WW2 and the 14 Points (split from US implosion)

[Trytostaydead]

Yeah, I'm just thinking though 20th century and 19th century history.. rife with new ideas, changing of the guards, massive wars, ideologies test, fought over, destroyed..

Seemingly each European nation goes through an overhaul every few centuries, and perhaps the US is lucky because it's so isolated in the middle with no real challengers except ice hockey in Canada it has managed to move blithely along. But even when the US first stuck its toe into international politics, Wilson, despite best intentions and wisdom far ahead of his colleages, rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.

So perhaps, with the shrinking of the world, US' continual involvement with its neighbors, the new free-market, every revolutionary change of ideology, market or what have you.. usually has some type of violent upheaval.

[The Aliens]

But even when the US first stuck its toe into international politics, Wilson, despite best intentions and wisdom far ahead of his colleages, rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.

Not really- the French rfusal to follow the Fourteen points led to the next war- Wilson called for reason and France buried Germany and buried the shovel. If the 14 points had have been followed, Germany wouldn't have been so thoroughly shafted and Mr. Hitler may never have got into power.

[HemlockGrey]

rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.

Mostly because people *ignored* the 14 points.

[Lonestar]

Seemingly each European nation goes through an overhaul every few centuries, and perhaps the US is lucky because it's so isolated in the middle with no real challengers except ice hockey in Canada it has managed to move blithely along. But even when the US first stuck its toe into international politics, Wilson, despite best intentions and wisdom far ahead of his colleages, rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.
.

I don't think the 14 points had a "levy one motherfucker of a war fine" in it. It had a "self-determination" point, which is what Austria got chopped up, but it doesn't explain why Germany lost Ethnically German lands in the East.

[Trytostaydead]

Would it have changed the future of the world if Germany didn't crumble and seek a armistice after Operation Michael at the end of the war and the Allies had to fight and enter Germany by force? So Germany would be on an occupation force for a number of years?

[The Aliens]

Would it have changed the future of the world if Germany didn't crumble and seek a armistice after Operation Michael at the end of the war and the Allies had to fight and enter Germany by force? So Germany would be on an occupation force for a number of years?

Who cares? What does that have to do with people ignoring Wilson's 14 points and extarcting a fuckload of money from Germany causing it to collapse internally?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Would it have changed the future of the world if Germany didn't crumble and seek a armistice after Operation Michael at the end of the war and the Allies had to fight and enter Germany by force? So Germany would be on an occupation force for a number of years?

It would have changed it definitly in SOME way. You can't mass the army if you are occupied, and I doubt an occupied nation would be able to turn to Nazis, at least WHILE occupied. Don't know about after, however.

[Sea Skimmer]

rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.

Mostly because people *ignored* the 14 points.

And then didn't go far enough punishing Germany to prevent it from coming back for blood. In 1919 the Allies could have completely occupied Germany and stripped it down to an agrarian state if they had wanted to. That would have put something of a dampener on any German rearmament plans and left a nice battlefield to fight the Reds on.

[Stormbringer]

Split since it's a totally irrelevant tangent.

[Plekhanov]

I don't think the 14 points had a "levy one motherfucker of a war fine" in it. It had a "self-determination" point, which is what Austria got chopped up, but it doesn't explain why Germany lost Ethnically German lands in the East.

Apart from in the Polish corridor and maybe the Sudetenland, Germany lost “Ethnically German lands in the East” because they weren’t “Ethnically German lands” but areas populated by other ethnic groups which desired independence, with significant ethnic German minorities,

[Lord MJ]

rather arrogantly devised the 14 points which did help the stage for the next world war.

Mostly because people *ignored* the 14 points.

And then didn't go far enough punishing Germany to prevent it from coming back for blood. In 1919 the Allies could have completely occupied Germany and stripped it down to an agrarian state if they had wanted to. That would have put something of a dampener on any German rearmament plans and left a nice battlefield to fight the Reds on.

The reason Nazism came about isn't because the allies didn't go far enough to punish Germany, it's because they did too much to punish Germany.

The draconian peace imposed on the German state virutally assured that Germany would rise up against Britain and France. Even the Weimar republic had ambitions of restoring Germany as the major power in Europe, Hitler has just more "agressive" about it.

[Sea Skimmer]

The reason Nazism came about isn't because the allies didn't go far enough to punish Germany, it's because they did too much to punish Germany.

The draconian peace imposed on the German state virutally assured that Germany would rise up against Britain and France. Even the Weimar republic had ambitions of restoring Germany as the major power in Europe, Hitler has just more "agressive" about it.

