Why Didn`t WW1 Deter The Nazis

[PhilB]

There seems to have been extreme reluctance in UK to get embroiled in another war after the horrors of WW1. It`s usually attributed to our leaders having experienced the war. However, the Nazi leaders were virtually all veterans of WW1 so why weren`t they deterred? Can it all be put down to the humiliation of losing? Or was it a chance event which threw up a Hitler at his most opportune time?

[johndavidswarbrick]

As I understand it, part of the reason may have had something to do with the apparently widely held belief in Germany that the army had not been defeated, rather that they had been betrayed by the politicians. Certainly in the 1920s the growing Nazi Party put great emphasis on that belief in its propaganda. There was also Hitler's conviction that the Western powers would do almost anything to avoid another war and he was then able to bully and bluster his way back into the Rhineland, Austria and Checkoslovakia at virually no cost to himself. By all accounts he was very surprised when ourselves and the French finally called a halt over Poland. Once he'd started however, it was almost impossible to go back - and so another war became inevitable.

I am aware that all of the above is a gross over-simplification, but it is at least the framework of an answer.

Dave Swarbrick

[truthergw]

A very contentious issue this. Were the Nazis a one off with their own agenda or were the aims of WW2 the same as WW1 and a reflection of a deep seated conviction inherent in the German people that they were in some way destined to rule Europe. Look at Fritz Fischer, " Germany's Aims in the First World War" and others, and the host of publications of the '60s, pro and con, which his book started.

[dekenai]

Phil B,

to understand this and more, get a book called, "Paris 1919". WW1 didn't lay the seeds for WW2.

cheers

RDC

[truthergw]

There are lots of historians, including German ones, who would disagree. What are your grounds for rejecting the idea so definitely?

[regimentalrogue]

One review of Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World at Amazon.com includes this passage:

She neatly and convincingly debunks the theory that the financial burden placed on Germany as part of the war reparations was a major factor leading to Hitler's rise and WWII. Not only were the reparations significantly less than those Germany extracted from France after the 1870s Franco-Prussian War, but Germany never paid the WWI reparations and, indeed, indulged itself in such tactics as scuttling part of its navy rather than turn it over to Britain. On the other hand, she reinforces the argument that Germany did not feel compelled to accept terms of an agreement that were enforced rather than negotiated - and were determined to avenge the humiliation their representatives endured during the conference.

Link.

Removing the basis of national financial hardships, however, doesn't remove the potential effects of a propaganda initiative aimed at convincing the German people that they were unfairly treated or that their destiny was to rule Europe and more.

[Gunner Bailey]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ May 27 2009, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There seems to have been extreme reluctance in UK to get embroiled in another war after the horrors of WW1. It`s usually attributed to our leaders having experienced the war. However, the Nazi leaders were virtually all veterans of WW1 so why weren`t they deterred? Can it all be put down to the humiliation of losing? Or was it a chance event which threw up a Hitler at his most opportune time?

Phil

There were many Germans who felt the Army and Navy were not defeated in the field but that politicians and the civilians fostered the armistice. The interwar propositions that it was all a Jewish conspiracy just led the Nazis to think they should complete the job left unfinished in 1918.

There were other factors too, including the reluctance of European and US leaders to stand up to Hitler, the anger over the reparations and the questions of lost empire and territories as well. The signing of the surrender of France in that railway carriage was very symbolic. Hitler would have loved to have had Chaimberlain in there as well.

John

[Marco]

To put it simplistic: you never had the feeling you would do better in a re-match?

Regards,

Marco

[Rob Connolly]

It did have some lasting effects - the concept of a "Blitzkrieg" war was one that had very high-intensity fighting, that caused very high casualties whilst it lasted, but since it didn't last long, the butcher's bill wouldn't approach those of WW1. This went a bit wonky if the fighting lasted more than a few weeks (North Africa, Russia). IIRC, Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" recounts that the German declaration of war was met with an air of solemnity and gloom - no cheering crowds second time around.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello all

There seems to have been a general feeling among German civilians that erasing the humiliation of Versailles was a good thing, and their political system (hijacked by the Nazis) gave less scope for political opposition and public dissent than in the Western democracies.

Additionally, Hitler's re-occupation of the Rhineland and annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia may have reinforced their view that the other nations would never actually go to war. Even after the invasion of Poland there was comparatively little active fighting in the West, and the invasion of France was quickly accomplished, leaving Britain alone.

