IrishGunner

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:

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.

This part of history you have completely correct. Bravo! :cheers:

No, not as a cause of WWI - because that's in the other thread. 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.

Agreed. And what chance did the allies give Germany to work it's way out of a "rotten state" of affairs and give democracy a real chance to succeed? None. Because they only had revenge on their simple minds. Of course, I altered the idea of "rotten state" to one of a "rotten state of affairs" - because I'm assuming you don't really mean that Germany was rotten to the core and inherently evil and therefore incapable of democracy. (Or did you?)

Yes, you should hesitate to make these arguments because they are off topic, emotional, and wrong. But since you raised them, here goes: "By fighting terrorism we are only encouraging them to attack us.." This is a misdirected statement; this issue is not whether or not we should fight terrorism, but HOW we fight terrorism. The HOW implies that we should do it with an understanding of the underlying causes - economic and otherwise; waging unrestricted warfare and imposing an unjust peace will only create more terrorists. This is the same argument I've used in the way the allies pursued peace in 1918 - they only created conditions that made Germany "attack us" again. Should Iraq have been rebuilt after Desert Storm to prevent them from becoming baddies again? There is a strong argument that it wasn't necessary to rebuild Iraq in 1991because it wasn't truly destroyed; the war was stopped when the objective was met - the liberation of Kuwait. There was no attempt to cripple Iraq for its invasion because it was recognized that would only further destabilize the region. On the other hand, there is a strong argument that we should have went all the way in 1991 because we only had to do it in 2003. So, now should we make Iraq suffer because we "won"? No, we are rebuilding Iraq because a crippled Iraq is a destabilizing in the region. (And let's not go further off topic by discussing in this thread whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place." Has anything been done to sooth Serbias pride after the NAQTO bombings (Personally I dont think the Balkans problem has been "solved" for ever) Serbia has had every opportunity; Croatia complied with the war criminal demands and are now a member of NATO. Serbia is where Serbia is because Serbia can't get on with business. Using your argument about punishing the loser, we should drive them into complete oblivion. That hasn't happened because it's not in our interests; although they have been punished - just as Germany has been punished, but not pushed into a further destabilizing situation. Everyone had back breaking debt, everyone had lost many men, everyone was headed for the great depression, some (unlike Germany) had had their land devestated... Germany had on top of that bruised pride, but tough titty, not everyone can win... Yep, everyone was suffering - tough titty - because everyone had a part in causing the war in the first place - if the allies had accepted their fault and not pushed it all on Germany, the would have had a chance at a better peace. Again, until there is acceptance that the allies were guilty too - not exclusively Germany - the debate is moot.

I don't think you will find anywhere in my posts have I made an argument for the 14 Points as an alternative. However, the guiding principle behind the points is that there were conditions in Europe - caused by all the parties - that led to the war. the Points were also delivered in a speech to Congress in January 1918 to help convince the American people that entering the war in 1917 was for moral purposes. They were the American conditions for participating in the war. And I guess since American conditions weren't fulfilled at Versailles, we should have declared the Europeans in default of their loans and immediately demanded repayment. And you know that is a nonsense statement because that wouldn't be in America's interest. Just as it was nonsense to cripple Germany with reparations - by the way, which are NOT one of the 14 Points. Actually, the first three points do provide the environment to reach a more lasting peace (let's take the remaining territorial issues out of the mix): Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.Number 1 and Number 3 set the conditions for a magnanimous peace; something that the allowed the new democratic republic in Germany to survive and economic conditions that gave all nations a chance to recover from the devastation of the war. So, I can only repeat my long posts above to say that had the allies thought more about "peace" and less about "punishment and revenge" at Versailles they could have come up with a different alternative that didn't make Germany pay until the pips squeaked. I'm not saying Germany shouldn't have paid something, but it wasn't in the allies long term interests to go as far as they did. 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.

If the german population by 1918 had suffered as much as the people in Belgium and northern France... we would not have had a WW2... There is some logic to this point; so, what you are saying is that if the allies were more competent in their war fighting ability - they could have taken the fight to Germany and made the German people suffer. But since they allies couldn't break the stalemate on the Western Front (let alone keep the Russians in the fight because of the Bolshevik revolution); because the allies failed at war fighting for so long - WWII is the allies' fault because it is their fault that German people didn't suffer and they wouldn't have wanted war again. I also think its a stretch to say that the main reason that Germany is a "pacifist" country today is because they suffered in WWII. France, Britain et al suffered and they are not "pacifist" today - suffering had nothing to do with it. The reason Germany is the country today is because of the "realistic" peace that was imposed after WWII - not because Germans now hate war because they suffered. Although, I have said for a long time since the end of the Cold War, we have been too successful in "pacifying" the Germans. The post-WWII European continent is the best argument for the line of reasoning that suggests, had the allies imposed a different peace in 1918 - regardless of whether or not they were justified - the chances for a second world conflict would have been significantly reduced.

