IrishGunner Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 "The allies were allowed to have colonies and subjugate entire populations, but nooooo, Germany couldn't be allowed to join that club! They could have navies that sailed the world, but not Germany! I don't expect to change anyone's opinion, but you won't change mine either; Germany wasn't given a whole lot of choices in trying to become a member of the "World Power Club"." That is not strictly true. German simply got into the colony game too late... by the time she was interested, all the good real estate was gone... and germany got the leftovers.... Look at her african colonies... no prime real estate there at all. Why? Bismark did want them... in fact, he hoped france would... that France would concentrate her energies on getting Colonies and leave Germany to do its thing in Europe. So the Germans only became interested in Colonies around 1880... and there was little left... Its as if I got the idea today... "Manhaten island sounds good... i think I will go build a house on the beach there...." and then complain noone wants to give me any space... If the germans missed the colonial boat they can thank Bismark. Anyway, they had it all figured out at the Berlin Conference mid 1880s... rules were set and agreed on, germany was not excluded on any level. Best Chris This part of history you have completely correct. Bravo! :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 3, 2010 Author Share Posted October 3, 2010 You smug gunner you... Wait till I have time for a new salvo! Must finish Peter Pan, then go to bed... early start in the AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 But another thought... since when has it been the task of the victor to rebuild and appease the Looser? Appease - never. The loser has to take responsibility. (Of course, this assumes the winner is the right one in the first place.) Rebuild - always. Why? Because it's in the interests of the victor to not leave a power vacuum in which unhealthy consequences can breed. That is why we had the Marshall Plan after WWII. That is why post-conflict stabilization is now inherent in current thinking on military doctrine at the strategic level. You can win the war, but lose the peace if you don't deal with the problems of the loser. That's the point of this discussion on the consequences of WWII. It's been the task of the victor to rebuild the loser ever since the victors of WWI screwed up and failed to see the value - to themselves - of doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naxos Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 (edited) But another thought... since when has it been the task of the victor to rebuild and appease the Looser? Appease - never. The loser has to take responsibility. (Of course, this assumes the winner is the right one in the first place.) Rebuild - always. Why? Because it's in the interests of the victor to not leave a power vacuum in which unhealthy consequences can breed. That is why we had the Marshall Plan after WWII. That is why post-conflict stabilization is now inherent in current thinking on military doctrine at the strategic level. You can win the war, but lose the peace if you don't deal with the problems of the loser. That's the point of this discussion on the consequences of WWII. It's been the task of the victor to rebuild the loser ever since the victors of WWI screwed up and failed to see the value - to themselves - of doing so. Exactly, well said. That is why we had the Marshall Plan and not the Morgenthau Plan (to not repeat the mistakes of Versailles) Edited October 3, 2010 by Naxos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Must finish Peter Pan, then go to bed... early start in the AM There are no answers in Never Never Land. Even Peter Pan has to grow up and face the real world. But now I know where many of your arguments come from... :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 4, 2010 Author Share Posted October 4, 2010 I am looking forward to getting back into this topic, but am squashed for time till Tuesday... just noticed I for got a "NOT" in a sentence in post 43, making a totoally wrong point... the "NOT" is now added... see you in 24 hours.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul C Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Simple put in my opinion - the allieds set the stage at Versailles and the German people provided the actors. It was joint effort and one could not have happened without the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 I have yet read where you accept that the allies have some blame in this - regardless of whether or not they won. Until you can at least see that there are no angels in this story, the debate is essentially over. The Germans are at fault, the allies are at fault, all are at fault. OK, I need to make something clear here... I in no way say that what the allies did played no role in postwar occurances... every event has an effect on the future... I was watching a Programm about the 3 girls from Charles Manson's cult. All three had divorced parents, all three from broken homes, all were eays to manipulate etc. etc. etc... In all cases it helped a bit to understand a bit of the stuff that influenced their descisions.... But the bottom line is... THEY were responsible for their descisions and all that resulted from them. Blaming it