Wars and Conflicts permalink
The End of the WAr to end all Wars!
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Have you folks realized that the Great War, or the War to end all Wars, or as we now say WW1 ended yesterday! Yesterday? Yes because the treaty of Versailles as not a Peace treaty. It was an agreement according to which Germany was supposed to pay reparations for the entire war, and yesterday Germany paid off its final reparation installment. Germany is now free of any so-called obligations to the Allies.
WW1 was the wrong war and its real purpose was not what it was purported to be.
ON the face of it, the Austrian heir to the throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian Nationalist. The real reasons for the war were quite different.
The war ended a whole era and brought us to the modern world. The world was previously ruled by a bunch of Empires, now it was a host of small countries.
It gave rise to a Charismatic illegitimate Corporal, who had tons of hubris, against the 'Jews for controlling Germany, against the Allies for imposing Versailles on Germany, On the Russians for being Bolsheviks. On the Slavs and other peoples for not being Aryan!'
As a result of this war, Bolshevism came to the forefront. It disbanded the Russian Empire and created a new Empire, the Soviet Union, and it created the Bolsheviks to rule in Russia, with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and all their ruthlessness.
So what were the good things that resulted, if any from WW1? Did any side gain anything from WW1? Did anyone gain anything from WW1?
Were there any good Generals that emerged from WW1? Or was it one blunder after another? Which was the biggest strategic blunder of WW1?
Let us discuss the whole thing, now that it is over, at long last.
Tas -
Message 2
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 4th October 2010
ON the face of it, the Austrian heir to the throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian Nationalist. The real reasons for the war were quite different.
Quite. Germany planned to establish hegemony in Europe by manipulating a diplomatic crisis into a general European war, defeating first France and then Russia which were seen as the two principal threats to its security and power grab. -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Tas, could i point out that you have committed the same errors as Grumpyfred in his thread on the American War Of Rebellion.
You have conflated intention with accidental consequence.
You have not put forward any supporting evidence.
Apart from that, see Allan D for further details. -
Message 4
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Hi Tas,
So what were the good things that resulted, if any from WW1? Did any side gain anything from WW1? Did anyone gain anything from WW1?
The lucky ones were those states, established out from the Austria-Hungarian Empire. The re-estlishment of Poland and the huge gain on territory by Rumania and Serbia (the latter creating the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), on the expence of former Hungaria territory. So much for Central and South-East Europe. Not to forget the Baltic States which also gained their independence from the former Tsarist Russia. That all lasted for around 20 years and the adjustering of the European Map in the aftermath of WWII brought up just a few alterations, with the exception that the Baltic States had to wait another 50 years since occupation by the Soviet Union to get their freedom again.
There seems to be no big gains on the Allies side, aside from the reparations payments from Germany and Austria.
Were there any good Generals that emerged from WW1?
I think on Charles De Gaulle, by this although he became General just in the second world war, but he is the personal symbol for the French Resistance, while I think on Marshall Petain by this:
Or was it one blunder after another? Which was the biggest strategic blunder of WW1?
for his collaboration regime of Vichy. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Hi Thomas,
I think Vichy France was the blunder of WW2.
Probably some of the bigger blunders were in the once Ottoman Empire and in Gallipoli.
The Ottomans had long survived because they always sided with Britain which often extricated them from a ferocious enemy, albeit for its own reasons. However, as a prelude to WW1, came a so-called revolution of the Young Turks in Turkey, lead by that brash and frankly idiotic Enver Pasha. He changed Turkey's alliance from the British to the Germans; as a consequence Turkey got into WW1 unnecessarily. It could have kept away or stayed with the Brits. When WW1 ended Turkey lost its entire Empire, not only in the West but more specifically in the Middle-East.
It was only the emergence of Kemal Ataturk who saved Turkey from being swallowed by Greece.
This blunder was followed by Churchill's attempt to take over the Gallipoli peninsula with a handful of obsolete ships. That resulted in the whole Gallipoli expedition, which cost the Anzacs, the Indians, the Brits numerous lives; not to speak of the Turks.
