Wow, that's even wackier than usual. :lol:
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090617gd.html
QuoteWednesday, June 17, 2009
Rewriting history in Russia
By GWYNNE DYER
In the Soviet Union, the future was always certain; only the past could change without notice. The signal that it had changed was often the publication of a pseudo-scholarly article that denounced the "falsifications" of the existing version of history.
Here we go again. Recently Col. Sergei Kovalev, director of the scientific research department at the Institute of Military History, published an article on the Web site of the Russian Ministry of Defense titled "Fictions and Falsifications in Evaluating the USSR's Role On the Eve of the Second World War." He says it was the Poles who started the war in 1939, not the Nazis.
The British and the French were to blame too, because earlier in 1939 they guaranteed Poland's independence if it stood up to Hitler's demands. That gave the Poles "delusions of grandeur," unfortunately, and misled them into rebuffing Germany's "very modest" requests.
Germany only made two demands to Warsaw in 1939. One was the return of Danzig, a city that had been separated from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. The other was a German road and rail corridor across the strip of territory (the "Polish Corridor") that gave the Poles access to the Baltic Sea, but separated eastern Germany from the rest of the country.
Kovalev is right about one thing: Hitler's demands were reasonable enough. By 1939 almost everybody agreed that the Versailles treaty had been wrong to blame World War I on Germany, and that the 5 million Germans whose lands had been handed out to neighboring countries under that treaty had been treated unfairly. But most historians also think that Hitler's demands were just an opening bid.
The conventional wisdom is that Hitler was set on on world conquest from the start, and that if Poland had accepted his terms in 1939 it would just have faced further demands later. But the conventional historians may be wrong, for Hitler also offered Poland a secret alliance against the Soviet Union when he made his demands.
Poland's military rulers rejected the whole package, trusting in the Anglo-French guarantee to protect them. From the day that the guarantee was issued in March 1939, they refused even to discuss it with the Germans. That may have been a mistake, for when war came in September, Britain and France were unable to help them militarily, and Poland was overrun in a month.
But this hardly explains why Kovalev blames Poland for causing the war, and why the Russian Ministry of Defense put his article on its Web site. The reason for that, most likely, lies with their need to rewrite the history of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
That was the secret agreement of August 1939 in which Germany and the Soviet Union carved up eastern Europe between them. The Russians got eastern Poland, all of Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and parts of Romania. The Finns fought and managed to save most of their country, but the rest succumbed.
This deal has always been hard for the Russians to defend, especially since the Nazis attacked them two years later anyway. They usually say they were just trying to win time, but Stalin clearly fooled himself into believing that he had a real deal with the Nazis. He was recovering almost all the lands that had won their freedom from the Russian empire after World War I.
The Soviet secret police killed or deported hundreds of thousands of "politically unreliable" people in the newly conquered territories. (Twenty thousand Polish officers who had surrendered to the Russians were murdered in Katyn forest to decapitate any resistance movement.) So it's not surprising that some people in the Baltic states welcomed German troops as liberators in 1941, and that very few people in Eastern Europe saw Red Army troops as liberators when they came back in 1944.
This has always infuriated the Russians, who see the Red Army as heroes and liberators. Col. Kovalev's article blaming the Poles for the war was bound to appeal to Russian patriots just as much as it would appall Poles, Estonians and all the other Eastern Europeans who had to live for decades under the Soviet yoke.
The Polish ambassador in Moscow protested and Kovalev's article has now been removed from the Ministry of Defense's Web site, but the broader trend in Russia is clearly to rewrite history in ways that rehabilitate the Soviet past. Indeed, last month Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the creation of the Commission to Counteract the Falsification of History to the Detriment of Russian Interests.
That sounds slightly less weird in Russian, but not much. And there's now legislation before the Duma (parliament) that would outlaw any portrayal of the Red Army as invaders even on the territory of former Soviet republics. Of course, Moscow could not enforce that legislation without invading (sorry, liberating) them again, so it has little practical effect, but it is indicative of the mood in the country.
Russia isn't planning to invade anybody, but it is feeling spectacularly touchy and grumpy at the moment. So far Medvedev (and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin) are managing to ride the tiger, but if they fall off they could be eaten up in a flash.
Yet again I feel so much better about having a border with Russia. The Poles obviously got what they deserved, just like Georgia.. trying to maintain Sovereignty over it's own territory... the IMPUDENCE!!!
Way to go, Obama!
Zombie LeMay pls. Pls.
God Bless America.
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
Yet again I feel so much better about having a border with Russia. The Poles obviously got what they deserved, just like Georgia.. trying to maintain Sovereignty over it's own territory... the IMPUDENCE!!!
Poles did get what they deserved. During the Sudenten Crisis Poland was sure to get her pound of flesh from the Czechs.
QuotePresident Dmitry Medvedev ordered the creation of the Commission to Counteract the Falsification of History to the Detriment of Russian Interests.
That sounds slightly less weird in Russian, but not much.
I love this part.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 06:33:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
Yet again I feel so much better about having a border with Russia. The Poles obviously got what they deserved, just like Georgia.. trying to maintain Sovereignty over it's own territory... the IMPUDENCE!!!
Poles did get what they deserved. During the Sudenten Crisis Poland was sure to get her pound of flesh from the Czechs.
Always hilarious to see the little bit Poland snapped up. Boy that sure helped them.
Totally coincidentally, I was playing HOI2 yesterday and Poland did DOW Germany.
So...if it can happen in HOI2, it must be true.
I can certainly see how Russians wouldn't view threatening a country with destruction unless they hand you territory as an aggressive act.
They view the partitions of Poland as a defensive measure after all.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 18, 2009, 06:48:23 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 06:33:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 17, 2009, 10:17:42 PM
Yet again I feel so much better about having a border with Russia. The Poles obviously got what they deserved, just like Georgia.. trying to maintain Sovereignty over it's own territory... the IMPUDENCE!!!
Poles did get what they deserved. During the Sudenten Crisis Poland was sure to get her pound of flesh from the Czechs.
Always hilarious to see the little bit Poland snapped up. Boy that sure helped them.
LOL yeah. Whenever I think about it, I'm like WTF.
The Polish government was dominated by the military. For this reason they overestimated themselves and thought they were "one of the big boys" and could stand up against Germany and win. They did allow for war in some respects, but it is hardly their fault for wanting to hold on to their lands.
Damn Russians!
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 18, 2009, 08:14:40 AM
The Polish government was dominated by the military. For this reason they overestimated themselves and thought they were "one of the big boys" and could stand up against Germany and win. They did allow for war in some respects, but it is hardly their fault for wanting to hold on to their lands.
Damn Russians!
After what happened at the end of the 18th century (and what had just happened in Prague the previous March) I cannot blame Poland for thinking giving up territory to Germany wouldn't save them.
Ok ok we were lying about not wanting to conquer Czechoslovakia...this time we are telling the truth though.
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2009, 07:39:58 AM
LOL yeah. Whenever I think about it, I'm like WTF.
Even the hypernationalist Poles who blame Britain/France/United States for selling them out just sorta stammer and say something about how nationalism is not rational when called on that.
Poland should have been backing Czechoslovakia in 1938 but instead they and Romania worked together to help destroy her. It just shows how much the Poles hate the Russians and their then little buddies.
There was also a territorial dispute with Czechoslovakia, ranging back to 1918, concerning the ownership of the land Poland captured.
QuoteHitler also offered Poland a secret alliance against the Soviet Union when he made his demands
Whoooooooaaa, never heard of this before!
I bet it's nice to be a historian in Russia. Job security and room for innovation/creativity must be the best of any fields.
Quote from: Alcibiades on June 18, 2009, 10:11:23 AM
QuoteHitler also offered Poland a secret alliance against the Soviet Union when he made his demands
Whoooooooaaa, never heard of this before!
I dunno if Hitler did it, but I think Goering talked about this at one point when visiting Poland.
