After the great war most Germans didnt really feel like they had lost it. Most nationalistic ones instead felt like the country had been stabbed in the back. War had not visited the Fatherland, their cities and industrys were intact and unharmed, and there was no occupation army controlling greater Germany.
Compare that to circa 1945...........
In warfare there really is no substitute for kicking down your enemies door and hanging his scalp on your wall. Ask Saddam........
treaty of verseilles
Warfare isn't so much the problem in my opinion Rich47, it's the peace who has to be made workable for all sides involved.Rich47 wrote: In warfare there really is no substitute for kicking down your enemies door and hanging his scalp on your wall. Ask Saddam........
You now have Saddam's scalp and control the country (mostly) but do you have peace? What will be when the coalition troops leave?
Hi all,
MH, I think what Rich was trying to say is that if Germany had been invaded, and made a mess of during WWI, they might not have had such a passion for starting WWII. It's an interesting viewpoint, shared by many WWI veterans.
It's a whole debate in itself though...Not sure it would have stopped WWII, but it would have solved the problem of the Germans feeling they hadn't lost WWI, and had been betrayed by their workforce. Whether German civilians seeing the damage would dampen their enthusiasm for WWII, I dont know...Like I say, we could have a whole thread on this.
Coggle, good points you make there. There is a famous Scots author, called Walter Scott, who first wrote a history of Scotland called 'Tales of a Grandfather'. This was a largely historical account, but he let the emotion factor come in, and embroidered the stories a little. Later he wrote the historically correct 'The History of Scotland'. I like 'Tales..' because it deals with the myth and folklore of Scottish history while (usually) keeping to history. But if I want hard facts about Scots history, I would have to go for 'The History of Scotland'.
Emotion does have a place MH, but its not in the deciding of historical issues. You have to be objective and rational while dealing with facts. An example, from Scots history - the battle of Culloden (1746) - I could easily blame the defeat in battle on other circumstance, then go on to lambast the English (and Scots, sadly) who went on to massacre thousands of innocent women, children and wounded men, burned houses to the ground and deported thousands. What happened after Culloden is sometimes referred to as genocide, just so you aware how terrible it was.
All that makes me sad and angry, and I could easily use it as a scapegoat, but I dont. The simple fact of the matter is that it was incompetence on the part of our leaders that cost us that battle, and therfor allowed genocide to take place. I dont like that, I dont like the fact many of the Hanoverian (opposition) troops were Scots...But hey, like it or loathe it, thats history!
Cheers,
MH, I think what Rich was trying to say is that if Germany had been invaded, and made a mess of during WWI, they might not have had such a passion for starting WWII. It's an interesting viewpoint, shared by many WWI veterans.
It's a whole debate in itself though...Not sure it would have stopped WWII, but it would have solved the problem of the Germans feeling they hadn't lost WWI, and had been betrayed by their workforce. Whether German civilians seeing the damage would dampen their enthusiasm for WWII, I dont know...Like I say, we could have a whole thread on this.
Coggle, good points you make there. There is a famous Scots author, called Walter Scott, who first wrote a history of Scotland called 'Tales of a Grandfather'. This was a largely historical account, but he let the emotion factor come in, and embroidered the stories a little. Later he wrote the historically correct 'The History of Scotland'. I like 'Tales..' because it deals with the myth and folklore of Scottish history while (usually) keeping to history. But if I want hard facts about Scots history, I would have to go for 'The History of Scotland'.
Emotion does have a place MH, but its not in the deciding of historical issues. You have to be objective and rational while dealing with facts. An example, from Scots history - the battle of Culloden (1746) - I could easily blame the defeat in battle on other circumstance, then go on to lambast the English (and Scots, sadly) who went on to massacre thousands of innocent women, children and wounded men, burned houses to the ground and deported thousands. What happened after Culloden is sometimes referred to as genocide, just so you aware how terrible it was.