I suspect there were many more military blunders on the Eastern and Western front, for example, by the Russians at Tannenburg, which others will probably bring to our attention.
I just want to say one thing. It is not bad being part of a great Empire, if the governance is good. It is only the revolution that follows the break up of any great empire that brings about a lot of unnecessary horror. I am thinking here of the horrible events when the Brits decided to depart from India in 1947, also largely a consequence of WW1.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Hi Tas,
I´ve taken your second question (Which was the biggest strategic blunder of WW1?) accidentally into my quotation.
I´m not sure that even if the Turks had been on the British side of an Alliance in WWI, they´d not to face some uprisings from other tribes within their Empire. But I´m sure of the strategically advantage the British had had with the Ottoman Empire on their side to have access to the Black Sea.
It is not bad being part of a great Empire, if the governance is good. It is only the revolution that follows the break up of any great empire that brings about a lot of unnecessary horror. I am thinking here of the horrible events when the Brits decided to depart from India in 1947, also largely a consequence of WW1.
That turns up the question whether the people in India were treaten better in accordance to a "good governance" unter the British. Self-determination without being part of an colonial Empire has its own power and the sooner or later, it´ll have its way to establish freedom from colonial powers.
Therefore not only largely a consequence of WWI, but a consequence of much longer period of British rule in India. I may be wrong in this, but I often got the impression that all the people within the British Empire, were not treaten equally to those "native" from the British Islands. Officially the differences might be not admitted, but behind that, the distinctions were there, and this not only by the "class system" of the British. Gandhi experienced that, although he was a lawyer, he was treaten like a "second class citizen" in South-Africa. Not much difference to the time when he got back to India.
Thomas -
Message 7
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Were there any good Generals that emerged from WW1? Or was it one blunder after another?
One answer is that all the good generals of WW2 emerged from WW1, where they were junior officers.
As for 'one blunder after another', I think the more you know about the subject the less confidence you have that, if you had been in command, you would have done it better.
But to pick on one WW1 general, if you wanted an picture to illustrate a stupid out-of-touch Colonel Blimp, you would probably go for the round face and big white moustache of Herbert Plumer. Even his name suggests he had a plummy voice! Yet the reality was that this was probably our best army commander. -
Message 8
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
I was amazed when I read this news story. How ironic that Germany was still paying reparations when the last survivor of the trenches died.
I suppose it's a reminder of what a lng shadow that war cast.
As far as interpretation is concerned: my impression is that historians started by blaming Germany, then there was a move away from blaming any particular country, but now things have come full circle and its OK to blame the Germans again. -
Message 9
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
I gather that the repayments were allowed to lapse through the 1930s and '40s but were revived in 1990 because the two Germanies had reunited. The new single country was content with this arrangement because it was bearable and finite, running for only twenty years.
-
Message 10
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
As you folks know, I try to analyze matters for myself, and I do no see Germany as the only one to blame; I think there is enough blame to be shared by all sides.
I think Britain, France, Russia just as recklessly, marched to war. The general impression seems to have been that the war would last till Christmas.
How was Germany to blame? Because they broke international law by marching into Belgium according to the Schlieffen plan?
I do not agree with Allan D above that Germany had the nefarious design of wanting to become top dog in Europe. I suspect Germany had in a very short time become a great industrial, a great naval power, and a highly successful economic entity, after the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. The French, having lost Alsace Lorraine had a lot of hubris toward the Germans.
I think the Brits were also worried about another Great Power rising in Europe and taking something from its own Great Empire.
I do not think Germany was totally blameless, but to put the blame entirely on the Germans is I think totally unfair.
I think the reparations should not have been only the obligation of Germany, but also of France, Russia, Britain and of Austria.
I think in Britain, your policy has for long been to try to cut down anyone becoming too strong in Europe; You were against Napoleon, and later against the Germans. In India you also used brilliant diplomacy to divide your enemies.
In the 1940s and 1950s, with the emergence of the Common Market and the existence of the Soviet Union and the rise of America, you created the Anglo-American Alliance, forgetting the war of American Revolution of 1776, and of 1812 and any remaining hubris from that long period.
