Why did so many Germans support Hitler?

[editec]

I know it is conventional historical wisdom the Treaty of Versailles helped cause the rise of Hitler and though he did use resentment about the treaty to his advantage, I posit the treaty did not cause the rise of fascism because it was never actually enforced.

The UK in particular kept changing the terms over the objections of France to appease both Weimar politicians and latter Hitler.

The proscribed penalties for violations where rarely implemented.

The fact is German politicians of almost very party propagated the myth that Germany was not really defeated in WWI but was betrayed and the treaty thus was unfair.

Germany was not occupied and this re-enforced the myth, and German Weimar politicians, wanting to re-arm (this process started before Hitler) inflated their currency to pay back war debt thus hurting the middle class, but the victorious powers kept changing the terms in Germany’s favor.

If anything I think the Treaty of Versailles was too lenient. Germany did not know or feel she was a defeated.

Look at the difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, after WWII Germany is occupied, partitioned, her war leaders put on trial and her new government validated and dictated to by the victorious allies, and Germany never threatens European peace again.

The problem with Versailles is it caused resentment but did not punish seriously or contain a defeated enemy.

Well, now that you've dried out, we get to see the real you...a Bushie or maybe more of a Cheney...

History's neither one dimensional, nor can it be neatly defined by facts and historical events alone. History is the continuing saga of human existence and human conditions. Those human conditions, good or bad serve to fuel benign or aggressive behaviors. Actual outcomes of events, treaties and policies are determined as much by human perception as they are by fact. The Treaty of Versailles was perceived as very punitive in the eyes of the German people who anticipated Wilson's 14 Points, which was perceived as fair, a way to rebuild their economy, their country, re-enter the world community and retain some dignity. Instead they received Clemenceau's punitive ruler across the knuckles; total blame for the war, and with that total blame; reparations that would have taken until the late 20th century to repay. Add territorial clauses that would later become a rallying cry all combined to create animosity in Germany towards their 'enemies' and toward their own government that signed it.

If we are really going to get into that period of history and try to correlate events and consequences, there are MANY. Post WWI Germany saw a period of political instability. There were many factions vying for power. There was even a 'Red scare' not unlike right wing fear-mongering during our own Cold war. You seem to insinuate there was some pre-Hitler mental inevitability with your comment that Weimar politicians wanting to re-arm. It WAS the Treaty of Versailles that created the pre-Hitler mental inevitability. And it will remain in the annals of history as a leading cause that led to the rise of Hitler and ultimately WWII.

The main difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, the Treaty of Versailles was punitive and destructive. The Marshall Plan was not punitive, it was constructive...

These lessons will NEVER be learned by the right wing mind. They will continue to FEEL that punishment is the only way, and when it ultimately fails, it was only because the punishment was not severe enough. And they will continue to blindly follow authoritarian despots like Bush and Cheney that turned a gang of terrorists into an army of thousands.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Beautiful post, BF, with one minor addendum.

THE LEFT IS NO LESS LIKELY TO BECOME FACISTIC THAN THE RIGHT.

Seriously, do NOT be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Idealogues of every persuasion are a menace to humanity.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i have nothing serious to add to this thread. but most of you just plain suck at this. especially the brainiac who started the thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

volume two - the national socialist movement
chapter i: Philosophy and party
for these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes his shirt in war – when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and orphans will receive generous assistance from the state. Trade will be promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party. This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any space available for it: Until finally it is felt that there are good grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of god and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the reich' can now begin.
mein kampf - volume ii, chapter i

b

What I would suggest to 'word bound' pea brains is to find a 'summary' or 'synopsis' of Mein Kampf. This way, adults have already deciphered it for pea brains.

You could start with Wikipedia and work from there...

At this time the Nazi party was one of many small extremist groups in Munich, but Hitler soon discovered he had two remarkable talents, one for public oratory and another for inspiring personal loyalty. His street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists, began attracting adherents.
Adolf Hitler's political views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand it's would be whether hard to part of a system that hitler chose to be in. But that is the price to pay for being a socialist.
This is hitlers book you don't like to bad. Philosophy and party deal with it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The difference is that real Americans don't run, we stand and fight

Yeah...when does that happen exactly?

