Secret arms found aboard wreck of Lusitania

[Laisrean]

Link (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1098904/Secret-Lusitania-Arms-challenges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html)


Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War.

But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915.

Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.

This proves two things:

1) The U.S. was not a neutral country in WW1, even before we declared war.

2) The Lusitania was not solely a passenger ship, and the Germans were right to have sunk it. THis means the U.S. should never have entered into the war, and that the treaty of Versailles and all that crap that followed should not have occurred.

There would be no Hitler, WW2, or holocaust had the U.S. remained neutral in WW1 as it should have. Smuggling arms to one side is underhanded, wrong, and not something a neutral country would do. Anyone who wants to claim the U.S. was innocent and neutral and wrongly attacked has some explaining to do about those weapons found in the ship's hold.

[Little Billy]

This is fairly old news. The arms in her hold were in her manifest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

Read the section "Contraband and second explosion".

The Lusitania was not, however, an American ship (from the same link, first paragraph):


RMS Lusitania was a British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain) luxury ocean liner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_liner) owned by the Cunard Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunard_Line) and built by John Brown and Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_and_Company) of Clydebank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clydebank), Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland).

She was acting as a naval auxiliary. In short, the sinking of the Lusitania was not an act of war on Germany's part toward the USA, and was never claimed (officially) to be one. It DID, however, turn the tide of public opinion against Germany and toward war.

[jodarius]

Plus how can you know that if the US had stayed out that there would never have been a WWII. Thats just an assinine statement. Hitler was a driven and insane man with a lust for power and the personality to get that power. You cannot say his rise to power would never have happened, in fact it might have meant that Germany Might have been more powerful when hitler did come along, and then he might have killed more and have possibly succeeded in his mad dreams.

[Little Billy]

There would be no Hitler, WW2, or holocaust had the U.S. remained neutral in WW1 as it should have.

Two things:

1. There is no evidence that the above would not have occurred.

2. The Lusitania was not smuggling anything. She was a British ship, and the munitions in her hold were on her manifest.

[Laisrean]

Two things:

1. There is no evidence that the above would not have occurred.

It almost certainly would not have. Hitler tried to overthrow the Weimar government which was brought about due to the treaty of Versailles. Had the U.S. not entered the war, the British and French would have went into bankruptcy and forces to terms. France would have been forces to cede Alsace-Lorraine back to Germany, Britain would have been forced to allow Germany to expand its naval endeavors, and the most important thing of all is that the Kaiser would have remained in power. Kaiser Wilhelm means no Weimar government, which means no Beer Hall Putsch, which means no Mein Kampf, which means no Nazi takeover.

Of course, alternatively, a Hitler like figure might have arisen in defeated France and/or Britain instead. No one can be sure, but the one thing we can be certain of is things would not have played out as they did. Even if you simply kill a mosquito you're ****ing things up beyond imagination.


2. The Lusitania was not smuggling anything. She was a British ship, and the munitions in her hold were on her manifest.

Where did those arms come from? Even though it was a British ship, it was transporting American weapons and that's the key. The Lusitania was not solely a passenger ship, and neither was the U.S. a neutral country. Wilson's mother was British, so you can kinda imagine he would have a bias.

[Little Billy]

It almost certainly would not have. Hitler tried to overthrow the Weimar government which was brought about due to the treaty of Versailles. Had the U.S. not entered the war, the British and French would have went into bankruptcy and forces to terms.

Nonsense. Germany was in worse shape by the point that the Americans entered the war...they were still enjoying (some) successes on the battlefield, but their economy was coming completely unglued. The American entry into the war hastened the end of the war, but did not change the outcome.

Also, the American influence at the end of the war meant that the treaty of Versailles was - while crushing - not as bad as it would have been.




Where did those arms come from? Even though it was a British ship, it was transporting American weapons and that's the key.

We were not prohibited from selling weapons to either or both sides, as a neutral or otherwise. Neutral nations may sell what they please to whomever they please. Switzerland did legal business with the 3rd Reich, right up until the bitter end. Germany, of course, had the right to sink American shipping (let alone the Lusitania) should they attempt to run the blockade.




