Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Oct '18 18:21
    Was it a wise treaty?
  2. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Oct '18 18:43
    @athousandyoung said
    Was it a wise treaty?
    Some say Article 231, AKA the War Guilt Clause, led directly to Hitler and WWII. Although the conflict of 1914 to 1945 could also be considered to be one war with a pause, and called the Second 30 Years War.

    Who's defining the truth on this, these days?
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Oct '18 23:251 edit
    @js357 said
    Some say Article 231, AKA the War Guilt Clause, led directly to Hitler and WWII. Although the conflict of 1914 to 1945 could also be considered to be one war with a pause, and called the Second 30 Years War.

    Who's defining the truth on this, these days?
    I regard that as nonsense. The Germans didn't like losing the war and as their population mainly consisted of right wing authoritarian supporters and worshipers of the military, the country was always likely to want another round if they were allowed to rebuild their war machine - which the Allies, unwisely, allowed them to do.

    The "stabbed in the back" theory by which the Germans blamed elements in their own country for their military defeat was going to be a convenient excuse for a Hitlerian-type government whether there had been a "war guilt" clause or not.
  4. Standard memberHandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    At the edge
    Joined
    23 Sep '06
    Moves
    18031
    11 Oct '18 01:56
    @no1marauder said
    I regard that as nonsense. The Germans didn't like losing the war and as their population mainly consisted of right wing authoritarian supporters and worshipers of the military, the country was always likely to want another round if they were allowed to rebuild their war machine - which the Allies, unwisely, allowed them to do.

    The "stabbed in the back" theory by which ...[text shortened]... onvenient excuse for a Hitlerian-type government whether there had been a "war guilt" clause or not.
    Was the shattered German economy during the 1920s a factor in Hitler's rise to power?
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Oct '18 02:142 edits
    @handyandy said
    Was the shattered German economy during the 1920s a factor in Hitler's rise to power?
    Of course, but a lot of countries had shattered economies during the Great Depression. No other democracy AFAIK reacted to it by becoming as radically right wing as Germany; as I pointed out in the other thread, in the 1932 German Presidential election, the Left's candidate got only 13% of the vote with the rest going to an octogenarian militarist, a candidate from a right wing paramilitary group and a Nazi.
  6. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56296
    11 Oct '18 04:421 edit
    Well, before we go into No1’s arguments (which seem very Max Hastings), let’s look at what the treaty said (short cartoons explaining):

    Who:
    https://youtu.be/vrYhLNQMRro

    What:
    https://youtu.be/0jycVFL8CNM
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Oct '18 05:27
    @shavixmir said
    Well, before we go into No1’s arguments (which seem very Max Hastings), let’s look at what the treaty said (short cartoons explaining):

    Who:
    https://youtu.be/vrYhLNQMRro

    What:
    https://youtu.be/0jycVFL8CNM
    Interesting; I've read Hastings' books on the end of WWII in the Pacific theater and the Korean War but not anything of his regarding this subject.
  8. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56296
    11 Oct '18 08:22
    @no1marauder said
    Interesting; I've read Hastings' books on the end of WWII in the Pacific theater and the Korean War but not anything of his regarding this subject.
    His pro-British establishment piece is called: catastrophe 1914; Europe goes to war.

    It’s not about Versailles. It does lay the blame for the war firmly at Germany’s door. Which blame is one of the basis upon which the treaties were deemed reasonable.

    In other words, the amount of blame Germany has for the war, relates to the interpretation of the 1919 treaties as in how harsh they are.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Oct '18 09:32
    @shavixmir said
    His pro-British establishment piece is called: catastrophe 1914; Europe goes to war.

    It’s not about Versailles. It does lay the blame for the war firmly at Germany’s door. Which blame is one of the basis upon which the treaties were deemed reasonable.

    In other words, the amount of blame Germany has for the war, relates to the interpretation of the 1919 treaties as in how harsh they are.
    What made the Treaty "harsh"? Even assuming that Germany was no more guilty than the Allies for the war, nonetheless it was defeated, millions of lives lost and immense destruction and suffering laid about the people of the occupied territories. It could hardly be expected that a peace treaty under such circumstances merely restore the status quo.

    So what specific terms were unduly harsh?
  10. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56296
    11 Oct '18 09:45
    @no1marauder said
    What made the Treaty "harsh"? Even assuming that Germany was no more guilty than the Allies for the war, nonetheless it was defeated, millions of lives lost and immense destruction and suffering laid about the people of the occupied territories. It could hardly be expected that a peace treaty under such circumstances merely restore the status quo.

    So what specific terms were unduly harsh?
    Did you watch the two clips?
    (They’re a couple of minutes each).

    Do you agree that it’s a reasonable summary?
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Oct '18 11:01
    @shavixmir said
    Did you watch the two clips?
    (They’re a couple of minutes each).

    Do you agree that it’s a reasonable summary?
    When I get to my computer I will.
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Oct '18 11:07
    @no1marauder said
    Of course, but a lot of countries had shattered economies during the Great Depression. No other democracy AFAIK reacted to it by becoming as radically right wing as Germany; as I pointed out in the other thread, in the 1932 German Presidential election, the Left's candidate got only 13% of the vote with the rest going to an octogenarian militarist, a candidate from a right wing paramilitary group and a Nazi.
    Fascism was rising in Britain too.
    It's difficult to say what the tipping point is but you do not need a majority.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
    Edmund Burke

    I truly believe that any country could descend into fascism.
    That is my worry for the US.
  13. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7300
    11 Oct '18 11:511 edit
    @no1marauder said
    I regard that as nonsense. The Germans didn't like losing the war and as their population mainly consisted of right wing authoritarian supporters and worshipers of the military, the country was always likely to want another round if they were allowed to rebuild their war machine - which the Allies, unwisely, allowed them to do.

    The "stabbed in the back" theory by which ...[text shortened]... onvenient excuse for a Hitlerian-type government whether there had been a "war guilt" clause or not.
    For a presumed egalitarian, you're awfully apt to paint the Jerries as Always Lawful Evil and the Good Old British Roast Beef as Always Spiffo and Ipso Facto In The Right.

    In fact, in the Great Imperialist War, all parties were in the wrong. All of them had been chomping at the bits to have a go at one another.
    Gernany, despite the endemic myth in the Anglosphere, wasn't the one to start the fight at all - that was Austro-Hungary - and Great Britain, maugre her self-delusions, was not the great saviour of the continental innocents. The Emperor of India only used Belgium as an excuse to have a scrap with a cousin he looked down on.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Oct '18 12:05
    @shallow-blue said
    For a presumed egalitarian, you're awfully apt to paint the Jerries as Always Lawful Evil and the Good Old British Roast Beef as Always Spiffo and Ipso Facto In The Right.

    In fact, in the Great Imperialist War, all parties were in the wrong. All of them had been chomping at the bits to have a go at one another.
    Gernany, despite the endemic myth in the Anglosp ...[text shortened]... The Emperor of India only used Belgium as an excuse to have a scrap with a cousin he looked down on.
    This post is a rather odd non sequitur. I didn't discuss the origins of WWI at all and a claim that I am reflexively pro-Brit is an odd one given my posting history.
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    11 Oct '18 12:10
    The history of all countries is $hit.
    It was dog eat dog.

    But nowadays we know that collaboration is good for all.

    PS ... Somebody tell Donald.
Back to Top