Even up to this point, the German people may still have believed that the war was effectively over and that they had won at relatively small cost. The USA was still neutral and Britain's ability to resist further must have been in grave doubt. As long as there was no war between Germany and the USSR, they thought they were safe.

Ron

[PhilB]

In other words, the Germans weren`t deterred by the memory of WW1 because they didn`t think they`d have to fight a major war to achieve their ends?

[ianw]

The ghastliness of war has never detered people from starting another. The Germans analysis of the all arms warfare that did for them in 1918 led them to believe quite correctly that they could employ the same tactics with vastly better equipment to conquer France at will in 1940. Unfortunately for them, they were led by a madman.

[PhilB]

But even the successful all arms offensive of 1918 was hugely costly in casualties.

[Nayles]

It still begs the question as to why the political leaders of Nazi Germany were so bent upon another European war despite having seen for themselves the realities of such a war up close.

It beggars belief that there were some veterans of the Great War who didn't share the opinion that they had just endured 4 years of hell in order to put an end to war in europe once and for all.

It must have come as a crushing blow to veterans to see their sons and daughters being compelled to fight yet another European war. I have always thought it extremely sad that my Great Granddad lived just long enough to make this realisation.

[geraint]

I've always thought of European affairs from 1870 onwards as a boxing match -a continuous fight with a winner in each round, with the match 'ending' with the 1945-51 formation of the basic European Union. Round 1 - "And the winner is Germany" being the Franco-Prussian War, (seizure of Alsace etc). Round 2 being the Great War - "and the winners are...." Round 3 being the Second World War.

This is an absolutely simplistic view; arguments, causes, effect, etc are too numerous and detailed to even begin a summary, though all the above posts are indicative.

Are you doing a Phd Phil ?

[regimentalrogue]

It beggars belief that there were some veterans of the Great War who didn't share the opinion that they had just endured 4 years of hell in order to put an end to war in europe once and for all.

But the leaders of Nazi Germany were not a random sampling of veterans, many of whom would have avoided the thought of a return to those events for themselves or their sons. Hitler surrounded himself with others that were of like mind to himself, or at least willing to continue to work towards his chosen objectives. If we start with the assumption that no Great War veteran would ever think of a return to war, then Hitler can't exist, and since he obviously did, that thus destroys that argument.

[truthergw]

We are perhaps veering off topic but It is at least possible that German veterans thought they had suffered 4 years of war and then they were stabbed in the back by a long list of baddies. They had had the victory which they had earned, snatched away.They might well be keen for another go with a good leader. You have only to read Storm of Steel and Copse 125 to know that not every soldier had lost his appetite for war.

[Nayles]

But the leaders of Nazi Germany were not a random sampling of veterans, many of whom would have avoided the thought of a return to those events for themselves or their sons. Hitler surrounded himself with others that were of like mind to himself, or at least willing to continue to work towards his chosen objectives. If we start with the assumption that no Great War veteran would ever think of a return to war, then Hitler can't exist, and since he obviously did, that thus destroys that argument.

I wasn't really making an argument, merely stating what I find hard to understand in terms of attitudes to a modern war so soon after the horror that was the First World War.

Which leaves me with the impression that the short answer to the original question is simply that those who took the world into another global conflict were raving lunatics and therefore beyond the comprehension of those of us with our heads screwed on straight.

I suppose what is much more difficult to understand is how Hitler and his cronies managed to drag the German people down with them. I imagine that perhaps the initial reaction was one of fear and foreboding which was quickly dispelled for the majority by seemingly quick and easy victories at the beginning of the war.

I have read Storm of Steel and if there is one book that really dwells on the horrors of war then that has to be it surely - at least that was the lasting impression Ernst Junger left on me.

Interesting thread.