We seem to be kneeling, right now.

We have two choices: outright revolution or take a generation to turn around the economy, society and culture.

A Revolution is messy and really bad if you don't win, but we turn the ship around if we realize it will take 8 4-year terms to get us fully there.

Also, it's not just enough to repeal Obama's Marxist Agenda, we have start today to show what will replace it. We have to sell our worldview.

For example: Eliminate the Department of Education does not mean the end of education like the Statists hysterically bleat, it means communities and parents will have much more power and input into their childs education. Only Marxists and People who have CrazyGlues their lips to the Government will be against that!

What we need is to end all federal programs and place domestic agenda's back in the control of the state. The state would have more oversight less fraud, less handouts to people who do not need them illegal immagration would be a thing of the past. if you aren't a citizen I am sure the states would not allow freeloaders.

 

[Bfgrn]

I know it is conventional historical wisdom the Treaty of Versailles helped cause the rise of Hitler and though he did use resentment about the treaty to his advantage, I posit the treaty did not cause the rise of fascism because it was never actually enforced.

The UK in particular kept changing the terms over the objections of France to appease both Weimar politicians and latter Hitler.

The proscribed penalties for violations where rarely implemented.

The fact is German politicians of almost very party propagated the myth that Germany was not really defeated in WWI but was betrayed and the treaty thus was unfair.

Germany was not occupied and this re-enforced the myth, and German Weimar politicians, wanting to re-arm (this process started before Hitler) inflated their currency to pay back war debt thus hurting the middle class, but the victorious powers kept changing the terms in Germany’s favor.

If anything I think the Treaty of Versailles was too lenient. Germany did not know or feel she was a defeated.

Look at the difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, after WWII Germany is occupied, partitioned, her war leaders put on trial and her new government validated and dictated to by the victorious allies, and Germany never threatens European peace again.

The problem with Versailles is it caused resentment but did not punish seriously or contain a defeated enemy.

Well, now that you've dried out, we get to see the real you...a Bushie or maybe more of a Cheney...

History's neither one dimensional, nor can it be neatly defined by facts and historical events alone. History is the continuing saga of human existence and human conditions. Those human conditions, good or bad serve to fuel benign or aggressive behaviors. Actual outcomes of events, treaties and policies are determined as much by human perception as they are by fact. The Treaty of Versailles was perceived as very punitive in the eyes of the German people who anticipated Wilson's 14 Points, which was perceived as fair, a way to rebuild their economy, their country, re-enter the world community and retain some dignity. Instead they received Clemenceau's punitive ruler across the knuckles; total blame for the war, and with that total blame; reparations that would have taken until the late 20th century to repay. Add territorial clauses that would later become a rallying cry all combined to create animosity in Germany towards their 'enemies' and toward their own government that signed it.

If we are really going to get into that period of history and try to correlate events and consequences, there are MANY. Post WWI Germany saw a period of political instability. There were many factions vying for power. There was even a 'Red scare' not unlike right wing fear-mongering during our own Cold war. You seem to insinuate there was some pre-Hitler mental inevitability with your comment that Weimar politicians wanting to re-arm. It WAS the Treaty of Versailles that created the pre-Hitler mental inevitability. And it will remain in the annals of history as a leading cause that led to the rise of Hitler and ultimately WWII.

The main difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, the Treaty of Versailles was punitive and destructive. The Marshall Plan was not punitive, it was constructive...

These lessons will NEVER be learned by the right wing mind. They will continue to FEEL that punishment is the only way, and when it ultimately fails, it was only because the punishment was not severe enough. And they will continue to blindly follow authoritarian despots like Bush and Cheney that turned a gang of terrorists into an army of thousands.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Beautiful post, BF, with one minor addendum.

THE LEFT IS NO LESS LIKELY TO BECOME FACISTIC THAN THE RIGHT.

Seriously, do NOT be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Idealogues of every persuasion are a menace to humanity.

Wanna bet editec? Please provide evidence. Because ALL the studies and evidence accumulated over the last 50+ years says your accusation is false. What you are describing is called an authoritarian personality. It is an overwhelmingly conservative trait. It occurs in approximately 1% of the left, and that would be the FAR left...anarchists.

