10 most rightist posters on poly

[Ned]

No doubt the French, Japanese and Italians were all out to get as much as they could from the Central Powers/Turkish defeat. But, in all cases, Britain was the arbiter who had to agree as, at that time, Britain was the "superpower."

[chequita guevara]

I think Ned's been watching R.O.D., with the evil British Library trying to take over the world. Mmmm, bouncy breasts.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


When this thread dies down.

-The way things are going the only way this thread'll die down is at 500 posts

---
Agathon

Finally- the long-awaited response:

Item the first
1.) conservativism is not completely against change, as you yourself noted in your criticism of how it would be like liberalism if it were for 'intelligent change'

2.) conservativism merely seeks not to radically change... and neither does liberalism necessarily- though liberalism CAN be for radical change while conservativism will 99.9% of the time be against radical change unless it is done in steps and done intelligently

3.) therefore, as you define liberalism as being for gradual change- so too is conservativism defined, because it makes no sense for things to always stay the same because of evolving human experiences.

4.) However, conservativism uses tradition and past experiences as a guide to create future actions

5.) But, you seem to imply that since liberalism utilizes past experiences as a guide to future actions, the two definitions seem to be quite the same.

6.) Therefore, by the way that you have chosen to define the twain, they are, much as you stated- similar and therefore it is impossible to differentiate between the two.

As I stated a few posts ago, by this definition the two terms aren’t incompatible.

You touched on this since you said that they were not equal and opposite ideas.

Through my research, I have been forced to concede that.

However, just because they are not opposite, does not mean that Conservativism means nothing.

A conservative can be a liberal by this definition, but a liberal isn’t always a conservative.

Some liberals seek faster change.

A Conservative will always have gradual change that is well-thought out.

A liberal will not always take ‘steps’ to achieve the changes.

Now, that argument recovered a lot of the same ground on which we have been disputing for the past few posts- but I think that, worded this way, it might bring us closer to a resolution of this dispute.

---
Item the Second: Whereby Conservative's Seeking to Preserve Tradition is Defended

"Conservatives are for tradition because it works."

That statement can I suppose be taken two ways, one is uncontroversial, but has the unfortunate consequence of not being unique to conservatism – the other is manifestly false.

(1) If conservatives are for tradition because it works, then either they believe it always works, or that it works only sometimes or most of the time.

(2) If conservatives believe tradition always works, then they are insane and can be dispensed with.

No argument there. But as we both discovered when I looked on the dictionary and as I realized when I thought about it further- conservatives are obviously willing to change- for example: Nixon, a conservative republican, accepted a gradual thawing of relations with China. It was, however, a gradual thaw, manufactured 'conservatively.'

(3) On the other hand, if they believe that it works some or most of the time then they admit that tradition is not a universal guide to what to do.

(4) If conservatives admit (3) then what they are really interested in is what works, whether or not it is traditional. But that just makes them the same as everyone else, including Liberals, who are just interested in what works.

I addressed this in point the first.

(5) Conservatives might admit that tradition is not a universally correct guide to what works, but try to argue that we must follow it anyway because it is more likely to be right.

(6) But (5) is obviously stupid because it is more effective to examine each policy purely on its own merits. A conservative who wants to argue that we should follow tradition is placing himself in the ridiculous position of denying that we should examine ideas based on their own merits, even though he admits that tradition can go wrong. This is like calling for voluntary stupidity.

(7) But a conservative could claim that (6) is ridiculous, but that it turns out that if we do the sensible thing and examine each idea based on its own merits, it turns out that tradition is right more often than not.

(8) I'm quite prepared to accept that (7) might be the case, but it will not save conservatism for the simple reason that it admits that tradition is no longer a guide to right action.

Well tradition would no longer be a 100% guide to right action, but I argue that it could theoreticlaly be a 100% guide, because eveyrthing is built upon the past. And therefore, one must understand past traditions to udnerstand the future- and how to best integrate future ideas with the past. If new reforms are just declared by fiat (as they were by the Shah in Iran) and they don't segue with the local populace's traditions, etc. then the new reforms will not work. Therefore, conservativism has a lot of good practicality to say on the political stage for reasoned, gradual, traditional change.

What does this mean? It means that a political principle is supposed to be a guide to action. A socialist principle would be equality of condition – it thereby states a goal for socialist policies. The libertarian political principle is liberty – it states a goal for the libertarian policy. But the conservative principle of following tradition doesn't work for the following reasons: (A) If we follow it blindly, we end up doing dumb things; (B) If we instead evaluate each policy on its own merits, we have abandoned tradition as a guide; (C) even if it turns out that evaluating policies on their own merits leads to following tradition more often than not, tradition is no longer a guide to our actions, but just consistent with them.

That's why conservatism as you read it is silly. Either it is just the same as liberalism (doing what works) or it is useless as a guide to practical action.

And actually, your definition of liberalism is different from what I have defined and could arguably be different from what many people think- therefore it is a controversial defintiion and , as you accuse MY defintion of conservativism- not the be all/ end all of debate.

Frankly, I insist that a Conservative can be a minor liberal and a minor liberal can be a Conservative- but a conservative can not be a radical liberal. The two ideas aren't opposites, as you yourself told me- therefore they can be cohabitant.

I hope this discussion is sufficient to reconcile our ideas.

-DC

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Saras,

I had never made that connection. We don't get much history on 19th century Europe. It seems like a vicious cycle that leads all the way to world war 2.

Okay, so BEFORE the 1870s and the reparations by Prussia, what happened to lead up to THAT?

Ha. The peace of the 1870s while humilitaing to the French didn't require that they unilaterally disarm, nor did it steal away a good portion of the coast linking to the actualy homeland where prussia had begun, and nor did It cut away a large portion of the nation- just alsace lorraine- nor did It keep an occupying army past 5 years, nor did it take extraction mineral rights in the saar/ruhr.

The peace of the 1870s was much less harsh than versailles.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

---
Agathon

Finally- the long-awaited response:

Item the first
1.) conservativism is not completely against change, as you yourself noted in your criticism of how it would be like liberalism if it were for 'intelligent change'

2.) conservativism merely seeks not to radically change... and neither does liberalism necessarily- though liberalism CAN be for radical change while conservativism will 99.9% of the time be against radical change unless it is done in steps and done intelligently

3.) therefore, as you define liberalism as being for gradual change- so too is conservativism defined, because it makes no sense for things to always stay the same because of evolving human experiences.

4.) However, conservativism uses tradition and past experiences as a guide to create future actions

Thus far there is not much to quibble with. Everyone to some extent uses past experiences as a guide to future actions, but that is not the same as using tradition to determine future actions, since we may use science (which is based on inferences made from past experience) as a reason to alter our traditions.

5.) But, you seem to imply that since liberalism utilizes past experiences as a guide to future actions, the two definitions seem to be quite the same.

In that respect, they do the same. However, I did not define liberalism that way. Liberalism may well break with the past based on recent discoveries.

6.) Therefore, by the way that you have chosen to define the twain, they are, much as you stated- similar and therefore it is impossible to differentiate between the two.

But I don't define liberalism that way. If you want a reasonable definition of liberalism it is a political system where freedom extends as far as actions that harm others. That's Mill's version, and is close to what most people mean by Liberalism. That is a goal directed definition: it says nothing about means or reliance on the past.

As I stated a few posts ago, by this definition the two terms aren’t incompatible.

But they are, since Liberalism is not defined as what you said it was.

You touched on this since you said that they were not equal and opposite ideas.

Through my research, I have been forced to concede that.

However, just because they are not opposite, does not mean that Conservativism means nothing.

But something may be meaningful, yet useless.

A conservative can be a liberal by this definition, but a liberal isn’t always a conservative.

Liberals may pursue policies that are compatible with tradition if the circumstances dictate. That doesn't mean that they adopt the conservatives political principle. This is just an accidental agreement.

Some liberals seek faster change.

A Conservative will always have gradual change that is well-thought out.

Based on the principle you have articulated it won't be thought out at all.

I don't think you understand my argument. Here it is in a clearer form:

1) Political theories (liberalism, conservatism, egalitarianism) have political principles as their guides to right action. For example, an egalitarian values equality as the political goal. Hence the egalitarian will take steps to achieve the goal of equality subject to practical constraints. If radical action is less likely to bring us closer to equality, the egalitarian won't do it. If it is more likely, he will. So sometimes even the egalitarian will do the same thing as the conservative, but for different reasons as the egalitarian has a different guiding principle.

2) According to you, the guiding principle of conservatism (in your revised version) is that changes to traditions should be gradual. My argument is that a principle that states "changes should be gradual" is worthless as a political principle. To see why consider the following exchange.

Liberal: "We should make some changes to society"

Conservative: "OK, but they must be gradual".

Liberal: "Which changes should we make?"

Conservative: "I don't care as long as they're gradual changes".

Liberal: "What about changing to Nazism?"

Conservative: "OK, as long as we change gradually."

3) It is obvious that the conservative position in (2) is absurd. But that's what you get if you make "gradual change" your political principle, since it doesn't matter what sort of change it is as long as it's gradual.

4) Since that's insane, let's go back to tradition. Let's say that conservatives seek in most cases to preserve tradition as much as they can. They don't have any other principle than that according to you. Take the following exchange.

Liberal: "We should make some changes to society"

Conservative: "OK. But I want to stick to tradition as much as possible."

Liberal: "Which traditions do you want to keep and why?"

Conservative: "I don't care, I only want to stick to tradition as much as possible."

Liberal: "So you don't want to change at all?"

Conservative: "No, I just want to stick to tradition as much as possible."

Liberal: "As much as possible means 100%. Do you mean that?"

Conservative: "No."

Liberal: "Well then, can you tell me where we should stick to tradition and where we should change?"

Conservative: "Yes"

Liberal: "OK then"

Conservative: "We should stick to tradition as much as possible".

Liberal: "That's just repeating yourself. Don't you mean that we should stick to tradition where it is beneficial and change where it is not, and that we should embrace gradual change when it is beneficial and radical change when it isn't?"

Conservative: "Yes".

Liberal: "But then you've changed your goal. Your goal is now 'do what is beneficial', since you've agreed that following tradition is only good when it leads to benefit."

Conservative: "OK. All right then, but I still maintain that we should stick to tradition as much as possible, and that this is beneficial."

Liberal: "It's not the same, since you've agreed that we can change traditions to secure benefits."

Conservative: "OK. I did say that."

Liberal: "So how do we tell when a change must be made? Do we appeal to tradition?"

Conservative: "I'm not that stupid. Tradition will just tell us not to change since it is what we already do."

Liberal: "So tradition can't really be the ultimate guide our actions then?"

Conservative: "Why not?"

Liberal: "Because tradition just keeps telling us to do the same thing we were doing. It can't tell us when change is necessary."

Conservative: "OK"

Liberal: "But 'stick to tradition as much as possible' isn't much better. On its own it can't tell us which possible changes are better and which are worse, and that means it can't tell us which traditions to keep and which not to keep. It's like if I had 100 bags of crap and 100 bags of gold, and there was a flood and I just aimed to save as many bags as possible, irrespective of what was in them. Conservatives are just worried about the bags, rather than the crap to gold ratio."

Conservative: "I don't think that's fair."

Liberal: "Yes it is. You've said that you want to stick to tradition as much as possible, and if we follow that principle alone, it doesn't matter which ones we stick with and which ones we dump as long as we stick to them as much as possible."

Conservative: "Well, I do care. I want to stick to the beneficial ones and get rid of the crap ones."

Liberal: "OK, but that means that you are now evaluating our traditions in terms of benefit and not hanging on to them just because they are traditions. You are no longer being guided by the principle that traditions are good in themselves or for the most part, but that traditions are good only when they benefit us."

Conservative: "What's the difference?"

Liberal: "The difference is that if you make gradual change of tradition, whatever the change is, your goal, then you have no way of determining which ones are good and which ones are bad, and you have no way of determining which changes are good and which changes are bad. If you make benefit your goal, then you actually have some reasons for the changes that you are making and you can identify which traditions need to be dumped. But then you have abandoned conservatism, since you admit that some other principle than 'stick to traditions as much as possible' is what is really guiding your action. It's really the same sort of argument as the earlier 'gradual change' argument."