The Lusitania was not solely a passenger ship, and neither was the U.S. a neutral country. Wilson's mother was British, so you can kinda imagine he would have a bias.

The USA was a neutral country, and did nothing to violate that neutrality in any legal way, right up until it renounced neutrality voluntarily.

[jodarius]

US arms manufacturers can sell to people other than the US. So because some arms maker sells to britain does not mean the US government was not being neutral. So if those arms were not directly from the US gov you are wrong in your statement.

And you can not say that there is no way hitler would not have come to power. I mena really can you fortell events that might have happened "if" this other thing didnt? Really a man like Hitler would have found his way to power. He didnt rise from a nobody to the head of the country on luck. He was calculating and ambitious. He was also smart. I in no way idolize or honor the man but I will not underestimate him either. I am sure he would have found his way to power in one way or another. And in you world Britain and France would be far too weak to hold him back, leaving a victorious Hitler.

[Laisrean]

Nonsense. Germany was in worse shape by the point that the Americans entered the war...they were still enjoying (some) successes on the battlefield, but their economy was coming completely unglued. The American entry into the war hastened the end of the war, but did not change the outcome.

I know that, but that's at least equally true of France and Britain. All sides were on the verge of bankruptcy. Without American intervention, Britain and France would folded first.


Also, the American influence at the end of the war meant that the treaty of Versailles was - while crushing - not as bad as it would have been.

It was worse because of Wilson's intervention. Check out his 14 points bullshit. That pretty much laid the groundwork for every European war of the remainder of the 20th century, especially the second world war.

Wilson was ignorant of European history and culture, and the allied powers played him for a fool. To this day, the map of the Balkans and other areas are screwed up because of his meddling, and that's a big reason why all that genocide and bullshit has been going on there up until recently.


We were not prohibited from selling weapons to either or both sides, as a neutral or otherwise. Neutral nations may sell what they please to whomever they please. Switzerland did legal business with the 3rd Reich, right up until the bitter end. Germany, of course, had the right to sink American shipping (let alone the Lusitania) should they attempt to run the blockade.

Switzerland did business with both sides. As a condition for doing business with the 3rd Reich, Switzerland demanded to be able to use the Rhine to transport stuff to Britain as well. I believe the same was also true with Sweden, but I'm not certain. In any case, that's the proper way to be neutral. If you show bias or preference to one side, you aren't exactly being neutral, right? And the side that you aren't doing business is going to see that as an insult, or worse.


The USA was a neutral country, and did nothing to violate that neutrality in any legal way, right up until it renounced neutrality voluntarily.

Just because you aren't in a state of open war doesn't mean you're neutral. Do you believe 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, or do you think our foreign policy had a lot to do with it?

[Little Billy]

I know that, but that's at least equally true of France and Britain. All sides were on the verge of bankruptcy. Without American intervention, Britain and France would folded first.

Incorrect. Britain still had wealth pouring in from her empire. Germany was isolated from her overseas holdings, and did not enjoy the same advantage.

Britain could have gone on for years. Germany could not. It's a matter of simple math.




It was worse because of Wilson's intervention. Check out his 14 points bullshit. That pretty much laid the groundwork for every European war of the remainder of the 20th century, especially the second world war.

His 14 points were rejected, and were not part of the Versailles Treaty.



Wilson was ignorant of European history and culture, and the allied powers played him for a fool. To this day, the map of the Balkans and other areas are screwed up because of his meddling, and that's a big reason why all that genocide and bullshit has been going on there up until recently.

No, the Balkans have been fighting amonst themselves since the 13th century. Or are you suggesting that Wilson was 700 years old?




Switzerland did business with both sides. As a condition for doing business with the 3rd Reich, Switzerland demanded to be able to use the Rhine to transport stuff to Britain as well. I believe the same was also true with Sweden, but I'm not certain. In any case, that's the proper way to be neutral. If you show bias or preference to one side, you aren't exactly being neutral, right? And the side that you aren't doing business is going to see that as an insult, or worse.

Legally speaking, you can do business with one side or both (or neither). Being neutral does not force you to do business with anyone.




Just because you aren't in a state of open war doesn't mean you're neutral.

In your mind, perhaps. Not in law.



