Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German

>>28548
>would Germany have tried to invade and depopulate Slavic areas at some point

They did invade, and they did try to depopulate Slavic areas. Hence the extermination of a few million people. The guy genuinely bought into fucked up ideological thinking that had previously been little more than a meme in German historical scholarship.

For instance, he said that because there had previously been Goths living in the Crimea Germany therefore had a right to liberate them from Slavic rule and conquer the area.

>>28593
This.
>there is a very small german minority in the Volga area of Russia who had moved to Russia willingly. This gives us the right to Western Russia.
Literally Kosovo syndrome.

File: world war 2 is in fact a thing that happened.jpg (148KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 980x552px

>>28548
>was it just an IRL meme that he wouldn't have put into practice
N-no?

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German areas and allowed them the options to join Germany?
No. Just like WW1 it was bound to happen eventually and changing the outcome of a few minor events wouldn't have changed much in the long run, just like how WW1 would have happened even if Franz Ferdinand had been shot or not.

>When Hitler talked about lebensraum was it just an IRL meme that he wouldn't have put into practice, or would Germany have tried to invade and depopulate Slavic areas at some point?
He meant it. One thing you should know about the German Empire is that they were never self-sustaining in terms of anything, really. They had some coal and iron, but natural resources like oil, rubber etc had to be imported - and food. They didn't have enough arable land so support the domestic demand of their own people (losing their eastern parts to Poland after WW1 didn't help) and food supplies ran thin following the blockades in WW1 and II. Expanding into Eastern Europe would guarantee farmland and raw materials. As for their methods, we'll never know. I doubt they'd be cartoonish Disney villains and just go GAS DA JOOS on all of Russia but some displacement policy would definitely have taken place, like moving them to the east of the Urals.

It was either a world war or a massive communist revolution throughout europe.

Germany might have saved europe from becoming Stalin toy.

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German areas and allowed them the options to join Germany?
Nope.

Others have covered important points already but let me add another quite important bit - economy. Germany basically needed a war to stay afloat economically.

>>28801
>Germany basically needed a war to stay afloat economically
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Germany already fix its economy by creating state controlled money and therefore by destroying the banks and their debts?

>>28854
Of course not.
Autarchy isn't possible when you literally lack strategic resources.
That was just an episode to finance the expansion of army and war industry.
German economy would collapse catastrophically by 1942 according to some estimates. However, war delayed that.

>>28593
>>28765
I guess my question was more about denying Hitler the excuse to go to war. In this case his excuse was that he told the German people that Poland was oppressing the German minority. If that hadn't been the case then what could have have used to convince them to support a war?

>>28795
/pol/. pls

>>28548
I'd suggest you look up the so-called "Generalplan Ost", which is a collection of documents that detailed German post-war plans in eastern Europe.
Even during the war Eastern Europeans were starved in order to feed the occupation troops present, just extrapolate that for some decades and couple it with colonization and you end up with a largely depopulated land full of German colonists, just the thing that the Lebensraum concept meant.

>>28854
Germany was dependant on resource import to fuel its armament, they needed to take out insanely big loans, no matter what they did with their internal banking system. In fact, had they not annexed Austria when they did, and acquired the gold reserves of the Austrian national bank, they'd have gone bankrupt.

>>28886
Revanchism, state propaganda, support for their leader would be enough to make people support a war. It wasn't an excuse to invade Poland though - you must know that by 1939 the Germans were by no means prepared for another big war. The German generals wanted to delay any hostility until around 1950, so the attack on Poland was premature at best.

>>28887
While GPO was real, German goals weren't that defined. That was just one idea on how to proceed.
When you read what Hitler said, his ideas changed often.
Germans would definitely colonize lands in East in case they won.
Whether Slavs would be expelled or exterminated is open to question. Maybe they would be, maybe they would be made into second-class citizens or slaves or something.
Who knows. Nazis abruptly decided to exterminate Jews, not like they made some long-term plans, besides wishful thinking.

>>28548
No. The so called "ethnic-German areas" were just a few small villages, with the exception of Sudetenland and Transylvania. Danzig was a free city-state and Alsace-Lorraine didn't even want to be part of Germany.

>>28954
In Yugoslavia Germans were sizable minority, especially in Vojvodina.

>>28943
>Revanchism
Isn't that sort of the point of the OP? That without the territorial losses imposed by Versaille the German people would be much less likely to support a war?

>you must know
N-No ;_;
WW2 isn't an area I'm too knowledgeable in, which is why I was asking questions.