Yeah, that actually is pretty common knowledge here. I guess Poland believed itself secure in the alliance with the British and the French.
LOL: Strategy fail? :D
Quote from: Palisadoes on June 18, 2009, 08:14:40 AM
The Polish government was dominated by the military. For this reason they overestimated themselves and thought they were "one of the big boys" and could stand up against Germany and win. They did allow for war in some respects, but it is hardly their fault for wanting to hold on to their lands.
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2009, 08:25:11 AM
There was also a territorial dispute with Czechoslovakia, ranging back to 1918, concerning the ownership of the land Poland captured.
And the Czechs were not as nice a set of neighbors as their wartime and postwar propoganda would have us all believe. "Democratic" Czechoslovakia was very much dominated by the Chech minority. That is why Slovakia broke away as soon as it could, and the Sudetan Germans had sympathy from many in Europe.
Quote from: DGuller on June 18, 2009, 10:14:11 AM
I bet it's nice to be a historian in Russia. Job security and room for innovation/creativity must be the best of any fields.
Except when it's the time for the next round of revisions and you are denounced and sent to the gulag.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 18, 2009, 08:05:05 PM
Except when it's the time for the next round of revisions and you are denounced and sent to the gulag.
The key is to be the first to denounce.
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 18, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 18, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
They fought well in WWI.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 18, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
Crimea? Magenta? Solferino? Le Marne? Verdun?
Now, if you say France's performance on the battlefield was always extreme, either superb or abysmal, I will have to agree...
They were also the first to march into Paris in August 1945. That was some achievement.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2009, 10:07:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 18, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
They fought well in WWI.
Not at all. WWI was entirely a British victory.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 07:30:33 AM
Not at all. WWI was entirely a British victory.
Dreadnoughts, ftw.
Quote from: Warspite on June 19, 2009, 06:39:33 AM
They were also the first to march into Paris in August 1945. That was some achievement.
Kinda late on that one weren't they?
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
The Crimean War? The Austro-French war of 1859? World War I? Conquering a huge colonial empire?
Besides the Franco-Prussian War (where they mostly lost due to Prussian know-how, sheer numbers, and leadership blunders than the lack of fighting prowess of their soldiers) they had done pretty well.
But even if you ignore that you have the whole history of Britain never losing a European war going. That had to give the Poles some confidence.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 07:30:33 AM
Not at all. WWI was entirely an American victory.
FYP
Quote from: Alatriste on June 19, 2009, 06:27:49 AM
Crimea? Magenta? Solferino? Le Marne? Verdun?
Now, if you say France's performance on the battlefield was always extreme, either superb or abysmal, I will have to agree...
They are the military version of the Spanish national soccer team.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:59:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
The Crimean War?
British.
QuoteThe Austro-French war of 1859?
Beating up the Austrians is a big achievement?
QuoteWorld War I?
Their soldiers gave up, and left the British Empire to win the war alone.
QuoteConquering a huge colonial empire?
Mowing down spearchuckers with Maxim guns is not an achievement.
QuoteBesides the Franco-Prussian War (where they mostly lost due to Prussian know-how, sheer numbers, and leadership blunders than the lack of fighting prowess of their soldiers) they had done pretty well.
Ah yes, the old 'lions led by asses' myth that comes up every time someone doesn't do as well as they expected in a war. :lol:
QuoteBut even if you ignore that you have the whole history of Britain never losing a European war going. That had to give the Poles some confidence.
Britain never lost a war, but look what happened to their allies. Prussia was overrun in the Napoleonic wars and was only saved in the Seven Years War by Frederick the Great. Portugal became a backwater hellhole for centuries, as did Greece. Russia was destroyed by WWI, and France was forever finished as a Great Power.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 09:38:27 AM
Ah yes, the old 'lions led by asses' myth that comes up every time someone doesn't do as well as they expected in a war. :lol:
Um...I think it is fairly obvious that the officers didn't put the French Army in the best position at times during that war. But even if they had the sheer lunacy of the situation, outnumbered by the Prussians and their allies about 3 to 1 or more, meant that defeat was all but certain.
QuoteTheir soldiers gave up, and left the British Empire to win the war alone.
Ok you are either smoking crack or a Jaron/FB level Troll. This is what I get for talking history with retards.
Seriously you are smarter than this why act like an idiot?
Quote from: PDH on June 19, 2009, 08:48:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 07:30:33 AM
Not at all. WWI was entirely a British victory.
Dreadnoughts, ftw.
Yes. And the battlecruisers. Don't forget the battlecruisers.
Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 09:38:27 AM
Ah yes, the old 'lions led by asses' myth that comes up every time someone doesn't do as well as they expected in a war. :lol:
Um...I think it is fairly obvious that the officers didn't put the French Army in the best position at times during that war. But even if they had the sheer lunacy of the situation, outnumbered by the Prussians and their allies about 3 to 1 or more, meant that defeat was all but certain.
Now, now. The overall fighting strengths weren't really that far apart, although the French weren't that effective at mobilizing their forces. Really, I can't argue that the quality of regular troops wasn't that far off, the Prussian veterans of Sadowa and the French veterans of Italy balancing out. However, when it came to the Landwehr against the Garde Mobile, that was when the differences became enormous.
Besides, the tendency to foist blame for any defeat onto the officer corps and leadership is an annoying trait, especially in a constitutional monarchy like France. The French lost the Franco-Prussian War just as much because of political decisions made by the legislature.
QuoteQuoteTheir soldiers gave up, and left the British Empire to win the war alone.
Ok you are either smoking crack or a Jaron/FB level Troll. This is what I get for talking history with retards.
Seriously you are smarter than this why act like an idiot?
Two reasons. One: Because there is noone to have an in-depth discussion with. Two: Because I find the French cult of the nation to be irritating.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 07:30:33 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2009, 10:07:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2009, 09:26:47 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on June 18, 2009, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 18, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
Remember that they were anticipating a re-run of WW1, and were prepared to fight it successfully (given eventually support from France and Britain). Poland's decision to fight was not as insane as hindsight would have us believe.
Indeed. Also, Poland was not a weak country like many people believe. Surely they were defeated swiftly when the war broke out, but no moreso than France who was widely believed to have the most powerful army in the world at that time.
In retrospect, you have to wonder why. I mean, France has no military achievements since Napoleon died.
They fought well in WWI.
Not at all. WWI was entirely a British victory.
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
But in fact Nobody "won" WWI ... It went on too long and they had to stop so that all the nations could spend 20 years growing new young men to die in part 2.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
The British Empire.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:43:10 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
The British Empire.
Has the British empire ever won a war against a civilized people?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2009, 11:52:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:43:10 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
The British Empire.
Has the British empire ever won a war against a civilized people?
The Germans. The French. If you consider the Americans civilized, they beat them too. The German-governed Russians.
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:54:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2009, 11:52:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:43:10 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
The British Empire.
Has the British empire ever won a war against a civilized people?
The Germans. The French. If you consider the Americans civilized, they beat them too. The German-governed Russians.
As civilized as the British?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2009, 11:58:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:54:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2009, 11:52:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 19, 2009, 11:43:10 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
pfft. I'd include the other confederation countries that fought. Specifically Canada. :canuck:
The British Empire.
Has the British empire ever won a war against a civilized people?
The Germans. The French. If you consider the Americans civilized, they beat them too. The German-governed Russians.
As civilized as the British?
The Germans. The French.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
But in fact Nobody "won" WWI ... It went on too long and they had to stop so that all the nations could spend 20 years growing new young men to die in part 2.
You could a case that the United States "won" the war. They went from after thought in the global scene compared to the elite European players to damn near top dog due to their now massive skilled labor advantage and their new found financial and military power.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 21, 2009, 02:00:46 AM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:28:06 AM
But in fact Nobody "won" WWI ... It went on too long and they had to stop so that all the nations could spend 20 years growing new young men to die in part 2.
You could a case that the United States "won" the war. They went from after thought in the global scene compared to the elite European players to damn near top dog due to their now massive skilled labor advantage and their new found financial and military power.
