Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

You write, "The Germans after WW1 had all reasons to be angry and afraid."

Afraid, yes, but angry? Who with?

Certainly Germans were looking for someone to blame and Hitler provided the option that became main stream under his rule. But was his proposition real or a confection?

I would suggest that it was more confection than real, and that the German people were to a great degree deluded by him.

Cheers,

Sid.

[CroGer]

What reasons were there for the anger of the germans?
That anger were important talking points of Hitler.

So he talked about a world conspiracy against Germany. Was he wrong?

In WW1, Germany was attacked by countries that it didn't attack. The USA is the most prominent one. But if you look at all the supporters of the "Entente", it looks like a world conspiracy against Germany.

What followed was the treaty of Versaille, the creation of the mainly german "corridor" to Poland, the Occupation of the Rhineland in 1923, which was a military attack, and the hyperinflation. Now I have some money saved. If that money would be worthless over night I'd be angry. If another nation would just walk into my country and occupy a part of it, including killing my countrymen, which did take place during the Rhineland-occupation, I'd be angry.
If I had lived life in the richest economy, and then there was a war against it which looked like a world conpiracy, and afterwards my country turned into a defenseless shithole, I'd be angry. If my country was once known as the land of thinkers & philosophers, of artists, and high education, and all of the sudden my countrymen were depicted and wild, rapings beasts and "huns", I'd be angry.
If my fellow countrymen that lived in foreign countries would be slaughtered because of their ethnicity, or they had to flee from there, and nobody would do anything about it, I'd be angry.

There's a nice article about the German-British relationship prior to 1914:

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-wil ... g-war-1914

Now the reason why all this happened were complex, it often had to do with conpeting parties in those countries that went against Germany.
But does the average person understand this?

Hitler could express the angers and fears of the Germany. You just have to listen to him. He's brilliant at that. But then he gave them a simple answer. It was the jews.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

You ask, "So he talked about a world conspiracy against Germany. Was he wrong?"

Yes. With only two minor exceptions the war was fought throughout on soil that was not German. (Hence the "not defeated in battle" myth Hitler perpetuated.)

German actions brought the UK and USA into the war, most notably the attack on Belgium and unrestricted submarine war.

The USA was no part of any "world conspiracy" against Germany. It was slow into the war and wouldn't even join the League of Nations after it. It was isolationist by inclination.

Versailles was only a severe treaty in the mind of German nationalists. Germany lost no territories that had a majority German population (including the Polish Corridor, which a German atlas of mine from 1900 shows as having a clear Polish majority corridor to the Baltic, but not a German one to East Prussia). In area, these non-German majority areas amounted to about 12% of the pre-war Reich's territory.

The hyper-inflation was at least partly induced deliberately by the German central bank in order to discount the reparations due under Versailles and was cured by it as well.

The financial terms of the Treaty of Versailles were similar to those imposed on France by Germany in 1871. The French displayed national pride and paid these off early in order to regain their freedom of action as soon as possible. Germany chose to wallow in self pity and try to evade the Versailles terms (ultimately successfully!).

You write, "If another nation would just walk into my country and occupy a part of it, including killing my countrymen, which did take place during the Rhineland-occupation, I'd be angry." Hmm. How, exactly, does this compare with French losses due to German occupation in WWI? Aren't the French entitled to be angry and to expect the compensation Germany agreed to pay at Versailles? After all, that is why they occupied the Rhineland temporarily.

You write, "If my country was once known as the land of thinkers & philosophers, of artists, and high education, and all of the sudden my countrymen were depicted and wild, rapings beasts and "huns", I'd be angry." I dare say, but who is to blame for this transformation in Germany's? The Belgians, perhaps, for outrageously provoking Germany by allowing themselves to be attacked?

I would suggest that Hitler and others should have looked to their own national leadership and its misjudgements for their loss of WWI and the decline in their nation's reputation, not seek out scapegoats such as the Jews or foreigners.

Cheers,

Sid.

[CroGer]

The USA supplied the Entente with weapons. How about keeping out of that war? Germany's army was the best performing in WW1. The entry of the USA was the reason for the loss. If the USA was isolationist, why did they provide the entente with weapons and swiftly send millions of men to europe, as soon as Romania and Russia were finished? The Lusitania-myth has already been debunked.
Because they wanted Germany to LOSE.

And what about Japan? Portugal? Brazil? Siam. f'n' Liberia.
Why again did Brazil declare war on Germany?

Alsace-Lorraine was majorily german, so was Eupen-Malmedy, the Memel Region, and Southern Schleswig.

The financial terms of the Treaty of Versailles were similar to those imposed on France by Germany in 1871. The French displayed national pride and paid these off early in order to regain their freedom of action as soon as possible. Germany chose to wallow in self pity and try to evade the Versailles terms (ultimately successfully!).

I highly doubt that the reparation imposed on France were anywhere near the reparations imposed on Germany. It's very hard to compare 5 billion francs in 1871 to 269 goldmark in 1921.
France was able to pay the entire reparation in just two years.
The french had started the war in 1870. And "pride" and "self-pity". France was crying for revenge since 1871 because their army just was humiliated.
They made 17 plans for a war against Germany between 1871 and 1913. So you've got a pretty sore loser on your western border.

In WW1, France and Germany mobilized on the same day. Mobilisation is an act of war.

Here is a list of all the german wars that were started against France before 1914:

...

And here is a list of all the wars were France attacked Germany:

1635-1648
Interestingly, France interfered in a civil war between protestants and catholics - on the side of the protestants (as a catholic nation). Throughout this war, the french military avoided contact with the imperial military of the HRR, and just burned down as much as they could.
Result of the 30y war: 30% loss of Population
1672-1678: France conquers Alsace Lorraine, a german territory
1683-1684: France tries to conquer the rhineland
1688-1687 (attacked Germany while the German Reichsheer was on the balkans fighting the turks). France tried to snatch the Palatinat. Since they couldn't conquer it, they just burned it down. ("Bruler le Palatinat").
1733-1738 - France tries to conquer the rhineland again.
1792-1815 - revolutionary/napoleonic wars. France occupies large parts of Germany.

