to the other half of your question. Nationalism as a cause for WWII. I had written it about a week after my short WWI post and then set it aside to edit after about a week, then forgot about it. Here it is. It is long and may not be what you wanted, but I went for thorough, as I would if I were answering SeaMonkey or Arado. Enjoy.

If I were to list nationalism among the causes for WWII, I would prefer to call it "belated nationalism." For all three Axis countries, nationhood and national identity came quite late and they had their own reasons to either resent or fear what would happen if they lost what little they had gained. If nothing else nationalistic ideas formed a backdrop or framework against which other problems, concepts, ideas, challenges, and perspectives were viewed.

The common theme of many posts has been that greed drives wars. Then the comment was made that no rational person choses to go to war. I must differ with both. Pride has more to do with going to war than greed and nearly all those who have made the decisions to go to war have been profoundly sane. They have been selfish, self-serving, egotistical, arrogant, venal, bastards, but sane.

World War II, overlaps two very bloody preexisting conflicts. One was not quite ended and one was only just starting to heat up. To Western historians, both have become afterthoughts. These were the Russian revolution (and then forced collectivization) and the Chinese civil war.

We know the Russian civil war had been won by the communists, so how can I say that it wasn't ended? Because the revolution was killing the nation's citizens still. The massive famine in the early twenties, the purges, the gulag, then Stalin's massive purge of his own officer corps (Hitler had a hand in kicking that off by the way.). Stalin was killing off socialists and communists and not just from his own country. If foreign leaders happened to be in the Soviet Union at the wrong time, they died too. The body count is often vastly underestimated.

Then China was tearing itself apart. What foreigners had done for centuries and the Chinese had often done to themselves, on and off for two milenia, division and exploitation, was coming to an end. China was waking up. Two powers, the communists and Kuomintang were vying for dominance in a bid to unify China. Even without a Japanese invasion the death toll was going to dwarf anything WWII was going to produce.

The world is never at peace.

Enter three latecomers onto the world stage, Japan, Italy, Germany. Each with its own fears and goals.

/ /

Japan was unique in the group. Homogeneous in population, it had one culture. Its cultural view was that anyone from another culture was "jama gedo" unruly heathens. This was a pervasive view that any non-Japanese was not human. Japanese were superior in every way.

Almost in a yin/yang relationship, the Japanese felt a terrifying inferiority. They were petrified of the fate that had befallen China at the hands of the Europeans and very late, the Americans, as its coastal areas were divided up and it lost sovereignty over its own domains. The Japanese had been passionate about not becoming another China, hence the rapid, frenetic pace of their technological evolution once Commodore Perry "convinced" them that isolation was no longer a tenable policy. Some of the cultural conflicts are accurately portrayed in the movie, "The Last Samurai."

At the time this transformation started, the samurai were a caste of warriors who no longer fought. They were courtiers who wore rouge on their faces, wrote poetry, and hadn't had much of a place in society for a long time. With the Meiji restoration (beginning 1868), the emperor began to transform the country by bringing in "best-in-class" advisors from different nations around the world and Japanese scholars and officers were sent abroad to further their educations. Everything changed, but for that there were prices to be paid.

Japan became a predator in order to avoid becoming prey. They turned on China. During WWI, they astutely joined the Allies in hopes of being rewarded with Pacific possessions and were not disappointed.

The constitution, Western style, passed in late 1880's, could not hold up under pressure. There was too much divisiveness among the top ministers and when the economic crises hit in the 1920's, there was a need for more active leadership.

I feel that I must point out a common complaint by the Japanese that the League of Nations and the US of the period were racist in their policies. At no point have I ever encountered a Japanese document or history that acknowledged the rabid racism inherent in Japanese culture at the time (and today). This is a continuation of the "definition solely through use" of the words like "racism."

