WW1 Discussion

Where we are from the other thread...

Stephanie wrote:Sure, I'm ready anytime. I'm a bit tired though. Spent the evening helping my neighbor plant cabbage and tomato plants.

So why don't you tell me what you think the driving forces were behind Hitler's rise to power, Aaron. I'm waiting with bated breath.

Aaron wrote:The treaty of Versailles...but probably not for the same reasons you do. But for more detail, you'll have to wait until tomorrow. I'm tired as well and this isn't a half hour conversation.

Aaron wrote:I take it you think the treaty was too harsh?

Stephanie wrote:The treaty was what lead to Hitler's rise to power. It made life impossible for the German people. Too harsh is an understatement.

Aaron wrote:Would it had been too harsh on the French of Germany had won and placed the same demands on them? That was the plan, you know?

So what about the treaty was too harsh? The territory they lost including colonies, the reparations and acceptance of for complete responsibility of the war or the restrictions placed on the military and the legal and territorial restrictions?

I'm curious because I've read where some felt that Germany came out better in 1919 then they were in 1913?

Okies, I've got it.

But I have to go finish cooking, eat, clean up, etc. If I'm not at it tonight, tomorrow. lol

What's for dinner?

Here are my two cents' worth, part of an overall idea that I am developing in my quest to get myself fired from the universities.

1-The Weimar Republic, influenced by the German philosopher Nietzsche, was full of people who lacked the moral basis necessary for preventing a Hitler, and were easily duped besides.

2-There was also the economic trouble that came from disastrous economic policies of Weimar and the punishment from the Treaty of Versailles.

3-As such, the German people were "easy picking" for any maniac who came along. Hitler was able to exploit the economic condition to focus anger towards the Jews; however, pogroms were not a Nazi invention and had been happening throughout Europe, particularly Hungary, for some time.

4-If we are not careful, a similar fate could await the United States, with the "undesireable" class to be named later.

LOL

Leave it to you to blame Nietzche. I can't even spell that name.

I have my own way of making country style ribs. I did those with mashed taters and frozen corn. Kinda boring except my husband baked a loaf of Italian bread so that made it terrific.

You can't get good bread in this part of WV. I mean, you can't even get a decent loaf of sliced white bread. For a while I was buying Heiner's, but lately that seems to have gone to total crap too.

One thing that made the Versailles Treaty especially jarring for the Germans was that it imposed loser-like conditions, when the Germans didn't consider themselves losers of the war. Keep in mind, when the fighting stopped, Germans troops were still in Belgium and France, and a huge chunk of the Russian Empire had been conquered.

SheikBen wrote:
3-As such, the German people were "easy picking" for any maniac who came along. Hitler was able to exploit the economic condition to focus anger towards the Jews; however, pogroms were not a Nazi invention and had been happening throughout Europe, particularly Hungary, for some time.

YUP, and I believe I've been watching as "history repeats itself".

SheikBen wrote:4-If we are not careful, a similar fate could await the United States, with the "undesireable" class to be named later.

Mike, I think the time for "being careful" ...... has done passed.

Now is the time for "being prepared", ...... and if you are not ...... or can't be, ...... then you are likely to be in big trouble.

So ....


.

My point with Nietzsche is that ideas have consequences. Liberals today, particulaly on college campuses, love the idea of "getting beyond good and evil" and then wonder just how a Hitler can do so much evil. I had a student in my class insist that there was no such thing as good and evil until I asked him whether the Iraq War applies.

If we are looking to blame anyone for World War II, we should start with the Treaty of Versailles (as mentioned), add the moral insanity of the Germans and the influence of evil men, and finish with economic and national emasculation of the Germans.

We need to then ask how similar to Weimar we are in danger of becoming.

If you're going to blame the treaty of Versailles Mike then you've got to put blame on the treaty of Frankfort as well.

This goes back further then WW1 and in the eyes of the French, the Versailles treaty didn't go far enough. They wanted harsher penalties imposed on the Germans in repsone to what was imposed on them in 1871 that ended the Franco-Prussian war.

Aaron,

One can always go back to "old grudges." By such standards, perhaps the Jews should be suing the Egyptians for reparations.

You are quite correct, of course, that a certain "tit for tat" has existed in Europe for centuries. When Hitler routed the French, I seem to recall he made them sign their surrender at the same place the Treaty of Versailles was signed. History repeats itself.

No doubt the French wanted to exact revenge on the Germans. After the second world war, the French took to settling old familial disputes by accusing their personal enemies as German collaboraters and then shooting them/having them shot.

No event happens in a vacuum, except perhaps in one remote region of Brazil.....

