Jiujitman

Lately I've found an interest to delve a little deeper into the underlying causes of WW2.

I always knew, from highschool, that the Treaty of Versialles and the tough conditions German Citizens had to endure , for lack of resources, trade routes, hyperinflation....were the main causes of the the war.

Could anyone elaborate on this? Specifically the economic reasons: hyperinflation, debt, trade, lack of colonization compared to the Allies, and the private banks that were the cut out their profit when Hitler said "screw y'all and your debt", I will print my own money (certificates) , trade on barter and implement a huge investment in infrastructure .

Btw, this is my first post, so please take it easy on me, lol.

Iolo

Welcome. I'd argue that the total collapse of capitalism took away all hope from vast numbers of people, but that Germany was especially disadvantaged, and since the only way to get collapsed capitalisms working again is war production, Hitler took up racism and any other drivel that would allow him to borrow for armaments and other such preparation for mass murder, which revived the system.

Grimald

Welcome to the site, Jiujitman.

I would rather place most of these factors among the causes for the rise of National Socialism. People were disappointed in the democratic system, suffered economic hardship and felt humiliated by the victorious powers in WWI. So many Germans - although not a majority - were prepared to vote for the National Socialists with their promise to change the political system and to stand up against the demands of other countries.

The causes for WWII are different. Maybe one can distinguish between German demands which can be considered legitimate (although they could and should have been attained peacefully), and the crazy, aggressive, racist expansionism of National Socialism, which led to the war of annihilation in the East.

The Treaty of Versailles had led to an important territorial loss of Germany in the East. Among the lost territories were cities like Danzig that were overwhelmingly German by language and culture and clearly wanted to join Germany. In this respect, WWII was a continuation of the previous policy, that is, the annexation of Austria and the Sudeten area. However, it was clear that an attack on Poland would lead to a declaration of war by France and Britain to Germany. Hitler was certainly not interested in a war against Britain; even the war against France, although it served as revanche for WWI, was not that important for him. The real aim of his policy was in the East, and this did not only include the revision of the borders stipulated by Versailles, but much more aggressive aims.

sylla1

Welcome to Historum, Jiujitman; nice first post.

Jiujitman

Interesting and thanks everyone.

I was particularly fascinated in how Hitler took the country on the brink of destruction and Austerity, to a socialist form of Government.

I've always read debates on whether the Nationalist Socialist were in fact socialist or not. Many socialist do not admit that he was. But his policies were truelly socialist, atleast in the beginning. Socialism is an economic system, but can turn totalitarian, as in this case.

I enjoy history. But I think history is often neglected. We can learn so much from past mistakes, but rarely do, and are blinded by present circumstances. I see many similarities in our time and pre-ww2. I believe we are heading in that direction again. Maybe not the annihilation of a particular race, but certainly similar economic conditions.

Iolo

His policies were totally capitalist, which is why he lost the war. Socialism is rule by working people, not racist petty-bourgeois.

Jiujitman

I believe ego got the best of Hitler. He knew Poland meant war.

The German people were burning with the fever of Nationalism and would follow Hitler anywhere. I believe, coming out of the conditions they were resurrected from, they felt invincible, to an extent.

I know this is speculative, but it would be interesting to know the mindset of the nation and why they were so willing to follow him, so blindly. Sure there was fear of disobeying, and some resistance, but for the most part, they seem to be hypnotized by an enigmatic "saviour".

Grimald

We recently had a thread here about the question whether National Socialism was a form of socialism. Whereas National Socialism indeed included some elements of socialism, no serious historian would equate the two. National Socialism was a crude mix of ideologies, comprising nationalist, racist, anti-semitic, anti-modernist, fascist, and socialist elements.

The economic system in Germany was not really and deeply changed, except the exclusion of the Germans of Jewish origin from economic life. You may read how instead industrialists like Hugenberg and national conservatives like von Papen were instrumental in paving the way for Hitler. They were certainly not interested in anything socialist.

I wouldn't compare the situation then with what we have now. Too many things have changed in our economic life and in international relations.

Jiujitman

So are you saying only Capitalist are capable of racism? Does't make much sense.
Stalin killed many Jews.

I don't believe the reason he lost the war because he was a capitalist. But I would be delighted to hear an explanation.

I believe Banks, and the capitalist system, may be part of the reason War was declared on Germany. You just don't stick your middle finger up at the world and say you are not going to pay your debts, with no repercussions. Look at present day Venezuela and a number of other Latin American countries,

But his infrastructure programs, printing of work certificates and trade on barter are Socialist ideals, you don't agree?

Jiujitman

I agree. But I did say in the beginning. The rise of Nationalism , anti-modernist, racism, debt and possible inflation isn't relevant to today's world? You see no comparison?