In the 1920s and 1930s the military was taking over more and more power. Military in this sense means the Japanese Army. They didn't do this alone or unaided. Buddhists religious leaders were their major supporters and without their help could not have taken power. Buddhism had been the main-stream faith of Japan prior to the Meiji restoration, but suffered a setback at that time. It rebounded when the Buddhists attached themselves to the Emperor's person. Thereby, the Emperor's success became the Buddhist's success.

It was the driving force of the Buddhists that made so much of what followed possible. The suppression of the media, crack down on the universities, professors, and all dissent, the wholesale revision of Bushido into a perverse sickness. Nationalism was the rallying cry, but the underlying motivations were racial superiority, hate, and religious zealotry.

(I've written, in several other posts about Japan and the death of Japanese democracy so I'll end the discussion on Japan here.)

/ /

Italy, like Germany unified very late. It was in central Europe and had been divided and redivided all too often in its history. At the time of Mussolini's rise to power, there was a King of Italy and he had significant moral and legal authority. King Victor Emanuel III's decisions have come in for much debate. Getting Italians to agree on anything is like herding cats. It will be noisy, painful, and still won't accomplish much.

Italy, like Germany, was rocked with dissension after WWI. The high casualties of the war (even though Italy had been on the winning side) had left deep scars, then the raucous political environment had been made more vicious by the entry of socialists and communists into the fray. Things were turning ugly. The fascists, and Italy's were the the first, were a combination of nationalists, blue-collar workers, bare-knuckle boxers, and street thugs. Their style of politics was designed to combat the direct threat to the nation that the communist revolution posed. They were prepared to meet the socialists and communists in the streets and pay blood for blood.

It will seem harsh, but it was genuinely necessary. There is a tendency in the modern academic community to "undersell" (understate" the strength of the socialist/communist movement and how violent (especially the communist factions) were. Another habit is to lump the socialists and communists into one monolithic group; they usually hated each other, passionately.

Mussolini's thugs, there's no other word for them, contributed to the disorder. When the king allowed them to take power he was making a dangerous move. Some thought he had lost his mind. Others thought he was making a bid for stability, because whatever else Mussolini's fascists represented, they could bring order out of the chaos and keep the left-wing radicals in check. I tend to favor the latter theory.

Economically, Italy was barely functional and it would have been better off if it had been able to sit on the sidelines of the war. Mussolini diverted vast sums to build a modern navy for Italy. Many countries did the same. He didn't put much effort into the quality of the men manning that navy. Likewise he didn't pay any attention to the pathetic quality of the army. Much attention has been paid to the equipment with which Italy fought. I focus on the leadership. The officer corps of the Italian army was arrogant, over-bred, aristocratic, under-trained, and unwilling to lead. When Rommel finally replaced them with German sergeants he found that Italian soldiers could fight as well as Germans.

Italian industry was so pathetic that even when the Germans gave them vast quantities of vitally needed strategic materials, they couldn't make use of them. Mussolini and his bureaucrats constantly bombarded Hitler with demands for more and more war materials, copper, iron, rubber, petroleum products, steel, you name it. When the Italians surrendered to the Allies and the Germans seized northern Italy, they conducted an inventory and found a six-month stockpile of raw materials. A massive windfall for Germany's war economy.

Why did Italy join the war? Stupidity, pure and simple. Not ego, national pride, treaty obligations, even the very real national imperial goals for Africa.

/ /

Germany was a wreck after WWI. So much focus is put on Germany during the depression. To fully understand post-WWI Germany, an observer must look earlier. The German mind was forged in century upon century of hardship, cruelty, starvation, rape, pillage, destitution, and victimization. Seeing an "alles in ordnung" German today is seeing the genetic and cultural descendant of the survivors. There were periods of cannibalism in German history. Times when twenty percent or thirty percent of the population was wiped out not by disease, but by foreign armies and starvation. Forget the holocaust. Germans lived a national nightmare that became part of their soul.