Why did the war break out in 1939 rather than 1950? What sped the process up?

>>28973
Yes, and? There were way more Hungarians in Vojvodina than Germans.

>>28944
>Nazis abruptly decided to exterminate Jews
The progression from discrimination to outright persecution and then extermination was not sudden. It's not like jews were respected citizens and then the Wannsee conference came along and declared them subhumans to be exterminated.
The basic idea of creating a jew-free Germany was present in "Mein Kampf" and was a common school of thought in post WWI far-right circles.

>>29026
>Why did the war break out in 1939 rather than 1950? What sped the process up?
German-Polish relations tensed up over the years, no middleground could be reached on the Danzig/Polish corridor question and finally, ethnic cleansing of Germans in some Polish-controlled areas. The Germans have been accused of falseflagging these attacks but Hitler gave the Poles an ultimatum: stop persecuting my people in your lands or we'll invade.

I guess the Poles felt too comfortable with France and the UK backing them up.

>>29065
Numbers were close though. But yeah, I'm not trying to make some argument here, just saying.
>>29093
True, I just meant it wasn't a clearly put policy from the start, it gradually evolved.

>>29093

The thing that's most ridiculous about it all is that Germany had barely any Jews inside of it until they invaded Poland.

No war, no jews.

Logic: 1
Hitler: 0

>>29026
>What sped the process up?
Hitler felt confident that the French and British weren't as ready for war.

>>29121
>ethnic cleansing of Germans in some Polish-controlled areas
please provide sources for that statement

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German areas and allowed them the options to join Germany?
You mean after WWI? Germans were everywhere, the Entente wouldn't be able to strike a number on Germany in any possible way if they acted like that.

>>29121

If you are talking about Bromberg it happened after the war had started.

If you are talking about the imaginary Danzig massacre I find it hard for a tiny minority to do any damage to a huge German city with NSDAP autonomous government in place.

What was used as the casus belli for war was the Gleiwitz radio station incident which was a false flag.

>>29093
>The basic idea of creating a jew-free Germany was present in "Mein Kampf" and was a common school of thought in post WWI far-right circles.
But was the plan to gas the Jews from the very start?

They were expelling Jews, and committing discrimination (which, for the record, expelling an entire group of people from a country is genocide, so I'm not saying he wasn't genocidal) but that isn't to say that the plan was to gas the Jews from the very start.

File: 1359846283440.jpg (67KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 600x900px

>>29121
>ethnic cleansing of Germans in some Polish-controlled areas
>stop persecuting my people in your lands
What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you the kind of people who think the Concentration Camps were actually built by the Poles for the Germans?

>>29204
The original plan was containing them in Madagascar, but since that was not possible they went with the Final Solution.

>>29121

>ethnic cleansing of Germans by Poles

source? if not pls get b&

>>29142
I was under the impression that another reason was that the reason Hitler got the USSR on board was that he thought that the British and French wouldn't declare war on just Germany if both countries invaded Poland and neither would be willing to declare war on both the USSR and Germany?

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-2008-0415-505,_Bromberg,_Leichen_getöteter_Volksdeutscher.jpg (63KB, 800x528px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x528px

this reasoning is totally spurious

>Germans live somewhere therefore that place belongs to Germany
absurd. The equivalent would be areas of the United Kingdom holding plebiscites over whether or not to join Pakistan

besides Hitler demonstrated that his interests were not confined to areas with ethnic German majorities when he annexed the whole of Czechoslovakia

>>29248
there is none. It is a meme pushed by the Nazis prior to the invasion of Poland as a justification for the invasion, along with the false flag attack at Gleiwitz carried out by the Abwehr. Some Germans who lived in Poland got BTFO during the German invasion amidst all the confusion and mayhem, the nazis invited some journalists to see the bodies and claimed it as evidence of Polish "ethnic cleansing"

pic related is the propaganda in question

I know /his/ isn't /pol/ with dates, but do you get ethnic Germans as groups of people in eastern Europe today?

I mean, of course there will be people in Poland and beyond who are ethnically German, but do they have an identity or communities? Or did they keep quiet after WW2?

>>29256
Not at all.
Hitler made the same mistake the Japanese made on America: they thought the French and British would pussy out, just like they did when he invaded Czechoslovakia.