Listen to this interview...the expert John Dean's referring to Robert Altmeyer, who is the leading researcher and expert on the authoritarian personality. A reliable part of his results are based on what's called an RWA scale test, where people freely answer questions about themselves that determine their authoritarian personality markers and tendencies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jA0OVtvqjk]YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews John Dean[/ame]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

The Authoritarians

 

[Ringel05]

Well, now that you've dried out, we get to see the real you...a Bushie or maybe more of a Cheney...

History's neither one dimensional, nor can it be neatly defined by facts and historical events alone. History is the continuing saga of human existence and human conditions. Those human conditions, good or bad serve to fuel benign or aggressive behaviors. Actual outcomes of events, treaties and policies are determined as much by human perception as they are by fact. The Treaty of Versailles was perceived as very punitive in the eyes of the German people who anticipated Wilson's 14 Points, which was perceived as fair, a way to rebuild their economy, their country, re-enter the world community and retain some dignity. Instead they received Clemenceau's punitive ruler across the knuckles; total blame for the war, and with that total blame; reparations that would have taken until the late 20th century to repay. Add territorial clauses that would later become a rallying cry all combined to create animosity in Germany towards their 'enemies' and toward their own government that signed it.

If we are really going to get into that period of history and try to correlate events and consequences, there are MANY. Post WWI Germany saw a period of political instability. There were many factions vying for power. There was even a 'Red scare' not unlike right wing fear-mongering during our own Cold war. You seem to insinuate there was some pre-Hitler mental inevitability with your comment that Weimar politicians wanting to re-arm. It WAS the Treaty of Versailles that created the pre-Hitler mental inevitability. And it will remain in the annals of history as a leading cause that led to the rise of Hitler and ultimately WWII.

The main difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, the Treaty of Versailles was punitive and destructive. The Marshall Plan was not punitive, it was constructive...

These lessons will NEVER be learned by the right wing mind. They will continue to FEEL that punishment is the only way, and when it ultimately fails, it was only because the punishment was not severe enough. And they will continue to blindly follow authoritarian despots like Bush and Cheney that turned a gang of terrorists into an army of thousands.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Beautiful post, BF, with one minor addendum.

THE LEFT IS NO LESS LIKELY TO BECOME FACISTIC THAN THE RIGHT.

Seriously, do NOT be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Idealogues of every persuasion are a menace to humanity.

Wanna bet editec? Please provide evidence. Because ALL the studies and evidence accumulated over the last 50+ years says your accusation is false. What you are describing is called an authoritarian personality. It is an overwhelmingly conservative trait. It occurs in approximately 1% of the left, and that would be the FAR left...anarchists.

Listen to this interview...the expert John Dean's referring to Robert Altmeyer, who is the leading researcher and expert on the authoritarian personality. A reliable part of his results are based on what's called an RWA scale test, where people freely answer questions about themselves that determine their authoritarian personality markers and tendencies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jA0OVtvqjk]YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews John Dean[/ame]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

The Authoritarians

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Jaques Necker and ARJ Turgot, Robespierre, Rewbell, Jean-Baptiste Carrier and the list goes on and on and on. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence and try to claim these people are or were conservatives. Altmeyer!?? I've seen tons of bad "science" in my life time but he takes the cake. Empirical my ass! Speaking of Nazism, he's on a par with the Nazi scientists who were "proving" Eugenics.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah...when does that happen exactly?

We seem to be kneeling, right now.

We have two choices: outright revolution or take a generation to turn around the economy, society and culture.

A Revolution is messy and really bad if you don't win, but we turn the ship around if we realize it will take 8 4-year terms to get us fully there.

Also, it's not just enough to repeal Obama's Marxist Agenda, we have start today to show what will replace it. We have to sell our worldview.

For example: Eliminate the Department of Education does not mean the end of education like the Statists hysterically bleat, it means communities and parents will have much more power and input into their childs education. Only Marxists and People who have CrazyGlues their lips to the Government will be against that!

What we need is to end all federal programs and place domestic agenda's back in the control of the state. The state would have more oversight less fraud, less handouts to people who do not need them illegal immagration would be a thing of the past. if you aren't a citizen I am sure the states would not allow freeloaders.

