The Event that Caused the Most Damage to Humanity?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
That's something I can not agree with.
First of all, penalties against Germany weren't at all harsh. It lost little land. Alsace, Lorraigne (Lotaryngia in Polish, I'm not quite sure of the western name), which it took several decades earlier, and part of what it took from Poland not much more than a century earlier.

Ok, here's basically what happened:

Germany had to accept the Blame for starting the war (Clause 231). This in and of itself was unfair, as Germany was no more to blame for the war than any of the other great powers of the time.

Germany had to pay £6.6 billion in reparations for the damage done during the war. You claim they didn't pay it--no, they just didn't pay the full amount. That's because they were bankrupt and defaulted on the payments.

Germany was forbidden to have submarines or an air force. She could have a navy of only six battleships, and an Army of just 100,000 men. In addition, Germany was not allowed to place any troops in the Rhineland, the strip of land, 50 miles wide, next to France. This is a humiliating loss of national sovereignty.

Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, Saar (placed under French rule), Eupen and Malmedy (to Belgium), Neuhaven and Schleiswig to Denmark, Danzig and Memel, West Prussia, Silesia and Posen to Poland and all of her colonies abroad. This is a HUGE part of any nation to lose of their land, to mention having your land bisected by a corridor that didn't previously exist. Not to mention that most of those territories were ethnically German and had been a part of the country since its inception.

The mistake was not treating Germany harsh. It was treating it not enough harsh. German politicians from the very first moment after the treaty started talking about that it has to be changed. And the mights did not forbid that. Hitler was a moderate when it comes to the boarder with Poland in comparison to the earlier politicians.

Since Hitler's aim was to take ALL of Poland, I don't see how you can see he would be considered a moderate about the border! At any rate, you're saying above that you think the Treaty didn't do enough. So you'd still have to agree it was bad, then. You can't deny that the terms of the treaty were a core part of Hitler's rise to power--he used every opportunity to claim it as the cause of Germany's problems, along with the Jews who had supposedly sold out the country.

Germany never paid the money it was supposed to pay.

Because it was INCAPABLE of doing so. The huge penalty and the loss of some of its most important territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Danzig) created a crippling economic burden for Germany. Germans were starving to death all over the country because of it. So of course they are going to be a little bitter over the situation.

Anyway, it's like if You said "throwing the guy into a prison made him become a criminal". That's right when it comes to children, but not when it comes to Germany, which has a longer tradition of nationalism..

Except that Germany wasn't the only European power responsible for the war. The other powers shoved the blame solely on to Germany, which was another reason why the Germans felt it unfair.

And a longer tradition of nationalism? Hmm, is that why they didn't unify until 1873? Come on, give me a break.

You can't deny that the treaty, whatever you think of its terms, was a major cause for the second world war. Without it, Hitler wouldn't have had any thunder for his ubernationalis,

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You're off here. The killing of trade and the monetary economy, as well as the depopulating of cities, was already happening when the Empire was in existence. It wasn't a result of the Germans, etc. coming in, it was part of the cause of their being able to invade. Roman political hegemony in Europe had been in decline for well over a century before the invasions became a serious problem. This was due to overextension, the army's massive portion of the economy and the system that said Italy didn't have to pay taxes, but the provinces did.

Once the legions ran out of places to steal loot from to finance themselves, the system fell apart.

Boris, you are correct that cities were in decline as feudalism took hold in the empire and the economy increasing became a barter system. But still cities existed until the barbarians overran them and Roman government was finally extinguished.

As to the East, note I include the Arabs in the equation. They took over most of the Eastern Empire and introduced piracy into the Mediterranean. Piracy had a major impact on trade and on diminishing the ability for any remaining cities in Europe to feed large populations. Over time, I understand that Constantinople was the only large city remaining in the Empire. However, it was cut off from the rest of Europe because of the slavic nations to the Northwest, and the Arabs and later the Turks. In the end, even it was conquered. However, a large number of the educated made it to Italy to help fuel the Renaissance.

The 800's, were a very dark time for Europe.

[flash9286]

US, Hitler, they whine, their arrogent, stupid....

Were not arrogent because we have the walk behind our talk . We carry a big stick with us.

