Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
It's been quite a while since I last re-watched the series and I don't remember the details. Disrespect of other cultures is nothing new and I agree the French did have reason to have an issue with the Germans. What's remarkable is the level of friendship between Germany and France today. I don't think France and the UK enjoy quite as good a relationship and they have been allies for 100 years.

What happened after WW I did contribute quite a bit to WW II. Italy felt it should get a larger piece of the pie. The Italian army suffered massive losses against the Astro-Hungarian Empire in WW I. Germany was made to pay for WW I. Japan got some territory and some ships that it mostly scrapped in place, but it felt it should have gotten more. (There's a mod idea, add the German ships Japan got at the end of WW I to the OOB.)

The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was harsher than Versailles, but most of it was only in effect for a short time because of the Central Powers collapse. It was also put on a government that was not recognized by the western powers.

Ultimately I'm just tossing out some ideas I've kicked around for a while.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

It is unlikely, based on later experience, that the Empire could have expanded to the Elbe *and* held those gains. They couldn't hold Dacia or Armenia, nor Mesopotamia, under Trajan and his successors who, arguably, had a stronger army and better leadership than the Julio-Claudians ...

The problem was, as with so many things historical, the economics ... the Roman economy simply couldn't support the sort of armed force needed to defend itself and expand itself much further than it did historically ... especially in the west where the potential conquests were basically sparsely populated trackless wilderness of no economic value in the short or medium (and probably medium-long) terms. It wasn't any better to the south - if anything, Africa was worse because of the sharp disease gradient - and to the east, well, the Sassanians and Parthians were a formidable foe that the Romans were never quite able to take down (again, largely because of economics).


YMMV.

Phil

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It's been quite a while since I last re-watched the series and I don't remember the details. Disrespect of other cultures is nothing new and I agree the French did have reason to have an issue with the Germans. What's remarkable is the level of friendship between Germany and France today. I don't think France and the UK enjoy quite as good a relationship and they have been allies for 100 years.

What happened after WW I did contribute quite a bit to WW II. Italy felt it should get a larger piece of the pie. The Italian army suffered massive losses against the Astro-Hungarian Empire in WW I. Germany was made to pay for WW I. Japan got some territory and some ships that it mostly scrapped in place, but it felt it should have gotten more. (There's a mod idea, add the German ships Japan got at the end of WW I to the OOB.)

The treaty of Brest-Litovsk was harsher than Versailles, but most of it was only in effect for a short time because of the Central Powers collapse. It was also put on a government that was not recognized by the western powers.

Ultimately I'm just tossing out some ideas I've kicked around for a while.

Bill

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on this one too

A) Which of those territories you name had been occupied by the Germans for sometime?
What is sometime? These were parts of the Russian Empire and had been for as much as 200 years. Whether Russian occupation was right or wrong, these territories were part of the Russian Empire and thus hers to lose.

B) I don't agree that Versailles was too gentle to make Germany weak. The problem was that having gone down that route (rightly or wrongly) the British and French chose not to enforce it. Without the Rhineland, with an army of only 100,000 and ships of no more than 10,000 tons, no aircraft or subs, Germany was not going to be able to start any more world wars.

But of course that is not what happened, the British and French caved in, the Soviets secretly helped train the German army, and so the Germans were left with a sense of having been shafted AND the means to "put that right" - providing a meglomaniac could be found to bring it all together [enter Adolf stage left].

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on this one too

A) Which of those territories you name had been occupied by the Germans for sometime?
What is sometime? These were parts of the Russian Empire and had been for as much as 200 years. Whether Russian occupation was right or wrong, these territories were part of the Russian Empire and thus hers to lose.

B) I don't agree that Versailles was too gentle to make Germany weak. The problem was that having gone down that route (rightly or wrongly) the British and French chose not to enforce it. Without the Rhineland, with an army of only 100,000 and ships of no more than 10,000 tons, no aircraft or subs, Germany was not going to be able to start any more world wars.

But of course that is not what happened, the British and French caved in, the Soviets secretly helped train the German army, and so the Germans were left with a sense of having been shafted AND the means to "put that right" - providing a meglomaniac could be found to bring it all together [enter Adolf stage left].

A) Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states. All three had strong nationalist movements. The only impact that Brest-Livotsk was that the nationalist movements had to wait till the collapse of Germany before declaring independence.

Assume some hypothetical alternate timeline where B-L is a status quo ante bellum. The Soviets lose the territory regardless: the Tsarist Army had collapsed, the Red Army was a weak shell, and what forces the Soviets had was needed to keep the Czech legion from rolling up to Moscow.

B-L was "harsh" in that the Soviets signed over territory that they had no control over, nor were likely to have any control over in the near future.

B) Versailles could have prevented Germany from having any army or navy at all and no arms industry to support it, on top of absurd reparations. It would have simlified matters somewhat, seeing as any future "war" to enforce the terms would have been nothing more than a formality.

You have to keep in mind the concerns of the time: trade and the massive Soviet menance.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on this one too

A) Which of those territories you name had been occupied by the Germans for sometime?
What is sometime? These were parts of the Russian Empire and had been for as much as 200 years. Whether Russian occupation was right or wrong, these territories were part of the Russian Empire and thus hers to lose.

B) I don't agree that Versailles was too gentle to make Germany weak. The problem was that having gone down that route (rightly or wrongly) the British and French chose not to enforce it. Without the Rhineland, with an army of only 100,000 and ships of no more than 10,000 tons, no aircraft or subs, Germany was not going to be able to start any more world wars.

But of course that is not what happened, the British and French caved in, the Soviets secretly helped train the German army, and so the Germans were left with a sense of having been shafted AND the means to "put that right" - providing a meglomaniac could be found to bring it all together [enter Adolf stage left].

A) Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states. All three had strong nationalist movements. The only impact that Brest-Livotsk was that the nationalist movements had to wait till the collapse of Germany before declaring independence.

Assume some hypothetical alternate timeline where B-L is a status quo ante bellum. The Soviets lose the territory regardless: the Tsarist Army had collapsed, the Red Army was a weak shell, and what forces the Soviets had was needed to keep the Czech legion from rolling up to Moscow.

B-L was "harsh" in that the Soviets signed over territory that they had no control over, nor were likely to have any control over in the near future.

B) Versailles could have prevented Germany from having any army or navy at all and no arms industry to support it, on top of absurd reparations. It would have simlified matters somewhat, seeing as any future "war" to enforce the terms would have been nothing more than a formality.

You have to keep in mind the concerns of the time: trade and the massive Soviet menance.

warspite1

A)I'm afraid you've lost me completely on A. These territories were part of the Russian Empire, occupied by the Germans because of the war that they themselves were largely responsible for causing. You are surely not suggesting that Germany sought to remove them from Russian rule because they had their well being at heart? I thought the Baltic States were going to be German owned, while Poland was not even recognised - god knows what would have happened to the Polish people.

B)Yes Versailles could have set out those things - but anything the treaty could have done was irrelevant if the powers that were responsible for enforcing said treaty decided to ignore its provisions. Why those provisions were ignored is of course another matter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on this one too

A) Which of those territories you name had been occupied by the Germans for sometime?
What is sometime? These were parts of the Russian Empire and had been for as much as 200 years. Whether Russian occupation was right or wrong, these territories were part of the Russian Empire and thus hers to lose.

B) I don't agree that Versailles was too gentle to make Germany weak. The problem was that having gone down that route (rightly or wrongly) the British and French chose not to enforce it. Without the Rhineland, with an army of only 100,000 and ships of no more than 10,000 tons, no aircraft or subs, Germany was not going to be able to start any more world wars.

