So this was a thread that was closed for unrelated reasons so I wanted to bring it back up seeing how it was really... interesting. I'd like to open with the following argument Nazi Germany was already violating the rules and conditions the US along with other nations we were allies with that were set at the end of WWI. This is clear disrespect of her authority, and to the other victors of WWI We were allied with Britain and Japan after WWI, When Japan joined the Axis and the Brits joined France to protect French Sovereignty. The atrocities committed Against the POWs, the French, Russians, and the Jewish, Hitler calling us "Dogs," and showing no intention to stop at Europe. Threatening our Sovereignty, Along with shooting down our ships, hurting our economic partners, and other issues, it was an easy and obvious decision on December 7th. It should be very obvious why, but whatever. Opposing opinions are welcome because I genuinely want to understand the thought process that led to that. also imagine what a cold war between the 3rd reich and america would be like lmfao a nationalist country dependent on lackeys and war mongering would be 10x worse then commies with a tendency to do US-style intervention
Wow, so much fail in a single post. Here, let me touch on the highlights: Uhhh, the United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. And much of the stipulations upon Germany were really unimportant later on. Because things like Tanks, Aircraft, and Rockets were barely touched on (if they were mentioned at all). Germany simply worked around them with "Government programs", not unlike what many countries around the world were doing at the time. Much of the sides in WWI were holdouts from the Boxer Rebellion. But by the 1920's those relations had started to strain, specifically the fallout of the Japanese and their views of the Russian territories gained from that conflict. The Japanese largely joined the Axis because like Italy and Germany it was strongly Anti-Communist. The Communists were one of their biggest problems in China, and it's philosophy was contradictory to their entire Government and religion. Hitler had no interest beyond Europe and Western Asia. Even his intervention in North Africa was largely because of the failure of Italy to contain the Allies, not from any interest of his own in the region. And he certainly did not have any interest in the United States. "Shooting down ships"? Once again, Germany had no interest in taking over the United States. He knew that was impossible, he had neither the equipment nor the manpower to even dream of doing that at his most delusional. He simply wanted the US to stop assisting England. Actually, the most realistic "Axis Victory" post-war scenario would have had a 4 way world map. First, Germany with most of Europe and West Asia. Then there is Italy, with most of Africa and South-West Asia in their control. Then Japan, with their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (East Asia and most of the Pacific West of hawaii). Finally, the United States, basically having influence over both North and South America. Of all of these, I think as in real world the relationship between Germany and Italy would have failed first. Italy is pretty much the Axis Power that nobody takes seriously, because they were pretty impotent in WWII. Then after that, war would have eventually broken out again between the US and Japan. Remember, Japan for most of the war was holding several chunks of US Territory, with somewhere around 100 million Americans under their control. There was simply no way the US would have simply stood back and let that situation continue. But the US and Germany? Naw, that was never really an issue. The US was not even considering going to war with Germany until after Hitler declared war against the United States. Our first and last concern was Japan.
The reasons why Hitler did not join the "Allies" in WW 2: Hitler and Stalin both were on paper, allies, as both invaded Poland in 1939. Hitler allowed the Soviets to invade Finland and take over the Baltic States. It was Britain and France that declared war only on Germany after both Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland and began WW 2. Hitler's prime enemy was always Stalin, and he did want to have peace with Britain. That's why he didn't fight the Brits too hard at first and let them escape at Dunkirk. Germany and Japan had for many years a cultural exchange, and both had a resentment to communism. For diplomatic reasons, Germany declared war on the US because of their treaty with Japan right after Pearl Harbor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Japan_relations The real question should be, why didn't Britain and France declare war on the Soviets as well after they invaded Poland?
I have always wondered why the Soviet's got away with that and much more without being labeled our real foe until a few years after WW2 had ended.
For one thing, FDR and much of our press were all highly sympathetic to Leftists and Communists back in WW 2. FDR was giving Stalin Lend Lease materials a good while before Germany had to declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Also know that almost no Communist leaders and those responsible for so many atrocities and genocides in the 20th Century have ever been taken to court and charged for them. For example, for the 2 million killed by Pol Pot's killing fields, only ONE communist has ever been convicted by international courts.
Your question is foolish. After WW I, the allies never stopped viewing the Germans as the enemy. Also, in looking at the list of topics in this section, I saw one closed down to debate that has a similar title called "Why didn't the allies back Hitler." Was that the thread you wanted to bring back up? If so, you did a pretty piss poor job of it.
The thread "Why didn't the allies back Hitler" explains it all. Also, I don't think it took years after WW II for General Patton to say "We defeated the wrong enemy."
Hitler was like Wilhelm II; 'everybody else' around Germany was 'The Enemy', and Versailles was the propaganda weapon along with fighting the private armies of the Communists in the streets; that's where his political power came from and why he wasn't going to 'back the Allies', and especially the U.S.; the U.S. was responsible for 'privatizing' the Reich Bank in the aftermath of WW I, which caused a lot of needless suffering on top of a country already in dire straits, and to repudiate the Versailles indemnities Hitler had to repudiate the U.S. loan debt, since it was the U.S. that was essentially paying the indemnities for Germany up to that point. Wilhelm II unraveled what Bismarck created for Germany, a divided Europe, and made allies of even France and Great Britain, and Great Britain with the Soviet Union, alliances which held up after WW I re Germany, and Wilson also helped make them less than friendly with the U.S. by his idiot attempts at trying to get a unilateral peace with Germany during the war in secret, and got caught three times, naturally making our 'allies' more than a little suspicious and not trusting us.
