PDA

View Full Version : Topical..How Much Did WW1 Sow the Seeds of WW2 and Today's World?



MB_Avro_UK
11-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Hi all,

I view my post as topical as tomorrow the 11th November is Armistice Day. On November 11th 1918 at 11am WW1 ended.

WW1 was very politically complex. The view of many today is that this war was confined to trench-warfare on the Western front.

But the war extended to the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and their political and military expansion. For example, there was a significant defeat of the British Army just outside Baghdad by the Turks and their Austro-Hungarian supporters;and also Gallippoli.

There was a Jihad supported by Germany against the British Empire. The German aim was to support a Jihad against India which was the 'jewel' in the Empire's Crown. The German strategic aim was to divert British and Empire troops from the Western front.

The war in the Balkans at that time has resonance today.

And the war against Russia by Germany and Austro-Hungary in WW1 has similarities with WW2.

I've tried to summarise in a few lines the complexities.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

crucislancer
11-10-2007, 04:10 PM
It totally sowed the seeds of WWII. One of Germany's issues was the Mareselles (sp?) Treaty, and how they felt they got the shaft. That was one of Hitler's major campaign points as well.

As far as today's world, I think it was more like WWI sowed the seeds of WWII, which sowed the seeds of the cold war, etc.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-10-2007, 04:13 PM
............

leitmotiv
11-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Geopoliticians would say zilch---nations do what they do because of geography, resources, populations, etc. Witness Russia. The Czar was gearing up for a huge move into the Med before the war because Turkey was falling apart. The British were more worried about Russia than Germany. Well, the War killed the Czar, placed a bunch of witless Bolshevik gangsters in charge of the empire, and it expanded more than any Czar could dream---plus put the cosh on perennial enemy Germany. Now the dimwit Communists are out and cunning b-----d Vlad is in power. He is still creeping into the Med, and sedulously trying to restore the empire (witness chicanery in Georgia, etc). The Brits went bust after imperial overstretch and the U.S. leapt giddily into the ultrapower saddle. The U.S., loathed by everybody, as was the British Empire when it ruled the universe, is about to go bust from 25 years of borrowing like a drunk on a bender, and the Chinese, now sorted out reasonably well for the first time in 200 years are poised to let her rip. Geography, resources, wealth, population are destiny.

MB_Avro_UK
11-10-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Geopoliticians would say zilch---nations do what they do because of geography, resources, populations, etc. Witness Russia. The Czar was gearing up for a huge move into the Med before the war because Turkey was falling apart. The British were more worried about Russia than Germany. Well, the War killed the Czar, placed a bunch of witless Bolshevik gangsters in charge of the empire, and it expanded more than any Czar could dream---plus put the cosh on perennial enemy Germany. Now the dimwit Communists are out and cunning b-----d Vlad is in power. He is still creeping into the Med, and sedulously trying to restore the empire (witness chicanery in Georgia, etc). The Brits went bust after imperial overstretch and the U.S. leapt giddily into the ultrapower saddle. The U.S., loathed by everybody, as was the British Empire when it ruled the universe, is about to go bust from 25 years of borrowing like a drunk on a bender, and the Chinese, now sorted out reasonably well for the first time in 200 years are poised to let her rip. Geography, resources, wealth, population are destiny.

Hey Leitmotiv...how can you with ease compress so much history into a few lines... I envy you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

smokincrater
11-10-2007, 04:19 PM
The great war(s) destroyed the great empires that created them. Hopefully with that the world will mot see a total war like them for some time.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-10-2007, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Geopoliticians would say zilch---nations do what they do because of geography, resources, populations, etc. Witness Russia. The Czar was gearing up for a huge move into the Med before the war because Turkey was falling apart. The British were more worried about Russia than Germany. Well, the War killed the Czar, placed a bunch of witless Bolshevik gangsters in charge of the empire, and it expanded more than any Czar could dream---plus put the cosh on perennial enemy Germany. Now the dimwit Communists are out and cunning b-----d Vlad is in power. He is still creeping into the Med, and sedulously trying to restore the empire (witness chicanery in Georgia, etc). The Brits went bust after imperial overstretch and the U.S. leapt giddily into the ultrapower saddle. The U.S., loathed by everybody, as was the British Empire when it ruled the universe, is about to go bust from 25 years of borrowing like a drunk on a bender, and the Chinese, now sorted out reasonably well for the first time in 200 years are poised to let her rip. Geography, resources, wealth, population are destiny.