Well my husband and son didn't go out today.

So, my the in depth debate I had hoped to participate in today is not going to work out.

Aaron, the Treaty of Frankfurt was a slap on the wrist compared to the terms imposed on the Germans. France was welcomed back into the European fold after the Franco-Prussian war ended. Not so with the Germans after WWI. The French wanted vengance, not peace. They, along with the rest of the world, paid a heavy price for their pound of flesh.

The terms of the Treaty of Frankfurt were harsh on France. The terms imposed on Germany were impossible. Even some leaders of that time realized it was doomed to failure. Germany was left with no hope of economic recovery.........the burden of reparations was too high in combination with being stripped of her colonies, much of her natural resources, even most of her industry. It was a hopeless situation economically and militarily. Germans were faced with two choices, violate the terms of the treaty or face extinction.

So would you say the biggest strain on the German people was the reparations required to pay by the government?

No, I'm not sure I would. There was a whole lot more than the reparations. There was the loss of nearly all of the nation's steel industry, much of the nation's coal field, and all of those colonies. It wasn't the reparations in and of themselves. It was the reparations in conjunction with stripping Germany any realistic hope of paying them in a reasonable time period.

You're trying to take reparations out of context and in doing so you're not getting an accurate picture. You want to compare the reparations France was required to pay with the reparations Germany was required to pay but France wasn't stripped of everything the way Germany was.

Germany was occupied. The French knew once they made reparations France would be free. Not so with the Germans. It was a combination of things. So you can't just look at one factor and say, "Oh, that wasn't unreasonable. That wasn't so bad."

Sometimes I clean with bleach. Bleach is wonderful for cleaning and disinfecting. Sometimes I clean with ammonia, also terrific for cleaning and killing germs. I don't try to kill the germs with both in an enclosed area because I know if I do I'm the one liable to end up dead. That's what the French did. They created a lethal cocktail with the Treaty of Versailles.

4 things.

First, Germany had until 1988 (the date sticks because that is when my first was born) to pay back the reparations.

Second, Germany was not occupied after WW1. Had they been, they couldn't have started violation the treaty in 1919.

Third, France lost the Lorraine and Alsace regions in the Franco-Prussian war. They took that back after WW1.

France didn't impose the treaty on Germany. The US, England and France all did. Had France had their way, it would have been much worse.

As Mike points out, WW1 goes back hundreds, possibly thousands of years. WW1 was created out of ill feelings from the Franco-Prussian war which was created out of ill feelings from the Napolonic wars and so on and on and on.

I'm not faulting one thing. It seemed to me as if you were and I was just trying to clarify it.

Aaron,

The US didn't ratify that treaty. So you're really mistaken regarding the US. Also, I do believe there were forces stationed in Germany after WWI, but I'm speaking strictly from memory and I suppose I could be mistaken.

As far as the length of time Germany had to make those payments, that is pretty much irrelevant. I say this because the French, and this was the doing of France almost exclusively, destroyed Germany economically. They lost over 15% of their coal industry. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but it was substantial, maybe 17% or something. They were forced to give up all overseas colonies. Roughly half of their iron and steel industries were also lost.

That's not all. There were major losses of German land and population. The Germans had strict limitations on the size of their army and navy. Tanks, aircraft, submarines, artillery, and more were prohibited. If the terms of the treaty were followed they would have been helpless. It's not surprising the German people were in a state of despair.

Once again, this was France. The US refused to sign the treaty. England did, but they had grave concerns and forced France to accept less by way of reparations than they wanted. As I said before, for France this was about revenge. They wanted to make the Germans suffer. They cared more about that than they did lasting peace.

This does tie into the events of previous decades and even centuries. Make no mistake about it, historically the French weren't so innocent. As a matter of fact, I think the desire to crush Germany had as much, if not more, to do with the injury inflicted on their national pride as it did anything.

Yes, you are technically correct in that the US didn't ratify the treaty, but neither then did France or England. The conditions of the treaty were accepted by the Germans in June, 1919 and ratified by the League of Nations in June, 1920, which the United States was not a member of because our Congress backed out of joining.

But make no mistake about it, the United States was certainly one of the Entente powers and a full contributing negotiator to the peace talks and to the treaty along with France and England. This was an agreed upon treaty by all three members and not France imposing their desires on Germany. Were that the case, the conditions would have been much worse for Germany.

Part of the reason Germany even agreed to attend the peace talks was because of America's involvement in the negotiations and Wilson's 14 points and his guarantee of inclusion into the League of Nations by the US, which was his proposed 14th point.

A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

How many of Wilson's 14 points were adopted, Aaron?