Conservative: "But what if it did turn out that sticking to tradition as much as possible was the most beneficial strategy?"

Liberal: "There would be nothing amiss if that was indeed the case, but what would not be the case is that tradition itself was guiding your actions. The fact that tradition was the most beneficial strategy is an empirical claim, not a political principle. Benefit is the political principle, and sticking to traditions is according to you the best way of achieving that. But you can't argue that sticking to tradition is best because sticking to tradition is best, because that is begging the question. Rather you have to evaluate each thing on its beneficial consequences and make an empirical case for it. If you wanted to argue for some further reform or resistance to reform, you would have to argue in terms of benefit, since appealing to tradition is begging the question of whether that change is in fact beneficial or not.

Conservative: "So I have to argue each case and I can't mindlessly appeal to tradition?"

Liberal: "Yes."

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Ned couldn't care less - The only thing that matters is that if Britain have had just a tiny influence, then they are the masterminds behind it all and are to blame for all evil.

Ned is just jealous that Britain ran the world better than the US has managed to do so far.

[Saras]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


Ha. The peace of the 1870s while humilitaing to the French didn't require that they unilaterally disarm, nor did it steal away a good portion of the coast linking to the actualy homeland where prussia had begun, and nor did It cut away a large portion of the nation- just alsace lorraine- nor did It keep an occupying army past 5 years, nor did it take extraction mineral rights in the saar/ruhr.

The peace of the 1870s was much less harsh than versailles.

Well, 'disarming' in 1870's was not feasible, what, turn in ALL OUR RIFLES?

In 1919 they could ban tanks, subs and airplanes.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, let's end this discussion. As always, its been fun. We all seem to learn from something from discussions of this type.

I think we ended that you would agree that Versailles indeed did contribute to the causes of WWII, but you do not agree that Britain is solely responsible, pointing to Wilson, the American, as being at least as culpable.

On the latter point, Wilson was indeed held to blame by Congress and the American people. But apparently, the British never thought that Versailles was wrong at all in any respect. With that attitude, I submit, the Brits are bound to repeat their mistakes.

Oh, good grief, can't you even get facts right when you're apparently trying to apologize ?

We learn that you think :

On China v. Japan, who gave Japan that province just above Shanghai and her rights in Manchuria?

" Some of Wilson's compromises violated his belief in self-determination. This was the right of all people to decide for themselves who would govern them.

One compromise, for example, gave to Japan Germany's colonial rights in the Shantung area of China. China protested the decision. It asked that control of Shantung be returned to the Chinese government. But President Wilson needed Japan's support for the league of nations. So he accepted Japan's demand for control of Shantung. "

That's from one of my earlier posts, by the by....

The reason the Japanese were in China and had received one province and the rights to Manchuria was because of the Treaty of Versailles -- yes that infamous DICTAT that everyone agrees was the cause of WWII in Europe.

Japan took German colonies from Imperial Germany, and in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, Russian held land and railways in Manchuria from Imperial Russia.

Which power was it that mediated the peace treaty of Portsmouth, New Hampshire which ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5?

The United States of America.

" Today the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905 is considered one of the most powerful symbols of peace for Japan, Russia and United States in Asia. President Roosevelt earned the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, and was the first American President to be so honored. "

http://www.portsmouthpeacetreaty.com/treaty_index.cfm

What did the treaty give Japan ?


ARTICLE II.

The Imperial Russian Government, acknowledging that Japan possesses in Korea paramount political, military and economical interests engages neither to obstruct nor interfere with measures for guidance, protection and control which the Imperial Government of Japan may find necessary to take in Korea. It is understood that Russian subjects in Korea shall be treated in exactly the same manner as the subjects and citizens of other foreign Powers; that is to say, they shall be placed on the same footing as the subjects and citizens of the most favored nation. It is also agreed that, in order to avoid causes of misunderstanding, the two high contracting parties will abstain on the Russian-Korean frontier from taking any military measure which may menace the security of Russian or Korean territory.