There is a hardness there. A need to prove they won't be doormats for Europe's powers anymore. They know their enemies, Poles, Russians, Austro-Hungarians, Italians, Catholics, Spaniards, Dutch, English, Swedes, French. Always the French. It there is any group the Germans distrusted most it was the French. And with the most cause. The French passed themselves off as the most civilized of Europeans, but the Germans knew them as rapists and murders. Overlords without conscience or mercy. Capable of telling and selling any lie.

In the last two years of WWI, the German economy fell apart. Every civilian was on short rations. The British, French, and Americans didn't endure anything like it. The cause of the suffering was, in part simple, American neutrality wasn't "neutral." Oh, the United States under Woodrow Wilson proclaimed neutrality and freedom of the seas, but they didn't really mean it. If they had, then America's war industries, farmers, and their leaders would have insisted that the U.S. Navy force the British to end their blockade of the German coast and allow them to trade with Germany. But they hadn't. Neutrality meant that even before the Lusitania (which was carrying war materials) and before the US entered the war with a formal declaration of hostilities against the German military, it had already declared war on the German people.

Germans were going hungry. When a major German attack managed to penetrate the Allied lines in France it would fall apart when hungry German troops found French or British supply dumps and began gorging themselves. Then the communist revolution hit Germany in its pride. The High Seas Fleet mutinied. This shocked Germany.

When the Armistice was declared for the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month, German forces were still fighting on foreign soil. The fleet still afloat (if no longer loyal). Germans were hungry, but were asking, "What is going on?"

Then the news of the Treaty of Versailles reached Germany. Almost immediately followed by news that the fleet interned at Scapa Flow had scuttled and that German sailors were being machine gunned in the water.

Demobilized soldiers came home. No jobs. Little food. Few answers. Demobilizing an army is a difficult job in the best of times, in this case it added tinder onto already volatile mix of fuels. Socialist and communist agitators were striving for power. A massive vacuum of power at the top with the abdication of the Kaiser. Loss of confidence in the military after the fleet mutiny. Germans were trying to ask and answer questions of importance. (What happened to lead them into the war? Why did we lose the war? Did we lose the war, after all? What is our place in Europe?)

Germany was now a democracy without any democratic traditions. The most organized, best financed, and most vocal of the new political parties were the socialists and communists. They scared the pants off of just about everyone else. The Socialists and Communists hated each other, to cap of the confusion.

Into this mix comes news of the reparations and the "war guilt clause." The French were doing "it" to Germany again. This was the Thirty Years War all over again. Germany was defenseless, paying France for the privilege of not being invaded, and Germany had to accept the blame for the entire war. The French couldn't have designed a better, pure punitive action and the English and Americans couldn't have been more stupid in allowing it. Oh, and part of Germany was occupied by foreign troops, including the hated French.

As for the scuttling at Scapa Flow. The French and British liked to climb on the moral high ground and claim that the Germans had behaved illegally in scuttling their ships. Most historian concur with this assessment. I do not. In this, I like to let the Royal Navy admiral commanding at Scapa Flow, at the time, speak for me. His was the assessment of one professional commenting on the professionalism of others. My quote may not be exact, but it will be close. "We'd have done the same, if it had been us." The ships had not been turned over yet to the Allies, the Germans were still in possession of the ships, and the professional judgment of the world's preeminent navy was that the Germans had done the "professional" thing. Enough said.

Germany was as unstable, politically, economically, and socially in the immediate post-war years as a house of cards in a windstorm. Nothing could be expected to strike more directly at the German psyche than such universal disorder. There were several attempts to seize power in local areas or in Berlin. None amounted to anything. Hitler's later attempt to seize control in Munich was just one in the background noise of a democratic system looking for balance points in the absence of traditions.

[thetwo]

The National Socialists were, like their Italian predecessors, a basically nationalistic group that opposed Socialists and Communists. Anti-semitism was so common in Europe and America at the time that its inclusion in the party propaganda was nothing significant. If anything, the Socialists and Communists may have been more anti-Jew. The anti-semitic theme and its commonality is often overlooked by historians. Look at pre-WWII French politics and compare it to Nazi propaganda of the same period; you might be surprised.