 

[geauxtohell]

I thought this might be a good topic of discussion

You know, I thought this was going to be a thread bashing Obama and drawing Hitler comparisons, but am pleasantly surprised.

There is a good book on this if you are interested. Needless to say, this question has been asked before.

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, an excerpt

 

[geauxtohell]

I thought this might be a good topic of discussion

He offered them Hope and a Change from the past.

He had a real infectious "Yes we can!" attitude.

He used Greek temples as a prop for his speeches.

He railed at the evils of capitalism

He took over his nations car companies...and banks

Disregard my last sentiments.

Of course Francis would be the guy to do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I thought this might be a good topic of discussion

You know, I thought this was going to be a thread bashing Obama and drawing Hitler comparisons, but am pleasantly surprised.

There is a good book on this if you are interested. Needless to say, this question has been asked before.

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by Milton Mayer, an excerpt

Truthfully it is my opinion that obama is a close comparison to a beginning hitler. But I am trying to keep my opinion out of the subject. I want people to discuss the subject of why so many germans supported hitler, and see what we come up with.
Thanks for the book suggestion.

 

[Bfgrn]

Beautiful post, BF, with one minor addendum.

THE LEFT IS NO LESS LIKELY TO BECOME FACISTIC THAN THE RIGHT.

Seriously, do NOT be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Idealogues of every persuasion are a menace to humanity.

Wanna bet editec? Please provide evidence. Because ALL the studies and evidence accumulated over the last 50+ years says your accusation is false. What you are describing is called an authoritarian personality. It is an overwhelmingly conservative trait. It occurs in approximately 1% of the left, and that would be the FAR left...anarchists.

Listen to this interview...the expert John Dean's referring to Robert Altmeyer, who is the leading researcher and expert on the authoritarian personality. A reliable part of his results are based on what's called an RWA scale test, where people freely answer questions about themselves that determine their authoritarian personality markers and tendencies.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jA0OVtvqjk]YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews John Dean[/ame]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

The Authoritarians

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Jaques Necker and ARJ Turgot, Robespierre, Rewbell, Jean-Baptiste Carrier and the list goes on and on and on. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence and try to claim these people are or were conservatives. Altmeyer!?? I've seen tons of bad "science" in my life time but he takes the cake. Empirical my ass! Speaking of Nazism, he's on a par with the Nazi scientists who were "proving" Eugenics.

Define conservatism. WHAT values, teachings, traditions, indoctrinations, orthodoxy would a Lenin want to 'conserve' and protect?

 

[uscitizen]

Why did so many Germans support Hitler?


Pack mentality of humans.

 

[Ringel05]

Wanna bet editec? Please provide evidence. Because ALL the studies and evidence accumulated over the last 50+ years says your accusation is false. What you are describing is called an authoritarian personality. It is an overwhelmingly conservative trait. It occurs in approximately 1% of the left, and that would be the FAR left...anarchists.

Listen to this interview...the expert John Dean's referring to Robert Altmeyer, who is the leading researcher and expert on the authoritarian personality. A reliable part of his results are based on what's called an RWA scale test, where people freely answer questions about themselves that determine their authoritarian personality markers and tendencies.

YouTube - Keith Olbermann interviews John Dean

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer

The Authoritarians

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Jaques Necker and ARJ Turgot, Robespierre, Rewbell, Jean-Baptiste Carrier and the list goes on and on and on. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence and try to claim these people are or were conservatives. Altmeyer!?? I've seen tons of bad "science" in my life time but he takes the cake. Empirical my ass! Speaking of Nazism, he's on a par with the Nazi scientists who were "proving" Eugenics.

Define conservatism. WHAT values, teachings, traditions, indoctrinations, orthodoxy would a Lenin want to 'conserve' and protect?

Don't tell me you plan to play some farcical, esoteric, philosophical circle jerk with the term "conservative" to prove Lenin was one. Lenin was a radical with "liberal" ideas as with all the others I mentioned, all of which were battling the conservative, laissez-faire systems they existed in. Each one was, to differing degrees, brutally repressive and each was a liberal in their own right. One side does not hold exclusive license to goodness or evil no matter how much wishing or skewed "science" is applied by either side.