[Ned]

Boris, Do you consider the forces under Odacer to be Roman Legions. They may have been, but the Emperor had to send the Goths to crush them.

But I agree, the lack of financing killed any attempts to build sufficient forces in the West to retake lost territories. That would have to wait until Justinian, who would have been totally successful had it not been for the Plague that kill the finances of the Eastern Empire.

[flash9286]

acutally John the Baptist created Christany not Jesus, and if your go to go that way maybe u should mentain constapinole(sp)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, Saar (placed under French rule), Eupen and Malmedy (to Belgium), Neuhaven and Schleiswig to Denmark, Danzig and Memel, West Prussia, Silesia and Posen to Poland and all of her colonies abroad. This is a HUGE part of any nation to lose of their land, to mention having your land bisected by a corridor that didn't previously exist. Not to mention that most of those territories were ethnically German and had been a part of the country since its inception.

Alsace-Lorraine- originally taken from France in the Franco-Prussian War. Schleswig Holstein, originally taken from Denmark. Silesia, originally taken from Habsurg Austria....

The part about German territorial integrity being linked with German populations would mean a Germany stretching into Romania and the Volga- and ignores for instance, the ethnic make up of territories such as Silesia, Malmedy and Eupen, Gdansk/Danzig, and other territories where Germans were not the predominant part of the population. Claiming that Alsace-Lorraine was a part of the German nation since its inception is rather cynical- given that its cession occurred only in the Franco-Prussian War and just before the creation of the Second German Empire in Versailles.

[Ben Kenobi]

acutally John the Baptist created Christany not Jesus, and if your go to go that way maybe u should mentain constapinole(sp)

Well, John led the way and made the path straight for the Lord. John refused to place himself in this role of a founder of Christianity, he didn't even consider himself Elijah.

[Ned]

Molly, you make a lot of good points. But still, Versailles combined with appeasement lead to WWII, which was one of the greatest calamaties in world history.

Right now, I would say it WWII and the fall of the Roman Empire rank at the top of the list things that damaged humanity. Versailles and Munich were the proximate causes of one. The Hun defeat by the Han, Andrianople and Mohammed were the main contributing factors in the other.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Alsace-Lorraine- originally taken from France in the Franco-Prussian War. Schleswig Holstein, originally taken from Denmark. Silesia, originally taken from Habsurg Austria....

Alsace was taken from Germany two hundred years earlier, in the XVIIth Century, and Lorraine a hundred years after that. Schleswig and Holstsein were also German, but I don't know when Denmark originally added them to their Kingdom, probably also the Thirty Years War. Silesia was mostly Slavic anyway (lotsa Germans too), and should have been given to Poland (as it was) or to Czechoslovakia.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, you make a lot of good points. But still, Versailles combined with appeasement lead to WWII, which was one of the greatest calamaties in world history.

I still think for various reasons you are overstating the role of the fall of the Roman Empire as a human calamity-it did after all, affect hardly any of black Africa, the Far East (China, Korea, Japan, India) or the Americas- and civilization in various forms continued in those areas, with complex mathematical systems evolving in places as far apart as Ghana, the Punjab and the Yucatan peninsula, to say nothing of achievements in cultural terms (fine and applied arts, literature, architecture) or developments in astronomy or metalworking.

Admittedly, a certain 'political' unity was lost in Western Europe, for a time, in that a Roman citizen (or slave) could reasonably expect to travel from Roman Armenia to northern England and be understood in Latin, and be subject to the same laws and ruler, but Church Latin and the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor at times also filled those niches, and Roman intellectual and artistic achievements pale in comparison with Greek cultural and scientific peaks.

As for Versailles- methinks Boris doth protest too much. I would suggest for instance that you read (if you haven't) A.J.P. Taylor's 'The Origins of the Second World War' as a useful corrective to the view that Versailles was unduly harsh- the Polish Corridor, for instance, far from disenfranchising Germans, was inhabited largely by Poles- who had been disenfranchised since the cynical tripartite dismemberment of Poland carried out by Brandenburg-Prussia, the Habsburg Empire and Russia.
Versailles as a treaty was only enforceable as long as the German government cooperated, and reparations and terms were continually revised downwards- occupying forces left the Rhineland five years ahead of schedule, for instance.