And that was disastrous for the civilized world. American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world. All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
And that was disastrous for the civilized world. American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world. All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.
Oh, we're to blame for that now? :yeahright:
I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 21, 2009, 02:00:46 AM
You could a case that the United States "won" the war. They went from after thought in the global scene compared to the elite European players to damn near top dog due to their now massive skilled labor advantage and their new found financial and military power.
Actually, the US was producing more steel than all of Europe* in 1914, and more than half the world's petroleum. It had almost as many miles of rail line as all of Europe. It wasn't the war that made the US an economic gianmt - that happened before the war. One could certainly argue that the war vastly modenized the archaic US Army, though. I think the US military owned something like 50 planes total when it went to war, and none of them were combat aircraft. US artillery was also a joke.
However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish. The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it. The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided, and the whole "France and Britain stabbed the US in the back" syndrome from Versailles would have been avoided, thus mitigating some of the populatrity of post-war isolationism and maybe making the US more willing to try to stop Hitler, had he come to power.
*Including Russia
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
And that was disastrous for the civilized world. American priggishness and pie-in-the-sky daydreaming has resulted in all sorts of evils in this world. All the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization.
:lmfao:
Beautiful troll. One of your very best. My hat is off to you, sir. :cool:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2009, 08:52:53 AM
Oh, we're to blame for that now? :yeahright:
I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.
And the first victim takes the bait...
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish. The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it. The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2009, 07:34:05 AM
I can certainly see how Russians wouldn't view threatening a country with destruction unless they hand you territory as an aggressive act.
Hitler's demands on Poland were as follow:
1. Return to Germany of the Free City of Danzig (which, btw, was a majority German independent city-state overseen by the League of Nations and not part of Poland in any way or form).
2. The right to build a road and railway line that would link Germany by land to East Prussia. That line would have extraterritorial rights, not being subject to Polish inspections.
(secretly, Germany also proposed Poland an alliance against the Soviet Union).
Hitler never asked Poland for an inch of ground. The common perception that he did, however, is indeed a nice rewrite of History.
http://www.poloniatoday.com/history11.htm
At the beginning of 1939 German diplomacy put forth demands toward Poland: to incorporate Gdansk into the Reich and to build an extra-territorial motorway through Polish Pomerania. Moreover, Germany proposed that Poland accede to the Anti-Soviet Pact. http://books.google.pt/books?id=7lsVajEtaQ0C&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=list+of+hitler+demands+poland&source=bl&ots=URv8KKnWTn&sig=kNKV3U3Y3aRUI-EmcsxoO272elc&hl=pt-PT&ei=z4I-StuhOJ-UjAf1lOAY&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
Hitler demanded the return of Danzig (today Gdansk, Poland), a German-inhabited enclave in the midst of Poland He also requested that Poland allow Germany to build an extraterritorial road across the Polish Corridor, which separated German East Prussia from the rest of Germany
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish. The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it. The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France. Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.
Quote from: vonmoltke on June 21, 2009, 02:10:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish. The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it. The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France. Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.
Yeah, but the German's problem is that they're starving due to the blockade. They have to give in.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 02:12:01 PM
Quote from: vonmoltke on June 21, 2009, 02:10:44 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
However, none of this needed the US to actually go to war to accomplish. The war itself was a dead loss as far as the US was concerned, and even Europe would probably have been better off if the US had stayed out of it. The CP would still have lost, but maybe the peace would have been less one-sided,
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
The Entente would not have been in a position to force a lopsided peace without American troops on the ground in France. Alone they didn't have the reserves left to mount a serious offensive; it was the American troops that allowed an effective counteroffensive after the Germans' 1918 offensive petered out.
Yeah, but the German's problem is that they're starving due to the blockade. They have to give in.
Large parts of France's army were close to mutiny, and without US support the German blockade of Britain would have likely been more severe. If the Entente were teetering so close to collapse themselves, Germany rejecting peace terms wouldn't have gone over well.
I agree with Grumbler. The Central Powers and Entente were both on the brink of a meltdown, although The CP's was far, far worse. But with so much of the French army on the verge of a general mutiny and both of them exhausted whatever peace emerged might have been much easier for Germany to deal with. It was the hundreds of thousands of fresh American troops landing that allowed them to force a total surrender.
On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over. If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations?
I think we need Tim to make some maps.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
The Brits and French ignored Wilson and imposed their own conditions (in violation of the Armistace arrangements, but we are not talking about the most virtuous of men).
Indeed. Then again, Wilson was a walking disaster.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 21, 2009, 02:35:11 PM
On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over. If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations?
Actually, the existance of a non-emasculated Germany would have given the Russians serious pause. The demoocratic regime that would have taken power in postwar Germany (because even in a non-punative peace the Kaiser would have been forced to step down, as he had no cred left) would have been far stronger than the Weimar Republic, both for having avoided the image of craven surrender monkeys and avoiding the bulk of the reparations. The chances of a Red takeover would still have been significant, but less so than in the real situation, I think.
It is interesting to speculate whether, in the absence of a punitive Versailles Treaty, the Treaties of Saint Germain and Trianon would have been so punitive, and in particular whether or not Yugoslavia would have been created.
In regards to U.S. steel production and rail capacity, I think there's a difference between being the biggest producer and being acknowledged as a legit player. The facts of the United States' industrial and infrastructural might and capacity was known, but I think they were still treated as a kid trying to sit at the adult table prior to World War I. It was the Allies need to include them for their money, their industry, and their manpower that allowed the United States to truly earn a spot in Global Diplomacy on par more or less with the traditional European Great Powers.
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 21, 2009, 05:24:34 PM
In regards to U.S. steel production and rail capacity, I think there's a difference between being the biggest producer and being acknowledged as a legit player.
Not sure what you mean here. A "legit player" of what game? The European power politics game? The US had no interest in that. The colonial race? The US had no interest in that.
QuoteThe facts of the United States' industrial and infrastructural might and capacity was known, but I think they were still treated as a kid trying to sit at the adult table prior to World War I.
This sounds like revisionism. The US was treated as any other Great Power at, say, the Berlin Conference in 1884, invited like all of the other Great Powers (but none of the smaller ones) to introduce measures for discussion. The US sent a representative, but after it became clear that the US's only two issues, free trade and the recognition of the US interest in Liberia, were going to be passed unanimously, the US opted not to take a formal part or introduce any resolutions.
The US had as much influence in the decisions made at the Hague Conference in 1899 as any other power. Ditto for the decisions made about how to respond to the Boxer Rebellion in 1899 - and in fact the US contributed more troops to the relief expedition than anyone but the Japanese (over half the total) and the British (one-quarter the total).
QuoteIt was the Allies need to include them for their money, their industry, and their manpower that allowed the United States to truly earn a spot in Global Diplomacy on par more or less with the traditional European Great Powers.
Disagree completely. The US already had that position. WW1 allowed the US to have a spot in
purely European diplomacy, but the US didn't want it and soon was rid of it.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
The colonial race? The US had no interest in that.
The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 08:31:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
The colonial race? The US had no interest in that.
The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.
The war against Spain demonstrated the US lack of interest in colonies. Indeed, it was the failure of the US to acquire colonies after that war that prompted the scorn in Kipling's
The White Man's Burden, which was addressed to the people of the US. It is fascinating to see how history gets distorted over time.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 09:05:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 08:31:03 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 08:13:16 PM
The colonial race? The US had no interest in that.
The war against Spain seemed to indicate otherwise.
The war against Spain demonstrated the US lack of interest in colonies. Indeed, it was the failure of the US to acquire colonies after that war that prompted the scorn in Kipling's The White Man's Burden, which was addressed to the people of the US. It is fascinating to see how history gets distorted over time.
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.
Quote from: PDH on June 21, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.
They were never really that close, as grumbler didn't approve of that whippersnapper's newfangled tactics.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.