Do you believe 9/11 was an unprovoked attack, or do you think our foreign policy had a lot to do with it?

I think the persons responsible for the 911 attacks either died on 911, or are busy hiding in caves in Pakistan. Whatever our policy may have been, it was no excuse for attacking a civilian target, particularly considering no attempts at a peaceful resolution were attempted or even considered.

Stating that the USA is responsible for the attacks is nothing more than an extension of the wife-beater defense..."Look what you MADE me do...".

[Laisrean]

Really a man like Hitler would have found his way to power.

I disagree. In fact, when you consider all the struggled and perils he went through to get into power its actually pretty amazing he did even with conditions being what they were. There was no less than 42 plots/attempts to assassinate him, and some of there were even before he assumed absolute power. There were thousands of other things that could also have went wrong that would have made his attempted rise to power a flop.

When you take the treaty of versailles out of the equation, Hitler's rise becomes far less likely for the following reasons:

1) He would had less incentive to do so, because there would have been less for him to be pissed off about. He may have just continued on quietly as an artist, or who knows.

2) There would have been no democratic apparatus in place for him to exploit. With the Kaiser in place, the only way Hitler could have seized power would be by brute force, and we can see how well that worked out for him in his 1925 attempt.

3) Without the humiliation and harsh terms of Versailles, most Germans would have been far less sympathetic to him, and his razor thin margin of victory just wouldn't have been there. As a monarchy, there would be no office of chancellor for him to be elected to, and the German people wouldn't tolerate a forceful takeover, especially when there was no reason for such a change.

4) Hitler used Jews and communists as scapegoats by blaming them for Germany's defeat in WW1. But how could he have done that if Germany had actually won WW1? A German victory would make scapegoating a non-issue.

[jodarius]

Do you really think it was the treatmnet of germany after the war that Hitlaer cared about? He used that, He wasnt concerned about Germany, he was concerned about power and his personal agenda. And you have no ideas what would have come to the country after the war. Germany may have still collapsed, the monarchy may still have been removed, possibly by the germans them selves. Hitler would have found an exploited the peoples grievences. He was a master at speaking and riling the people up. I mean he was made times man of the year for a reason come on.

[Little Billy]

I disagree. In fact, when you consider all the struggled and perils he went through to get into power its actually pretty amazing he did even with conditions being what they were. There was no less than 42 plots/attempts to assassinate him, and some of there were even before he assumed absolute power. There were thousands of other things that could also have went wrong that would have made his attempted rise to power a flop.

When you take the treaty of versailles out of the equation, Hitler's rise becomes far less likely for the following reasons:

1) He would had less incentive to do so, because there would have been less for him to be pissed off about. He may have just continued on quietly as an artist, or who knows.

2) There would have been no democratic apparatus in place for him to exploit. With the Kaiser in place, the only way Hitler could have seized power would be by brute force, and we can see how well that worked out for him in his 1925 attempt.

3) Without the humiliation and harsh terms of Versailles, most Germans would have been far less sympathetic to him, and his razor thin margin of victory just wouldn't have been there. As a monarchy, there would be no office of chancellor for him to be elected to, and the German people wouldn't tolerate a forceful takeover, especially when there was no reason for such a change.

4) Hitler used Jews and communists as scapegoats by blaming them for Germany's defeat in WW1. But how could he have done that if Germany had actually won WW1? A German victory would make scapegoating a non-issue.

Bollocks. People like Hitler don't have to rise to an occasion...they CREATE the occasion if need be.

And Germany would have lost the war, with or without American involvement.

[Laisrean]

Incorrect. Britain still had wealth pouring in from her empire. Germany was isolated from her overseas holdings, and did not enjoy the same advantage.

1.) Britain was an overseas power, whereas Germany's power was always continental. Germany had some colonies in Africa and the Pacific, but these were token and never really a major contributor.

2) Submarine warfare choked off much of Britain's overseas resources.

3) Britain WAS near bankruptcy before the Americans swooped in and helped.

