stuper1 wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:00 pm
vnatale wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 23, 2022 2:37 pm
stuper1 wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 23, 2022 1:24 pm
So, you think the German people would turn to a raving lunatic madman and let him kill millions of Jews and others if those German people hadn't been made the unjustified scapegoats of WW1? It seems unlikely to me. If the peace treaty at the end of WW1 had been a bit more gracious, those German people wouldn't have been hardened by literal starvation, etc., and wouldn't have turned to a madman. But who knows, I could be wrong.
You are making that statement from the benefit of hindsight.
First of all Hitler became the country's dictator by trickery. The German people did not vote for him to be dictator.
Second of all, in spite of him being a dictator, I recently read that around 1938, if he'd stopped there, he'd have been viewed as one of the greatest men in history for what he accomplished for the country of Germany. It was not until post 1938 that he fully transformed into what you describe above. Therefore at the time the Nazi Party was voted in (and I believe without even a majority vote) the German people were not voting for the Hitler as we all now know him.
Did you read the book excerpts I had above? It points out that the treaty was justified in the way it treated Germany and, perhaps, was not stringent enough. It also addresses how the German people liked to blame it all on that treaty while accepting none of the responsibility for their country's conditions.
Whoever wrote your book needs to learn some common sense. The reason Chamberlain made so many concessions to Hitler at Munich and leading up to Munich was because he knew Germany had been mistreated in the Versailles Treaty so he was trying to make up for it after the fact, but by then it was too late, the damage was done and Germany was already led by a madman.
As they say, those who won't learn from the past are destined to repeat it. If Biden and Zelensky lead us into an unneeded WW3 with Russia/China/India, maybe more people will wake up to what is going on. I don't think that is likely to happen, but all it takes is a random flock of birds being misidentified by radar and missiles can be flying. It's really not smart to ratchet up tensions when both sides have nuclear weapons at the ready. Reports are that Ukraine had all but agreed to a peace deal with Russia in March, and the US vetoed it and told them to fight on -- the obvious motives being to try to weaken Russia and of course to make more money for the military contractors, not to mention everybody else who gets a little cut on the action.
What is your support / documentation for what you assert in your first paragraph?
Where can one find these reports about a peace deal in March?
Finally, as for the book author needing common sense I'm putting here just the beginning of a lengthy review of the book:
"5.0 out of 5 stars Extraordinary. The Most Educational Book on WW2 I Have Read
Reviewed in the United States on December 30, 2010
There are more books on WW2 than on any other historical subject. This is the most complete and insightful account of this global conflagration that I know of. As he states in the Introduction, Gerhard Weinberg focuses more on the "why" than the "how" of the events he covers. There are countless books on the gritty hour-by-hour course of various battles, many not particularly good. Weinberg narrates the events of the war, but he is most interested in the broader, global perspective, as his title makes clear. Weinberg has studied this subject for the last 60+ years, and his understanding of WW2 is profound. It is a delight to read his thoughtful prose. Though the book may seem lengthy at 900 pages, on every page are the often original insights that make this treatise exceptionally rewarding and devoid of monotony.
By considering this "World War" as the global phenomenon that is clearly is, Weinberg is able show how all the events hang together in a unified whole, even in theaters separated by thousands of miles and marked cultural differences. I will give some examples that I found fascinating.
As a prelude to WW2, Weinberg makes clear that the perception of post-WW1 Germany as ruined by the reparations required in the Versailles treaty and thus spoiling for revenge against France, Great Britain, and the USA, is largely a myth. Germany was largely untouched by the fighting in WW1, unlike France and Belgium, and had secured adequate (often American) loans with which to arrange a manageable schedule of reparations payments to the Western Allies. Germany rebounded more quickly than either France or Britain from the post-WW1 malaise brought about by the tremendous costs of fighting the war borne by the major European combatants. While the incomprehensible inflation suffered by Weimar Germany was very real, some of it was brought about intentionally by the Germans as a way to sabotage their payment of reparations.
As Germany under Hitler gained a jump on rearmament over Britain and France, Hitler was determined to start the fighting of the succession of wars he planned in his strategy of world-conquest. Hitler did not want to fight on more than one front at a time (after the disaster of Germany's multi-front experience in WW1), so he wished to pick and choose the timing of the series of wars he deemed necessary for the attainment of ultimate German victory. In this way, Weinberg argues that Hitler sought to start his wars in 1938, and that Neville Chamberlain's Munich compromise, in which Czechoslovakia ceded the Sudetenland to Germany, actually thwarted Hitler's timing and made him all the more determined not to be "cheated" out of war in 1939, leading to Germany's September 1st invasion of Poland."