I just list the wars where France attacked german soil to either conquer it or burn it down. (what they ususally did when they couldn't conquer it)

The reason for these attacks is the french "Irredentism". France wants to conquer everything west of the rhine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_borders_of_France

So in 1870 France tried for the 7th time to conquer the rhinelands. And They got their a*** handed to them. They could easily deal with the reparations. They just couldn't deal with having been demolished in 6 months - for 44 years.

Ever heard of "Revenge pour Sadowa!"? The french wanted REVENGE for the decisive victory of the prussians against the austrians, because the austrians promised them to cut off the rhineland and make it a french vassal state of they win. The french even wanted revenge for a war they weren't even involved in.

btw.
The state of Belgium was created because in 1830 France attacked the netherlands during a civil war*. Belgium war part of the netherlands. As a concession, Belgium was split off the netherlands, it was declared "neutral", yet it was ruled by the french speaking minority.

Maybe that's the reason why the belgians didn't just let the germans march through? Why would a country shoot at the army of a country 10 times their size, if there wasn't a bigger plan?

Maybe you see now who the aggressor was. For 400 years Germany has been attacked, pillaged and plundered by the french, and they knew their goal was to swallow everything west of the rhine into France.

Name ONE german "war of aggression" before 1914.


*btw, maybe you already noticed the french modus operandi. When there's no army to defend - attack. The german Army wandered of to fights the turks on the balkans? Attack. Dutch army busy in a civil war in the netherlands? Attack. Germany has got no army? Attack.

The hyper-inflation was at least partly induced deliberately by the German central bank in order to discount the reparations due under Versailles and was cured by it as well.

Oh god, please, spare me with the post-war narrative of Germany having caused the hyperinflation herself and all that BS. Germany lost the war, so the victors can write the history. Of course, there was no reason whatsoever. Of course. Dindu nuffin.

You write, "If another nation would just walk into my country and occupy a part of it, including killing my countrymen, which did take place during the Rhineland-occupation, I'd be angry." Hmm. How, exactly, does this compare with French losses due to German occupation in WWI? Aren't the French entitled to be angry and to expect the compensation Germany agreed to pay at Versailles? After all, that is why they occupied the Rhineland temporarily.

How exactly does it compare to the german losses due to the allies occupation in WW2?

In a war people die. Unless you ethnically cleanse regions or starve populations to death (or systematically rape an entire population), that's just what happens in a war. If you don't want an army on your territory, don't start a war.


France attacked Germany in 1923. So they started another war against Germany. Coincidentally, again, the french had their noses in the german rhinelands. Probably just a coincidence.
They killed peaceful protesters.
I don't know what country you are from. How would you like it if your most beloved neighbor - that has a long history of attacking you - just walking into your country with her army and starts murdering people?

Double standards for germans, right?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

Yes, the USA supplied the Entente with weapons. The reason why Germany couldn't do the same was the Royal Navy's blockade. U-freighter activities show that the USA was open to trade with Germany as well.

Yes, the German Army probably was the best performing of WWI. However, it had failed to win WWI long before the USA entered the war and it wasn't the US Army that delivered the main blows against it in 1918.

The USA entered the war before Russia and Romania dropped out, not after.

You ask, "Why did Brazil declare war on Germany?" I can't remember, but I don't see Brazilian intervention as decisive. Do you?

Memel was inside the Reich in WWI (look at the lyrics of "Deuteschland uber Alles".) Alsace-Lorraine had undergone decades of Germanization by 1914 and pro-French supporters had often been squeezed out. (One reason why the Graf Spee couldn't be repaired in Montevideo was that the only dock large enough was owned by one such exile family). I don't see Southern Schleswig as relevant here. Denmark did not enter WWI against Germany.

You can doubt as much as you want, but without facts your doubts have limited value. France chose to pay the reparations back early. Germany chose to avoid paying the full reparations by several (ultimately successful) devices.

Certainly France was a sore loser over 1870-71. And why shouldn't France make 17 plans against war with Germany? It is the professional thing to do. Germany also had plans against France, but unlike the French plans, the one executed included violation of neutral Belgium. And remember, Germany was a much bigger country than France. France had to be more prepared.

No, mobilization is not an act of war, in itself. Did the fully mobilized Czechoslovaks go to war against Germany in 1938, or vice versa? I don't recall the great Czecho-German War of 1938-39, do you?

There was no "Germany" to go to war with before unification 1870/71.

I have no brief for France, but I don't see the relevance of any of the conflicts before 1806-07, when France set the fashion for reparations against Prussia.

Nope, never heard of "Revanche pour Sadowa". How can one consider revenge for something not inflicted on one's own?

You ask for one German War of Aggression before 1914. Herreros? As Germany had no European Wars between its unification and 1914 there were none on that continent. But then France had no European wars in that period either.

Belgium exists considerably because the British did not want the mouth of the Rhine opposite the UK controlled by a major continental power - first France and then Germany.

You ask, "Why would a country shoot at the army of a country 10 times their size, if there wasn't a bigger plan?" Perhaps you should ask the Finns, or the Great Elector, or Frederick the Great, or Plataea, or Israel, etc., etc. Any country that values its national existence must be prepared to defend itself. If they don't they suffer the fate of Bohemia-Moravia.

You say, "For 400 years Germany has been attacked, pillaged and plundered by the french...." Yes. But 1870-71 changed the balance of power and since then German armies have three times "attacked, pillaged and plundered" France.