on the parents... (or in this context, the allies) is a cop out. In that respect the Jefferey Dahmer program was better, he basically said "Everything I did, and the consequences are my responsability, they were my descisions" My point being... Germany chose what they got and supported it. fullstop. They couldf have chosen another right wing lot, or the communists... would the outcome then also have been the "fault" of the allies? Going back to mansons girls.... many girls have divorced parents, broken homes and are easy to manipulate... they dont all become killers for a cult... best Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 There are no answers in Never Never Land. Even Peter Pan has to grow up and face the real world. But now I know where many of your arguments come from... depends on what 'shrooms are on your Pizza man! I got aaaallllll the answers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 But...clearly part of the cause of the bad peace treaty after WWI. This clearly was part of the reason the French sought crippling reparations. Another reason that "reparations" are a bad idea. I fail to see where the problem with reparations is? Belgium and Northern France were destroyed... none of Germany was.... do you really think that Germany should not have paid for any of this? Germany came off with little damage to Industry and country... I really fail to see how you think she had no responsability to help rebuild what she did a lot to destroy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauptmann Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I fail to see where the problem with reparations is? Belgium and Northern France were destroyed... none of Germany was.... do you really think that Germany should not have paid for any of this? Germany came off with little damage to Industry and country... I really fail to see how you think she had no responsability to help rebuild what she did a lot to destroy? Okay, so where does Austria not to mention Turkey, etc., figure into all this? Why was it ALL the fault of the EVIL GERMANS? This is what gets me! They got all the blame, had to pay all the reparations, etc. Did they kill Franz Ferdinand? Did they push Serbia into a corner and give them no options at all to get out of war? Did they mobilize their millions of men on their borders and basically push everything into high gear? They IMHOP were merely one of the many dominoes that fell that August. And yes, France and Belgium were basically destroyed... well, sorry, that's what war is all about. That's what makes it something to be avoided at all costs. WAR IS HELL! And sorry but the entire purpose of an military is to destroy things and kill people. That's what they do! And yes, the German army was quite good at it in 1870, 1914/18 and 1939/45. But I guess that during WW1 no one else killed anyone, destroyed anything, blew anything up or in general did anything... it was ALL THE GERMANS. Again I apologize but after 48 years of hearing nothing but BAD GERMANS/EVIL GERMANS I've just had my fill. Tell me precisely how they were totally at fault and to blame for starting WW1? Why they had to pay the price and not the Austrians or Turks or anyone else? ???? Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
army historian Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Well since this is a hot topic - I am putting in my 2 cent. #1. I lay direct blame for the raise of Hitler and his mobsters (and WW2) to France, The French wanted to destroy Germany - Check out the territories disputes the Need for the Freider Corp est. See want was really happening post WW1. The German soldiers and many of the civilians did not believe they really lost the War. Churchill was very correct. "Unfortunately, getting rid of the Kaiser was a prime condition in the ultimate peace and another reason the allies can be blamed for WWII. If Winston Churchill's opinions count for anything, he said, "The war would never have come, unless under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on the vacant thrones."" I use Irishgunners point Rebuild - always. Why? Because it's in the interests of the victor to not leave a power vacuum in which unhealthy consequences can breed. That is why we had the Marshall Plan after WWII. That is why post-conflict stabilization is now inherent in current thinking on military doctrine at the strategic level. You can win the war, but lose the peace if you don't deal with the problems of the loser. That's the point of this discussion on the consequences of WWII. It's been the task of the victor to rebuild the loser ever since the victors of WWI screwed up and failed to see the value - to themselves - of doing so." The main objection to any reasonable treatment of Germany after WW1 was France. Pure and simple venomous vengeance, for her lost of Face and the humiliation of her defeat in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War. I have read a lot about all the little troubles and intrigues caused by the French, they caused more trouble for other countries "Vietnam, Africa, Asia, etc" than any other country I can think of. They are still doing it! My insight. Respectfully Captain Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hauptmann Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 (edited) Amen! Also I want to say, and I'm sure it's more than obvious, that this is a rather emotional