Posted on 02/04/2011 7:23:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Again, what were the war aims of Germany?
To subjugate France? No.
To subjugate Russia? No.
To preserve their union of German states? Yes. What did they negotiate at Brest-Litovsk? Return of territory occupied by Russia. Return of the Baltic states to Germany, independence for Lithuania and Poland and the Ukraine.
“To subjugate France? No.”
Then why did they invade Belgium and France?
“To subjugate Russia? No.”
Then why did they declare war on and intend to invade Russia?
“To preserve their union of German states? Yes.”
That may be so, but it’s pretty vague. Like saying Country A went to war with B to “preserve their way of life,” or something.
“What did they negotiate at Brest-Litovsk? Return of territory occupied by Russia. Return of the Baltic states to Germany, independence for Lithuania and Poland and the Ukraine.”
Let’s say Germany won WWI, then subsequently got what they wanted out of France and Russia and withdrew. Does that mean their war aim wasn’t to conquer France and Russia? That it wasn’t to become masters of the European continent? Heck no! They had to conquer France and Russia to get out of them what they wanted, and could continue to expect the upper hand in future relations. it doesn’t matter what would’ve happened after the conquering was over; they were out to conquer in the meantime. That is unassailable.
Hmm? Interesting.
Well of course you would make that argument because you are relying upon Fischer. He has a thesis that Hitler was not an accident but was a product of the Kaiserreich.
The interesting part is that I can use Fischer’s arguments which apply equally to the Margaret Sanger America.
What do you make of Fischer’s arguments vis a vis the Kaiserriech and
Buck vs Bell?
http://www.houseofrussell.com/legalhistory/alh/docs/buckvbell.html
As for France, what’s the evidence that they intended to subjugate France? I just don’t see it.
Good thread.
I highly recommend Goodspeed’s “The German Wars” for a synoptic view of WWI and II.
http://www.amazon.com/German-Wars-1914-1945-D-Goodspeed/dp/0395257131
Good thread.
I highly recommend Goodspeed’s “The German Wars” for a synoptic view of WWI and II.
http://www.amazon.com/German-Wars-1914-1945-D-Goodspeed/dp/0395257131
The Nazi’s may have had 130,000 members, but compared to the social democrats and reds, they were a small minority.
The “stab in the back” was prevalent among german SOLDIERS after WW1, not nearly so much among civilians, who had had enough of war by that time.
Not through the Baltic
Kiel Canal baby.
“The ‘stab in the back’ was prevalent among german SOLDIERS after WW1, not nearly so much among civilians”
Veterans, no doubt, would have formed a significant voting block. But apart from that, they were by no means the only ones who felt Germany got gypped by the Versailles Treaty. Even if the myth never penetrated the general public, that’d still leave nationalists, imperialists, and putative conservatives and patriots in general—really, anyone who could plausibly be dubbed “right-wing”—susceptible to it.
“conservatives and patriots in general—really, anyone who could plausibly be dubbed “right-wing”—susceptible to it.”
Not to insult conservatives, that is. Just to say it would have had the same appeal as saying we didn’t *really* lose the Vietnam War. Only moreso, because WWI was infinitely more important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.