Ah, the old chestnut, ".....the victors can write the history." Have you seen the size of the Austro-Hungarian official history of WWI? Are you aware that the man considered the first military historian, Thuycidides, was a defeated general of a defeated country?

You ask, "How exactly does it compare to the german losses due to the allies occupation in WW2?" I Presume you mean after WWII. German losses during the Western occupation were light. German losses during the Soviet occupation were heavy. I wonder why the USSR ended up in the Allied camp? Could it be that Germany attacked it? And why might the USSR think little of inflicting millions of deaths on Germans? Could it possibly be anything to do with its own tens of millions of dead at German hands? This doesn't justify it, but it goes a long way towards explaining it.

France went to war with Germany in 1923? What were its "war" aims? Territory? Ethnic cleansing? Enforcement of debts?

The French killed peaceful protesters. It is a shame, but Germans killed more of themselves between 1919 and 1939.

In haste,

Sid.

[CroGer]

Germany didn't exist before 1871

It did. It was a geographical and ethnical region, like "scandinavia". It was the heartland of the country now colloquially called "Holy Roman Empire". The germans did have a national identity, and they did have a national memory.

Alsace-Lorraine has always been, majorily, german. Only Metz and the region around Metz was french, just like Brussels in a french city in the dutch Flanders.

France payed off it's debt in 3 years

Because she could. She was not stripped off all it's colonies, she was not disarmed, the reparations weren't designed to cripple the economy for 42 years. Bismarck was one of the smartest statemen of the 19th century that launched wars for a reunion, not wars to cripple country and I read in some book a long time ago that one of his war aims was always - keep it short, keep it from turning into a war of hate.



Bismarck with Napoleon the III. after Napoleon was captured. Certainly not a scene you would have seen anytime in WW1 or WW2. That kind of honorable war was gone in the 20th century. There was a rule since the middle ages, that you prove your own solemnity by letting your opponent leave the battlefield with his head held high. When a duke defeated a king for example, it was the ultimate prove of solemnity if the victorious duke bowed down before the king, even though he had won.

Bismarck was one of the last of an old school.

What I tried to show you is the german war aims in WW1. WW1 was a complicated matter, and I gave you an article to read - it was a war that neither the germans, nor the british, really wanted. Germany had nothing to gain, they were the dominant power in europe. Of course you had hardliners. You got them everywhere.

The germans initially didn't want to "conquer" Belgium. They were facing a two front war, and they had to kick out France fast. This was not possible by clashing against the Marginot line.

WW1 was a war were all armies went in with an entirely wrong rationale. We can talk about that a lot. But please, don't compare the reparations imposed on Germany with the soft peace on France after 1871, don't confuse aggressors with defenders, acknowledge the situation Germany was in both in 1914 and after WW2.

Certainly France was a sore loser over 1870-71. And why shouldn't France make 17 plans against war with Germany? It is the professional thing to do. Germany also had plans against France, but unlike the French plans, the one executed included violation of neutral Belgium. And remember, Germany was a much bigger country than France. France had to be more prepared.

What plans were there between 1871 and 1914? Please, don't pull out the "Septemberplan" - in every war, there are a lot of plans. What plan was there initially?

On the other hand you had the french "irredentism", the plan to expand France to the shores of the rhine.

Belgium exists considerably because the British did not want the mouth of the Rhine opposite the UK controlled by a major continental power - first France and then Germany.

Or in other words Belglium was a buffer zone and later turned into a international trading market.

You ask, "Why would a country shoot at the army of a country 10 times their size, if there wasn't a bigger plan?" Perhaps you should ask the Finns, or the Great Elector, or Frederick the Great, or Plataea, or Israel, etc., etc. Any country that values its national existence must be prepared to defend itself. If they don't they suffer the fate of Bohemia-Moravia.

The mistake you are making is that you are mixing up the germans of 1914 with the Nazis. The Nazis were an entirely different topic, and they were not born out of Germany being a sore loser, but out of the treaty of Versaille.

And I'll tell you why. Besides the economic crippling which was idiotic - the allies understood this in 1948. If you want reparations and prevent the rise of radicals, you have to get an economy going first. This is not what was done after WW1.

John Maynard Keynes called the treaty of Versaille "carthagic". John Maynard Keynes was such an expert in economics, that he created an own school of economy, Keynesianiam. Keynesianism is not some kind of outdated witch craft, but is the economics the EU currently runs now. So I suppose that this man understood something about economy.

But people with not even 1% the merits of Keynes try to argue that, because the new rule is: don't make it look like anybody else did something wrong but the germans.

But there is a part of the treaty of Versaille that often gets overlooked. And that is the limitation of the german army.

Germany was forbidden to have an army able to defend itself. 100.000 men with 156.000 rifles. They wouldn't even been able to defend themselves from Poland. And then they had communist revolts.

So the Freikorps were came into existence. These were underground paramilitary organisations, that the german government cooperated with, since they had to. They were radicals. Radicals tend to create their own echo chambers, and so they did. Hitler eventually became the leader of these Freikorps. All these radicals needed was one more economic catastrophy, and it came, in 1929, with the great depression.
Hitler's party was quite irrelevant until the Great Depression. But then - enough fodder for the radicals to thrive, and so they did.
In 1933 the SA has grown so large that, of Hindenburg wouldn't have lifted Hitler into his position, they could have defeated the Reichswehr, and taken over the state by force.

So if Germany would have been granted an army to defend itself - no Freikorps. No Freikorps - no echo chambers for radicals. No echo chambers for radicals - no Hitler-movement.

Now I have quite a large library of book, primarily about military topic, because I am quite a "Gun nut". But these books are in german, I'd have to find, copy and translate paragraphs.

Btw. You should read about german resistance to Hitler. There was actually a plan for a coup during the Sudetencrisis in 1938. The british appeasement made it fail.

So if you want to understand WW1 and WW2, try to put yourself in the position of somebody in Germany. Read about german history before 1914. That nation - not state - has a very long history.

