> In the Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was not allowed to participate in the negotiation of, they were forced to accept all guilt for the war, give up vast tracts of land, and then pay an a unpayable amount on top, which many even at the time argued was excessively myopic.
This repeats several depressingly common myths. For starters, germany was "forced to accept all guilt" (several other countries were considered "guilty" by those treaties) because they were guilty. While not the sole participant, they actively encouraged the starting of the war and then immediately took advantage of it by invading france.
After spending 4 years of brutal fighting literally just to make the germans go home, the people defending themselves were more than a bit mad.
As to the famous war debt, for one thing its size wasn't much larger, relatively speaking, to the debt germany had just imposed on france a generation previously after france lost a war in which they invaded germany. This kind of war reparations was extremely common, and while obviously burdensome, hardly an excuse to launch another global war of conquest.
Much like france and its war debt, germany could have easily paid what it owed without collapsing. One of the thing the nazis and friends deliberately did was cause hyperinflation in order to both decrease the debt and to encourage anger among the populace to hopefully cause them to "rebel" against the existing leadership and support the extremists in thr nazi party.
Even after hitler took power (as you point out, at best semi-democratically) germany's economy was no worse off than any of the other major powers going through the depression, but instead of doing public works like america did, hitler deliberately allocated an unsustainable amount of money into war production, money that obviously had zero return to the german people. A large part of the reason hitler started invading when he did was because they had basically run out of money and their choice was use their expensive army or sell it off in order to buy food and oil.
That is not a particularly fair recounting of WW1. The entire world was at fault for that war. A Bosnian Serb, probably with state backing, assassinates the heir of Austria Hungary. Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia. This then drives Serbia's ally Russia to intervene. But Germany had a military alliance with Austria Hungary which then drove them to intervene on behalf of Austria Hungary. Of course France then also had a military alliance with Russia, so they're now in the game. And so on, and so forth.
Germany is only uniquely guilty there in the sense that the loser of a war is always the one who did wrong.
And the Nazis didn't cause hyper-inflation. They didn't take power until 1933. The inflation, that would quickly end up turning to hyperinflation, began shortly after the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1920s, in the Weimar Republic. Germany didn't have anywhere near enough money to pay off their debts under the Treaty of Versailles, which demanded payments in gold or foreign currency only. With their gold reserves long since exhausted, Germany had little choice but to begin printing money in order to buy foreign currency. And even that wasn't enough, as their currency inflated to the point of worthlessness causing them to default on their debt, which then lead France/Belgium to make things even worse by invading and occupying the [industrially key] Ruhr region of Germany in 1923, and responding to predictable German acts of civil disobedience by killing civilians. And as above - 'so forth, and so on.'
My friend, straw men are rarely the sign of a literate mind, but you took it to a bold new level here. WW1 was in 1914. The Nazi party did not exist, and Hitler was a 24 year old low ranking dispatch runner of no note, volunteering in the Bavarian army.
speaking of bold new levels of misdirection and Nazi apologia, I was, and clearly, referring to your nonsensical implications about Nazis really not being to blame in your third para.
It's the same story there. Hyper inflation began in the Weimar Republic / Germany in 1921. The Nazi party was only formally formed in 1920 with a handful of members. By the time hyperinflation was raging, the Nazis were a group of people with 0 political power, largely made up of drunkards and misfits.
> Serbia then refuses Austria Hungary's terms for settlement of the affair, so Austria Hungary decides to invade Serbia
And you talk about fair recounting?
First off, every single war decision is made by humans. People seem to gloss over this when talking about history and countries, but even if you have a treaty with another country, you're still making a choice to declare war. You can argue that its always the moral choice to obey a treaty and declare war, but its still a choice.
Secondly, the austro-hungarian "terms for settlement" were deliberately designed to be refused, the terms were extremely punitive and made with every intention of provoking a war. This isn't speculation, this is what the people making the terms said to each other. Also a sizeable part of the reason austro-hungary felt able to make such demands is because germany was encouraging them and offering support, both via treaties and more informal communications.
After that, yes, treaties gave other countries reasons to get involved in that war, but I think there's a pretty clear moral difference between "serbia gets invaded so I'm going to honor my treaty to attempt to defend them" and "oh hey, my ally started a war by invading someone, I'm going to get in on that action and invade someone else!"
> that would quickly end up turning to hyperinflation, began shortly after the Treaty of Versailles in the early 1920s, in the Weimar Republic. Germany didn't have anywhere near enough money to pay off their debts under the Treaty of Versailles,
First off, "shortly after" is doing a massive amount of work there. Yes, in terms of "history of the world" it was a short amount of time, but that doesn't mean one caused the other. The inflation was a combination of poor economic decisions and deliberate attempts to destabilize the country. Hitler wasn't made leader until 1933 but the nazis (and more importantly, their backers and allies) had a large amount of power in the country even in the 1920s (see the beer hall putsch, it didn't succeed but just the fact it was possible says a lot).
Yes, the occupation of the ruhr didn't actually help, but the occupiers also left after 2 years and a new plan of repayments was agreed to. You can argue that its "natural" or maybe just "predictable" that germany would (essentially) start voting for the nazis after something like that, but its still a choice people made, and more importantly, the choice to start invading other countries was made well over a decade later.
