I dont think that the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht would look mutch different in 1938 with or without the Nazis. Yes it would have likely taken a little bit longer, but also Weimar would have to be ready to fight Poland and France because both were extremly hostile towards Germany.
It was Germany that had a perennial problem with the existence of the Polish state. This animosity was so deep-seated that when Hitler came to power and signed the non-aggression pact with Poland, the majority of the Reich's society was opposed to it. Poland remained hostile toward Germany primarily because Berlin had refused to recognize Polish statehood for years.
Early 1930s paratrooper are not like 1944 paratrooper,
it would very different compare to Third Reich special under Hitler and Luftwaffe under Göring.
Any war with France would mean that Poland and Czechoslovakia, bound by their alliance with Paris, would declare war on the Third Reich. Furthermore, Great Britain would not permit German dominance over Western Europe, which in practice means its inevitable entry into the war. The moment the capitalists begin fighting among themselves will serve as a signal to Moscow that the time has come to "liberate the working people of the cities and villages."
Sorry but you are just wrong about this. The Polish state of the interwar was build up by Germany in WW1 to gain an ally againgst Russia. The Poles decided to betray Germany and attack eimar Germany with the support of France. Poland was hostile againgst Germany since the end of WW1 and can only blame themselfe for a hostile Germany.
France and Belgium occuping the Ruhr certainly made things better.
I dont think the KPD had any real shot to start and win a civilwar, it would mostlikely end like the other attempts in Weimar Germany.
Sadly Stalin not care about European capitalist, his priorities was to rule USSR, exterminate his opponents and make russia great again...
Your posts in this thread read as a justification for the Nazi German aggression. Plain and simple.
They arent, believing there would be a war doesnt mean justifing the fucking Nazis
If Germany allegedly cared so much for Poland, then why did they openly betray her by ceding Polish lands to the Ukrainian People's Republic (UNR) during the "Bread Peace" (Brotfrieden)? Handing over the Chełm region to the Ukrainians, despite it being part of the allied Kingdom of Poland, led to a widespread crisis in relations between Poland and the Central Powers. Similarly, the customs war between Poland and Germany from 1925 to 1934 was triggered by the Germans themselves, who, alongside economic demands, issued explicit territorial claims.
Believing that there would've been a war is one thing.
It is not my problem, in the eighties I interviewed a German pilot to document the book he was writing about the Spanish Civil War, out of curiosity I asked him why he became a pilot and he told me that his mother had died as a result of the hardships that the French government imposed on his country, and then he told me about that minister and the cause of hatred. We cannot talk about religion here, because Jens will close the thread for us, according to the rules, but the German pilot cited the religion of the French minister as part of what he personally was driven to fight.
That you came to the conclusion that entire Germany population (!!!) had fallen into poverty and hunger because of one French finance minister ? In effect taking side with that German pilot you interviewed who had particular views on that minister of a particular religion ? Yes I find this hilariousIt is not my problem, in the eighties I interviewed a German pilot to document the book he was writing about the Spanish Civil War, out of curiosity I asked him why he became a pilot and he told me that his mother had died as a result of the hardships that the French government imposed on his country, and then he told me about that minister and the cause of hatred. We cannot talk about religion here, because Jens will close the thread for us, according to the rules, but the German pilot cited the religion of the French minister as part of what he personally was driven to fight.
I am only speculating, but if the powerful Nazi propaganda found a way to associate the minister's religion with the justified discomfort of the German population... the rest was easy.
As for your sense of humor, I must add that it is in very bad taste to find something funny in such an unpleasant subject. I am only interested in technology without caring about the ideology of the country that produces it and I do not fantasize about a world in which Germany wins the war. There was a time when I fantasized about Brigitte Bardot, because I'm old enough, I also fantasized about American scale models of the X series, about a trip to Japan that I could never make, about having the complete collection of Amazing Stories, with James Bond's retrorockets, but I would never find it funny to see how the entire population of a country goes hungry because of a scoundrel who acts for personal reasons... You think it's funny???
They would have had the same economic problems.
Not just domestic debts, it was also caused by the amount of War Reparations that had to be paid. (At least as taught in the US)
My money is that the Communists would have taken over.
That is why hyperinflation was triggered as a means to solve one specific problem. At the time, the court ruled that "a mark equals a mark," which in practice meant that all financial obligations of the government and industrialists—contracted before, during, or immediately after the war—were paid off with worthless currency. In this way, their debts effectively ceased to exist.
It was deliberately triggered?
Yes, I already know all the arguments: history is less manipulable than it seems, it takes many simultaneous events for a catastrophe to occur, you can't simplify the origins of a conflict because human relationships are very complex... Nonsense: When the economy enters a turbulent phase for environmental reasons or because of an excess of rivalry between countries, or between empires, or between religions... it only takes an imbecile to start the first fire.That you came to the conclusion that entire Germany population (!!!) had fallen into poverty and hunger because of one French finance minister ? In effect taking side with that German pilot you interviewed who had particular views on that minister of a particular religion ? Yes I find this hilarious
To a certain point, this was a deliberate strategy. However, Minister Eugen Schiffer's inability to introduce a war profits tax or raise other levies led to a sharp decline in public trust. Furthermore, anyone who could was transferring private foreign currency and precious metals abroad, which only fueled the lack of confidence. The collapse of successive German governments and the assassination of Walther Rathenau further intensified the uncertainty. When Germany became unable to pay its reparations and domestic obligations, the Entente's banking commission (led by J.P. Morgan) recommended suspending loans to the Reich. Due to the failure to meet reparation payments, French and Belgian troops entered the Ruhr. In response to the occupation, the locals began a strike, and the German government started supporting them financially—this move openly triggered the onset of hyperinflation.
The devastation of France’s most vital region, the occupation of Belgium, the exploitation of local populations in violation of international treaties they themselves had signed, and numerous war crimes—these are the facts. In this context, 132 billion gold marks was a truly modest sum compared to the havoc the Germans wreaked during the war.
- that went down like a lead balloon.
yes, let discuss that here civilised
[3.2TB Gunny Ermey rant deleted]
We will never know. The German conservatives, in their distrust of the SPD, preferred to tame Hitler in a coalition. That failed spectacularly. A grand coalition of non-extremist parties might have failed in a different way, but was short of enough votes in the 1933 Reichstag.
