 |
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
That's something I can not agree with.
First of all, penalties against Germany weren't at all harsh. It lost little land. Alsace, Lorraigne (Lotaryngia in Polish, I'm not quite sure of the western name), which it took several decades earlier, and part of what it took from Poland not much more than a century earlier. |
Ok, here's basically what happened:
Germany had to accept the Blame for starting the war (Clause 231). This in and of itself was unfair, as Germany was no more to blame for the war than any of the other great powers of the time.
Germany had to pay £6.6 billion in reparations for the damage done during the war. You claim they didn't pay it--no, they just didn't pay the full amount. That's because they were bankrupt and defaulted on the payments.
Germany was forbidden to have submarines or an air force. She could have a navy of only six battleships, and an Army of just 100,000 men. In addition, Germany was not allowed to place any troops in the Rhineland, the strip of land, 50 miles wide, next to France. This is a humiliating loss of national sovereignty.
Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, Saar (placed under French rule), Eupen and Malmedy (to Belgium), Neuhaven and Schleiswig to Denmark, Danzig and Memel, West Prussia, Silesia and Posen to Poland and all of her colonies abroad. This is a HUGE part of any nation to lose of their land, to mention having your land bisected by a corridor that didn't previously exist. Not to mention that most of those territories were ethnically German and had been a part of the country since its inception.
quote:
The mistake was not treating Germany harsh. It was treating it not enough harsh. German politicians from the very first moment after the treaty started talking about that it has to be changed. And the mights did not forbid that. Hitler was a moderate when it comes to the boarder with Poland in comparison to the earlier politicians. |
 Since Hitler's aim was to take ALL of Poland, I don't see how you can see he would be considered a moderate about the border! At any rate, you're saying above that you think the Treaty didn't do enough. So you'd still have to agree it was bad, then. You can't deny that the terms of the treaty were a core part of Hitler's rise to power--he used every opportunity to claim it as the cause of Germany's problems, along with the Jews who had supposedly sold out the country.
quote:
Germany never paid the money it was supposed to pay. |
Because it was INCAPABLE of doing so. The huge penalty and the loss of some of its most important territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Danzig) created a crippling economic burden for Germany. Germans were starving to death all over the country because of it. So of course they are going to be a little bitter over the situation.
quote:
Anyway, it's like if You said "throwing the guy into a prison made him become a criminal". That's right when it comes to children, but not when it comes to Germany, which has a longer tradition of nationalism.. |
Except that Germany wasn't the only European power responsible for the war. The other powers shoved the blame solely on to Germany, which was another reason why the Germans felt it unfair.
And a longer tradition of nationalism? Hmm, is that why they didn't unify until 1873? Come on, give me a break.
You can't deny that the treaty, whatever you think of its terms, was a major cause for the second world war. Without it, Hitler wouldn't have had any thunder for his ubernationalis,
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You're off here. The killing of trade and the monetary economy, as well as the depopulating of cities, was already happening when the Empire was in existence. It wasn't a result of the Germans, etc. coming in, it was part of the cause of their being able to invade. Roman political hegemony in Europe had been in decline for well over a century before the invasions became a serious problem. This was due to overextension, the army's massive portion of the economy and the system that said Italy didn't have to pay taxes, but the provinces did.
Once the legions ran out of places to steal loot from to finance themselves, the system fell apart. |
Boris, you are correct that cities were in decline as feudalism took hold in the empire and the economy increasing became a barter system. But still cities existed until the barbarians overran them and Roman government was finally extinguished.
As to the East, note I include the Arabs in the equation. They took over most of the Eastern Empire and introduced piracy into the Mediterranean. Piracy had a major impact on trade and on diminishing the ability for any remaining cities in Europe to feed large populations. Over time, I understand that Constantinople was the only large city remaining in the Empire. However, it was cut off from the rest of Europe because of the slavic nations to the Northwest, and the Arabs and later the Turks. In the end, even it was conquered. However, a large number of the educated made it to Italy to help fuel the Renaissance.
The 800's, were a very dark time for Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flash9286
|
|
quote:
US, Hitler, they whine, their arrogent, stupid.... |
Were not arrogent because we have the walk behind our talk . We carry a big stick with us.
Last edited by flash9286 on 20-02-2003 at 01:44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flash9286
|
|
acutally John the Baptist created Christany not Jesus, and if your go to go that way maybe u should mentain constapinole(sp)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, Saar (placed under French rule), Eupen and Malmedy (to Belgium), Neuhaven and Schleiswig to Denmark, Danzig and Memel, West Prussia, Silesia and Posen to Poland and all of her colonies abroad. This is a HUGE part of any nation to lose of their land, to mention having your land bisected by a corridor that didn't previously exist. Not to mention that most of those territories were ethnically German and had been a part of the country since its inception.
|
Alsace-Lorraine- originally taken from France in the Franco-Prussian War. Schleswig Holstein, originally taken from Denmark. Silesia, originally taken from Habsurg Austria....
The part about German territorial integrity being linked with German populations would mean a Germany stretching into Romania and the Volga- and ignores for instance, the ethnic make up of territories such as Silesia, Malmedy and Eupen, Gdansk/Danzig, and other territories where Germans were not the predominant part of the population. Claiming that Alsace-Lorraine was a part of the German nation since its inception is rather cynical- given that its cession occurred only in the Franco-Prussian War and just before the creation of the Second German Empire in Versailles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Molly, you make a lot of good points. But still, Versailles combined with appeasement lead to WWII, which was one of the greatest calamaties in world history.
|
I still think for various reasons you are overstating the role of the fall of the Roman Empire as a human calamity-it did after all, affect hardly any of black Africa, the Far East (China, Korea, Japan, India) or the Americas- and civilization in various forms continued in those areas, with complex mathematical systems evolving in places as far apart as Ghana, the Punjab and the Yucatan peninsula, to say nothing of achievements in cultural terms (fine and applied arts, literature, architecture) or developments in astronomy or metalworking.
Admittedly, a certain 'political' unity was lost in Western Europe, for a time, in that a Roman citizen (or slave) could reasonably expect to travel from Roman Armenia to northern England and be understood in Latin, and be subject to the same laws and ruler, but Church Latin and the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor at times also filled those niches, and Roman intellectual and artistic achievements pale in comparison with Greek cultural and scientific peaks.
As for Versailles- methinks Boris doth protest too much. I would suggest for instance that you read (if you haven't) A.J.P. Taylor's 'The Origins of the Second World War' as a useful corrective to the view that Versailles was unduly harsh- the Polish Corridor, for instance, far from disenfranchising Germans, was inhabited largely by Poles- who had been disenfranchised since the cynical tripartite dismemberment of Poland carried out by Brandenburg-Prussia, the Habsburg Empire and Russia.
Versailles as a treaty was only enforceable as long as the German government cooperated, and reparations and terms were continually revised downwards- occupying forces left the Rhineland five years ahead of schedule, for instance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Alsace was taken from Germany two hundred years earlier, in the XVIIth Century, and Lorraine a hundred years after that. Schleswig and Holstsein were also German, but I don't know when Denmark originally added them to their Kingdom, probably also the Thirty Years War. Silesia was mostly Slavic anyway (lotsa Germans too), and should have been given to Poland (as it was) or to Czechoslovakia. |
Alsace was not 'taken' from 'Germany'- for the simple reason, 'Germany' did not exist. It was ceded by the Habsburg Empire to France as part of the Treaty of Westphalia. It belonged to them only because they inherited the mantle of Holy Roman Emperor. It had been part of the Holy Roman Empire since the days of the Frankish Louis the Pious, and had certainly had a French cultural input since the time of the Treaty of Strasbourg/Strassburg (which is in both French and German, and dates from early mediaeval times).
Lorraine at no time had ever been 'German', culturally or territorially, and was eventually to become part of France through its cession from the daughter of Stanislas Lesczinski (who happened to be the Queen of France) in the 18th century). Again it was within the Holy Roman Empire, but its renowned French products include Jacques Callot and Georges de la Tour. Either way, you cannot seriously expect us to believe that the Protestant Prussian Bismarck was revenging the losses of the Catholic Habsburg emperors from over 200 years in the past (in the case of Alsace).