All of the "themes" the Nazis used to build up their power were used by some other party in that wild wild west era of German democracy. National identity, anti-socialism, anti-communism, anti-Jew, anti-Versailles, rebuilding Germany, rebuild the military, reassert Germany's rights in Europe. The platform wasn't all that distinct.

What made them a force was a combination of factors.

1. Violence. The Nazis were thugs, the street-sweepings left after most of the trash had been cleared from the gutter. Brute force became their calling card. Many of the votes they obtained came through threat of violence or because they won credibility through violence.

There is a very rare book that is the best study of the rise to power of the Nazis I've ever found. "The Nazi Seizure of Power" by William Sheridan Allen. If you can find it, it is worth your time. It examines precisely how the Nazis gained power in one mid-sized administrative-center town, through the examination of voting records, newspaper reports, criminal activities reports, and eyewitness accounts. Fascinating.

2. Money. Hitler had some powerful financial backers, in and outside Germany. Many were Jews who thought they could control him. Money talks. (Look at the current presidential campaign. A campaign for the poor and middle classes, overflowing with money, talking about redistributing wealth. Enough money will conceal of multitude of sins, including outright contradictions.)

3. Hitler. Hitler was a penny-ante hack, a nobody. By this time he probably already had syphilis. (There is very credible evidence that by late 1941 he was suffering both end stage syphilis and advanced Parkinsons.) He could rally a mob in a beer hall, note the effect of alcohol on his audience, but not much more. Then he found a personal coach who turned him into a first-rate performer. I don't recall the name anymore. This man was a magician by trade and if you look at Hitler's later speeches I think you can see the showmanship in his gestures and stance. He became a master.

Put those together with a political machine and you end up with a generated crisis. Here is a link with a better summation than I could write.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/collapse.htm

FYI: SA = SturmAbteilung

/ /

How does this lead up to the war?

It is often said that the arguments Hitler used to gain power were the same ones he used to take the country to war. Reparations, war guilt, Anglo-French hypocrisy, and suchlike. While readers of these forums are probably sophisticated enough to know that these are not true, I've heard historians make the claims. Shows you what they really know.

There is some truth to how much capital he personally gained from snubbing the more punitive Versailles sections, but they did not drive Germany to war. A significant difference.

1. The march to war, began in the Rheinland. This border area had been demilitarized after WWI and occupied by the French and British. The occupation ended in 1930. Hitler ordered the small, German Army to reoccupy the Rheinland in 1936. The French dithered. The British vacillated. The Poles wouldn't act unless France was actually invaded. Nothing happened.

2. Anschluss: Austria's merger into the German Reich has alternately been called a seduction and a shotgun wedding. I see it as more of the former. Those who want to dodge blame like to argue for the latter. This was part of Hitler's plan to unify the Germans. This was considered a worthy goal by Germans and by people outside Germany. Woodrow Wilson's call for self-determination of peoples had resonated all around the world. (A young Vietnamese man named Ho Chi Minh, risked his life to travel from French Indochina to travel to Paris for the Versailles peace talks and been terribly disappointed when he found out that President Wilson's proclamation did not apply to him and his people.)

3. 1938: The Sudeten Germans in the mountains of western Czechoslovakia were another group of Germans Hitler wanted to bring into the Reich. This was a tougher problem for two reasons. They were part of (a minority) of another country and there were legitimate reasons that they did not want to remain as second-class citizens of Czechoslovakia (another part of history that is overlooked is just what the legal status of the Germans were in that country).

How these people came to be part of the Czechoslovakia is a parable of the Versailles conference. The leaders of the US, France, and Britain on their hands and knees over a big map of Europe with pencils in their hands. A person who stumbled into the room, seeing three backsides, stuck up into the air, might have assumed that he'd wandered into a creative hour at an insane asylum. That's how the map of Europe was redrawn when the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up. Yugoslavia and its century of problems was one of several resultant problems of letting those three men color on a map.

