A More Diplomatic end to the Great War...

Really? From what I recall, France was determined to make Germany suffer, and this lead to WWII.

No. Just no. Hyperinflation didn't let to the Nazis, unemployment from the Great Depression did. If the Treaty of Versailles had actually lead to the Nazis, we would have seen them in power in the 20s. We didn't. In fact the Nazis were at their lowest in the 20s after the Beer Hall Putsch. It was only until you had massive numbers of people unemployed and totally SOL that we see the Nazis coming into power.
 
No. Just no. Hyperinflation didn't let to the Nazis, unemployment from the Great Depression did. If the Treaty of Versailles had actually lead to the Nazis, we would have seen them in power in the 20s. We didn't. In fact the Nazis were at their lowest in the 20s after the Beer Hall Putsch. It was only until you had massive numbers of people unemployed and totally SOL that we see the Nazis coming into power.

Yes but the Treaty of Versailles was a primary motivator for Hitler and it's destruction was a primary policy. Without it, he's just a big ol' racist trying to persuade everyone that the Jews are destroying Germany. At least with Versailles, he can blame them for that, even if it's not accurate...

To believe that the Depression is the only reason why the Nazis came to power is just silly. The Treaty and Depression go hand in hand for creating the Third Reich, though the Treaty is leading.
 

Typo

Banned
Yes but the Treaty of Versailles was a primary motivator for Hitler and it's destruction was a primary policy. Without it, he's just a big ol' racist trying to persuade everyone that the Jews are destroying Germany. At least with Versailles, he can blame them for that, even if it's not accurate...

To believe that the Depression is the only reason why the Nazis came to power is just silly. The Treaty and Depression go hand in hand for creating the Third Reich, though the Treaty is leading.
True, but the treaty only guarantees some right wing group comes to power
 
Yes but the Treaty of Versailles was a primary motivator for Hitler and it's destruction was a primary policy. Without it, he's just a big ol' racist trying to persuade everyone that the Jews are destroying Germany. At least with Versailles, he can blame them for that, even if it's not accurate...

To believe that the Depression is the only reason why the Nazis came to power is just silly. The Treaty and Depression go hand in hand for creating the Third Reich, though the Treaty is leading.

No. You're simply wrong. The Treaty was a scape-goat, and Germany was well on its way to paying it off. It had gotten very favorable terms from the United States, Great Britain and France regarding payment methods, plans and dates. In fact, Germany just finished paying off repatriations from WWI last week; if it hadn't been for the Nazis and WWII, it would have been paid off in the 50s. Saying that the Treaty lead to Nazis, or lead to WWII, is no different than saying that the Jews' fault for the rise of the Nazis. This is well documented. In 1930 when the Depression is hitting in its hardest in Germany and the Nazis start to win elections, they ran on the campaign of 'Freedom & Bread for all Germans.' Even a simple Google Search will prove this to you.

Wikipedia said:
Despite these strengths, the Nazi Party might never have come to power had it not been for the Great Depression and its effects on Germany. By 1930 the German economy was beset with mass unemployment and widespread business failures. The SPD and the KPD parties were bitterly divided and unable to formulate an effective solution; this gave the Nazis their opportunity, and Hitler's message, blaming the crisis on the Jewish financiers and the Bolsheviks resonated with wide sections of the electorate. At the September 1930 Reichstag elections the Nazis won 18.3% of the vote and became the second-largest party in the Reichstag after the SPD. Hitler proved to be a highly effective campaigner, pioneering the use of radio and aircraft for this purpose. His dismissal of Strasser and appointment of Goebbels as the party's propaganda chief was a major factor. While Strasser had used his position to promote his own version of national socialism, Goebbels was totally loyal to Hitler and worked only to burnish Hitler's image.

The 1930 elections changed the German political landscape by weakening the traditional nationalist parties, the DNVP and the DVP, leaving the Nazis as the chief alternative to the discredited SPD and the Zentrum, whose leader, Heinrich Brüning, headed a weak minority government. The inability of the democratic parties to form a united front, the self-imposed isolation of the KPD and the continued decline of the economy all played into Hitler's hands. He now came to be seen as de facto leader of the opposition, and donations poured into the Nazi Party's coffers. Some major business figures such as Fritz Thyssen were Nazi supporters and gave generously but many other businessmen were suspicious of the extreme nationalist tendencies of the Nazis and preferred to support the traditional conservative parties instead.