But of course that is not what happened, the British and French caved in, the Soviets secretly helped train the German army, and so the Germans were left with a sense of having been shafted AND the means to "put that right" - providing a meglomaniac could be found to bring it all together [enter Adolf stage left].

A) Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states. All three had strong nationalist movements. The only impact that Brest-Livotsk was that the nationalist movements had to wait till the collapse of Germany before declaring independence.

Assume some hypothetical alternate timeline where B-L is a status quo ante bellum. The Soviets lose the territory regardless: the Tsarist Army had collapsed, the Red Army was a weak shell, and what forces the Soviets had was needed to keep the Czech legion from rolling up to Moscow.

B-L was "harsh" in that the Soviets signed over territory that they had no control over, nor were likely to have any control over in the near future.

B) Versailles could have prevented Germany from having any army or navy at all and no arms industry to support it, on top of absurd reparations. It would have simlified matters somewhat, seeing as any future "war" to enforce the terms would have been nothing more than a formality.

You have to keep in mind the concerns of the time: trade and the massive Soviet menance.

warspite1

A)I'm afraid you've lost me completely on A. These territories were part of the Russian Empire, occupied by the Germans because of the war that they themselves were largely responsible for causing. You are surely not suggesting that Germany sought to remove them from Russian rule because they had their well being at heart? I thought the Baltic States were going to be German owned, while Poland was not even recognised - god knows what would have happened to the Polish people.

B)Yes Versailles could have set out those things - but anything the treaty could have done was irrelevant if the powers that were responsible for enforcing said treaty decided to ignore its provisions. Why those provisions were ignored is of course another matter.

A) The territories handed over were territories that the Soviets were going to lose to nationalists regardless.

The Baltic countries were to be created into the United Baltic Duchy, with a German head of state, though the Germans seemed receptive to the idea of Baltic government under German overlordship.

Poland was to become a Kingdom, and it had big names such as Józef Pi³sudski involved. Chances are it would have been organized along the same lines as the UBD.

I'm not sure how that compares to life under the Tsarist autocracy. The only similar case I can recall within Russia is that of Finland.

B) Remove even the token military from Germany and enforcement of Versailles becomes a simple matter. The whole reason Versailles wasn't enforced was that Britain and France didn't want another war, even if that "war" was a short conflict with the tiny German Army.

No token German Army and you could enforce the terms of Versailles without the mobilization and build-up required to fight even a small 100,000 man army.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Something James Burke said in his original Connections has sat with me for many years. He had a segment on what Germany's lot was with the rest of Europe in the late 1800s. Germany had pulled itself together from a collection of city states into a complete country. They led the world in some sciences and had one of the strongest economies in Europe, but in the words of Burke, "the rest of Europe treated them like they had collective BO."

WW I and II in Europe were driven at least in part by the fact that the leading powers of Europe, France and Britain didn't really think much of Germany. Europe didn't think much of the US either, but the US was so isolationist it didn't really care that much. After WW I President Wilson wanted to treat Germany and the other defeated powers with some respect, but the UK and France wouldn't hear of it, especially in the case of Germany who was economically enslaved for losing the war.

warspite1

Interesting debate, but I must say I cannot agree with this at all. Three things:

a) Why do people make such a big thing about the Versailles Treaty; how terrible it was, how one-sided, how punitive for the German people, but nothing is said about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? The latter was hardly a case of the Germans treating the Russian people with respect. That was greed, avarice and revenge on a scale even worse than Versailles.

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

c) Did the UK and France really treat Germany like she had BO? I would be very interested to hear you expand upon that comment. Am reading the Scramble for Africa at present and according to that book, Bismarck was quite happy stirring the UK/French pot for Germany's benefit..... I suspect the emnity between France and the UK was far stronger than that between the UK and Germany. Germany was quite capable of looking after herself as she was fast becoming an industrial (and military) powerhouse - overtaking the UK in many key industrial measures before the turn of the century.

If Germany was treated like she had BO, I would say the cause was not a lack of respect, but that the UK and, especially France, respected and feared Germany in equal measure.