 

[uscitizen]

All good poiints but you are being dazzled by all the points at the tips of the branches.

Go for the main root cause. Pack mentality.

 

[Bfgrn]

b

What I would suggest to 'word bound' pea brains is to find a 'summary' or 'synopsis' of Mein Kampf. This way, adults have already deciphered it for pea brains.

You could start with Wikipedia and work from there...

At this time the Nazi party was one of many small extremist groups in Munich, but Hitler soon discovered he had two remarkable talents, one for public oratory and another for inspiring personal loyalty. His street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists, began attracting adherents.
Adolf Hitler's political views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand it's would be whether hard to part of a system that hitler chose to be in. But that is the price to pay for being a socialist.
This is hitlers book you don't like to bad. Philosophy and party deal with it.

Do you have ANY clue what Hitler is saying in this chapter? He is trashing the German Workers' Party. He loathes them, calls them philistines. (barbarian, boob, brute, buffoon, cad, chuff, churl, dork, goon, lout, oaf, peasant, rube, vulgarian, yahoo)

Hitler ends up joining because he wants to take it over.

I suggest you READ the whole chapter, and if you don't understand it, find someone to explain it to you.

 

[Bfgrn]

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, Jaques Necker and ARJ Turgot, Robespierre, Rewbell, Jean-Baptiste Carrier and the list goes on and on and on. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence and try to claim these people are or were conservatives. Altmeyer!?? I've seen tons of bad "science" in my life time but he takes the cake. Empirical my ass! Speaking of Nazism, he's on a par with the Nazi scientists who were "proving" Eugenics.

Define conservatism. WHAT values, teachings, traditions, indoctrinations, orthodoxy would a Lenin want to 'conserve' and protect?

Don't tell me you plan to play some farcical, esoteric, philosophical circle jerk with the term "conservative" to prove Lenin was one. Lenin was a radical with "liberal" ideas as with all the others I mentioned, all of which were battling the conservative, laissez-faire systems they existed in. Each one was, to differing degrees, brutally repressive and each was a liberal in their own right. One side does not hold exclusive license to goodness or evil no matter how much wishing or skewed "science" is applied by either side.

Did Lenin and Stalin want to 'conserve' and protect free market capitalism, western values and traditions?

Your political awareness and assessment is based parochial indoctrination. Something along the lines that water swirls clockwise when you leave the northern hemisphere.

Conservatism is based on latitude, longitude and date of birth.
Me

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I thought this might be a good topic of discussion

He offered them Hope and a Change from the past.

He had a real infectious "Yes we can!" attitude.

He used Greek temples as a prop for his speeches.

He railed at the evils of capitalism

He took over his nations car companies...and banks

Disregard my last sentiments.

Of course Francis would be the guy to do it.

Hitler did all the above, why the long face?

 

[MikeK]

Why did so many Germans support Hitler?


Pack mentality of humans.

While I do agree that humans in general do manifest pack (tribal) behavior, which accounts in some measure for our species' close affinity with dogs, the German people were uniquely receptive to to Adolf Hitler's militant agitation because of the fundamentally authoritarian aspect of the German disposition, which is believed to derive from rigidly Lutheran and Catholic influences. Hitler's extreme incitements would have been ignored in any less authoritarian (more Protestant) culture.

So while the result of Hitler's exhortations may be regarded as pack behavior, in the case of the German people of that era there was a unique extra dimension.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What I would suggest to 'word bound' pea brains is to find a 'summary' or 'synopsis' of Mein Kampf. This way, adults have already deciphered it for pea brains.

You could start with Wikipedia and work from there...

At this time the Nazi party was one of many small extremist groups in Munich, but Hitler soon discovered he had two remarkable talents, one for public oratory and another for inspiring personal loyalty. His street-corner oratory, attacking Jews, socialists and liberals, capitalists and Communists, began attracting adherents.
Adolf Hitler's political views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand it's would be whether hard to part of a system that hitler chose to be in. But that is the price to pay for being a socialist.
This is hitlers book you don't like to bad. Philosophy and party deal with it.

Do you have ANY clue what Hitler is saying in this chapter? He is trashing the German Workers' Party. He loathes them, calls them philistines. (barbarian, boob, brute, buffoon, cad, chuff, churl, dork, goon, lout, oaf, peasant, rube, vulgarian, yahoo)

Hitler ends up joining because he wants to take it over.