Holstein was inhabited mainly by ethnic Germans, and so was only the southern part of Sleswig. Regardless, Holstein had been Danish territory since the early 13th century, and both duchies had been in personal union with Denmark. Although there were rebellions in 1848 in the duchies, the Treaty of London of 1852 reconfirmed their union with the Danish crown. The death of the Danish monarch (last in the male line) gave Bismarck the casus belli- salic law was said to apply to the duchies (although not to Denmark).
The war which acquired the duchies for Austria-Hungary and Prussia (not 'Germany') was a way of cementing a conservative alliance witrh Austria-Hungary, with Austria supporting Prussian hegemony in Protestant north Germany and Prussia supporting Austrian territorial ambitions (and territory) in northern Italy and the Balkans and southern Catholic Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
As to the East, note I include the Arabs in the equation. They took over most of the Eastern Empire and introduced piracy into the Mediterranean. Piracy had a major impact on trade and on diminishing the ability for any remaining cities in Europe to feed large populations. Over time, I understand that Constantinople was the only large city remaining in the Empire. However, it was cut off from the rest of Europe because of the slavic nations to the Northwest, and the Arabs and later the Turks. In the end, even it was conquered. However, a large number of the educated made it to Italy to help fuel the Renaissance.
The 800's, were a very dark time for Europe. |
Well, they only screwed over Europe, which was then an insignificant part of the world anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Germany had to accept the Blame for starting the war (Clause 231). This in and of itself was unfair, as Germany was no more to blame for the war than any of the other great powers of the time.
|
A matter of opinion
quote:
Germany had to pay £6.6 billion in reparations for the damage done during the war. You claim they didn't pay it--no, they just didn't pay the full amount. That's because they were bankrupt and defaulted on the payments.
|
They paid a really little part of it - no matter why.
quote:
Germany was forbidden to have submarines or an air force. She could have a navy of only six battleships, and an Army of just 100,000 men. In addition, Germany was not allowed to place any troops in the Rhineland, the strip of land, 50 miles wide, next to France. This is a humiliating loss of national sovereignty.
|
If it was about that, why did Hitler continue when He, without any punishment, broke those laws?
quote:
Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, Saar (placed under French rule), Eupen and Malmedy (to Belgium), Neuhaven and Schleiswig to Denmark, Danzig and Memel, West Prussia, Silesia and Posen to Poland and all of her colonies abroad. This is a HUGE part of any nation to lose of their land, to mention having your land bisected by a corridor that didn't previously exist. Not to mention that most of those territories were ethnically German and had been a part of the country since its inception.
|
Lorraine was conquered by them not more than a half century earlier. The same case when it comes to Schleisweg. Don't make me laugh with some little villages over Belgian boarder.
Gdańsk (Danzig) was theirs for 120 years only, and it became a free city, wasn't annexed by anyone.
Klajpeda (Memel) was lost not due to the treaty, I believe Lithuania annexed it by force. There were a lot of Lithuanians there, but true, they didn't want to live under Lithuanian rule - they never earlier did.
Not west Prussia, byt Eastern Pommerania. It was their for 150 years only, and they lost only parts of it with Polish majority - and not all. The same comes to Major Poland (with Posen-Poznań as the capital). It was a craddle of Polish state, Poles were majority there, and Poland was given only major part of it, only part of it that was captured by uprising.
Not Silesia, but a part of Upper Silesia, only a part of the grounds that voted for Poland there in a plebiscite.
Colonies? There weren't many of them, and anyway if they cared so much about them.
That isn't a big loss of territory, not for anyone from Eastern Europe, where Germany and Russia, if they won, were annecting entire territories.
Ah, when it comes to Saar; it wasn't annexed by France, I believe, but only held until Germans would pay war compensates.
The so-called "corridor" existed through all the history. Look at any historical map before 1772.
Ethnically German? Eupen and Malmedy for sure. Szlezwik - don't think so. Alsace and Lorraine - not sure.
Eastern losses - You must be kidding. Several centuries earlier, Slavs were living further west than Elbe/Laba.