I can't claim to have a huge depth of knowledge on the matter, but words are wind.

A) Brest-Litovsk gets a lot of bad press. The Germans were there to take a chunk out of the former Russian Empire without a doubt, but the brutal terms are as much to do with the Russian (or by this point, Soviet) delegates messing the negotations up badly.

They misread the situation badly. Instead of drawing negotations out for the purpose of denying Germany the freedom to move troops west, they were holding out in the hope of a "workers revolution" in Germany. While the latter did happen eventually, the Soviet mindset was in the long-term, while all the consenquences would be short term.

The Soviets also had a funny goal in that they weren't negotating to get the best terms possible, they wanted to highlight German imperialism to the workers of Europe. While they succeeded, a little bit of realpolitik might have gave Russia better terms.

Then you've got the Soviet farce about the Germans resuming hostilities when the Germans call the Soviet bluff of "no war-no peace" and resume their advance. The Soviets had nothing to give even the resemblence of resistence, so the Germans could (and did) ask for anything and get it.

As a related note, most of the territory exchanged at Brest was already semi-independent. In the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia", Lenin basically gave the go ahead for secession from the former empire, and many nations had already declared independence.

The treaty wasn't so much "greed, avarice and revenge" as "We'd probably have been less harsh if you hadn't messed us around in negoations."

B) I think there's a line between being "cheesed off" and the cultural significance of the Franco-Prussian War. You only need to look at the huge impact Verdun had in the First World War to get an idea of just how big an impact that the Franco-Prussian War had on the French psyche.

C) The UK-Germany bond was fairly strong, abiet hampered when Wilhelm II came along, and was strained to breaking point by the naval arms race.

Franco-German relations were poor and remained poor ever since 1870.

warspite1

A) if that is true i would love to know what the Germans intended for the Russians prior to the latter "messing" them around, and thus causing the levy of such monstrous terms..... You seem to be suggesting said terms would have been quite reasonable, at any rate nothing like those that the French and British imposed on the Germans. Mmmmm.......

B) Apologies but I do not understand the point you are making. Cheesed off was a polite and simple expression for the pain, humiliation, anger and good old fashioned desire for revenge that the French must - understandably - have felt after 1870 and 1914.

Moreover, if the Germans can be excused for the excesses of Brest-Litovsk on the grounds that the Russians "messed" them about a bit, I'm quite sure the French should be excused for the excesses of Versailles on the basis of the pain, humiliation and suffering caused by earlier German invasions

A) The terms would still have been harsh, but you have to consider that most of the territory transfered had either been occupied by the Germans for quite some time (Poland, Baltic States) or already de-facto independent (Finland, Ukraine). Is it "harsh" to lose something that you've not got to lose?

Brest-Litovsk was an oddity in that the Soviets didn't try to drive down the price of peace, instead acting in such a way as to drive the price upwards. Plus, trying to bluff when you've no army to even offer token resistence is never a good move.

B) The problem with Versailles was that it was too gentle to make Germany weak enough to prevent future German wars of aggression, yet harsh enough to cause massive resentment of the treaty in Germany. It's understandable, since Morgenthau Plan-esqe thinking only really emerged with WW2

The reason for this is differing interests between Britain and France. The French needed security, they'd fought two wars with Germany and had no desire to fight a third. The British needed trade, and Germany was a big trading partner. The two interests were fundamentally incompatible; a de-industrialized nation is a poor trading partner, but can't fight any wars.

So when it comes to drawing terms up for Versailles, you've the British trying to mollify French demands. Compare that with Brest-Litovsk, where the Russians don't attempt to draw down German demands, and instead more or less put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la, can't hear you, no war-no peace, la-la-la".

warspite1

Guess we'll agree to disagree on this one too

A) Which of those territories you name had been occupied by the Germans for sometime?
What is sometime? These were parts of the Russian Empire and had been for as much as 200 years. Whether Russian occupation was right or wrong, these territories were part of the Russian Empire and thus hers to lose.