"War of aggression"

Code: Select all

Herrero

LOL No, I'm not going to dive into the topic of colobialism. Of course, everybody but the germans dindu nuffin. The indians all died of measles and small pocks. The other genocides were accidents.



But something personal. I grew up in Germany as an immigant. I learned about the Holocaust in History Class when I was 13. I was wondering how this was possible in the country I grew up in, a country of really very nice people, and jewish celebrities on TV.

So I studied what made it possible. So I am 42 now, 30 years later. The best thing to read is everything by Sebastian Haffner, that I recommended you earlier, and Joachim Fest.

Now I also experiences a change in the narrative. You had a narrative in the 80's, that narrative changed in the 90's. IMO the 3rd Reich has been througtly analysed by the late 80's. But you still have books written about WW2, because it's big money now. You've got all these documentaries, movies, and entire industry just on WW2, Nazis and Holocaust.

One of the reasons why I am sceptical about post 1990-WW2 history is because - if you are a historian or just a journalist, and you want to cash in on that industry - what can you write about when everything has already been analysed? "Something new".

Then you have lefties posing as historians that try to rewrite history, in order to "fight neo-nazism". Alleged neo-nazis like the Wehrmacht. Let's smear the Wehrmacht.



A few thousands alleged neo-nazis protest every year in Dresden because of what they call the "Dresden Holocaust"?
Let's just get a bunch of historians that claim that the death toll of the bombing of Dresden was even lower than the death toll of the bombing of Warsaw, even though Dresden was overpopulated with refugees and the allies dropped six times a many bombs - and more sophisticated bombs - on the city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKVKipSvCg

IMO you've got a kind of revisionism in the name of "fighting neo nazis".

Every country has their neo nazis, but they are a few thousands, completly irrelevant. But left wingers try to rewrite history, because - well, that how they are. There has to be a Nazi behind every corner.

What I want to know is the TRUTH.


If you want to read the most valuable books about WW2, stick with the stuff written by those that have actually experienced it, from the 1960-1990.

France went to war with Germany in 1923? What were its "war" aims? Territory? Ethnic cleansing? Enforcement of debts?

Controlling the rhineland? Why have I provided you with these links?

The French killed peaceful protesters. It is a shame, but Germans killed more of themselves between 1919 and 1939.

And?

Also hastely,

CroGer

Edit: last thing about the jews. Hitler hated jews because he identified them with everything he hated. But jews actually kept Germany in the WW1. Most of Germany's armament was owned by jews, especially the Ludwig Loewe Company. The german gernerality went into the war with, like I said, an entirely wrong expectations. It was the jewish Walther Rathenau that transformed the privaticed german industry into war economy. After the war Rathenau was probably the most active politician in solving the problem with the reparations, Unfortunately, he was murdered by Freikorps-members.


Edit 2: another good example of revisionism for political purposes.
After WW2, a large part of eastern europe was ethnically cleansed. The main victims were german. It included the "Eastern Territories", 114.269 km², that were part of Germany in the borders of 1937 and in 1939 inhabited by 9.620.800 people, of whom 99,52% were german, the Sudetenland, 28.996 km², populated by 3.408.449 people, of whom 93,6% were german, and communities spead across eastern europe. It effected 16,4 million people, only 400.000 of them were allowed to stay and 12.000.000 arrived. So 4 million "disappeared". During the cold war, it was assumed that the expulsion of germans from eastern europe killed 2,5 million to 3,5 million people of german ethnicity.
Today, the official numbers are only 600.000 to 500.000. In 1999, a commission of historians downgraded these numbers. Reasons? Maybe because in 2004 the Czech Republic and Poland joined the EU. The same historians, led by Rüdiger Overmans, also concluded that the german army miscounted the number of casualties until december 1944 by 800.000-1.000.000. This could be right. But it could also be a reaction to Bacques book "Other losses".
So we are called upon that millions of people just disappeared. But unfortunately, there are demographics.

So, forget "WW2 history" post 1990. The world has changed, what happened between 1945 and 1948 is something the "allies" want to keep the lid on, and there are historians that try to cash in on the money cow WW2, and lefties posing as historians. Better stick with the literature written by those that were actual witnesses.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

Certainly Germans had linguistic and cultural identity before unification in 1870, but the Holy Roman Empire before it was not exclusively a German state. If it was, Bohemia would not have been a part. Before 1870 there was no "Germany" to write to, let alone have diplomatic relations with or go to war with, just lots of more or less independent German states.

The loss of Germany's colonies in no way inhibited paying off the Versailles reparations because they were almost all still in deficit. Therefore their loss may actually have made it easier to pay off the reparations! Similarly, because Germany was far more comprehensively disarmed under Versailles, it should have found it easier to find spare monies to pay off reparations.

Bismarck was undoubtedly very capable and kept his objectives within the reach of the means available to achieve them. Sadly, neither the Kaiser not Fuhrer had such good judgement and overreached themselves to Germany's detriment.

I don't see Bismarck doing a lot of bowing to Emperor Napoleon III in the drawing. Besides, why should von Bismarck bow to Napoleon III? The original Bonaparte was a commoner and so were his self-appointed imperial heirs.

In WWI the differentiation between the "good" guys and the "bad" guys is far more marginal than in WWII. Nevertheless, Germany was a player in Austro-Hungarian policy well before war was declared and so must bear some responsibility for its spread.

There was no Maginot Line in WWI.

Germany's situations in 1914 and 1939 were the result of the policies of the Kaiser and Fuhrer, who had forgotten the lessons Bismarck had to teach about matching ends to means. It is no accident that the German Army spent most of both wars on other peoples' soils, and ended up with much of the world against it.