Well, the Czechs didn't pay much attention to the German minority and when the world-wide depression hit. It hit the Germans, mostly craftsmen, hardest. They had no voice in the government and became radicalized, either Socialists of Fascists. Hitler wasn't grasping to this point. He was answering.

And the French and British were trying to stave off another general war. The inter-war politics of both countries is fascinating for its complete deviation from any connection to reality, especially the French.

They made two mistakes.

1. After the reoccupation of the Rheinland they had not shown any spine.

2. They didn't think about where the process would end until AFTER the deal on the Sudeten Germans was done.

Almost as soon as the German army secured the Sudetenland, the wheels came off. Slovakia declared independence as a Fascist state and was absorbed by Hungary. What was left of the Czech state was simply absorbed into greater-Germany. All eyes turned to Poland where the only extant German population remained in the Free City of Danzig.

The Polish Corridor is another area of pre-WWII history that has been badly blurred over by post-WWII historians. The reality was the the Germans had legitimate concerns and the Poles were acting like Commissars. It was all too well documented to dispute. This was one of the reasons, I think, the British sent so many mixed signals. Their own people on the ground were in favor of helping the Germans in the Corridor when the leadership in London was turning against Germany as a whole. Again, you would have to look at how the maps were redrawn after WWI and after the Polish-Russian war to see what became of largely German-inhabited areas and then look at how the Polish government was behaving, cutting off mail service, phones, seizing land wholesale, expelling Germans by the tens of thousands from their farms. Messy business.

All of which gave Hitler the moral high ground with Germans and with others in Europe.

/ /

So much of history has been rewritten that the essence of the time has been lost. A telling photograph summed it up very well. Madame Tussaud's wax museum in London, the day after Britain declared war on Germany. A wax figure of Hitler was being carried out the back door. It gives an idea of how popular Hitler was throughout Europe right up to the declaration of war. He was a statesman. Churchill had praised him in the mid-1930s for how he had turned the German economy around.

Not that all or even most of the economic credit really belonged to Hitler. A great many people in Germany, particularly Socialists and Communists thought him a demon and the concentration camps were operating by 1935 for their benefit. But for much of the world and for many Germans, he was doing good things. By the way, the basic economic program that turned the German economy around was the same one the Socialists had put in place before he took office. He just received the credit.

One thing he undeniably received the credit for and which allowed him to contemplate war, was the re-militarization in defiance of the Versailles restrictions. The limitation to 100,000 soldiers, no air force, two ships of 10,000 tons (if I remember correctly), no tanks, and no submarines, were crippling. He threw those away and expanded the army first to 600,000 men, then to 3.8 million.

Much has been made of the personal oath of loyalty that Hitler required the military to swear to his person, rather than the state. I've heard some vehement arguments that the German military used this as an excuse to cover its willingness to go to war. In some cases, this was a challenge I couldn't pass up and confronted those who made the claim. My contention was simple; would a German soldier who defied Hitler's orders to fight have been any different than an American soldier, at any time in our nation's history, who was ordered to war and refused to obey?. (Depending on the inclinations of the person I was dealing with, I could try any one of several examples. They tend to get angry and confused quickly.) The point I was trying to make was that fighting for one's country wasn't tied to the person, it was tied to the country. The actual oath was irrelevant.

To make the point more clearly, I ask, "If the German officers had sworn their oath to the state, do you sincerely believe, anything would have played out differently? Would they really have made different decisions and refused to obey their national command authority?"

That some German officers disliked and distrusted Hitler is not valid enough by itself. The same argument can be made about Roosevelt (who had Stalin's spies on his staff), Chamberlin (who was barely competent), Churchill (many complaints were made about him while he was in and out of office). Officers and soldiers do not have the choice to obey or disobey. Period. They can resign (or be shot if the situation is bad enough), but if their duty calls them to serve, then splitting hairs is better left to the dilettantes.

