German history

[Acheron]

I open this thread due to derailment of another thread in the OT section with topics regarding German history.

I deliberately left the thread-title rather vague, so the thread can serve a wide variety of topics.

That said, two discussions that made me open this thread in the first place and with which I believe we can get the show rolling:

Treatment of Germany post WWI and post WWII:
Was Germany treated "nicer" after WWII compared to after WWI, leading to reconciliation? I have problems with this theory, both with the nicer part and with the idea that this was the primary or even a main reason for Germany abandoning nationalism post WWII. How much did the allied occupation forces shape post-wars German political environment and prevented ultra-nationalists from rising again?

The Marshal-plan:
How important was the Marshal-plan for Germany's post war recovery? Was the sum per-capita rather low? Do you calculate per-capita based on all of Germany or only West Germany? Even if comparatively low, wasn't it still much needed capital?

 

[Ozmono2021]

As the instigator of that derailment. I'd like to ask also how much did the reperations Germany was forced to pay after WWI contribute to their revanchism if at all?

 

[Mder1]

The Warsaw treaty already recognized the Oder-Neiße-Border in 1970. Can't find the post any more that claimed otherwise.

Treaty
between the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of Poland
on the Principles for the Normalisation of their Mutual Relations
["Warsaw Treaty Of 7 December 1970][1]


The Federal Republic of Germany
and
the People's Republic of Poland

CONSIDERING that more than 25 years have elapsed since the end of the Second World War, of which Poland was the first victim and which brought great suffering to the peoples of Europe,

CONSIDERING that a new generation has grown up in both countries which should be assured of a peaceful future,

DESIRING to establish lasting foundations for peaceful coexistence and the development of normal and good relations between them,

DESIRING to consolidate peace and security in Europe,

CONSCIOUS that the inviolability of frontiers and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all States in Europe within their present frontiers are a fundamental condition of peace,

HAVE AGREED as follows:

Article I

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish People's Republic agree that the existing boundary line, the course of which was laid down in Chapter IX of the decisions of the Potsdam Conference of August 2, 1945, from the Baltic Sea immediately west of Swinemünde and thence along the Oder to the confluence with the Lusatian Neisse and along the Lusatian Neisse to the border with Czechoslovakia, constitutes the western national boundary of the Polish People's Republic.
(2) They reaffirm the inviolability of their existing frontiers now and in the future and mutually undertake to fully respect their territorial integrity.
(3) They declare that they have no territorial claims against each other and will not make such claims in the future.

Article II

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish People's Republic will be guided in their mutual relations and in questions of ensuring security in Europe and in the world by the aims and principles laid down in the Charter of the United Nations.
(2) Accordingly, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, they will settle all their disputes exclusively by peaceful means and will refrain from the threat or use of force in matters affecting European and international security and in their mutual relations.

Article III

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Polish People's Republic will take further steps towards the full normalization and comprehensive development of their mutual relations, the firm basis of which is this Treaty.
(2) They agree that an expansion of their cooperation in the field of economic, scientific, scientific-technical, cultural and other relations is in their mutual interest.

Article IV

This Treaty shall not affect bilateral or multilateral international agreements previously concluded by or between the Parties.

Article V

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification and shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification, which shall take place at Bonn.[2]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plenipotentiaries of the Parties have signed this Treaty.

DONE at Warsaw, this 7th day of December 1970, in two originals, each in the German and Polish languages, both texts being equally authentic.

For the Federal Republic of Germany
Willy Brandt
Walter Scheel

For the People's Republic of Poland
J. Cyrankiewicz
St. Jedrychowski

 

[Ozmono2021]

The Warsaw treaty already recognized the Oder-Neiße-Border in 1970. Can't find the post any more that claimed otherwise.

It is still there

In the 30's, people were poor and desesperate in many countries. The situation wasn't exactly rosy in the wealthiest country in the world either. By the way, the allies accepted to cancel Germany reparation commitment in said 30's because of their financial trouble. Did that helped prevent to rise of the Nazis?

No.

The economic miracle that you write about may have played a role in providing peace, yes. Even tough their industry was dismantled in the 40's. It's easy to grow fast when you come back from zero, but whatever.

Having no army to speak of, and having hundred of thousands of Soviets, Americans, French and British surely helped to assuage any revanchist sentiment.
Did you know that Germany only recognised its eastern border with Poland in 1991? Yeah...

Here's a video from Tik, if you want to know more about the Versailles revisionist myth:

Don't know what happened to the thread though or if it were even related, I went to bed, woke up and saw @Blade! red text. @Herbert West confirmed my suspicions that post were deleted but I got the impression they strayed even further.

 

[Jopa79]

As the instigator of that derailment. I'd like to ask also how much did the reperations Germany was forced to pay after WWI contribute to their revanchism if at all?

The Allied occupation of the Rhineland 1918-1930. The event is considered on one hand to serve as a guarantee for reparations obligations. While in 1923 Germany failed in paying reparations, Belgium and France occupied the industrial Ruhr.

In German politics of that era, the Allied occupations accelerated the formation of right-wing parties. German remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 is considered as one of the events, leading to the WWII.

 

[Acheron]

As the instigator of that derailment. I'd like to ask also how much did the reperations Germany was forced to pay after WWI contribute to their revanchism if at all?

The impact seems doubtful. According to wiki, it was agreed in 1932 that Germany would pay a final rate and be done, yet at this time, the Nazi party was riding high. During the mid-twenties, the Nazi party polled poorly, despite reparation payments going on.

It sure was a great burden for the young democracy and definitely helped the nationalist forces, so yes, it had an impact, but it seems at least doubtful that foregoing the reparations would have changed much for the short duration for the first German democracy.

WWII reparations apparently went on until 1990. Greece and Poland are demanding more but met with flat refusal from German governments, probably for the best, it wouldn't propel our nationalists to power, but surely fundamentally strengthen them long-term I suspect.

Regarding the Oder-Neiße border with Poland, the East German government of course agreed to it because why would the Kremlin not want them to? For the West German government, immediately after the war, whatever stance it had on the question didn't matter internationally, they wouldn't get any border adjustment obviously, while internally, the loss of so much territory was probably not palatable to the people back then when the wounds were still fresh. By 1990, recognizing the border was a minor concession for reunification.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The west German government did not recognize the oder neisse border in 1970. What they did was, they renounced the use of violence in order to regain the territories east of the oder neisse border. Practically that may be the same thing, but legally it is not the same as recognizing the border. The legal recognition only happened in 1990 with the 2+4 treaty (to which Poland was not a party). Until then, relations with Poland remained pretty bad, marred by west German hesitancy about giving up formal claims to property restitution and/or even compensation for the loss of the eastern territories, and Polish suspicion about west German ambitions for those things.

The DDR treaty with Poland was never a valid document in the eyes of west German politicians. Not in 1950 when it was signed, not in 1970 when west Germany reconciled with Poland, not in 1972 when west Germany and the DDR jointly acceded to the United Nations and thereby more or less renounced the use of violence to achieve reunification, and not in 1990 after reunification. It did not confer on Poland any rights that a west German court would recognize.

 

[Jopa79]

The Marshal-plan:
How important was the Marshal-plan for Germany's post war recovery? Was the sum per-capita rather low? Do you calculate per-capita based on all of Germany or only West Germany? Even if comparatively low, wasn't it still much needed capital?

The Marshall Plan was divided among the participant states (18 European nations) roughly on a per capita basis (according to the source). East-Germany - as all the satelite- or under the Soviet influence -states - were not supplied by the Marshall Plan.

During 1948-1951 West-Germany received $ 1 448 millions of Marshall Plan money, being the 4th largest amount after Great-Britain, France and Italy. Population of West-Germany in 1951 was 51.4 million. So, per capita that makes: 1448/51.4=$ 28.17 millions/capita

For comparison:

• Sweden 347/7.01=$ 49.50 millions/capita
• Great-Britain 3297/50.3=$ 65.55 millions/capita
• France 2296/42.2=$ 54.41 millons/capita

So, if I'm not making major calculating mistakes in here, it seems like, West-Germany's share /capita was a low, at least, in comparison with these three other European countries. However, in my opinion, $ 28.17 millions per capita is a lot of money, especially when compared to those who received nothing.

It has also been said, the modernization of West-Germany's economy mostly took place because of the Marshall Plan. Also, the industrial production and a strong export sector was made possible by the Marshall Plan. Without the Marshall Plan, agriculture would had been in a more decisive role during the era of recovery and if West-Germany had decided to rely on agricultural development instead of industrial development, it would be a completely different country today.

 

[Acheron]

The Marshall Plan was divided among the participant states (18 European nations) roughly on a per capita basis (according to the source). East-Germany - as all the satelite- or under the Soviet influence -states - were not supplied by the Marshall Plan.

During 1948-1951 West-Germany received $ 1 448 millions of Marshall Plan money, being the 4th largest amount after Great-Britain, France and Italy. Population of West-Germany in 1951 was 51.4 million. So, per capita that makes: 1448/51.4=$ 28.17 millions/capita

For comparison:

• Sweden 347/7.01=$ 49.50 millions/capita
• Great-Britain 3297/50.3=$ 65.55 millions/capita
• France 2296/42.2=$ 54.41 millons/capita

Ummm... these values are adjusted for inflation, meaning what they would be in today's dollars, right? RIGHT???

 

[Jopa79]

Ummm... these values are adjusted for inflation, meaning what they would be in today's dollars, right? RIGHT???

Actually, I think, the values are in ”old-time” dollars, which means, the equivalent in today’s money is more than 10X.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Acheron]

Actually, I think, the values are in ”old-time” dollars, which means, the equivalent in today’s money is more than 10X.

Marshall Plan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Yeah, it reads like that... but millions of dollar PER CAPITA? That would mean that the US spent the equivalent of all four Iowa-class battleships on not quite a dozen and a half Germans, I must be making a mistake somewhere, but can't figure it out.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Yeah, it reads like that... but millions of dollar PER CAPITA? That would mean that the US spent the equivalent of all four Iowa-class battleships on not quite a dozen and a half Germans, I must be making a mistake somewhere, but can't figure it out.

Going by wikipedia numbers on cumulative expenditure

W. Germany 1,448,000,000 USD (nominal)
Pop ca 55,000,000

Exp / pop = 26 USD / capita

Not quite an Iowa class BB

 

[Acheron]

Going by wikipedia numbers on cumulative expenditure

W. Germany 1,448,000,000 USD (nominal)
Pop ca 55,000,000

Exp / pop = 26 USD / capita

Not quite an Iowa class BB

Ah, of course, carrying the zero, or not, yeah, that is MUCH more sensible, the aid to germany in total being somewhat more than a dozen Iowas.

Still, what did a 1950 Us dollar get you in 1950 Germany?

 

[JodelDiplom]

Ah, of course, carrying the zero, or not, yeah, that is MUCH more sensible, the aid to germany in total being somewhat more than a dozen Iowas.

Still, what did a 1950 Us dollar get you in 1950 Germany?

In 1950 1 USD got you 4.2 Deutsche Mark. The exchange rate stayed more or less the same until the world wide erosion of the USD value in the early 1970s.

 

[Acheron]

I thought this might also be useful:

CHART OF THE DAY: Inflation Just Tumbled To Its Lowest Level In Almost 50 Years, Excluding The Crash

We're seeing really low inflation, historically speaking.

www.businessinsider.com

Note number 6, half a dozen packs of cigarettes. However, then I came across this:

Purchasing Power: In war’s wake — Berlin 1945 to1948

A dollar and a half to two dollars for one cigarette in post-war Germany? This site claims other figures yet and gives values for other goods in cigarette currency:

A relic from Germany’s post-war era: a hoard of cigarette boxes - CoinsWeekly %

Time and again the happiness has been described a collector experiences when at a coin fair he finds the one, the small and seemingly insignificant object ...

coinsweekly.com

 

[Jopa79]

Treatment of Germany post WWI and post WWII:
Was Germany treated "nicer" after WWII compared to after WWI, leading to reconciliation? I have problems with this theory, both with the nicer part and with the idea that this was the primary or even a main reason for Germany abandoning nationalism post WWII. How much did the allied occupation forces shape post-wars German political environment and prevented ultra-nationalists from rising again?

As a well-known saying goes, the seed of the World War II was planted in the peacemaking of the World War I.

The discussions about the WWI peace treaty between Britain, France and the USA began in January 1919. Germany was not invited to contribute to these discussions. France, who had suffered considerably in the war, was determined to make sure that Germany would not be able to challenge them again. Under clause 231, the ‘War Guilt Clause’, Germany had to accept complete responsibility for the war.

The German revolution of 1918-1919 was a consequence of the WWI. It’s also regarded as a part of a broader concept - political violence in Germany 1918-1933. The revolution can be described as the common People’s reaction to the German administration, to the German Empire as it pushed (in People’s thinking) the extreme war burden to German population and the Empire not taking the responsibility of the defeat, the economical the industrial and psychological disasters following the war in Germany.

This exact era was ”the breeding ground”, the ”birth-place” for new ideologies, like for the nazism and the fascism. But not only for those, but the revolutionaries were regarded as communists and socialist People’s movements. For a short period of time, there existed a risk - if the simultaneously ongoing Polish-Soviet War would had ended differently as it historically did - the communists might have succeeded first in Poland, then in Germany and after that, in France. Then the concept of the Marxist and Lenin’s utopia - the World revolution - actually could happen, at least, in Europe.

In my opinion, it is completely clear that the birth of extremist movements and their rise to power in Germany is a direct derivative of the consequences of the First World War. During the interwar period, these extremists were at the forefront of the idea of humiliating the Germans and the feeling of a "shameful" peace due to the WWI.

The desire for compensation and the spirit of revanchism was embodied in these movements, they managed to rise to power by laying pressure, but also within the limits of the law, receiving a considerable part of the people's support.

After the WWII, Germany was divided into occupation zones, between the Allies and the Soviet Union. I’m not an expert of that matter, but I know, it was at least partly done, to retain as peacufully conditions as possible - and to prevent the rise of new extremist movements. Also, this time, Germany was not declared, by the rest of the World, being alone the only responsible one for the war. Further, like we already talked earlier, the money, provided by the US ensured restoring the German economy and industry and the recovery.

 

[Acheron]

Catch is, when the economy went up in the twenties, the Weimar Republic stabilized. When the economy crashed, so did the first German democracy. Or is this not true?

My impression is that the Weimar republic was imply unstable, a fair-weather democracy. And while the Versailles treaty certainly played a role, I suspect only a minor one. Germany had quite a lot of rabid ultra-nationalists to who anything short of the subjugation of Europe was an unacceptable humiliation. "A democracy without democrats" is a common description of the Weimar republic and I think an apt one, the people were not terribly invested in democracy and the institutions often were outright against it.

 

[Jopa79]

Catch is, when the economy went up in the twenties, the Weimar Republic stabilized. When the economy crashed, so did the first German democracy. Or is this not true?

My impression is that the Weimar republic was imply unstable, a fair-weather democracy. And while the Versailles treaty certainly played a role, I suspect only a minor one. Germany had quite a lot of rabid ultra-nationalists to who anything short of the subjugation of Europe was an unacceptable humiliation. "A democracy without democrats" is a common description of the Weimar republic and I think an apt one, the people were not terribly invested in democracy and the institutions often were outright against it.

Well, I know this, before the economy of Weimar Republic enjoyed the short era of flourishing, it was hit hard by the hyperinflation. For a moment, this leads the discussion back to the earlier - the political instability in the country. The cause of hyperinflation is generally considered to be due to the Allied occupation of the Rhineland, the misery caused to the people by the nation harnessed to pay the war reparations.

Great-Britain and France went even so far, claiming Germany deliberately destroying her economy, to avoid paying the reparations. A short reference, to help to understand, how severe the hyperinflation was, Papiermark's value collapsed catastrophically: the Papiermark collapsed from 8.9 per US$1 in 1918 to 4.2 trillion per US$1 by November 1923.

The Weimar Republic managed to stabilize its economy starting from 1923-1924, however, there was a big risk associated with it. Economic stability was maintained with gigantic American loans. As it happened, starting from the late 1920's, the Great Depression struck Germany hard, starting already in the last months of 1927. Foreign lending, especially by New York banks, ceased around 1930. Again, the population was driven to the misery, only after experiencing a few happy years. This fueled extremism and violence on the far right and far left, as the center of the political spectrum weakened.

