I empathize with the German people, a lot.
Meaning that the so called Nazizeit kind of tainted their history and their identity as Nation and people.
The problem is that the most admirable component of their Volksgeist, which is Treue (which is the inflexible obedience to the Supreme Good, which can be the State, the Third Reich) made the machine of destruction, war and genocide work perfectly.
For us Italian it was very different because there is that good, healthy sense of anarchy that allowed the Fascist Government to vote out Mussolini in 1943, and enabled the armistice with the Americans few months later.
In both cases, they were two nations which were duped. And maneuvered by evil minds who wanted the war.
I mean...no Italian was interested in freezing to death in the Ukrainian steppe, yet they had to do that in the horrific Russian campaign between 1941 and 1942.
Many Americans are/were of German extraction, so there's been a certain level of cultural affinity, although many Germans arrived in America before Germany was actually unified as a single country (which Bismarck had pushed for using the power of Prussian militarism). But there were other non-Prussian German states which didn't always see eye to eye with other German states. However, Europe's experience with Napoleon, along with the developments associated with the industrial revolution, bolstered and encouraged the sense of nationalism in multiple nations. The primary marker and identifier of nationality at the time (and still today) is language (although the Austrians had their own reasons for opting out). Similarly, it seems logical that all the previously independent Italian speaking states would line up together and unify under a single national government.
Germany's other issue was that they were also a burgeoning industrial power and needed access to resources. So, their foreign policy was largely rooted in that need. The banks grew in power mainly because of the need for capital to build their industrial base. They wanted more land, more resources, more industry, bigger armies - all in the name of making a better life for their own people. Napoleon III and Bismarck, two ardent nationalists, were also the early progenitors of the liberal "welfare state," which has become more prevalent in the modern era. But in order to acquire the goods and resources necessary to accomplish that, it required a certain style of aggressive diplomacy which can often lead to war. And it did.
In World War I, it started out as mainly a dispute between Austria and Serbia, although the history of the Balkans is also quite complicated, with each nation holding to their own brand of nationalism in the wake of the failing Ottoman Empire. Religion has also played a major role in that.
Much of the blame is laid upon Kaiser Wilhelm, as well as on Tsar Nicholas - who were actually part of the same extended family, yet they ended up ashcanning both of their dynasties. I don't know if the banks had anything to do with the fall of monarchies, but ultimately, it all comes down to politics in one form or another. Whether the politicking is done by clergymen, bankers, industrialists, pin-striped bosses, commissars, lawyers - they're all politicians making decisions that affect the lives of nations and peoples - sometimes across oceans and continents. Caesar is going to be Caesar, whether he wears a suit, a royal robe, or a bunny costume.
From the standpoint of the average Joe, their main question might be what does Caesar believe and what's in it for me if I support him? No matter if some banker is behind the scenes pulling the strings, the basics of the political process and the social contract are still present.
In other words, the Germans made a gamble they thought they could win - and they lost. The Italians also put their men and money on the table, and they ended up rolling craps. Gambling is like that. The more I have studied the origins of that war, the more I realize the Germans never really stood a chance to begin with, for one reason: Oil. Control of oil was key. That's why they wanted Baku; they were reaching the point of desperation at that point. They were resource-poor in other areas, but the key to mechanized warfare is having fuel. The U.S. was the oil king of WW2. Control of oil has continued to remain a serious sore point among multiple powers.
In the end, bankers are really just paper pushers and pencil whippers, but it's the oil people and those who control the actual resources who are the ones to watch.
