Not really. The entire point of the Marshall Plan was to avoid making the mistake made after WW1, which was “crushing” Germany. That had worked out badly. The Marshall Plan, instead, was to help Germans (and other Europeans) rebuild their nations. No crushing.
True enough that there were strict rules against displaying Nazi symbols or regalia, but that doesn’t really qualify as “crushing and dominating.”
I disagree. The terms Germany got after WWII were much harsher than the terms they got after WWI.
Debatable. I thought a part of the issue after WWI was not just the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, but that those terms took place in the tariff environment at the time, such that Germany had to raise money to pay all these reparations through exports, but there were such heavy tariffs on those exports that it made things doubly difficult.
Not an expert on the history of tariffs though… There is the reciprocal tariff act of 1934, and eventually the WTO. I’ll look into it some more.
ETA: Tariffs were over 50% in the early 30s. Later fell below 13%. Try exporting your way out of the hole with 50% tariffs! :eek:
I don’t really see how. The territorial losses were bigger after WWII. The occupation was far longer and more extensive. Germany wasn’t allowed to keep even a token independence after WWII. There was massive forced resettlement of Germans which hadn’t occurred after WWI. And the big thing Germans complained about after WWI was the “war guilt” clause in the treaty. After WWII, it wasn’t just a symbolic gesture; there were widespread war crimes trials.
That was fifteen years after the war. By that point, Germany had abandoned even the pretense that it was paying reparations.
I suppose we’re in needs-a-new-thread territory here, and also with the associated ‘what should be done with Republicans?’ topic.
But I’m not sure I buy your claims here—the war crimes trials, for example, were not trials of every German who had participated in the war. Certainly a convincing case for either side of the issue would require more than a few paragraphs posted here.
Any favorite books on the subject you’d like to recommend?
I’m not saying the effort was absolute. But I think it’s undeniable that holding war crimes trial for a few hundred people was harsher than not trying anyone.
But I do agree we’re wandering off the topic. The odds that members of the Trump administration will end up facing war crimes trials is probably less than thirty percent.
Wow, optimist.
Look, I’ll just retract the statement. I was focusing mainly on the tariff rates and the way German outrage was fed by them and how inflamed German passions led pretty directly to WWII, at the expense of the bigger picture. Yeah, the whole occupation thing after that was pretty stern.
After WW2, the Allies went to great lengths to rebuild Germany, find positive German role models, and rebuild the Bundeswehr. The goal was to turn Germany into an ally against the Soviets as fast as possible. And the Germans understood this. Literally nobody in Germany wanted the Soviets to gain even one more inch.
After WW1, the goal was to fuck the Germans in every possible way. There was no existential threat to anyone in Europe, so they saw no reason to try to rehabilitate or re-arm Germany.
That’s the myth the Nazis sold, yes. And somehow it became the prevalent pop culture opinion.
But the truth is, the Versailles treaty wasn’t any worse than previous peace treaties imposed by victors of the time ; and indeed even compared to treaties the Germans themselves had imposed on the Russians. Of *course *the point of the treaty was to deter any future aggression. But it wasn’t the strangling “Carthaginian peace” Keynes asserted it was, and in any event the Germans ignored much of it (even before the rise of the Nazis).
WW2 wasn’t caused by French revanchism. It was caused by German revanchism and a sense of their own manifest destiny that had been extent since before WW1 (and, in fact, directly led to WW1 as well, according to Fischer and Peukert).
(A) This is false. Even at the time, there were prominent people who predicted that the terms of the peace were excessively harsh.
(B) Go fuck yourself, dickhead. If you’re going to tell me I am wrong, at least have the decency to tell me that MY ideas are wrong, instead of accusing me of repeating Nazi tropes.
CNN is now reporting Rosenstein expects he is getting fired soon.
On TV, so no link.
Axios just tweeted that Rosenstein is resigning.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins now saying Rosenstein has submitted his resignation.
Probably, before getting fired by Trump is the reason.
Now, the question is who will Trump pick to get rid of the meddlesome priest Mueller.
Oooh, twist – NBC’s Pete Williams has reported that Rosenstein is not resigning, forcing the WH to fire him.
Yeah, CNN reporting Rosenstein is still in, but maybe due to some of his conditions to resign not being met by White House.
Where’s my popcorn?
MSNBC is reporting that Rosenstein is heading to the Whitehouse where he will be asked to resign and that he will refuse to do so; that Trump will have to fire him if he wants him out.