ARTICLE III.

Japan and Russia mutually engage:
First. -- To evacuate completely and simultaneously Manchuria, except the territory affected by the lease of the Liaotung Peninsula, in conformity with the provisions of the additional article I annexed to this treaty, and,

Second.--To restore entirely and completely to the exclusive administration of China all portions of Manchuria now in occupation, or under the control of the Japanese or Russian troops, with the exception of the territory above mentioned.

The Imperial Government of Russia declares that it has not in Manchuria any territorial advantages or preferential or exclusive concessions in the impairment of Chinese sovereignty, or inconsistent with the principle of equal opportunity.

ARTICLE IV.

Japan and Russia reciprocally engage not to obstruct any general measures common to all countries which China may take for the development of the commerce or industry of Manchuria.

ARTICLE V.

The Imperial Russian Government transfers and assigns to the Imperial Government of Japan, with the consent of the Government of China, the lease of Port Arthur, Ta-lien and the adjacent territorial waters, and all rights, privileges and concessions connected with or forming part of such lease, and it also transfers and assigns to the Imperial government of Japan all public works and properties in the territory affected by the above-mentioned lease.


We learn you think that:

..the hostility between China and Japan was clearly stoked to a fever pitch by Versailles.

When did Japan first attack China in the 19th Century ?

1871.

Which country's ex-president was the one who decided that Japan had a better claim to the disputed territory of the Ryukyu Islands than did China ?

The United States of America.

" In 1879, the Meiji government of Japan announced the annexation of the Ryukyu Islands. China objected and Ulysses S. Grant was asked to arbitrate the matter. He decided that Japan's claim to the islands was stronger and ruled in Japan's favor. "

http://encyclopedie.snyke.com/articles_en/ulysses_s_grant.html

When did Japan next attack China ?

1894.

And why ?

" Japan feared Russian expansion into northern China and Korea, and sought foreign conquests in line with nationalistic Meiji ideology. "

http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~gemini/simons/historyweb/sino-war.html

And yet you said:

What Britain did in all these events was to take historical antagonists and place them in conflict by one means or another.

How odd- it didn't in 1871, it didn't in 1894, and it didn't in 1904-5.

You think:

But the major cause of Chinese outrage that lead to the breakout of hostilities at the end of the 20's was Versailles and the give-away of Chinese territory to Japan.

But unfortunately neither the provisions of, and territory awarded by, the Treaties of Shimonoseki and Portsmouth would seem to agree with you.

Here's another American who disagrees with you:

" In September 1931, U.S. Secretary of State, Henry Stimson, wrote in his diary:

' Trouble has flared up again in Manchuria. The Japanese, apparently their military elements, have suddenly made a coup.'

Stimson's entry was prophetic. The coup initiated a period of almost fifteen years during which Japan's militarists controlled her foreign policy and the spirit of militarism- with all its extremist passion, its brutality, its frenzy of determination- infected the Japanese Empire like a plague.

The 1931 Manchurian 'trouble' was instigated by Army officers who wanted to wage a war of conquest and prove themselves more powerful than the Japanese cabinet. Both of these goals were realized. By the end of 1931 the Japanese Army, overriding the protests of stunned officials in Tokyo, had takenover Manchuria.

In 1937, the Army invaded China, and perpetrated atrocities on the people of Nanking, which repelled the world. "

Prologue, from: 'The Fall of Japan', by William Craig, publ. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968

I'll deal with the British 'attitude' towards Versailles in a while....

[Drake Tungsten]

When did Japan first attack China in the 19th Century ?

1871.

1874. It's not suprising that you're having trouble finding the date, however. The Taiwan Expedition was a minor clash at best, engaged in primarily for domestic consumption to placate conservative Japanese followers of Saigo Takamori that had been overruled on attacking Korea. It also had no significant effects on the region; no territory changed hands and the annexation of the Ryukyus was merely a recognition of the centuries old status quo. It's no wonder most historians fail to mention it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
When did Japan first attack China in the 19th Century ?

1871.

Offcially, maybe, but the terrorists had been wrecking havoc for ages.

