National Review advocates breaking up Germany

[grumbler]

For someone calling out bad history you've made an error of your own.  The US certainly did sign the Treaty of Versailles - rather it was that the Senate refused to ratify it.

Wilson signed it under the condition of "ad referendum," meaning that the signature was not definitive until confirmed by the Senate.  It merely obligated Wilson's government to seek ratification and not take actions contrary to the treaty while awaiting ratification.  Only in the narrowest possible sense can it be said that "the US signed the Versailles Treaty."

[Barrister]

Yes, he had no option. Definitely couldn't have just retired or kept his show small with his many, many millions.

Okay, so while I read National Review fairly regularly I do not follow Glenn Beck or his operation The Blaze.  By it's a company he founded and sunk many of his millions into.  My understanding is it did very well for several years but has fallen on hard times.  He's had to sell assets and lay off staff.

So while not feeling sorry for him I can understand why he did the flip.  I'm more surprised he took a stand on principle in the first place.

[The Minsky Moment]

The sad truth is that despite being a long-standing card carrying member of the Gaviidae family, Glenn Beck just isn't crazy enough to sustain mobilized interest from the GOP rank and file anymore.  He cant compete with the Sidney Powells and the Taylor-Greenes.

[Darth Wagtaros]

There is so much bad history in that article I wouldn't know where to start.

You hate America.

[Syt]

I'm in favor of, as a long term goal, to split the current nation states into regions and subsume them under a European federal government, but I feel that's not what the article suggests.

[Barrister]

For someone calling out bad history you've made an error of your own.  The US certainly did sign the Treaty of Versailles - rather it was that the Senate refused to ratify it.

Wilson signed it under the condition of "ad referendum," meaning that the signature was not definitive until confirmed by the Senate.  It merely obligated Wilson's government to seek ratification and not take actions contrary to the treaty while awaiting ratification.  Only in the narrowest possible sense can it be said that "the US signed the Versailles Treaty."

I mean "signed" in the sense that Woodrow Wilson picked up a pen and signed his name to a piece of paper entitled "Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles)" on behalf of the United States.

Just for you I even tracked down a copy of the original: you can see his signature line on pp194:  https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0043.pdf  (other than Wilson it was signed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Tasker Bliss (retired general and Plenipotentiary at the peace talks), Henry White (basically a career diplomat), and Edward House (Wilson adviser).

You can try to argue that even though you said "signed" you meant "ratified", but that would go counter to the words you typed:

And the idea that Germany could have been permanently divided in 1919 is equally absurd.  It might have delayed WW2, but would also have made the US Congress even more unhappy and unwilling to support Britain and France when the time came for them to pay the piper (remember that the US did not sign the Versailles Treaty because US diplomats were fully aware of the stupidity of it).

The diplomats literally did sign it, and what's more were mostly in favour of it (which makes sense since they negotiated it).  Wilson was certainly in favour if it.  It was again the Senate that refused to ratify.


Edit: in fact the US has a long history by now of signing, but not ratifying, international treaties.  This is a well-known distinction.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States

[The Minsky Moment]

OK, OK.  i hereby condemn Otto von Bismarck for infecting the United States with Critical Race Theory. Despite his wooly-headed liberalism, Woodrow Wilson understood that the defense of civilization depended on crushing the Junker cultural Marxists and stopping Kaiser Wilhelm II before he could force every Belgian bathroom to force to permit entry by transsexuals pre and post surgery. 

[Syt]

OK, OK.  i hereby condemn Otto von Bismarck for infecting the United States with Critical Race Theory. Despite his wooly-headed liberalism, Woodrow Wilson understood that the defense of civilization depended on crushing the Junker cultural Marxists and stopping Kaiser Wilhelm II before he could force every Belgian bathroom to force to permit entry by transsexuals pre and post surgery.

Bismarxsism?

[Jacob]

Bismarxsism?

Bi-bismarxism, I think.

[Duque de Bragança]

No mention about Bismarck creating the first modern social/welfare state?   

That would be a factual statement, and so inappropriate for this shitpost article.

Well, they are not exactly known for their support of welfare as well, but it could have been used a example of a conservative, ultra-reactionary, being more social and pragmatic than the Left back then. Not interesting enough I guess.

What about the Kulturkampf then? Anti-Catholic policies which were used more often than not against certain minorities. Could be interesting for them, but factual again. 

[crazy canuck]

For someone calling out bad history you've made an error of your own.  The US certainly did sign the Treaty of Versailles - rather it was that the Senate refused to ratify it.

Wilson signed it under the condition of "ad referendum," meaning that the signature was not definitive until confirmed by the Senate.  It merely obligated Wilson's government to seek ratification and not take actions contrary to the treaty while awaiting ratification.  Only in the narrowest possible sense can it be said that "the US signed the Versailles Treaty."

