[stratos]

$1:

The treaty that ended WWI should have never existed,

I agree it was to harsh.

$1:

that was a monstrosity which is considered one of the leading causes of WWII as without it the Nazis would have never come to the same level of power.

Actualy it was used by the Nazi's to justify their agression.

$1:

Nobody ever condemns Germany for violating that treaty because it was so incredibly unjust, they condemn the Germans for the fact they followed it up with invading a bunch of countries and starting the Holocaust.

As you claim Germany was already recovered economicly prior to its invasion to recapture the Rhine Land. They just used the treaty as an excusse. If Germany had not violated the treaty they would not have had the military muscle to invade anyone and that was the point of the treaty. Germany's economic recovery would have been slower yet in many ways would have produced a far more stable economy.

The nerumberg laws passed prior to the invasion of Poland is considered the start of the Holocaust. To say that it was do to the treaty that ended WWI is woefully wrong. The Nazi style of Gov. needed a scape goat type system they started with anti communist stance to gain political power. The brown shirts fighting in the streets prior to Hittler election led to the anti jewish stance once in power.

$1:

There are only so many detainees and slaves in a nation, they still had to use normal Germans to get their reconstruction really going as the Jewish relocation programs were still in their ghetto phase.

True to a point but a majority of the labor was forced. Very few Jews were in the camps at this point the vast majority was people from other political parties that were out lawed after the Reich Stag (sp?) was burned. The death camps did not come around till after the invasion of poland if I recall correctly.

$1:

Even without the looting Germany was well on the path to recovery by having created jobs for workers to fill and get paid for so they could buy things.

And we are back to the main point of contention. By rearming and incressing their military numbers, soilders, sailors, and airmen this was obtained. All of which was in violation of the treaty.

[bambu]

stratos stratos:

$1:

Instead of going around signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties and leaving itself defenceless and at the mercy of others to protect it, Australia should be armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships and subs, and an air force armed with nuke bombs/missiles etc.

You say this and then try to blame it all on the USA by saying...

$1:

Washington won't even sell us planes with all the bells and whistles...only a 'second rate' version...and says we can't have nuclear weapons.

Very confusing when you decry your own country for not building up its military and refusal to have nukes. Then immedately turn around and blame the US for not arming you. Why exactly should we arm you? Your country, i'm sure, is more then capable of building weapons.

Not allowing us to arm ourselves...as with Iran.
Australia is hardly Iran.

[bambu]

stratos stratos:

bambu bambu:

No.

But if they so much as fire once on Australia again I expect America to whack them before they can fire a second time.

$1:

War is war.

Death chambers are death chambers...it's nothing the same.

If the second quote is the case then why use a non military term "whack" in the first qoute. Death is Death you want the USA to kill Japaness if they attack you so they don't get a second chance. We kill murderers so they don't get a second chance. Same principle just you want it done on a larger scale.

Except that you can simply lock your murderers in prison so they don't get a second chance...and abolish the death chambers.

Impossible to do with an attacking Japan.

[saturn_656]

jeff744 jeff744:

Still doesn't mean that people can't look at the work they did and try to mimic parts while removing the intention of invading other nations. Using the Nazis as an example on how to do some things is perfectly valid option as some of their stuff worked quite well, as long as you aren't trying to copy their utterly inhumane ideals there isn't really any issue.

If you want an example of government stimulus reviving a moribund economy there are plenty of other less controversial governments to take that rather general pointer from.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Whether or not militarization is a big deal depends entirely upon who is doing the militarizing. One of the reasons why Germany steamrolled over mainland Europe so quickly is because they had a full on war economy firmly in place before they fired the first shot. They were locked, cocked, and ready to rock while everyone else was humping the bunk. The plan was never to shift the war economy to consumer products, at least not until all their neighbours were firmly subjugated and they had a peace treaty with the British Empire.

A German-ruled Europe was always their plan. Had the fascists not been in power, defying Versailles wouldn't have been such a bad thing. The full on war economy the Nazis built is another story entirely.

Actually, the idea that Germany had a full-on war economy before the war is incorrect.

Germany was still mass producing a variety of consumer goods well into the war (until 1942 for some goods), and depending on the war item (AFVs, planes, ships, etc), Britain was already out-producing Germany by 1940/41. Hitler ordered that production to continue despite Speer and others speaking out against it, because he wanted to maintain high morale on the home front. It wasn't until after the setbacks in the invasion of the USSR that consumer products were curtailed.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Whether or not militarization is a big deal depends entirely upon who is doing the militarizing. One of the reasons why Germany steamrolled over mainland Europe so quickly is because they had a full on war economy firmly in place before they fired the first shot. They were locked, cocked, and ready to rock while everyone else was humping the bunk. The plan was never to shift the war economy to consumer products, at least not until all their neighbours were firmly subjugated and they had a peace treaty with the British Empire.

A German-ruled Europe was always their plan. Had the fascists not been in power, defying Versailles wouldn't have been such a bad thing. The full on war economy the Nazis built is another story entirely.

Actually, the idea that Germany had a full-on war economy before the war is incorrect.

Germany was still mass producing a variety of consumer goods well into the war (until 1942 for some goods), and depending on the war item (AFVs, planes, ships, etc), Britain was already out-producing Germany by 1940/41. Hitler ordered that production to continue despite Speer and others speaking out against it, because he wanted to maintain high morale on the home front. It wasn't until after the setbacks in the invasion of the USSR that consumer products were curtailed.

Just because Germany was still producing consumer goods doesn't mean it didn't have a war economy.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Whether or not militarization is a big deal depends entirely upon who is doing the militarizing. One of the reasons why Germany steamrolled over mainland Europe so quickly is because they had a full on war economy firmly in place before they fired the first shot. They were locked, cocked, and ready to rock while everyone else was humping the bunk. The plan was never to shift the war economy to consumer products, at least not until all their neighbours were firmly subjugated and they had a peace treaty with the British Empire.

A German-ruled Europe was always their plan. Had the fascists not been in power, defying Versailles wouldn't have been such a bad thing. The full on war economy the Nazis built is another story entirely.

Actually, the idea that Germany had a full-on war economy before the war is incorrect.

Germany was still mass producing a variety of consumer goods well into the war (until 1942 for some goods), and depending on the war item (AFVs, planes, ships, etc), Britain was already out-producing Germany by 1940/41. Hitler ordered that production to continue despite Speer and others speaking out against it, because he wanted to maintain high morale on the home front. It wasn't until after the setbacks in the invasion of the USSR that consumer products were curtailed.

Just because Germany was still producing consumer goods doesn't mean it didn't have a war economy.

I guess it depends on your definition of a war economy - mine would be something along the lines of the entire economy being geared towards the war effort - ie. no production of appliances, curling irons, nylons, etc.

Look at the USA, it virtually stopped the production of consumer goods and shifted that production to tanks, planes, rifles and everything else necessary to fight the war.

It took the Germans close to three years to do the same thing. Priorities were so bad that one unnamed German general stated that 'that Nazi Germany had to fight the war with refrigerators.'