It is the Anglo-American Alliance that makes you tall in the modern world; else what is Britain today? It is one of the larger and more prosperous states of Western Europe; not quite as successful as Germany, about as successful as France.
I think the 1930s American policy of isolation was wrong, because Hitler definitely needed to be curbed by any and every means, so the Anglo American alliance was right. Also the subsequent cold war, insinuated by Churchill's 'iron curtain' speech, was also right. However, we Americans should be vary and not get involved in unnecessary peccadilloes.
The Vietnam war and the Iraq wars were totally unnecessary. We should keep our energy and our resources for the coming struggle to be the World's 'Numero Uno' with China in the second half of the present century.
This is not going to be a conventional cold war; the Chinese have too much guile for that. It will more likely be a soft struggle, in which the state of the economics vis à vis one with the other, which countries are the clients of which and to what extent, the fact who is owing how much to whom, and many other factors will play a role. In this struggle, we will have to be very intelligent in all our dealings with the world and with China. And Britain will play an important role, if the Brits are as astute as they usually are. I hope, together, we do not mess it up.
Tas -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Idamante
It is interesting- as you say- to see how things have gone a full circle; and the reason I would suggesst is that we are back with the question of just how the power of a united Germany fits into the status quo.
The concept of German war guilt owed much to the fact that the emergence of Germany in 1871 after the quick victory of the Franco-Prussian War heralded the dawn of a new age as Germany seized the advantages of the new economic, technological and scientific age to make power the overwhelming factor in life..
It came around the same time as the Vatican Decrees made the Infallibility of the Pope (left really only with unearthly spiritual power) official doctrine- much to the dismay of the Liberal Catholic Lord Acton, who was keeping an eye on things for his German teacher/master. As Professor of History at Cambridge Acton was to coin his famous phrase "All power corrupts. But absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Nevertheless, just as Neville Chamberlain later said "In an armed and arming world Britain can not possibly be the only country not to be armed"-- the whole cult of aggression, militancy and overwhelming force was made to appear "the way ahead".
At one time it was thought to be a kind of "Anglo-Saxon" thing because it was also happening in the USA where the last Plains Indians were treated by the US much as the Germans i their new Imperial adventures- "the ring of steel". History books like J.R. Green's encouraged the English to remember their Germanic roots and be worthy of those who had come and slaughtered the native British to make "living space".
The warnings from people before 1914 that a modern and industrial war would be unwinnable -such would be the damage- were ignored: and it seemed very much that the German attitude to war elevated it to almost religious status. The Germans were prepared for a "Great War" almost opportunistically and, finding themselves facing the war on two fronts, basically seem to have had one answer- the Schlieffen Plan- that would solve the problem in one great thrust to west and east.
The Peace of Versailles tried to dismember Germany into pieces that would fit more easily into a new world of peace with issues decided by the League of Nations. But the failure of the inter-war experiment that brought World Chaos gave credence to the Nazi programme of restoring "the Reich".
After the destruction, denazification, and division of Germany after 1945, the "German problem" was addressed by the creation of the Common Market, EEC ,EU.. But Germany is once more united, becoming strong once more and must be wondering whether to continue funding the EU- especially if Turkey continues to be refused entry.
Interesting that some of the Al Quaidah killed in Pakistan yesterday were German nationals of Turkish-Muslim roots.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Interesting that some of the Al Quaidah killed in Pakistan yesterday were German nationals of Turkish-Muslim roots.
These are some side-effects from nationalising our immigrants and immigrant descending people, Cass.
But I know of one incident in which a German, converted to Islam (with no Muslim or immigrant roots) went to Israel to fight on the side of the Palestinians a couple of years ago. He was captured by the Israeli Police and put on trial for attempting an terrorist assult in Israel. That man was in his twenties.
Thomas -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Thomas B
It came as a bit of a shock to a family here when their son ended up being killed as a Muslim Fundamentalist in the conflict as Yugoslavia got torn apart.. No Muslim connection either.. Same school and generation as our son. It gave me some anxieties when our son got together with his wife (since last year) over 10 years ago.. She is Croatian-- and fortunately anti-war... A lovely daughter-in-law..
