I Am Interested In Ww1 and Ww2

@samueltyler2

Please share your knowledge with us, Sam.
Inquiring minds want to know.

[media=https://youtu.be/lcmGs2RzzFw]

@Thinkerbell be serious, in PMs to review the wars? What have you done to serve your country?

@samueltyler2

What have I done to serve my country?

I have refrained from making cryptic comments in which I pretend to know more than I actually do. 🤭

@Thinkerbell good try. Answer my question.

@samueltyler2

Answer mine first.
Admittedly, it may have confused you, since it was phrased as a statement rather than a question.

So I'll repeat it as a question:

Would you be so kind as to share your knowledge with us?

I think many of us here would be eager to have the benefit of your wise insights.

@Thinkerbell in brief the wars were fought against tyranny.

@samueltyler2

"Fuer Deutschland, Recht und Freiheit !" ?

Oops, I think maybe you meant the Russians.
Or was it Britain and France?

Terribly confusing, eh, Sam? 🤔

@Thinkerbell I have no idea what game you are trying to play here. The allies fought against tyranny, represented by the tyranny of Germany then the axis powers. So what have you done to help your country? You talk big, but what have you done?.

@samueltyler2

I was talking about WW1, Sam.

WW2 wouldn't have been necessary if the WW1 peace hadn't been botched.

Your insights on the world wars are somewhat less than profound, as I guessed. 🙄

What have I done for my country?

I have obeyed the laws, dealt honestly, and not knowingly voted for crooked, corrupt politicians.
I doubt that you can say the same.

@samueltyler2


The reparations Germany was forced to pay under the Versailles treaty were much too harsh, as John Maynard Keynes has correctly pointed out. This led, among other things, to the German hyperinflation of 1923, which wiped out the savings of a lot of Germans who had any. This in turn led to the rise of many radical political groups, not only on the right, but most prominently on the LEFT - namely the communist party of Germany (the KPD). In German elections in the 1920s, the KPD typically got 10% of the vote, vs only 1 or 2% for the Nazis.

And what were the western European allies doing in the meantime? By 1919, they had realized what a threat Soviet communism posed. They intervened in the Russian civil war on the side of the White Russian forces (Churchill said at the time, "Bolshevism is a baby that must be strangled in the cradle."), but the effort was half-hearted due to public war-weariness after WW1, and given up by 1923.

After that, instead of supporting the Social Democratic Weimar Republic in Germany (which could otherwise have helped in opposing the Soviets), the western European allies continued to extract their pound of flesh reparations from Germany, which when the Great Depression started in 1929, gave the Nazis their big chance. The public lost confidence in the Social Democrats, and turned in large numbers either to the left or to the right. Most of them turned to the right, having seen what the Bolsheviks had done to the middle class in Russia.

The Allies got the treatment of Germany right after WW2. Instead of crushing the German economy with war reparations, the US gave Marshall Plan aid for reconstruction, and gained a willing and grateful ally in opposing the Soviets.


If Germany hadn't been so harshly treated, there would have been no Nazi dictatorship, and without the Tripartite Pact, it's doubtful that Japan would have attacked the US. But even if they had, it wouldn't have been a world war, just a bilateral war between the US and Japan.


I'm not MAGA. I never voted for Trump, nor for his obviously crooked opponents. In 2016 and 2020, I left the presidential line on my ballot blank, to indicate none of the candidates was acceptable. I doubt that you can say the same.

"...among other things, I served 2 years in the military"

Thank you for your service.

@Thinkerbell that discussion is based on one theory about the feelings in Germany, but you started discussing the war in Japan. How did the Versailles treaty factor into Japan's decision to go to war? I also never will.undersyandbhiwvsuchna small country thought it could ever defeat such a bigger country. Interestingly, we my en i visited Hiroshima, there were millions, literally, of words that condemn the use of nuclear weapons. I saw virtually nothing against war in general.

@samueltyler2


You asked how the Versailles treaty led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and I explained to you that without the Tripartite Pact, it's doubtful that Japan would have attacked the US at all, but even if it had, it would not have been a WORLD war.


Yamamoto warned about that very point, but he was overruled by the Japanese militarists who thought the US could be defeated by the same kind of one-time victory as the Japanese scored over Russia in 1905.


That might be because they knew that there were a lot of similar sentiments in the US many years after their use, although nearly none in 1945, when the decision had to be made.

@Thinkerbell i never heard that theory before and read a great deal about the years leading up to WWII interesting theory though. It was once said to that Japan wanted oil and somehow they believed the US eas blocking that.

@samueltyler2


They were indeed looking for natural resources. That's why they invaded Manchuria (for its coal) and had their eyes on Indonesia (the Dutch East Indies at the time) for its oil, but the US WAS kinda standing in Japan's way with the US presence in the Philippines.
The Japanese were looking to build an empire similar to what Britain had done in the previous several centuries.
But it was too late for that kind of empire building.

