Another very interesting post by you.
Great point about german historian berating their country (the famous "Ordnung" frame of mind perhaps), and perceptive anglo-saxon historians, such as the authors doing the real research.
|
7 of 12 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The Road to War: The Origins of World War II (Paperback)
This review is based on the paperback edition of 2009.Overy's book about the state of our world before the outbreak of the Second World War is only one of many such works written by English-speaking authors. For the amateur historian it is somewhat surprising to note that the questions dealt with by these authors are apparently so complicated that even today, 70 years on, scores of Anglo-Saxon historians can still find new aspects to write about, whereas the Germans seem to be happy in the belief that WW2 was all Hitler's (i.e. their own) fault. There is a glaring contradiction in both of these attitudes: the Germans should, after all, be opposed to have all the blame put at their feet and should try to argue their case, whereas the erstwhile allies should endeavour to perpetuate the Nuremberg accusations - but the state of the matter is quite the opposite. What might be be the reasons for this? Could it be that, in an effort not to lose their trust in a reasonably equitable world spirit the Germans feel that they must accept the horrible things that were done to them (the destruction of their towns and cities with the loss of half a million lives, the expropriation and expulsion of twelve million of their countrymen and the death of another million in the process) as proper punishment for their own misdeeds? And do Anglo-Saxon historians - and some politicians - look ever more closely into the causes of this European catastrophe because they believe that the guilt placed on the Germans was so great as to crush the spirit of a whole nation and thereby cause a major breach in the very centre of Europe, which may yet lead to the complete collapse of Europe as we know it? Overy's very sober analysis of the economic and political situation obtaining in the major states in the 1930s can help us to see the past more clearly and prevent us from falling from one extreme into another, like Götz in Jean-Paul Sartre's play "The Devil and the Good Lord". Götz had to learn that his courageous intention to throw his former evil self overboard and to act solely according to the high principles of morality would eventually result in the same misdeeds as before. The book itself is not the description of a chaotic mass of details but the analysis of the individual situations the major states found themselves in prior to WW2. The author singles out seven such countries and describes them in so many chapters - Germany, Great-Britain, France, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan and the USA - but not Poland, surprisingly. Such a differentiated treatment yields interesting insights into the historical and political aims of the lands involved which would otherwise escape the reader. Thus Overy tells us that the foreign policies of the two, initially, major actors, Britain and Germany, were not as different as all that. Both players, Chamberlain and Hitler, employed a strategy of bluffing in the negotiations as best they could, up to the point of giving in, if necessary, in order to gain time to rearm their country for a war that seemed more and more likely. The objectives, too, were of the same imperialistic nature - Great Britain trying to hold together its disparate parts, its "Lebensraum" (Overy), while the Reich tried to shuffle off the restrictions placed on it at Versailles. A strong state in the centre of Europe being unacceptable to Britain, war became inevitable. The author presents clearly the changes in foreign policy in the two countries after the Munich agreement of late 1938: the average Briton prepared for another war because a containment of the Reich could not be achieved in any other way, whereas large parts of the German population could not but admire Hitler's bloodless victories and conclude that his was the best policy. Even Hitler's internal actions did not cause much of a stir in London: the British people was not to get the impression that they were going to war for Jewish interests, and the communists were considered to be dangerous on the other side of the Channel as well. By 1938, Germany's expenses for rearmament came to 17% of the country's revenue, British rearmament in the same year amounted to one quarter of her income (p. 132), this figure doubled the following year. In Britain, between 1936 and 1940, expenses for armaments went up by a factor of 15 - whereas in the Reich they increased only fivefold: such a pace could not be sustained by Britain for much longer, the moment of the clash was predetermined. Overy concedes that Hitler's expectation to resolve the Polish crisis in the same bloodless and successful manner as before was understandable, but he faults him for not having recognized the British change of policy after Munich. On the other hand, he states on p. 137 that Britain did not go to war in 1939 to save Poland but to save the "international system" from which Britian profited more than any other nation - but that too, turned out to be an illusion. Comments
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post:
1 Mar 2012 20:41:55 GMT
GillesP says:
Another very interesting post by you.
Great point about german historian berating their country (the famous "Ordnung" frame of mind perhaps), and perceptive anglo-saxon historians, such as the authors doing the real research.
In reply to an earlier post on
5 Mar 2012 09:07:44 GMT
Thomas Dunskus says:
Gilles -
thanks for your comment(s). A friend just sent me a few lines written by the German poet Hebbel in 1860 which may help in looking into the matter: "Es ist möglich, dass der Deutsche doch einmal von der Weltbühne verschwindet, denn er hat alle Eigenschaften, sich den Himmel zu erwerben, aber keine einzige, sich auf Erden zu behaupten und alle Nationen hassen ihn wie die Bösen den Guten. Wenn es ihnen aber wirklich einmal gelingt, ihn zu verdrängen, wird ein Zustand entstehen, in dem sie ihn wieder mit den Nägeln aus dem Grabe kratzen mögten." - Friedrich Hebbel, Sämtliche Werke: Tagebücher, 4. Band. 5780 (1860). Hist.-krit. Ausgabe besorgt von Richard Maria Werner. Zweite Abteilung My rapid translation: "It is quite possible for the German to disappear from the stage of our world, for he he has all the qualities needed for him to be received in Heaven, but not a single one which would allow him to maintain his place on Earth, and all hate him, as the evil ones will hate the good one. But if they were to succeed in removing him, a situation will arise in which they will try to dig him out of of his grave with their fingernails." TD
Posted on
11 Sep 2012 14:40:09 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 Sep 2012 14:43:22 BDT
W. A. Carr says:
By 1938, Germany's expenses for rearmament came to 17% of the country's revenue, British rearmament in the same year amounted to one quarter of her income (p. 132), this figure doubled the following year. In Britain, between 1936 and 1940, expenses for armaments went up by a factor of 15 - whereas in the Reich they increased only fivefold: such a pace could not be sustained by Britain for much longer, the moment of the clash was predetermined.