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
How was Germany to blame? Because they broke international law by marching into Belgium according to the Schlieffen plan?
I think it's more about how they egged on the Austrian allies to confront Serbia, which was bound to bring the Russians in. The Prussian/German military, who had more than their fair share of power & influence in Germany, created this situation because they wanted to force a war against Russia before that country got too powerful.
That at least is how I remember the story... -
Message 15
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Tas,
<>
I think it was the hardline attitude of Clemenceau at the Versailles Conference that led to reparations being imposed. Lloyd George was opposed to such a policy but Clemenceau got his way. -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Cass,
This world has been and will be a creasy place. During the Yugoslavian Wars, there was a report that some "German Neo-Nazis" went down there to Croatia to fight on the Croatian side against the Serbian forces. It was then some of a "late spring" for the Ustasha, the Fascist Movement in Croatia during the second world war. This shows that even for decades, in an Communist State, such ideas have survived.
On the side of the Bosnians, the Muslims by that name (because even Serbian and Croatian descendents call themselves not as Bosnian), there were reports that they´d recruted young men in Germany from their Muslim communities here to go down there and fight in that war. I don´t know how many, but some of them went there. On the other side, we had war-refugees here who fled the war and came here with not speaking or understanding a single word German. But they´ve managed to get as better integrated than some people from other nationalities, living here since three generations.
Thomas -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
LairigGhru
The reparations question was a "triumph for democracy".. From at least the time of the story of the Belgian attrocities there had been a real attempt to weld public opinion to the war- especially the (unenfranchised) women and the ordinary male working class. The wartime experience was a strange mix of terrible news from the front line, and actually a much more prosperous life for most working class families. As the end of the war drew near the right to vote was extended and the subsequent General Election was dominated by the popular demand that Germany should be made to pay "until the pips squeak"..Only politicians who committed themselves to this policy seemed likely to get elected- and- though of course politicians may ultimately renege on election promises, in this case prevarifcation seemed sensible. After all war was still going on, or breaking out in revolutionary activity.
After all the sum of Reparations was not worked out until many years later, and had the USA backed Wilson and his plan for Europe and a peaceful world the kind of solution in which the USA helped the Germans to pay off France might have happened earlier and more easily.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
I think the Allies were very different than they are today. In Britain they banned Beethoven's music. The atmosphere was extremely jingoistic at that time. The British Royal family changed its name to Windsor from Saxe-Coburg and the Mountbattens changed their family name from Battenberg to its English translation of Mountbatten. The city of Berlin in Ontario, Canada changed its name to Kitchner from Berlin.
The Minster for War, Lord Haldane, who had studied in Germany, strongly opposed a war with Germany. He was reviled in the press. Anyone with any connection with Germany was suspected to be disloyal.
WW1 inevitably lead to the rise of Hitler, who would never have dreamed of being the Reichkanzellor and Dictator of such a great country. He would, in normal circumstances, have been laughed off the stage.
Before WW1, wars were fought between armies on a field of battle; from WW1 civilians were always involved in wars. It brought about the first bombing of civilians, by the Zepplin ships, foreshadowing the Blitz of 1940s.
Weapons such as poison gas, were used for the first time, and there was heavy use of Machine guns during human wave charges at Somme and Verdun.
The War to end all Wars, was an extremely bloody conflict, with no morals left and no glory in warfare.
It lead to the end of European Power and brought about an augmentation of the power of the United States.
There weren't many heroes that came out of that war. Instead it brought about the Age of Dictators. After the war there were many villains created by the aftereffects of the war; Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco and many others.
Tas -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Tas
I think that the drift to the Age of the Dictators was directly connected to the fact that "the War to End All Wars" inevitably meant that it was going to be an end of modern Civilization..
If we think of the Medieval period as the period of- as G.G. Coulton put it- "The Omnicompetence of the Church"- which theoretically at least believed in a "default position" in which all parties in Christendom were expected to return to God's peace at the end of conflicts in which they had turned to the God of Battles.
