Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marx was born in present day Western Germany. Perhaps the retribution aspect could hark back to the years of the Freikorps and the attempted communist takeover of post-WWI Weimar Germany? That is only way I could see revenge being a part of the catalyst for the Second World War.
Suffice it to say that London will only tolerate autonomy...anything beyond that will bring major upheavals. I don't think it will ever go that far anyway.
I doubt whether western Europeans have the stomach for civl war. London would curl up its tail and let Scotland secede before they would shed blood over it. I too, don't think it would get that far. But if it did, it would happen bloddlessly. Just my opinion.Europeans don't have fire left in their belly's
I came away from this work thinking that this was a topic that has barely recieved the attention it deserves. i have read about 200-300 books on WWII and its origins and I cant recall reading anything close to this level of analysis on the economic factors of the war. Normally economics are presented as an open and shut case. Tooze makes it clear that they are not. I hope to see more on this topic, it as an area of WWII historiography that is underserved.
The American people won't remember the Keating 5 scandal, and those who are going to vote for McCain (which I won't be), will be voting for him because he's the lesser of two evils proverbially. Obama has a darker history to overcome than McCain because he was involved in the dirty mess that is Chicago politics. But I'm going to write in Ron Paul this November because I'm sick of settling on moderate-liberal nominees in the GOP. I think both major political parties have some deep soul searching to do because they are pulling further and further away from their respective electoral bases.
Here, I have to disagree with you. Both parties are growing closer to their true bases, which are whoever happens to throw the most money at them. National politics has been divorced from the will of the people since at least the First Adams administration. I can think of few presidents who actually cared what the common man wanted, strangely they seem to be considered among the greatest. Men such as Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Reagan, and Ike. I wonder why people dont wake up and instead of counting on empty promises hold our elected leaders feet to the fire and force them to deliver on their campaign promises.Bush is widely lambasted by the left for delivering on his promises to lower taxes and require accounatbility in education. While I dont agree with all or even many of his policies, I have to give him credit for trying to do what he said he would. It is my firm belief that history will treat him much more kindly than it will treat Bill Clinton.
But what about the popular persistence of the myth? Many people still believe that if it hadn't been for WWII the US would have been doomed to become a second rate economic power. I know my son was told that in school this past year, another of the many things I got into it over with his history teacher. I am certain by now that my son's history teacher cringed every time he heard my name, probably the school board too.I felt like the professor in the Narnia books. Reduced to shaking my head and muttering "What do they teach these children today?"
The Germans were humilated when they signed the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler made the French sign their surrender in the same box car the Germans did in World War I. There was some retribution, but I would call it revenge.
Yes but that was against the west, and if looked at objectively, perhaps even somewhat justified. Hitler had no call for retribution in the east. The Nazi conquest of the east was motivated strictly along racial and economic motives.
Unlike in WWII, in the current situation the average American is detached and does not feel as if the country is at war. The problem is that people are given two conflicting messages, 10 act like we are at peace, i.e. go on vacation, spend money and 20 we are at a nation at war, th eterrorists wnat to kill us all. These messages are mutually exclusive. I am not advocating a total war mentality, but the message needs to change somehow if we are to be successful in the current conflict. If not, I fear that society will eventually tear itself apart when faced with the competeing imperatives of fighting a war and partying on.
After reading it, I am convinced that the book could have been even longer. There are several sections where he does not go into detail about the nature of the Nazi economy; especially in the section dealing with the disposition of raw materials and the exactions from the occupied countries after 1940. He mentions raw totals and percentages but very little analysis of the ways in which the occupied countries were forced to support their oppressors. The one detailed accounting is the discussion of the Generalplan Ost and how that affected the populations of Poland and occupied Russia. He also goes into detailed discussion of the way in which the east was starved to feed the Reich. Very illuminating stuff.
I think that the U.S. could potentially regain an industrial base but it would take a dramatic policy and political effort.
I agree with you, but dramatic effort is an understatment. Policy and Organized Labor does indeed have a lot to do with it. The fact is though that Americas inductrial base has been whittled away over the years.I stand by my contention that the Depression was over by the time America entered WWII. In fact, the statistics I have seen point to the turning being in 1937 or early 1938. Some authors contend that the New Deal had very little to do with the turn around. the Great Depression was a global phenomenon and was not confined to the US. The US was actually not hit as hard as Europe was during the depression. Partly because the US was more market oriented than many of the economies of Europe.
So would you say that we would be at a point now, industrially and economically, that we were in say the 1970s?
I am not enough of an expert on economic matters to say for certain. I do know that industrially, our capabilities as a nation today are much less than 30 years ago. America is much more of a service economy now. Without extensive building and upgrading of plant, there is no way we could reproduce today what we did in WWII, we are no longer capable of being the arsenal of democracy. One point, in the 1940,s the US was a net exporter of oil, today we are the world's largest importer. We produce less than 20% of our oil needs domestically. That fact alone would hinder industrial production. The world runs more on oil today than ever before.
The depression was basically over by the time the war started. The war simply accelerated the recovery and the economic gains made during the war translated into a longer period of prosperity afterwards. The notion that American entry into WWII ended the depression is a flase and pernicious myth in American Historiography. This myth, however suits some on the right who like to denigarte the achievements of the New Deal. I am not a big fan of the New Deal but it did what it was supposed to do. Many New Deals programs had ended by the start of the war and some have persisted. The basic facts are there though, The depression was over when the war started. A good argument can be made that Rearmament helped end it but that rests on shaky ground. America did not start seriously rearming until the latter half of 1940, long after employment had started to rise and the worst of the economic downturn was past.
Getting back to the main point of the posts, as for catalysts for war...what about retribution? Didn't Alexander head toward Persia in retribution, and do you think there was a bit of retribution when Hitler moved east? Plus many of the wars between England and France was to take back something taken from them, plus a little extra from time to time.
I thought that Alexander simply wanted conquest. retribution for past Persian wrongs was just a convenient excuse for him to do what he wanted anyway. I dont where retribution fits into Hitler's plans for conquest in the East. you will have to enlighten me on that one.England and France spent most of their time in the Middle Ages fighting over various territory in France. I dont think Retribution had a lot to do with it unless you accept English claims to Normandy and subsequently to the French crown as valid. The English Kings had a valid claim to the ancestral Norman lands. The claim to the Crown of France rested on much more dubious grounds, being based on a bequest that no reliable wittness could attest to.
I think McCain was involved or implicated in some sort of lobbying scandal or enabling legislation that was at the heart of the scandal. I also seem to remember hearing that he was a personal friend of Michael Keating.
I vaguely remember reading something along these lines. I know the independence movement was the motivating force behind the resurrection of the Scottish Parliament and the return to home rule a few years ago. I was not aware that they were clamoring for full independence.That brings up the interesting question of whether they would want to revive the Scottish Monarchy and if so, who would ascend the throne. Remember that the Royal lines of Scotland and England merged in the 17th century.
I must admit though, I love digging through manuscripts and monographs. It's just not practical for me right now....hopefully I will get to finish up my thesis one day so I can move on to the grand prize. 🙂
I hear you and agree 100%. My current career seems like a roadblock to me doing what I really want, which is to read, research, and write history.