This garbled paragraph makes no sense as it does not say what exactly the countries revenues were. Is it the commonly used GDP or the budget for armaments? Obviously UK came to rearming later than Geramny so needed to catch up. Hitler began preparing for his war which he was determined to have as soon as he achieved control of the economy in 1933. He had achieved many of his objectives by then (1938) the Lufwaffe also intervened in the Sapnish civil war, not the action of an unprepared country. Britain had the resources of the commonwealth to draw upon so it could sustain the pace. Germany was essentially a bankrupt country in the early thirties with few natural resources which is why Hitler neede to get hold of territory and resources as quickly as possible. hence Austria, Checkoslovakia, and Poland.
In reply to an earlier post on
11 Sep 2012 17:34:39 BDT
Thomas Dunskus says:
Reader Carr -
I am sorry not to have been explicit enough for you. Being in the process of moving house, I cannot check into what Overy says on the page I mentioned; for reasons of style, I may have used two different words (income and revenues) for the same thing. Perhaps a reader can help with this point of the discussion. In any case, the figures speak for themselves when you look at the rates of the increase in expenses for armaments: 15 times for Britain, 5 times for Germany. Your argument that Germany had begun to rearm earlier than Britain loses some of its clout if you consider that Germany, in the 1930s, had to rearm essentially from level zero (the level imposed by Versailles) in all respects (land, sea, and air) whereas Britain already had a large fleet and an air force of an appreciable size. One also has to take into account the fact that the strategic position of the two countries had always been very different: Germany needed a land force, Britain did not. Versailles had seen to it that Germany was, as you correctly say, "essentially bankrupt in the early thirties with few natural resources", especially when it comes to agriculture - but then how did she pay for her rearmament? There are some books on that topic, e.g. G.G. Preparata's "Conjuring Hitler". Perhaps you might also give some thought to the problem of what Europe would have looked like in 1938 if Germany and Italy had not helped Franco and Spain would have ended up with a communist-controlled government. TD
In reply to an earlier post on
14 Jan 2013 17:13:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 19 Feb 2013 11:04:16 GMT
Thomas Dunskus says:
Reader Carr -
Having now retrieved the book in question, I can try to shed some more light on the question of the cost of rearmament in Britain and Germany during the 1930s, as Overy describes the matter. On p. 67, speaking about Germany, Overy says: "In 1938, Germany already consumed 17% of her national product on the military, ... In 1939, the figure rose to 23 percent..." As to the actual cost, the table on p. 429 gives figure of 17 and 38 thousand million respectively. However, these latter figures, when seen in the light of the percentages of the NPjust quoted, would indicate that the German NP rose from 100 thousand million in 1938 to 165 thousand million in 1939 - an unbelievable annual rise of 67 percent. On p. 132, on the subject of Britain, the book states: "During 1939, the government spent half its revenue on defence, double the level of 1938". It is difficult to compare these figures directly, one being based on NP, the other on government income, the only conclusion one may draw, as far as I can see, is that both Germany and Britain roughly doubled their expenses from 1938 to 1939. However, on p. 429, Overy has a table showing absolute amounts, albeit in different currencies. At the time, as far as I know, the rate of exchange was about 20 Reichsmarks to the Pound, in which case Britain would have moved from about 400,000 Pounds (1938) to over 700,000 Pounds in 1939 as opposed to Gerrmany's going from the equivalent of 850,000 to 1,900,000 Pounds. It is worth considering, though, that Germany started out essentially from scratch, building up all three branches of her military, whereas Britain already had an Air Force and a Navy which only needed to be kept up to date. By 1940, the yearly expenses were about the same, roughly two and a half million Pounds each. Altogether, according to the table on p. 429, in the decade between 1931 and 1940, Britain spent about 4.7 thousand million Pounds on defence, as against Germany's 7 thousand million - still vaguely comparable amounts considering the circumstances. Apart from all this, you are quite correct in saying that Germany was bankrupt in the early thirties and had few natural resources, but then, this is not really surprising, it is what Versailles had been all about. Addendum, 15 Jan 2013 It is interesting to note, from the table mentioned, that Soviet expenses over the same decade went up by a factor of 40, from 1.4 thousand million Rubles in 1931 to 56 thousand million in 1940, essentially doubling from 1939 to 1940. Obviously, no one can really say how much this was really worth, as exchange rates would be inapplicable and the cost of labour is meaningless in view of the immense number of Gulag slave labourers. TD
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
|
Review Details |