promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

Couldn't one argue that the USA played a role in the rise Nazi Germany due to the demands of Treaty of Versailles which left Germany ruined?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 year ago
    Favorite Answer

    The US played a far bigger indirect role with the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression that followed. It was the French that placed the heaviest demands for war reparations on Germany, that saddled the country with debt and the resulting disaster of the Weimar Republic. Hitler was filled with bitterness over that and burning with the humiliation he believed all Germans felt or should feel. His hatred of the French and his desire for vengeance were evident in his having the French sign the surrender documents in 1940 in the same railway car that the armistice agreement that ended WW I was signed in - and in the exact same location, under Hitler's orders.

    But the country was getting back on its feet and Germans were going back to work, with the help of US bankers. When the depression began to take hold - a saying at the time was 'When America sneezes, the world catches cold' - many of those loans to German businesses were called in, and elsewhere around the world. It was a worldwide depression. Up to that time, Hitler and his party were seen as a fringe element drawing small totals in elections; he was regarded as a crackpot. But he had been warning for years of the dangers of relying on foreign investment. When Germans found themselves suddenly unemployed in huge numbers, Hitler's warnings were remembered and his message suddenly found an audience.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    Hitler was funded By the Rockefeller's in the Belief Hitler would Go to war with the Communists he took the Money and Honored the Agreement

    the USA never did anything to stop him whilst the UK was Trying Appeasement

    Hitler took all this as approval and of he went

    America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U.S. War Production Board in partnership with Göring's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of everything and such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?

    For the government did sanction dubious transactions—both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.

    Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading. For example, ITT was allowed to continue its relations with the Axis and Japan until 1945, even though that conglomerate was regarded as an official instrument of United States Intelligence.

    No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Führer was victorious.

    Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.

    And it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; ITT had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. Though it would have been more patriotic to have allowed Nazi Germany to confiscate these companies for the duration—to nationalize them or to absorb them into Hermann Göring's industrial empire—it was clearly more practical to insure them protection from seizure by allowing them to remain in special holding companies, the money accumulating until war's end. It is interesting that whereas there is no evidence of any serious attempt by Roosevelt to impeach the guilty in the United States,

    reason FDR was afraid of Upsetting Corporate USA whose Cooperation was desperately needed to win the War in the Pacific

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Who
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    what role would that be?

    the US had nothing to do with the treaty

    In fact pershing didnt want an armistice at all - HE wanted to keep pursing germany until they sued for unconditional surrender (to show they had been well and truly beaten)

    (think it was he who said something to the effect that the armistice wasnt an end to the war- its was just a pause until it started again (WW2)

    (sorry "midnight run" this is just cr//p

    " Instead, the delegates chose an illegal wrath of vengeance against Germany that including denying Germany's basic right of self-determination"

    1) there was nothing illegal about it

    2) no country had a "basic" right of self determination (that came much later) - a "country" that cannot defend itself lost all its rights

    3) the treaty gave them 2 choices - agree to the terms of the treaty or fighting would start again

    THEY chose to sign NOBODY forced them to

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    You could, but it wouldn't be very convincing. The USA had little to do with the treaty, and Wilson tried hard to convince the French and British to be less vengeful.

    The tragedy is that Germany wasn't occupied. Had she been, Germans would have known beyond any doubt that they really had been defeated.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    The Treaty of Versailles was not what ruined Germany.

    It might have given rise to the national humiliation and the stab in the back myth – but the ruin of Germany was not caused by it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Ludwig
    Lv 6
    1 year ago

    Yes, it was due to internal political considerations in the USA which led to one party obstructing the role of the USA in implementing the treaty.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    It may have sowed the seeds for conflict, but it did not guarantee war. That was ultimately decided on by the increased territorial demands of Hitler. He knew exactly what he was doing.

    Read his writings about the use of force.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    No, what did that was German's acceptance of the deliberate lie that they had lost WW1 due to treachery, as opposed to the reality that they lost the war because, well, they lost the war. By 1918, there was starvation in Germany due to the Allied blockade, and their armies were falling back on all fronts.

    That they were not demented enough to fight beyond any hope of winning, which is what they did do in 1945, only shows that their decision to accept reality and surrender in 1918 was the only rational decision. Then, like a bunch of Republicans, they immediately looked for an ethnic group to blame for THEIR bad choices.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    Interesting thought... Couldn't one argue that humans have always been cruel throughout the history of time and don't need much reason at all? Hitler is the most relevant thing in your mind because it's the most recent tragedy. But it was far from the worst blood bath. I'm no advocate of the U.S.A, dropping nukes on countries killing innocent people. Invading countries so underdeveloped they send kids to battle... No we have our own sins. We don't need to take credit for that one. Power, control, greed, blood lust... Things that always have been apart of us... And always will be. For the longest time I was angry that I was poor and insignificant. But idk now... Maybe it gave me clarity. I can't say I would be any better had I been in a position of great power. When someone truly sees themselves above others... They play god.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 year ago

    No. Had the steps detailed in Wilson's 14 points been accepted and followed, there probably wouldn't have been a second war. The delegates at the Versailles Treaty ignored Wilson's input because the United States had only been involved in the war for a short time and France (especially) didn't think they had earned any say-so in the outcome of European issues.

    Instead, the delegates chose an illegal wrath of vengeance against Germany that including denying Germany's basic right of self-determination. The result ensured that a second war would be fought.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.