The shame nations of WWII.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It tells us that

1) Iraq was responsible for Kuwait
2) They lost
3) But Saddam stayed
4) Pres. Bush listened to the Saudis
5) We should have punished individuals, not nations
6) somewhere around here comes OBL poosible, even though that seems to be Afghaistan campaign

Hey it tells us we have just been punishing a nation for last 10 years, while ME was breeding fanatics to attack us.

So we will attack them again, and WWIII will result.

[Hurricane]

That in order to take out Saddam prevent a new dictator from claiming the throne, Iraq needs to be rebuilt after a war. Sadly, I don't think US or anybody else is willing to do that.

[Tolls]

"Not everyone, there was Woodrow Wilson."

...and Lloyd George...and Churchill. Both warned of the almost inevitable repercussions of a severe treaty, chiefly when it came to the redrawing of the borders in the East. Indeed they both pointed out that these border changes (for the formation of Czechoslovakia and Poland) would be the flash points for a future war with Germany.

[Ned]

Tolls, IIRC, the self-determination of Eastern Europe was one of President Wilson's fourteen points.

Are you saying that Lloyd George and Churchill opposed the breakup of the German and Austrian Empires?

[Tolls]

They opposed some of the border restructuring since that would inevitably lead to Germans being in one of the new states. A lot of the border work was essentially arbitrary...it was to take a lot of work from the League of Nations to sort much of it out, but there were still loads of problems. The Sudetenland was one...

They weren't opposed to self determination, but that the structure of that had to realise that eastern europe is far from homogenous. All they saw happening was a version of the lines-on-maps that had dominated European treaties for the past x-hundred years.

Lloyd George was also opposed (IIRC) to the severity of the financial terms.

[Dr Strangelove]

I've forgotten whether Lloyd Gearge was one of Britain's deligates to Versailles, but the Brits definitely wanted their pound of flesh from Germany. Think about it. If France alone had demanded punitive treatment against combined American and British resistance then the treaty would have been far different. I also recall that when British newspapers got wind of Wilson's proposals they really raked him over the coals. Wilson crossed the channel to bring his case to the British people and was literally laughed out of England. Heck, even Sigmund Freud, a loyal Austrian, considered Wilson's efforts at conducting a reconciliation among the powers of Europe to be the product of a neurotic mind.

[GePap]

In the summer of 1914 everyone wanted war. The Germans were the first to act, as they had to do, gievn tehir strategic situation, but I hardly see any evidence that France or Russia or England or anyone else did squat to try to really avert it.

So saying: its the German's fault is simplistic at best. After all, it was the Austrians who were looking for an excuse to smack Serbia around and that was the bit that started the whole process going forward, and itsd not like the Allied powers had nothing to gain from war.

As for WW2: The support the Germans got from various interested groups in Europe is hardly surprising. Rabid anti-Cmmunists joined their call for the extermination of Bolshevism, raging anti-semites joined the cll to destroy Jews, rabid nationalists took to heart their ideas of national cleansing, and eveyday people who wanted to get on with thier lives under the new regime went on with them. To think that everyone would and should turn out with a gun to fight evil Nazis for every square foot is foolish.

On the issue of Finland: Co-beligerant is a fine term for the relation. both were fighting the same enemy, but the regimes hardly shared similar aims. The Finns were trying to retake lands invaded by the USSR in 1939 aftre all. And they did refuse German calls for them to move past their 1939 border during the attak agaisnt Leningrad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with GePap. The Germans were no worse than any other major country in WW1.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I agree with GePap. The Germans were no worse than any other major country in WW1.

Your not supposed to do that! We disagree fervently on everythng else! (well,except Islam, but..) You must take that back!

[Ned]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
It tells us that

1) Iraq was responsible for Kuwait
2) They lost
3) But Saddam stayed
4) Pres. Bush listened to the Saudis
5) We should have punished individuals, not nations
6) somewhere around here comes OBL poosible, even though that seems to be Afghaistan campaign

Hey it tells us we have just been punishing a nation for last 10 years, while ME was breeding fanatics to attack us.

So we will attack them again, and WWIII will result.

OFITG, I agree that not taking out Saddam and instead setting up the sanctions regime was a huge mistake - very much like the mistake the Allies made at the close of WWI. Rather than punishing Saddam, we punished Iraq and left Saddam in power.

But, like Chamberlain, we now find ourselves in the position of whether to enforce the sanctions regime or to appease. The consensus view of history is that Chamberlain and the French should either of called a European conference to reassess Versailles, or should have enforced it strictly.

I think the lesson we should learn from this in the case of Iraq is that we have no choice now but to enforce the U.N. resolutions -- or else.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your not supposed to do that! We disagree fervently on everythng else! (well,except Islam, but..) You must take that back!

[Vanguard]

That may well be, but what purpose did it serve?

-And, if it served any purpose at all, was it worth another war that turned out even worse by far than the first one?

You are assuming that the Versailles treaty caused WW2. But it didn't. Germany had renounced all the Versailles terms well before 1939, and no war broke out.

WW2 was caused by Hitler's ambition to seize land in the East and establish a German super-power by slaughtering the current inhabitants and replacing them with German settlers. Versailles was not totally irrelevent to the rise of Hitler, but his election was certainly not the inevitable result of the treaty.

And, once again, Versailles was not an unfair peace. It was a more generous settlement than Germany imposed on France in 1870 or on Russia in 1917. And it was certainly much fairer than the terms that France would have had to agree to if she had been defeated in WW1. German complaints about Versailles were nothing more than arrant hypocrisy from the acknowledged masters of the art.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by Lars-E

In another thread some time ago I said that Woodrow Wilson was my favorite American president. But he is not at all popular with the Apolyton Americans. Most of you seem to think he was the worst or one of the worst presidents ever. And one of the reasons was that he was an internationalist

What are my eyes seeing? Finally someone else who likes old good Wilson? Reminds me that I have a Woodrow Wilson theme for my profile over at AoE2.com.

[Ned]

But Vanguard, what was the Polish Corridor but German territory given to Poland by Versailles?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are assuming that the Versailles treaty caused WW2. But it didn't. Germany had renounced all the Versailles terms well before 1939, and no war broke out.

WW2 was caused by Hitler's ambition to seize land in the East and establish a German super-power by slaughtering the current inhabitants and replacing them with German settlers. Versailles was not totally irrelevent to the rise of Hitler, but his election was certainly not the inevitable result of the treaty.

And why was Hitler even close to be elected? Because of Versailles. That is what his party campaigned on, that is what they won their greatest support on.

And, once again, Versailles was not an unfair peace. It was a more generous settlement than Germany imposed on France in 1870

So taking Alsace and Lorraine was the same as taking back Alsace and Lorraine, taking a vast chunk of land from Eastern Germany, prohibiting a German navy & restricting the German army to a miniscule force (two provisions that were unprecedented in any peace), and last, but not least, massive reperations.

Looking at the Russian peace, again just a minor land transfer, nothing else.

Contrary to what Versailles revisionists say, it was a horrid peace.