Quote from: PDH on June 21, 2009, 09:39:24 PM
Grumbler's time with Dewey was a time of bonding.
The Dewey I was with did nothing more exciting than invent a decimal system. :(
Great guy, though.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.
Keep spinning, baby.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 10:05:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
No, they were unincorporated territories, and the US administration of them was temporary by law. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too ignorant of the issue.
Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico. Bastards won't leave!
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2009, 10:19:35 PM
Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico. Bastards won't leave!
That was the point of the unincorporated territories. And it is what distinguishes them from colonies.
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 10:15:47 PM
Keep spinning, baby.
I am afraid that you don't come close to garnering the point, old boy. You claim that the Spanish-American War showed that the US was interested in the "colonial game," I point out (uncontested because uncontestable) that the actual facts were different, and then you try to spin this " all colonies to some degree" bullshit. Once one gets to the point that one has to argue the "to some degree" weasel, one has started spinning desperately to avoid a concession.
You know I don't demand that you concede. I don't think you have it in you, and I am so amused by your schtick that I would never threaten it. But every one sees the weasel, just like you do, and that is sufficient for me.
Now, if you want to make the argument that the US enjoyed having client states, you will get no argument from me. That's a far cry from the colonial game, though.
What's the difference between a "client state" and a "colony", other than the ability to make your point that the United States wasn't interested in the Colonial game? Also, you really think that the United States wasn't treated like an upstart little brother at best on the global political scene prior to World War I? You don't think that they were invited as to the various conferences and interventions as more of a junior partner as compared to the elite elders of Europe? Revisionism is certainly being used, but I'm not so sure I'm the one using it.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 11:35:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2009, 10:19:35 PM
Still can't get rid of Guam or Puerto Rico. Bastards won't leave!
That was the point of the unincorporated territories. And it is what distinguishes them from colonies.
The US treatment of those territories at present doesn't extinguish their treatment in the early 20th century. Cuba and Phillipines were US colonies in all but name.
And I'm not convinced by the reference to "client state". The US has had plenty of client states (Panama comes to mind). That is distinct from in particular Philippines, which was not a sovereign nation until post WWII.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 02:37:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 21, 2009, 01:44:12 PM
I would have thought that the peace would have been harder on the CP without Wilson involved. Why do you think it could have been less one-sided?
The Brits and French ignored Wilson and imposed their own conditions (in violation of the Armistace arrangements, but we are not talking about the most virtuous of men).
I think that's going too far
http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/armisticeterms.htm
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson's_Fourteen_Points
The Allies, as far as I know (and perhaps I'm wrong) assumed no obligations of any kind in the Armistice text. Even the "fourteen points" themselves aren't so terribly favorable to Germany... altough certainly Wilson's speech included portions like
"We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace- loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing. We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world, -- the new world in which we now live, -- instead of a place of mastery.
Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination."
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 09:10:52 PM
Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba were all colonies to some degree. Of course, I appreciate that you can't see it, as you're too close to the issue.
:yes:
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 21, 2009, 08:52:53 AM
Oh, we're to blame for that now? :yeahright:
I'd say the cause of decolonization was that colonization no longer made sense, what with Indians refusing to work and Jews bombing British soldiers and all. The British people(as well as French, Germans, Americans etc) weren't willing to go along with the measures that would be needed to continue exploiting the colonies.
And the first victim takes the bait...
And despite your *unique* recognition of the trap, you spend 10 times as much time arguing over the issue as that "victim" did. :lol:
Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 22, 2009, 12:05:01 AM
What's the difference between a "client state" and a "colony", other than the ability to make your point that the United States wasn't interested in the Colonial game?
The difference is that a "client state" isn't ruled by the patron state. The US had many of them in Latin America, and set up Cuba as one when it freed it after the Spanish-American War.
QuoteAlso, you really think that the United States wasn't treated like an upstart little brother at best on the global political scene prior to World War I?
No, not after the ACW or so.
QuoteYou don't think that they were invited as to the various conferences and interventions as more of a junior partner as compared to the elite elders of Europe?
No, it was invited because it was a very powerful country whose interests were seen as important.
QuoteRevisionism is certainly being used, but I'm not so sure I'm the one using it.
Revisionism includes the assertion of opinion that contradicts facts. I have given the reasons for my conclusions, and you have countered with more opinion-based assertions. Now, if you can find some facts to support your opinions, then by all means we can debate the issue, but all you have given so far is naked assertions.
Quote from: Barrister on June 22, 2009, 12:50:56 AM
The US treatment of those territories at present doesn't extinguish their treatment in the early 20th century. Cuba and Phillipines were US colonies in all but name.
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. The Phillipines was administered by the US much as the European colonies were adminstered by them, but only in a very distinctly temporary fashion (much like the British rule in Egypt, except for a shorter period of time). Cuba was granted independence within three years of the end of the war (and the interim was a transition period from the start). Cuba was as much an Ameircan colony "in all but name" as northern Germany was a British colony "in all but name" after WW2.
QuoteAnd I'm not convinced by the reference to "client state".
I have no idea what this means. What is it about the term "client state" that is unconvincing to you?
QuoteThe US has had plenty of client states (Panama comes to mind). That is distinct from in particular Philippines, which was not a sovereign nation until post WWII.
You cannot have my point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2009, 07:16:00 AM
And despite your *unique* recognition of the trap, you spend 10 times as much time arguing over the issue as that "victim" did. :lol:
Nope. I am not arguing over that issue at all. If you read slowly, you will see that what I am debating is whether or not the US ever sought colonies, not whether "all the horrors of the Africa are entirely the fault of the United States and its policy of decolonization."
I guess that comment of mine must have left a mark, eh? :lol:
Quote from: Alatriste on June 22, 2009, 02:01:53 AM
I think that's going too far
(snip)
The Allies, as far as I know (and perhaps I'm wrong) assumed no obligations of any kind in the Armistice text. Even the "fourteen points" themselves aren't so terribly favorable to Germany... altough certainly Wilson's speech included portions like
(snip)
The Germans proposed the armistace as a precondition to peace negotiations in accordance with the Fourteen Points. The Allies agreed to that. The armistace conditions quoted were those of the armistace, not the subsequent negotiations (though the Allies were wise enough to exploit their own superior military position to ensure that the Germans could not threaten a return to warfare as a negotiating tactic).
In the event, there were no negotiations with Germany. The Allies maintained the blockade on Germany, and then presented the Germans with a treaty (sans any negotiations) with the ultimatum of either signing it or face destruction of their nation at the hands of the Allies. This was not at all what the Germans had negotiated in the leadup to the armistace, and was a direct contributing factor to WW2.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2009, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 21, 2009, 10:15:47 PM
Keep spinning, baby.
I am afraid that you don't come close to garnering the point, old boy. You claim that the Spanish-American War showed that the US was interested in the "colonial game," I point out (uncontested because uncontestable) that the actual facts were different, and then you try to spin this " all colonies to some degree" bullshit. Once one gets to the point that one has to argue the "to some degree" weasel, one has started spinning desperately to avoid a concession.
I used 'to some degree' because the treatment of the territories varied. Guam was a coaling station where the naval commander served as governor, and didn't become an unincorporated organized territory until 1950. Puerto Rico, after a military occupation, had an American-esque governmental structure built for it (albeit one that was subordinate to the US government) and offered US citizenship, but the also put down all talk of independence with violence. Cuba was moderately self-governing, but it's foreign and financial policy were constitutionally slaved to Washington. The Philippines declared independence from Spain, but by god, the Americans were ceded those islands and sent in the army to reconquer them and liquidate the Philippine Republic, in the process slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population.
Now, you might try and weasel away by defining 'the colonial game' in such a way as to exclude the US. However, their actions and attitudes were colonial, and it'd be interesting to hear someone make an argument otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 07:42:35 AM
The Phillipines was administered by the US much as the European colonies were adminstered by them, but only in a very distinctly temporary fashion
It's actually pretty common for a colonial power to claim that their rule is temporary and they are educating the native people for eventual self-government. Most governments did that in Africa, and the British certainly did in India. In the meantime, the ruling people brutally suppress nationalist movements and hand economic control in the colony and land ownership over to their own business interests.