[Drake Tungsten]

I guess you guys started it when you invaded Japan in 1274...

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Saras


Well, 'disarming' in 1870's was not feasible, what, turn in ALL OUR RIFLES?

In 1919 they could ban tanks, subs and airplanes.

In 1919 as in 1870 they could also limit the number of people in each army.

With versailles, Germany was limited to 100K, and the other nations promised to disarm. The latter promise was not upheld and Germany felt strictured by its troop limits.

The fact that banning of tanks,subs, etc. wasn't possible in 1870 doesn't make 1919 more insulting- every nation had them in 1919- germany basically had no way to protect itself and, after WWI it found itself surrounded by enemies- France and Russia squashing it in two with only the border state of Poland to protect them.
--
Agathon
-Look for a response in 48 hours

[Saras]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


In 1919 as in 1870 they could also limit the number of people in each army.

With versailles, Germany was limited to 100K, and the other nations promised to disarm. The latter promise was not upheld and Germany felt strictured by its troop limits.

The fact that banning of tanks,subs, etc. wasn't possible in 1870 doesn't make 1919 more insulting- every nation had them in 1919- germany basically had no way to protect itself and, after WWI it found itself surrounded by enemies- France and Russia squashing it in two with only the border state of Poland to protect them.

Rearming a lowtech rifle army is a lot easier than a modern mechanised one.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

When did Japan first attack China in the 19th Century ?

1871.

1874. It's not suprising that you're having trouble finding the date, however. The Taiwan Expedition was a minor clash at best, engaged in primarily for domestic consumption to placate conservative Japanese followers of Saigo Takamori that had been overruled on attacking Korea. It also had no significant effects on the region; no territory changed hands and the annexation of the Ryukyus was merely a recognition of the centuries old status quo. It's no wonder most historians fail to mention it.

Well there's your version of history, and there's real history.


When did the Japanese kidnap the Okinawan king ?

1871. Did the Chinese consider the Ryukyu Islands to be a vassal or tributary state, one which they had the duties of suzerain towards- as they did Korea ?

Yes.

Did the Japanese supervize the King of the Ryukyu Islands, but not break the link with China ?

Yes.

The Ryukyu Islands, stretching some 500 miles from the southern tip of Kyushu (Japan's southernmost main island) past the coast of China down to Taiwan, have long had strong cultural ties with both China and Japan.

During Japan's Edo Period (1600 to 1868) the kingdom of Ryukyu formally belonged to China, but in fact it was more closely tied with the Satsuma Han, a powerful domain in southern Kyushu. Like China and Japan, Ryukyu had its own emperors and dynasties. The imperial palace was in Okinawa, in the southern city of Shuri. Imperial messengers (sakuho-shi) were frequently sent to Okinawa from China and there were cultural exchanges between the two countries.

As for Formosa/Taiwan, it was certainly important for the Japanese- its temporary occupation represented a reversal of the relationship between China and Japan.

I'm certainly not having any problem with dates, but thanks for your inattention.

Why was Japan's invasion of Formosa/Taiwan so important ?

Perhaps because it set the agenda for what was to follow:

Tzu-Hsi on the first Sino-Japanese War, over Korea:

" Who would have anticipated that the dwarf men would have dared to force us into hostilities, and that since the beginning of summer they have invaded our tributary states (Korea) and destroyed our fleet ? "

Formosa/Taiwan also meant capturing somewhere that Japan could grow sugar cane for domestic consumption.

" Guarantee or Engagement referred to in the foregoing Instrument

PAPER attesting an engagement entered into.

In the matter of the savages of Formosa, reference being had to an understanding arrived at with the two Governments [of China and Japan] by the British Minister, Mr. Wade, and to the instrument this day signed, recording the action to be taken respectively by the two parties thereto, the Chinese Government will at once give the sum of 100,000 taels to compensate the families of the shipwrecked Japanese who were killed. In addition to this, the Chinese Government will not fail to pay a further sum of 400,000 taels on account of the expenses occasioned by the construction of roads and erection of buildings which, when the Japanese troops are withdrawn, the Chinese Government will retain for its own use."

http://www.taiwandocuments.org/1874treaty.htm

I note you say:

It also had no significant effects on the region; no territory changed hands and the annexation of the Ryukyus was merely a recognition of the centuries old status quo.