Actually it was the British aid that kept Stalin in the war early on; British aid was critical in keeping the Germans out of Moscow, particularly the British tanks and other material. If Moscow had fallen, it would have been a whole different war; the Soviets had nothing to fight with without the British aid, while it wasn't a lot by later standards it came at a very critical time, with most of the Soviet army's tanks, trains, and support wiped out. They were left with small artillery and mines.
The worst part of the Versailles Treaty was the restriction limiting the Germany Army to 100,000 men. This made it impossible for the government to maintain any kind of order, leaving the streets free for the assorted political ideologues to wage private wars with each other, mainly the commies versus the various moderate and right wing gangs. If Wilson hadn't been a moron and divided the alliance, a proper occupation of Germany would have taken place and most of the chaos that happened in the aftermath of WW I avoided altogether. As it was Britain and France could not trust the U.S even a little bit didn't want the U.S. to be able to dictate the outcome, so they sued for an Armistice instead.
Wow, the amount of revisionist history in the last posts is staggering. Oh, and it is the Reichsbank, not the "Reich Bank". It was not privatized by the US after WWI. A multi-national committee was formed and the US agreed to assume the German Debt, in addition to assuming providing credit to Germany. That was only for a period of 14 years until the German economy stabilized again and her debts were paid off.
Not 'revisionist' word in any of them. Not that revisionism is automatically bad; revisionism goes on all the time by scholars. Try reading the Dawes Plan and American lobbying previous; just because we didn't sign the Versailles Treaty doesn't mean the U.S. had no say or influence on anything. American loans paid half of the $5 billion in the reparations Germany ended up paying. Hitler repudiated paying that back. Detlev Peukert's Weimar Republic is also a good well sourced book. Wilson's secret unilateral attempts at peace negotiations are also easily found. So is everything else I brought up, including the Reich Bank's officers private speculation on the Dutch money markets. Find a list of reparations ever actually paid by Germany and you aren't going to find anything that accounts for the hyperinflation, so that excuse was always a load of BS. That's because they hardly paid any and the U.S. paid around half of that. the restrictions on German armed forces are right in the Versailles Treaty. CHAPTER I. EFFECTIVES AND CADRES OF THE GERMAN ARMY. ARTICLE 159. The German military forces shall be demobilised and reduced as prescribed hereinafter. ARTICLE 160. (1) By a date which must not be later than March 31, 1920, the German Army must not comprise more than seven divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry. After that date the total number of effectives in the Army of the States constituting Germany must not exceed one hundred thousand men, including officers and establishments of depots. The Army shall be devoted exclusively to the maintenance of order within the territory and to the control of the frontiers. The total effective strength of officers, including the personnel of staffs, whatever their composition, must not exceed four thousand. (2) Divisions and Army Corps headquarters staffs shall be organised in accordance with Table No. 1 annexed to this Section. The number and strengths of the units of infantry, artillery, engineers, technical services and troops laid down in the aforesaid Table constitute maxima which must not be exceeded. The following units may each have their own depot: An Infantry regiment; A Cavalry regiment; A regiment of Field Artillery; A battalion of Pioneers. (3) The divisions must not be grouped under more than two army corps headquarters staffs. The maintenance or formation of forces differently grouped or of other organisations for the command of troops or for preparation for war is forbidden. The Great German General Staff and all similar organisations shall be dissolved and may not be reconstituted in any form. The officers, or persons in the position of officers, in the Ministries of War in the different States in Germany and in the Administrations attached to them, must not exceed three hundred in number and are included in the maximum strength of four thousand laid down in the third sub-paragraph of paragraph (1) of this Article. Compare that to the size of Hitler's private army and the Communist and leftist cadres operating. The military was almost totally ineffective and could not maintain any kind of order in the country. The history of Wilhelm II and his sacking of Bismarck and his subsequent sabre-rattling all the way up to the 'Blank Cheque' is also easy to look up; Robert Massey's Dreadnought book is a good general history of all that. The timeline for the British aid shipments and what was shipped up to the time of the German siege of Moscow and its role in enabling the Russian winter counteroffensives can also be looked up. The number of British tanks shipped about doubled the number of Soviet tanks Stalin had left to fight with.
Here's some revisionist info. http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=12196&start=0 From what I can see, Germany just wanted to get back what it had lost after WW1. There's some info there about the world banking system too. I'm not much on economics but from what I can see, the Germans were getting exploited and they wanted that to stop. Can anyone explain this to a layman like me?
The best book on the politics of WW I is David Stevenson's. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61532.Cataclysm Unfortunately it has revisions in it on various points and facts, so some should stay with the 1960's high school version of history so they can avoid getting upset or something. Interview with the author: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/en_US/publications/articles_papers_reports/0215/_view/lang=en_US His book makes an excellent case for 'revisionism', in fact one that can't be disputed.