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 08:01:35 AM
I used 'to some degree' because the treatment of the territories varied.
But you used "colonies to some degree" because you knew your point was invalid and wanted to spin your way out of it.
QuoteGuam was a coaling station where the naval commander served as governor, and didn't become an unincorporated organized territory until 1950.
Guam was essentially self-governing. The US-appointed governor seldom exercised any real authority, the one exception being the reorganization of the legal status of marriage to conform to US law.
QuotePuerto Rico, after a military occupation, had an American-esque governmental structure built for it (albeit one that was subordinate to the US government) and offered US citizenship, but the also put down all talk of independence with violence.
The US never put down talk of independence with violence.
QuoteCuba was moderately self-governing, but it's foreign and financial policy were constitutionally slaved to Washington.
Cuba was not constitutionally permitted to sign some kinds of treaties with foreign powers until 1934, nor could it acquire certain kinds of foreign debts until that date. Not a "kind of colony" at all, any more than Portugal was a "kind of " British colony in the mid-19th century.
QuoteThe Philippines declared independence from Spain, but by god, the Americans were ceded those islands and sent in the army to reconquer them and liquidate the Philippine Republic, in the process slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population.
The US put down the Philippine insurrection, for sure, but this didn't make the PI a "kind of" colony. The Teller Amendment (and every budget or law for the PI passed by Congress) ensured that the occupation would be temporary. I am not sure what "slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population" is supposed to mean, other than demagoguery. that there were brutal acts during the war, and tens of thousands of civilian deaths, is not contested. There was no organized attempts to merely "slaughter" segments of the population, though.
QuoteNow, you might try and weasel away by defining 'the colonial game' in such a way as to exclude the US. However, their actions and attitudes were colonial, and it'd be interesting to hear someone make an argument otherwise.
You can try to weasel your way into implying that the US had the intention of gaining a global emire and colonies, but the fact that you ignore the Teller Amendment and resort to purple prose rather shows how wak your hand is.
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2009, 02:08:27 PM
Hitler's demands on Poland were as follow:
1. Return to Germany of the Free City of Danzig (which, btw, was a majority German independent city-state overseen by the League of Nations and not part of Poland in any way or form).
2. The right to build a road and railway line that would link Germany by land to East Prussia. That line would have extraterritorial rights, not being subject to Polish inspections.
(secretly, Germany also proposed Poland an alliance against the Soviet Union).
Hitler never asked Poland for an inch of ground. The common perception that he did, however, is indeed a nice rewrite of History.
:bleeding:
:lol:
Quote from: vonmoltke on June 21, 2009, 02:19:39 PM
Large parts of France's army were close to mutiny, and without US support the German blockade of Britain would have likely been more severe. If the Entente were teetering so close to collapse themselves, Germany rejecting peace terms wouldn't have gone over well.
Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement. Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?
I think that just looking at the difference between the colonial governing systems of post-Berlin Conference Africa with the US system shows the difference between Grumbler's assertion of "client states" vs "colonies." While there is obviously a similar net effect, in tying the resources of the territory to the home state, tying the populace to the home state, the goals and views underlying this seem far different to me...
If anything, some of the coaling stations in the Pacific were US colonies, but places like the Philippines and Cuba were tightly (or not so tightly) controlled satellites whose purpose was to extend influence without the ties of direct control.
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 08:07:37 AM
It's actually pretty common for a colonial power to claim that their rule is temporary and they are educating the native people for eventual self-government. Most governments did that in Africa, and the British certainly did in India.
If it is so common, I am sure you can come up with a half-dozen legislative acts like the Teller Amendment, say, from Britain (maybe two or three), France (one or two), Italy, Spain, or any other colonial power of the 19th century.
I would be very interested to see these cites. No weaseling, though. You need to cite such claims that are as clear as the teller Amendment:
QuoteThat the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
and they have to provide for the participation of the locals in the legislative process at least somewhat close to the Philippine Organic Act:
QuoteThat two years after the completion and publication of the census... the President upon being satisfied thereof shall direct Commission to call, and the Commission shall call, a general election for the choice of delegates to a popular assembly of the people of said territory in the Philippine Islands, which shall be known as the Philippine Assembly. After said Assembly shall have convened and organised, all the legislative power heretofore conferred on the Philippine Commission in all that part of said Islands... shall be vested in a Legislature consisting of two Houses - the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly. Said Assembly shall consist of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred members to be apportioned by said Commission among the provinces as nearly as practicable according to population:
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:07:48 AM
Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement. Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?
You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you? Who is "we?" Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:07:48 AM
Quote from: vonmoltke on June 21, 2009, 02:19:39 PM
Large parts of France's army were close to mutiny, and without US support the German blockade of Britain would have likely been more severe. If the Entente were teetering so close to collapse themselves, Germany rejecting peace terms wouldn't have gone over well.
Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement. Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?
Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:07:48 AM
Well that would have worked out for the Entente because we wanted to fight on to total victory than accept a negotiated settlement. Why would they suddenly be "without US support" if they had rejected the peace settlement we didn't want?
You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you? Who is "we?" Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"
This is one of those teacher pet peeves things isn't it?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frzilla-online.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F03%2F81122-big.jpg&hash=0743cab795530d8e2fd4ec6eca5009402d437f03)
Pronoun trouble
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2009, 09:39:23 AM
Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?
Oh well then...who the hell can say? The US entered the war with nearly two years to go. The strategy on both sides would have been completely different.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you? Who is "we?" Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"
Tim understood it!
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 09:49:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 09:36:57 AM
You do realize that your use of pronouns without antecedents makes this completely incomprehensible, don't you? Who is "we?" Is the "they" that would be "without US support" the same as the "they" that "had rejected the peace settlement?"
Tim understood it!
I understood you had no idea what we were talking about. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2009, 09:56:15 AM
I understood you had no idea what we were talking about. :P
:blush:
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2009, 09:39:39 AM
This is one of those teacher pet peeves things isn't it?
Probably, but I don't think that non-teachers can make any more out of it than teachers.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 22, 2009, 09:39:23 AM
Wasn't VonMoltke talking about a scenario where the US didn't enter the war?
Paths of Glory taught me that the USA was irrelevant so long as Turkey fell. :smarty:
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 08:01:35 AM
I used 'to some degree' because the treatment of the territories varied.
But you used "colonies to some degree" because you knew your point was invalid and wanted to spin your way out of it.
I think I've made a good argument and have certainly convinced some Languishites.
QuoteQuoteGuam was a coaling station where the naval commander served as governor, and didn't become an unincorporated organized territory until 1950.
Guam was essentially self-governing. The US-appointed governor seldom exercised any real authority, the one exception being the reorganization of the legal status of marriage to conform to US law.
None of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer. The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them. The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.
QuoteQuotePuerto Rico, after a military occupation, had an American-esque governmental structure built for it (albeit one that was subordinate to the US government) and offered US citizenship, but the also put down all talk of independence with violence.
The US never put down talk of independence with violence.
It was a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public prior to 1952. And then there was the Ponce Massacre and general persecution of the nationalist movement.
QuoteQuoteCuba was moderately self-governing, but it's foreign and financial policy were constitutionally slaved to Washington.
Cuba was not constitutionally permitted to sign some kinds of treaties with foreign powers until 1934, nor could it acquire certain kinds of foreign debts until that date. Not a "kind of colony" at all, any more than Portugal was a "kind of " British colony in the mid-19th century.
Portugal wasn't conquered or ceded to Britain, nor did British subjects become Portuguese kings. Britain, Spain and France did provide assistance to the legitimist forces in the Portuguese Civil War, but they didn't write their supremacy into the constitution that resulted.