The modern period of European history was one in which kingdoms managed to throw off the God-given authority of the Pope, in favour of the Omnicompetence of the State..And, as with that definition of Prof Barker I used some time ago-, by definition the State was an agency that possessed a practical competence in Earthly matters that could dominate and coerce people in domestic affairs and defeat its enemies abroad.
The positive intentions behind Peace of Versailles were aimed at ending this whole phase of history, by removing the means and the causes of wars and conflicts:
(a)by liberating peoples and giving them a voice, either through states that had a duty to speak up for all members of that "nation" [as Hitler claimed the right to speak for German minorities] or by giving them seats in the assembly of the League of Nations. My 1947 'Advanced History of India' seems to suggest that the Native States within the Raj were both invited to send representatives to the Versailles talks and to the League.
and
(b) weakening the military capabilities that had made the pre-war situation so delicate. But a State without military capability was no longer the kind of State that had forged the modern world. And not just because of the capacity of a modern military to wage war, but also because of its value in underpinning peace.Since 1945 for example that fact that defence spending in the USA accounted for something like 20% of GDP created a forward dynamic for all kinds of high level economic, scientific and technological "assets"- and it also created futures for much more modest people.
As someone who has an affection for Fifties Britain you may be as touched as I was to hear of the death of Norman Wisdom yesterday at the age of 95. Born into poverty and living on the streets he eventually joined the forces and found "the family" that he had always missed.
He became a bandsman in the Army, learning how to play a huge range of instruments. I think that it was in India that he began to be a serious entertainer -so little to do in the Raj during the "Quit India" times. I seem to remember that he became the all-Indian Army boxing champion of his weight category.. And on leaving the army he was encouraged to try to become a professional entertainer.. He had a 60 year career.
But- one of the things that people did not bother to say yesterday- while he was on Broadway making it in America, his wife abandonned him and their children. He immediately gave up his career to be a good father to his children.. for as long as they needed him at home
At the age of ten I won a talent competition singing "Don't laugh at me cause I'm a fool".. He was no fool but a wise man..
As for me....
Regards
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Cass,
I can't resist recounting an anecdote that Norman gave in a documentary about his life.
His mother bought him a tricycle and he was naturally thrilled to bits with it - until his cruel father came home from work, took one look at it and smashed it up before his eyes.
Out of kindness to Norman's father's memory, perhaps we should assume that he was one of those men messed up by his experiences in the Great War.
Someone like Norman who had it in him to rise above such early terrible experiences in his early life and glow as he did, deserve our highest admiration. -
Message 21
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Lairig Ghru
Thanks for that..I agree..
What an amazing business this bridging of the Iron Curtain with his work being accepted as "politically correct" in Albania!
And perhaps I should add re this thread that I realised many years ago that history has tended to do a disservice to the people who tried to make sense of the way the world was going and find direction and purpose in that inter-war period that did so much to shape people like NW..
I was mentioning to someone in the Garden Centre today that Winifred Holtby, Vera Brittain's great friend and ally in support of the League of Nations and Peace [who I have assumed was Shirley William's godmother] had inscribed on her tombstone when she died tragically at the age of 35 c1935- "God give me work till my life is done, and Life till my work is done."
As you say those who rise above darkness to glow and brighten the life of others deserve the admiration and gratitude of us all...
Cass -
Message 22
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Hi Cass,
<<""God give me work till my life is done, and Life till my work is done." >>
You definitely come up with so many original ideas and thoughts. You definitely enrich any string you participate in.
I read your previous message and there was so much original, that I will read it one more time.
Thanks for your thoughts and ideas.
best regards,
Tas -
Message 23
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Re: message 2.
Hello Allan,
On the cause of the Great War you write:
Germany planned to establish hegemony in Europe by manipulating a diplomatic crisis into a general European war, defeating first France and then Russia which were seen as the two principal threats to its security...
I agree on the security part and I disagree on the hegemony part. The von Schlieffen plan was ethically no worse than any other military plan; as a matter of fact, the French and Russians knew about the von Schlieffen plan and had plans for the Russian army to invade East Prussia, which they knew would be unprotected for at least six weeks. Russia was the first country in the Great War to invade foreign country, but unfortunately for the Entente, the Germans didn't stick to the original plan and beat the Russians in the fourth week of the Great War.