>>29121
>ethnic cleansing of Germans in some Polish-controlled areas

There is literally no evidence of this
It was propaganda used by the Germans to justify invading Poland and there's STILL fags buying it lol

>>29318
>false flag attack at Gleiwitz carried out by the Abwehr.
>false flag
nice meme

>>29335
Does it matter?
In Alsace-Lorraine there are people with German surnames that can't even pronounce them correctly because they have become more French than the Parisians.

>>29353
But then why get the USSR on board at all? If he thought Britain and France would pussy out then why not annex all of Poland?

>>29335
Most of them were forcibly deported to Germany, the Soviet Union controlled these lands after all. I think there are some small German towns in Silesia though

>>29391
He had to make sure the Soviet Union didn't strike at him before he could attack first.

I'm still interested in this btw if anyone would care to answer

>>29026
>Why did the war break out in 1939 rather than 1950? What sped the process up?

>>29391
Because it's easier to annex a country when they're fighting a war on two fronts. Poland was actually very prepared for war. Hell, Poland had defeated Germany in a previous war some years earlier.
Also, >>29412

>>29445
see
>>29142

>>29446
Righto. It just seems like >>29256 would be a logical part of the thought process

>>29366
>meme
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed on August 23rd and divided Poland between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Gleiwitz was August 31st. Immediately following this (i.e. the next morning), the Germans invaded Poland, which as we know from the M-R pact, they had already agreed to do 8 days prior to this date

if it were anyone except the Nazis you would be screaming at how obvious this false flag is, but like most morons your vision is clouded by your pathetic servile fawning over a dead ideology and an up-jumped Austrian art student

research Operation Himmler to find out more

>>29446
>Poland had defeated Germany in a previous war
I think you're confusing this with the Polish-Soviet war, aren't you?
>>29445
It was pretty clear that Hitler would not get away with further territorial expansion after the breakup of Czechoslovakia, but he went full YOLO and did it anyway, expecting to get away with it once again.
Once he realized that the allies were serious this time he just sort of accepted it and went along with it.
Another important factor is economics: the war started at the perfect time for the German arms industry, since it was increasingly difficult to acquire enough money for the armament program.
Yes, the generals were originally expecting a war almost 10 years later, but that just would not have been feasible at all from an economic standpoint.

>>29445
I think part of why the war started in 1939 was that time was in fact playing against Germay. It needed conquests to sustain its economy and the allies (France in particular) had launched ambitious rearmement programs so the balance of power would have shifted in their favor more and more over time. Since a war with them was pretty much inevitable for Hitler, it needed to start earlier than later. Had they not declared war over Poland, they would have been next I reckon.

>>29572
What actually was the basis for the Nazi economic model that made it so limited and (according to the other poster) doomed by 1942?

>>29572
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings

>>29625
Where do you think they got the money for their rearmament program from? They had to take out massive loans to acquire the necessary amount of cash. People like to talk about the nazis "fixing" the German economy, but it was all a credit-financed bubble.
And what's even worse was that Germany needed more and more money as the rearmament sped up. The bubble had to burst, no matter how many tricks the ministry of finance pulled to get foreign capital.
This is also why the annexation of Austria had to happen in early 1938. Without the gold reserves of the Austrian national bank the bubble would have burst before mid 1939.

>>28548
World War 2 would have been avoided more easily if Britain and France didn't absolutely fuck up Germany with the treaty of versailles and actually tried to help them.

Also if Gustav Stresemann didn't die.

>>29719
Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
While I wouldn't call it a full scale war (it was more of an insurrection really), I can see why it influenced Polish military planning. But I'd still say that the Wehrmacht of 1939 was in no way comparable to the provisional forces of the early Weimar republic.

>>29765
Loans from who? Was it deficit financed in a similar way to just modern deficit spending?

>>29843
>le Versailles meme
If anything Versailles didn't go far enough. Brest-Litovsk was much harsher and I doubt that after the millions of dead and the money sunk into the war Germany would have been any more lenient with France had it been in any position of victory.

>>29843
There is this interesting school of thought that Versailles was both too harsh and too lenient at the same time. On the one hand it was harsh enough to create revanchist tendencies, but on the other hand it didn't neuter Germany to the point where it was incapable of carrying out said tendencies in the future.

And yes, Stresemann dying really didn't help.

>>29943
>>29944
It wasn't the terms, more the fact that it fostered a feeling of utter resentment towards France especially that far right and left politicians could use as a means of getting support.

>>29944
It could have worked, but the Anglos made sure it would failed by not backing up France when they were asking to reinforce the Versailles treaty. Everything Versailles did was slowly destroyed by Hitler, and after that it was too late.