(By the way, the people who complain the most about "overly legalistic Germans" are the same people who complain the most loudly about Scapa Flow and the loyalty oath of the German military. If you find one of these people, please point this out to them and watch their blood pressure rise.)

/ /

Was war inevitable? In my opinion no. If Hitler had not come to power and the budding German democracy had gained some strength, it might never have happened. I believe that France and Britain could have acted to help that process along. The steps taken late, led by Britain, to reduce reparations and end the occupation of the Rheinland, were steps in the right direction. Too little, too late. Democracy is a complex form of government. It has to put down deep roots in communities and institutions to function properly. Germany didn't have the chance to build them. If the victorious countries had planned for building a democracy rather than victimizing the vanquished, it might have worked out better.

[Personal Aside: In an ironic twist of fate, Germany had a more dynamic political life after WWI and a less stable foundation in which it could express itself. Then after WWII, Germany had a much less varied group of political voices (almost all socialist of one kind or another it seemed) and a more stable environment in which to express them. In my opinion, it was too bad that they never had the chance for a really vigorous debate with all the voices, within a stable framework.]

Proximate causes of the war in Europe:

- Left over issues from WWI, but not the ones that come readily to mind. The Germans that were portioned out to Czechoslovakia and Poland.

- French, Poles, Czechs behaving as if they were still living in the 1600s in the treatment of Germans and expecting the Germans to accept it quietly.

- President Wilson's call for "self-determination of peoples" gave the Germans a reason to look outside their borders to help other Germans.

- French and British unwillingness to act decisively. Democracies tend to produce governments and electorates that lack spines, intelligence, and willpower.

- Hitler was incapable of taking advice. He was right once when others were wrong. He was right twice when others were wrong. After that, nothing else mattered. Amazingly simple psychology. I managed to get hold of notes to some meetings with him. Lengthy and detailed. He would get some facts correct then spin off into LaLa-land. I think there was a point where those around him began to wonder if they themselves were wrong, for a brief but critical period, when everything was in the balance. After all, he had been right when they'd advised him against certain actions. By the time they regained their balance, events were out of control.

Hitler did want war, eventually, but not at first. He believed he was a better general than all the German General Staff Officers, with the red stripes on their trousers and "von" in front of their names. That resentment was a powerful motivator for him. Early in his career, he clearly was respectful of the Army and its leaders. Then something changed. I think it was their caution about war and how they felt it their duty to not risk the nation. Somehow this offended Hitler. He turned it into a personal crusade to show them he was more a "soldier" than they were. Petty pride at work. (If you want to look at when this change began, look at the Rheinland occupation.)

Where and when war would come WAS NOT decided ahead of time. Any study of Hitler and the Third Reich must keep that in mind. It is easy to lose track of that fact. Hitler couldn't plan a keg party in a brewery. He lacked the self-discipline to think ahead.

/ /

I've not seen evidince that the German people wanted war. Some I'm sure did in an abstract sense. There were Nazis who believed that a war to resolve the "Soviet question" was inevitable and desirable. What is often mistaken is just how conservative the basic German was. Radicalism both Socialist and Fascist was limited to groups in the largest cities. Mid-sized towns received some spillover, but that was all. Germans were personified by the farmer and farmers were conservative to the bone. They were anti-socialist, anti-fascist, Germans. No one went looking for extremists on farms. (Modern parallel: A reason American Democrats have trouble gaining traction in the middle of the country!) Farmers were practical people, who had family histories of what war meant. They didn't react quickly to fad or fashion. If you wanted a farmer to do something it had to make sense.

In the German-American community Hitler's disciples had organized a "Bund" movement. This was strong and mirrored many similar programs in Germany. At the same time, within the same community of German immigrants, was an anti-Nazi movement. This group was largely made up of ex-farmers who had immigrated after WWI and were now part of the New York business community. Still German, still conservative. You could take the German off the farm, you couldn't take the values out of him.

Back to Germany.

If you had been able to poll Germans at the time you might have gotten the following types of answers.

