quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

This. It was obvious at the time too. After the Treaty of Versailles Ferdinand Foch said "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

This is gonna get political, if it isn't already [:-]

warspite1

Maybe. But until that happens - if it happens - let's all just continue being grown ups and enjoy a sensible, grown-up debate.

Nothing wrong so far.

True. But your new here , aren't you? [:D][:D][:D] Seriously , you've seen the record. You really HOPE that the adults will have a reasonable , informative , and productive discussion of great significant value. But......do.....you....seriously......believe? [X(][8|][:(][:D]

Seeing as Symon's taken his hemlock, I for one see a brighter future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose


extreme inflation

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

I'm just a gentle Moose. :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BattleMoose

The treaty of Versailles created the NAZI party, it really is that simple. It created the economic turmoil that allowed for radical politics to emerge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

The real failing lies in the fact that the British and French didn't sit down with the Germans, Polish and Czech governments and establish something better to replace Versailles with.

Yes, there was Locarno, but that was a limited success, and was instrumental in sowing the seeds of discontent between the French and Polish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

You're mistaking "started" with "caused".

Sadly, you not willing to read Taylor doesn't surprise me. Narrowing your viewpoint voluntarily simply because you "don't have time" for the authors is a sad form of self-censorship. I don't like Taylor either, yet I'll read his works. The merits of the author and the merits of the work should be considered independently.

At the end of the day, what do you learn if you only read works that posit the viewpoints you agree with?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

The British and French failure was really in abandoning the hard line that they set in 1919 - once they had set themselves on a course to keep Germany down, they should have stuck with it. Hitler's diplomatic moves from the Rhineland to Poland were exceptionally astute, but a show of force from the British or French at any point would have been a serious blow.

warspite1

I disagree [;)]

So which is it? If Versailles was wrong - i.e. too harsh on Germany (and most think it was - even at the time there were concerns) then were the Allies destined to compound that mistake for ever more? Were the poor politicians that followed (i.e. those who had to make the best of the mess they were handed) not right in trying to put right some of the excesses of Versailles? Sure, one sure fire way of stopping Germany start another war was to insist, clause for clause, on implementing Versailles – thus the occupation of the Rhineland would not have been allowed for example. But was that a serious option? Germany was badly done by…...but then you are saying the allies should have reinforced all provisions of that unfair treaty???

I think that is both unfair on the politicians of the 1920's and particularly of course the 1930's and further more wholly impractical - not to mention it relies on hindsight. "Yes sorry Adolf I would like to amend the worst excesses of the unfair Versailles Treaty - but I cannot because if I do not stand by every provision, I am afraid you are going to start another World War".......

First thing that should be addressed is the issue of how harsh Versailles was. Brest-Litovsk makes Versailles look palatable in comparison, though to be fair the Allies didn't have the German delegates messing around as much as Trotsky and Co. did.

Measures to redress the excesses of Versailles would have been a good idea, had they been executed in a structured diplomatic fashion. Instead, it was overturned rule by rule. There was Locarno, but even that only settled the western question of German frontiers.

Yes, hindsight helps. Even so, considering within the context of the time, when Germany started disregarding the clauses of Versailles, the Allies had two general options:

- Punish Germany for breaching the clauses and enforce the treaty.
- Negotiate a suitable "watered-down" version of the treaty, and ensure Germany adhered to that from the start, rather than waiting till Munich.

Instead they did practically nothing. At which point Versailles wasn't even worth the paper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.


I think you'll agree that British/French and American diplomacy left a significant deal to be desired in the run up to the war. It is fair to level criticism at it.

warspite1

Re the first point - if you believe that then we are probably best to leave this aspect alone. That is just David Irving's wet dream. I trust - and believe - that is not what you meant to say?

Re the second point, yes indeed. I think where we disagree is not that the diplomatic goings on were, with hindsight, a mess - we can agree that, its why they were a mess and - GIVEN THE HAND DEALT THEM - how those western politicians should be viewed by history for ultimately getting things wrong is where we differ.

The French and British made Germany sign a treaty in 1919 that was, at it's core, intended to keep Germany from ever being able to wage a serious continental war by crippling it and disarming it.

They then failed to enforce the provisions of that treaty, allowing the Germans to re-militarize and redress the effects of said treaty.

warspite1

What you quote in the two paragraphs in bold above is fact. That cannot be denied. However, what you have not done is looked at the real world in the inter-war years. Most level headed people had misgivings about Versailles when written. Those feeling of unease grew - especially when Germany was being turned into a basket case thanks largely to its provisions. There was little to no political will to keep the Germans in penury. You state that keeping the Germans down would have been easy - politically, morally and economically acceptable? It was nothing of the sort.

The real failing lies in the fact that the British and French didn't sit down with the Germans, Polish and Czech governments and establish something better to replace Versailles with.

