Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Captain Kirk

And if the US had stayed out, France and Britain would have had no choice but to negotiate an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany, and Germany would have been less likely to want a rematch in 1939.


6 posted on 02/04/2011 7:34:42 AM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: PapaBear3625

Exactly. The Kaiser’s regime had its faults but it was a model of liberty and democracy compared to the Soviet Union and Germany.


7 posted on 02/04/2011 7:36:59 AM PST by Captain Kirk (Q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: PapaBear3625

“if the US had stayed out, France and Britain would have had no choice but to negotiate an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany, and Germany would have been less likely to want a rematch in 1939.”

On the other hand, if they had demanded unconditional surrender and invaded and destroyed imperial Germany, as they did in 1945, they would have avoided the “stabbed in the back” narrative and perhaps Hitler.


14 posted on 02/04/2011 9:00:54 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: PapaBear3625

“an armistice that was less one-sided against Germany”

By the way, there’s been this notion ever since Keynes’ famnous “Carthaginian peace” book—and probably before—that the allies were too harsh on Germany. How a nation that savaged several others without one enemy setting foot on their own soil was like Carthage is beyong me. But nevermind, they started it, and so they deserved rough trade. Or, in the very least, unbalanced treatement.

The Carthaginian thesis has plausibility because of hyperinflation, depression, and Hitler. If you look at it closely, however, that was their own fault, too. Okay, France’s fault partly for being so heavy-handed in occupying the Rhine. But nothing forced Germany to respond in the worst way imaginable, i.e. non-stop printing money.

Anyway, the point is, for whatever reason Germany never fulfilled the supposedly onerous conditions of peace. They never paid the money back; they rearmed, they reoccupied off-limit zones. Given all that, how can we say the peace was to blame? Well, because of the depression and Hitler. But if you didn’t notice, the entire world went through a depression and they didn’t all get Hitlers. Yes, Germany’s depression was in many ways worse, but, again, that was their fault. No one forced them to hyperinflate, not even France.

All this ignores one other possible explanation for Hitler’s rise. The one that he and his ilk were fond of repeating endlessly. This was the famous “stabbed in the back” excuse. Germany didn’t really lose, they rationalized, because no one invaded Germany. Also, because Germany can’t lose. I mean, come on, they’re Germany! Needless to say, a harsher peace could’ve convinced them otherwise, as it did in ‘45.


17 posted on 02/04/2011 9:13:12 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson