Yes me. The jews had no chance of stopping Hitler from hating them. The entente powers had a chance of making a just peace. Also it wasnt his hate for the jews which put Hitler in power. It was the germans hate for the treaty that put him in power.

__________________
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed."
- John McCain on an episode of Hardball, 2006, before the commercial break

"I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal."
- John McCain on the same episode of Hardball, after the commercial break

"John McCain does not speak for the John McCain campaign."
- Tucker Bounds, Spokesman of the John McCain presidential campaign.

The straight talk express. You gotta love it.

I agree that it was the German hatred of the treaty that ultimately put Hitler into power, though one cannot discount the contribution from the threat of the Soviet International at that time.

So, if the Treaty was so hated by the German people and this is a significant cause of Hitler's rise to power, does not the Allied powers have some blame here in causing this hatred with their creation of the Treaty? The key flaw of the treaty was the fundamental premise that Germany was the sole cause and aggressor of WW1 which denies the fact that France and Russia were equally guilty of starting the war. The German people were quite right to bear a grudge against this.

There's no way to evaluate how neccessary the treaty was for an ultranationalist party to take power in Germany. They existed before the treaty, they existed after. When you put all of the blame on the treaty, you are engaging in the logical process backwards. You are merely scapegoating a much longer process on one event.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Are you sure the allies had a chance to prevent Hitler from hating them? After all, he did say that the United States and Britain were run by jews...

You are merely assuming that the only way ultranationalism could have became legitamate in post-war Germany would be through something like Versailles. You are assuming you know how events would have played out under a different treaty. All of these arguments are severely flawed.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

If you want to prove that Versailles was the 'cornerstone' of WW2 you have to prove that German ultranationalism did not exist and would never have existed prior to the treaty. However, such pan-Germanic sentiments existed prior to the twentieth century, not to mention prior to world war one. You are arguing that because Versailles gave these ideologies more acceptability, that it is somehow the root cause of the war, which is completely backward logic.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Do you mean ultranationalist as in the NSDAP? Or just a general ultranationalist movement?

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

a general ultranationalist movement, which the nazis were just a radical form of.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

So 'Versailles' forced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

I'm sorry but thuis argument makes no sense that I can see.

Fifty years before Versailles, the prussians defeated France and even captured the french emporer Napolean III. Not satisfied with merely imposing a massive war reparations bill, the Prussians also confiscated two provinces (alsace and lorraine), added them to the nascent german empire, and kept occupation troops in france until the reparations were paid. So France was subjected to pretty much the same economic hardship and humiliation that germany experienced at Versailles and no Hitler-like figure emerged.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

What about historians like Fritz Fischer ( Germany's Aims in the First World War) who conclude that before and after 1914 the view was widely held in Germany that is was the country's destiny to achieve European hegemony and and World Power?

Also, here is a quote from another German historian, Edgar Feuchtwanger, from his introduction to his work Imperial Germany "Much of German historiography, particularly since the 1960's, veered to the opposite extreme, seeing the Second Reich as a deeply flawed structure and the precursor to the morally and materially destructive Thrid Reich."

Both of these works look far back past Versailles to achieve a historical context for the causes of World War Two, which was a continuous and in some ways justified attempt at European Hegemony. They also ingore the often hailed simplistic apology and scapegoating of the evil Allies at Versailles. Despite archives of evidence, German history schoolbooks, like all other national school books, including ones in the United States, tend to paint a beautiful picture as possible of the nations history, so they arent real valid in a discussion like this.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Not a Hitler figure per se, but the "Affaire Dreyfuss" shows that France had some serious uber-nationalism issues and an obsession with Jew-bashing.

In a manner of speaking, yes. To not appoint Hitler at that time would likely have been the end of the Wiemar Republic. Besides, I have little doubt the Nazis would have just shot Hindenburg if he didn't comply. Versailles created these conditions.

The Treaty created conditions where it was just as likely that Germany would have had a Soviet-supported communist revolution at that time. Ultranationalism was not the only force driving the Nazis, nor was it the key product of the Treaty.

nice try, but a huge stretch.

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"

Was it the treaty alone, my friend? Were there no other factors in the world other than, the Treaty, and Hitler? Or are you just ignoring the plethora of other relevant context? Have you critically analyzed other factors leading to Hitler's rise to power?

__________________
Anyone with a vision needs to see an eye doctor. -Helmut Schmidt.

"Mrs. Palin, which specific journals and news sources do you read? (after being asked once)"

"Oh, All of them!"