During 1931 and into 1932, Germany's political crisis deepened. In March 1932 Hitler ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1% in the first round and 36.8% in the second against Hindenburg's 49 and 53%. By now the SA had 400,000 members and its running street battles with the SPD and KPD paramilitaries (who also fought each other) reduced some German cities to combat zones. Paradoxically, although the Nazis were among the main instigators of this disorder, part of Hitler's appeal to a frightened and demoralised middle class was his promise to restore law and order. Overt anti-Semitism was played down in official Nazi rhetoric, but was never far from the surface. Germans voted for Hitler primarily because of his promises to revive the economy (by unspecified means), to restore German greatness and overturn the Treaty of Versailles, and to save Germany from communism.
 
True, but the treaty only guarantees some right wing group comes to power
Ah yes but the Treaty only guarantees distatisfaction, and gives the right ammunition to use against the government.
The Depression gives them a large, angry population who will believe any crap they say to get back at the government.

Hand in hand, but the Treaty still leads.

...to restore German greatness and overturn the Treaty of Versailles...
And this means nothing to you?

Anyway, it cannot be denied that Hitler dedicated much of his life to destroying the Treaty of Versailles. Like I said, it's hand in hand. Though I still think that Hitler managed to appeal to the people with the opposition to the treaty. Blaming the treaty for the economy (I know it's inaccurate, I'm studying the rise of the Nazis right now) etc. Without it, he'll just be blaming Jews for the state of the economy, and as his is a minority view he'll not do as well in the elections.

Anyway, I'd much rather talk about the subject of the thread rather than events OTL.
 
Last edited:

There's no talking with some people :rolleyes: You literally pulled one line out of context of three paragraphs I quoted you, which I had pulled from an entire article all saying that it was the Great Depression that lead to the Nazis.

Also, its pretty hard to discuss an alt to WWI without discussing OTL. Especially after so much of the discussion has already taken place, last month.
 
There's no talking with some people :rolleyes: You literally pulled one line out of context of three paragraphs I quoted you, which I had pulled from an entire article all saying that it was the Great Depression that lead to the Nazis.

Also, its pretty hard to discuss an alt to WWI without discussing OTL. Especially after so much of the discussion has already taken place, last month.
Do you want me to go find a whole article where someone blames the treaty? Frankly from where I am, it looks like you just decided to discount the part about overtruning the treaty. They are both very important for Hitlers rise, why is that so hard to accept?

The WWI, not the consequences of WWI OTL.

Yes, I started this thread a while back and decided to restart it. Things seem to be going rather well so far.
 
:D This is true, you are getting quite the response.

And yes, I think you should find an entire article that makes the case that the Treaty lead directly to the rise of the Nazis, as you're arguing. You're trying to make a point, therefore you have the burden of proof. I've already shown you evidence that took me all of my five seconds to find highlighting how it was the Great Depression, not the Treaty of Versailles that lead to Nazis in power. So yes, I think it becomes you to actually be able to back up your claims in a debate with actual sources of evidence, instead of just repeatedly saying 'nah, mannnnnnn, it was like, the French who did it, duuuude' :cool:
 
:D This is true, you are getting quite the response.

And yes, I think you should find an entire article that makes the case that the Treaty lead directly to the rise of the Nazis, as you're arguing. You're trying to make a point, therefore you have the burden of proof. I've already shown you evidence that took me all of my five seconds to find highlighting how it was the Great Depression, not the Treaty of Versailles that lead to Nazis in power. So yes, I think it becomes you to actually be able to back up your claims in a debate with actual sources of evidence, instead of just repeatedly saying 'nah, mannnnnnn, it was like, the French who did it, duuuude' :cool:

Oh lol bloody lol. What an excellent satirization of what I've been saying. France wants security, they will try to neuter Germany in the treaty. Incidently this pisses off a lot of the Germans, esepcially people like Hitler. Oh what do you know, he's using it as a key policy for the NSDAP...