All that makes me sad and angry, and I could easily use it as a scapegoat, but I dont. The simple fact of the matter is that it was incompetence on the part of our leaders that cost us that battle, and therfor allowed genocide to take place. I dont like that, I dont like the fact many of the Hanoverian (opposition) troops were Scots...But hey, like it or loathe it, thats history!
Cheers,
Jock
-
Rosselsprung
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 539
- Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:25 pm
Hi,
I think I gave a fine example of objectivity concerning nations above.
I'm mature enough to put aside personal feelings if I am researching history. We are discussing the problem of letting emotional thinking getting in the way of the facts, and historical research.
I really am stunned that you all seem to struggle so mightily with the concept of objectivity. So here's a nice simple example for you.
My OBJECTIVE (Rational) View of King Edward I of England
Edward made many of the first steps into creating the bureaucracy and legislautre that we know today. He spent alot of money on his subjects in England, raising their standard of life. Concerning Scotland, he first intervened when Alexander III of Scotland died, and chose a new Scots King (John Baliol), then invaded Scotland because Scots refused to join up for English military service, at a time when Scotland was still an independent and sovereign nation. (There is much, much more to this story. I could go on for hours, in an objective manner)
My NON-OBJECTIVE (Emotional) View of King Edward I of England
Edward was a murdering, agressive b*stard. He meddled in Scots affairs when he had no right, invaded my country and showed severity towards my people. We kicked his arse at Stirling Bridge, and his son's at Bannockburn. He may have struck the first blow to Scotland, but excuse me Eddie...Nemo me impune lacessit...Simply, Strike us, and will will strike you back ten times as hard, kick your arse back to England, and harass your country for as long as possible.
What major problem do you all have in understanding there is different versions of history, which will be affected by what the person/nation has experienced, but in the field of historical research, there is only the rational, objective version of the truth. IE, THE TRUTH.
Mabye when you grow up to be big boys, you will understand.
I think I gave a fine example of objectivity concerning nations above.
I'm mature enough to put aside personal feelings if I am researching history. We are discussing the problem of letting emotional thinking getting in the way of the facts, and historical research.
I really am stunned that you all seem to struggle so mightily with the concept of objectivity. So here's a nice simple example for you.
My OBJECTIVE (Rational) View of King Edward I of England
Edward made many of the first steps into creating the bureaucracy and legislautre that we know today. He spent alot of money on his subjects in England, raising their standard of life. Concerning Scotland, he first intervened when Alexander III of Scotland died, and chose a new Scots King (John Baliol), then invaded Scotland because Scots refused to join up for English military service, at a time when Scotland was still an independent and sovereign nation. (There is much, much more to this story. I could go on for hours, in an objective manner)
My NON-OBJECTIVE (Emotional) View of King Edward I of England
Edward was a murdering, agressive b*stard. He meddled in Scots affairs when he had no right, invaded my country and showed severity towards my people. We kicked his arse at Stirling Bridge, and his son's at Bannockburn. He may have struck the first blow to Scotland, but excuse me Eddie...Nemo me impune lacessit...Simply, Strike us, and will will strike you back ten times as hard, kick your arse back to England, and harass your country for as long as possible.
What major problem do you all have in understanding there is different versions of history, which will be affected by what the person/nation has experienced, but in the field of historical research, there is only the rational, objective version of the truth. IE, THE TRUTH.
Mabye when you grow up to be big boys, you will understand.
Jock
I believe the Allies setup the peace for failure with the Versailles treaty. What is the point of retribution if all your doing is planting the seeds for a future war? The ideal is to prevent the next war!
And it was a grand opportunity in 1918. Germany, while depressed from the war, was still a highly educated, industrious nation with almost all of its infrastructure intact. There should have been some other Political mechanism put in place without saddling the country with debts it could never re-pay, and forcing it to sever connections with Germanic peoples in bordering lands.