Every General Staff, and Germany's was probably the best before WWI, was professionally bound to have plans against several likely eventualities. It would have been incompetent of the Germans to not have had such plans against their most likely foe. In 1914 Germany had the Schlieffen Plan against France. This was backed by a very efficient mobilization plan. Neither of these were improvised.

Certainly, in British eyes at least, Belgium/the low Countries/Flanders had always been a buffer region. Most British continental battles were fought in the region for several centuries.

The Nazis had no good reason to be sore about Versailles. Germany had lost a war that it had been instrumental in starting, which had left the country almost untouched in terms of material damage. Reparations were reasonable in view of the far greater material damage to some of the victors, notably France and Belgium. Furthermore, Germany had set a precedent itself by imposing reparations on France in 1871 and on Romania and Russia in 1918. It was a case of the biter bit!

There was no emergence of Nazi-like radicalism in France after 1871, or Finland after WWII, when both had to pay massive reparations, so there is no necessary connection between the two.

The 100,000 strong Reichswehr proved entirely adequate to Germany's needs before Hitler gained power. Its only immediate neighbours who had more powerful armies were the French, Poles and Czechs, whose combined population was probably no larger than Germany on its own! The border skirmishes with Poland did not result in a war and the temporary French occupation of the Rhineland was resolved by other means without any expansion of the Reichswehr. Besides, what about the so-called "Black" Reichswehr of some 20,000 men? Or the paramilitary police? Or the millions of trained reservists of WWI vintage? Or the secret aircraft trials in the USSR? Germany was never as fully disarmed as the "100,000 man army" would imply. Only the French had the strength to actually conquer Germany and showed no inclination to do so.

You write, "Hitler's party was quite irrelevant until the Great Depression." Yes. The Great Depression was not a Versailles-related issue peculiar to Germany. It was global.

Yes, there were several coup plans in 1938 and the fact that the Anglo-French made concessions to Hitler led to the conspirators losing their nerves. So whose fault is that? I am unclear - are you saying the Anglo-French were wrong to make concessions to Hitler at Munich?

Cheers,

Sid.

[CroGer]

Hi CroGer,

Certainly Germans had linguistic and cultural identity before unification in 1870, but the Holy Roman Empire before it was not exclusively a German state. If it was, Bohemia would not have been a part. Before 1870 there was no "Germany" to write to, let alone have diplomatic relations with or go to war with, just lots of more or less independent German states.

That's like saying France is not an entirely french state. Or that Russia isn't russian.

I don't know if you are american or something. But Germany existed. There was no Germany to write to, but a Germany to talk about.

I don't see Bismarck doing a lot of bowing to Emperor Napoleon III in the drawing. Besides, why should von Bismarck bow to Napoleon III? The original Bonaparte was a commoner and so were his self-appointed imperial heirs.

What are you talking about? I was talking about an old school of military honor.

In WWI the differentiation between the "good" guys and the "bad" guys is far more marginal than in WWII. Nevertheless, Germany was a player in Austro-Hungarian policy well before war was declared and so must bear some responsibility for its spread.

Germany was not responsible for the war. It was responsible for most of the casualties. The all- sorry, Entente cried like little babies about it, they were not capable of laying waste to Germany physically, so they layed waste economically. If you want it more clearly: all countries in WW1 were ruled by idiots.

btw

Georges Ernest Jean-Marie Boulanger (29 April 1837 – 30 September 1891), nicknamed Général Revanche, was a French general and politician. An enormously popular public figure during the Third Republic, he won a series of elections and was feared to be powerful enough to establish himself as dictator at the apogee of his popularity in January 1889. [...] He promoted an aggressive nationalism, known as Revanchism, which opposed Germany and called for the defeat of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) to be avenged.
[...]
It was in the capacity of War Minister that Boulanger gained most popularity. He introduced reforms for the benefit of soldiers (such as allowing soldiers to grow beards) and appealed to the French desire for revenge against Imperial Germany—in doing so, he came to be regarded as the man destined to serve that revenge (nicknamed Général Revanche)
[...]
The general decided to gather support for his own movement, an eclectic one that capitalized on the frustrations of French conservatism, advocating the three principles of Revanche (Revenge on Germany), Révision (Revision of the Constitution), Restauration (the return to monarchy)
[...]
Quotes
"We can finally renounce our unfortunate defensive policy [towards Germany]; France ought to increasingly follow the offensive policy." (1886, during a speech in Libourne)

[...]
Georges Benjamin Clemenceau[1] (French pronunciation: ​[ʒɔʁʒ bɛ̃ʒamɛ̃ klemɑ̃so];[2] 28 September 1841 – 24 November 1929) was a French politician, physician, and journalist who was Prime Minister of France during the First World War
[...]
He was one of the principal architects of the Treaty of Versailles at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Nicknamed "Père la Victoire" (Father Victory) or "Le Tigre" (The Tiger), he took a harsh position against defeated Germany, though not quite as much as the President Raymond Poincaré, and won agreement on Germany's payment of large sums for reparations.
[...]
In 1880, Clemenceau started his newspaper La Justice, which became the principal organ of Parisian Radicalism. [...] Leading the far left in the Chamber of Deputies, he was an active opponent of the colonial policy of Prime Minister Jules Ferry, which he opposed on moral grounds and also as a form of diversion from the more important goal of “Revenge against Germany”)
[...]
One issue that had not changed at all was a dispute over France's long-running eastern frontier and control of the German Rhineland. Clemenceau believed that Germany's possession of this territory left France without a natural frontier in the East and thus simplified invasion into France for an attacking army.
[...]
The Treaty of Versailles was signed on 28 June 1919. Clemenceau now had to defend the treaty against critics who viewed the compromises Clemenceau had negotiated as inadequate for French national interests. The French Parliament debated the treaty and Louis Barthou on 24 September claimed that the U.S. Senate would not vote for the treaty of guarantee or the Treaty of Versailles and therefore it would have been wiser to have the Rhine as a frontier
[...]
Clemenceau summed up his attitude: 'There are 20 million Germans too many!'
[...]