subject for me. On the way home from Devils Lake where I made the last post I thought things through and want to say that I'm going to try my best to step back when needed and try not to let it all get to me as much as it was starting to. I definitely want these threads to continue and I definitely would not want to say anything which might cause it to be closed. Dan Edited October 6, 2010 by Hauptman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Did they push Serbia into a corner and give them no options at all to get out of war? Yes... the Austrians did. And the Germans said "do whatever you want... we will back you up". Serbia was anti Austrian, but they did not kill Ferdinand. A study of what Austria demanded from Serbia is of advantage before bringing this argument. Serbia did everything possible to appease Austria, so much so even Wilhelm said "there is now no reason for war"... but they still pushed and pushed. If this is to be a discussion point... lets see the austrian demands and agree they were structured to create war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 And yes, France and Belgium were basically destroyed... well, sorry, that's what war is all about. That's what makes it something to be avoided at all costs. WAR IS HELL! And sorry but the entire purpose of an military is to destroy things and kill people. That's what they do! Hi Dan, Thats not a very convincing argument IMHO :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Why they had to pay the price and not the Austrians or Turks or anyone else? Dan I think they did, Austria lost a hell of a lot more than Germany. and Turkey was totally changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 If Winston Churchill's opinions count for anything, he said, "The war would never have come, unless under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Hapsburgs out of Austria and Hungary and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of its sewer on the vacant thrones."" I think the argument has been brought a couple of times that the German People did not want the kaiser so Churchills statement is a moot point. The Allies would have had to enforce the kaiser on German people. Do you seriously consider this an alternative? This quote, so often bandied about is as steadfast as "we should have had the 14 points!"... it just does not hold water... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 I use Irishgunners point Rebuild - always. Why? Because it's in the interests of the victor to not leave a power vacuum in which unhealthy consequences can breed. Which usually involves occupation and putting in Govts and supporting Govts friendly to you. Lets assume that the Marschall plan was a success story here... (And ignore the afct that in 1945, unlike 1918, there were no radiacal German parties to contend) ... there is a long list of failures since 1945 of "winning the war" and failing to set up a functioning Govt... you mentioned Vietnam... seems the people did not really care what the victorious good guys wanted... "winning a war" and failing to assure stability... like "mission accomplished" ? Comparing Germany 1945 to Germany 1918 is comparing apples to oranges.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 I have read a lot about all the little troubles and intrigues caused by the French, they caused more trouble for other countries "Vietnam, Africa, Asia, etc" than any other country I can think of. They are still doing it! My insight. Respectfully Captain Albert can you elaborate on this? Best Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Boonzaier Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Just to set the record straight here.... Do I think the treaty was the best solution? No I dont. But I defy anyone here, with 90 years of 20/20 hindsight, even now, to suggest a better, workable solution. It is all very well to tear something up, but it is of no use unless you can offer (even now 90 years later) a viable alternative. AND.. I still maintain, just as adults are responsible for their actions, the German people were responsible in the inter year wars for the govt they got. AND Lets not involve the origins of the war in here, we will loose the oversight, there is a thread for that. AND I am at war on 5 fronts now.... :jumping: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I fail to see where the problem with reparations is? Belgium and Northern France were destroyed... none of Germany was.... do you really think that Germany should not have paid for any of this? Germany came off with little damage to Industry and country... I really fail to see how you think she had no responsability to help rebuild what she did a lot to destroy? As you say, let me make something clear; I never said Germany shouldn't have paid. My argument is that all sides had a hand in starting the war and all sides should have taken responsibility for making sure the peace was lasting. The allies argument was it was all Germany's fault - I fail to see how you can think that is a constructive argument in international diplomacy. It just doesn't work that way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) Which usually involves occupation and putting in Govts and supporting Govts friendly to you. Lets assume that the Marschall plan was a success story here... (And ignore the afct that in 1945, unlike 1918, there were no