Did the United States Senate make a mistake when it rejected the Versailles treaty and did not become a member of the League of Nations after the war? And did the terms of the ending of WWI guarantee that WWII would happen?
Its hard enough for one country to determine what to do with the losers of a war, but when almost 30 nations get together its almost impossible. In deeply studying this time period I've come to many conclusions, but there are alot of intelligent people here and I would like to see your thoughts on this historical topic.
Originally posted by PocketKingsThe USA, UK and France formed the Treaty of Versailles. It's terms, at the dictate of the French, were too harsh and consequently Germany could not comply. Thus the French president, Clemenceau, was a major cause of WWII by exacting that extra pound of flesh from post-WWI Germany against the advice of Lloyd-George and Wilson. On the League of Nations, I don't think it was a great institution anyway, although perhaps better than its modern replacement, the UN. If the USA had joined it, then perhaps the league would have gained more respectability and credibility, but I doubt it would have precluded WWII.
Did the United States Senate make a mistake when it rejected the Versailles treaty and did not become a member of the League of Nations after the war? And did the terms of the ending of WWI guarantee that WWII would happen?
Its hard enough for one country to determine what to do with the losers of a war, but when almost 30 nations get together its alm ...[text shortened]... alot of intelligent people here and I would like to see your thoughts on this historical topic.
Originally posted by PocketKingsAfter much reading, by the way, let me reccommend Martin Gilbert's "The First WOrld War" and also his "The Second World War", it seems to me that the fact that The Entente powers tended to put war out of their plans for the future when WWI ended and the Central Powers began making plans to regain their world status is what led to WWII. Hitler was a known quanity by the time he assumed power and yet Germany was allowed to continue it's buildup for a new war. As for the USA, I think the people in general just wanted to be done with the problems of Europe and so they pretty much withdrew from the problems of maintaining the peace. That turned out to be a great mistake and one which the USA did not make again at the end of WWII. Or so it seems to me, but this is a very simple attempt to give my non-expert opinion of a very complex situation.
Did the United States Senate make a mistake when it rejected the Versailles treaty and did not become a member of the League of Nations after the war? And did the terms of the ending of WWI guarantee that WWII would happen?
Its hard enough for one country to determine what to do with the losers of a war, but when almost 30 nations get together its alm alot of intelligent people here and I would like to see your thoughts on this historical topic.
I don't think the US not joining the League of Nations was a mistake; the American people back then were smart enough to know that they shouldn't commit the US to the role of world peacekeeper.
The terms of Versailles weren't unduly harsh; they were far less severe than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany forced on Russia in 1917. It was inevitable that Germany would try to rebuild their military strength; it was not inevitable that a WWII would break out. The Western powers were so concerned with the "threat" of Communism that they chose to accomodate the Fascists and Nazis and allow them to grow stronger than the Western European democracies. Hitler could have been rather easily defeated until after Munich.
Originally posted by zeeblebotInteresting analogy. The difference that jumps immediately to mind is that the treaties Germany were held to after WWI were forced on them militarily because they were a violent, dangerous nation who was attacking people. The treaty was a way the Germans got the Allies off their backs militarily. If they break their end of the bargain, then the Allies were free to break theirs as well - which would mean invading Germany. For the Kyoto protocols, if UK violates the treaty, then other nations who signed could analogously violate the treaty back. In this case the other nations' committment was to do certain things regarding the environment; not to halt military assaults as was the case with the post WWI Germany situation.
if the UK violates the Kyoto Protocol, i think we should send in troops.
and take all their oil, too.