Was the Treaty of Versailles a Fair Document ?

expatter

Originally posted by manoj10 at 2010-6-30 23:00

..............................................

Yes, but why ...................... ?   

expatter

Originally posted by JFenix at 2010-7-1 03:10


Well the only thing I care about is the liberation of their territories.  The rest, admittedly, I haven't had much
interest in.

..............................................................................

But, isn't that the whole crux of WWII ............................ ?

And why you would call people Nazis if they don't conform to your view ?

Why did WWII happen and ...........

Why did the Germans get into it ................. ?

JFenix

Originally posted by expatter at 2010-7-1 03:18

..............................................................................

But, isn't that the whole crux of WWII ............................ ?

And why you would call people Nazis if t ...

It is the reason - doesn't make the logic correct or 'right' does it?
At the base it's just greed.   It could only be 'right' if they had a true
'right' to those territories.  That is the real question.  Did germany have
the right to rule over other people and territories?  Did they not have the
'right' to independence?  I say  they did.

St_George

The Last Word

The Treaty of Versailles, which the Allies signed with Germany at the end of the First World War, has had a bad reputation ever since.  John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, thought it was stupid, vindictive and short-sighted and most writers of history and the public have followed his lead ever since.  Many people have blamed the treaty for driving Germany into misery, for creating the circumstances which led to the rise of Hitler, and ultimately for producing another World War in 1939.  But historians must keep on looking at the evidence and re-evaluating the past and the time has come to take another look at that treaty.  It is my own view--and a number of historians who have been working in this area for some years--that the treaty was not all that bad.  Germany did lose the war after all.  Reparations apparently imposed a heavy burden but Germany only paid a portion of what it owed.  Perhaps the real problem was that the treaty was never really properly enforced so that Germany was able to rebuild its military and challenge the security of Europe all over again.

A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Margaret MacMillan (2004)

Margaret MacMillan gained her PhD at Oxford University, and is currently Professor of History and Provost of Trinity College at the University of Toronto, Canada.   Her 500-page book on the Treaty -- Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (2001) -- won the BBC4 Samuel Johnson prize and has been described as 'magnificent', 'enthralling', and 'detailed, fair, unfailingly lively', as well as 'splendidly revisionist'.

JFenix

Originally posted by seneca at 2010-7-1 11:21


Then why did you shoot your opinion off into cyberspace?

'Saar' is very easily identifiable as a German name. There is a federal state called 'Saarland', and there is a city called 'Saarbrue ...

Isn't that what we all doing here?  'Shooting' our opinions off?

On german names, let's see....under occupation the germans changed the names of cities, streets, etc.
Think of the 'Budweiser' battle from czechia.  'Budweis' was the german name given for the czech town 'Budvar'.

expatter

Originally posted by St_George at 2010-7-1 07:45
The Last Word

The Treaty of Versailles, which the Allies signed with Germany at the end of the First World War, has had a bad reputation ever since.  John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, t ...

...................................................................

QUOTE: "Germany did lose the war after all."


How was his defined ?


Lose he war ?????


Defeated in battle or surrender ?????


Or something else ???????     

Alex2010

Originally posted by JFenix at 2010-7-1 15:47


Isn't that what we all doing here?  'Shooting' our opinions off?

On german names, let's see....under occupation the germans changed the names of cities, streets, etc.
Think of the 'Budweise ...

Err....

The city was founded by Hirzo, a knight of King Ottokar II of Bohemia, and was granted its Municipal charter in 1265. The royal city was created as a platform of the king's power in South Bohemia and to counterbalance the powerful aristocratic House of Witigonen and the successive House of Rosenberg. The House of Rosenberg died out in 1611. The city was traditionally a bulwark of the Catholics in the long-lasting religious conflicts in Bohemia.  The city was a German-speaking enclave from the 17th century to 1890. During the industrialization of the city, Czechs became again the ethnic majority. Until the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, the city contained a significant German minority (about 15.5 % in 1930).

About what occupation are you talking? WW2? Again, history is rich of facettes.....do you know where the oldest German university used to be? Prague^^   There was a European history before WW1 and 2.....Bohemia was part of the Holy Roman Empire of German nation.....the Sudetenland was German, no slavs settling there. Anyway, not enough time now...but will go in detail later. Maps, charts, censuses...........^^