Yes, there was Locarno, but that was a limited success, and was instrumental in sowing the seeds of discontent between the French and Polish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I prefer:

- The French and British caused WW2 by failing to play hard ball with Germany. The Germans didn't have the military strength to go toe to toe with the Allies until 1939/40.

Many diplomatic historians argue that it was exactly the British and French playing hard ball with Germany that ultimately led to WWII in Europe. The relevant year was, however, 1919, and not any time in the 1930s.

warpite1

Versailles was not the cause of WWII. The British and French were not the cause of WWII. The responsibility for WWII – at least in Europe - goes to Adolf Hitler and Germany.

I'll disagree with you there. Versailles had caused such an extreme feeling of revanchism in Germany that made it palatable, if not desirable, for Germany to go back to war for redress. Keep in mind that the vast bulk of the German population would have had a role in the First World War - compare that with the general pacifist outlook in Britain and France.

You might find A.J.P Taylor's work of some interest, though it's been a fair few years since I read any of his stuff.

warspite1

Okay - we shall agree to disagree on that one. You believe the British and French started WWII in Europe and the Americans started the Pacific War. I for one can never make that deduction.

No, I'll pass on AJP Taylor. I too read some of his stuff - on WWI and Napoleon in particular - many years back. Not someone I have much if any time for - but then that would not surprise you [:)]

Re the item in bold - what does that mean?

You're mistaking "started" with "caused".

Sadly, you not willing to read Taylor doesn't surprise me. Narrowing your viewpoint voluntarily simply because you "don't have time" for the authors is a sad form of self-censorship. I don't like Taylor either, yet I'll read his works. The merits of the author and the merits of the work should be considered independently.

At the end of the day, what do you learn if you only read works that posit the viewpoints you agree with?

warspite1

I didn't say I only read authors whose view points I agree with. In fact I have confirmed previously the very opposite. However, there are some authors/historians - at both extremes I would choose not to give the time of day to. That is all.

No I am not mistaking at all - you state the Allies caused WWII. I state they did not. The cause of the war in Europe was Hitler's desire for Lebensraum, the cause of the war in the Pacific was Japan's insistence on a Co-East Asia Co-properity sphere. There are your causes - those two nations also started the wars.

quote:

Re sitting down and discussing with the Germans the Poles and the Czechs? Come on mind_messing lets get back in the real world. You know, we all know (because we have hindsight) what Hitler wanted. Are you seriously, and with a straight face suggesting there was a compromise solution that would have avoided war? Really? If so I genuinely want - and I mean genuinely - want to hear what that could have possibly been.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I'm just curious how those proponents of "Russia's entry caused the surrender of the Japanese" rationalized the threat to the Home Islands from the Red Army. True, the Red Army overran and crushed a vastly undermanned and undergunned Manchuko garrison in the last month of the war. But crushing Imperial Japan's mainland Asian imperial dreams and invading downtown Tokyo are vastly different things.

Just how, exactly, was the Red Army supposed to get millions of troops onto the Home Islands for an amphibious invasion? Their navy was a sliver of an afterthought of a shadow of what the Americans and British had in theater at the time. What credible amphibious chops did the Soviets *ever* have, let alone in the Far East in 1945?

Was the Imperial high command fretting over an amphibious Red Army assault or were they bemoaning the loss of their Imperial Asian hegemony? Did Imperial Japanese headquarters really believe that the Soviets were going to attempt to overrun Honshu by themselves? Were they aware of some unspoken agreement (that never existed) between America and the Soviets for American amphibious lift to move Russian troops to the home islands? Were they more concerned about this hypothetical challenge to the Home Island or, perhaps-just perhaps-were they more concerned about the ongoing , merciless and unrelenting incineration of their cities by the Americans? I suspect that the Imperial Japanese Navy representatives that held sway near the end saw these realities as they were.

I agree with those that believe that the Emperor-paradoxically-saved Japan from self-imposed immolation and utter ruin. He alone had the chops and the ability to unite the Japanese for this most unpalatable act of surrender. The nuclear fire that ravaged Hiroshima and Nagasaki weighed on his mind and gave him the reason and the cause to surrender. No fictitious Red invasion was so weighted.

quote:

The overhead explosion of nuclear devices was not an "oh, by the way" agenda item in the Imperial command's meeting minutes. It's the far more credible explanation for the temporal surrender that followed thereafter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Does the USA owe Japan an apology? To my thinking, no.

quote:

Again, you're confusing "starting" with "causing".

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's "The Soviets have invaded and the wheels have came off the car!"

quote:

Locarno represented the best opportunity for a lasting settlement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The one thread I missed subscribing to starts wobbling on the rails. So far it's stayed civil and I thank you all, but there have been some concerns.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
It's "The Soviets have invaded and the wheels have came off the car!"

I can't believe that having a 'diplomatic door' slammed in the face of the Japanese leadership was the cause of their surrender. Sorry. I just don't see their ignorance towards their nation burning from the inside out at the expense of the big, bad nasty Red invasion.