You don't want to take my word for it? You don't have to. Here's a link (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1978/3/1978_3_64_print.shtml)


Then came the First World War. American sympathies lay overwhelmingly with Great Britain and France and against Germany. Britain and France needed American food, fuel, and munitions but lacked the cash to buy. While the United States remained neutral, they borrowed heavily from American banks under a program organized by the Morgan firm and condoned by President Woodrow Wilson. But by the time the United States declared war on Germany in April, 1917, Britain and France were near bankruptcy. Only the credit of the United States government could sustain them. They asked for loans. Wilson and Congress said yes. The United States was in the business of foreign aid.

So what are you going to say now? Are you going to argue with this sourced link which confirms that only American loans kept Britain and France in the war?

So you see, American intervention was absolutely decisive. Our loans were absolutely the only thing keeping Britain and France going. In fact, our loans were actually more important to victory than our fighting.


Britain could have gone on for years. Germany could not. It's a matter of simple math.

No its not, and I've provided a link to prove it. Are you going to continue to argue against the truth? I've given my sourced link.


His 14 points were rejected, and were not part of the Versailles Treaty.

His 14 points influenced the Versailles treaty. Most of them were in fact enacted.


No, the Balkans have been fighting amonst themselves since the 13th century. Or are you suggesting that Wilson was 700 years old?

The Balkans were almost always under the occupation of another empire. As part of the Ottoman and/or Austrian empire there was no infighting, because whatever fighting did occur was directed towards the occupier. Its only when the area was independent that the various groups began to fight amongst themselves. This is where Wilson comes in, because he had a hand in the way the maps were drawn post-war. The nation that was Yugoslavia should not have been created, and every ethnic group should have had its own state right off the bat, and the boundaries should have been drawn to correspond to that divide. This did not happen then, and did not happen When the joke of a country that is Iraq was set up either, or Rwanda. And that's a big reason why all those genocides occurred.


Legally speaking, you can do business with one side or both (or neither). Being neutral does not force you to do business with anyone.

Perhaps legally, but that's not how the side you're giving the shaft to is going to see it.

[jodarius]

you failed to post any proof that germany was not in just as dire a financial situation as France and Britain. War is costly is all you proved. And once again all you stated was that a private entity in the US supported the allies not that the US itself did it. The president condoning it doesnt mean the US was no longer neutral. It was not the us government giving the loans.

[LostSheep]

This, surely, was no different from what happened in WWII prior to December 41: British ships transporting arms, for the use of Britain, obtained, legitimately, from the US; if that hadn't happened in WWII, there's no way Britain could have survived long enough for the US to finally get involved. Neutral countries are perfectly permitted to trade with belligerents; look at the iron ore Germany obtained from Sweden. Regardless of whether or not all the subsequent chain of events would have followed, I don't think there was anything underhand here; even if the Lusitania was being used for military purposes, as a British ship, I don't think that's underhand in itself. I mean, if, in the middle of a war, you choose to sail in a ship belonging to one of the countries that are participating in that war, surely you have to accept there'll be some risk involved? The U-boat commander could hardly have been expected to order her to stop, board her and check whether there were any neutrals aboard, as the rules of engagement, which were framed in the days of sail, seemed to expect. So really, I don't think either the Lusitania carrying military items among her cargo, for the use of the country that owned her, or for that matter, her being sunk by the country they were at war with, was really reprehensible.

[Little Billy]

So you see, American intervention was absolutely decisive. Our loans were absolutely the only thing keeping Britain and France going. In fact, our loans were actually more important to victory than our fighting.

Amazingly enough, you fail to report what shape Germany was in. I wonder why that is? Also, you were saying that our entry into the war caused England to win. We were loaning them money prior to that. My, how those goalposts move.





His 14 points influenced the Versailles treaty. Most of them were in fact enacted.

Rubbish.




The Balkans were almost always under the occupation of another empire. As part of the Ottoman and/or Austrian empire there was no infighting, because whatever fighting did occur was directed towards the occupier. Its only when the area was independent that the various groups began to fight amongst themselves. This is where Wilson comes in, because he had a hand in the way the maps were drawn post-war. The nation that was Yugoslavia should not have been created, and every ethnic group should have had its own state right off the bat, and the boundaries should have been drawn to correspond to that divide. This did not happen then, and did not happen When the joke of a country that is Iraq was set up either, or Rwanda. And that's a big reason why all those genocides occurred.