>>29997
yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a quote from Hitler saying all his plans were fucked if Britain and France stopped them from re-militarising the Rheinland because he'd look like a joke to the people but Britain let them do it.

>>29978
But with France being the Allied country with the most troops at the end of WW1 and thus with a lot influence in the making of the treaty, Versailles damning Germany was pretty much unavoidable. There was too much hate going on what with the northeastern part of their country being a ravaged hellhole and all the deaths. Plus most of the French political class had lived through the Franco-Prussian war so there was a feeling of "making them pay".

I agree something like responsability being shared for example would have lessened tensions after the war but it just wasn't feasible.

>>30090
Isn't the irony that France was seen, with the reparations and their will to stop the remilitarisation, as a bully to Germany? Insight is 20/20.

>>29882
Well it was similar to modern day deficit spending but then again it was not.
The idea of deficit spending is to strengthen the economy as a whole, by investing in key industries and infrastructure. Another aim is to improve the quality of living for the average citizen. In the long run the aim is to recuperate all of the invested money and pay back the loans.

The "Reichonomics" had an entirely different aim: building an army that could win the Germans their "Lebensraum". Investment was limited to very specific fields, which lead to shortages of everyday products (poultry, wood, cars, ...) and a generally stagnating standard of living (despite decreasing unemployment and increasing wages).
Additionally you can't pay back loans with tanks and artillery pieces.
Another thing were the shrewd practises of Hjalmar Schacht, who basically issued IOUs and took full advantage of the abolishment of the gold standard to finance the insane expenditures (after 1936 military spending had overtaken civilian spending).

>>30109
Germany wasn't blamed for WW1. The Versailles treaty said taht "Germany AND its allies have the responsability for causing so much losses"
it never said WW1 was Germany's fault, but as soon as the war ended, German politicians made sure to never respect the Versailles treaty. They spread both the diktat idea and the "stabbed in the back" myth.

>>30237
It absolutely gals me that Ludendorf of all people was allowed to spread that bullshit in his lifetime.

>>30237
>"stabbed in the back"
Ah yes, the good old Dochstoß...
Funnily enough you still find people arguing in favour of that theory, often putting an antisemitic spin on the entire thing.

>>30282
No, it's actually quite comprehensible. Germany was facing socialist revolts after WW1, Ludendorf knew that only the army could stop that, but the army would have been discredited if they simply admitted they fucked up in WW1.

>>30237
>"stabbed in the back" myth
Aren't Ludendorff and other high graded eluding their responsabilites the ones who can be blamed for that?

>>28548
I really do suggest you start by reading about National Socialist economic history and the serious problems with accumulation of capital in money form.

>>30364
Exactly that. In fact, that episode exactly shows why was anti-Semitism so widespread.
Jews, as a segregated minority, were blamed for failings of German leaders.
Of course I wouldn't go so far to say Ludendorff and Hindenburg would condone what Hitler did, but they used Jews (and socialists, though many saw them to be same as Jews) to whitewash their own failings.

>>30364
Pretty much. It was clear, that the military leadership had fucked up big time during late 1918. The 100 days offensive was pushing the German lines back at an astounding rate and total collapse of the frontline was imminent.
Ludendorff could be happy, that the revolution happened before his "undefeated" army disintegrated completely.

>>29944
Foch thought that the war should have been pursued all the way to Berlin IIRC

>>30484
I would have to find the numbers again but I once read how about towards the end of WW1 the number of German prisoners captured by the allies skyrocketed. Morale was crumbling that badly. And there was also the matter of the civilians starving to death in Germany proper.

>>30425
Jews had long been convenient scapegoats and spartacists were the new boogiemen so it's not surprising, but still aggravating, that they got away with it.

>>30516
Foch had a lot of insight (the Versailles quote is famous) but French warring capability was nearly spent though. The USA would have had to take a big part in the invasion and I don't know if Wilson would have agree to that.

>>30625
>Morale was crumbling that badly
When I read "All quiet on the western front" a line towards the end caught my attention. it basically went like this:
>"For each Kommisbrot (military bread in the German army) there are five cans of corned beef on the allied side"
No wonder they surrendered en masse towards the end of the war, if they couldn't even get enough food.

>>30516
Well the backstab myth certainly would not have had such success if the French had paraded through Berlin.