How can you say anyone would say not at all, when you then proceeded to show just how they changed everything.

WWI laid the foundation for the Nazi's and WWII, which is what allowed the commies to consume half of Europe. But it doesn't stop there. It's not all about Europe. It also boosted the sov tech industry, when FDR let Stalin keep the crashed B-29s because he wanted a declaration of war on Japan from Uncle Joe. This allowed them to copy everything in it, which along with captured German tech and an illfacted Nene engine sale, allowed the conflict in Korea to take place.

That war, and the very thing that allowed their involvement (their new-found tech prowess) is what has kept the US in a permemant state of war.

It also removed the Empire from Japan and then catapaulted them from an agrarian society to the forefront of the tech industry.

It also caused socialist programs to stay in place in the US, which combined with the constant state of war-build up, and the other Constitutional transgressions that socialist feck-stick FDR implemented allowed future pols to ignore the Constitution and slide us further and further down the slipery slope of big brother.

It also more or less shot us to the top of the economic heap since FDR engineered the lend-lease program to bankrupt the allies, specifically Brittain.

And of course it lead to the manipulation of the atom. And also put that in our hands (which meant it later went to the soviets, which eventually lead to a nightmare when they (inevitably) collapsed). (put it in our hands since the anti-semitism forced Einstein to flee here, and it was he who got FDR to work on making a bomb thanks to his celebrity)

And of course wars always drive technological advancement. It was WWI and 2 that caused the aircraft to go from the Wright Flier to the SR-71 in about 50 years. Which is simply staggaring.

And that lead to the space race which lead to a whole host of trickle down tech.

It (WW2) also spawned the creation of the computer, which has also changed the world.

So yeah - 1 lead to 2 and both changed everything.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-10-2007, 04:39 PM
Search out Robert Newman's history of oil, Avro - very interesting and often amusing way of looking at the origins of WWI there. Runs for about 45 minutes, should be on Google videos somewhere.

Personally, I feel WWI was a direct consequence of the Franco Prussian, Bismark unification business - itself a consequence of Boney's dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, which in turn resulted from the French revolution, a revolution inspired in no small part by the American revolution. Now whether that revolution would have taken root and prevailed were it not for the linguistic exploits of a corset maker's son from Norfolk (England) is anyone's guess - so before you-know-who-fy arrives, this chain of events make it patently obvious that the First World War and the consequential sequel (or World War II as it became known) is the fault of no-one else but those detestable British and their inability to keep knicker-stitchers in their place.

MB_Avro_UK
11-10-2007, 05:07 PM
Hi all,

In context..a WW1 British helmet from a Battlefield in WW1 1917 in my collection.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v82/MB_Avro/IMGP7392.jpg

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

MB_Avro_UK
11-10-2007, 05:23 PM
Hi all,

Here's a comical clip from a BBC series of a few British Tommies discussing the cause of WW1.

Made in humour but an element of truth....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4TKTRV4HM0


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

x6BL_Brando
11-10-2007, 05:50 PM
The U.S., loathed by everybody, as was the British Empire when it ruled the universe

With the exception of those released from the dictatorship of Napoleonic France, perhaps?

B

leitmotiv
11-10-2007, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Search out Robert Newman's history of oil, Avro - very interesting and often amusing way of looking at the origins of WWI there. Runs for about 45 minutes, should be on Google videos somewhere.

Personally, I feel WWI was a direct consequence of the Franco Prussian, Bismark unification business - itself a consequence of Boney's dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, which in turn resulted from the French revolution, a revolution inspired in no small part by the American revolution. Now whether that revolution would have taken root and prevailed were it not for the linguistic exploits of a corset maker's son from Norfolk (England) is anyone's guess - so before you-know-who-fy arrives, this chain of events make it patently obvious that the First World War and the consequential sequel (or World War II as it became known) is the fault of no-one else but those detestable British and their inability to keep knicker-stitchers in their place.


