um but 1870 it was france who started the war.

It was altogether unreasonable - otherwise there would not be done a third invasion. But what about this: France started World War II as it occupied german territory 1923? It was one of the reasons Hitler "wan" (33%) the elections in 1933. ... or what abount WIlson? Nothing was stable in the solutions of Wilson - and Wilson was a great liar - so Hitler lernaed lying from wilson maybe - or what about the Turks and the slaughter on the armenian Christians? Hitler learned, that the truth of the histrory is written by the winners. ...

__________________


Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt, quia ignoratio causae destituit effectum
Sir Francis Bacon

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Yes it was a reasonable attempt. And after ww2 the same attempt was made with much harsher conditions imposed on Germany:

-occupation of the German territory
-no souveraign German government
-major territory losses in the west and especially in the east
-serious reparations to the Soviet Union
-millions of Germans being expulsed from their eastern territories
-"peace treaty" at Potsdam with binding obligations without the Germans even taking part
-etc. etc.

and after ww2 it worked, because there were powers which prevented any sort of revisionism. And after ww2 revisionism about the eastern frontier was much more justified than after ww1

__________________

By the way: angloamerican concepts. Its intereesting that the Neo-Nazis in Germany are using english expressions. They are speaking of "blood and honor" for example and are using this english words - and not the german words "Blut und Ehre" for example. The music bands are also using most english names and not german names. This shows very clear that Neo-Nazism is an international problem.

One reason that vertraerans are n ot existing in Germany ist not only the problem, that after 60 years nearly all veterans are dead - it's also the problem, that they don't like to be titeled "Nazis".

__________________


Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt, quia ignoratio causae destituit effectum
Sir Francis Bacon

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

By the way. The mostz germans don'Ät like to send soldiers in teh world. We are doing it, because international instituions say, that we are "responsible" - and I'm saying: We are not "responsible" for Afghanistan - we are not "responsible" for the Kongo. Wer are not "responsible" for the Iraq nor "responible" for any biullshit in this world. Do your bullshit alone and if you need soldiers then use your own soldiers. We are a dying nation and our young men and women have other important things to do. It's also an angloamerican sentence: "Make love not war".

__________________


Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt, quia ignoratio causae destituit effectum
Sir Francis Bacon

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Adrien of course it didn't work. WOuld the French have liked it if due to a treaty imposed on them all of a suden they had to deal with hyper inflation and essentially take wheel barrels full of money to buy bread? Would the French have liked the humiliation imposed on them? No one is saying France did not have a right to some reparations for the damage caused in WWI, although the earlier war was instigated by France over the Hohenzollern possible acession to the Spanish throne. The Prussian monarch agreed to the intial demand from Napolean but not the second one and as a result it was France that declared war, not any of the German kindoms at the time. So France had no right to reparations from that particular war, and accordingly you bringing in the 1870 to 71 war is irrelevant for the purpose of discussing the Treaty of Versailles. More importantly the US was telling both France and England that reparations you were demanding were to harsh and wuld not secure peace. Finally, I wasn't aware of this until Slarti mentioned it (See slarti I do in fact learn) but why would the allies forgive Austria and do nothing for Germany which was also severly impacted by the worldwide depression and the reparations.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I think the 1870/71 war is insofar relevant since it left a traumatic feeling of a German threat in huge parts of the French population. Although in 1914 a lot of people were enthusiastic about the war it was easy in 1918 to pull out old French fears about Germany. The French electorate demanded severe consequences of Clemenceau. Actually the treaty imposed was by far not as harsh as the French wished.

As I pointed out in a previous post, a harsh peace settlement alone does not lead to another war automatically as the situation in 1945 showed.

As for Austria, I do not see how the Allies forgave Austria. The reparations were also severe, the economic situation grim. Austria never fully recovered from these consequences until the Anschluss. Austria was as bad hit by the Economic Crisis as Germany.

__________________

Yes the peace settlement in 1945 was harsh, but there was one major difference. Germany was essentially not really damaged in WWI to my knowledge. at the end of WWII there was essentially nothing left in most of Germany. The difference between the two however was that the allies, mainly the US because to my knowledge neitehr France or Britain participated, helped rebuild Germany and give it a start economically. We only provided the start the germans did the rest themselves, but after WWI instead of looking at the economic picture in Germany the allies simply ignored what the ramifications of that type of reparations would do. In that respect Febobo I do think the Treaty of Versialles was a major cause of what was to come. The allies forced a new political system on Germany without the intitial oversight that came after WWII and at the same time removed its ability to get through the depression. All France and Britain wanted was the money. They cared little about the future as long as they got their money. They then compounded that error by appeasing Hitler at the start of the second war. No to my mind Germany was primarily respionsible for the death and destrustion in the 30's and 40's in central Europe, although Stalin is right up there, but the environment that led to that catastrophe was a direct result of French and British action at the end of the first war and the beginning of the second one.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I am sorry but this is wrong. Yes they did less (France was the lowest contributer, but you ahve to remember that large Areas of France were as destroyed as Germany). Britian had food shortages for several years after the war because they sended so much food to germany (without it thousands more would have starved). It is true that the U.s. did most for the rebuild of Germany from the Allies, but they were also the ones who could do most. They had fare more ressources and the war was not fought (with very few exceptions) on their soil.

I wont argue at your points, but I want to amend one. You say, among others that the entente forced a governmental system onto Germany that without the due preperation and adaption etc failed. I have to admit I lack knowledge on the details of the Weimar republic, and in how far it was "imposed". But what I know from the First Republic of Austria, it was not imposed, well the entente took away a few millions of German speaking Austrians with the treaty of St. Germain, but the government and the republic was self chosen. And allthough the two major parties that made it up had allready a tradion dating decades back into the monarchy, the first Republic failed like the Weimar republic in Germany did, pretty much at the same time. Allthough the reasons maybe different.

So it was more about the difficult environment democracies had to face back then, that brought them to fall, among them for sure also the unjust peace treaties.

__________________
Vienna Central-Cementery:
"Half the size of Zürich, but twice the fun"

Anobsitar,

Ah, I think this only shows very clear that many of these Germen names are forbidden in Germany.

Hi,

I think the outstanding reason why it worked this time was the much better economic situation. People had enough to eat.

You are living in a country without Neonazism?

__________________


Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt, quia ignoratio causae destituit effectum
Sir Francis Bacon

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux
Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Well in the first couple of years directly after the war the economic situation was also grim, there was widespread hunger until 1947 and an almost complete destruction of infrastructure.

But nevertheless I agree with you and Gort, that the UNRRA and later on ERP helped enormously to rebuild Germany (in any sense possible)

__________________

Unfortunately never one million Americans died of hunger after war. You would think in another way in this case.

__________________


Scientia et potentia humana in idem coincidunt, quia ignoratio causae destituit effectum
Sir Francis Bacon

On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux
Antoine de Saint-Exupery