A question of historical interpretation. Do you agree or disagree with that statement - what was the first country conquered by the Nazis?
On the one hand, they ruled Germany through force and fear, a decent description of a nation living under a conqueror. On the other, the Chaplin lookalike and his goon squad didn’t beam down from Mars to invade.
It picked Austria, followed by Czechoslovakia as a close second. The Nazis were voted into power legally by the German people (granted it didn’t take long for Hitler to transform Germany into a dictatorship, but even that he more or less did legally thanks to deficiencies in the Weimer Constitution). Also conquered peoples tend not to give their conquerors the massive popular support & adulation that Hitler enjoyed (at least until the War started going sour). Hell even Austria’s a questionable case; Hitler was just as popular in Austria as he was in Germany proper if not more so.
Poland. The others were taken over by other means than war.
And “war” doesn’t have to mean nation-vs.-nation war, just that someone fights back. The Conquistadors didn’t make formal war on the Aztecs and Incas…but both the Aztecs and Incas did, eventually, fight back. They lost, and thus were conquered.
Russia, today, is trying to conquer Ukraine…but they did not conquer the Crimean region of Ukraine, because there was no opposition.
Poland, as Trinopus has said.
There is no factual, context-independent answer to this. It all depends on exactly what you mean by “conquered” in the relevant context, which, in turn, will depend upon your rhetorical purposes of the moment. As you give us no context, there is no answer.
Hitler was endorsed by millions of Germans - to say they were somehow “conquered” is to absolve them of selecting the Nazis and looking the other was as they went about the more unpleasant of their activities.
Germany - you were Nazi - stop this “I was sick, but I’m all better now” crap. There is something in the German psyche which loves Goose-stepping soldiers conquering lesser peoples.
As "Art Hoppe (columnist for the SF Chronicle) said, contemplating the (then proposed) reunification: “I love Germany so much I want there to be two of them forever”.
I disagree with what you apparently use as a definition of “conquer”, which doesn’t match the conventional historical use of the word. It’s like saying “In 2006, the Conservatives conquered Canada.”
Also, Slovakia was an independent ally throughout the war. Only the territory of today’s Czech republic was occupied in early 1939.
True.
Xenophobic and outdated BS.
Funny and also attributed to François Mauriac.
“Took control” (more or less democratically) of Germany; “took over” Austria and Czechoslovakia. Didn’t start “conquering” until Poland.
You can’t really say they conquered Germany if Germany elected them.
Historically quite false: They took control of Germany by using strongarm tactics and the implicit support of the business and established government, which didn’t see the threat implicit in Hitler until it was too late.
Hitler stormed the German government on the backs of the SA street thugs, which he then disposed of in the Night of the Long Knives because the SS thugs in black suits were more appealing to the German establishment of the time. The upshot was, Germany under the Wiemar Government was not a stable, functional democracy, and Hitler’s gangs forcibly seized control.
Yes, but he won 43.91% of the popular vote. Compared to the other candidates, a huge victory, but not yet dictator-style 110% of votes win. An issue, but it doesn’t shift the definition of conquered for me at all.
Either Poland or Germany, depending on context/your meaning. Austria et al. were more of the same if you don’t define it as an invasion.
Now you have me thinking of Hitler speaking in the stereotypical “gay German” accent and announcing his Revolution of Style with Hugo Boss.
I’m going with Czechoslovakia.
The initial annexation of the Sudetenland was done through “diplomacy,” and I see the same with Austria. Ultimately, those regions were annexed through the decisions of the leaders.
The 1939 invasion of Czechoslovakia was a little different. For starters, I understand that it was actually worded as a surrender rather than an annexation. There was also some armed resistance, and I consider that important.
To say that the Nazis conquered Germany is to make that word meaninglessly broad. The same with Austria… you might as well say that the US conquered Texas because Texan citizens voted to become a state.
The business is spoofed in Bertolt Brecht’s play “The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui,” which sets Hitler and friends in the Chicago produce market. It’s hilarious…and haunting…as so much of Brecht’s work is.
Hitler tricked Paul Hindenburg into supporting him, and that fooled a lot of good Germans into thinking Hitler must be okay. A nasty piece of business all around.
While it’s true that millions of Germans supported Hitler, there were also millions who opposed him… and which Hitler opposed right back. And they may have used superficially-legitimate methods to come into power, but they fairly quickly dropped that pretense for how they stayed in power. If you were one of the millions who opposed the Nazis, there really wasn’t much you could do about it, hence the sentiment in the thread title.