B) I don't agree that Versailles was too gentle to make Germany weak. The problem was that having gone down that route (rightly or wrongly) the British and French chose not to enforce it. Without the Rhineland, with an army of only 100,000 and ships of no more than 10,000 tons, no aircraft or subs, Germany was not going to be able to start any more world wars.

But of course that is not what happened, the British and French caved in, the Soviets secretly helped train the German army, and so the Germans were left with a sense of having been shafted AND the means to "put that right" - providing a meglomaniac could be found to bring it all together [enter Adolf stage left].

A) Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states. All three had strong nationalist movements. The only impact that Brest-Livotsk was that the nationalist movements had to wait till the collapse of Germany before declaring independence.

Assume some hypothetical alternate timeline where B-L is a status quo ante bellum. The Soviets lose the territory regardless: the Tsarist Army had collapsed, the Red Army was a weak shell, and what forces the Soviets had was needed to keep the Czech legion from rolling up to Moscow.

B-L was "harsh" in that the Soviets signed over territory that they had no control over, nor were likely to have any control over in the near future.

B) Versailles could have prevented Germany from having any army or navy at all and no arms industry to support it, on top of absurd reparations. It would have simlified matters somewhat, seeing as any future "war" to enforce the terms would have been nothing more than a formality.

You have to keep in mind the concerns of the time: trade and the massive Soviet menance.

warspite1

A)I'm afraid you've lost me completely on A. These territories were part of the Russian Empire, occupied by the Germans because of the war that they themselves were largely responsible for causing. You are surely not suggesting that Germany sought to remove them from Russian rule because they had their well being at heart? I thought the Baltic States were going to be German owned, while Poland was not even recognised - god knows what would have happened to the Polish people.

B)Yes Versailles could have set out those things - but anything the treaty could have done was irrelevant if the powers that were responsible for enforcing said treaty decided to ignore its provisions. Why those provisions were ignored is of course another matter.

A) The territories handed over were territories that the Soviets were going to lose to nationalists regardless.

The Baltic countries were to be created into the United Baltic Duchy, with a German head of state, though the Germans seemed receptive to the idea of Baltic government under German overlordship.

Poland was to become a Kingdom, and it had big names such as Józef Pi³sudski involved. Chances are it would have been organized along the same lines as the UBD.

I'm not sure how that compares to life under the Tsarist autocracy. The only similar case I can recall within Russia is that of Finland.

B) Remove even the token military from Germany and enforcement of Versailles becomes a simple matter. The whole reason Versailles wasn't enforced was that Britain and France didn't want another war, even if that "war" was a short conflict with the tiny German Army.

No token German Army and you could enforce the terms of Versailles without the mobilization and build-up required to fight even a small 100,000 man army.

warspite1

A) Maybe, maybe not (Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union in the 20's and beyond) - but the point is the Germans didn't know that and wasn't in the forefront of their thinking. Quite simply, however you dress it up, the German action was designed to rob the Russian Empire of much of its population and industry and resources - and to do so on a scale far, far greater than Versailles.

B)Okay but you seem to be suggesting the French and UK needed to have been tougher with Germany, whereas as it is, the Hitler apologists blame those two western powers for effectively creating Hitler.

As usual, hindsight is a wonderful thing

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

You guys might 'snip' out the older posts in the quoted replies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: temagic
Suppose Japan withdrew from China and Indochina in 1941 and didn't start any new war of conquest, would Japan be as good a country to live in today as it is?

Suppose Spain followed in Portugal’s footsteps in the, 13th century, and leapfrogged down the coast of Africa, and thus didn’t feel the need to support Christoforo Colombo. Would Chile be as good a country to live in today as it is?

I'll see you and raise you; what if the 3 legions were not lost and the frontier was permanently moved east at least to the Elbe? Would the 5th century western collapse thereby have been averted and the Roman Empire still exist.

