Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could begin by forcing them to pay all the salaries that MLB players would have collected if they hadn't had to go in the service for '43, '44 and '45. The Ted Williams family can collect and use the money for the upkeep of his frozen head.
The exorbitant costs on Germany from the Treaty of Versailles,the unwillingness of the U.S. to forgive war debts,the collapse in commodity prices and the adherence to the gold standard all contributed to the great depression,and thus,the rise of Hitler.Germany imposed draconian terms on the French for losing the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.When formulating post WW2 plans,and asked by Roosevelt what his thoughts on Germany were,Churchill replied "I think we should let them up easy".Perhaps wisdom,perhaps the acknowledgement that Britain didn't have another World War in them.
Interesting show on the Military Channel this weekend. "Paris 1919" was part documentary and part theater about the crafting of the Treaty of Versailles. Very interesting program if you can catch it.
We could begin by forcing them to pay all the salaries that MLB players would have collected if they hadn't had to go in the service for '43, '44 and '45. The Ted Williams family can collect and use the money for the upkeep of his frozen head.
Actually, it would be more genuine to look to Israel to pay for WWII.
There is universal recognition that the severity of the peace terms served as the platform which Hitler exploited to rise to power. In retrospect, Great Britain and France appear short sighted and the blame for WW II is often assigned to them.
However, it is good to keep in mind that had Germany won the war, it would not have behaved any better and perhaps it would have behaved worse. We do not need to imagine what sort of terms Germany would have demanded, we have the example of the Brest-Litovsk teaty which they imposed upon Russia as the price of defeat. Russia lost 25 % of its industry, 90% of its coal mines, and 25 % of its national territory. Had Germany won the war, instead of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the Ukraine becoming temprarily independent nations, they would have all remained German colonies.
Great Britain and France did to Germany precisely what Germany would have done to them had the outcome been reversed.
Interesting show on the Military Channel this weekend. "Paris 1919" was part documentary and part theater about the crafting of the Treaty of Versailles. Very interesting program if you can catch it.
There is universal recognition that the severity of the peace terms served as the platform which Hitler exploited to rise to power. In retrospect, Great Britain and France appear short sighted and the blame for WW II is often assigned to them.
However, it is good to keep in mind that had Germany won the war, it would not have behaved any better and perhaps it would have behaved worse. We do not need to imagine what sort of terms Germany would have demanded, we have the example of the Brest-Litovsk teaty which they imposed upon Russia as the price of defeat. Russia lost 25 % of its industry, 90% of its coal mines, and 25 % of its national territory. Had Germany won the war, instead of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the Ukraine becoming temprarily independent nations, they would have all remained German colonies.
Great Britain and France did to Germany precisely what Germany would have done to them had the outcome been reversed.
I think it's extremely hard to predict exactly what Germany would have imposed. The exact terms would probably have been very tied to exactly when they achieved the victory. Their best chances were in 1914 and 1917.
A lot of the "what if?" scenarios that I have read were generally tied to Germany getting an open ocean port in France or Belgium and assuming control of colonies (French and British holdings in Africa and French holdings in SE Asia). You can't really look at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as something to go on. Germany was taking back territory they viewed as "theirs" and from people who they did not view as equals (Bolsheviks). Had the czar remained in power, chances are that peace would have been very different. Also, Germany was insuring against possible failure in the west.
France and Britain went into Versailles as the winners, but it was a very pyrrhic victory. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy and much of France had been completely devastated. On the other side Germany was relatively untouched outside of the casualties. I think the Kaiser would have settled for a more traditional limited victory gaining ports, colonies and some reparations and being content with being the new European power versus stripping Britain and France to the bone.
I think the greatest evidence that wouldn't have been the German intention was their absolute shock and disbelief when they were presented with terms at Versailles. The terms went way beyond anything Germany even thought remotely feasible.
You can't really look at the treaty of Brest-Litovsk as something to go on.
Of course you can, especially since it is the only contemprary example of German victory behavior we have from the era. That the specifics would be different based on conditions and needs is obvious, but Brest-Litovsk certainly established the mentality of the Germans for us. They did not act like the war had been a misunderstanding and that there was no call for punitive measures. They won and they were harsh. Is it your notion that they had cruelty in mind for one defeated opponent but kindness for another? Why would you think that?
Quote:
On the other side Germany was relatively untouched outside of the casualties.
Physically, no, but the German economy was in greater disarray than Britain's. The population had been on the verge of starving when the war ended, the blockade by the Royal Navy had been extremely effective. Further, they were in political turmoil as well with the Kaiser having been forced to abdicate and no established, traditional government was in place to run the nation. They were still occupying French territory when they agreed to the armistice, it was as much an economic defeat as it was military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