Strrrrrrrretch for it!




Perhaps legally, but that's not how the side you're giving the shaft to is going to see it.

So what?

[Little Billy]

you failed to post any proof that germany was not in just as dire a financial situation as France and Britain.

Of course he failed to.

[Little Billy]

What's really funny here is watching a so-called "Libertarian" argue how unfair it was that the expansionist monarchy lost.

[Laisrean]

Amazingly enough, you fail to report what shape Germany was in. I wonder why that is? Also, you were saying that our entry into the war caused England to win. We were loaning them money prior to that. My, how those goalposts move.

You said it, and I didn't argue with you about it. I know Germany wasn't in great financial shape in 1917. That's the point. No side was. You were the one arguing Britain could have carried on for decades. I simply pointed out that was utter rubbish, and gave a link to prove it.

Now that I have you're claimging the goalposts have moved? Bullshit! If they've moved, you're the one who moved. I never claimed Germany wasn't in bad shape - only that Britain and France were in worse.

[Laisrean]

What's really funny here is watching a so-called "Libertarian" argue how unfair it was that the expansionist monarchy lost.

Which one are we talking about here? The one that wanted Alsace-Lorraine which was wrongly taken from it by Napoleon; or the one which had no less than half the world's population under its empire on which "the sun never set"?

[Little Billy]

You said it, and I didn't argue with you about it. I know Germany wasn't in great financial shape in 1917. That's the point. No side was. You were the one arguing Britain could have carried on for decades. I simply pointed out that was utter rubbish, and gave a link to prove it.

Now that I have you're claimging the goalposts have moved? Bullshit! If they've moved, you're the one who moved. I never claimed Germany wasn't in bad shape - only that Britain and France were in worse.

You were arguing that the entry of America into the war was the only thing that kept Britain going. Now, you're saying that the loans were going on BEFORE the war, and that somehow equates to America joining the war?

Excuse me? Not quite following that.

[Little Billy]

And why does the thread title discuss "secret arms" when they were on the shipping manifest for all the world to see?

[Laisrean]

you failed to post any proof that germany was not in just as dire a financial situation as France and Britain.

Why should I? I never made that claim.

Also, Germany is a proper noun. You should capitalize it like you did with France and Britain.

[LostSheep]

Our loans were absolutely the only thing keeping Britain and France going. In fact, our loans were actually more important to victory than our fighting.
I think you might find, if you continued your researches, that the British and Canadian Armies did perhaps make a small contribution as well; see here, perhaps. http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/general-interest/193-final-one-hun.html



And Germany would have lost the war, with or without American involvement.

Without a doubt; after August 1918 they'd been, effectively, defeated in the field, and were collapsing from within: they were bankrupt, they'd run out of raw materials and manpower, and the masses were itching for revolution. But defeat in the field, and the blockade, was what brought them to that state.

[Laisrean]

You were arguing that the entry of America into the war was the only thing that kept Britain going. Now, you're saying that the loans were going on BEFORE the war, and that somehow equates to America joining the war?

Excuse me? Not quite following that.

American intervention. Our fighting men helped, but the loans were decisive.

[jodarius]

and you have not proven germany was not in worse shape. All you proved was that Britain and france had a tough time of it. Nothing you said proves germany would have outlasted them. Frankly with out support Germany was screwed from the begining. Germany lacks the resources to be self sufficient. They need outside supply of raw goods to operate, France and Britain were much more selfsufficient and most likely would win a war of attrition if the three were left to themselves.

[Laisrean]

And why does the thread title discuss "secret arms" when they were on the shipping manifest for all the world to see?

That is what the article's title says.

[Little Billy]

Why should I? I never made that claim.

Also, Germany is a proper noun. You should capitalize it like you did with France and Britain.

Uh oh. Someone's feeling a little Germanophile, today. :alol:

[Little Billy]

That is what the article's title says.

Then the article is 169% crap. Just saying.

[Little Billy]

American intervention. Our fighting men helped, but the loans were decisive.

That isn't what you said.

[LostSheep]

Which one are we talking about here? The one that wanted Alsace-Lorraine which was wrongly taken from it by Napoleon; or the one which had no less than half the world's population under its empire on which "the sun never set"?