My dear LF, I have to heartily disagree. While there is considerable merit to the tired, old knicker theory of modern history which you so ably advocated, I, being more modern, ascribe to the bad port theory, which, as we all know, is thoroughly documented by Gudgeon and Ramsturtle in their magisterial RUM PORT AND THE ROOTS OF THE MODERN MALAISE (Oxford, 1990). This, of course, posits that unusually large amounts of iron in the spring run off in Portugal in the late 18th century happening to coincide with a remarkable vintage led to 200 years of daft conduct by the upper echelons of European society, particularly British, I might add, leading to incomprehensible wars, a wild bout of empire-building, indescribable debauchery and sexual depravity (again, particularly in the UK, I might add), cultural degeneration, and general lunacy. I am more than satisfied this theory should hold for at least a generation. Cordially, Duke of Kent

Enforcer572005
11-10-2007, 06:06 PM
The terms dictated by the Versailles treaty created the conditions that Hitler exploited to come to power.....basically. More complicated than that of course, but that was the beginning of what caused it.

Bearcat99
11-10-2007, 06:11 PM
and just top be open minded about it..

As for the topic at hand... IMO it is all connected.. I think lietmov summed a lot up kind of nicely.. and so did DDT.. but the whole issue is so complex and multi layered that it would take volumes. When you consider that the US is the current "superpower" and you look at what is going on here now, and how we got to be where we are.. after all.. we were not physically touched by the war except for lives lost and Pearl.. basically.. especially when compared to the rest of western civilization's hardships.. the fact that we have been on a wartime footing since WWII.. we never got off of it..... and you consider that in a social context, WWII changed everything... and WWII was a direct result of WWI .. it is such a complex issue that this thread could actually prove to be quite interesting and informative as long as people keep their heads when connecting the dots to today.

arthursmedley
11-10-2007, 06:40 PM
Another good discusion thread here MB.
The seeds of WW2? Well DeGaulle thought it was a continuation of a european civil war going back to Napoleon the third and Bismark.

Of course someones' already put their finger on it; a direct result of the provisions of the treaty of Versailles.

The real sickner is that Lloyd George- a kind of edwardian Tony Blair- knew what they'ed done at Versailles. He predicted another war in 25 years. That was in 1921.

Ever heard of Keynes? Was economic adviser to British delegation at the peace conference.
When he realised what was going to be imposed on Germany he resigned to write a book; 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace.'
Accurately predicted the following 20 odd years to a tee.

The US congress essentially and sensibly refused to ratify the treaty and membership of the league of nations as it was obvious that a 20 year 'breather' had been established at Versailles and had no wish to get involved in round two.

You know BC, we need a book thread around here somewhere. There's still a whole world of history and wisdom lying in our public libraries thats starting to gather dust in this Wikipedia age.

leitmotiv
11-10-2007, 07:19 PM
Book thread---an excellent idea. An eye gouge at internet bilge.

BlitzPig_DDT
11-11-2007, 09:28 AM
This thread is not the place....

Hoatee
11-11-2007, 01:23 PM
WWI definitely sowed the seeds of WW2 - it's almost an accepted fact seeing that they were only seperated by an armistice of a mere 20 years.

Less well known is the extent to which WWI has shaped the world today. For one thing, the European nations (and I am including the USA and Russia here) ruled the world before 1914 - they were at the peak and pinnacle of their political power, so to speak. WWI marked the beginning of a recession in that power.

This forum honestly doesn't have enough space to be able to fully answer the question though...

turnipkiller
11-11-2007, 01:53 PM
It is almost impossible to answer the question in a single post, but I would highly recommend a book entitled "A Broken World" by Raymond J. Sontag. I think it is a part of a series of books called The Rise of Modern Europe. This particular book covers the time period 1919-1939.
It covers in very great detail the political situation after WWI up to WW2. It is somewhat "dry" reading, but it opened my eyes to a time where I used to think "WWI ended, there was peace and then WW2 started."
It is a very good reference for this time period. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MB_Avro_UK
11-11-2007, 02:36 PM
Yes my original post is very broad but it is worth considering the context of WW1 (The War to End all Wars) and it's shaping of the world today.