@Thinkerbell again nothing to do with Versailles.

@samueltyler2

Of course Japanese long-term historical aims had nothing to do with Versailles.
But that's not what you asked.

So, for the THIRD time:

You asked how the Versailles treaty led to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and I explained to you that if Germany had not been so harshly treated under Versailles, there would have been no Nazi government, and without a Tripartite Pact, it's doubtful that Japan would have attacked the US at all, but even if it had, it would not have been a WORLD war.

It would have been a war between the US and Japan. Period.

@Thinkerbell doubtful to who besides you? Hitler was crazed by desires to create a third Reich.

When was the tripartite pact signed? What had already happened in Europe?

@samueltyler2

You seem to be as forgetful as Biden, Sam. 🙄
Or else you're just trolling. 🙄🙄

So once again, if the Versailles treaty had not been so harsh on Germany, Hitler would never have come to power.

If you forgot the reasons I said that, go back about 8 comments and read my extended explanation again.

@Thinkerbell I suggest rather than use the MAGA approach of attacking, you might read a little more about the ride of Hitler. I suggest maybe the Volker Ullrich books on the rise of Hitler and what came after. Yes, Germany was punished at Versailles, but what would you have suggested otherwise? Then look again at why the Axis powers signed the Tripartite Pact, and the play for how it would act, as a defense pact, LOL. The huge mistake they made was allowing ng Japan in. The US was strongly divided over the war in Europe. There was strong push back against becoming involved. There was rampant desire to be friends with Hitler and not be involved. The attack by Japan became the tallying cry for the US to get involved. It was said to be difficult to get the GIs to be interested, motivated, for the war in Europe, while no problem in Japan. If Japan had not attacked, or if the Axis powers did not declare was on the US the world war might also not have occurred.

@samueltyler2


Go back and read what I said 10 comments ago, or have you forgotten again?

The "otherwise" alternative would have been LESS harsh Versailles terms, of course, terms that didn't crush the German economy and make the German people turn to extremist parties.

Then there would have been no Hitler government, no Axis and no world war.

@Thinkerbell do you believe in battle by insult?

I suggest you read Ullrich's book. Also consider if the Versailles excuse was a good one for the evil Nazis.

You also might be interested in this:

https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/the-nazi-rise-to-power/the-effects-of-the-first-world-war-on-germany/the-treaty-of-versailles/#:~:text=Germany%20lost%2013%25%20of%20its,was%20limited%20to%2015%2C000%20sailors.

@samueltyler2

I haven't read Ullrich (who BTW, only covers 1923 in Germany), but I have read Richard J. Evans (British) , Shirer (American), and Fest (German), among others.

As for your link, it only says (in expanded form) part of what I already told you 12 comments above.


Of COURSE it was a good excuse for the evil Nazis.
PRECISELY because the treaty was so harsh.
The Nazis would never have come to power if it HADN'T been so harsh.

@Thinkerbell this discussion is tiring. I have no idea where you got the information about Ullrich's book, but you are mistaken. If you bother to even read the review, you would see it does cover some of your theory, that the economy in Germany the result of the collapse post WWI and Versailles rules, was partly respectful for his ability to entrap his countrymen. It also shows how he was able to handle n control of the courts, and he was a master of the use of the media radio and movies.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/mar/27/hitler-ascent-review-volker-ullrich-outstanding-study

Ullrich's second volume reveals how eventually, Hitler's obsessions, and poor decisions made his final demise inevitable.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2021-02-16/hitler-downfall-1939-1945

@samueltyler2


Oh, ok, my mistake about Ullrich's book.
When I searched his name, this is what came up:

https://www.amazon.com/Germany-1923-Hyperinflation-Hitlers-Democracy/dp/1324093463


Of course it was inevitable, after the failure of Nazi Germany to quickly subdue the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa.
Fritz Todt, Hitler's armaments minister (Albert Speer's predecessor), told Hitler in the winter of 1941-42 that Germany didn't have the resources to defeat the USSR in a protracted war. Todt died shortly thereafter in a plane crash.

The only realistic chance Germany had of winning was by knocking Britain out of the war after the defeat of France in June of 1940.
If the 300,000 or so British soldiers trapped at Dunkirk had been captured (instead of allowed to escape by a botched, unrealistic aerial operation by Goering), it would have been an immense bargaining chip in Germany's hand. Churchill's government might have fallen after such a defeat, and a peace party might have been willing to recognize Germany's continental gains in exchange for the British POWs and treaty assurances that Germany would not threaten the British colonial empire. After that, Germany would have had a much better chance of defeating the Soviets a year later, provided they were careful to avoid war with the USA, but that should have been relatively easy, given the reluctance of the American public to get involved in another European war.