See my post using the "do loop" analogy for more mathematical genius. And see my previous post that says I don't even know why we call it WWI and WWII since the period of warfare 1939-1945 was simply a continuation of the same conflict that started in 1914.

should it have stayed unpunished after the war? No one is arguing that Germany should not have been made to pay for it's part in the war; yes, Germany lost - yes, the allies suffered - yes, to the victors go the spoils. However, being magnanimous in victory is just as important as being repentant in defeat. Peace was not served by punishing the wrongs of Germany with the wrongs of the allies. It's the old adage - two wrongs do not make a right. As for violating Belgium's neutrality as part of the Schlieffen Plan to knock France out of the war quickly - yep, that was wrong. However, let's remember why the Germans wanted to knock France out of the war quickly - the bigger enemy was Russia, who as argued in previous posts mobilized in support of Serbia's actions, which precipitated Austria's actions, backed by Germany's assurances. If Russia had not mobilized, Germany would not have had to make the move in the west against France. We can stay within this "do loop" forever in the discussion - what a "do loop" shows us is that the actions of each had an effect on the origins, the prosecution, and the peace. No nation is innocent in this "do loop" - but take one nation out of the loop and the loop is broken - without any judgment on which node in the loop is the main or only reason for the ultimate effect. The allies had the chance to break the "do loop" after in 1918; however, their actions perpetuated the disastrous "do loop". Did they have right to exact payment - maybe they did, but they would have served their own purposes and interests better by NOT "punishing" Germany in the way that they did. Granted, there is no way to know if German nationalism would have responded "positively" to more lenient treatment by the allies in 1918; but the evidence is clear what the result of the allies' harsh treatment was - WWII. The argument of whether or not the allies were justified is actually irrelevant to the argument that their actions resulted in WWII. Even if they were "justified" because of the destruction of Flanders, the hope was that it would be the peace to the "War to End all Wars." If a lasting peace to the "War to End all Wars" was truly their goal - Wilson included - then they should not have tried to "destroy" Germany. They wanted revenge pure and simply. They had no interest in bringing Germany back into the community of responsible nations. They wanted a pound of flesh - and maybe they were justified in that desire. But it was the wrong thing to desire - because it guaranteed the rise of revanchism in Germany and a renewal of war. Could Germany have simply rolled over and died - be a "good loser" as you say? They weren't given the chance to be a "good loser". How can you expect them to be a "good loser" in a "bad peace." Maybe if the allies had given them a "good peace" - or as others have said a "realistic peace" - the German people could have been "better losers." After all, as you argued well, the German people had no desire to keep the Kaiser. Given the chance without crippling reparations - note I said "crippling" not the total elimination of reparations - even the question of "fair" isn't relevant. The allies weren't "fair" to their own nations - fair would have been securing the future of nations that had been "bled dry" from WWI. Instead their leadership guaranteed that even before the anemic continent had recovered, they would have to bleed again. The point is that it was more in the allies lasting interests to be more "forgiving" at Versailles. Not because it was "fair" for Germany, but because it was the right thing to do for their own war weary populations. By being "rapacious" in their own right, the allies never gave Germany a chance to be a "good loser." And the allies suffered for their own actions. I might agree with a logical argument that Germany should have the bulk of the blame for starting WWI, but only if we accept that the allies have the bulk of the blame for guaranteeing a repeat in 1939 with WWII by failing to secure their victory with a sensible peace at Versailles.

The war bled us terribly. And you can't blame all that on the Germans - Paschendalle and other battles that wasted so many lives uselessly was just as much the fault of incompetent allied commanders. How one prosecutes a war is just as influential on the outcome as how it got started. The point that we are all trying to make in counter to what I understand as your point (it's all Germany's fault) is that there are multiple factors and plenty of blame on both sides for the war and its effects. By blaming the Serbs and Russians for their part in starting the war - as well as Bismarck's alliances - or the Americans for coming in too late or demanding on "democracy and self-determination" as part of the peace - as well as how the allies "enforced" the peace had just as much to do with the outcome as Germany's nationalism, the Kaiser's megalomania, Britain's imperialism and appeasement etc etc etc. There is plenty of blame on all sides both for the start of WWI, the so-called peace and for the inter-war period fiascos that all led to WWII. History is clear; without WWI and its effects, there would be no WWII. Had WWI been fought, won, and the peace enforced differently - there would not have been the second. The way things went with WWI - by all parties allied and entente - guaranteed WWII. Not just Germany's actions alone.

