Feldgrau.net

I wasn't really paying attention to this thread, but it has gone rather far away from the original topic. While I understand the historical basis for the various peace treaties, let's get back to the original question.

Hi Tom,

Which brings me back to my original answer:

A return to the Versailles boundaries and some local referenda to make some minor border adjustments.

Cheers,

Sid.

Prisident Wilson was mention.
When he withdraw USA back to home (i mean not join to nation league, he's own child, symbolic presence on Versaille), wasn't that his mistake? I still don't know why USA didn't done nothing more. NL without main powers ws uselles. It was for sure lost chance.

Hi Pirx,

I tend to agree. Wilson and America had no vested interests in Europe, and so were not particularly interested in an old-style punitive peace against Germany. The Versailles process got more punitive and less reliant on popular plebiscites to decide borders the less the Amercans had to do with it.

Cheers,

Sid.

Until such time as Germany receive their 1914 lands back, the injustices of Versailles are not over. Simple as that. I am not talking about colonies here but rather mainland Europe.

You sound like you would even take back the land by Jingo (extreme nationalism) when you post here. The thing is, Alsace-Lorraine has been french for decades so for Germany to get it back is wrong, it was what was given to Germany in the peace treaty of the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871.

You are also saying that you want Germany to be able to regain Schlesien, Posen, Bromberg, Westpreussen, Ostpreussen and the Memel provinces back. These aren't even German, they consist of mainly Poles.

Chris von D, you don't really sound like you come from Australia, for if you did you would be happy with how Germany is now, unless you had a great reason which everybody would like to hear. If only your country was part of the british empire again...

Alsace Lorraine is as much german as it is french:

http://feefhs.org/FRL/fr/sc-alhis.htm

It changed hands so much it's hard to define who has more rights...

Hi Chris von D.....

What "injustices of Versailles"?

The release of millions of non-Germans from unwanted German rule?

The requirement for Germany to pay partial war reparations for the damage she had done to Belgium, northern France, etc., while escaping similar damage herself?

The placing of the primary burden of responsibility for WWI on Germany when her diplomats, along with those of Austria-Hungary, were primarily responsible? (see above)

The reduction of the German armed forces so that they couldn't mount a war of aggression?

I can see lots of minor imperfections in the Treaty of Versailles, but the big things it got right.

Cheers,

Sid.

*rolls eyes*

... can see lots of minor imperfections in the Treaty of Versailles, but the big things it got right.

History speaks another language...but......not again this discussion Sid!

17 SS Panzer Grenadier wrote:Chris von D, you don't really sound like you come from Australia, for if you did you would be happy with how Germany is now, unless you had a great reason which everybody would like to hear. If only your country was part of the british empire again...

17 SS Panzer Grenadier, your German Queen will soon be here for the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, and they will play a few bars of "God Save The Queen" - when they should really be playing a few bars of "Sod off back to England".

I am one of many Australians that want to union Jack removed from OUR flag. As for a "British Empire", you no doubt read about that in some history book, because you have NO empire, except maybe in your fantasies.

Germany is a country under occupation. The Americans are there as a result of 1945. They need to get out. Are the Americans still in England? Didn't think so!

See the flag below - now THAT is an Aussie flag!

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Chris von D.....

What "injustices of Versailles"?

Those that led to World War II. Those that exist to this day.

Hi CvD....

......and those would be?

Cheers,

Sid.

sid guttridge wrote:Hi CvD....

......and those would be?

Cheers,

Sid.

Well Sid, I would really like to take the time and tell you what you no doubt have heard many times before, but hey!

Also this is again going off on a tangent.

You likely know the arguments Sid - consider my post more of where I stand rather than points of a debate.

Cheers

Hi CvD....,

If you feel you have a case you could always start your own thread..........

Cheers,

Sid.

sid guttridge wrote:Hi CvD....,

If you feel you have a case you could always start your own thread..........

Cheers,

Sid.

I do, but I won't, but thank you for your suggestion.