Humanities desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 13[edit]

Did any other prominent German politicians advocate in favor of a war with the Soviet Union after the end of World War I?[edit]

Other than Adolf Hitler, did any other prominent German politicians advocate in favor of a war with the Soviet Union after the end of World War I? Futurist110 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How prominent a politician was Hitler in 1918? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not very. However, I didn't say that this had to be immediately after WWI. Rather, this advocacy could have been a decade or two after the end of WWI. Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much of the German right saw communism and the Soviet Union as mortal threats. One prominent example: Erich Ludendorff, "victor of Tannenberg", who after WWI joined the German far-right and was a leader in both the Kapp Putsch and the Nazi Beer Hall Putsch. From his article: Tipton notes that Ludendorff was a social Darwinist who believed that war was the "foundation of human society", and that military dictatorship was the normal form of government in a society in which every resource must be mobilized. The historian Margaret L. Anderson notes that after the war, Ludendorff wanted Germany to go to war against all of Europe, and that he became a pagan worshipper of the Nordic god Wotan (Odin); he detested not only Judaism, but also Christianity, which he regarded as a weakening force. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anyway, were there any other ones besides Hitler and Ludendorff? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "prominent", "politicians" and "advocate in favor of a war". Quite obviously lots of people from pretty much everywhere in the world, including Germany, thought that communism was evil enough to justify some sort of war. They would, for instance, publicly express anti-soviet feeling, and support any kind of violent action to get rid of soviet, including a proxy-war like Polish–Soviet War.

Yes, but I am talking about taking it to the next level--such as by advocating in favor of German military intervention on Poland's or the Baltic states' behalf--and not only to protect these countries, but also to liberate additional parts of Russia from Communist rule. Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But advocating a direct war against a country you have no border with is next level, so, it seems quite unlikely (so much so that I am not sure that Hitler himself explicitly stated publicly he would go to war against soviet union) Gem fr (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the lack of a common German-Soviet border was certainly something that made a direct German-Soviet war impossible unless Poland was either itself also involved in such a war or was wiped off the face of Europe (as in September 1939).

As for Hitler, here is what he wrote in Mein Kampf about this (source: https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp/meinkampf035176mbp_djvu.txt ):

This actually is Mein Kampf mixed with end-page notes about Mein Kampf, in a book edited by an anti-nazi, not sure I properly seperated (fixed it for you), but quite obviously Hitler's rant "Russia was good as long as Germans ruled it, now is rotten by Jews, and we are on a "mission ... to bring our own nation to such political insight as will make it see its future goal fulfilled [...] by the sword" is different from "let's go to war with Russia". I mean, this was indeed a war threat -- and was correctly understood as such, both in Russia and in France -- but is still very different of, say, "let's bombard Serbia" to take a recent example Gem fr (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that part. Anyway, Yes, Hitler didn't call for an immediate war with Russia, but he was nevertheless advocating for a war with Russia in the long(er)-run in Mein Kampf. Indeed, this is what I was asking about here--specifically whether any other German politicians after 1918 advocated in favor of a war with Russia at some future point in time. Obviously an immediate German-Russian war wasn't going to happen since Germany still needed to rearm even if it would have actually had the political will to go to war with Russia. Futurist110 (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Much as we all today recognize the necessity for a reckoning with France, it will remain largely ineffective if our foreign-policy aim is restricted thereto. It has and will retain significance if it provides the rear cover for an en- largement of our national domain of life in Europe. For we will find this question's solution not in colonial acquisi- tions, but exclusively in the winning of land for settlement which increases the area of the motherland itself, and thereby not only keeps the new settlers in the most intimate community with the land of origin, but insures to the total area those advantages deriving from its united magnitude.

The folkish movement must be not the attorney for other nations, but the vanguard fighter of its own. Otherwise it is superfluous, and especially has no right to beef about the past. For then it is acting like the past. Much as the old German policy was improperly determined from dynastic viewpoints, equally little must the future be governed by dreamy folkish cosmopolitanism. Above all, however, we are not protective police for the well-known 'poor little nations,' but soldiers of our own nation.

We National Socialists, however, must go further: the right to soil and territory can become a duty if decline seems to be in store for a great nation unless it extends its territory. Even more especially if what is involved is not some little negro people or other, but the German mother of all life, which has given its cultural picture to the contemporary world. Germany will be either a world power or witt not be at all. To be a world power, however, it requires that size which nowadays gives its necessary importance to such a power, and which gives life to its citizens.