A modern day equivalent would be Iraq. Lets face it, the American military could have annihilated Iraq. Instead we forced political change, removed a tyrant, and are pouring Billions of our dollars into the place trying to establish a economically sound democracy. I know Iraq isn't popular with many of you Euro's but I ask you to at least look at the Geo-Political concept. Its the only way anything is going to change there, the only way terrorism is going to be beat. I spent 20 months in the MidEast under arms and I know a little of what Im talking about.
Roll back to 1918 and Versailles. There was no way a proud country like Germany was going to accept and thrive under the weight of that treaty. Democratic institutions could not possibly grow.
Yes, the western powers got retribution. But in the end what did it get all involved but another lost generation?
And no Jock, what Im saying is if the Allies had invaded Germany after WW-l we could have occupied it as we did after WW-ll and installed a Democratic Govt. while also setting the stage for German economic prosperity. Maybe we could have avoided WW-ll entirely.
And it was a grand opportunity in 1918. Germany, while depressed from the war, was still a highly educated, industrious nation with almost all of its infrastructure intact. There should have been some other Political mechanism put in place without saddling the country with debts it could never re-pay, and forcing it to sever connections with Germanic peoples in bordering lands.
A modern day equivalent would be Iraq. Lets face it, the American military could have annihilated Iraq. Instead we forced political change, removed a tyrant, and are pouring Billions of our dollars into the place trying to establish a economically sound democracy. I know Iraq isn't popular with many of you Euro's but I ask you to at least look at the Geo-Political concept. Its the only way anything is going to change there, the only way terrorism is going to be beat. I spent 20 months in the MidEast under arms and I know a little of what Im talking about.
Roll back to 1918 and Versailles. There was no way a proud country like Germany was going to accept and thrive under the weight of that treaty. Democratic institutions could not possibly grow.
Yes, the western powers got retribution. But in the end what did it get all involved but another lost generation?
And no Jock, what Im saying is if the Allies had invaded Germany after WW-l we could have occupied it as we did after WW-ll and installed a Democratic Govt. while also setting the stage for German economic prosperity. Maybe we could have avoided WW-ll entirely.
Hi Rich,
Ah, OK. That is an interesting point. The democratic government would have still had to deal with the same issues.
Democratic government is still defined by the will of the people also, so whats to stop Hitler still rising to power? I agree that this would have been solved by solving the social issues, but I'm not sure any government could have dealt with everything much more succesfully.
Iraq is an interesting point. I'm not your typical 'Euro', I was fully behind the war, but now I'm not so sure. Iran wasn't killing our soldiers before. I'm not sure it is stopping terrorism. I agree we must act tough with terrorists, but all we have done is piss them off more, and given them a big, live fire training ground. I am also becoming more and more convinced George Bush is actually an idiot, and shouldnt be trusted with his pants. I like the guy, but theres alot we dont know, and I feel they are playing with us, lying to us and making fool's of people who are taken by it, and paying with their lives for it.
I'll support all Allied troops while they remain in combat, no matter what my feelings, but I think we have made one big mistake here, and we will realise this with time. Democracy and Islam dont mix mate, we'll see that in a few. Did you know Dubya wasnt even aware there was two types of muslim in Iraq, Shia and Sunni, who dont exactly see eye to eye?
Please, debate away about it though...It's one hell of an interesting topic.
Cheers,
Ah, OK. That is an interesting point. The democratic government would have still had to deal with the same issues.
Democratic government is still defined by the will of the people also, so whats to stop Hitler still rising to power? I agree that this would have been solved by solving the social issues, but I'm not sure any government could have dealt with everything much more succesfully.
Iraq is an interesting point. I'm not your typical 'Euro', I was fully behind the war, but now I'm not so sure. Iran wasn't killing our soldiers before. I'm not sure it is stopping terrorism. I agree we must act tough with terrorists, but all we have done is piss them off more, and given them a big, live fire training ground. I am also becoming more and more convinced George Bush is actually an idiot, and shouldnt be trusted with his pants. I like the guy, but theres alot we dont know, and I feel they are playing with us, lying to us and making fool's of people who are taken by it, and paying with their lives for it.