>>28886
Versailles, this was why germans of the time were eager to believe any the rest of the World is fucking germans over Statements

>>29411
There are still German people in Hungary; they have lived there since the 12th century.

>>30222
I was more referring to the mechanisms involved

>>28548
>this meme map without a source again

>>31126
>meme map
The only things that feel a bit off for me are the northern italy part and all of those dots on Poland

>>31126
Google search the image by clicking on the triangle to the right of the post number, and you may find it resembles this one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_development_of_the_German_linguistic_area.gif

>>31195
I also don't think Germans were ever that big in South Styria, to be honest.

>>31253
Those were German lands for a long time, or do you mean the Slovenian part of Styria? This map isn't accurate about the percentages, I'm assuming it's only showing places with a significant presence of German speakers, regardless of ethnicity.

>>31195
>>31202
Meme map without a proper source. Allegedly it shows areas with at least some % of German speakers, but no one knows what % it is.

>>31342
South Styria = modern Slovene Styria, yes. I don't think Styrians ever spoke much German, though. It's mostly just Germanisms in the dialect.
This map is exaggerating.

>>28593
A few millions late grew into 43 million Slavs murdered for nothing and most of their material property destroyed.Germans are a blight,at least for East Europeans.

>>28795
By having it's emperor give the order to finance and support the rise of Bolshevism in the Russian Empire?Strange.

>>28854
Overly militarized economy,would've made them completely reliant on warfare.

File: 1416543676503.png (434KB, 993x768px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 993x768px

>>31370
>>31409

Don't know about the German empire, but the Habsburgs did more than one census. I do agree that map in the OP is a bit weird about percentages.

>>31508
>but the Habsburgs did more than one census

Tell me about it. If you want any for Carniola, I can give you three or four :^)

>>31527
I can see the /gsg/ in your post lad, calm down

>>1

>>31571
Shit, you caught me. Yeah, that helped when HPM got butthurt over superior Slovene statistics.

>>28548
>or would Germany have tried to invade and depopulate Slavic areas

Obviously this.
Hitler was a british empireboo simply because it spread white people all over the globe and submitted non whites under white's rules. He wanted all of russia to be settled by germans.

>>31657
Yeah, I remember reading he wanted Volga to be an analogue for USA's Mississippi and Siberia to be something like the Wild West, with Russians instead of Indians.

>>31623
Are you that guy who went on this insane reseach-spree about Slovenes in Vicky2? Because that shit was pretty awesome.
>>31409
>I don't think Styrians ever spoke much German
I think you gotta be very careful with your language here. The modern Austrian state of Styria has basically no Slovene speakers, and Slovenia has almost no German-speakers left. If you look at pre WWII Styria and northern Slovenia you start seeing a gradual shift form German in the north to Slovenian in the south. It's really hard to specify specific borders here.

>>31770
Looks like he read too much Karl May

>>31867
There was a Slovene guy who argued with HPM because HPM didn't believe some statistics and thought Bosnians were autochtonous to Slovenia. I'm the guy who posted the statistics from four different censuses.

Yeah, I was thinking Slovene Styrians, sorry.

>>31878
Possibly. Karl May is cool, even though he never went to America and wrote his stories in prison.

>>28795
Poland did so in 1920. If bolsheviks broke through Poland, then Germany would be easy to turn communist after ww1. Lenin had plans to turn all of Europe into a commie shithole.

>>31508
They're not nationality censuses, they're linguistic ones. Thus you can be an african and classified as a german according to that and there was a lot of pressure on some to declare German.

Just pointing it out

>>28795
Germany was the one who propped up the commies in the first place, even got Lenin to St. Petersburg on a private train.

>>32078
Still, it's coloring places as German even if the German presence was minimal.

>>32078
I knew that much, but wasn't language a huge part of nationalism back then? The question for the census was something like "What's is the language you prefer using daily?". I doubt ethnicities could be that easily indetified either.

>>32129
The original map, yes.

>>32205
No, it was more like "What language do you use in your daily altercations" or something of that sort.

>>32205
Indeed, language was and still is one of the elements that make an ethnic group.

>>32129
Well, they were trying to measure something a little different, cultural groups rather than who's your daddy.

>>32439
OP's map is exaggerating the range of the German "cultural group".

>>30284
>>30364
>>30425
>>30484
>What is the communist revolution of 1918 and who are its leaders

Plebiscites were held in Schleswig, which had been German since the war of 1864. So the area was democratically divided between Denmark and Germany.