France was clearly a threat to Germany. France did not only want war, it had imperial aims WITHIN Germany, aka conquer a part of Germany.
Germany defended itself. Since the french suck at warfare, they were twice as grumpy about basically having been humiliated again, because on it's own France would have probably lost after 3 weeks.

Now what kind of policy should the germans have done instead?


[/quote]

There was no Maginot Line in WWI.

Sorry, I called the line of fortresses and bunkers at the german-french border by it's colloquial name.

It is no accident that the German Army spent most of both wars on other peoples' soils, and ended up with much of the world against it.

No, it is no accident. It was part of a rationale - defend your country on the enemies soil.

The Nazis had no good reason to be sore about Versailles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M0XBzNhkp4

Germany had lost a war that it had been instrumental in starting, which had left the country almost untouched in terms of material damage.

The Blockade of Germany, or the Blockade of Europe, occurred from 1914 to 1919. It was a prolonged naval operation conducted by the Allied Powers during and after World War I[1] in an effort to restrict the maritime supply of goods to the Central Powers, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. It is considered one of the key elements in the eventual Allied victory in the war. The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 claimed that 763,000 German civilians died from starvation and disease caused by the blockade up until the end of December 1918.[2][3] An academic study done in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000

I know that next you are going to tell me that it was the germans own fault. They starved their own population to death.

Reparations were reasonable in view of the far greater material damage to some of the victors, notably France and Belgium. Furthermore, Germany had set a precedent itself by imposing reparations on France in 1871 and on Romania and Russia in 1918. It was a case of the biter bit!

What are you trying to say now? Germany invented war reparations? Who told you all this stuff?

Even Wikipedia, which is very anti-german and pro-entente/allies, disagrees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations

The treaties of Bukarest and Brest-Litowsk came at a time where Germany was starving and running out of everything. At the end of the war, the average german soldiers weighed 58 kilos.

The treaty of Versaille came when the war was over.

There was no emergence of Nazi-like radicalism in France after 1871, or Finland after WWII, when both had to pay massive reparations, so there is no necessary connection between the two.

Maybe you should read again what I have written before.

The 100,000 strong Reichswehr proved entirely adequate to Germany's needs before Hitler gained power. Its only immediate neighbours who had more powerful armies were the French, Poles and Czechs, whose combined population was probably no larger than Germany on its own!

German army according to the Treaty of Versaille:

100.000 men
156.000 rifles
2249 MGs
252 mortars
light howitzers 204
heavy howitzers 84

No tanks, no airplanes, no conscription.

Standing czechoslovakian Army before mobilization in 1938: 184.000.
1938: 383.000
No restriction on guns

Armament only of the czech part:
1582 airplanes
501 anti aircraft guns
2175 howitzers
785 mortars
469 tanks
43.876 machine guns
114.000 pistols
1.090.000 rifles

And that's only Czechoslovakia, a state with 15 million people.

Totally adequate.

The border skirmishes with Poland did not result in a war and the temporary French occupation of the Rhineland was resolved by other means without any expansion of the Reichswehr. Besides, what about the so-called "Black" Reichswehr of some 20,000 men? Or the paramilitary police? Or the millions of trained reservists of WWI vintage? Or the secret aircraft trials in the USSR? Germany was never as fully disarmed as the "100,000 man army" would imply. Only the French had the strength to actually conquer Germany and showed no inclination to do so.

I just wrote about why this was necessary.

You write, "Hitler's party was quite irrelevant until the Great Depression." Yes. The Great Depression was not a Versailles-related issue peculiar to Germany. It was global.

And? Have I said that the great depression was caused by the treaty of versaille?

Yes, there were several coup plans in 1938 and the fact that the Anglo-French made concessions to Hitler led to the conspirators losing their nerves. So whose fault is that? I am unclear - are you saying the Anglo-French were wrong to make concessions to Hitler at Munich?

Probably. But what I actually said was that you should try to understand the german perspective.
Then you should read about the german resistance.

But - I already realized that you are not willing to do that.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

Yup. The Holy Roman Empire, as someone once wrote, was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire. Nor latterly did it have any of the institutions of a state - no army, no diplomatic service, no bureaucracy, no currency, etc., of its own. The HRE was more like the old EU before Maastricht than a German national state. By contrast, Russia and France have long had a full range of national institutions, as did all the German states within the HRE.

Certainly the Germans have existed for at least two millenia and have long had states. However, there was no German state until 1870.

What old school of military honor? I don't see much "honor" in the conduct of the Thirty Years War, for example.

Germany very definitely had a considerable share of responsibility for WWI. Its foreign ministry knew and approved Austro-Hungarian moves against Serbia several weeks before they were taken.

You write of the Entente, "they were not capable of laying waste to Germany physically". By late 1918 they certainly were capable of doing so, which was why Germany sued for an armistice. Perhaps their biggest mistake was in not invading Germany in 1919. Then all the nonsense propounded by Hitler and his like about not being defeated would have been patently absurd and WWII might have been avoided. The WWII unconditional surrender policy of the Allies sought to make sure the same mistake wasn't made twice.

In haste,

Sid.

[CroGer]

Hi CroGer,

Yup. The Holy Roman Empire, as someone once wrote, was neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire. Nor latterly did it have any of the institutions of a state - no army, no diplomatic service, no bureaucracy, no currency, etc., of its own. The HRE was more like the old EU before Maastricht than a German national state. By contrast, Russia and France have long had a full range of national institutions, as did all the German states within the HRE.

Certainly the Germans have existed for at least two millenia and have long had states. However, there was no German state until 1870.

What old school of military honor? I don't see much "honor" in the conduct of the Thirty Years War, for example.