[johndavidswarbrick]

If we try and focus for a moment on how and why the German people followed Hitler, despite their collective memories of the First World War, then I would suggest that in many respects their perception of that conflict was markedly different to that of ourselves and the French. Firtsly they had lost, that must make a difference. Secondly, as has been said before, many felt that they had been betrayed and that they could/should have won. There then came the massive economic crisis of the late 1920s with hyper inflation and mass unemployment. The comes this "saviour" who offers a return to feeling good about themselves and a chance to set the record straight. Not only does he promise - he seems to deliver. He takes Germany from triumph to triumph at seemingly little cost - who wouldn't follow him? Hitler told the Germans that the western democracies were weak and decadent and that Germany was strong and deserved the future. From 1933 to 1941 events seemed to prove him right. The French were beaten, humiliated; the English were penned back in their island, in no state to interfere; all that remained was to conquer the "subhumans" of the east and Germany would control the continent of Europe. Yes, I know. it sounds to us like madness, but if you are in the crowd and everyone is cheering and your side is winning - it takes a lot to step back and ask: What is going on here? Especially when people who did ask tended to disappear.

Again, massively over-simplified, but some truth.

Dave Swarbrick

[truthergw]

I wasn't really making an argument, merely stating what I find hard to understand in terms of attitudes to a modern war so soon after the horror that was the First World War.

.......................

I have read Storm of Steel and if there is one book that really dwells on the horrors of war then that has to be it surely - at least that was the lasting impression Ernst Junger left on me.

Interesting thread.

If you read Copse125, you may find, like others, that the author seems to glory in the war and that the horror starts to become somehow a worthwhile price to pay. The German armies were allowed to march back bearing arms. The German people were never told of the horrific losses sustained throughout the war. The story of the war for many was the unbroken litany of success on both fronts. All that put together can make people feel that they were not defeated but somehow cheated. Crown Prince William in his book written after the war, states openly that the Germans did not lose the First Battle of the Marne, they were pulled back from victory by weak leaders. That was just one of the voices in the chorus which denied the War Guilt clauses in the Versailles Treaty and by natural extension ended up denying the defeat. In desperate times, as the twenties and thirties were, any strong leader is likely to attract a following. Hitler created work and gave people hope. People in Italy, Spain and in Britain too were happy to listen to similar raving of demagogues. The same ravings are attracting followers now and we have Hitler's war to warn us of the dangers.

[dekenai]

g'day all,

As l read it, Herr Hitler did not start WW2 as revenge for WW1, nor to 'punish' the Brits, French--or anyone else for Versaille. He demanded 'Leibenstraum' or living space for the Aryan race, to expand into Poland, open the Danzig corridor to old Prussia, to defend against the Communist menace.

Hitler wanted 'vengence' on the Weimar Republic if anything--to wipe out the memory, and use this as an excuse for National Socialist domination.

RDC

[Ken S.]

It still begs the question as to why the political leaders of Nazi Germany were so bent upon another European war despite having seen for themselves the realities of such a war up close.

It beggars belief that there were some veterans of the Great War who didn't share the opinion that they had just endured 4 years of hell in order to put an end to war in europe once and for all.

It must have come as a crushing blow to veterans to see their sons and daughters being compelled to fight yet another European war. I have always thought it extremely sad that my Great Granddad lived just long enough to make this realisation.

First of all, when you say "political leaders of Nazi Germany" I believe it would be more accurate to simply say "Hitler". It all stems from Hitler's warped ideological worldview and it has to be kept in mind that he wasn't exactly concerned about whether Germany won or lost. Just finished read Sebastian Haffner's "The Meaning of Hitler" and found it to be an interesting analysis; I recommend it if you haven't read it already.

Following WWI a considerable number of books that glorified the war were published and numerous military/soldiers' clubs formed. I just began reading "The Nazi Seizure of Power" and if I recall correctly there were about 20 such clubs in Northeim, a town of about 10,000.

[Pete1052]

Everything I've read about the rise of Hitler and the National Socialists has said Der Dolchstoss, that the German army had been "stabbed in the back" during the Great War, was a standard part of Nazi ideology. Erich Ludendorff is said to have implied it was the case in the memoirs he published in record time in 1919.

[pugaree]

I think if you actually look into this, Hitler's main gripe in the beginning was against the "November Criminals". The "criminals" were the ones that signed the treaty and Germany's total capitulation and disarmament. As per a previous reply, the feeling amongst the soldiers in the front line was that they could still achieve an overall victory. I undoubtedly believe that WW2 was a just a pause in WW1.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

People in Italy, Spain and in Britain too were happy to listen to similar raving of demagogues.

A minute number of people in Britain listened to, and accepted such ravings, whether they came from the left or right. Mosley was ridiculed and couldn't get past ordinary people blocking his march through the East End of London; whilst the Communists too had few supporters.