But it's not like Hitler gave a shit in 1940, when he invaded Denmark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig_plebiscites,_1920

>>31987
No, had poland lost, communism would have been crushed by the western powers. Their defeat against poland is what saved them and allowed them to flourish.

>>32768
>Implying it was actually communist and not socialist/democratic
>Implying it didn't start with a mutiny amongst seamen
>Implying it wasn't carried out with the support of large parts of the population that never would have supported communism
>Implying it didn't lead into a democratic state that had a variety of political parties
>Implying the commies didn't get btfo by the SPD and the Freikorps

I really don't see your point here, calling it a "communist" revolution is a massive simplification and a twisting of facts.

>>32776
Hitler didn't invade Denmark for Schleswig and never contested the border established after WW1. Denmark was invaded to secure ore supplies from Northern Scandinavia in the face of British actions in Norway.

>>33722
German revolution of 1918
>"wasn't communist"
uh, no, anon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
http://spartacus-educational.com/GERrevolution.htm
http://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/german-revolution/

>>33795
It was largely carried out by social-democrat elements (at least in the beginning) and was ended by them, once it had gone too far. It was not a communist revolution in that it was not comparable to the October revolution in Russia and didn't result in the establishment of a Soviet state.
Calling it communist was done by the political parties in its immediate aftermath, in particular by very right and left wing movements to further their own goal.
This point of view isn't really used in modern historiography and stands in the way of a differentiated view on the subject.

>>33722
>Socialist/Democratic
>Starting a Revolution

Look up who were the main organizers and you'll see why they were called communist

>>34066
Social democrats back then were a lot more radical, though.

>>32768
The revolution broke out well after Germany lost the Spring Offensive and after the 100 Days Offensive began. Germany lost the war in the months before to the outbreak of the revolution, not after.

>>34121
The initial revolution was when the Ebert took power from the military establishment in early October. In the eyes of the SPD the revolution was over by then. Why else did he order the revolution to be put down by the Freikorps then?
Are you also implying that socialists or democrats cannot lead a revolution? Because that would be a very weak standpoint.
>>34139
But they weren't communist, which is the entire point of this discussion.

>>34238
I'm pretty sure even the Bolsheviks called themselves social democrats before the name change.

>>34325
The Bolsheviki never had a name change. Their name literally means "Majority", which is quite ironic, considering that they were a small splinter part of the Russian social democratic party. This party mainly consisted of the Mensheviki (Minority, I know, it's confusing af) who had very different ideas about the implementation of the socialist state.

Another thing was that the SPD was in no way comparable to the Russian social democrats. The long and arduous process of parliamentary work had dulled their revolutionary edge so much that one of their immediate goals in the aftermath of WWI was to cooperate with all elements of society, including the conservatives.

>>34238
>they weren't communist
They _were_ socialists though, as they applied the term at the time.

It is a part of the spectrum that includes Communism and Bolsheviks.

>>34450
>Russian social democratic party

Called it. Social democracy was synonymous with socialism back then, senpai.

>>34496
Then why did they order to put down communist movements, if they were communist themselves? The SPD did everything it could to distance itself from communism as it was implemented in Russia at the time. Since the perception of what communism means is typically shaped by that implementation it is better to use a more general term (socialist for example) or call them Social-democrats.

Also you've got some flawed logic here:
They called themselves socialist therefore they are communist since communism is a part of socialism

>>34593
But that doesn't make them communist, because that is just one interpretation of what socialism can be.

File: history is written by the victors.png (235KB, 353x929px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 353x929px

/pol/fags out

>>34675
Dude, they were part of a social democratic party and they established the Soviet Union, a communist country. What is there hard to believe here?

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German areas and allowed them the options to join Germany?
No. Hitler did in fact want lebenstraum, he and many Germans wanted revenge for WW1, the allies intended to eventually contain German expansion even if people wanted it, and Hitler was unlikely to take no for an answer.

>>34708
let's just get back to our basic standpoints here, because this shit is getting confusing:
You're saying that the SPD in 1918 was communist, since they had socialist in their name and the bolsheviki were communist too and therefore were socialists.
But you're ignoring what actually happened back then. The SPD put down communist movements. This means that they clearly were not communists because why would they shoot their pals, right?
Discussing semantics doesn't really help in this context.

>>34853
Okay, I was mainly talking about the Russian social democrats, not the German ones. Social democracy, just like socialism, wasn't the same in every country, I agree.

>>34689
wouldn't /gsg/ be on the side of /his/?

