The Event that Caused the Most Damage to Humanity?

[Heresson]

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.

A matter of opinion

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.

They paid a really little part of it - no matter why.

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.

If it was about that, why did Hitler continue when He, without any punishment, broke those laws?

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.

Lorraine was conquered by them not more than a half century earlier. The same case when it comes to Schleisweg. Don't make me laugh with some little villages over Belgian boarder.
Gdañsk (Danzig) was theirs for 120 years only, and it became a free city, wasn't annexed by anyone.
Klajpeda (Memel) was lost not due to the treaty, I believe Lithuania annexed it by force. There were a lot of Lithuanians there, but true, they didn't want to live under Lithuanian rule - they never earlier did.
Not west Prussia, byt Eastern Pommerania. It was their for 150 years only, and they lost only parts of it with Polish majority - and not all. The same comes to Major Poland (with Posen-Poznañ as the capital). It was a craddle of Polish state, Poles were majority there, and Poland was given only major part of it, only part of it that was captured by uprising.
Not Silesia, but a part of Upper Silesia, only a part of the grounds that voted for Poland there in a plebiscite.
Colonies? There weren't many of them, and anyway if they cared so much about them.
That isn't a big loss of territory, not for anyone from Eastern Europe, where Germany and Russia, if they won, were annecting entire territories.
Ah, when it comes to Saar; it wasn't annexed by France, I believe, but only held until Germans would pay war compensates.
The so-called "corridor" existed through all the history. Look at any historical map before 1772.
Ethnically German? Eupen and Malmedy for sure. Szlezwik - don't think so. Alsace and Lorraine - not sure.
Eastern losses - You must be kidding. Several centuries earlier, Slavs were living further west than Elbe/Laba.
Do I have to remind on and on that Berlin, for example, is a Polish (Polabian) name?

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.

Not quite. Hitler demanded from Poland agreement on annexion of Gdañsk only and offered an alliance against USSR and Ukraine in future in return. Of course, it is doubtfull if He could be trusted. But in comparison to all other German politicians, who officially demanded "returning" Upper Silesia, Eastern Pommerania and Major Poland, He definitely was moderate.
Germans would have cried about any treaty, unless it would let them stay in all grounds that they captured earlier. The mistake was not only that the treaty was not severe enough, but also that it wasn't said openly that they can't even dream about changing it.

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.

Don't make me laugh. Frederick the Great stated that "who rules in Gdañsk, rules in Poland", and in his time it was indeed true, but at this time, Gdañsk lost its importance, especially after Poland built Gdynia.
Alsace and Lorraine... If it is soooo important, how did the Germans manage to built an empire able to conquer it from France earlier?

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

Unification isn't important. Poland never did unify completely after feudal partages. That doesn't matter.
Enough to see that the Prussians have been doing in Eastern Europe, exactly in Poland. Read some of the brilliant Frederick the Great's remarks about Jews or Poles.

Sorry, originally my replies were longer, but this computer seems to be infected, and my window was closed. So I wrote it all again, but in a shorter way

[Heresson]

[quote]
or to Czechoslovakia.
[quote]

"There must be some misunderstanding
There must be somekind of mistake..."

Lesczinski

Leszczyñski to be exact.


-------------------------------
Hmmmmmm

Now that You talk about it all, and generally You think that fall of the Roman rule in the west was so bad,
and You point out Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic invasions.
I think that You may find my proposition interesting.
It is Fokas "revolution".
As we know, Justinian libetated Africa, Italia, Illiria and part of Iberia. Emperor Mauritius wanted to continue his
way. He started nicely, by intervening in Persia and putting "a right man" on the throne. Later He fought succesfully with Slavs and Avars, pushing them on the north of Donau. After finishing this case, He wanted to move west to finish the restoration of the Empire.
However, an army revolt led by half-barbarian Fokas,
threw him out of the throne. Mauritus and his entire family were murdered. OK, I must be going now, so it'll be a shortie. Fokas introduced the reign of terror, stopped fighting against Slavs (which ended with all european provinces but exclaves lost). Chosroes, shah of Persia, started a war against him to punish him for what He did to Mauritius and conquered Syria, Egypt and reached Chalcedon. (by the way, perhaps Nicea or Chalcedon could be count as a very tragical point in history as well). Eventually it ended up with not only not restoring the empire, but in SLavic and Arabic conquests.

I must go now, bye.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Alsace was not 'taken' from 'Germany'- for the simple reason, 'Germany' did not exist.

Germany existed, just not as we understand countries to exist. There was a Kingdom of Germany, the title was party of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Italy. The Crown of Bohemia was a vassal of the Emperor and the Crown of Lotharingia was vacant.

The fact that Germany was fragmented and quaralling doesn't mean it didn't exist. The various princes met at diets and contributed troops for to the Emperor. The major powers had a policy of keeping Germany fragmented. There was an idea of Germany, and most countries wanted to keep it from becoming a single cohesive political entity.

[Myrddin]

Germany needed the Nationalism advance

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

All seperate wars, you'll notice. German got all of them stripped (plus more) in one peace.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Germany existed, just not as we understand countries to exist. There was a Kingdom of Germany, the title was party of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Italy. The Crown of Bohemia was a vassal of the Emperor and the Crown of Lotharingia was vacant.