No historian has ever been able to show a German plan for European hegemony before August ''14. The reason for the outbreak of the Great War was the fear of the German military for the French and Russian rearmament that would change the balance of power in favour of the Entente.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 24
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Re: message 19.
Hello Cass,
Your list of measures conceived to prevent another outbreak of war shows exactly the flaw in these plans. Germany originally took up arms in 1914 because its military feared having to fight a war at two fronts after 1916, in which the odds would be in favour of the Entente because of the French and Russian rearmament. The cure to German aggression would have been to offer an alliance to Germany, but the Western Powers failed to do so. After January 1933 there could of course be no question of offering Germany to join a Western alliance, so German aggression was pre-programmed.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 25
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
It´s fine that you appreciate the writing style of Cass.
I once got his permission to post links from his project on the h2g2 page where ever I like to make his project more public, so there it is:
I took the time to read them all and I admit that this is not less to read, but you also may find parts in there of your interest. I really would recommend you to have a try on this and I also think, that Cass would appreciate your thoughts on his thoughts, written there in his essays. So he would get some opinions from another reader, not just mine.
You definitely come up with so many original ideas and thoughts. You definitely enrich any string you participate in.
This is what I´ve recognised there too.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 26
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
The cure to German aggression would have been to offer an alliance to Germany, but the Western Powers failed to do so. After January 1933 there could of course be no question of offering Germany to join a Western alliance, so German aggression was pre-programmed.
To have this been working, it had been demanded an alteration of the terms and conditions of the Versailles Treaty about the disarmament of German Forces. In regards of the appeasement policy of the British Governments and the resentiments of the French, then still there, there was no way to set up an alliance between Germany and the Western Powers. Remarkably, there has been cooperative contacts between the German Reichswehr and the Red Army, even during the dictatorship of Hitler, they were maintained up to the Hitler-Stalin-Pact. Sounds odd, but it worked.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 27
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Re: message 26
Hello Thomas,
On the chances that the Western Powers would have offered Germany to join a Western alliance in the Interwar period you write:
In regards of …the resentiments of the French, then still there, there was no way to set up an alliance between Germany and the Western Powers.
I’m aware that this would have stood no chance of being realized during the Interwar period. The conclusion must be that the Great War could not bring about what it was supposed to do: end all wars.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 28
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
I fully agree with you on:
The conclusion must be that the Great War could not bring about what it was supposed to do: end all wars.
I wonder whether the foundation of NATO had taken place if the Red Army had not taken East-Europe under their control. What has started in 1914 reached its end with the second world war and the cold war in its aftermath, just in 1990.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Thomas, Tas
Thank you for your positive comments- as ever.. They are particularly appreciated at the moment- dark hours.
Re- A civilized deal to end the First World War, Aldous Huxley in his post-1945 edition of "Brave New World" points out that some British peer in c1917, from memory Lord Halifax-?-, recommended the kind of talks that ended the wars of the Eighteenth Century-- so that, for example, the Treaty of Paris in 1763 was quite unpopular with the English public because they thought that it did not squeeze enough out of Britain's strong military situation.. Statesmanship and democracy do not seem to go hand in hand: and that suggestion resulted in the public villification of the politican who suggested it..
Cass -
Message 30
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Thomas,
I forgot to ask in message 27; have you read about the German reunification in 1990 and how lucky Kohl has been in the latest issue of “Der Spiegel?”
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 31
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
I don´t read Der Spiegel since years, because I take informations about current affairs from the news paper and the TV. I think that Kohl - although I´ve not much estimate about him - had taken the chance to bring the reunification on its way. I also respect the efforts he took to convince the former Allied Powers of WWII to agree to the German reunification. What I don´t share is the public opinion (brought up by most of the German media, and beyond), that it was his engagement in these matters that brought Germany to reunification. In this matter the courage of the people in the former GDR to stand up against their regime has often been neglected, at least just mentioned as a side remark. Our current Federal President has given those people the rightous credit for what they dared 21 years ago.
May Herr Kohl be lucky on this what he achieved to reunite Germany, but may he also be remembered for the failings in creating a new start for a new Germany with more direct democracy and the enforement of the "Solidaritätszuschlag" (Solidarity taxation for the East) in which we payed huge amounts to bring the East to modern standards.
According to our Federal Constitution (the Grundgesetz), there was stated that after reunification, a new constitution had to be worked out and given the German people to vote on this in a referendum. This hasn´t taken place and so we stick on a provisional constitution without the legitimacy by a peoples referendum. Although I personally regard that Grundgesetz as the best constitution this country ever had, it wouldn´t done it great harm if the politicians, and so Herr Kohl, had modified it and taken to the people for vote in a referendum. This had demanded an open debate before, but shortly after the reunification took place, there were other problems to tackle than this, which I understand.
Nevertheless, it was Herr Kohls constitutional duty to engage in negitiontions to reunify Germany and he obiously did well, but that´s no reason to me to glorify him for that. The demands for reunification started in the then still existing GDR, after Honecker was overthrown, by the people there. There were some debates about whether reunification shall take place here in the West, but no demands by the people as it was to see in the GDR.
One of his remarks was (so far I recall it well) "Der Mantel der Geschichte hat mich gestriffen" (the Coat of History passed me), and he took it.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 32
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Thomas,
To be fair to “Der Spiegel” I must admit that they mention explicitly the part the East German population had in bringing down the East German government.
I didn’t know about the new constitution that had to be worked out, but I think that if a majority of the German people really had felt that the German constitution had to be changed, they would have complained in Karlsruhe by now.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 33
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
We had some debates about the new constitution, but there was nobody who stressed to open a case therefore in Karlsruhe. The economical problems were on top priority and quite frankly, a constitution which works good, is in no need to be replaced by a new one, let alone when that new constitution just would change the name from "Grundgesetz" to "Verfassung" by the same meaning.
We had a more emotive debate about the European Constitution which has been turned down by your country and we wished that we had had the same chance to vote on this. The outcome would as well had been expected like the result in the Netherlands in that time.
Most articles I´ve read in "Der Spiegel" are good with an special focus on the subject, but I bought that only on occasions when they came up with historical and very interesting political topics. But they had as well topics repeated (like some stories from WWII), but the DVDs with the magazine are cheaper than to buy it as DVD alone.
Regards,
Thomas -
Message 34
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hi Cass,
<<"Statesmanship and democracy do not seem to go hand in hand: and that suggestion resulted in the public villification of the politican who suggested it..">>
Cass, that is what we are feeling so much here in America, with the Tea Party movement attempting to take over all that is sane and reasonable.
Best wishes,
Tas -
Message 35
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
that is what we are feeling so much here in America, with the Tea Party movement attempting to take over all that is sane and reasonable. How many of you exactly?
-
Message 36
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Hi Suvoretz,
Most of us who have a brain!
How would you respond to a tea party candidate who starts her ad by "I am not a witch!"
She has not held a job since ten years and is under investigation for embezzlement of her campaign funds, has broken numerous election laws.
Yet she purports to be the voice of the people. It is pathetic!
Tas -
Message 37
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Most of us who have a brain! Aside from the red herring, you must be considering Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jay, Madison, and Hamilton to have been brainless. That's pretty bold, I give you that.
-
Message 38
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
She has not held a job since ten years and is under investigation for embezzlement of her campaign funds, has broken numerous election laws.
Unlike upstanding representatives of the people such as Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Rod Blogo..., let's just call him Bloggo - remind me which party does he belong to? The witch comment was brought up by the remarkably unfunny Bill Maher, the far-left comedian (?), who dredged up a comment Ms O'Donnell made about a high school indiscretion when she was a regular guest on his TV show 11 years ago.
I think I'd sooner vote for a witch (and a rather attractive one at that) than a self-confessed Marxist which Mrs O'Donnell's opponent (who has also had no experience in the private sector) at one time claimed to be. Today's witch often turns out to be tomorrow's national heroine - remember the Maid of Orleans? -
Message 39
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Wow. Alan.
And you wanted me banned from this message board not that long ago. 
-
Message 40
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Yesterday's banned person is tomorrow's national saviour - Gandhi anyone?