I never said territory changed hands of course, what I said was that Japan attacked China. Still, misrepresentation in paraphrase appears to be your forte, not mine.

Now it had brought home to the Chinese that unlike what had been said in 1871:

" We can't be responsible for the actions of savages beyond the pale of civilization."

-Tsungli Yamen

they could indeed be held responsible, and by the dwarf men at that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

... but you do not agree that Britain is solely responsible, pointing to Wilson, the American, as being at least as culpable.

On the latter point, Wilson was indeed held to blame by Congress and the American people. But apparently, the British never thought that Versailles was wrong at all in any respect. With that attitude, I submit, the Brits are bound to repeat their mistakes.

Which U.S. President specifically stated that a Polish state would be created 'with access to the sea' ?

Woodrow Wilson.

Which nation did Nazi Germany invade without first a declaration of war ?

Poland.



" Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points

Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at

Freedom of the seas

The removal so far as possible of all economic barriers

The reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety

Impartial adjustment of all colonial claims

The evacuation of all Russian territory

The evacuation and restoration of Belgium

The liberation of France and return to her of Alsace and Lorraine

Readjustment of the frontiers of Italy to conform to clearly recognisable lines of nationality

The peoples of Austria-Hungary should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development

Evacuation of occupation forces from Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; Serbia should be accorded free and secure access to the sea

Autonomous development for the non-Turkish peoples of the Ottoman empire; free passage of the Dardanelles to the ships and commerce of all nations

An independent Poland to be established, with free and secure access to the sea

A general association of nations to be formed to guarantee to its members political independence and territorial integrity (the genesis of the League of Nations) "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwone/fourteen_points.shtml

Which President helped Tomas Masaryk achieve his dream of a Czechoslovak state ?

Woodrow Wilson.

" Thomas Garrigue Masaryk (1850-1937), the first president of Czechoslovakia, embodies the close ties between the government of the United States and Czechoslovakia. He was well acquainted with the United States from the personal experience he derived from repeated trips to this country over the course of four decades as a philosopher, scholar and teacher. He taught at major universities in the United States and married a native of Brooklyn, New York, named Charlotte Garrigue, whose surname he adopted. President Masaryk's close personal relationship with many notable Americans, including president Woodrow Wilson, ultimately led to the recognition by the United States of a free Czechoslovakia in 1918. For six months, President Masaryk traveled throughout the United States writing the Joint Declaration of Independence from Austria which was signed in Philadelphia and issued in Washington on October 18, 1918, where he was declared the President of Czechoslovakia. "

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr221&dbname=cp107&

Which country did Hitler dismember before invading Poland ?

Czechoslovakia.

Which President acquiesced to Japanese demands for former German colonies in China to be retained by the Japanese ?

Woodrow Wilson.

You say:

But apparently, the British never thought that Versailles was wrong at all in any respect.

However, John Maynard Keynes resigned from the British peace delegation in protest, and went on to write 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' in 1919.

Even someone as politically unlike Keynes as Churchill said of the reparations clauses:

' [they were]... malignant and silly to an extent that made them obviously futile'

despite being a member of the British government which signed the treaty. But then it took the perspective of WWII to endow him with this stunning insight.

The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, attempted to get a moratorium on inter-Allied debts, and also to find a financial settlement acceptable to the Germans, and to win over the intransigent French.

Wilson and Lloyd George had to strive to get the French to give up their plans for annexation of the left bank of the Rhine.

An American observer said:

"Only two people have been able to bring about German unity, Bismarck and Poincare."

Perhaps that's because Raymond Poincare, President of France, was a lawyer from....Lorraine, where he maintained close family links. It probably also didn't help that Georges Clemenceau had been Mayor of Montmartre in.... 1870.

Concentrating on the terms of Versailles (however harsh at first) doesn't recognise that they were revised, and that later treaties such as Locarno, improved Germany's situation and standing.

How much easier for you simply to blame it all on Blighty, and how wrong.