Alfred

And also if Fangaur the bronthosaur, while trying to sidestep that pesky asteroid, accidentially had squashed King Riko the Rat, remote predecessor of Alexander the Great - would now my orange juice taste different?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bartrat
Maybe....

Some scientists believe that small mammals (very early versions of rats and other small mammals) were out-competing the dinosaurs. The huge asteroid 65 million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs may have just done them in quickly. So sqaushing King Riko the protoRat likely would have far greater effects than you might at first imagine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Probably not.

Now your strawberry tart (without so much rat in it) would likely taste very different.

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/bishop.php

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I think we are there:

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, for whatever reason, much harsher than Versailles, and gives the Germans no moral high ground to complain at how they were treated in the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I think we are there:

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, for whatever reason, much harsher than Versailles, and gives the Germans no moral high ground to complain at how they were treated in the latter.

Considering how the Russians were able to actually send a delegation to the negotations at B-L, that's not really true.

The Germans had no say in Versailles whatsoever. The Russians did, even though they wasted their voice on revolutionary rhetoric.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I think we are there:

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, for whatever reason, much harsher than Versailles, and gives the Germans no moral high ground to complain at how they were treated in the latter.

Considering how the Russians were able to actually send a delegation to the negotations at B-L, that's not really true.

The Germans had no say in Versailles whatsoever. The Russians did, even though they wasted their voice on revolutionary rhetoric.

warspite1

I knew you'd agree with me

Thanks for the interesting debate mind_messing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So I think we are there:

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was, for whatever reason, much harsher than Versailles, and gives the Germans no moral high ground to complain at how they were treated in the latter.

Considering how the Russians were able to actually send a delegation to the negotations at B-L, that's not really true.

The Germans had no say in Versailles whatsoever. The Russians did, even though they wasted their voice on revolutionary rhetoric.

warspite1

I knew you'd agree with me

Thanks for the interesting debate mind_messing.

I think we've just different views on both moral and political issues. After all, the world would be a dull place if we all thought the same.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Warspite, you know as well as I that treaties are nothing but an formalization of geo-political re-arrangements brought about by national military means applied to national imperatives (as expressed at the time).

Morality wasn’t even a part of it. It was nice to think of, but when it came down to cases, it took the hind tit. If you want to play the Treaty game, you are going to have to go back to the 16th century and feed-forward. Just a few that might float your coat:
Augsburg
Utrecht
Rastatt
Aix-la-Chapelle
Paris (1763)
Hubertusburg
Paris (1793)
And on-and-on. Just read them. Juxtapose the terms with the war imperatives. Forget your schoolboy stuff and just read them. Better than Latin or Greek. And way better than the stuff on wiki-pedo-peodia.

Ciao. John

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
What if Commodore Perry and his gunboat diplomacy had never happened? Would Japan then have remained their policy of isolation and therefore never entered a imperialistic period?

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

b) In fairness to the French, The Germans had invaded and defeated the French in 1870 and then invaded them again 40-odd years later, and cost the French millions of dead in addition to the huge material losses. I think we should forgive the French politicians and public of the time for feeling more than a tad cheesed off with their Teutonic neighbour after such humiliation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
As I understand it it was France that declared war on Prussia and that it was France that invaded first as well.

France declared war after the Ems dispatch, which she considered a casus belli. If you judge responsibilities by "who declared war", the history of many wars (including WWII) might be changed...

In any case, both countries wanted war, Bismarck saw a conflict with France as a sure way to strengthen Prussian leadership over the rest of Germany. Until 1865, Napoleon did try to accomodate Prussia. The crisis in Luxemburg and the succession in Spain changed that. And by 1870, French public opinion was all for a war.

As for invading Germany, it seemed to me that all the war of 1870 was fought on French territory, and that the first battles happened after the German army crossed the Rhine into French territory...

Francois

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805