The point I wanted to emphasize is that all of these wars were the results of people making choices. You're never forced or required to invade someone. You choose to do that, and germany rightly bears the blame for choosing to do so. You can argue that other people/countries could hade made different choices and those different choices might have influenced the choices people in germany made, but again, they're not controlling the people making the choices.
(Also this whole storyline is a great counter-example to the silly trope about "victors writing history" since there is a massive amount of, uh "myths" about ww1 and ww2 era germany written by the germans, who certainly didn't win)
And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable. Austria Hungary invading Serbia was just, even moreso after giving a Serbia a diplomatic way out, even if the terms were indeed harsh. Russia moving to defend Serbia was just. Germany moving to defend Austria Hungary was just. Everything following the assassination was just and reasonable from near to everybody involved.
As for inflation, "shortly" after isn't doing any work there. Hyperinflation began in the Weimar Republic in 1921 [1]. The Nazi party had only been formally formed in 1920 and had exactly 0 power. The hyperinflation is one of the means they managed to recruit as many people as they did. It created a large base of premium recruits: young, drunk, unemployed, and angry. But to claim they created said economic circumstance is, let's say, you perhaps mixing up this moment in history with something else.
Had Austria Hungary won, then a parallel dimension you could well be here arguing that the consequences e.g. Russia (or France or whomever else) faced were perfectly just and reasonable. You might say that it's one's choice to come to the defense of an ally, and choosing to defend an ally under assault for assassinating another nation's leader speaks bounds of your own integrity, or lack thereof. When looking at history (and the present and future) I endeavor to try to take a position that I think I would hold, regardless of who won and who lost.
> And you're glossing over the initial catalyzing event here. Austria Hungary just had their leader in waiting assassinated, with state backing from Serbia. Many wars, if not most, are started under false pretext, or with false evidence. Another state participating in the assassination of your heads of state is one of the most just, reasonable, and textbook causes for war imaginable.
I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on that one. Murder is a crime and the perpetrators should be punished... which they were. Many members of the groups involved in the assassination were tried and several were sentenced to death. Invading another country afterwards and calling it "just and reasonable" is more than a bit ridiculous.
Also, just for the record, franz ferdinand wasn't anyone's leader, he was the son of the current emperor of austo-hungary, and to be honest, most of the political elite who led the effort to start a war didn't particularly like or care for him anyways. Somewhat ironically, a large part of this dislike is because ferdinand was generally arguing in favor of peace.
As for "regardless of who won and who lost", my consistent point is condemning the invaders, regardless of whether they won or lost. Again, for example, france invaded germany a few decades earlier, lost, and had to pay reparations, and basically no one has ever brought it up again as some kind of excuse for starting a world war.
You're starting to make as absurd of statements as the other guy in this thread. Franz Ferdinand was the defacto leader of the entirety of the entirety of Austria Hungary, and had already assumed all major responsibilities. He was the heir to his brother (not his father) 84 year old Emperor Franz Joseph, who would die 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination. And if you know anything at all about history, this is also where the House of Habsburg met its leadership end, having been in power since the 11th century! The succession mess after Franz Ferdinand ended up with Charles I becoming the heir. And as Joseph died 2 years after Ferdinand's assassination, everything slid down hill rapidly.
Simply suggesting Austria Hungary should have been content to simply let the state, which had just backed the assassination of their head of state, investigate themselves, and be happy with having caught the useful idiots at the end-point of the act, is beyond absurd. This is why their terms to Serbia included the presence of Austria-Hungarian investigators within Serbia. And ultimately I think that accepting a state backed assassination while opposing invasions is just arbitrary mental gymnastics. In many ways I think assassinations and other such acts should be treated vastly more harshly, as there is something particularly pathetic about those who act in the shadows, exploiting good faith and idiots.
This repeats several depressingly common myths. For starters, germany was "forced to accept all guilt" (several other countries were considered "guilty" by those treaties) because they were guilty. While not the sole participant, they actively encouraged the starting of the war and then immediately took advantage of it by invading france.
After spending 4 years of brutal fighting literally just to make the germans go home, the people defending themselves were more than a bit mad.
As to the famous war debt, for one thing its size wasn't much larger, relatively speaking, to the debt germany had just imposed on france a generation previously after france lost a war in which they invaded germany. This kind of war reparations was extremely common, and while obviously burdensome, hardly an excuse to launch another global war of conquest.
Much like france and its war debt, germany could have easily paid what it owed without collapsing. One of the thing the nazis and friends deliberately did was cause hyperinflation in order to both decrease the debt and to encourage anger among the populace to hopefully cause them to "rebel" against the existing leadership and support the extremists in thr nazi party.
Even after hitler took power (as you point out, at best semi-democratically) germany's economy was no worse off than any of the other major powers going through the depression, but instead of doing public works like america did, hitler deliberately allocated an unsustainable amount of money into war production, money that obviously had zero return to the german people. A large part of the reason hitler started invading when he did was because they had basically run out of money and their choice was use their expensive army or sell it off in order to buy food and oil.