Do I have to remind on and on that Berlin, for example, is a Polish (Polabian) name?
quote:
Since Hitler's aim was to take ALL of Poland, I don't see how you can see he would be considered a moderate about the border! At any rate, you're saying above that you think the Treaty didn't do enough. So you'd still have to agree it was bad, then. You can't deny that the terms of the treaty were a core part of Hitler's rise to power--he used every opportunity to claim it as the cause of Germany's problems, along with the Jews who had supposedly sold out the country.
|
Not quite. Hitler demanded from Poland agreement on annexion of Gdańsk only and offered an alliance against USSR and Ukraine in future in return. Of course, it is doubtfull if He could be trusted. But in comparison to all other German politicians, who officially demanded "returning" Upper Silesia, Eastern Pommerania and Major Poland, He definitely was moderate.
Germans would have cried about any treaty, unless it would let them stay in all grounds that they captured earlier. The mistake was not only that the treaty was not severe enough, but also that it wasn't said openly that they can't even dream about changing it.
quote:
Because it was INCAPABLE of doing so. The huge penalty and the loss of some of its most important territories (Alsace-Lorraine, Danzig) created a crippling economic burden for Germany. Germans were starving to death all over the country because of it. So of course they are going to be a little bitter over the situation.
|
Don't make me laugh. Frederick the Great stated that "who rules in Gdańsk, rules in Poland", and in his time it was indeed true, but at this time, Gdańsk lost its importance, especially after Poland built Gdynia.
Alsace and Lorraine... If it is soooo important, how did the Germans manage to built an empire able to conquer it from France earlier?
quote:
And a longer tradition of nationalism? Hmm, is that why they didn't unify until 1873? Come on, give me a break.
|
Unification isn't important. Poland never did unify completely after feudal partages. That doesn't matter.
Enough to see that the Prussians have been doing in Eastern Europe, exactly in Poland. Read some of the brilliant Frederick the Great's remarks about Jews or Poles.
Sorry, originally my replies were longer, but this computer seems to be infected, and my window was closed. So I wrote it all again, but in a shorter way
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
or to Czechoslovakia.
[quote]
"There must be some misunderstanding
There must be somekind of mistake..."
[quote]Lesczinski
|
Leszczyński to be exact.
-------------------------------
Hmmmmmm
Now that You talk about it all, and generally You think that fall of the Roman rule in the west was so bad,
and You point out Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic invasions.
I think that You may find my proposition interesting.
It is Fokas "revolution".
As we know, Justinian libetated Africa, Italia, Illiria and part of Iberia. Emperor Mauritius wanted to continue his
way. He started nicely, by intervening in Persia and putting "a right man" on the throne. Later He fought succesfully with Slavs and Avars, pushing them on the north of Donau. After finishing this case, He wanted to move west to finish the restoration of the Empire.
However, an army revolt led by half-barbarian Fokas,
threw him out of the throne. Mauritus and his entire family were murdered. OK, I must be going now, so it'll be a shortie. Fokas introduced the reign of terror, stopped fighting against Slavs (which ended with all european provinces but exclaves lost). Chosroes, shah of Persia, started a war against him to punish him for what He did to Mauritius and conquered Syria, Egypt and reached Chalcedon. (by the way, perhaps Nicea or Chalcedon could be count as a very tragical point in history as well). Eventually it ended up with not only not restoring the empire, but in SLavic and Arabic conquests.
I must go now, bye.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Germany existed, just not as we understand countries to exist. There was a Kingdom of Germany, the title was party of the titles of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of Italy. The Crown of Bohemia was a vassal of the Emperor and the Crown of Lotharingia was vacant.
The fact that Germany was fragmented and quaralling doesn't mean it didn't exist. The various princes met at diets and contributed troops for to the Emperor. The major powers had a policy of keeping Germany fragmented. There was an idea of Germany, and most countries wanted to keep it from becoming a single cohesive political entity. |
I'm aware of the history of the Holy Roman Empire, thanks. The Habsburg Empire was not a 'German' state, it's interests were not synonymous with those of Germany, and a proper 'German' confederation did not come into existence until after the Congress of Vienna - 1815. Even then, there was a conflict between Catholic Germans and Protestant Germans, and rivalry between Prussia and Austria-Hungary for hegemony within the German Confederation. More to the point- the Holy Roman Empire (neither holy, nor roman, nor an empire) also included peoples and territories that had never been German- as did the Habsburg Empire's lands.
My point still stands- Germans did not grieve over the loss of Alsace or Lorraine because they had never been German.