QuoteQuoteThe Philippines declared independence from Spain, but by god, the Americans were ceded those islands and sent in the army to reconquer them and liquidate the Philippine Republic, in the process slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population.
The US put down the Philippine insurrection, for sure, but this didn't make the PI a "kind of" colony. The Teller Amendment (and every budget or law for the PI passed by Congress) ensured that the occupation would be temporary. I am not sure what "slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population" is supposed to mean, other than demagoguery. that there were brutal acts during the war, and tens of thousands of civilian deaths, is not contested. There was no organized attempts to merely "slaughter" segments of the population, though.
The Teller Amendment had nothing to do with the Philippines.
At any rate, it wasn't really an insurrection. The US conquered and dispersed the First Philippine Republic. And while their forty-year occupation was 'temporary' (just as Britain's two-hundred year occupation of India was), the place was run in such a way as to ensure continued domination of American interests. Take, for example, the expropriation of the vast properties of the Catholic Church, most of which went into the hands of American business interests.
As for 'slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population', that simply means that large numbers of Philippines (certainly thousands, although I saw a number on wikipedia claiming a somewhat unbelievable 1.7 million) were killed, either through direct action (shot, stabbed, burned alive, etc.) or by neglect in the concentration camps. Nothing more, nothing less.
QuoteQuoteNow, you might try and weasel away by defining 'the colonial game' in such a way as to exclude the US. However, their actions and attitudes were colonial, and it'd be interesting to hear someone make an argument otherwise.
You can try to weasel your way into implying that the US had the intention of gaining a global emire and colonies, but the fact that you ignore the Teller Amendment and resort to purple prose rather shows how wak your hand is.
Given that the Teller Amendment applied only to Cuba and was superceded by the Platt Amendment, I don't think it's particularily important. YMMV.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 21, 2009, 02:35:11 PM
I agree with Grumbler. The Central Powers and Entente were both on the brink of a meltdown, although The CP's was far, far worse. But with so much of the French army on the verge of a general mutiny and both of them exhausted whatever peace emerged might have been much easier for Germany to deal with. It was the hundreds of thousands of fresh American troops landing that allowed them to force a total surrender.
On the other hand, the situation in Germany might have led to a total collapse anyway, and the Reds might have made a serious move to take over. If the Germans avoided Versailles, what condition would Central and Eastern Europe have been in to function as cohesive nations?
I think we need Tim to make some maps.
You ask and you shall receive... secondhand scraps anyways.
I downloaded this off of alternatehistory.com ages ago.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg251%2FTim811%2FAlliesWinWWIdespitenoUSintervention.png&hash=f4764553ff811a55e4f336a86d33dc57515e858c)
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 10:36:49 AM
I think I've made a good argument and have certainly convinced some Languishites.
Argumentum ad popularum is a logical fallacy.
QuoteNone of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer. The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them. The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.
What led to the Guam Organic Act was the boycott of further government by the Guamanian legislature. Colonies don't have their own legislatures.
QuoteIt was a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public prior to 1952.
Got a cite for this?
QuoteAnd then there was the Ponce Massacre and general persecution of the nationalist movement.
That does not equate to the argument that the US "also put down all talk of independence with violence." That purple prose bites you in the ass every time, doesn't it? :P
There was much talk of Puerto Rican independence that was not put down by violence. It included congressional testimony.
QuoteThe Teller Amendment had nothing to do with the Philippines.
It nevertheless demonstarted that the US congress was opposed to gaining colonies (because the case for Cuba as a colony was certainly stronger than that of the PI).
QuoteAt any rate, it wasn't really an insurrection. The US conquered and dispersed the First Philippine Republic.
The "First Philippine Republic" was a handful of people declaring themselves a government (and executing one another). It was as much a "Philippino Republic" as North Korea is a "Democratic Republic."
QuoteAnd while their forty-year occupation was 'temporary' (just as Britain's two-hundred year occupation of India was), the place was run in such a way as to ensure continued domination of American interests. Take, for example, the expropriation of the vast properties of the Catholic Church, most of which went into the hands of American business interests.
All things are temporary, but that is a feeble argument. The US occupation of the PI was intended to be temporary from the start (and all US legislation regarding the PI referred to itself as a "temporary measure"). Argentina and Chile in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were run in such a way as to ensure the continued dominance of British interests, and yet no one calls them British colonies. The "expropriation" of catholic lands you refer to was not expropriation at all, it was sales. the Church had to pay taxes on non-religious properties and had to sell a lot of land to do so.
QuoteAs for 'slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population', that simply means that large numbers of Philippines (certainly thousands, although I saw a number on wikipedia claiming a somewhat unbelievable 1.7 million) were killed, either through direct action (shot, stabbed, burned alive, etc.) or by neglect in the concentration camps. Nothing more, nothing less.
So you concede that the purple-prose "slaughter" was, in fact, merely the typical deaths one expects in a guerilla war? Did the British "slaughter whole segments" of the Boer population in the Boer War? Purple prose bites you again! :P
QuoteGiven that the Teller Amendment applied only to Cuba and was superceded by the Platt Amendment, I don't think it's particularily important. YMMV.
The Teller Amendment was modified by the Platt Amendment, but in no fashion that changes the argument here.
Still waiting for the evidence that it was "pretty common" for nineteenth century imperial powers to explicitly state that they did not intend to permanently rule their overseas empires.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 12:00:10 PM
QuoteNone of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer. The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them. The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.
What led to the Guam Organic Act was the boycott of further government by the Guamanian legislature. Colonies don't have their own legislatures.
what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 10:05:37 AM
Probably, but I don't think that non-teachers can make any more out of it than teachers.
That's hardly the case.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 22, 2009, 12:15:15 PM
what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?
I also think that the Raj is not a great comparison to make when comparing late 19th century imperialism/colonialism. Africa is the real test case after Belgium's adventure and the Conference of Berlin for comparing such things...
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 12:00:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 10:36:49 AM
None of which changes the fact that the supreme legal authority on Guam was a US Navy officer. The fact that they generally ruled with a light hand doesn't change the fact that they ruled them. The natives didn't seem to appreciate it, which led to the Guam Organic Act in 1950.
What led to the Guam Organic Act was the boycott of further government by the Guamanian legislature. Colonies don't have their own legislatures.
All sorts of colonies had legislatures. India and both Canadas come right to mind.
QuoteQuoteIt was a felony to display the Puerto Rican flag in public prior to 1952.
Got a cite for this?
The best I can find online is wikipedia (no habla espanol). Look up 'Law 53' or 'Ley de la Mordaza'.
QuoteQuoteAnd then there was the Ponce Massacre and general persecution of the nationalist movement.
That does not equate to the argument that the US "also put down all talk of independence with violence." That purple prose bites you in the ass every time, doesn't it? :P
There was much talk of Puerto Rican independence that was not put down by violence. It included congressional testimony.
Perhaps 'all' was overstrong. However, there is no doubt that the US used force against nationalist movements.
QuoteQuoteThe Teller Amendment had nothing to do with the Philippines.
It nevertheless demonstarted that the US congress was opposed to gaining colonies (because the case for Cuba as a colony was certainly stronger than that of the PI).
No it didn't. It showed that they had every intention of bringing their colonies along the road to independence. Then again, actions speak louder than words.
QuoteQuoteAt any rate, it wasn't really an insurrection. The US conquered and dispersed the First Philippine Republic.
The "First Philippine Republic" was a handful of people declaring themselves a government (and executing one another). It was as much a "Philippino Republic" as North Korea is a "Democratic Republic."
Doesn't much matter. It was just as legitimate as the Continental Congress.
QuoteQuoteAnd while their forty-year occupation was 'temporary' (just as Britain's two-hundred year occupation of India was), the place was run in such a way as to ensure continued domination of American interests. Take, for example, the expropriation of the vast properties of the Catholic Church, most of which went into the hands of American business interests.