I declare this as victory for my persuasive skills since you finally made an intelligent counter-point instead of just saying "boobies".

Here, here. Completely agree.

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 modernising 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." A combination of a power vacuum in German and the crippling reparations - both meant to crush Germany forever - clearly set the conditions for revanche by the Germans. Of course, that didn't have to mean Hitler and his own brand of nationalist megalomania that led to the Holocaust et al; however, I am convinced that the "unfair" (yes, unfair) set of conditions imposed upon the Germans by the allies, set the conditions for a German leader to rise to power based upon nationalist revanche. WWII was inevitable starting on 28 June 1919 in Versailles and really started on 29 September 1938 when the appeasing allies met with Hitler in Munich. The allies got a second chance. However, appeasement of Hitler by Chamberlain et al in 1938 was the equivalent of the Kaiser Whilhelm's "blank check" telegram to Franz Josef in 1914. To turn Chris Boonzaier's phrase on how WWI started to how WWII started, Hitler wanted to grab some boobies and instead of saying, "No, Adolf that's not polite," the Allies said, "Ok, Adolf it's okay, go ahead and grab some Czech boobies and get it out of your system." Typical British miscalculation - Adolf wasn't satisfied. I will say this, one thing the European allies had right in 1918, given Germany's inherent strength, she would return to a position of power after WWI and this had to be dealt with. If there is any doubt, look at post-WWII Germany and its rise to be again a European power - albeit an economic power. Fortunately, the WWII allies got it right and learned the lesson from their WWI predecessors.

Equating the Serbs to the #1 notorious biker gang - the Hell's Angels - gives Serbia too much credit and forgives their role in this little drama. The Serbs were hardly a serious rival gang - but rather some pretenders who tried to take a bit of turf from the Hell's Angels - the alliance between Austria and Germany. So, if we want to use your little analogy; it is more like this: FJ joins his cousins biker gang - the Hell's Angels with Willy as the gang leader. FJ has his turf to manage within the Hells Angels empire, but has some problems with a minor gang - let's call them the Warlocks - trying to cut their piece of 'hood from FJ's turf. And in the meantime, kills one of FJ's relatives just out of spite. So, FJ's war lords argue that FJ has to go into the bar for looking for revenge, but FJ wants to know who has his back. Willy says look, this is a local thing - deal with it FJ, but if any one tries to take advantage of your situation, I got your back. On the sidelines are the Pagans - also known as Russia - another rival gang to the Angels, but not as powerful. They see a chance to take advantage of the situation and get some turf too; so they egg on the Warlocks. The Hells Angels tell the Pagans that this is a local fight - stay out of it - and if you don't - then we will be forced to defend our colors as a point of gang honor. The Pagans mobilize their choppers and hawgs and head for the borders. Willy has no choice but to do likewise out of honor. So, in this little bar drama, we see that the Serbs started the whole thing by killing the Archduke, egged on by the Russians.

"Boy! You grab them titties... "" Hell, I'm too distracted to think logically or argumentatively. :speechless:

Serious and honorable looking chaps.

Thanks for posting; I wasn't familiar with this medal. RASC and a Burma Star might turn-up something interesting - good luck in your BEM research.

I don't have a lot - a few medals, some Grenztruppen cuff titles and insignia; my interest is connected to having served in West Berlin during the early 80s. Now I wished I had made more trades back then! ;)

During the War they would not let him fly operationally - since he was such a good pilot they had him on training - hence only Defence and War Medals. Pure speculation; but had he flown operationally, he would have earned campaign stars, but perhaps nothing as significant as the AFC. Nice group.

I'm no expert, but to me that looks like a Gordon Highlander tartan.

Nice document; will have to keep my eyes out for one of these. I have this medal in my collection; but it's locked away in the US. Maybe soon I can post.

I've ridden in both Slovenian and Polish military models; a decent little 4x4 - but I wouldn't call it anything special. Rides were both off-road in hilly sandy terrain (but not serious 4-wheeling) and paved streets. Would make a decent farm vehicle I would think, but it wouldn't be my first choice for an off-road vehicle. These are also related to the Mercedes G-class.

Understood; representative sample. While not exact totals, it seems logical that the proportions are close. SAFA and SAHA should be large numbers and the territorial units much smaller. Heck, I'm just happy for the unit names - regardless of numbers. :catjava: