Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009

  I'll try to keep this historical and troll-free!
  
  Have demilitarised zones ever really worked as a deterrent? Or do they exacerbate tensions between uncomfortable neighbours; France and Germany in the Rhineland in 1936, or North and South Vietnam in 1956?

  Link to this forum: Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009

  Going by those two examples, I'd say no.

  Link to this forum: Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009

  I think it all depends on what you wanted the Rhineland DMZ to do - it was a demilitarised zone for the purposes of economic explotation (as well as a buffer zone between two countries).
  
  The fact is that as far as I'm aware the French and British should have dived and ruled it ruthlessly like the Nazi's did in Poland/Galicia/Ukraine - found some "Rhineish" sepratists, backed them to hilt with arms and then made sure the NSDAP never gained a foothold in Rhineland politics.
  
  The DMZ between North & South Vietnam was in effect invisible given fact VC/NVA could go around it!
  
  The one on 55th Paralell only suceeds in stopping two warring factions - I cant see this system being adopted in "challenging areas" as both parties have to want to cooperate to some extent with a peace-keeping force - not many of those type of conflicts around....
  
  It's interesting though that in recent histroy where a DMZ could have been used (the Balkans) it wasn't as we back one side militarily and it wasn't in our best interests to let an armed populace loose on an area where there would have been no army (only a lightly armed/equipped gendarmerie).
  
  Maybe if we'd realised that a "armde formation" on the Rhineland in 1936 that was backing a democratically elected government might have stopped the NSDAP.

  Link to this forum: Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009

  It would appear then, that a DMZ is fairly pointless! Although I'm not sure an armed force in the Rhineland would have had much effect on the NSDAP; by 1936 they were pretty determined to do what was laid out in their "Party Programme" in 1920 (which remained relatively unchanged).
  
  I wonder though, if maybe an armed force would have discouraged many more ordinary Germans from supporting a move of troops into the DMZ, the memories of a bitter defeat still fresh in their minds...

  Link to this forum: Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by MattJ18 (U13798409) on Monday, 22nd June 2009

  DMZs are effective if stopping two countries going to war over a mistake made by nervous soldiers peering in to the darkness on an armed border (E.g. North/South Korea). They're not a method of lasting peace though as the armies are just slightly further apart!
  
  Countries that trust each other don't need soldiers on the borders.

  Link to this forum: Historical Effectiveness of Demilitarised Zones

  Report message5

Back to top