History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anybody know the Persian name of Ankara in appropriate Latinisation?
 
Even during Achaemenid control (probably should've specified the era)? Is there any record of that?
 
That's at least something, thanks!
 
When the Allies was dismembering Austria-Hungary in 1918, why were 850,000 Hungarians included in Czechoslovakia and not Hungary?

Was there an actual reason or just arbitrarily drawn line?
 
When the Allies was dismembering Austria-Hungary in 1918, why were 850,000 Hungarians included in Czechoslovakia and not Hungary?

Was there an actual reason or just arbitrarily drawn line?
Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the Czechoslovaks had possession following the military collapse of the Kun regime in the spring and summer of 1919. That's the quick and dirty reason. Plus, some of the Allied leaders, especially Clemenceau, wanted to 'punish' the Hungarians for their transgressions in going Bolshevik.
 
Ah okay. That makes sense. Thanks Dachs.
 
Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the Czechoslovaks had possession following the military collapse of the Kun regime in the spring and summer of 1919. That's the quick and dirty reason. Plus, some of the Allied leaders, especially Clemenceau, wanted to 'punish' the Hungarians for their transgressions in going Bolshevik.

The Versailles treaty negotiations showed as little respect for law and justice as for ´national representation´ (the latter being one of the reasons Woodrow Wilson withdrew from them); the various national minorities ending up in other nations´ boundaries were more the result of a desire to punish the Centrals who had lost, and a future catalyst in the rise of such men as Mr Hitler - not just in Germany, but in Austria and Hungary as well. (Obviously, there were other causes as well; ultranationalism didn´t pop up out of nowhere.)
 
The Versailles treaty negotiations showed as little respect for law and justice as for ´national representation´ (the latter being one of the reasons Woodrow Wilson withdrew from them);

Not so. Wilson knowingly compromised on the Fourteen Points during negotiations. The United States did not join the League because Wilson was forced to give up on the idea by Congress resistance.
 
Also not entirely correct: Wilson ultimately failed to make his 14 points program count for much during the treaty negotiations, and in the aftermath failed to compromise with Congress to gain a 2/3rd majority to approve the final treaties and join the League of Nations. Only during Warren Harding´s administration were separate peace treaties finally signed with Germany, Austria and Hungary.

And I apologize for not looking that up prior to posting...
 
just for being an odd man out , Wilson did not believe in his 14 points either .
 
I don't believe you, given that he tried to carve Armenia out of Turkey and you have a record of making long rambling and incoherent post with little attachment to reality.
 
In any case, it wasn't that the Fourteen Points weren't implemented (the only ones ignored were the ones on colonial claims and autonomous development for the former Ottoman Empire, though these were peripheral concerns to the Europeans who ruled the world then, and even then the Americans sent a team to the Middle East to assess the situation on the ground; ultimately Anglo-French interests won out of course). Rather, the issue was the Treaty with Germany was not based on the Fourteen Points, as the Germans had hoped. Problem also arose with ethnically-mixed areas, like parts of the Balkans, the frontiers of Poland and Czechoslovakia, and the Ottoman Empire. Here, even if one had try to apply the principle of self-determination one would find it very difficult to reconcile the ideal of the autonomous nation-state with the multiethnic reality on the ground.
 
Been doing some reading into the Irish War of Independence and Civil War, and I wondered what people's opinions are on the "Michael Collins as military dictator" thesis. Anyone think it has legs, or is it just exaggeration?
 
What was the Wilson Presidency like?
 
Been doing some reading into the Irish War of Independence and Civil War, and I wondered what people's opinions are on the "Michael Collins as military dictator" thesis. Anyone think it has legs, or is it just exaggeration?
I certainly wouldn't say it has no basis, it's definitely possible, but he showed no more dictatorial tendencies then some of the other major figures of the war (De Valera, O'Duffy). Plus, it seems unlikely to me that a military dictator could have ever effectively wielded power in Ireland.
Countries where that happens tend to have an effective class of soldiers. The military tends to serve as a social safety net and means of mobility and security, and as a result is used for numerous civilian roles.
However, the Irish Army was always an extremely weak institution, and also never had quite the legitimacy that Armed Forces had in other countries. Collins could have lended it that, but still, it doesn't seem at a material level a good place for a "Military" dictatorship at any rate.
 
What was the Wilson Presidency like?

Can you be more specific? Do you mean what his domestic policies were?

Well possibly his most important piece of legislation was the Federal Reserve Act, which created the Fed. He also signed into law a dozen or so pieces of legislation relating to fair labor and trust busting. I can't recall the name of the law, but one of these would have prohibited interstate trade in goods manufactured by child labor, which would have dealt a very major blow to the practice, but it was overruled by the Supreme court.

As far as civil liberties and rights go, other than his support for Women's suffrage (which despite his support for an amendment, it never passed while he was in office until after his stroke), he was probably one of the worst (if not the worst) president in the 20th century. The Espionage Act and Sedition Act deported and detained foreigners, and basically meant you could be arrested for even questioning the President's administration during war time. Even if you like him for being pro-labor, he basically ruined this in war-time through things like the Palmer Raids which arrested and deported a huge number of individuals suspected of being radicals, and his detention of among others, the absolutely harmless Eugene Debs for simply opposing the war.

I'm sure someone can give you some more detailed answers if you ask a more specific question, but as far as domestic policies go I think that's the major points.
 
I had the impression that the Palmer Raids were nothing to do with the Presidency?

Directly it was the Department of Justice, but the Palmer Raids were a consequence of the Sedition Act. Nonetheless, since we are talking about the Wilson administration and not just Wilson, I think it's fair to say the blame still falls there. Besides, Wilson's rhetoric definitely led up to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom