Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What caused me to raise this topic is an article I found this morning while surfing the web.
Out of sixteen nations, Germany has won a poll as being the most responsible country and having the most positive influence on the world. Whether this in fact true, or not, the thing that stands out for me is what a difference the last sixty-five years have made for Germany. Even if Germany is not the most responsible country in the world, few can argue the fact that it is among them. Germany's economic accomplishments from the days when it totally rebuilt its country from the rubble of bombs into the information age are almost legendary. The ability of German industry to compete against industries using cheap labor in Third World countries has been amazing. The Germans have a model that the USA should be paying more attention too.
However, I'd like to ask these questions about Post-War Germany:
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
What caused me to raise this topic is an article I found this morning while surfing the web.
Out of sixteen nations, Germany has won a poll as being the most responsible country and having the most positive influence on the world. Whether this in fact true, or not, the thing that stands out for me is what a difference the last sixty-five years have made for Germany. Even if Germany is not the most responsible country in the world, few can argue the fact that it is among them. Germany's economic accomplishments from the days when it totally rebuilt its country from the rubble of bombs into the information age are almost legendary. The ability of German industry to compete against industries using cheap labor in Third World countries has been amazing. The Germans have a model that the USA should be paying more attention too.
However, I'd like to ask these questions about Post-War Germany:
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
1. Yes.
2. I'd credit the currency reform of Erhard with providing the major foundation of West Germany's revival in the 1950s, although the Marshall Plan played a big role too. The Allies wanted Germany back on its feet as soon as possible so history would not repeat itself.
3. Hard to say.
4. West Germany was lucky to have leaders like Adenauer, Erhard, and Brandt, and they should be credited for the development of a prosperous and peaceful state.
5. More positive than negative.
6. More thorough de-nazification.
1., The influence was very high, but the wish to live in peace after the horror of wwII played a major role.
2., The Marshall-Plan was very important. But there is another side of the coin. It was much cheaper to defend the russian influence by a strong german country. There is also the huge "brain-drift" from Germany to U.S. which is widely forgotten today. Nearly the whole Aviation, Rockets (Space?) and other Knowledge was transfered to the allies.
3., I guess the two German Countries learned their lessons very well - i dont believe that there was a "conquering character" overall.
4., The Leaders of the post war Germany are widely overvalued. `cause the real Leaders made the decisions in Washington and Moscow.
5., The presence of allied troops was overall a good thing ( but with a lot of negative points). Not only the americans, french, dutch a.s.o. had the chance to interact with the Germans, it was also a big challenge for the defeated to live with the winners
6., I am not sure but i think the cold war would be less dangerous with a neutral, unarmed Germany in the middle of europe.
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
Germany had the resources, ability and knowledge to do it. The fact that the occupying powers went for an "honorable peace" over a "vengeful peace" allowed the Germans to utilize the former assets to do it. So, yes, the policies of the US and other occupying powers was critical for creating the conditions.
Quote:
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
I think the Marshall Plan laid the seeds for the success and helped a recovery already underway. However, the Allies did exact economic "reparations" from Germany which stalled the recovery. In the "industrial level plans" much German industry was dismantled with the machinery divided between the Allies. Germany exports were carefully controlled and prices set well below market value to the Allies benefit. There was also the taking of the intellectual property where German firms lost virtually all of their valuable IP and patents to US and British companies. It took until the late 1948 for the Allies to really begin to change their attitude.
Quote:
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
I've never ascribed a "national character" for "world domination" to the Germans. I think what the split did was allow the western areas of Germany to become fully integrated with western Europe. Germany was brought into the community of western European nations and the idea of a "central" Europe was virtually eliminated in the geo-political sense. Germany was a nation build of various component states and the split and reconstruction also allowed to the forging of a national identity. All of this probably still would have happened had Germany stayed intact, but that was simply not a possibility.
Quote:
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
Yes, most definitely. German leadership succesfully navigated the post-war occupation politics and used what resources they were given to set the stage for longterm prosperity. Within a span of less than 10 years Germany went from defeated enemy to being integrated into the European economy. The European Coal and Steel Community that was created by the Marshal Plan and was embraced by Germany is actually the organ that grew into the modern European Union.