I'll support all Allied troops while they remain in combat, no matter what my feelings, but I think we have made one big mistake here, and we will realise this with time. Democracy and Islam dont mix mate, we'll see that in a few. Did you know Dubya wasnt even aware there was two types of muslim in Iraq, Shia and Sunni, who dont exactly see eye to eye?
Please, debate away about it though...It's one hell of an interesting topic.
Cheers,
Jock
Jock Americans have been getting killed by Terrorists since I was in the the Middle East, even before. This war has been going on for over 30 years. They are going to be "pissed off" no matter what we do. Until Democracy and human rights flourish in that region we are always going to be saddled with terrorism.
Bush is either an idiot or a genius. Time will tell.
Either way we had to fight back, and show the world there are consequences for the 9,000,000 or so UN violations Saddam committed. His scalp is now on our lodge pole, soon he'll be dancing in the 6' drop. Thats the way the world works!
But the subject was Versailles. It was a great opportunity that was squandered. What was needed was great statesmanship and not kow-towing to the revenge full masses.
Bush is either an idiot or a genius. Time will tell.
Either way we had to fight back, and show the world there are consequences for the 9,000,000 or so UN violations Saddam committed. His scalp is now on our lodge pole, soon he'll be dancing in the 6' drop. Thats the way the world works!
But the subject was Versailles. It was a great opportunity that was squandered. What was needed was great statesmanship and not kow-towing to the revenge full masses.
-
Prussian Blau
- Member
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:00 pm
- Location: England
I agree with you that until democracy is set in Iraq it will be a safe house for many terrorists, however I really can't see democracy working. This is because there has been no history or experince of democracy there at all and now that they do have a semi democracy the people there don't vote on issues but on race and religion. The Kurds vote for Kurds, Sunnis for Sunnis and Shities for shities. That is not democracy, and of courrse it does not help with Iran stirring things up.
In respect to the Versaille treaty, it could have been handled better to say the least. The thing my Opa used to tell me that his father who had fought in WW1 had said was that Versaille was a tool France used to humiliate Germany with, that is what he hated most.
In respect to the Versaille treaty, it could have been handled better to say the least. The thing my Opa used to tell me that his father who had fought in WW1 had said was that Versaille was a tool France used to humiliate Germany with, that is what he hated most.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Prussian Blue,
To use imilar language, from the French perspective, I suppose WWI could be looked upon as a German tool not merely to humiliate France, but which caused it enormous actual physical damage as well.
Germany could not emerge from a lost war to a great degree initiated by itself, which had been fought almost exclusively on the victors' soil at enormous material cost to them and comparitively little to itself, and expect a peace treaty that was not punitive in terms of territory, military limitations and financial compensation.
Certainly the French were not models of restraint towards Germany in the 1920s and might have handled German non-compliance more subtly, but the temporary occupation of the Rhineland was hardly the equivalent of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine or the four years of destruction wrought to France by the Schlieffen Plan, was it?
In essence, the case against Versailles seems to be that it hurt German pride, which was not a good idea because there were a lot of them and they might get their own back one day.
Perhaps, but Versailles wasn't designed to prevent a then purely notional WWII, it was designed to address the consequences of WWI. On this level it does not look particularly unjust. It could have been much harsher and it was not, in any case, fully imposed. Furthermore, its provisions were almost all overthrown peacefully well before WWII, some even before Hitler came to power.
I would suggest that the Treaty of Versailles is more an excuse than a reason for Hitler and WWII.
Cheers,
Sid.
To use imilar language, from the French perspective, I suppose WWI could be looked upon as a German tool not merely to humiliate France, but which caused it enormous actual physical damage as well.
Germany could not emerge from a lost war to a great degree initiated by itself, which had been fought almost exclusively on the victors' soil at enormous material cost to them and comparitively little to itself, and expect a peace treaty that was not punitive in terms of territory, military limitations and financial compensation.