Ramo- as I pointed out Holstein had been in personal union with the crown of Denmark since the 13th century-again, although populated by ethnic Germans, it was part of Danish territory. Both Bismarck (who said 'it is no concern of ours whether Germans in Holstein are happy') and the Prussian King admitted that Prussia (not Germany), had no right to the duchies.
Imran- the Geman Empire was stripped of territories that like Silesia had been taken from another state and were not populated in the main by Germans, and in the case of Alsace and Lorraine had never been German territory and only relatively recently acquired. Northern Sleswig had been ethnically Danish- not something that seems to unduly bother posters who are willing to forget Bismarck's acquisitions of non-German territories.
The German war aims in WWI (outlined in Fritz Fischer's 'Griff nach der Weltmacht') were a 'blueprint for aggression' as A.J.P. Taylor points out- they entailed, for instance, placing all of Belgium (not just parts where there was a German speaking population) under German control, French iron-fields annexed to Germany, the Ukraine to become German, and Poland and Ukraine to be cleared of their inhabitants and remade as German. These schemes were not merely the brain child of a General Staff high on war victories, but were endorsed by the German foreign ministry and by Bethmann Hollweg. Had these plans been known at Versailles, I suspect the allies would have wished to impose even more stringent measures to ensure that Germany did not become an aggressor nation again.
Multiple territories being taken from one state had been a part of international settlements since mediaeval history- all that makes this more remarkable is the added complication of modern 'ethnic' nationalism. As I indicated, a Germany constructed on ethnic grounds would have to stretch into Romania, Hungary and the Volga- and the Versailles settlement left non-Germans (Poles for instance) within the boundaries of Eastern Germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Leszczyński to be exact.
-------------------------------
Hmmmmmm
Now that You talk about it all, and generally You think that fall of the Roman rule in the west was so bad,
and You point out Germanic, Slavic, and Arabic invasions.
I think that You may find my proposition interesting.
It is Fokas "revolution".
As we know, Justinian libetated Africa, Italia, Illiria and part of Iberia. Emperor Mauritius wanted to continue his
way. He started nicely, by intervening in Persia and putting "a right man" on the throne. Later He fought succesfully with Slavs and Avars, pushing them on the north of Donau. After finishing this case, He wanted to move west to finish the restoration of the Empire.
However, an army revolt led by half-barbarian Fokas,
threw him out of the throne. Mauritus and his entire family were murdered. OK, I must be going now, so it'll be a shortie. Fokas introduced the reign of terror, stopped fighting against Slavs (which ended with all european provinces but exclaves lost). Chosroes, shah of Persia, started a war against him to punish him for what He did to Mauritius and conquered Syria, Egypt and reached Chalcedon. (by the way, perhaps Nicea or Chalcedon could be count as a very tragical point in history as well). Eventually it ended up with not only not restoring the empire, but in SLavic and Arabic conquests.
I must go now, bye. |
Now this is interesting. The word FUBAR comes to mind. It must stand for
Fokas Up Beyond All Recognition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
May I be so bold to suggest that the "idea" of Germany really began with the Treaty of Verdun? The divisions there made to Europe survive substantially intact. Here is a bit from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"(August 843), treaty partitioning the Carolingian empire among the three surviving sons of the emperor Louis I the Pious. The treaty was the first stage in the dissolution of the empire of Charlemagne and foreshadowed the formation of the modern countries of western Europe. Louis I had carefully planned his three elder sons' inheritances; but from 829 onward his attempts to allocate substantial territory to the future Charles II the Bald, his young son by a second wife, led to revolts by Charles's half brothers. After Louis's death (840) open warfare broke out; Louis's third son, Louis the German , allied with Charles in attacking the eldest son, the emperor Lothair I . Defeated at Fontenoy, in present Belgium (June 841), and driven from Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen, Ger., 842), Lothair sued for peace. At Verdun (in present northeastern France) the following year, Lothair was confirmed in possession of the imperial title and received Francia Media, a long central strip of territory including parts of modern Belgium, The Netherlands, western Germany, eastern France, Switzerland, and much of Italy. Louis the German received Francia Orientalis, the land east of the Rhine River. Charles received Francia Occidentalis, the remainder of modern France. "
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-02-2003 01:29
|
|