NationStates Jolt Archive

~~The Rise of Nazi Germany~~

It all started with WWI. One day, a radical something(what was he again?) assasinated archduke Ferdinand(I think) with the hopes of having Austria-Hungary attack his homeland. It worked. Due to the alliances formed during the arms race leading up to this, Germany was dragged into war. Of course, Russia, and their French ally, declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Hoping to encircle the French troops, Germany invaded Belgium on its way to France. Great Britian declared war on Germany because of that.

Now, WWI was a very brutal war. This was the first war where a reliable(non-gatling) machine gun was really put to use. The result was one of the longest and bloodiest stalemates in history. Officers sent their men out in swarms against the machine guns. Of course, this tactic failed miserably. However, the commanders didn't want to change tactics. It was because of this that Britian's bloodiest day in warfare, where around 50,000 British troops were either killed or wounded, happened in WWI. I've seen pictures of trenches just litterally full of dead, rotting bodies.

After WWI, most of the allies(discluding the US) blamed Germany for the slaughter. As a result, Germany was forced to pay a huge fine. Not too long after this, Germany was poor. People needed baskets full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. Throw in the stock market crash and you have a breeding ground for dictatorships.

Hitler and the Nazis were able to use WWI, the poverty, and anti-semetism to gain power. As he improved conditions in Germany, he began taking away the rights of Jews.

Enter his conquest. While he was in prison for attempting to gain power violently, Hitler wrote his infamous book. In it, he detailed how he wished to unite all German-speaking people into a third Reich. A few years after gaining power, Hitler invaded neighboring states. Hoping to avoid war, France and Britian used appeasement and allowed Hitler to gain massive tracts of land. They believed that he was simply trying to unite an entire people. Hitler knew that war was coming. He signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. Although he hated communists and Soviets, Hitler did not want to have to fight the USSR in addition to France and Britian. When Hitler finally invaded and conquered Poland, France and Britian declared war. Hitler knew that he couldn't get supply and transport ships accross the English Channel without the RAF sinking them. Hitler had his air force destroy the RAF.

However, once a German bomb accidentally landed in London, the Brits were even more outraged. Hitler then resorted to bombing London in the hopes of breaking their spirits and forcing a surrender. This plan failed miserably and Hitler was forced to stop attacking Britian.

~~Holocaust~~

While Hitler was "uniting" the German-speaking people, he didn't want undesirables. Of course, this led to the Holocaust, his "Final Solution". While Jews made up only half of the 11-12 million Holocaust victims, they were the face of the victims. They were the reason behind the deaths. Without them, there would be no Holocaust.

The Holocaust is infamous not in the bloodshed or the body count, but in how industrialised the killing was. It was extremely efficient. In the few years the killing went on, the Nazis managed to gas or work 11-12million "undesirables"(Jews, Gypsies, homos, the mentally and physically disabled, the unemployed, bums, beggars, etc.) to death. These executions were very efficient.

Why did the Holocaust happen? One man's dream of a "pure" society and severe anti-semetism both played a part. Discuss.

Sources:
my history book
www.holocaust-history.org
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blholocaust.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html

comments?

Why don't you post this on the main thread out there?

I'd wager that "only half" is a pretty silly thing to say. Sure, they were "only half" but no other targeted group was as large or as publicly persecuted.

I didn't say "they were only half". I said "While they were only half...". There's a difference. It changes the message of the sentence.

~~The Rise of Nazi Germany~~

It all started with WWI. One day, a radical something(what was he again?) assasinated archduke Ferdinand(I think) with the hopes of having Austria-Hungary attack his homeland. It worked. Due to the alliances formed during the arms race leading up to this, Germany was dragged into war. Of course, Russia, and their French ally, declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. Hoping to encircle the French troops, Germany invaded Belgium on its way to France. Great Britian declared war on Germany because of that.

Now, WWI was a very brutal war. This was the first war where a reliable(non-gatling) machine gun was really put to use. The result was one of the longest and bloodiest stalemates in history. Officers sent their men out in swarms against the machine guns. Of course, this tactic failed miserably. However, the commanders didn't want to change tactics. It was because of this that Britian's bloodiest day in warfare, where around 50,000 British troops were either killed or wounded, happened in WWI. I've seen pictures of trenches just litterally full of dead, rotting bodies.

After WWI, most of the allies(discluding the US) blamed Germany for the slaughter. As a result, Germany was forced to pay a huge fine. Not too long after this, Germany was poor. People needed baskets full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. Throw in the stock market crash and you have a breeding ground for dictatorships.

