Originally posted by Killer
Where the **** did i say good against evil?
(....)
You didn´t,I made that one up,hihi.Wasn´t inclining you meant good vs. evil,meant more in general,but comparing a German victory in WW1,relating it to WW2,is just wrong.Life under the Kaiser,was not as bad as you assume.Like I said in my other post, Germany was lacking democratic reforms,I´m not denying that,but it wasn´t life under a tyrann.Germany was THE major power in Europe anyhow.Why do you think it took three other superpowers to fight them,if they hadn´t been THE major power. Kaiser or no Kaiser,it´s just shere numbers.
I was on about an armistice anyhow,not German DOMINANCE throughout Europe.
On the Kaiser,life in Germany before WW1,was pretty much comparable to that of any other nation,yet only pretty much,not totally.Citizens did have Rights,the entire state was based on Rights.The problem was more or less that the Kaiser still had too much power,comparing to England for example.This I explain by Germanys late unification as a nation, called it lacking before,it was just a bit behind.In contrary to other European nations,who had been nations for several centuries,Germany was unified by war.It is a single nation,the ppl are fr the same heritage,but this would be going into too much detail now.Ofcourse the militaristic and political authority of the Kaiser was reflected in pre war German society.Yet this is natural regarding Germanys birth as a nation.
Now on the future being known,well who was the driving force behind the treaty of Versailles?Was it all of them?No it wasn´t,
Wilson wanted his League of Nations,and this at every price, England wanted security and be the major power in Europe,but did not want to destroy Germany,France on the other hand, was the driving force behind Versailles,this does make sense,since it was France who had a border with Germany,since the war had mainly been fought on French soil and so on and France still wanted payback for 1870/71 and yes I do believe it was personal.The entire treaty was mainly in France´s interest.
Weakining Germany at any cost,what I´m saying though no other nation shaped this treaty as much as France.If I remember correctly there were protests in the U.S and in England against this treaty.So a lot of people were indeed aware of the significance it would have in future to come.The way I take it the public always finds out last,well if the public were aware of this,I find it very hard to imagine that politicians and especially diplomats were not.Some even called it the foundations of the next war.
Don´t agree with unforseen,by some maybe,but taking the largest European power apart,the most industrialized nation to that date,reparation costs,the occupying forces taking power of the politics in post war Germany,how was a Republic to survive if it had to beg permission for just about everything?
After both wars,the U.S and England submitted to that of the devil,ok he wasn´t that terrible,in WW1 to Clemenceau and after WW2 to Stalin,but he certainly was.None of the Great Three in 1945 were known German friendlies,but it was Churchill who didn´t want to see Germany taken apart,especially not in Stalin´s interest,whom he regarded to be just as evil as Hitler.
As for nationalism,I really doubt so,a just armistice would have resulted in a just peace.People in Germany were just as war weary as in any other nation.The scars of that war would have remained in every nations memory that took part for some time to come.Like I said before the way this war was conducted was simply not acceptable to most ppl.Citizens simply weren´t accepting to be slaughtered anymore,they were getting a mind of their own,in every nation,just look at the Communist idea.I have my doubts the Kaiser would gotten through with it.What got Germany on the offensive again was two things,one was Revenge and the other was Hopelessness.The latter was probably the main driving force.
But hey,that´s just my opinion
Discussion open!