>>34634
>Then why did they order to put down communist movements,
Why did Mao purge elements of his own party for "rightism"? Same logic applies. Not far along the spectrum enough.

> if they were communist themselves
I did not say that- I stated they were both left-leaning parties. Communism is obviously far further left.

>>34689
Whoever made this is a massive fag.

>>34689
>if you disagree, you're /pol/
lol@you.

>>34929
It's a battle to be freed from outside influence.

>>34929
/gsg/ likes memes too much, apparently
Anyway, the guy who made this is a massive flaming faggot, and I've been arguing with /pol/iticians since the board was created.

>>28593

You mean the Crimean Goths? The Germanics that lived in Crimea until at least the 1700s?

>>34941
>Not far along the spectrum enough.
More like too far along the spectrum in the case of the SPD in 1918.
>I did not say that- I stated they were both left-leaning parties. Communism is obviously far further left.
I'm glad that we can find some common ground here

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid
no, krauts would find another way to completely chimp out

>>35113
>I've been arguing with /pol/iticians since the board was created
And there's your problem. Ever heard of the ignore function?
Instead you go full autist.

>>35468
If I ignored everyone who had a different opinion, I'd still be shitting in a diaper.
That's why I like imageboards more than reddit, because every opinion has the same value and there is no pressure to conform to a certain majority. That does however mean that every opinion can be reinforced or proven wrong by other anons. I see no reason to change that.

>>35646
>I like imageboards more than reddit, because every opinion has the same value and there is no pressure to conform to a certain majority. That does however mean that every opinion can be reinforced or proven wrong by other anons. I see no reason to change that.
My respect for you just grew considerably. While I may disagree bitterly with you, anon, I respect you as a person.

>>35750
*politically disagree

... to clarify.

>>28548
we he talked about lebensraum he was directly talknig about pomerania and other areas taken from germany and given to poland after world war 1. 10 million germans were forcibly removed from eastern regions after world war two in the same way and scale the germans planned to do to polish if they won the war. There is absolutely no mention of genociding slavic peoples aside from one document stating that taking food from russia to feed german soldiers on the western front could result in dangerous levels of starvation in russia.

>>35792
He wrote about taking land from Russia to settle germans there. It wasn't just about the old imperial borders.

>>35792
>"Wenn wir aber heute in Europa von neuem Grund und Boden reden, können wir in erster Linie nur an Rußland und die ihm untertanen Randstaaten denken"
>"When talking about new land in Europe, we must firstly think of Russia and its fringe vassals."
That's a quote from Mein Kampf btw.

>>28548
>Could WW2 have been avoid if plebiscites had been held in ethnic-German areas and allowed them the options to join Germany?

if they had been allowed at the conclusion of ww1 as the victors were carving up everything? yes, no question.

Once Hitler was already in charge and asking for those things? no, the guy was a nut.

>>35890
>>35952
its a pretty big assumption to take "genocide all the slavs" from something that could just as easily mean redrawing borders

>>36008
Yeah, because eternal slavery is that much better.

>>36008
You specifically stated that he wasn't interested in Russia. I quoted his manifesto, where he states that the Lebensraum concept specifically aims at Russian and Eastern European soil.
Nobody was talking about genocide, that's an entirely different aspect.

>>36123
it would be literally impossible for germany to populate eastern europe or russia with its birthrate and population, and even if hitler made a passing reference to something that could possibly be construed as wanting to flood russia with germans in a book he wrote that has nothing to do with actual world war two era german policy or what would happen in the real world

>>36242
Lebensraum was a key concept for Hitler, the ultimate goal that he strived for. Calling it a "passing reference" is idiotic, considering that the war with Russia was primarily motivated by said concept.
Also nazis were fond of megalomanic projects, colonizing half a continent would be right up their alley.

File: 1415394252537.png (210KB, 484x368px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 484x368px

>>36242
>Hitler writes about conquering lands in the east
>he does that

>Hitler writes about Slavs being inferior
>his racial policy reflects that

>Hitler does all kinds of things
>"He was a good boy, he dindu nuffin!"

>>36365
>Lebensraum was a key concept for Hitler, the ultimate goal that he strived for
taking back the empire was a pretty big goal, you have yet to prove that repopulating eastern europe and russia with germans is what lebensraum refers to or that it was given serious consideration by anyone

>considering that the war with Russia was primarily motivated by said concept
really? not the constant threat of ideological subversion, civil wars, or full blown military invasion? id like you to back that up
>Also nazis were fond of megalomanic projects, colonizing half a continent would be right up their alley.
woulds are nice for painting people you dont like in a bad light but mean nothing

>>28795
>the germans literally sent Lenin to russia to complete his revolution

And the eurokeks still try to trash talk our own interventions.