I suggest you READ the whole chapter, and if you don't understand it, find someone to explain it to you.

If he's trashing them why did he join them card carrier number 7 or did you miss that part?
......After two days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conviction that I had to take this step.
It was the most decisive resolve of my life. From here there was and could be no turning back.
And so I registered as a member of the German Workers' Party and received a provisional membership card with the number 7
So who needs the help in having it explained to them?

 

[JW Frogen]

I know it is conventional historical wisdom the Treaty of Versailles helped cause the rise of Hitler and though he did use resentment about the treaty to his advantage, I posit the treaty did not cause the rise of fascism because it was never actually enforced.

The UK in particular kept changing the terms over the objections of France to appease both Weimar politicians and latter Hitler.

The proscribed penalties for violations where rarely implemented.

The fact is German politicians of almost very party propagated the myth that Germany was not really defeated in WWI but was betrayed and the treaty thus was unfair.

Germany was not occupied and this re-enforced the myth, and German Weimar politicians, wanting to re-arm (this process started before Hitler) inflated their currency to pay back war debt thus hurting the middle class, but the victorious powers kept changing the terms in Germany’s favor.

If anything I think the Treaty of Versailles was too lenient. Germany did not know or feel she was a defeated.

Look at the difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, after WWII Germany is occupied, partitioned, her war leaders put on trial and her new government validated and dictated to by the victorious allies, and Germany never threatens European peace again.

The problem with Versailles is it caused resentment but did not punish seriously or contain a defeated enemy.

Well, now that you've dried out, we get to see the real you...a Bushie or maybe more of a Cheney...

History's neither one dimensional, nor can it be neatly defined by facts and historical events alone. History is the continuing saga of human existence and human conditions. Those human conditions, good or bad serve to fuel benign or aggressive behaviors. Actual outcomes of events, treaties and policies are determined as much by human perception as they are by fact. The Treaty of Versailles was perceived as very punitive in the eyes of the German people who anticipated Wilson's 14 Points, which was perceived as fair, a way to rebuild their economy, their country, re-enter the world community and retain some dignity. Instead they received Clemenceau's punitive ruler across the knuckles; total blame for the war, and with that total blame; reparations that would have taken until the late 20th century to repay. Add territorial clauses that would later become a rallying cry all combined to create animosity in Germany towards their 'enemies' and toward their own government that signed it.

If we are really going to get into that period of history and try to correlate events and consequences, there are MANY. Post WWI Germany saw a period of political instability. There were many factions vying for power. There was even a 'Red scare' not unlike right wing fear-mongering during our own Cold war. You seem to insinuate there was some pre-Hitler mental inevitability with your comment that Weimar politicians wanting to re-arm. It WAS the Treaty of Versailles that created the pre-Hitler mental inevitability. And it will remain in the annals of history as a leading cause that led to the rise of Hitler and ultimately WWII.

The main difference between the aftermath of WWI and WWII, the Treaty of Versailles was punitive and destructive. The Marshall Plan was not punitive, it was constructive...

These lessons will NEVER be learned by the right wing mind. They will continue to FEEL that punishment is the only way, and when it ultimately fails, it was only because the punishment was not severe enough. And they will continue to blindly follow authoritarian despots like Bush and Cheney that turned a gang of terrorists into an army of thousands.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Beautiful post, BF, with one minor addendum.

THE LEFT IS NO LESS LIKELY TO BECOME FACISTIC THAN THE RIGHT.

Seriously, do NOT be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Idealogues of every persuasion are a menace to humanity.

The Marshall plan was based on a destructive peace; Germany was totally defeated and divided. This is what allowed the Democratic West to implement, and impose the Marshall plan.

That and the Soviet plunder of East Germany whitch gave West Germany a Hobbsian offer they could not refuse.

Unlike the Treaty of Versailles which gave Germany an offer they chose to refuse. And they did, and so did the victors, and so the treaty was neve imposed, unlike the treaty post WWII.

Rule number one of war, when you win, impose your terms to the letter.

That happened after WWII, it did not happen after WWI.