In haste,

Sid.

The so-called Holy Roman Empire is a complicated matter. Yet it was a state, with the german "Herzogs" and the King as the rulers. It was never a centralized state. Why? Read about the Kings. Then you learn why, it also tells you a lot about the german mentality.
States in the middle ages were the personal property of aristocrats. The HRE - btw that quote is from Napoleon - is a unique STATE in history.

You write of the Entente, "they were not capable of laying waste to Germany physically". By late 1918 they certainly were capable of doing so, which was why Germany sued for an armistice. Perhaps their biggest mistake was in not invading Germany in 1919. Then all the nonsense propounded by Hitler and his like about not being defeated would have been patently absurd and WWII might have been avoided. The WWII unconditional surrender policy of the Allies sought to make sure the same mistake wasn't made twice.

There is a thread in the "what-if"-section about what would have happened in the war continued.

Germany very definitely had a considerable share of responsibility for WWI. Its foreign ministry knew and approved Austro-Hungarian moves against Serbia several weeks before they were taken.

Germany has a considerable share, France had a considerable share, Britain has a considerable share, Russia had a considerable share.
I spend a lot of time now trying to make the german situation in 1914 and the 1930's clear to you.
So your neigbour that wants a war, aimed to disect your country, conspires with the worlds largest country. I bet the germans should have just waited.
I told you the rationale. The rationale of every single army: defend your country on the enemy's soil.
The biggest mistake they did was ally with Austria-Hungary, because Austria-Hungary was outdated, instabile, ramshackled and made Russia, initially an ally of Germany, an enemy with their ongoing interferance in the balkans.


But whatever I say, you seem incapable of looking at history from a german position. Apparently nothing works.

I hope you are not american, because that would really p*** me off. A country that destroys country after country, has no enemies at their border, and never had to pay a dime for all the destruction and mass murder of civilians they caused.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

The Holy Roman Empire was not a state in recent times. It was a collection of states, a bit like the EU before Maastricht.

Yup, "There is a thread in the "what-if"-section about what would have happened in the war continued. Germany would have lost. By November 1918 it had no allies left

Certainly, "Germany has a considerable share, France had a considerable share, Britain has a considerable share, Russia had a considerable share" in creating a world war. However, the proportions were different. Germany had a hand in the Austro-Hungarian reaction to the assassination from the start. The others didn't.

How was Serbia a threat to Germany? They didn't even have a common border.

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

I hope you are not american, because that would really p*** me off. A country that destroys country after country, has no enemies at their border, and never had to pay a dime for all the destruction and mass murder of civilians they caused.

$18.4 billion for Iraq, over $20 billion for Afghanistan.

But still: it is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

You write, "I hope you are not american, because that would really p*** me off. A country that destroys country after country, has no enemies at their border, and never had to pay a dime for all the destruction and mass murder of civilians they caused."

My, and everyone else's, nationality is irrelevant here. It is what we each post that we should be addressing. That way we can avoid the trap of playing the man, rather than the ball.

The US destroys "country after country"? I am not aware of any country that has ceased to exist after being at war with the USA. Of where are you thinking?

Cheers,

Sid.

[CroGer]

Hi CroGer,

The Holy Roman Empire was not a state in recent times. It was a collection of states, a bit like the EU before Maastricht.

Yup, "There is a thread in the "what-if"-section about what would have happened in the war continued. Germany would have lost. By November 1918 it had no allies left

Certainly, "Germany has a considerable share, France had a considerable share, Britain has a considerable share, Russia had a considerable share" in creating a world war. However, the proportions were different. Germany had a hand in the Austro-Hungarian reaction to the assassination from the start. The others didn't.

How was Serbia a threat to Germany? They didn't even have a common border.

Cheers,

Sid.

I'm, fed up with you.
The question "was serbia a threat to Germany" just shows that you know too little about the political situation of WW1. No, it wasn't. Crazy, huh?
Now others would think about that and try to find an answer. But your answer is "Germany was Mordor and wants to rule the world and blablabla"
You also know nothing about the so-called HRR. It was a state with a 1000 year long history, I am not going to explain to you what "Kingdom of Germany" meant and why the king always had to get the roman crown of the pope, what the whole deal was of calling herself "Holy Roman", what "Roman" back then meant, what the Kaiser-crown meant between the 10th and 13th century, how that changed, I will not talk about the interregnum, the policies of the Habsburgs, the effect of the reformation and the 30y war. That is a little but too much for my already exhaused patience with you.

"The EU before Maastricht" omfg, what Maastricht? 1992 Maastricht? The european community? That was like the Holy Roman Empire?

You got your answer why Hitler didn't promote austrian nationalism.

Now go, play with somebody else.

Edit: Oh god, I just read your reply about the US war policies. OMG.

Edit 2: ok, a little bit more. Haven't I already said that the biggest mistake of the German Empire was the alliance with Austria-Hungary? Yes or no?
The alliance with AH made Russia their enemy. There were wars on the balkans. The Russians were pursuing pan-slavicism and also wanted to rule all orthodox nations and reconuer Konstantiopel. AH was constantly interfering in the russian balkan politics.
France was planning wars on Germany, 17 confirmed plans, with the goal of cutting off everthing west of the rhine, because of "french irredentism", you can call it french Lebensraum.
Austria-Hungary was the only european ally that Germany had left, and leaving them alone could have resulted in a total isolation.