By an extension of that argument, couldn't you argue that Germany was justified in reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936; oh, and then there were those Sudeten Germans; they, surely, had a right to reunifiation with the Fatherland; and then, what about the Germans in Danzig?

:hrmm:

[jodarius]

American intervention. Our fighting men helped, but the loans were decisive.

True but these were loans from private organizations not the government and so that does not breach the neutrality is the point. Just because the private organizations chose one group over the other does not place the whole country as such. They more over saw that France and Britain would come out on top and so the best invetment would be the one they saw as the winners.

[Laisrean]

and you have not proven germany was not in worse shape. All you proved was that Britain and france had a tough time of it. Nothing you said proves germany would have outlasted them. Frankly with out support Germany was screwed from the begining. Germany lacks the resources to be self sufficient. They need outside supply of raw goods to operate, France and Britain were much more selfsufficient and most likely would win a war of attrition if the three were left to themselves.

Read up on Germany's U-boot campaign. The only thing they did wrong was they were late in switching over to unrestricted warfare. They were careful to avoid pissing off the Americans because they didn't want America entering the war, but it turned out that despite their best efforts Wilson was hellbent on entering the war on behalf of Britain (because he himself was half-British) so their efforts were for nothing.

Had the Germans initiated unrestricted submarine warfare in 1914 Britain would have suffered precipitous drop in supplies which they would not have been able to cope with, because remember, this was before the advent of the depth charge.

[jodarius]

We were not discussing Napolean we were discussing WWI and II. Now instead of supporting your original arguemnet you try to justify what the germans did in WWI, and thats not what this was about.

[jodarius]

Read up on Germany's U-boot campaign. The only thing they did wrong was they were late in switching over to unrestricted warfare. They were careful to avoid pissing off the Americans because they didn't want America entering the war, but it turned out that despite their best efforts Wilson was hellbent on entering the war on behalf of Britain (because he himself was half-British) so their efforts were for nothing.

Had the Germans initiated unrestricted submarine warfare in 1914 Britain would have suffered precipitous drop in supplies which they would not have been able to cope with, because remember, this was before the advent of the depth charge.

That does not defeat the fact that Germany lacks raw resources and was more dependant on outside sources. Germany has amazing finished goods, but has to import all the raw materials. So now in the idea of a prolonged war who wins? The person who can supply the raw materials and the finished materials, or the person who can only make the better finished materials?

[Laisrean]

By an extension of that argument, couldn't you argue that Germany was justified in reoccupying the Rhineland in 1936; oh, and then there were those Sudeten Germans; they, surely, had a right to reunifiation with the Fatherland; and then, what about the Germans in Danzig?

:hrmm:

I tell you what, if Northern Ireland should remain a part of the U.K. because a majority of its citizens wish that to be the case, then by that same logic shouldn't the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria, etc. also be permitted to merge with Germany if the majority of its citizens wanted that to be the case? These territories had a majority German population, so them being annexed into Germany wasn't a bad thing, IMHO.

Where Hitler went wrong was when he started annexing territories which did NOT want to be part of Germany, and that started in in 1938 with his invasion of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, the Allies didn't move to stop him then, because I believe if they had the war would have ended quicker and with less casualties on all sides. The extra year Germany was allowed to have to build up its military is what led to the conquering almost all of Europe... Blame Neville Chamberlain for that.

[Little Billy]

Which one are we talking about here? The one that wanted Alsace-Lorraine which was wrongly taken from it by Napoleon; or the one which had no less than half the world's population under its empire on which "the sun never set"?

England was run as a corporation. One would think you would approve.

Germany was interested in Bismark/Napoleon-esque expansion via military "glory", which is bad for business.

[Little Billy]

I tell you what, if Northern Ireland should remain a part of the U.K. because a majority of its citizens wish that to be the case, then by that same logic shouldn't the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria, etc. also be permitted to merge with Germany if the majority of its citizens wanted that to be the case? These territories had a majority German population, so them being annexed into Germany wasn't a bad thing, IMHO.