All things are temporary, but that is a feeble argument. The US occupation of the PI was intended to be temporary from the start (and all US legislation regarding the PI referred to itself as a "temporary measure"). Argentina and Chile in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century were run in such a way as to ensure the continued dominance of British interests, and yet no one calls them British colonies. The "expropriation" of catholic lands you refer to was not expropriation at all, it was sales. the Church had to pay taxes on non-religious properties and had to sell a lot of land to do so.
Taxation designed is such a way as to expropriate is no better than expropriation itself. Except, of course, that it was done in just such a way as to help American business interests.
QuoteQuoteAs for 'slaughtering large segments of the Philippine population', that simply means that large numbers of Philippines (certainly thousands, although I saw a number on wikipedia claiming a somewhat unbelievable 1.7 million) were killed, either through direct action (shot, stabbed, burned alive, etc.) or by neglect in the concentration camps. Nothing more, nothing less.
So you concede that the purple-prose "slaughter" was, in fact, merely the typical deaths one expects in a guerilla war? Did the British "slaughter whole segments" of the Boer population in the Boer War? Purple prose bites you again! :P
I concede nothing. Every single American is murderous scum, and there were plenty of stories in the American newspapers of the time about how American soldiers were being ordered to shoot prisoners, civilians, and generally misbehave.
That said, the Boer War had the advantage of being moral.
QuoteStill waiting for the evidence that it was "pretty common" for nineteenth century imperial powers to explicitly state that they did not intend to permanently rule their overseas empires.
I'm not particularily interested in doing so. Some study I've been doing recently of Lord Curzon's letters as Viceroy shows an expressed desire to prepare India for self-governance, but that's as much work as I'll do.
Quote from: PDH on June 22, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 22, 2009, 12:15:15 PM
what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?
I also think that the Raj is not a great comparison to make when comparing late 19th century imperialism/colonialism. Africa is the real test case after Belgium's adventure and the Conference of Berlin for comparing such things...
likely, though colonialism as a whole is a giant phonomenon with different nations going about it in different ways.
I seem to remember that even when colonised Morocco had it's native 'rulers' and such. Likewise for many other places where there was a game of keeping up appearances while everyone knew where the real power lay and who really ruled.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 22, 2009, 12:15:15 PM
what about the Raj?
iirc they had their 'own' institutions, though I'm unsure as to what extent they took orders from london?
There was no Indian legislature until 1909, and that one was still dominated by Brits (being a legislative council, and so part of the executive). In 1918, this changed and a true legislature (with limited powers, but nonetheless a legislature) was established with elected representatives.
I am certainly not arguing that the imperial powers did not change their tune over time, simply that the US, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, overtly eschewed colonies and was not interested in the various "scrambles" for empire... and yet that it still was treated as a heavyweight power by 1900.
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2009, 12:56:49 PM
All sorts of colonies had legislatures. India and both Canadas come right to mind.
Neither of them were truly colonies by the end of WW1 (and in the case of Canada, by 1840).
QuoteThe best I can find online is wikipedia (no habla espanol).
Well, that's a pretty damning confession, isn't it?
QuoteLook up 'Law 53' or 'Ley de la Mordaza'.
That law was passed in
1948! :lol: It had nothing to do with the United States.
QuotePerhaps 'all' was overstrong. However, there is no doubt that the US used force against nationalist movements.
But not as a matter of policy. In fact, Governor Winship was roundly criticized by US officials and congressmen, though he was not indicted by the grand jury that met on the matter because of dobts about who started the violence.
QuoteNo it didn't. It showed that they had every intention of bringing their colonies along the road to independence. Then again, actions speak louder than words.
This is mere weasel-wording. The US announced that it would create no colonies, and only rule Cuba, PI, and OR long enough to establish effective local governments, and did so. Those are the words, and the actions that backed them up. Total US rule in Cuba was three years, the Philippines 46 years (though legislative power was granted after 10 years) and PR 49 years (though legislative power was transferred after 4 years).
Compare that to Britain's "temporary" rule over the nominally independent Egypt of 40 years or its rule over nominally not-independent India of 198 years, or France's rule over nominally-not-independent Indochina, which lasted 90 years (and was only ended by war).
QuoteTaxation designed is such a way as to expropriate is no better than expropriation itself. Except, of course, that it was done in just such a way as to help American business interests.
This is, again, mere argument by assertion and weasel-wording (first it was "expropriation" and when that proved a lie, it became "taxation designed [in] such a way as to expropriate." The fact of the matter is that the power which sold the land was the Pope himself, after he sent 5 cardinals to negotiate the matter directly with the US government.
QuoteI concede nothing. Every single American is murderous scum, and there were plenty of stories in the American newspapers of the time about how American soldiers were being ordered to shoot prisoners, civilians, and generally misbehave.
:rolleyes: The purple prose again. This doesn't help your argumentum ad popularum, you know!
QuoteI'm not particularily interested in doing so. Some study I've been doing recently of Lord Curzon's letters as Viceroy shows an expressed desire to prepare India for self-governance, but that's as much work as I'll do.
I didn't think you would stick to that particular made-up argument after it was challenged! :P
So, we are left with what for your arguments? Legislatures established after our time period (and long after the US ones), laws that the US had nothing to do with, the Pope conniving at his own expropriation-equivalent, and a bunch of purple prose. Oh, and a logical fallacy.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 07:57:00 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on June 22, 2009, 02:01:53 AM
I think that's going too far
(snip)
The Allies, as far as I know (and perhaps I'm wrong) assumed no obligations of any kind in the Armistice text. Even the "fourteen points" themselves aren't so terribly favorable to Germany... altough certainly Wilson's speech included portions like
(snip)
The Germans proposed the armistace as a precondition to peace negotiations in accordance with the Fourteen Points. The Allies agreed to that. The armistace conditions quoted were those of the armistace, not the subsequent negotiations (though the Allies were wise enough to exploit their own superior military position to ensure that the Germans could not threaten a return to warfare as a negotiating tactic).
In the event, there were no negotiations with Germany. The Allies maintained the blockade on Germany, and then presented the Germans with a treaty (sans any negotiations) with the ultimatum of either signing it or face destruction of their nation at the hands of the Allies. This was not at all what the Germans had negotiated in the leadup to the armistace, and was a direct contributing factor to WW2.
Again, that's going too far in my opinion...
1. In truth there was no 'Allies'. The Germans sent their notes to Wilson because they knew French and British would be less... understanding. And certainly Wilson believed France and Britain would demand too much, but he couldn't speak for the Alliance.
2. Of course the Germans wanted a peace based on the 14 points, but they were never granted such a thing (and the rest of the Allies had never suscribed Wilson's 14 points either)
3. The Germans didn't sign the armistice because they received any guarantee, explicit or implicit. They signed because they were finished, the Revolution raging, the mutineers in Berlin, the Empire was no more, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria were gone... In other words, they didn't surrender their capacity to continue the war because they were promised anything; they did because they had no such capacity anyway...
In retrospect it's clearly evident the Germans should have thrown in the towel months before, when they still could have negotiated reasonably good terms. Equally, even if that's not so evident, the Allies should have agreed amongst themselves at least what kind of peace they wanted to get, and what terms were they going to impose on Germany. But they didn't and the whole business of negotiating the armistice was shoddy and improvised.
In short, Wilhelm II, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Maximilian von Baden and the Germans in general can't have been so gullible as to believe they were going to get a peace based in the 14 points (in January 1918, perhaps, but that was 10 months before and a world apart) and can't have been so stupid as to have signed the armistice without understanding the implications. It was a barely disguised unconditional surrender and nothing else.
Quote from: Alatriste on June 23, 2009, 07:09:19 AM
Again, that's going too far in my opinion...
1. In truth there was no 'Allies'. The Germans sent their notes to Wilson because they knew French and British would be less... understanding. And certainly Wilson believed France and Britain would demand too much, but he couldn't speak for the Alliance.