Certainly the French were not models of restraint towards Germany in the 1920s and might have handled German non-compliance more subtly, but the temporary occupation of the Rhineland was hardly the equivalent of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine or the four years of destruction wrought to France by the Schlieffen Plan, was it?
In essence, the case against Versailles seems to be that it hurt German pride, which was not a good idea because there were a lot of them and they might get their own back one day.
Perhaps, but Versailles wasn't designed to prevent a then purely notional WWII, it was designed to address the consequences of WWI. On this level it does not look particularly unjust. It could have been much harsher and it was not, in any case, fully imposed. Furthermore, its provisions were almost all overthrown peacefully well before WWII, some even before Hitler came to power.
I would suggest that the Treaty of Versailles is more an excuse than a reason for Hitler and WWII.
Cheers,
Sid.
Of course it's good that Kaiser lost war!M.H. wrote:Really Pirx?Pirx wrote:Anyway it's good that Kaiser lost war
If you see the end of WWI and what came after as a build up to WWII...
I don't see why it was lucky for Poland....
What waits Poles under his rules? Hakata, germanisation, discrimination. Prussian Kingdom signed in 1865 treaty with Russia, and Austro-Hungary, that there is no nation called "Poles", and those three countries never let them to rebuild own state, sciene, culture and economy. Only Prussian Kingdom tried to realised this treaty.
Then German Empire when needed soldiers they suddenly announced that they create on occupied Russian teritory "Polish Kingdom" (december 5th 1916) what is a part of Empire! Cannon fodder was needed!
"""" The Kurds vote for Kurds, Sunnis for Sunnis and Shities for shities.""""""
Sorta like America eh? Or Britain, Germany,Canada, or any other Democracy. Also, under NATO, the West German Govt. would have been involved in every part of decision making. There would have been no release of nuclear weapons over German land without their OK, and any release over the European continent would have required their input.
In respect to Iraq they will end up with a Democracy like Turkey,"best case scenerio". I remember my old friends the Turks, circa 1977, had a special method for dealing with their terrorists.
They killed them all!
Post WW-l, it must be mentioned, was still the time of "Empire". Its important to also include the fact that the Western Allies also wanted to strip Germany of any chance for worldwide "Empire", which after the war was pretty much a Brit/Franco affair. Tho we Yanks had a flair for stealing land also.
Sorta like America eh? Or Britain, Germany,Canada, or any other Democracy. Also, under NATO, the West German Govt. would have been involved in every part of decision making. There would have been no release of nuclear weapons over German land without their OK, and any release over the European continent would have required their input.
In respect to Iraq they will end up with a Democracy like Turkey,"best case scenerio". I remember my old friends the Turks, circa 1977, had a special method for dealing with their terrorists.
They killed them all!
Post WW-l, it must be mentioned, was still the time of "Empire". Its important to also include the fact that the Western Allies also wanted to strip Germany of any chance for worldwide "Empire", which after the war was pretty much a Brit/Franco affair. Tho we Yanks had a flair for stealing land also.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Rich,
I would suggest that the inter-war period was not still a "time of empire" in the strictest sense, but a period of transition.
Previously colonial gains from a European rival would have become integral parts of the winning empire. However, German colonies and parts of the Turkish Empire gained by Britain and France after WWI did not become colonies but League of Nations Mandated Territories. Britain and France were only custodians of their administration on behalf of the international community. This gave the international community, now represented by the United Nations, legal leverage to pressure for decolonisation in Africa the 1950s and 1960s.
Cheers,
Sid.
I would suggest that the inter-war period was not still a "time of empire" in the strictest sense, but a period of transition.
Previously colonial gains from a European rival would have become integral parts of the winning empire. However, German colonies and parts of the Turkish Empire gained by Britain and France after WWI did not become colonies but League of Nations Mandated Territories. Britain and France were only custodians of their administration on behalf of the international community. This gave the international community, now represented by the United Nations, legal leverage to pressure for decolonisation in Africa the 1950s and 1960s.
Cheers,
Sid.