Oh what do you know, if found something on Wikipedia.
 
Oh what do you know, if found something on Wikipedia.

:D I declare a Wikipedia war.

I also note that while my sources directly state the Great Depression lead to the rise of the Nazi party, your source merely talks about how unworkable the Treat of Versailles was. And I've turned your own source on you by simply scrolling down a few lines, where once again, Wikipedia states that the Great Depression caused the rise of the Nazi party.
 
YOU_MAD.jpg
 

Susano

Banned
There's no talking with some people :rolleyes: You literally pulled one line out of context of three paragraphs I quoted you, which I had pulled from an entire article all saying that it was the Great Depression that lead to the Nazis.

Also, its pretty hard to discuss an alt to WWI without discussing OTL. Especially after so much of the discussion has already taken place, last month.

And you pulled a text abouthistorical context,f ull fo evaluations, from Wiki? Thats not really reliable, either. How I see it, very simplified: The Great Depression led to the downfall of democracy. Well, that and the fact that Hindenburg was president. But that Nazism of all authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies would rose out of democracys collapse, that was in very, very large parts due to the Treaty of Versailles.
 
Ok, if I can possibly self right this thread.

How does my last idea of prolonging the war, creating a greater "Never Again" mentality, sound?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Ok, if I can possibly self right this thread.

How does my last idea of prolonging the war, creating a greater "Never Again" mentality, sound?

Even OTL there was no guarantee of WW2. It basically was a desired war to correct the power imbalance left by the unification of Germany that was left unfinished after WW1. A new order was in town and it could have happened peacefully or violently. Hitler sought to fix it quickly by taking on the Allies to destroy their last Eastern European proxy Poland. Really, only a diplomatic approach and time was needed, but that wasn't Hitler's deal.

Honestly if the German pull a negotiated peace and keep A-L, the balance of power would have shifted enough to prevent another war. France would be too weak, Britain too broke and uneasy about starting another war, and Russia too disorganized. The breaking of French and Russian power and political authority on the continent with markets for its products was all the Germany really wanted. It didn't really need or want new land, as it had enough minorities as it was.

That is why the Eastern European vassal states would not be occupied by Germany, just leveraged into a customs union that would give Germany the markets it desperately needed. So in a scenario like this one where the US doesn't get involved and cuts off the $ spigot, which then forces a negotiated peace deal (as Ludendorff isn't in charge to go after all the marbles), leaves Germany with everything it wants, but also massive inflation.

There will be no new push for war from Germany, who will have its hands full just trying to keep Austria-Hungary together as well as maintain its economic hold over the East. France will be too weak and broke to start anything new, as two losses in living memory to Germany is enough to ensure her docility in the future (especially due to demographic changes, which are only going to get worse); Russia will be shorn of its much productive provinces and much of its population while it fights its civil war, which was more destructive than WW1; and Britain is by far too broke and concerned about domestic matters to start a war without allies. There will be no WW2 after this kind of peace, as Germany has nothing else to gain, and the Entente is too devastated by the war and its aftermath to risk fighting again.

In short, OTL, or at least TTL's peace will be more than enough to create a 'never again' mentality. OTL the problem was that Germany wasn't weakened enough to stop her from seeking revenge and France wasn't strong enough without Russia to maintain the peace. That is the primary difference between a CP or Entente peace scenario; Germany was strong enough to survive and stay on top, France wasn't so long as Russia was too disorganized and hostile to support her. Britain is always too focused on her own interests to support a peace that would end the German threat to the continent and is more likely to adapt to the new order and trade with Germany. She really has no vital interests in crushing Germany so long as Germany isn't interested in invading Britain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blaming everything on Versailles is stupid and tiresome. The French didn't try to conquer Europe and exterminate races because of 1871, nor has anyone else really reacted that way to all the other punitive and "unworkable" treaties (99% of them) that have ever been signed.

Nazism happened because of the Depression and because it happened. What exactly does everyone think should have happened at Versailles? Why aren't the Turks and Austrians out trying to exact revenge and conquer Europe? Their WWI treaties were a whole lot harsher than Germany's.
 
Top