Hitler and the Nazis were able to use WWI, the poverty, and anti-semetism to gain power. As he improved conditions in Germany, he began taking away the rights of Jews.

Enter his conquest. While he was in prison for attempting to gain power violently, Hitler wrote his infamous book. In it, he detailed how he wished to unite all German-speaking people into a third Reich. A few years after gaining power, Hitler invaded neighboring states. Hoping to avoid war, France and Britian used appeasement and allowed Hitler to gain massive tracts of land. They believed that he was simply trying to unite an entire people. Hitler knew that war was coming. He signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. Although he hated communists and Soviets, Hitler did not want to have to fight the USSR in addition to France and Britian. When Hitler finally invaded and conquered Poland, France and Britian declared war. Hitler knew that he couldn't get supply and transport ships accross the English Channel without the RAF sinking them. Hitler had his air force destroy the RAF.

However, once a German bomb accidentally landed in London, the Brits were even more outraged. Hitler then resorted to bombing London in the hopes of breaking their spirits and forcing a surrender. This plan failed miserably and Hitler was forced to stop attacking Britian.

~~Holocaust~~

While Hitler was "uniting" the German-speaking people, he didn't want undesirables. Of course, this led to the Holocaust, his "Final Solution". While Jews made up only half of the 11-12 million Holocaust victims, they were the face of the victims. They were the reason behind the deaths. Without them, there would be no Holocaust.

The Holocaust is infamous not in the bloodshed or the body count, but in how industrialised the killing was. It was extremely efficient. In the few years the killing went on, the Nazis managed to gas or work 11-12million "undesirables"(Jews, Gypsies, homos, the mentally and physically disabled, the unemployed, bums, beggars, etc.) to death. These executions were very efficient.

Why did the Holocaust happen? One man's dream of a "pure" society and severe anti-semetism both played a part. Discuss.

Sources:
my history book
www.holocaust-history.org
http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blholocaust.htm
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html

What history book? (Please don't say David Irving).

After WWI, most of the allies(discluding the US) blamed Germany for the slaughter

I don't believe the British can be blamed for the economic crippling of Germany that followed WW1. Admittedly, the public face was to squeeze them dry, but the government wanted to keep a balance between helping France back on its feet and keeping Germany as a potentially decent trading partner.

I don't believe the British can be blamed for the economic crippling of Germany that followed WW1. Admittedly, the public face was to squeeze them dry, but the government wanted to keep a balance between helping France back on its feet and keeping Germany as a potentially decent trading partner.

Germany was economically vastly superior to France and Britain, as it proved during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Lloyd George knew this, hence why after the war he wanted to build closer links with Germany rather than cripple it. Clemenceau knew this as well, hence why he pushed his punishment policy so strongly. A united Germany was always going to threaten France due to its economic potential. To further prove this point, the foundation of the European Economic Community after the second conflict can be traced to French concerns over German economic strength, stemming from its access to greater amounts of coal and steel. Germany's economic problems prior to World War Two can be largely put to the reparations and other economic sanctions (including a brief French occupation of the economically prosperous Saarland) placed on it after the Great War.

For my part, I think that you are half right in analysing that the reason why the holocaust remains so shocking is due to its sheer industrialised and bureaucracy-driven nature. But this also reflects what possibly shocked the world more. Germany was, as is shown by this bureaucracy that was used for such evil, the home of the most culturally developed and forward thinking people in the world throughout the nineteenth and early decades of the twentieth century. It was not some back of beyond in the Balkans (after all, one might note the Turkish genocides in Armenia earlier on that Century) or in Africa. This was in a much admired state thus that is what really shook the people of the world, because if it could happen there, then why not anywhere else.

I go to an internet school, but I think it is McGraw-Hill. Yep, the Holocaust wouldn't have been as shocking if it was just the Nazis going around, hacking to death the same number of people. Their methods were so industrialised, efficient, and sophisticated. It was something the world had never seen before.

I go to an internet school, but I think it is McGraw-Hill. Yep, the Holocaust wouldn't have been as shocking if it was just the Nazis going around, hacking to death the same number of people. Their methods were so industrialised, efficient, and sophisticated. It was something the world had never seen before.

Well, not quite as the British used concentration camps (not EXTERMINATION CAMPS like Auschwitz, though they are readily and flippantly confused) in the Boer War.

The primary focus of the Nazi concentration camps was to isolate the undesired for easier killing, whether it be immediate gassing or death by over-exhaustion, disease, and/or starvation.

The primary focus of the Nazi concentration camps was to isolate the undesired for easier killing, whether it be immediate gassing or death by over-exhaustion, disease, and/or starvation.

Concentration camps were camps where prisoners (largely, but not solely, political) were kept to work though thousands died there from overwork, malnutrition or through deliberate action (e.g. medical experimentation, shooting, beating). Extermination camps had a specific purpose and method.

You should only really blame the French, the American president (Wilson or Woodrow?) was busy dying and promoting the league of nations. While Lloyd George (British Delegate) wanted nothing to do with destroying Germany. The French delgate wanted blood and eventually pushed ahead to put the crippling cost. Thats the nitty-gritty. But then again France was defeated in under a month so I have to say it is even.

Attacking Michael Moore when you can't even spell Michael Moore is pretty funny. As for the rest, seems like someone else is full of it.

Attacking Michael Moore when you can't even spell Michael Moore is pretty funny. As for the rest, seems like someone else is full of it.
:confused: What does that have to do with anything being discussed here? Is Micheal Mooron a Holocaust denier or something?

Well, you left out most of the war and the extermination camps were only a small part of it. The war wasn't even about that.

But the war was the result of Hitler's plan, which also involved the Holocaust. The two go hand in hand.

Not really, no. The extermination camps only got up and running from 1942 onwards. Most of the killing took place around 1944. It was merely use of an opportunity. His actual plan was to turn Western Europe into satellite states (in the style of Russia's subsequent Warsaw Pact), Eastern Europe into an India-style colonial economy, and destroy Russia's communist government (there was no planning for what to do with the wilderness, but the intention was probably to allow it to slide into harmless stateless chaos).

I suppose the industrialised mass murder helps with the portrayal of WW2 as a black & white fight of Good vs Evil, but actually it does the history a disservice. It was just something they came up with halfway through the war, when they realised they had the means. The war itself was old-fashioned colonialism combined with romantic ancient imperialist notions.

Not really, no. The extermination camps only got up and running from 1942 onwards. Most of the killing took place around 1944. It was merely use of an opportunity. His actual plan was to turn Western Europe into satellite states (in the style of Russia's subsequent Warsaw Pact), Eastern Europe into an India-style colonial economy, and destroy Russia's communist government (there was no planning for what to do with the wilderness, but the intention was probably to allow it to slide into harmless stateless chaos).

I suppose the industrialised mass murder helps with the portrayal of WW2 as a black & white fight of Good vs Evil, but actually it does the history a disservice. It was just something they came up with halfway through the war, when they realised they had the means. The war itself was old-fashioned colonialism combined with romantic ancient imperialist notions.Are you sure? The extermination may have been planned later, when Hitler had managed a hegemonial position that seemed unthreatened in Europe at the Wannsee Conference, but the exclusion of "undesireables" started before the Nazis even made it to power. It was all part of the plan to preserve the "German race": Providing land and removing the "bad influences".

General persecution, yes, the Nazis were at it even before they came to power in 1933. However, the concentration camps did not begin to operate in that mode until the war was well underway. Ideological rhetoric aside, in terms of strategic planning it was most definitely a secondary if not tertiary objective.

General persecution, yes, the Nazis were at it even before they came to power in 1933. However, the concentration camps did not begin to operate in that mode until the war was well underway. Ideological rhetoric aside, in terms of strategic planning it was most definitely a secondary if not tertiary objective.That depends on your definition of secondary or tertiary. It was most certainly an important goal for the Nazis, only they understood that it was necessary to stabilize the fronts before concrete planning could be begun. The Wannsee conference was at the peak of their power when it seemed no one would be able to hinder them.

Prior to the war, the germans were interesteed in settling the Jewish people somewhere else. (Madagasgar was mentioned) Part of the increasingly restrictive laws were in part to "encourage" them to move. Most other countries refused or restricted entry. China was a notable exception, looking the other way when refugees didn't have the proper papers. The war prevented this and they were then rounded up into the ghettos for quite some time before the final choice of the "work camps". I think we do history a disservice when we ignore the immigration policies of other countries. I am sure in hindsight, many of these countries would have changed policy quickly if they were aware of the unintended consequences of their actions.

That depends on your definition of secondary or tertiary. It was most certainly an important goal for the Nazis, only they understood that it was necessary to stabilize the fronts before concrete planning could be begun. The Wannsee conference was at the peak of their power when it seemed no one would be able to hinder them.