The fact that Germany was fragmented and quaralling doesn't mean it didn't exist. The various princes met at diets and contributed troops for to the Emperor. The major powers had a policy of keeping Germany fragmented. There was an idea of Germany, and most countries wanted to keep it from becoming a single cohesive political entity.

I'm aware of the history of the Holy Roman Empire, thanks. The Habsburg Empire was not a 'German' state, it's interests were not synonymous with those of Germany, and a proper 'German' confederation did not come into existence until after the Congress of Vienna - 1815. Even then, there was a conflict between Catholic Germans and Protestant Germans, and rivalry between Prussia and Austria-Hungary for hegemony within the German Confederation. More to the point- the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire) also included peoples and territories that had never been German- as did the Habsburg Empire's lands.
My point still stands- Germans did not grieve over the loss of Alsace or Lorraine because they had never been German.

Ramo- as I pointed out Holstein had been in personal union with the crown of Denmark since the 13th century-again, although populated by ethnic Germans, it was part of Danish territory. Both Bismarck (who said 'it is no concern of ours whether Germans in Holstein are happy') and the Prussian King admitted that Prussia (not Germany), had no right to the duchies.

Imran- the Geman Empire was stripped of territories that like Silesia had been taken from another state and were not populated in the main by Germans, and in the case of Alsace and Lorraine had never been German territory and only relatively recently acquired. Northern Sleswig had been ethnically Danish- not something that seems to unduly bother posters who are willing to forget Bismarck's acquisitions of non-German territories.

The German war aims in WWI (outlined in Fritz Fischer's 'Griff nach der Weltmacht') were a 'blueprint for aggression' as A.J.P. Taylor points out- they entailed, for instance, placing all of Belgium (not just parts where there was a German speaking population) under German control, French iron-fields annexed to Germany, the Ukraine to become German, and Poland and Ukraine to be cleared of their inhabitants and remade as German. These schemes were not merely the brain child of a General Staff high on war victories, but were endorsed by the German foreign ministry and by Bethmann Hollweg. Had these plans been known at Versailles, I suspect the allies would have wished to impose even more stringent measures to ensure that Germany did not become an aggressor nation again.

Multiple territories being taken from one state had been a part of international settlements since mediaeval history- all that makes this more remarkable is the added complication of modern 'ethnic' nationalism. As I indicated, a Germany constructed on ethnic grounds would have to stretch into Romania, Hungary and the Volga- and the Versailles settlement left non-Germans (Poles for instance) within the boundaries of Eastern Germany.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Heresson


Leszczyñski to be exact.


-------------------------------
Hmmmmmm

Now that You talk about it all, and generally You think that fall of the Roman rule in the west was so bad,
and You point out Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic invasions.
I think that You may find my proposition interesting.
It is Fokas "revolution".
As we know, Justinian libetated Africa, Italia, Illiria and part of Iberia. Emperor Mauritius wanted to continue his
way. He started nicely, by intervening in Persia and putting "a right man" on the throne. Later He fought succesfully with Slavs and Avars, pushing them on the north of Donau. After finishing this case, He wanted to move west to finish the restoration of the Empire.
However, an army revolt led by half-barbarian Fokas,
threw him out of the throne. Mauritus and his entire family were murdered. OK, I must be going now, so it'll be a shortie. Fokas introduced the reign of terror, stopped fighting against Slavs (which ended with all european provinces but exclaves lost). Chosroes, shah of Persia, started a war against him to punish him for what He did to Mauritius and conquered Syria, Egypt and reached Chalcedon. (by the way, perhaps Nicea or Chalcedon could be count as a very tragical point in history as well). Eventually it ended up with not only not restoring the empire, but in SLavic and Arabic conquests.

I must go now, bye.

Now this is interesting. The word FUBAR comes to mind. It must stand for

Fokas Up Beyond All Recognition.

[Ned]

May I be so bold to suggest that the "idea" of Germany really began with the Treaty of Verdun? The divisions there made to Europe survive substantially intact. Here is a bit from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"(August 843), treaty partitioning the Carolingian empire among the three surviving sons of the emperor Louis I the Pious. The treaty was the first stage in the dissolution of the empire of Charlemagne and foreshadowed the formation of the modern countries of western Europe. Louis I had carefully planned his three elder sons' inheritances; but from 829 onward his attempts to allocate substantial territory to the future Charles II the Bald, his young son by a second wife, led to revolts by Charles's half brothers. After Louis's death (840) open warfare broke out; Louis's third son, Louis the German , allied with Charles in attacking the eldest son, the emperor Lothair I . Defeated at Fontenoy, in present Belgium (June 841), and driven from Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen, Ger., 842), Lothair sued for peace. At Verdun (in present northeastern France) the following year, Lothair was confirmed in possession of the imperial title and received Francia Media, a long central strip of territory including parts of modern Belgium, The Netherlands, western Germany, eastern France, Switzerland, and much of Italy. Louis the German received Francia Orientalis, the land east of the Rhine River. Charles received Francia Occidentalis, the remainder of modern France. "

[Heresson]

All seperate wars, you'll notice. German got all of them stripped (plus more) in one peace.

That's not the point. It is that that they have lost what they conquered not a long time earlier.

Now this is interesting. The word FUBAR comes to mind. It must stand for

Fokas Up Beyond All Recognition.

Hm.
I forgot to mention that He revived pope's claims to the primacy in the Christianity. Obviously, pope loved Him
and built a statue in Forum Romanum for his honour