>>36457
>you have yet to prove that repopulating eastern europe and russia with germans is what lebensraum refers to or that it was given serious consideration by anyone
Then why was Generalplan Ost drafted, if nobody cared about the concept? Why did numerous party officials claim that this was their long-term goal?

>really? not the constant threat of ideological subversion, civil wars, or full blown military invasion? id like you to back that up
I see that this has opened up a whole can of worms. I'll get to it in a later post, don't worry.

>woulds are nice for painting people you dont like in a bad light but mean nothing
But this actually is a logical extrapolation. As the war was still going on, German settlers were being recruited, and settled in specific areas that had been freed of their original population. This wasn't just some wingnut's brainchild, it was a real plan, that was already being executed during the war.

>>29944
This is actually very interesting. While I appreciate /pol/ preventing this place from becoming full on reddit, non german-boo opinions liven the discussion.

>>29765
I-I've never thought about this. I guess I've bought into the nazi economy- magic meme for too long.

>>36686
>Then why was Generalplan Ost drafted, if nobody cared about the concept?
i dont think generalplan ost is actually a document, its an extrapolation based on the very tenuous evidence of mentions of lebensraum and a document from some college in germany warning that taking food from conquered russian territories could result in deadly famines. not encouraging famines, not planning for famines, warning that taking food from them to support the war efforts could result in deadly famine in russia.
>But this actually is a logical extrapolation. As the war was still going on, German settlers were being recruited, and settled in specific areas that had been freed of their original population. This wasn't just some wingnut's brainchild, it was a real plan, that was already being executed during the war.
yes, in nearby territories most of which were taken from them in world war one, if its fair to take from germany, if its fair to forcibly expel 10 millions germans from polish land after world war two why is it suddenly evil genocidal maniac deeds when germany wants to do it? also as i said before it would be literally impossible to populate all of eastern europe and russia with germanys population and birthrate, its just not a feasible idea in any way

>>36848
>i dont think generalplan ost is actually a document
It actually is a collection of documents, most of which were produced by the RFK (Reichskommissar für die Festigung des Deutschtums - Commissioner for the fortification of the German race). Our source situation regarding the plans for the colonisation of Eastern Europe is quite good if you think about it. I suggest you do some reading up on it, it truly is an interesting subject.

>yes, in nearby territories most of which were taken from them in world war one
During "Aktion Zamosc" Himmler tried to germanize an area in the Lublin region. Lublin never was a part of any German Empire and had no history of German settlement. About 110 000 poles were driven from their homes to make place for Germen settlers. Another action like that took place around Zhitomir, in western Ukraine.

>>36848
Generalplan Ost was the plan on how to colonize Russia, not just how there would be famine because of food shortages.

Nope. The war reparations, lost of prestige, degrading of the German military (which many were deeply proud of), seizure of colonies, occupation of the Rhineland and the deep economic problems which naturally were to follow regardless over what reparation/loan deal was chosen made WW2 unstoppable. Yes, it coukdve turned out differently e.g. the KPD coming to power instead of the NSDAP but regardless, there would've been a major war against Germany.

>>37160
>>37203
wikipedia says all copies of the supposed documents were destroyed in war and the only evidence is a testimony in the Nuremberg trials

maybe thats enough for you, i wonder what documents would be mysteriously destroyed by the soviet or american governments and been held to be true by the nazi courts based on eyewitness testimony

>>37407
>Apart from Ehlich's testimony, there are several documents which refer to this plan or are supplements to it. Although no copies of the actual document have survived, most of the plan's essential elements have been reconstructed from related memos, abstracts and other ancillary documents.
You are deliberately misreading Wikipedia to prove your point. The same article states that while we do not have direct copies of the plans, we do have enough ancillary material. The plan was referenced, people wrote commentaries, memos and it is further supported by the actions of the German occupation forces in Russia.
Many historians specialized in other time periods would kill for sources like that and you're sitting here all smug because we don't have originals.

The more I'm talking to you, the more I get the impression that you're not even really interested in historical discussion. You've got your agenda and you want to push it. That is not scientific behaviour, and any historian who acts like that would be rightfully ostracised.