I mean "signed" in the sense that Woodrow Wilson picked up a pen and signed his name to a piece of paper entitled "Treaty of Peace with Germany (Treaty of Versailles)" on behalf of the United States.

Just for you I even tracked down a copy of the original: you can see his signature line on pp194:  https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0043.pdf  (other than Wilson it was signed by Secretary of State Robert Lansing, Tasker Bliss (retired general and Plenipotentiary at the peace talks), Henry White (basically a career diplomat), and Edward House (Wilson adviser).

You can try to argue that even though you said "signed" you meant "ratified", but that would go counter to the words you typed:

And the idea that Germany could have been permanently divided in 1919 is equally absurd.  It might have delayed WW2, but would also have made the US Congress even more unhappy and unwilling to support Britain and France when the time came for them to pay the piper (remember that the US did not sign the Versailles Treaty because US diplomats were fully aware of the stupidity of it).

The diplomats literally did sign it, and what's more were mostly in favour of it (which makes sense since they negotiated it).  Wilson was certainly in favour if it.  It was again the Senate that refused to ratify.


Edit: in fact the US has a long history by now of signing, but not ratifying, international treaties.  This is a well-known distinction.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States

To add to your point BB, the reasons the Senate did not ratify has a lot to do with the internal politics of the US, including a lively conflict between the Senate and the President, rather than US diplomats being "fully aware of the stupidity" of the treaty.  As you point out, the US diplomats and Wilson himself played a significant role in crafting that "stupidity".

I highly recommend to Languish MacMillan's  Paris 1919 if you want the blow by blow gory details.

If you want to listen to an excellent podcast which does something similar the When Diplomacy Fails podcast did a very commendable job.

[grumbler]

The US delegation went to Versailles to implement the Fourteen Points on which peace had been agreed.  They succeeded with only one of the fourteen and failed with thirteen.  Wilson himself walked out of the Versailles Conference in disgust.  He did try to get the League of Nations ratified by the US Senate, which meant that he had to present all the rest of the treaty with which he (and the rest of the US delegation) disagreed.  As it turned out, the mandate of the League of nations was enough to get the treaty in trouble, and Wilson eventually told the Senate Democrats to vote against the treaty's ratification.

Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (published in the UK as Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War) lays this all out in detail.

[Valmy]

The US delegation went to Versailles to implement the Fourteen Points on which peace had been agreed.  They succeeded with only one of the fourteen and failed with thirteen.  Wilson himself walked out of the Versailles Conference in disgust.  He did try to get the League of Nations ratified by the US Senate, which meant that he had to present all the rest of the treaty with which he (and the rest of the US delegation) disagreed.  As it turned out, the mandate of the League of nations was enough to get the treaty in trouble, and Wilson eventually told the Senate Democrats to vote against the treaty's ratification.

Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (published in the UK as Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War) lays this all out in detail.

Ok well the situation was impossible. And how were these 14 points even supposed to solve the situation? And besides Wilson gave them in January of 1918, it is not like the situation had not changed since then.

France and Russia were both ruined, for awhile anyway, as great powers. France was just barely being propped up by her empire. But the US and the UK couldn't wait to GTFO of Europe and Germany was pretty much the only European Great Power still reasonably intact...I mean by the standards of the others. The only sustainable situation was for France to basically buddy up to Germany and let her run things or the UK and US were going to need to make serious military commitments neither wanted to make. France was left just kind of praying that if it got into trouble again that the UK and US would be there to help, or grasp at straws like the Little Entente. I know that what ended up happening makes this all clear but even at the time French leaders were well aware that they were much weaker in 1918 than they had been in 1914 plus they lost their ally Russia which made it feasible to go toe to to with Germany in the first place.

So what is this non-stupid treaty that could have addressed that issue? I mean if I was a French leader in 1919 I would have pulled Scheidemann aside and basically worked it out with the Germans directly. "The UK and the US are going to leave and we have Russia collapsing and the small nations of Europe bashing each other over the head, we need to figure out how to keep the peace in Europe together." But that was probably impossible in the political atmosphere of the time.

As far as the 14 points themselves how many could even be in the treaty?

"I. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view."

Ok so from here to forever all diplomacy shall be done without any secrecy at all? And how was Wilson proposing on enforcing that? The Senate was going to vote to declare war every time China and Japan have a secret agreement? How exactly could this insane provision be in the treaty?

"II. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants."

Ok. How exactly could this guarantee by every country in the world be done in the Treaty of Versailles? And even if it was does anybody expect countries to just stand aside while weapons and munitions and troops and war supplies are transported across the seas to their enemies? I mean yeah it is not exactly your territorial waters but pretty important for your security. Can countries just not defend themselves?

"III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance."

So we are going to abolish all tariffs in the Treaty of Versailles? Is it reasonable or intelligent to expect this to be in a peace treaty?

"IV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety."

How many countries claim they are spending more than is required for their domestic safety?

