The Second World War.

[Ernesto75]

Originally Posted by Rendell

It's not like the ballot sheets had small print next to the box marked NSDAP saying "a vote for these guys will make the voter complicit in genocide"... :O

No, and there was no question of genocide at this moment.

I was not born then, but you can't deny there was a large consensus in the German population against the Versailles treaty, at the moment of these elections.

The crimes you refer to would come several years later.

[scoundrel]

In those miserable interwar years of corrupt, spineless and profoundly mediocre non-leadership, the main world democracies did a great deal to encourage many people to turn to fascist and communist dictatorships as a better model of governance. France was especially bad in this regard; the Third Republic was a very depressing spectacle, as bad as Argentina under the Perons. Britain was a safari park for political hacks and non-entities, full of time servers and placemen with no talent and no ambition except to line their own pockets or simply hold on to jobs which they weren't equipped to do: men like Ramsey MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, not much better than the Labour and Tory frontbenches today. Only America of the world's major democracies managed to find anyone of leadership calibre, and that only after four years of the appalling Herbert Hoover, the most unsuitable president America could possibly have had, whose policies did so much to promote the collapse of the US economy.

At the time, Hitler and Stalin would have seemed to many to be offering a much better way.

[Rendell]

Peoples in desperate economic circumstances will inevitably turn to more radical alternatives if they feel the usual political options just aren't working.It's a slippery slope that we must be on our guard against even today...

[rupertramjet]

In my view the Versailles Treaty was the start of a long decline into Fascism and the Nazi Regime. On 11th November 1918 at dawn Pershing launched attacks on the German lines, despite the knowledge that the war would, to all intents and purposes, end at 11:00. His avowed intent was to destroy the Germans and that they should be ground into the dirt. Did this attitude exist at the conference? Where the allied victors determined to annihilate Germany? Or at least to turn it into a dependent economy. The reparations were so heavy that Germany could not rise from the ashes for a long time. With, to paraphrase scounds, corrupt, spineless and profoundly mediocre non-leadership.

The Wiemar republic was useless, is it any surprise that the unemployed young men of Germany would flock to radical parties? Communist and National Socialist, during the early years both had huge numbers of recruits, Hitler promised jobs, lower inflation and most importantly food and a future for the next generation, it must have sounded so attractive when the banks were printing bank notes at millions of value to buy a loaf of bread!

Hitler did not win the election, but Hindenburg was forced by his strength to make him Chancellor, had he not stood against Hitler in the Presidential election, Hitler many believe, would have won. Despite the Nazis being a minority in the Cabinet, Hindenburg saw he had no choice, but I can understand the German people feeling a need to change, sadly the end result cost tens of millions of lives.

[Ernesto75]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

In my view the Versailles Treaty was the start of a long decline into Fascism and the Nazi Regime.
...
Did this attitude exist at the conference? Where the allied victors determined to annihilate Germany? Or at least to turn it into a dependent economy. The reparations were so heavy that Germany could not rise from the ashes for a long time. With, to paraphrase scounds, corrupt, spineless and profoundly mediocre non-leadership.
...
The Wiemar republic was useless, is it any surprise that the unemployed young men of Germany would flock to radical parties?
...
Hitler did not win the election, but Hindenburg was forced by his strength to make him Chancellor, had he not stood against Hitler in the Presidential election, Hitler many believe, would have won. Despite the Nazis being a minority in the Cabinet, Hindenburg saw he had no choice, but I can understand the German people feeling a need to change, sadly the end result cost tens of millions of lives.

When viewed under that angle you have a strong point.

Strictly speaking Hitler had almost a majority but only almost, I agree.
This situation (I mean the percentage) happened more than once in democracies.
We saw this not so long ago.

With hindsight the Versailles treaty was too harsh.
But let's not forget the participants were just exiting a horrific situation, all of them. So no wonder their conditions were harsh to the Germans and their allies.
The victors should have agreed on more lenient terms, that's true.

We recently saw another example with Greece which had to demand a prolongation because they simply could not reimburse the loans they got from banks.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by Ernesto75

I just meant a very great number of people who voted NSDAP and whose vote allowed Hitler to be elected.
Let's not play with words and numbers; that would be a sterile discussion.

Beg the differ, words matter. A great majority has now become a very great number. And a very great number didn't vote NSDAP, but a plurality did.

Given the tactics and rhetoric of the current occupant of the White House, it is neither sterile nor futile to identify false advertising to justify a sterile, xenophobic, antediluvian societal backwater.

[Ernesto75]

Originally Posted by crinolynne

Beg the differ, words matter. A great majority has now become a very great number. And a very great number didn't vote NSDAP, but a plurality did.

Given the tactics and rhetoric of the current occupant of the White House, it is neither sterile nor futile to identify false advertising to justify a sterile, xenophobic, antediluvian societal backwater.

Well, I do not condone the rhetoric of the current occupant of the White House.
I do not share his views, and I preferred his predecessor.
I would also have preferred the woman at the White House instead of him.
But those are personal views and I respect others even when different.

I hope this will satisfy you.

[crinolynne]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

... Britain was a safari park for political hacks and non-entities, full of time servers and placemen with no talent and no ambition except to line their own pockets or simply hold on to jobs which they weren't equipped to do: men like Ramsey MacDonald, Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, not much better than the Labour and Tory frontbenches today.

A safari park! I'm still figuring that one out!!

World war; World wide influenza epidemic; rapid industrialization; emancipation of women (thankyou New Zealand); worldwide economic depression - the problems of the 20s were immense and the simple solutions offered by the fascists/communists were appealing. I would be less critical of the politicians of the time.
Fast forward to today where the problems of the ordinary person pale in comparison, yet the fascists are back in vogue - still waiting for the GOP rank and file to grow a spine but yesterday there was a glimmer of hope.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by rupertramjet

On 11th November 1918 at dawn Pershing launched attacks on the German lines, despite the knowledge that the war would, to all intents and purposes, end at 11:00.

Just a technical question, would this act be considered as a war crime today?

[rupertramjet]

Originally Posted by xyzde69

Just a technical question, would this act be considered as a war crime today?

A very interesting 'technical question'. At the time it was not considered a 'war crime', and under International Law, ir would not be considered to be one today. The relevant piece of law would be 'that a state of war existed between the belligerent Nations at the time the order was given'. Pershing did receive some condemnation for his action amongst US political leaders, and was the subject of a Congressional enquiry, but no action was taken against him, and no stain on his historical character. His name was later given to one of Americas main battle tanks the M26. He became General of the Armies, the US army top rank.

Speaking now as a modern day professional soldier, and I write this bit after having a chat with a few fellow soldiers, from other countries as well as my own. I feel today we have a much more realistic view on the value of human life, and I hope my fellow ex officers on here would agree, none of us would give that order, in that situation, whatever our personal feelings. i also believe that the press, the public, and our political and service masters would rip us to shreds, and in my view rightly so.

After a particularly tough few days in the Falklands war, I overheard my soldiers getting some stick from another group of soldiers, taking the micky out of me for moving a bit slower than their officer, I was proud and delighted with the response from one of my men:'He might be a bit more careful than your fucking Rupert, but at least he tries to bring us all home!'

Can I have that as my epitaph please!