- Should Germany protect Germans in Poland from ethnic cleansing? Very strongly yes.

- Should Germany protect Germans in Poland from ethnic cleansing, even at the risk of a European war? Yes, with some hesitancy.

- Should Germany let the Poles steal land from Germans without acting to protect them? No.

- Should Germany invade France or another country? No.

- Should Germany be able to defend itself from attack? Yes.

- Should Germany be subject to rules that do not apply to other nations? No.

Did the Poles' actions to dispossess the Germans living in the corridor in the 1920s and 1930s rise to the level of what we would call ethnic cleansing? Certainly yes. Only the most extreme expressions of ethnic cleansing, mass murders and organized rapes were missing. Seizures of land and mass expulsions were common. The Poles played victim, but even British records documented what was happening.

I'll bet nothing you've ever read has laid out the background. This was the story on German radio and in their newspapers. It wasn't fabricated. For all that I despise Hitler and what he represented, he had some legitimate reasons to pressure Poland. That the British observers were trying to get their own government to respond and stop the de-Germanization of the corridor was to their credit. It is an example of how thoroughly history gets written by the winners that so much has been lied about since. What the Germans did in resettling Germans into Poland, was begun by Poles. Harsh but true.

Instead of seeing the path the new Germany was taking to protect Germans and responding, the Polish government increased its cleansing. Really bad move. It essentially invited Hitler to invade. The Poles would not have accepted the treatment of large number of Poles in the manner in which it was treating the Germans. Their own arrogance doomed them, then they went running to France and Britain crying for help. Their best chance to avoid war was late 1938 and early 1939 and they behaved no better than the Gestapo themselves. I can't find it in my heart to pity their leaders for their stupidity.

If they had acted and restrained their own excesses, the Poles had a chance to avoid the partition of Poland called for in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. (Molotov wasn't appointed as Foreign Minister until May 1939.) It should be noted that Hitler NEVER planned ahead. Everything he did was an emotional decision, a play for the opportunities that presented or that he thought he could make happen. The invasion of Poland was not a foregone conclusion.

/ /

Throughout Hitler's rule, there was constant agitation against him. Why did it fare so poorly? The SS couldn't possibly bring in enough "official" police to keep control of the entire population. Ah, but it didn't have to. They turned to human nature. In every neighborhood, on every block, were petty people. People who loved to tell others how to live, resented people who were different. These became the SS's eyes and ears. With that kind of coverage, dissent and agitation grew difficult indeed.

If you think it can't happen here, think about it. Horror stories about "neighborhood associations" that get out of control are prime examples. (By the way, similar systems were set up in Japan, Italy, France, the Low Countries, Norway.) It works and is dirt cheap. Petty people will do anything for the thrill of power. (Another American parallel is the thought police type rule-sets that exist on many college campuses. Sensitivity codes, etc.)

So it can happen here.

/ /

It is too easy to point a finger at a person or event and proclaim, "That is the reason." Real life doesn't work that way. History is made from the real lives of its participants, regardless of what historians want us to believe.

Nationalism is too often used too broadly. Whose nationalism and for what purpose. Japan's war goals might fit, but racism might work too. Nationalism doesn't fit Italy at all, unless one looks exclusively at its African territorial goals. For Germany, maybe the goal of unifying and protecting Germans fits nationalism. On the other hand, can the persecution of Germans be nationalistic goal for Czechs and Poles? What of the Nationalism of Stalin who wanted to turn Germany against the US and UK.

Where does stupidity come into the equation? Pride? Arrogance? Ignorance? Personal ambition?

Does nationalism rank as the first among many? Maybe? Maybe not?

When it comes to Europe, how culpable were France, Britain, and Poland in causing the war? This becomes much, much harder to answer when you get back to the events of the time.

You see, nationalism can be a motivator for actions or shape perspectives, but it does not operate alone.

[scottsmm]

thetwo, I apologize for the finger cramps you must be experiencing after writting your last two posts. Although there very detailed and definitely proved the point you were trying to make.