Yeah, but I'm siding with Tactical Grace here in saying that it wasn't the *main* Nazi objective- it was merely the one that had the most press. It should also be remembered that the Holocaust only became solid knowledge after the war- rumours floated around beforehand that it was happening, but nobody actually knew.

Prior to the war, the germans were interesteed in settling the Jewish people somewhere else. (Madagasgar was mentioned)

I believe Madacascar was mentioned (in terms of turning it a huge Jew colony) after the fall of France (it was a French posession AFAIK). Before then the policy was largely forced emigration.

You should only really blame the French, the American president (Wilson or Woodrow?) was busy dying and promoting the league of nations. While Lloyd George (British Delegate) wanted nothing to do with destroying Germany.

Nope, he was facing re-election and part of his platform was "To Make Germany Pay," though you're right, Clemenceau[sp] was a lot more vengeful. And the French didn't do themselves any favours when they took over the Ruhr when Germany fell behind on their reparations due to the hyperinflation.

Thats the nitty-gritty. But then again France was defeated in under a month so I have to say it is even.

Have my history books been lying to me? I never realised that France fell to the Germans in the First World War.

One day, a radical something(what was he again?)

Serb?

Pan-Slavic?

Minor?

Gavril Princip? [sp?]

assasinated archduke Ferdinand(I think) with the hopes of having Austria-Hungary attack his homeland.

Franz Ferdinand. But he wasn't assassinate to provoke a way since Bosnia and Herzegovina had been annexed, it was to drive the Austrians out to great an independent Serbian state.

(Archie-Duke shor an osterich because he was hungry)

After WWI, most of the allies(discluding the US) blamed Germany for the slaughter. As a result, Germany was forced to pay a huge fine. Not too long after this, Germany was poor. People needed baskets full of money just to buy a loaf of bread. Throw in the stock market crash and you have a breeding ground for dictatorships.

The engineered hyperinflation and the Wall Street Crash were almost a decade apart. Stresemann solved the hyperinflation crisis in 1923(?) and had introduced the Rentenmark, to replace the existing useless money (which I forget the name of, papiermark or something).

Hitler and the Nazis were able to use WWI, the poverty, and anti-semetism to gain power.

The rise of the Nazis isn't as cut and dry as that. He largely succeed because the Weimar Republic was heading to constitutional crisis (President Hindenburg was increasingly having to bypass the Reichstag when applying legislation). Hitler was made chancellor to combat the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), with the idea being to remove him after that. If you look at video from this time, Hitler cuts a poor figure, hardly the strong leader archtype he tried to portray after he became fuhrer.

The Enabling Act was passed after a Catholic Centrist party (which I forget the mane of, though IIRC it was led by a Dr. Katz) alligned with them giving them a supermajority which allowed them to suspend the constitution until the crisis was over.

Anti-Semitism at this point was dampened on, the vile rhetoric largely came after he had consolidated his grip on the country.

(I think I have some trivial facts wrong, it was been almost a decade since I studied this period).

While he was in prison for attempting to gain power violently, Hitler wrote his infamous book.

Ironically he dictated it. Though this is by the by.

In it, he detailed how he wished to unite all German-speaking people into a third Reich. A few years after gaining power, Hitler invaded neighboring states.

No he didn't. He remilitarised the Rhineland (though he gave the army strict instructions to retreat if opposed), which went against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which at this point was being seen as unfair. Germany had had various other restriction relaxed and had been allowed to join the League of Nations. Google the Locarno Pact.

Other part were annexed to Germany after admittedly dodgy eleciotns, Austria, Silesia (I think) and I think some other areas.

Hitler then tried to take the Sudentenland from Czechoslovakia. When the Czech Prime Minister Benes complained the major nations held a conference which Czechoslovakia wasn't invited to. Hitler was allowed to take it, but he took the whole state. An ultimatum was issued against Hitler that if he invaded Poland, it would be an act of war.

Hoping to avoid war, France and Britian used appeasement and allowed Hitler to gain massive tracts of land.

That is very simplistic, the First World Wat still loomed large in their mind and the carnage it bought.

They believed that he was simply trying to unite an entire people. Hitler knew that war was coming. He signed a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. Although he hated communists and Soviets, Hitler did not want to have to fight the USSR in addition to France and Britian. When Hitler finally invaded and conquered Poland,

Half of Poland, the USSR got the other half, as per the Nazi-Soviet Pact.