For instance,the USA achieved prominance on the world political stage for perhaps the first time in her history.

Also, it is said that Australia and New Zealand found their national identity during WW1.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Friendly_flyer
11-11-2007, 02:46 PM
The first World War was without doubt a driving force for the second, but I wouldn't say it shaped too much of our modern world. The first World War was more what terminated the culture and political systems that was born from the Napoleonic War. The second World War very clearly shaped our modern world though.

bolox00
11-11-2007, 03:20 PM
for a heavy but worthwhile take on 'how we got where we are' i'd suggest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Bobbitt#The_Shield_of_Achilles

leitmotiv
11-11-2007, 06:28 PM
The best analysis of WWI I've ever seen is Niall Ferguson's THE PITY OF WAR. Though a Scot, and though a great-grandfather fought with the British Army in the war, his even-handedness outraged partisan American historians at a seminar I saw who had wished he had taken a conventional path, i.e., that the WWI Kaiser State was the prototype of the Hitler State. Fergusson sagely thought this view was wrong, despite howls of outrage from the American historians. His analysis of how Asquith's dithering and the eventual entry of Britain into the war led to disaster (a short continental war was immediately transformed into a long, bloody world war with the wealth and resources of the British Empire) is brilliant. Well worth reading. A classic.

Sergio_101
11-11-2007, 06:33 PM
WWI and WWII could rightly be renamed to the 30 year war.

There was a interum peace, but not much of one.
Think sbout it, there was just enough time to get the next crop of kids
ready for the slaughter.

As in any war allies changes sides, goals
changed a bit.


WWII was more like "Round 2"

Sergio

smokincrater
11-12-2007, 01:32 AM
I often refer to the Great Wars as the `Big Fight Part 1 & 2`. But what I think is interesting to note is at the conclusion of both World Wars polictical engineering was used to try right the mistakes of the past. World War 1 Germany was humilated. A large part of the German army was still intact. The Ex-serviceman felt cheated by what had happened. The war cost of the allies had to be repaid and if they did keep their repayments it would not be paid off unitl 1987.The major economic powerhouse of Germany, the Rhur was de-militarised and could not be defended against an invader from the West(France).All this closed the door to democracy and open it to exetremists like the National Workers Party.
Then with the close of World War II.The German
leadership was commited to court with retrospective crimes(and I might say our current leaders might find themselves in the dock). And the country was partioned to prevent another war of expression from central Europe(insisted on by Stalin to protect the USSR).
The four policeman policy insisted by FDR never came to pass(I never thought I would be writing this but thank the good lord that Winston Churchill did something right for a change). Which surley was a blue print for the Big Fight part III.

Blutarski2004
11-12-2007, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The best analysis of WWI I've ever seen is Niall Ferguson's THE PITY OF WAR. Though a Scot, and though a great-grandfather fought with the British Army in the war, his even-handedness outraged partisan American historians at a seminar I saw who had wished he had taken a conventional path, i.e., that the WWI Kaiser State was the prototype of the Hitler State. Fergusson sagely thought this view was wrong, despite howls of outrage from the American historians. His analysis of how Asquith's dithering and the eventual entry of Britain into the war led to disaster (a short continental war was immediately transformed into a long, bloody world war with the wealth and resources of the British Empire) is brilliant. Well worth reading. A classic.


..... I read "The Pity of War" as well. It was dense going in places, but IMO remains the most honest and objective analysis of Europe's stumble into the Great War that I have yet read.

I've been told that Ferguson is treated as a pariah in UK academic circles as well. Is that true?

ploughman
11-12-2007, 04:42 PM
Yes, but he's hugely successful and been on TVwhich must grate, and he's a fan of the Empire as an agent for spread of good governance etc., which many of the lefty leaning (OMFG) types can't stomach (Niall, you Imperial apologist). At the end of the day he's the new Kennedy.

leitmotiv
11-12-2007, 06:58 PM
Gawd, I can remember when Kennedy was the new Kennedy with THE RISE AND FALL OF BRITISH NAVAL MASTERY IN '75. I have Ferguson's THE WAR OF THE WORLD, which gave my L.A. friends apoplexy when I summarized it for them. Brilliant, as usual. They must want his head on Traitor's Gate in London.