Quote:
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
There were positives and negatives. Geopolitically it was a large positive. The presence of US military forces meant that Germany itself had no immediate need to defend itself. The bases and troops also provided a healthy boost to the local economies. It can also be argued that the longterm presence of US troops helped to foster what have become excellent German-American relations given the large number of Americans that have spent time in Germany.
Quote:
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
While the plans that ultimately came to fruitition were good, there was much confusion in the immediate post-war years from 1945-1948 or so. The Allies would have better served themselves, Germany and the rest of Europe had they had a more clear cut idea of what to do after the war was over.
We kept an Army in Germany and the rest of Europe to provide a means to keep the profits of our Defense Industries to remain intact. That it kept the Russians on their side of the wall was an additional benefit.
It is my personal observation that German people are among the most assertive in the world. Although this personality quality makes them fairly unpopular among those who are less assertive - which is almost everyone - it did contribute to their success before the war and after the war.
In other words, the same effort of rehabilitation applied to some other country would produce very different results. It seems the Germans are going to succeed no matter what it takes and no matter what mistakes they make.
What caused me to raise this topic is an article I found this morning while surfing the web.
Out of sixteen nations, Germany has won a poll as being the most responsible country and having the most positive influence on the world. Whether this in fact true, or not, the thing that stands out for me is what a difference the last sixty-five years have made for Germany. Even if Germany is not the most responsible country in the world, few can argue the fact that it is among them. Germany's economic accomplishments from the days when it totally rebuilt its country from the rubble of bombs into the information age are almost legendary. The ability of German industry to compete against industries using cheap labor in Third World countries has been amazing. The Germans have a model that the USA should be paying more attention too.
However, I'd like to ask these questions about Post-War Germany:
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
Yes and no. Initially the USA created different conditions for Germany - i.e. turning Germany into mostly agrarian state. The goal of these conditions was not so much about the "revival of Germany," but reparations paid by Germany to France. Soon enough, however, Americans figured out that without revival of Germany first and utmost, there would have been no economic revival for the rest of Europe, France including. That's when the USA was more or less forced to change the tune and direct the measures to the revival of Germany, since Germany ( as Europe's industrial giant) was a key to economic revival for the rest of Europe.
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
Yes, after the mistake has been realized and policy has been changed, Marshall Plan played its role in re-emergence of Germany.
Quote:
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
I don't think that Germany ( including Hitler's Germany) had any particular plans for "conquering the world."
What it does look like however, is that Germans thought that they deserved the kind of empires that England ( and may be France) had; Germany ( unlike other European powers) barely had any colonies ( if any.)
The big land mass that the US had, was an example of something desirable in Hitler's eyes.
"Through the Middle Ages, German population pressures led to settlement in Eastern Europe, a practice termed Ostsiedlung. The term Lebensraum in this sense was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1901, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models, and the westward expansion of the United States."
"Hitler noted that the colonization of the continental United States by Nordic peoples of Europe that had a large internal market, material reproduction, and fertile biological reproduction, provided the closest model to that of Lebensraum.[2]"
As for Russia occupying part of Germany - I don't think it made any difference; it was more about the reminder of "who is the boss" and long and complex relations between the two countries, the constant re-definition of the borders and German influence and historic German presence in Russia ( heh, even one of the main ideologists of Nazi party, Alfred Rosenberg happened to be born on the territory of Russian Empire and educated in Moscow.)
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
Yes, most likely.
It's not like Germany never knew sensible and intelligent people in charge ( think Otto von Bismarck for example.)
Quote:
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
American presence in post-war Europe was definitely a positive factor overall, no matter where they stayed - Germany or not. It's just Germany was the most logical point for such presence.
Quote:
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
On the earlier stages ( shortly after the WWII) - probably not, ( excluding the mistake with Morgenthau plan,) however with time for Europeans in general American military presence became a question not just of "security" but American control.
It is all about the culture. Same with an individual; some people you can give a million dollars to and they will turn it into a positive situation and come back with millions more, other you can give that same million to and they will blow it in a month on candy and cars.
This is why i always hate hearing the comparison of the Marshall Plan to now days nation building (Iraq for example); two different cultures.