Where Hitler went wrong was when he started annexing territories which did NOT want to be part of Germany, and that started in in 1938 with his invasion of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, the Allies didn't move to stop him then, because I believe if they had the war would have ended quicker and with less casualties on all sides. The extra year Germany was allowed to have to build up its military is what led to the conquering almost all of Europe... Blame Neville Chamberlain for that.

Oh, wow. :alol:

You think you know someone...

[LostSheep]

I tell you what, if Northern Ireland should remain a part of the U.K. because a majority of its citizens wish that to be the case, then by that same logic shouldn't the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria, etc. also be permitted to merge with Germany if the majority of its citizens wanted that to be the case? These territories had a majority German population, so them being annexed into Germany wasn't a bad thing, IMHO.

Where Hitler went wrong was when he started annexing territories which did NOT want to be part of Germany, and that started in in 1938 with his invasion of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, the Allies didn't move to stop him then, because I believe if they had the war would have ended quicker and with less casualties on all sides. The extra year Germany was allowed to have to build up its military is what led to the conquering almost all of Europe... Blame Neville Chamberlain for that.

You may well have an argument there; the only trouble was, what happened to those citizens who didn't want to, or would never have been accepted into Greater Germany....

But we're drifting slightly off topic. This has, nevertheless, been quite an interesting argument, I feel.

[Laisrean]

That does not defeat the fact that Germany lacks raw resources and was more dependant on outside sources. Germany has amazing finished goods, but has to import all the raw materials. So now in the idea of a prolonged war who wins? The person who can supply the raw materials and the finished materials, or the person who can only make the better finished materials?

You make it sound like Germany has no resources of its own. Plus, in WW1 Germany was actually a pretty significantly large empire which included Poland, Czechoslovakia, and a good bit of what is now Russian territory, including East Prussia.

Plus Germany was allies with the Austro-Hungarian empire and shared a border with it. Germany also shared a border with other countries it could trade with for whatever it needed, including Holland and Scandinavia.

You make it sound like they're Japan, but that's not the case at all. Germany has all the coal it ever needed plus fertile soil for agriculture. The only thing they really lacked was Oil, but that wasn't really a major issue in the first world war because militaries still relied mostly on infantry and cavalry.

[Little Billy]

You may well have an argument there; the only trouble was, what happened to those citizens who didn't want to, or would never have been accepted into Greater Germany....

But we're drifting slightly off topic. This has, nevertheless, been quite an interesting argument, I feel.

I have to leave this topic before I say something ban-worthy.

Wow. Just wow.

[Laisrean]

You may well have an argument there; the only trouble was, what happened to those citizens who didn't want to, or would never have been accepted into Greater Germany....

But we're drifting slightly off topic. This has, nevertheless, been quite an interesting argument, I feel.

Well, the idea behind referendums is the majority gets to decide. There's always going to be some who are pissed off about the outcomes, though. *shrug*

Anyway, regardless of how politically incorrect this seems to some, I don't think all of Hitler's pre-war actions were necessarily wrong. He crossed a line with annexing Czaechoslovakia, and I do feel the Allies made a mistake for turning their backs on the Czechs and not drawing a line on Hitler's demands. But with that being the case, what was so wrong about the previous annexations which were done through a referendum? Germany actually held that territory prior to the Versailles treaty, which is another thing I feel went too far.

[Laisrean]

I have to leave this topic before I say something ban-worthy.

Wow. Just wow.

:goodgrief

[LostSheep]

I have to leave this topic before I say something ban-worthy.

Wow. Just wow.

really? I thought the second part of what I said there shows that I think it wouldn't have been a good idea there; in theory, perhaps, with a rational leader, it might have been workable, but not with the ulterior motives the Fuhrer had. I'm sorry if what I said is open to be misconstrued in any way.

[Little Billy]

really? I thought the second part of what I said there shows that I think it wouldn't have been a good idea there; in theory, perhaps, with a rational leader, it might have been workable, but not with the ulterior motives the Fuhrer had. I'm sorry if what I said is open to be misconstrued in any way.


I wasn't talking about you, LS. I was talking about the guy trying on the Kaiser Bill mustache for size.