Jediteo
11-12-2007, 07:11 PM
Answering the question is next to impossible and would take years of research, there are libraries full of theories, but there are some indications that the ending of the "war to end all wars" may have provided the basis for a future war, but some historians say that all wars end like that.

Pirschjaeger
11-12-2007, 07:43 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Avro, before I'd even finished reading the title, I knew it was your thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritz

JG14_Josf
11-12-2007, 08:42 PM
Robert Newman: History of Oil. (http://getintheirface.blogspot.com/2006/06/robert-newman-video-history-of-oil.html)

Wall Street and the Bolshevick Revolution (http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html)

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-hitler.html)

MB_Avro_UK
11-14-2007, 01:42 PM
Hi all,

There have been interesting and valid responses to this thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Britain and its Empire were one of the victors of WW1 but decided that after huge economic and military losses that another war was 'unthinkable'. Britain referred to WW1 as 'The War to End All Wars'.

WW1 resulted in Britain being unready, unprepared and unwilling to predict the onset of WW2 until almost too late.

Britain was also financially broke by the time WW2 started in 1939.

Had not the USA lent money and equipment to Britain in the 'dark years' of WW2 I would be unsure as to the final outcome.

But due to the cost of WW2 and repayments to the USA, Britain was in a worse financial state than at the start of WW2.

Food,clothing and fuel was rationed in Britain until the early 1950s.

It has been said that Britain was not on the losing side in WW2 but neither was she on the winning side financially.

By 1946, the USA had become the world's foremost economic and miliatary power. A position that she has retained to this day.

My conclusion is that WW1 resulted in the USA gaining for the first time in her history world wide political prominence. Her entry into WW1 in 1917 perhaps precipitated the disasterous German Spring offensive of 1918 and so ended WW1.

WW2 was probably initiated by the Versailles Treaty and the feeling in Germany that they had not been beaten on the battlefield but had been compromised politically by their leaders.

Much is made of Hitler in this context, but if Hitler had not been alive I feel that another leader would have emerged based on the perceived German injustices.

So, perhaps WW1 did sow the seed of today's world?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Blutarski2004
11-14-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
So, perhaps WW1 did sow the seed of today's world?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


..... Without question. History is a fabric woven over time. Just as the humiliation of Germany at the end of WW1 lit the fuze to WW2, the humiliation suffered by France in the Franco-Prussian War guaranteed that she would again militarily confront Prussia/Germany.

MB_Avro_UK
11-15-2007, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
So, perhaps WW1 did sow the seed of today's world?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


..... Without question. History is a fabric woven over time. Just as the humiliation of Germany at the end of WW1 lit the fuze to WW2, the humiliation suffered by France in the Franco-Prussian War guaranteed that she would again militarily confront Prussia/Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Post Blutarski http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

So, maybe the seeds were sown in 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war ?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

trophonius
11-15-2007, 05:01 PM
going back to the original question, the chaos in germany resulted in an attempted takeover by the communists, which was opposed by the fascists. The fascists won, and the fascist Hitler got into power. Since many of the leaders of the communist `revolution` were Jewish it fuelled the `the Jewish - Communist conspiracy` thing which was used to fuel nationalism and gave them an enemy to blame. From then a short stretch to WW2, eased by the craven submission of the western leaders to Hitler`s demands. A firm stand at the beginning would have stopped Hitler. Tho for how long one can only guess, since both Nazis and Soviets had expansion in their minds. The Poles beating the **** out of the Soviets after WW1 only slowed their expansionist plans.

Aaron_GT
11-16-2007, 05:10 AM
The real sickner is that Lloyd George- a kind of edwardian Tony Blair- knew what they'ed done at Versailles. He predicted another war in 25 years. That was in 1921.