Actually, he could speak for the Allies because he conducted negotiations with the British and French before he returned his reply to von Baden (and, in fact, gave in to the French demand for German payment of damages, which is why those provisions were in the armistice note). It is true that there were no "Allies." The correspondence all reads "The Allied Powers and the United States."
Quote2. Of course the Germans wanted a peace based on the 14 points, but they were never granted such a thing (and the rest of the Allies had never suscribed Wilson's 14 points either)
The rest of the Allies did not fully accept them, but agreed to use them as the basis for negotiations.
Quote3. The Germans didn't sign the armistice because they received any guarantee, explicit or implicit. They signed because they were finished, the Revolution raging, the mutineers in Berlin, the Empire was no more, Turkey, Bulgaria and Austria were gone... In other words, they didn't surrender their capacity to continue the war because they were promised anything; they did because they had no such capacity anyway...
Again, I think that this is going too far. Had the German Army known what the Allied Powers had in mind for a peace settlement, I daresay they would have fought on to final defeat.
QuoteIn retrospect it's clearly evident the Germans should have thrown in the towel months before, when they still could have negotiated reasonably good terms. Equally, even if that's not so evident, the Allies should have agreed amongst themselves at least what kind of peace they wanted to get, and what terms were they going to impose on Germany. But they didn't and the whole business of negotiating the armistice was shoddy and improvised.
Agree with the second point, but not so sure about the first. The Allied Powers were not interested in negotiations by the time the German Spring Offensive had been beaten.
QuoteIn short, Wilhelm II, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Maximilian von Baden and the Germans in general can't have been so gullible as to believe they were going to get a peace based in the 14 points (in January 1918, perhaps, but that was 10 months before and a world apart) and can't have been so stupid as to have signed the armistice without understanding the implications. It was a barely disguised unconditional surrender and nothing else.
To be fair, the kaiser was out of the picture. I think it not unreasonable for the Germans to believe that they would end up in a kind of Congress of Vienna situation. It was, of course, the bitterness when that didn't happen that led to the Second Great Unpleasantness.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 08:14:56 AM
It was, of course, the bitterness when that didn't happen that led to the Second Great Unpleasantness.
Well...it was mostly French and British weakness combined with American isolationism that opened the power vacuum that any defeated Germany would have been hard pressed to ignore. Japan and Italy were, after all, on the winning side and they had a pretty significant role in driving the events of the Second Great Unpleasantness.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2009, 07:47:24 AM
I guess that comment of mine must have left a mark, eh? :lol:
Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2009, 08:48:56 AM
Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.
:cry: Weak. Oh, troll, where is thy sting?
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 09:08:51 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2009, 08:48:56 AM
Indeed. Your trolling skills are magnificent, almost as good as you believe your debating skills to be.
:cry: Weak. Oh, troll, where is thy sting?
Your comprehension is lacking though.
That backhanded compliment was dead serious. :mellow:
That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.
Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2009, 11:33:06 AM
Your comprehension is lacking though.
That backhanded compliment was dead serious. :mellow:
Wow. :mellow: I am crushed. :mellow:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2009, 11:56:15 AM
That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.
Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.
Not quite sure what Italy would do with all that Dalmatian hinterland, but I presume the "Yugoslavia" on the map is meant to represent a non-Versailles universe coming together of the southern Slavs into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Without the Slovenes. Peculiar.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 23, 2009, 11:56:15 AM
That last map of Tim's pretty much looks like Versailles; with the exception of Germany trading Alsace-Lorraine for forgiveness.
Well, that and Baby Marshal Tito bringing Yugoslavia into fruition a bit too early for primetime.
The eastern borders are much more favorable to Germany as well.
Maps not mine though, I just had it saved on my hard drive.
Quote from: Warspite on June 23, 2009, 12:31:13 PM
Not quite sure what Italy would do with all that Dalmatian hinterland, but I presume the "Yugoslavia" on the map is meant to represent a non-Versailles universe coming together of the southern Slavs into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Without the Slovenes. Peculiar.
Ethnically cleanse it and resettle it with Italians?
That map is much more agreeable; it retains greater hungary in part.
Quote from: Lettow77 on June 23, 2009, 12:47:50 PM
That map is much more agreeable; it retains greater hungary in part.
Just by giving them Slovakia and Ruthenia. That would not really have made the Hungarians or the Slovaks or Ruthenians happy.
Not that people ever really are happy in the part of the world.
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 11:59:52 AM
Wow. :mellow: I am crushed. :mellow:
You know, it's rather ungracious of you really. I tell you you're a great troll(possibly the best on Languish, though Jaron is more entertaining to the spectators) and you reply by telling me I'm a weak troll. I should probably be offended. :D
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 23, 2009, 11:38:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 11:59:52 AM
Wow. :mellow: I am crushed. :mellow:
You know, it's rather ungracious of you really. I tell you you're a great troll(possibly the best on Languish, though Jaron is more entertaining to the spectators) and you reply by telling me I'm a weak troll. I should probably be offended. :D
Grumbler has achieved a zen like state in trolling. He can out troll anyone with out knowning he does it.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2009, 11:55:43 PM
Grumbler has achieved a zen like state in trolling. He can out troll anyone with out knowning he does it.
See, PW,
this is how you do a backhanded compliment! :lol:
Apparently, now Russian public TV has broadcaster a "historical documentary" according to which Poland had a pre-war deal with Hitler to invade the Soviets. :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on June 23, 2009, 08:14:56 AM
Actually, he could speak for the Allies because he conducted negotiations with the British and French before he returned his reply to von Baden (and, in fact, gave in to the French demand for German payment of damages, which is why those provisions were in the armistice note). It is true that there were no "Allies." The correspondence all reads "The Allied Powers and the United States."
And to Great Britain regarding 'freedom of the seas' IIRC...
QuoteAgain, I think that this is going too far. Had the German Army known what the Allied Powers had in mind for a peace settlement, I daresay they would have fought on to final defeat.
They could have kept the fight for one or two months, but the situation was a bit like February or March 1945, collapse was unavoidable... and there was that little red revolution thing too.
A good question in my opinion is... what shocked them so much? The fourteen points already included the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, an independent Poland with a "free and secure" access to the sea, all French territory to be freed and "the invaded portions restored" (i.e. war reparations), etc.
This doesn't mean Versailles was 100% fair or clever, because portions like the "War Guilt Clause" were plainly stupid and counterproductive, the disarmament of Germany (and the other central powers, a point often forgotten) implied an eternal state of 'no war, no peace', reparations were excessive and badly conceived, etc, etc... but imperial Germany had bet so much in the last months that she stood to lose much.
In any case, German democratic politicians could be rightly shocked, but the men that had run the war, no. They should have known what kind of peace they were likely going to get, knowing what kind of peace they themselves had been planning, and had already imposed on Russia and Rumania.
QuoteAgree with the second point, but not so sure about the first. The Allied Powers were not interested in negotiations by the time the German Spring Offensive had been beaten.
I was very ambiguous there, my bad. I was thinking of January, when Wilson exposed his fourteen points, or February, not of August or September. After the Spring Offensive the die was cast.
QuoteI think it not unreasonable for the Germans to believe that they would end up in a kind of Congress of Vienna situation. It was, of course, the bitterness when that didn't happen that led to the Second Great Unpleasantness.
In my opinion (not that you are alone in this, far from it, I know I'm in the minority here) you assign too much importance to Versailles itself and too little to French policy 1919-1933. The endless disputes about the reparations, the occupation of the Ruhr, the utter lack of flexibility regarding military clauses... in other words, I think Versailles wasn't so bad a concept; it could have worked if applied fairly and modified gradually as time passed. Perhaps if America had joined the League, or Britain given more especific guarantees to France and kept a stronger army... but all that is history-fiction.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 06:32:19 AM
Apparently, now Russian public TV has broadcaster a "historical documentary" according to which Poland had a pre-war deal with Hitler to invade the Soviets. :lol:
The poor Russians, always victims of ruthless Polish aggression.