RHINELAND, FRANKS, HRR and MIDEAVAL GERMANY:
Unfortunately the rhineland was the most important region in Germany, not only economically, but also ideologically, because this is where Germany started. This is where the Franks, who were a germanic tribe, started and build up what would become the german STATE. Germans always had a national identity, under the Merovingians it was even forbidden for noblemen to marry women not of germanic heritage. There even was a "brother war", where two merovingian brothers fought their brother because he married his gallo-roman concubine. They killed him and his children. I forgot who they were.
The frankish empire had two languages: the lingua romana and the lingua theodisca. Theodisca means "tribe, people, nation or simply NATIVE", so it was like THEIR language. Charlemagne allegedly only spoke frankish - the germanic language that is the basis of dutch and german - and needed translators for the roman languages.
In 846 the karolingian empire split, and after more wars, you had two parts. One was the eastern frankish empire, which was colouailly called "Germany". The thing with the Roman Crown was based on a prophecy (I forgot by whom) that the world was going down if there was no roman empire anymore. The western and eastern roman empire didn't recognize each other, the schism was like a cold war. So being croned by the pope meant that you were the protector of the catholic church and hence king of all catholics. Which - of course - wasn't taken too seriously by their neighbors. But Germany payed a vital role in christianizing the scandinavians, the poles, the hungarians.
The power of the german kings was very strong, although, according to germanic traditions, it was an electoral monarchy. After the Stauffer died, you had the 20y interregnum, after that it was mainly ruled by the Habsburgs. From there on you had a constant struggle between the duchies and the king, the king was constantely fighting to centralize it's power. The you had the reformation and with that 500 years of hostilities between protestants and catholics, and the beforementioned feid between the protestant prussia and the catholic austria.

Yet it was a STATE, which deteriorated from the reformation on. The only time when the german army, the "reichsheer", went outside their country, was either when they had to serve the pope against the italian city states or when they went on a crusade.
For some time in this 1000 years, no country had a large standing army. They relied on mercenaries. That changed from the 17th century on.

So the holy roman empire had a
a) national identity
b) an army
c) a flag
d) a king
e) a law
f) a "Reichstags"

But you are talking about 1000 years.

The reason why France for example was a centralized state was that it following the roman traditions. They did not have the germanic traditions of the "thing".
Generally you can say that Germany was 5 tribes: Franks (Rhenanians, Hessians), Svabians (southwest, switzerland, Alsace), Bavarians (bavaria & austria), Saxons (northwest, not to be confused with the current german state saxony, which has little to do with the tribe), and Thyringians (eastern germans).

The Stauffer fought a long feud with "Heinrich, the Lion", the Herzog of bavaria and saxony. After Barbarossa had won, he dissected the saxon tribal land and gave it to clerics. But like I said - 1000 years of history, a whole lot of s*** went down.

Here's some proof of the existance of a germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany

Beginning in the late eleventh century, during the Investiture Controversy, the Papal curia began to use the term regnum teutonicorum to refer to the realm of Henry IV in an effort to reduce him to the level of the other kings of Europe, while he himself began to use the title rex Romanorum or King of the Romans to emphasise his divine right to the imperium Romanum.
This title was employed most frequently by the German kings themselves, though they did deign to employ "Teutonic" titles when it was diplomatic, such as Frederick Barbarossa's letter to the Pope referring to his receiving the coronam Theutonici regni (crown of the German kingdom). Foreign kings and ecclesiastics continued to refer to the regnum Alemanniae and règne or royaume d'Allemagne. The terms imperium/imperator or empire/emperor were often employed for the German kingdom and its rulers, which indicates a recognition of their imperial stature but combined with "Teutonic" and "Alemannic" references a denial of their Romanitas and universal rule. The term regnum Germaniae (literally "Kingdom of Germany") begins to appear even in German sources at the beginning of the fourteenth century

The crusader organisation called "the teutonic order", which created prussia.

The dutch national anthem:

William of Nassau, scion
Of a German and ancient line,
I dedicate undying
Faith to this land of mine

Unfortunately, the dutch stopped referreing to themselves as germans after the napolonic wars, which is marked by the renaming of the dutch church, the nederduitse gereformeerde kerk (Northern german reformed church) into nederlandse hervormde kerk.
The termn "netherlands" only referes to the term used by the former (short time rulers) of Burgidy, who had territory which was not attached to each other, one was in the north and they called it netherlands (nothern lands) and one was in the south which they called "lowerlands" (basically switzerland and france comte)

This again refers to what I have said earlier: there was a time where tribalism was an important factor in politics. Than came a time where states were just the property of aristocrats, an italian could rule over soils where nobody spoke italian. And then you had the idea of national states.

Shall I explain the entire middle ages and early new age to you? Here is an except of the diary of Peter Hagendorf, a mercanary in the 30 years war:

"here i recruited with the venecians, in their service. [...] here I became sick, because it's a really weird whine in this country. I was sick for two months, but the allmighty helped me up, although many GERMANS died"
[...]
(1625) here i met a lute maker, a good GERMAN, has spend us much good drink"
[...]
About the descruction of Madgeburg:
"It made me very sorry from the deep of my heart, that the city was so horribly pillaged, because of the beautiful city, and because it is of my FATHERLAND"

So even though Hagendorf was a mercenary that fought for non-germans against germans, he had a NATIONAL IDENTITY.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi CroGer,

There are an awful lot of things you are apparently not prepared to debate and then proceed to do so - at length!

Nobody here is suggesting that the Germans, as a linguistic and cultural group have not existed for at least two millenia, so you don't have to justify these points. German common identity certainly existed, but I would suggest to you that it was not represented by a common German state until 1870-71.

However, you do have to justify the idea that the Holy Roman Empire was a German state.

As a matter of interest, where was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire?

You write, "For some time in this 1000 years, no country had a large standing army." True, but did the Holy Roman Empire ever have a standing army, even after the 17th Century? Or a fleet, perhaps?

What about a civil service. Was there a HRE civil service?

Or a HRE diplomatic corps? Or a HRE foreign policy?

Or a common currency?

Did it raise taxes in its own name?

Many German states had all of these things, but did the HRE in recent centuries?

I am perfectly open to persuasion, but you have to first answer questions such as these satisfactorily.

Cheers,

Sid.