Keynes did even better, predicting war within 20 years in 1919!

Aaron_GT
11-16-2007, 05:13 AM
Britain and its Empire were one of the victors of WW1

WW1 assured that Empire was lost as Britain then did not have the economic reserves or human resources to keep it. Having been said, the process of divesting Empire started before WW1 anyway, and accelerated between the wars. The plan for Indian autonomy prior to WW2 stalled, however.

Blutarski2004
11-16-2007, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
So, perhaps WW1 did sow the seed of today's world?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.


..... Without question. History is a fabric woven over time. Just as the humiliation of Germany at the end of WW1 lit the fuze to WW2, the humiliation suffered by France in the Franco-Prussian War guaranteed that she would again militarily confront Prussia/Germany. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Post Blutarski http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

So, maybe the seeds were sown in 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war ?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... If I had to select a SINGLE event as the shaper of the world as we know it today, it would be WW1. It initiated the decline of the British Empire, the evisceration of France, the debut of the US as an important participant in international affairs, the rise of communism, and [IMO] the Great Depression.

JG14_Josf
11-18-2007, 04:06 PM
Ignorance of reality accounts for something (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936)

M_Gunz
11-18-2007, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The real sickner is that Lloyd George- a kind of edwardian Tony Blair- knew what they'ed done at Versailles. He predicted another war in 25 years. That was in 1921.

Keynes did even better, predicting war within 20 years in 1919! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the French did even more. They ensured the next war when they seized Alsace-Lorraine with
no letup on WWI reparations that Germany had to pay. That act destroyed the German economy to
the point where a nut and his nutty buddies -could- come into power.

Where the others predicted, the French acted!

JG14_Josf
11-19-2007, 08:11 AM
http://stopwaroniranblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-iran...gger-accidental.html (http://stopwaroniranblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/bush-iran-war-agenda-trigger-accidental.html) - Sinking of the Lusitania: German submarines are blamed for sinking the RMS Lusitania, a British ocean liner. What the public wasn't told is that all the passengers on board the Lusitania were merely human shields to protect a shipment of US ammunition headed towards Great Britain during WWI, which is why the German's sank the ship. Many historians believe that Britain meant for the Lusitania to be attacked to get the US on their side in WWI by baiting Germans into sinking it, or that they might of sunk the ship themselves, seeing US involvement in WWI detrimental for not losing.

hop2002
11-19-2007, 10:46 AM
Hitler came to power on the back of the Wall Street Crash, not the the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany experienced hyperinflation and a collapse of the economy in the early 1920s. Hitler tried a coup in 1923, which failed miserably.

In the 1924 elections the Communists got 12% of the vote, the fascists 6%

In 1924 the German government pegged their currency to the US dollar, and ended the period of hyperinflation.

In elections held at the end of 1924, the communists got 9%, the fascists 3%

Unemployment increased to 2 million in 1926, but then fell to 1.3 million in 1927 on the back of very strong growth (nearly 10%). It remained at 1.3 million in 1928, with the economy growing strongly at 4.5%.

In the 1928 elections, the communists got 10% of the vote, the fascists 3%.

In 1928 the US Federal Reserve began raising interest rates. Instead of making loans to Germany, the US began withdrawing loans to take advantage of higher domestic rates.

From lending a net $1 billion to Germany in 1927, in 1929 the US was actually withdrawing more money from Germany than it lent.

Economic growth began to slow as German interest rates rose. In 1929 growth was minus 0.5%. Unemployment rose to 1.9 million.

In 1930 growth fell to -1.4%, and unemployment rose to 3 million. At the 1930 elections, the communists got 13% of the vote, the Nazis 18%.

In 1931 the economy fell by nearly 8%, unemployment rose to 4.5 million. In 1932 the economy fell further, unemployment reached 5.5 million.

The Nazis won the largest share of the vote in 1932 and 1933.

It's the international banking crisis of the late 20s and early 30s that brought Hitler to power, which is why he focused so much on "international Jewish bankers".