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
Yes, but it was the German culture that allowed for it to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
Yes, or at least gave it a good jump. Again, it was the culture of Germany, they were not exactly Afghanistan or something like that
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
No, I do not think it was a good thing to divide Germany. I think Germans never really had aspiraiotns of conquering the world; the monarch was the source of earlier conflicts, Hitler in my opinion (as the entire WW2 conflict) was an anomaly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
I think allowing Germans to actually govern not under distress, along with US troops, and the USSR on their door step kept anyone in line if there were potential line jumpers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
Yes and no, depending on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
What caused me to raise this topic is an article I found this morning while surfing the web.
Out of sixteen nations, Germany has won a poll as being the most responsible country and having the most positive influence on the world. Whether this in fact true, or not, the thing that stands out for me is what a difference the last sixty-five years have made for Germany. Even if Germany is not the most responsible country in the world, few can argue the fact that it is among them. Germany's economic accomplishments from the days when it totally rebuilt its country from the rubble of bombs into the information age are almost legendary. The ability of German industry to compete against industries using cheap labor in Third World countries has been amazing. The Germans have a model that the USA should be paying more attention too.
[url=http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/05/28/germany-wins-a-popularity-poll/]Germany Wins a Popularity Poll | TIME.com[/url]
However, I'd like to ask these questions about Post-War Germany:
1. Was it policies of the USA and the other occupying powers (Britain and France) that created the conditions for a German revival?
2. Was it the Marshall Plan which gave Germany about a billion 1947 dollars that resulted in the re-emergence of Germany?
3. As much as we complain about Stalin and the Russians, was dividing Germany into Eastern and Western spheres until the re-unification in 1989, a good thing? Did it allow the Germans to develop into a peaceful prosperous nation and take out of their national character any desire to conquer the world?
4. Does German Post-War leadership deserve the credit for the development of a prosperous and peaceful country? I think particularly of men like Konrad Adenauer.
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?
1. No. The Allied policies were-counter productive. The Germans pulled themselves back despite the Allied policies, not thanks to them.
This article (free download) sums it up very well.
[url=http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=599]Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute[/url]
Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany? By James L. Payne
This article appeared in the Fall 2006 issue of The Independent Review
2. No. The Marshall plan was (formal title) the European Recovery program. Germany got only a small share of the Marshall plan. The reason for the Marshall plan was that the European economy was collapsing because of the preceding Morgenthau plan. The Morgenthau plan planners had not realized how integrated the European economies were, and that by removing a big piece (Germany) the other pieces (France, Italy, Holland) could not survive. Imagine what would happen to Canada if suddenly there was no more trade with the U.S.
The revival came by itself once the U.S. anti-industry policies were removed, which happened in parallel with the Marshall plan. Even though western Germany was occupied by France, UK and U.S., it was U.S. that decided policy all the time, since they had the (very big) wallet.
The 1 billion dollars that Germany got from the U.S. were peanuts. All the occupation costs, and more, were taken from the Germans, at a tax rate of nearly 50%, summing up at 2.4 billion each year. In addition the US stole as much property as they could. Operation Paperclip where they took scientist like von Braun ti the US was only a small part of it. They stole all intellectual property the could find, even designs for candy wrappers. It has been estimated by a US historian that the U.S. stole 10 billions (in 1947 dollars, much more if converted to current usd) worth this way. "Science, Technology, and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany" Stanford University Press 1990
The only good thing about the division was that it was a symptom of the cold war, and it was thanks to the cold war that the Morgenthau plan had to be stopped, so that west Germany and the western countries dependent on the industry of the Ruhr could be kept as economically healthy allies of the US. The other good thing was that the West Germans feared the Russians more than they feared the Americans, and without the 50%-50% division of Germany (and fear that the Russians would take over the rest too) the Germans would probably have rebelled with arms against the early American occupation when they were stopping food shipments and blowing up factories and shipping a million Germans off to often deadly forced labor in France and elsewhere.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II]Forced labor of Germans after World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
4. Yes, Konrad Adenauer deserves a lot of credit.
5. Was the presence of American military troops a positive thing for Germany during the 40 years following the end of World War II?
If they helped keep a Russian invasion out then yes, otherwise probably not. They built their owns societies in the German society, and were probably more of a nuisance.
6. Is there anything that could have been done better or differently with respect to our Post War treatment of Germany?[/quote]
A lot. To start with apply the 1950's policies already 1945 instead of waiting 5 years.
Just read.
[url=http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=599]Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute[/url]
Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope Nope