-
Message 41
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Allan,
I am deeply disappointed!
Tas -
Message 42
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Re: message 33.
Hello Thomas,
On the reason why no Germans complained at Karlsruhe you write:
The economical problems were on top priority and quite frankly, a constitution which works good, is in no need to be replaced by a new one,...
The Germans seem to have been looking for a pragmatic approach.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 43
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Hello Poldertijger,
You can see it that way if you like as it was something like a pragmatic approach, because the Grundgesetz has been alterated for various times since it became enforced to political purposes which demanded the alteration of the constitution. It´s not easy to bring alterations through the two chambers we have, because it demands a majority of two thirds of the Parliament and the Bundesrat.
Regards,
Thomas
PS: I´m sorry for your two closed threads. -
Message 44
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 8th October 2010
She has not held a job since ten years and is under investigation for embezzlement of her campaign funds, has broken numerous election laws.
Yet she purports to be the voice of the people. It is pathetic!
What's wrong with the Democrats that they allow these Tea Party types to pose as 'the voice of the people'? I get the impression that once they'd got Obama into the White House they all went back to sleep.
As this is a History board can anyone think of useful historical parallels? -
Message 45
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Maybe what's wrong with the Democrats is that they have done too much rather than too little and they represent the elites rather than the people. America was created out of a resistance to government interference and the imposition of additional taxation even if it was intended for their own good which fuelled the original Tea Party movement.
I'm glad to see the temper of the American people does not appear to have changed much whilst King Barack and his followers display the same obduracy and imperviousness to the prevailing zeitgeist displayed by George III and his acolytes. They may well meet their Saratoga in a few weeks' time and their Yorktown ere long if they do not change course.
But what has this to do with Neville Chamberlain? Except of course that he too was wildly acclaimed for a policy that turned out to be totally disastrous. -
Message 46
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 8th October 2010
posted by Allan D
America was created out of a resistance to government interference and the imposition of additional taxation even if it was intended for their own good which fuelled the original Tea Party movement.
I´ve read something about the original Tea Party movement, but they used for their own "Public Relations" goes beyond the beyond, as to see in the picture below.
I´ve only one word for that: disgusting. -
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 8th October 2010
they used for their own "Public Relations" goes beyond the beyond, as to see in the picture below.
www.newstatesman.com...
I´ve only one word for that: disgusting. Granted, this is an overstatement, but this level of discourse has been long ago launched and ratcheted up by the currently ruling Democratic Party and Obama himself. There's been nothing like a good decade-long Bush bashing ( , and it still goes on, even though he's long out of a public eye. I guess, George Bush is an American equivalent of a Jew in Europe. -
Message 48
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Hi suvorovetz,
I guess, George Bush is an American equivalent of a Jew in Europe.
I think that without him going to war in Iraq and Afganisthan, he would probably been forgotten. The shadows of 9/11 are to big as that they´ll be forgotten easily in the years to come. To compare him with a Jew in Europe, leaves a bad taste, for you could also say so to the "Blair-bashing" that still goes on.
To me, as an outsider the Tea Party appears more like a radical political movement, threatening the democracy of the USA. I guess you may know them better, from what I´ve read in your posts. -
Message 49
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 8th October 2010
I think that without him going to war in Iraq and Afganisthan, he would probably been forgotten. The shadows of 9/11 are to big as that they´ll be forgotten easily in the years to come. So does it make George Bush a Hitler? Mind you, despite a "clever" spin, both conflicts are not over by a long shot as we speak. By the way, 9/11 preceded both.
To me, as an outsider the Tea Party appears more like a radical political movement, threatening the democracy of the USA. I guess you may know them better, from what I´ve read in your posts. In essence, the Tea Party members - by and large - demand a stop to continuous eroding of the American Constitution. I just don't think that mass European media, for example, views the American Constitution in a particularly favorable light and hence the spin. -
Message 50
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 8th October 2010
I just don't think that mass European media, for example, views the American Constitution in a particularly favorable light and hence the spin.
Neither do those currently in charge of the White House and Congress - hence the reaction of the American people.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.