JG14_Josf
11-19-2007, 11:02 AM
The Worgl Schillings (http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904)


'The small town of Worgl in the Austrian Tyrol, suffering like every other town in Europe and America from the Great Depression, took the unlikely step of issuing its own currency'


The 'danger' of its success prompted the central government to ban it.

Pay or suffer? (http://www.perfecteconomy.com/index.html)

The idea, if that is the idea, that War is just; because - 'the depression', then, it may be a good idea to find out why 'the depression' happened. Follow the money.

It is simple; not complicated.

Blutarski2004
11-19-2007, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
Hitler came to power on the back of the Wall Street Crash, not the the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany experienced hyperinflation and a collapse of the economy in the early 1920s. Hitler tried a coup in 1923, which failed miserably.

In the 1924 elections the Communists got 12% of the vote, the fascists 6%

In 1924 the German government pegged their currency to the US dollar, and ended the period of hyperinflation.

In elections held at the end of 1924, the communists got 9%, the fascists 3%

Unemployment increased to 2 million in 1926, but then fell to 1.3 million in 1927 on the back of very strong growth (nearly 10%). It remained at 1.3 million in 1928, with the economy growing strongly at 4.5%.

In the 1928 elections, the communists got 10% of the vote, the fascists 3%.

In 1928 the US Federal Reserve began raising interest rates. Instead of making loans to Germany, the US began withdrawing loans to take advantage of higher domestic rates.

From lending a net $1 billion to Germany in 1927, in 1929 the US was actually withdrawing more money from Germany than it lent.

Economic growth began to slow as German interest rates rose. In 1929 growth was minus 0.5%. Unemployment rose to 1.9 million.

In 1930 growth fell to -1.4%, and unemployment rose to 3 million. At the 1930 elections, the communists got 13% of the vote, the Nazis 18%.

In 1931 the economy fell by nearly 8%, unemployment rose to 4.5 million. In 1932 the economy fell further, unemployment reached 5.5 million.

The Nazis won the largest share of the vote in 1932 and 1933.

It's the international banking crisis of the late 20s and early 30s that brought Hitler to power, which is why he focused so much on "international Jewish bankers".


..... Don't dismiss the discomfort felt by the general population of Germany after three or four years of "civil unrest" [i.e., full-bore civil war] and the Bolshevik invasion of Poland. The Frei Korps became an extremely powerful political force after subduing the Bolsheviks and radical socialists.

Ad the population had distinct feelings of bitterness over the dismemberment of Germany, the occupation, the continuation of the blockade even efter the armistice was signed, and the unimaginably onerous reparation terms of the Versailles Treaty.

And the perceptions of the German population were that their traditional political leadership had proven ineffectual.

Hilter and the National Socialist movement were not propelled to power by a single issue.

ultraHun
11-19-2007, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

...

But the French did even more. They ensured the next war when they seized Alsace-Lorraine with
no letup on WWI reparations that Germany had to pay. That act destroyed the German economy to
the point where a nut and his nutty buddies -could- come into power.

Where the others predicted, the French acted!

It was not the loss of Alsace-Lorraine; Germans could accept that, they know its people did not feel at home in Germany.

What really hurt was the way the borders in the East were drawn, in particular to Danzig and parts of Silesia. In retrospective, there was probably no way any just and mutually accepted border could have been drawn, because the German and Polish or Czech population were too interdispersed.

And this really gave the way to the next war and Nazi-ideology. Those rights that were given to all other people were denied to Germans, that is to live within one nation.

So why respect international law if you are a second-class populace of mankind any way?

The tragic is that Germany could well have found restitution and and international renown step-by-step by peaceful means, as polticians in England (Keynes) and other nations were aware of this.

Yet, it lost its nerves and went on with Nazi politics and ideologies an thus forfeited any claims it could once reasonably have.

The tragic events are the assasination of Walter Rathenau and the early dead of Gustav Stresemann. Feel free to look this up.

Nothing is destined right from the start, but sometimes you just give your chances away.