I don't know the exact reason, but the German NSDAP and Adolf Hitler were among the few who had opposed the American loan money throughout the 1920's. Now, when the Great Depression happened globally, it was "a gift from the heaven" for the struggling-in-popularity Nazi-Party. When the huge collapse happened, it was easy for Hitler, to claim, he knew this all way long, from the beginning. Often it takes some kind of great decline for something new to gain support and popularity and this time it happened for the Nazis. If you're familiar with Netflix, they have this great history series - Hitler's Inner Circle - explaining German history, having a deep insight into the years 1918-1945, explaining also the economy shortly.

Well, this was only a scratch on the surface. But I think, the above is a fair overview. There are many intelleqtual people in this site and I think, they can explain this more in detail.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Well, I know this, before the economy of Weimar Republic enjoyed the short era of flourishing, it was hit hard by the hyperinflation. For a moment, this leads the discussion back to the earlier - the political instability in the country. The cause of hyperinflation is generally considered to be due to the Allied occupation of the Rhineland, the misery caused to the people by the nation harnessed to pay the war reparations.

Great-Britain and France went even so far, claiming Germany deliberately destroying her economy, to avoid paying the reparations. A short reference, to help to understand, how severe the hyperinflation was, Papiermark's value collapsed catastrophically: the Papiermark collapsed from 8.9 per US$1 in 1918 to 4.2 trillion per US$1 by November 1923.

Hyperinflation happened from a political decision. It always happens from political decisions. Money doesn't print itself. Someone tells a central bank "Keep printing as much money as is necessary to cover government expenses" and that is the start. Not some calamity or hardship.

The Weimar hyperinflation was a result of the Reich bank printing money to cover the German government's expenses during a period of several months where they paid wages to laborers in the Rhineland who refused to work for the French. The expenses were enormous, government revenues were insufficient, bam! inflation for as long as it takes.

The government could have accepted French demands and ceased to support the striking laborers. Then there would have been other consequences. But no hyperinflation. That was a choice. Germany did deliberately destroy its currency. It was of course not the official presentation, that was "our currency sucks because the French oppress us".

In presenting historical facts, care should be taken not to accept the official narratives of the time uncritically. Germans themselves accepted the narrative quite easily too. Our education system, then and now, places very little emphasis on macro economics.

 

[Jopa79]

Hyperinflation happened from a political decision. It always happens from political decisions. Money doesn't print itself. Someone tells a central bank "Keep printing as much money as is necessary to cover government expenses" and that is the start. Not some calamity or hardship.

Well, I kind of agree, but also, I disagree. It can be - for example - in domestic politics, - 'Now, let's burn this money down and make it valuable'. On the other hand, the foreign powers can say, - 'We don't accept this money, from some foreign country, for its value as it used to be'. This kind of dilemma leads only printing money more and into decline in purchase power.

Absolutely, I agree, hyperinflation happened in Germany because of political decissions. But was it because of the foreign policies, or the German policy? If I read you correctly, it feels like, it was because of domestic politics? That doesn't sound so nice.

And money does print itself, as long as there are people to run the electricity and someone to push the button. If that doesn't be anymore, I think, there's no value in anything, but in our very lives.

The Weimar hyperinflation was a result of the Reich bank printing money to cover the German government's expenses during a period of several months where they paid wages to laborers in the Rhineland who refused to work for the French. The expenses were enormous, government revenues were insufficient, bam! inflation for as long as it takes.

The government could have accepted French demands and ceased to support the striking laborers. Then there would have been other consequences. But no hyperinflation. That was a choice. Germany did deliberately destroy its currency. It was of course not the official presentation, that was "our currency sucks because the French oppress us".

In presenting historical facts, care should be taken not to accept the official narratives of the time uncritically. Germans themselves accepted the narrative quite easily too. Our education system, then and now, places very little emphasis on macro economics.

Yes. Because I already replied, I only say this in short. Weimar Republic's economy flourished shortly during the 1920's because of the American money. The stabilized situation was not so much because of the German decissions, but for the one and only decission, to take American loans.

Printing money can help for a moment, like the Weimar Republic did, during the era leading to the hyperinflation, but after everything lose its value, someone has to cover the expenses.

I admit, I don't know the exact acts, how the Weimar stabilized herself, but I know for sure, after the stabilatzione, they pretty much enjoyed of the American loan money.