You're correct, if France had been alone in imposing punishment on Germany, things would have been worse. Still, neither Great Britain nor the US were satisfied with the Treaty adopted and the US refused to ratify it.

It has always been my understanding that the Treaty of Versailles created the League of Nations which didn't even hold it's first meeting until a week or so after the treaty had been signed. I'm quite certain I have that correct, Aaron.

So, if I'm incorrect, you'll need to prove me wrong.

That said, none of that alters the fact that the terms of that particular treaty lead to the rise of Hitler. You don't really seem to be disputing that.

Yes, you are correct in that the League of Nations held their first meeting 6 days AFTER Germany accepted the terms of the treaty. That doesn't change the fact that it was indeed the League of Nations that ratified the treaty. .

So you are right about your dates. About US refusal, yes, there were those that were opposed to the ratification but there were also those that were for it. But the bottom line is, the US wasn't a member of the League of Nations so that is the main reason we didn’t ratify it.

And three of Wilson's 14 points were accepted. The only reason he conceded on 11 of the points is because he so strongly believed in the 14th.

But that's all after the fact Stephanie.

One of the driving forces that lead Germany to the peace talks was the will of the German people, who believed the United States and Wilson and his 14 points, his view on self-determination and that the US would continue to play a role after the war was over.

The German people believed they would be entering into a stand down, not surrender. Those advised by the military had a different view. That is why they withdrew initially rejected the offer and it took a new government under the threat of continued hostilities to accept the treaty.

I don't disagree that the treaty played a huge role in the rise of Hitler but not for necessary all the reasons you do. Hitler played on the “We were done in by our own people and not defeated mentality” of the German people and used massive unrest at home pit one group against another.

There are also those that believe the US Congress refusal to join the L.O.N. and adopt and isolationist policy AFTER playing such a pivotal role in the peace process is helped lead to the rise of Hitler as well.

It is a valid point. Had we maintained an isolationist policy and not joined WW1, the outcome would have been much different. But we didn’t do that. We joined, had a dramatic effect on the war, played a defining role on the peace process, and then just ‘marched out’.

World War 2 was the end result.

Aaron,

I reject the notion that by failing to intervene in wars and other disputes between other sovereign nations is isolationism. Trade, dialogue, travel.........when the US participates in these things with other countries it is a far cry from isolationism.

On the other hand......when we impose embargoes and refuse to even sit down and discuss issues with other nations and their leaders, that is isolationism. Isolationism is a dangerous practice I wish our government would cease participation in.

As far as your argument that the events surrounding the Treaty of Versailles were all, "after the fact", that's bogus in large part because the topic of discussion is the primary causes of WWII and Hitler's rise to power. That is all before the fact. Besides, you're wrong in your insistance that US failure to join the LON was the reason the US didn't ratify that treaty.

The UN negotiates treaties all the time and the US refuses to sign them. Recent examples are the Kyoto Treaty and the treaty banning cluster bombs. The same would have been true had the US joined the LON back then.

The US Senate rejected the treaty before the LON held its first meeting. As a matter of fact, the LON was formed by the treaty itself. This isn't a chicken or the egg question, the history is quite clear. I'm sure there is plenty of material for you to examine regarding the Senate rejection of the treaty itself.

I will give you this, though, you are absolutely correct when you say that the US is partially responsible for the outcome. This is not because the US was "isolationist". No, quite to the contrary. It was US intervention that lead to the Germans signing the treaty in the first place. It was US intervention that tipped the balance in favor of France, which for so long had in fact been the aggressor in the region. If the US hadn't intervened, the French would have been in no position at all to make any demands, much less such unreasonable demands.

As far as the rejection of the LON by the US that was the correct decision. Article X of the LON required all signatory nations to deploy troops to repel any aggression of any kind. Nothing could be more dangerous to US sovereignty than the open-ended commitment of US forces to another body.

There was a time when New England, and Massachusetts in particular, provided the American people with Senators who cared about things like US sovereignty. There was a time when they weren't all globalists and socialists.

Stephanie,

First, I used the term isolationist instead of non-interventionism. There is a slight difference and I realize that.

The United States practiced non-interventionism policy prior to WW1. We tried to deal with both sides. We traded with both sides and we had dialogue with both sides. That didn't set well with Germany, who said we were favoring England. It was the Germans that sunk the Lusitanian in 1915, killing 120+ Americans in spite of our dialogue with them. It was the Germans that committed unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic against American wishes, it was Germany that attack munitions depots in New Jersey, and it was Germany that negotiated with Mexico to declare war on America should we enter the war. Wilson sat on his hands as long as he could.

We entered the war, fought and were primarily responsible for engineering the peace. It was the US's public statements and policy that led Germany to agree to what they thought was a ceasefire and not a complete and total surrender. And it was our continued involvement in the peace negotiations in Paris that led them to accept the Treaty.

So we officially, as a nation, led Germany to believe we would be involved all the way and see the peace followed through. But we didn't do that. Led by our congress and their objection to joining the L.O.N.’s we backed out. We reneged on our word and once again adopted a non-interventionism policy. If our Congress was so adamant about not joining the League and maintaining a non-interventionism policy, why did they vote by a 90% margin to declare war on Germany and Austria-Hungry?

It seems to me that Congress was a lot like this one we have now and the situation with WW1 is very similar to what we currently have in the Middle East.

Thoughts on that?

I find it contradictory that you view the attack on the British ship the Lusitania as an act of war against the US and justification for the US entering the war because there were some Americans on board when innocent civilians maimed, killed, or displaced by American aggression are collateral damage. You can't have it both ways, which is what you're trying to do.

Under the rules of engagement in place, the Germans were within their rights to attack the Lusitania. This too is historical fact, Aaron. I think you may be trying to rewrite history.

This Congress continues to fund aggression in the Middle East. This Congress, like so many of its predecessors, is anything but non-interventionist. Non-intervention means you don't intervene. You don't supply weapons or ammunition or funds to nations so they can kill people. That is what this Congress has engaged in, just as the 20 or so previous Congresses have done.

Non-intervention requires not having troops in other sovereign nations. That means no troops in Saudi Arabia, Korea, Germany, and all of the other 150 or so nations we currently have our collective nose in.

America's mistake, aside from entering the war to begin with, was in nnot signing a treaty between the USA & Germany. We didn't need to negotiate a treaty between France & Germany, or Britain and Germany. It wasn't our place, yet again we stuck our fingers in the pie.

So much tragedy would have been avoided, so many lives would have been saved, if the USA continued on the path of our founding fathers. Instead, our government deviated from the course that had served us so well for so long. We intervened in a dispute between other nations and in the end the entire world paid the price. Just as we are all paying the price now for US foreign policy.

Those are my thoughts.

I wasn't speaking of justification of entering the war. I was merely pointing out plain and simple facts. This act by the Germans was one of the events that led up to the US entering the war.

So how were the Germans within their rights to attack the Lusitania? Because it was flying a British flag and Germany was at war with England? The ship was a passenger ship carrying civilians. Sorry, that doesn't constitute rights for attack in anyone's book. Cruiser rules gurantee the safety of passengers before a non-military ship can be sunk.

You'll have to prove to me otherwise.

I'll find a site that can explain it to you.

As to non-interventionism, your expressing your personal opinion. Many think had we not aided Britian in the 30's with the land lease program, we woudldn't have been drawn into WW2. But what about the fact that as 1928, Hitler was plotting ways to attack America. Some believe that was his ultimate goal for the National Socialist Party.

I'm of a mind that there is good and evil in this world and there's little place for staying neutral. IMO, you can try and try and try to do what's right but sooner or later, evil's gonna seek out good. The ONLY example of prolonged neutrality that anyone can cite is Switzerland and 1) there's only 7 million of em and B) they hide EVERYBODIES money. No body messes with the money man. Of course, that's just my humble opinion.

Stephanie wrote:I'll find a site that can explain it to you.

I've read the history and I've heard the the stories about troop transports and duel explosions and all of that. None of it's been proven but I'll read what you got.

What, you don't believe the written history?

A friend and I have a growing homeschool group we founded about 8 months ago. We're going on a field trip to Beckly tomorrow and something has come up with that group. I'm sure I could find you more if I had time but here's a good start.

Even prior to the sinking of the Lusitania, the US didn't remain neutral. The Germans had good reason to "think" the US was favoring Britain.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/lusitania.htm

On April 30th 1915, the Lusitania was at New York, being loaded with meat, medical supplies, copper, cheese, oil and machinery, but she was also secretly being loaded with munitions for Britain for the war. That same day, Kapitänleutnant Walter Schwieger was ordered to take his U-boat-20 German submarine to the northern tip of Great Britain, then back down south on the Atlantic side and then east to the Irish Channel to destroy ships going to and from Liverpool, England.

Then he was to go around Ireland and head back to Germany. Schwieger was known to frequently attack ships without warning them, and fired at any neutral ships he suspected may be British. In an earlier voyage, he narrowly missed hitting a hospital ship with a torpedo. His reputation made it more likely for him to destroy a British passenger liner, such as the Lusitania.

Beside the CUNARD advertisement was a notice:


NOTICE!
Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 22, 1915........