Here’s some more info on this: http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/16223/james-moore-eternal-war-a-decade-of-civilization/
The Most Devastating Event to Nazi Germany
-
I don’t really understand your first sentence.
The problem with the treaty was: it left Germany strong enough to start a war later, but was punishing enough to build up a lot of resent.
Thus, in this combination only, a revanchist war became possible.
I mean, remember, there were radical protests, socialists upheavals and such … in the old empire. That was quite a thing. YOu have to recall that there never was such a strong social movement. I even say that the movement that led to the fall of the Berlin wall was not comparable to that one. The germans were really really tired and sick of the war. But, they all fell for the propaganda, especially as they “only” lost on one front, and won on the east. … With the peace of Brest Litovsk being the main reason why the western allies were so harsh to germans (just as harsh as they were to the Soviets) -
@F_alk:
I don’t really understand your first sentence.
The problem with the treaty was: it left Germany strong enough to start a war later, but was punishing enough to build up a lot of resent.
Thus, in this combination only, a revanchist war became possible.
I mean, remember, there were radical protests, socialists upheavals and such … in the old empire. That was quite a thing. YOu have to recall that there never was such a strong social movement. I even say that the movement that led to the fall of the Berlin wall was not comparable to that one. The germans were really really tired and sick of the war. But, they all fell for the propaganda, especially as they “only” lost on one front, and won on the east. … With the peace of Brest Litovsk being the main reason why the western allies were so harsh to germans (just as harsh as they were to the Soviets)what old empire are you referring to? The German Empire started in 1871 so at the time IMHO it wasn’t exactly new…
-
Falk, most of what you said about the rise of nazism was accurate. I guess it is true that the anti-semitism was rampant among the right wing, and the left wing was neutered by signing the treaty of versailles. However, the key distinction between the nazis and every body else was their implication of a link between bolshevism, jews, and thus liberals. This basically is what I was getting at before. Without antisemitism the Nazis would’ve had a difficult time linking their left wing opponents with Bolsheviks and it was the antipathy towards Communism and Soviet Russia that put Hitler in power.
-
Now a better question from my point of view is how might the world be different had the two world wars been avoided. I argue that much of the technological and social progress made in the 20th Century was due largely because of the devasting effects on the social order WWI and II had. Therefore, had WWI and II been avoided the world especially Western Europe and America would remain much as they were circa 1900. Much in the way the Civil War in the United States led to positive social changes, like the abolition of slavery, the two wars had a similar affect.
But I would like to see what others have to say on this.
-
WWI had more of a negative effect though, in causing WWII. nothing was solved after WWI, so WWII was inevitable. WWII it can be argued had mostly a positive effect.
-
Hmm, the Cold War and the build up of thousands of nuclear weapons doesn’t sound like a positive effect to me.
-
Most people would argue that WWII had a positive effect, but IMO it was nothing more than a continuation of what was begun because of WWI.
Zhukov, has any of those nuclear weapons ever been used? No, I would argue the devastion wrought by two world wars has done much in the way of preventing nuclear armageddon, and further catastrophic conflicts. In fact the Cold war may have indirectly led to economic development in the 3rd world. Additionally, WWI caused a great deal of social change throughout Europe and America, and that social change/progress led to many of the technological advancements we now enjoy. Would we enjoy television had WWI and II not created a large consumer market for those products. Prior to WWI many of the people of the industrialized world had little to no disposable income and therefore consumer goods like Tv would not have beensuccessful. Also, world war I created cracks in the imperialist system which caused its end after WWII. Further, the destruction of imperialism led to an era of global ‘free trade’, and thus many countries that were once very poor have been able to create wealth in their countries which has led to economic development in the ‘3rd world’. Economic development that would not have happened with the continuation of imperialism.
-
Agent Smith a couple of things:
WW1 stopped imperialism in Germany and Turkey giving free reign for other Nations to steal te territories of those “UnDemocratized More Barbaric then thou spiked helmet scum” to stop “torturing the world”… In the meantime in Germany people were suffering due to inflation and loss of infrastructure caused by the Allies… When the depression hit they were one of the hardest in europe hit which caused a great resentment against The Allies and bingo! WW2… But all that free trade and Global Prosperity was still the product of global empires in whom all the labor fell on some natives backs… and unfortanutely Germany wallowed in pits(yes they might of had miracles in military development but that was because Hitler got his scientist woring)… Those countries who Developed vast wealths were wealth earned for the Gvernment official more then a common laborer… so I really don’t see much of how WW1 helped the world get out of a nut shell…
GG
-
Historically, the economic effects of military mobilization creates capital in an economy. In the case of WWI this did happen and contributed to the roaring 20’s. The dire situation in Germany was not immediately felt in the rest of the western world. The predecessor of TV was radio, and sales of radios soared throughout the 20’s and led to the development of the modern media which in turn has developed into the information age of today. However, without the wartime mobilization the market for radios may not have existed, and the yellow journalism common prior to 1914 may have remained dominant. Additionally, sales of automobiles did not really take off until the 20’s as well.
Your implication that WWI did not stop imperialism is correct, however, it did destablize it and after WWII it was not viable anymore. In Britain the very symbol of their imperial might was their navy, yet after WWI they were forced to scuttle 2 dozen battleships because they couldn’t afford them anymore. As for free trade I should have clarified that this has happened only after WWII. In fact the primary causes of WWII in both Europe was the lack of free trade which stunted Germanys post WWI economy, and kept Japan a second rate economic power. However, after WWII Japan got the access to foreign markets which was its primary war aims to begin with.
On a side note the Allies did not destroy any German infrastructure after or during WWI. In fact Allied troops never stepped foot on German soil during the War. If anything the French had a bigger complaint against the Germans, and a ‘right’ I might add to demand reparations since much of their infrastructure was damaged because the entire war was fought on their soil. The turmoil in post war Germany was caused by the rapid development of Democracy in their country which had been violently suppressed since 1848. It’s quite analogous to what is currently go on in Iraq where a country that has been repressed for so long is finally waking up to democracy. In Britain and the US this was a more gradual process, but in France democracy caused an equal amount of turmoil.
-
Read Article 231 and 232 of the Versaille Treaty… It is a list of requirements on the German part and it did just about wipe them out…
-
But that isn’t really relevent because it was the social unrest that caused the most problems. Additionally, the section you list only says Germany will make reparations and restore conquered territories. It makes no mention to destroying infrastructure within Germany. Further, this was obviously not done since Germany still had telephones, railroads etc. So what! Lets get back to how the world would have been different without the two world wars, and my contention that life would have remained similar to how it was circa 1900.
-
Lots of money is infrastrcture! I mis read it go up to Article 247 it mentions a lot more…
-
First of all money is not infrastructure. Infrastructure are things like railroads, roads, lines of communication etc. As such they can be destroyed through war, but not borrowed from other nations. Money can be lent, and vast quantities of this was sent to Germany for them to make reparations which they turned around and used on armarments.
Anyway do you even know the treaty or are you just siting random articles? I looked 247 up and it only deals with them making reparations for plunder taking from several universities and churches that were in territories they occupied.
-
231 to 247… what I mean to say is that Germany fell apart after the war regardless of if they stole infrastructure, because they stole all the money from them that they would have used tho rebuild there country, which is a cause and effect…sorry I know I’m probably not writing this right but that is what I am basically saying…
GG
-
Well that’s different. So what you’re trying to say is that Germany fell apart after the war which is absolutely correct. Back to my original argument, WWI led to enormous social change that sparked the technological progress which led to the lifestyle we now enjoy. In Germany particularly democracy and progressive ideals had been supressed for generations, but after WWI this was no longer possible due to the chaos you describe. Additionally, an affect of both world wars has been the spread of democracy by the victorious powers of Britain, France and the US.
Again how would the world be different without the world wars. I think it would be more backward, less changed, less democratic, more imperialistic, but perhaps more stable because Democracy tends to breed instability.
Suggested Topics