[Ned]

Molly, well, perhaps the Allies should have occuppied Germany for 50 years after WWI as we did after WWII. That would have kept the peace. I think the failure of the post WWI peace to last was a major reason we planned for four power occuppation after WWII.

It is interesting, though, that we were able to pull out of Japan after only five years, IIRC. Japan has become a model citizen of the world.

[Ramo]

Boris, you are correct that cities were in decline as feudalism took hold in the empire and the economy increasing became a barter system. But still cities existed until the barbarians overran them and Roman government was finally extinguished.

The idea that the Western Empire was ever full of thriving cities is a myth. You've got Rome and Milan, and that's pretty much it. Rome had always been a principally agricultural society. Cities didn't suddenly end with barbarian invasion.

As to the East, note I include the Arabs in the equation. They took over most of the Eastern Empire and introduced piracy into the Mediterranean. Piracy had a major impact on trade and on diminishing the ability for any remaining cities in Europe to feed large populations.

Mass Arab piracy? Riiiight.

Cities were already doomed by the small pox and measles epidemics in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and the bubonic plague epidemic in the 6th. "Piracy" was pretty much a nonfactor as far as undermining trade. The principle pirates of the era, the Vikings, actually contributed vastly to trade and indirectly helped to provide the impetus for non-Scandinavians to start trading again.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Alsace was taken from Germany two hundred years earlier, in the XVIIth Century, and Lorraine a hundred years after that. Schleswig and Holstsein were also German, but I don't know when Denmark originally added them to their Kingdom, probably also the Thirty Years War. Silesia was mostly Slavic anyway (lotsa Germans too), and should have been given to Poland (as it was) or to Czechoslovakia.

Alsace was not 'taken' from 'Germany'- for the simple reason, 'Germany' did not exist. It was ceded by the Habsburg Empire to France as part of the Treaty of Westphalia. It belonged to them only because they inherited the mantle of Holy Roman Emperor. It had been part of the Holy Roman Empire since the days of the Frankish Louis the Pious, and had certainly had a French cultural input since the time of the Treaty of Strasbourg/Strassburg (which is in both French and German, and dates from early mediaeval times).

Lorraine at no time had ever been 'German', culturally or territorially, and was eventually to become part of France through its cession from the daughter of Stanislas Lesczinski (who happened to be the Queen of France) in the 18th century). Again it was within the Holy Roman Empire, but its renowned French products include Jacques Callot and Georges de la Tour. Either way, you cannot seriously expect us to believe that the Protestant Prussian Bismarck was revenging the losses of the Catholic Habsburg emperors from over 200 years in the past (in the case of Alsace).

Holstein was inhabited mainly by ethnic Germans, and so was only the southern part of Sleswig. Regardless, Holstein had been Danish territory since the early 13th century, and both duchies had been in personal union with Denmark. Although there were rebellions in 1848 in the duchies, the Treaty of London of 1852 reconfirmed their union with the Danish crown. The death of the Danish monarch (last in the male line) gave Bismarck the casus belli- salic law was said to apply to the duchies (although not to Denmark).

The war which acquired the duchies for Austria-Hungary and Prussia (not 'Germany') was a way of cementing a conservative alliance witrh Austria-Hungary, with Austria supporting Prussian hegemony in Protestant north Germany and Prussia supporting Austrian territorial ambitions (and territory) in northern Italy and the Balkans and southern Catholic Germany.

[Ramo]

Actually, Holstein had been independent well into the 15th century.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Ned

As to the East, note I include the Arabs in the equation. They took over most of the Eastern Empire and introduced piracy into the Mediterranean. Piracy had a major impact on trade and on diminishing the ability for any remaining cities in Europe to feed large populations. Over time, I understand that Constantinople was the only large city remaining in the Empire. However, it was cut off from the rest of Europe because of the slavic nations to the Northwest, and the Arabs and later the Turks. In the end, even it was conquered. However, a large number of the educated made it to Italy to help fuel the Renaissance.

The 800's, were a very dark time for Europe.

Well, they only screwed over Europe, which was then an insignificant part of the world anyway.