"V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined."

And how exactly would we know we did this or not? I kind of feel like the mandate system was an attempt to do this.

"VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy."

Obviously this was made to try to keep Russia in the war. By 1919 I don't think Wilson was acting with this agenda in mind. It was definitely made with early 1918 in mind. So I think it would be unfair to think the Treaty of Versailles could address this point.

"VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired."

Well this was done, was it not?

"VIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all."

Well this was done, was it not?

"IX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality."

This is a completely insane and delusional statement that reflects general ignorance of the situation on Italy's borders. There was no clearly recognizable lines of nationality, hell people are STILL grumpy about Tirol and Fiume. But Italy's frontiers were adjusted, so I am not sure what more could be expected.

"X. The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development."

I mean they got it. For all the good it did them.

"XI. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into."

I mean the treaty restored those countries. Lots of guarantees were made. Of course there had never been "historically established lines of allegiance and nationality" which was the whole fucking problem. The Treaty of Versailles was not a magical spell.

"XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Ottoman rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees."

Well none of that shit happened, either for the Turks or for the other nationalities...so yeah that went badly. Wilson didn't get his Kurdish state, too bad for the Kurds. So yeah that sucked. I fully recognize what happened in Anatolia and the Middle East after WWI was a clusterfuck. But also not the Treaty of Versailles.

"XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant."

Ok and that was done.

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

Ok and that was also done.

So besides the fumbling on the Ottoman stuff everything Wilson failed to get in the Treaty of Versailles was either insane or impossible or both. I don't see how only one provision of the fourteen points was accomplished. It seems several of them were accomplished to what seems to be a reasonable degree. What exactly was the problem?

So while Versailles was supposed to work magical spells and make an impossible situation manageable it failed to do so. And indeed probably could have been better designed in hindsight. But not abiding by the Fourteen Points is certainly not why it failed.

Besides we demanded everybody band together to protect the independence of Poland in our glorious 14 points and then when it came time to do so it was the supposedly stupid and cynical and backstabbing French and British who actually did so. Not us the nation with these high ideals who claimed to be fighting with this as a war goal in 1918.

[Barrister]

The US delegation went to Versailles to implement the Fourteen Points on which peace had been agreed.  They succeeded with only one of the fourteen and failed with thirteen.  Wilson himself walked out of the Versailles Conference in disgust.  He did try to get the League of Nations ratified by the US Senate, which meant that he had to present all the rest of the treaty with which he (and the rest of the US delegation) disagreed.  As it turned out, the mandate of the League of nations was enough to get the treaty in trouble, and Wilson eventually told the Senate Democrats to vote against the treaty's ratification.

Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (published in the UK as Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War) lays this all out in detail.

So I so happen to have a copy of Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919.

It doesn't have quite so neat a quote as "and then Wilson signed the treaty", but in the paperback edition, page 477, it makes it quite clear he was present at the signing ceremony as it recounts "Wilson was nearly pushed into a fountain".  Wilson then left that night "for Le Havre and the United States".

On page 489 in the conclusion it reads:

The president arrived back in Washington at midnight on July 8, 1919.  A crowd of 100,000, enormous for those days, waited at the train station.  Two days later he presented the Treaty of Versailles, with the League covenant at its start, to the Senate in person.  "Do we dare reject it", he asked them, "and break the heart of the world"?  His speech, it was generally considered, was poor.

I've read further, and see no suggestion that Wilson (who by then had had a stroke) ever invited anyone to vote against the Treaty.  Nor do I see any suggestion that Wilson (or his diplomats) disagreed fundamentally with the treaty.  I await any correction on this point though as I am far from an expert.

Just to remember though, your line (which I simply called an error) was

remember that the US did not sign the Versailles Treaty because US diplomats were fully aware of the stupidity of it

[crazy canuck]

The US delegation went to Versailles to implement the Fourteen Points on which peace had been agreed.  They succeeded with only one of the fourteen and failed with thirteen.  Wilson himself walked out of the Versailles Conference in disgust.  He did try to get the League of Nations ratified by the US Senate, which meant that he had to present all the rest of the treaty with which he (and the rest of the US delegation) disagreed.  As it turned out, the mandate of the League of nations was enough to get the treaty in trouble, and Wilson eventually told the Senate Democrats to vote against the treaty's ratification.

Margaret Macmillan's Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (published in the UK as Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War) lays this all out in detail.

Wilson said he would not support the treaty with the Senate reservations because he was very stubborn that treaty be ratified without the reservations. 

Stating that he was against the treaty's ratification very much misunderstands what he was trying to do.  He fully supported the treaty. MacMillan's very is he did not deal with this internal political issue very well and that well and that is why the treaty was not ratified.  Not that US diplomats viewed the treaty as containing "stupidity" as you have suggested.

But if you can cite a page where your view is supported in her book, please let us know where it is.