With this, we National Socialists consciously draw a line through the foreign-policy trend of our pre-War period. We take up at the halting place of six hundred years ago. We terminate the endless German drive to the south and west of Europe, and direct our gaze towards the lands in the east. We finally terminate the colonial and trade policy of the pre-War period, and proceed to the territorial policy of the future.

But if we talk about new soil and territory in Europe to- day, we can think primarily only of Russia and its vassal border states.

Fate itself seems to seek to give us a tip at this point. In the surrender of Russia to bolshevism, the Russian people was robbed of that intelligentsia which theretofore produced and guaranteed its State stability. For the organization of a Russian State structure was not the result of Russian Slavdom's State-political capacity, but rather a wonderful example of the State-building activity of the German element in an inferior race. Thus have innumerable mighty empires of the earth been created. Inferior nations with German organizers and lords as leaders have more than once expanded into powerful State structures, and endured as long as the racial nucleus of the constructive State-race maintained itself. For centuries Russia drew nourishment from this Germanic nucleus of its superior strata of leaders.

Today it is uprooted and obliterated almost without a trace. The Jew has replaced it. Impossible as it is for the Russians alone to shake off the yoke of the Jews through their own strength, it is equally impossible in the long run for the Jews to maintain the mighty empire. Jewry itself is not an organizing element, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian Empire, once so powerful, is now ripe for collapse; and the end of Jewish dominion in Russia will also be the end of the Russian State itself. We have been chosen by Fate to be the witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the most powerful substantiation of the correctness of the folk- ish theory of race.

Our task, the mission of the National Socialist movement, however, is to bring our own nation to such political insight as will make it see its future goal fulfilled, not by an intoxicat- ing impression of a new Alexandrian campaign, but rather to be given land by the sword.

[note from the editor; NOT Hitler own words, so, irrelevant ]

Another 'folkish' writer, N. von Holleben-Alzbey, published
(1929) a treatise entitled Kleineuropa in which the following remarks occur: 'Paneuropa is inevitable, but the form it is destined to take is not that imagined by the Communistic liberals who today lead a movement bearing that name. The unification of Europe is to be achieved not only without England and Russia, but also without France, which with its colonies forms an empire of its own. In the 'Little Europe 1 thus remaining, Germany will exercise the leadership. . . . The renaissance of Germanism in Europe means that Germany has the duty to take the leadership of the States which are Fascisti- cally ruled, and itself perfect the Fascist system by transform- ing it into State Socialism of a genuine kind. The great obliga- tion resting upon Germany is to establish a world empire, and the method outlined is the most effective way of meeting that obligation. Yet it may be that Germany will not be able to perform its duty until it has defeated France, thus leaving the way dear towards the East. By fighting a war against Russia, it could then automatically solidify the center of Europe under its leadership.' The ideas here expressed go back in part to the conception of Mitteleuropa (Central Europe) sponsored before the War by Friedrich Naumann. The 'Com- munistic liberals' referred to in the citation are the group welded together in the Pan-Europa movement by Count Coudenshove-Kalergi."

Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Ebert was vehemently anti-communist, though I don't know if he openly advocated declaring war against the Soviet Union, he certainly wasn't friendly to them. --Jayron 32 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ebert was certainly hostile towards Communism in Germany. Hence the Ebert-Groener Pact to crush the Communists in Germany in exchange for the German military's support of the new Weimar Republic. I'm not sure that Ebert ever actually advocated in favor of a war against the Soviet Union, though. After all, Germany already lost a lot of troops as a result of fighting World War I. Futurist110 (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And also the German armed forces had been effectively emasculated by the Treaty of Versailles; the army was reduced to 100,000 which could "not comprise more than seven divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry". The number of artillery pieces and machine guns was strictly regulated, down to the quantity of ammunition that could be held for each weapon. No tanks, armoured cars or aircraft were allowed. [1] So even if there had been a desire to attack the USSR, the means did not exist until the political situation allowed the treaty provisions to be breached without repercussions and the economy was stable enough for a substantial financial investment in rearmament. Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I was asking about this being a long-term plan of any other German politicians after 1918 as opposed to being an immediate plan of theirs. Futurist110 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]