JG14_Josf
11-19-2007, 06:30 PM
Oil (http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/0029046300)

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/92/90/d081224128a07755d1c73010._AA240_.L.jpg

Extensive research (http://infocollective.org/borkinabstract.htm)

Help (http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-ch4.html)


The Standard Oil group of companies, in which the Rockefeller family owned a one-quarter (and controlling) interest,1 was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II. This assistance in military preparation came about because Germany's relatively insignificant supplies of crude petroleum were quite insufficient for modern mechanized warfare; in 1934 for instance about 85 percent of German finished petroleum products were imported. The solution adopted by Nazi Germany was to manufacture synthetic gasoline from its plentiful domestic coal supplies. It was the hydrogenation process of producing synthetic gasoline and iso-octane properties in gasoline that enabled Germany to go to war in 1940 " and this hydrogenation process was developed and financed by the Standard Oil laboratories in the United States in partnership with I.G. Farben.



Horses Mouths (http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas1.htm)


"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .

"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there."

-- William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.


Inflation is good for some and not good for many (http://gravitys-rainbow.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=IG_Farben)



Inflation enabled Germany to wipe out of all internal debt. Brought tremendous gains to IG and Ruhr steel magnates. "They could produce goods, meet current costs of production in worthless currency, and sell cheaply abroad; German foreign trade was thereby quickly reestablished. And they could pay off all debts and meet all taxes (based on the old price level) virtually for nothing. German industry emerged from the inflation greatly strengthened." (46) "Industrialists profited to an even greater extent through the wiping out of insurance policies, mortgage bonds, and fixed incomes generally." (47)

Inflation was started by Germany's heavy borrowing to finance WWI. Only 6% of cost of WWI was met by taxation. Unfunded debt reached 39 billion marks.

Workers' wages could not keep pace with prices.

"[Industrialists] had one and all made a calculated, co-ordinated effort to ruin the credit of their country in order to secure discharge from their war obligations. Stinnes was openly held by the mass of the German people to have played in this matter especially for his own hand, and to have been responsible for the fall of the mark and resultant position in Germany." (47)

Stinnes in 1922 to German Economic Council: "If you gentlement charge me, and the men who think as I do, with opposing stabilization of the mark at any price, you are absolutely right." (47-48)

Industrialists purchased foreign currency with loans made from the Reichbank, drove the mark still further down, and paid off the loans for a fraction of the original value. The more conservative business groups ran off their own currency (Notgeld) with no backing.

1923 - objectives of inflation accomplished. In November a new currency (Rentenmark) was issued and tightly controlled by the Reichbank under Schacht. The inflation was over.



German Power needed rubber and gunpowder in WWI.

Blockade (http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/szm01/)


How long Germany could continue the war would depend in part on the question of ammonia's mass production.


Helfferich understood the war as "a war of finances and national economies." In the nitrogen business he saw a welcome opportunity "to provide the Reich with a strong position in this new branch of industry that is financially promising as well as inestimably important to the national economy." At that moment, as the confrontation between BASF and Caro was escalating, Helfferich intervened and involved the Reich in the game as a new player. In the planned expansion of cyanamide production, he envisioned the Caro group as a "mixed-economy enterprise" in the form of a Reich-owned cyanamide concern; financed by 42 million marks from the Reich, it not only would work according to the Frank-Caro procedure, but would be managed by the Bayerische Stickstoffwerke. According to the contract, the Reich would receive a portion of the net profits and, at a fixed rate, a portion of the gross proceeds. In February 1915 the contracts calling for the establishment of the Reichsstickstoffwerke in Piesteritz near Wittenberg and in Chorzow near Kattowitz in Upper Silesia were signed; the terms were for an annual production of 150000 and 75000 tons of cyanamide, respectively. By the beginning of 1916 they began production.


7. BASF, and later IG Farben, controlled the German nitrogen market in the following years - a market much more austerely "organized" than the world market.

In WWII German Power needed oil and that is another synthetic story.

JG14_Josf
11-25-2007, 09:27 AM
FYI (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936)

It is on topic in the middle; that is; after the Federal Reserve Act/16th Ammendment and as currency flew from U.S. to Germany.

WWI Debt
Roaring 20 boom
Stock Market Bust
Depression at home
Inflation in Germany

Coincidence?