Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 19:57:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
384 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > So, Wilson didn't meddle enough at the end of WWI in getting the Allies to
> > > accept his plans for post-war Europe? :-)
> >
> > Part that, but he also had the misfortune to have a stroke just as he was
> > about to convince the Senate to join the SoN.
> >
> > In any case, the partition of Europe in 1919-21 was done so poorly that
> > future conflict was inevitable. In many ways WW1 was only suspended for 21
> > years...
> >
> > > > And I may also reiterate--if we spent half the resources on Germany before
> > > > '39 that we ended up spending during and after the war, there would have
> > > > been no war.
> > >
> > > You mean all those resourses that the US had during the depression?
> > > (jusssssst teasing)
> >
> > No, the resources that America had in 1923 (when Germany was starving).
> > But even such help might not have been needed if France hadn't insisted in
> > heavy war reparations - ultimately, everyone (inc. Wilson) failed to
> > convince the French to abdicate those. The good thing is the lesson was
> > learnt since :-)
>
> Getting a bombed out, poor, defeated country to make reparations possibly
> wans't the best of ideas, but wasn't it more than just France that was
> liking this idea?
Complicated answer:
At first, France's stubborness in getting heavy reparations was crucial to
have them made *at all*; the Brits would have settled for the dismantling of
the German and Austro-hungarian Empires, the Russians had their own problems
to attend, the Americans were trying to stick to the plan (Wilson's 14
points), and the Italians were lucky to be recognized as one of the main
winners (despite their weird stance in 1914/15).
Then, after Versailles, one german Chancellor in the early twenties had the
bright idea of devaluing currency to absurd levels so that Germany could pay
the reparations without actually getting any *real* value across the Rhine -
the downside was the collapse of home economy under the pressure of
overinflation, but the French got little in the end as he had intended. So
that solved half the question: pay worthless money.
Finally, throughout the rest of the 1920s, France became more and more
isolated (since other countries were either paid or had their reparations
renegotiated), and eventually decided to stop the demands. Incidentally,
that happened around the time Germany had decided not to pay anyway...
It must be said that reparations were not unbearable to Germany *in
abstract*, and that they were pretty normal in concept at the time; but the
level of compensation demanded by (and at request of) the French was absurd,
and dictated by a nationalistic "revanche" of 1870/1. IIRC, estimates from
1919 said it would take 100+ years to fully pay the demanded sums... that
was bound to outrage 3 generations of Germans!
Pedro
(whose country got locos, iron bridges and steamers as war compensation,
despite having lost practically the entire army in one battle)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) Yeah, love the planes across the border--thanks! (...) Getting a bombed out, poor, defeated country to make reparations possibly wans't the best of ideas, but wasn't it more than just France that was liking this idea? (...) I just wish that he (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