[Laisrean]

really? I thought the second part of what I said there shows that I think it wouldn't have been a good idea there; in theory, perhaps, with a rational leader, it might have been workable, but not with the ulterior motives the Fuhrer had. I'm sorry if what I said is open to be misconstrued in any way.

Yeah, he was directing his hostility exclusively at me (as usual).

As for the ulterior motives of the Fuhrer, I wholeheartedly agree. IMHO, the German people had legitimate grievances from the effects of the treaty of Versailles, and it unfortunately just so happened that an Austrian corporal decided to hijack and exploit those legitimate grievances for his own evil purposes.

[Little Billy]

Yeah, he was directing his hostility exclusively at me (as usual).


Comes from my "genocidal" tendencies, remember?

[Philosophia]

1.) Britain was an overseas power, whereas Germany's power was always continental. Germany had some colonies in Africa and the Pacific, but these were token and never really a major contributor.

2) Submarine warfare choked off much of Britain's overseas resources.

3) Britain WAS near bankruptcy before the Americans swooped in and helped.

You don't want to take my word for it? You don't have to. Here's a link (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1978/3/1978_3_64_print.shtml)

Quick question, didn't loans come into play after WW2, not WW1 as the article states?

[David19]

I disagree. In fact, when you consider all the struggled and perils he went through to get into power its actually pretty amazing he did even with conditions being what they were. There was no less than 42 plots/attempts to assassinate him, and some of there were even before he assumed absolute power. There were thousands of other things that could also have went wrong that would have made his attempted rise to power a flop.

When you take the treaty of versailles out of the equation, Hitler's rise becomes far less likely for the following reasons:

1) He would had less incentive to do so, because there would have been less for him to be pissed off about. He may have just continued on quietly as an artist, or who knows.

2) There would have been no democratic apparatus in place for him to exploit. With the Kaiser in place, the only way Hitler could have seized power would be by brute force, and we can see how well that worked out for him in his 1925 attempt.

3) Without the humiliation and harsh terms of Versailles, most Germans would have been far less sympathetic to him, and his razor thin margin of victory just wouldn't have been there. As a monarchy, there would be no office of chancellor for him to be elected to, and the German people wouldn't tolerate a forceful takeover, especially when there was no reason for such a change.

4) Hitler used Jews and communists as scapegoats by blaming them for Germany's defeat in WW1. But how could he have done that if Germany had actually won WW1? A German victory would make scapegoating a non-issue.

Would the world be any better if Germany has won WW1, and, also, Hitler, and others, would have still scapegoated Jews, even if Germany had won, they may blame other problems on the Jews, say that they represent a "threat" to the German empire, blame Commonism on the Jews, etc.

[David19]

I tell you what, if Northern Ireland should remain a part of the U.K. because a majority of its citizens wish that to be the case, then by that same logic shouldn't the Rhineland, Sudetenland, Austria, etc. also be permitted to merge with Germany if the majority of its citizens wanted that to be the case? These territories had a majority German population, so them being annexed into Germany wasn't a bad thing, IMHO.

Where Hitler went wrong was when he started annexing territories which did NOT want to be part of Germany, and that started in in 1938 with his invasion of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately, the Allies didn't move to stop him then, because I believe if they had the war would have ended quicker and with less casualties on all sides. The extra year Germany was allowed to have to build up its military is what led to the conquering almost all of Europe... Blame Neville Chamberlain for that.

Where Hitler went wrong was the fact that he blamed all of the world's evils on the Jews, and wanted them wiped out, entirely (as well as LGBT people, and others). He would have wanted that, regardless of the outcome of WW1.

[Laisrean]

Quick question, didn't loans come into play after WW2, not WW1 as the article states?

Loans and bankruptcy came into play during and after both world wars. In WW2 the British had to give up their empire because they could no longer maintain it. In WW1 the only thing that saved them was American loans, followed by the crippling reparations imposed on Germany.

[Little Billy]

Loans and bankruptcy came into play during and after both world wars. In WW2 the British had to give up their empire because they could no longer maintain it. In WW1 the only thing that saved them was American loans, followed by the crippling reparations imposed on Germany.

They gave up their empire for the same reason they broke up their first empire. It was no longer making any money (postwar).