radiacal German parties to contend) ... there is a long list of failures since 1945 of "winning the war" and failing to set up a functioning Govt... you mentioned Vietnam... seems the people did not really care what the victorious good guys wanted... "winning a war" and failing to assure stability... like "mission accomplished" ? Comparing Germany 1945 to Germany 1918 is comparing apples to oranges.... So, using this argument - and assuming you agree that the United States had a lesser part to play in causing these two wars - why did the Allies of WWII impose crippling reparations on Germany in 1945? As you argue, it was all Germany's fault; so, Germany should foot the bill. But that's not what happened. Why should the United States foot the bill for the Marshall Plan and the next 60 years after wards to rebuild Europe. It wasn't our fault. Why? Because it was in our interests to be more magnanimous and prevent the rotten apple of 1918 - also known as the Versailles Treaty - from being repeated. Instead we made some fairly nice orange juice - which has nourished Europe ever since. It's not comparing apples and oranges; Germany lost both wars and using your argument that it was all Germany's fault. Same fruit salad it seems to me. The difference is that we learned the lesson of spoiled fruit and didn't repeat the same mistake in the peace. There were no radical parties in 1945 because they were banned (and still are) in Germany - the lesson of the inter-war years was learned. That's the point here... We didn't repeat the same mistakes of 1918; therefore, the post-WWII peace was lasting. If they had applied the same principles in 1918, who knows what the world would be like today. I don't think anyone is saying that Germany didn't have guilt in 1918; but responsible adult behavior by the allies would have given peace a better chance. No guarantees, but surely a better chance. The post-WWII revival of Europe shows what can be achieved if the victors don't rape the loser. Edited October 7, 2010 by IrishGunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I think the argument has been brought a couple of times that the German People did not want the kaiser so Churchills statement is a moot point. The Allies would have had to enforce the kaiser on German people. Do you seriously consider this an alternative? This quote, so often bandied about is as steadfast as "we should have had the 14 points!"... it just does not hold water... Agreed as far as the Kaiser part is concerned; but the real point of Churchill's statement is about a political power vacuum. We could remove the Kaiser - or let the Germans do it - but it should have been done under different circumstances - stable circumstances - rather than in a volatile political power vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGunner Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 But I defy anyone here, with 90 years of 20/20 hindsight, even now, to suggest a better, workable solution. It is all very well to tear something up, but it is of no use unless you can offer (even now 90 years later) a viable alternative. I have offered the proven viable alternative - dozens of times - and it was never the 14 Points. Well, okay, I think the first 3 Points are a good starting point. It is a solution based on the same principles applied in post-WWII Europe - with great success - maybe too much success if you ask this American (since we rebuilt and protected your continent). A solution that looked to rebuild - all of Europe - and not simply tear down Germany as punishment - that left no power vacuum (and seeds of volatile discontent) - that brought Germany into the community of nations - rather than excommunicating her to oblivion. One that had peace as it's objective, not punishment. This was the post-WWII solution that was successful. I defy you to argue with success of the post-WWII peace. And I defy you to argue why that isn't a viable solution in 1918. And don't try to say it would have never worked in 1918; it surely would have had a better chance the the solution they chose. If Britain and France wanted to go a different route, they would have - but they didn't want to do that. Oh, which led many Americans to prefer isolationism rather than become entangled in another European war and perhaps also became a factor that made German revanche and war inevitable. I completely fail to see how you believe the 1918 solution had any positive points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim B Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 (edited) "I lay direct blame for the raise of Hitler and his mobsters (and WW2) to France, The French wanted to destroy Germany... The main objection to any reasonable treatment of Germany after WW1 was France. Pure and simple venomous vengeance, for her lost of Face and the humiliation of her defeat in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War. I have read a lot about all the little troubles and intrigues caused by the French, they caused more trouble for other countries "Vietnam, Africa, Asia, etc" than any other country I can think of." Completely agree! They are still pissed that they are not considered a major world power anymore. To the victor, goes the spoils and the victors are the ones that write the history books. Tim Edited October 7, 2010 by Tim B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now