And if the Allies had done nothing there is no guarantee that Germany's huge losses and remaining resource would not still have driven her back to a militaristic path that would bring about another war. In fact that is still very likely. Completely removing Germanys ability to field a modern military through the country forceed deindustrialization however simply leaves them with no ability to rearm and seek a new war regardless of how the people and goverment feel. It really is the best option as nothing is left to chance.

You might remember that the Morgenthau Plan proposed during WW2 to do exactly what I've suggested to Germany and it was taken quite seriously though it was ultimately rejected.

[Lord MJ]

The reason Nazism came about isn't because the allies didn't go far enough to punish Germany, it's because they did too much to punish Germany.

The draconian peace imposed on the German state virutally assured that Germany would rise up against Britain and France. Even the Weimar republic had ambitions of restoring Germany as the major power in Europe, Hitler has just more "agressive" about it.

And if the Allies had done nothing there is no guarantee that Germany's huge losses and remaining resource would not still have driven her back to a militaristic path that would bring about another war. In fact that is still very likely. Completely removing Germanys ability to field a modern military through the country forceed deindustrialization however simply leaves them with no ability to rearm and seek a new war regardless of how the people and goverment feel. It really is the best option as nothing is left to chance.

You might remember that the Morgenthau Plan proposed during WW2 to do exactly what I've suggested to Germany and it was taken quite seriously though it was ultimately rejected.

Germany during WW1 wasn't any more militaristic than any of the other European powers during the war.

Instead of punishing Germany, the allies should've assured that the German state remained a powerful and prosperous member of the European community. Sort of the same situation that exists today.

In fact Britain tried to do exactly that before WW2, but France would not tolerate a powerful and proseperous German nation.

You're treating the Germans as if they were the bad guys in WW1. There were no good guys and bad guys in that war. What there was were a collection of states on different sides concerned with one thing, power.

[Sea Skimmer]

Germany during WW1 wasn't any more militaristic than any of the other European powers during the war.

I'm aware of that, but its not like the European Allies cared. They'd suffered hard and the war had been fought on there soil.

Instead of punishing Germany, the allies should've assured that the German state remained a powerful and prosperous member of the European community. Sort of the same situation that exists today.

If you lose millions of men and see vast areas of you nation devastated your hardly going to want to see a return to the status quos with all the possibility of a repeat of the war. Even if French and British leadership had accepted such a thing its highly unlikely their populations would have, and in case you forgot public opinion matters a great deal in a democrat state. Espically one filled with millions of veterans and with revolution threatening in bordering states.

In fact Britain tried to do exactly that before WW2, but France would not tolerate a powerful and proseperous German nation.

Britain attempted to come to agreements with Germany mainly because it accepted that it couldn't acutally stop the Germans from doing what they wanted by that point. It was the best solution they had at the time, that doesn't mean it was the one they thought was ideal.

You're treating the Germans as if they were the bad guys in WW1. There were no good guys and bad guys in that war. What there was were a collection of states on different sides concerned with one thing, power.

That's because I'm placing my position entirely from the viewpoint of the victorious allies trying to avoid a repeat of The Great War down the time, not as some distant third party looking for an ideal fair yet almost certainly unacceptable solution. I see no point to considering a treaty which the victor who holds the power to dictate wouldn't agree to.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Anyone care to list the 14 points, for the record?

[Lord MJ]

In this case why didn't the victorious allies impose the draconian peace that you propose after World War 2?

Because they knew that imposing a harsh peace after WW1 is what led to WW2.

If you lose millions of men and see vast areas of you nation devastated your hardly going to want to see a return to the status quos with all the possibility of a repeat of the war. Even if French and British leadership had accepted such a thing its highly unlikely their populations would have, and in case you forgot public opinion matters a great deal in a democrat state. Espically one filled with millions of veterans and with revolution threatening in bordering states.

The priority of ensuring a stable and viable international system is more important than public opinion, even if a democracy. The peace after World War 1 ensured a break down of the system.

The situation you propose is unworkable, how exactly were Britian and France going to go in a reduce Germany into an agrarian state? You think the Germans would just sit by and let it happen? It would have been a bloodbath, and the allies would lose millions of troops, and there would be large scale civilian deaths in Germany. It would be exactly like what would've happened if the US invaded Japan in WW2 instead of Nuking it.

My solution was the only viable course, that established a prosperous European continent, and a viable international system. In this situation, Germany would be a prosperous economic and industrial state, but demilitarized. In fact every nation would be demilitarized, which is favorable to Britain since Britian does not want to maintain a large military. Britain would be happy with a military sufficient to maintian order in the British Empire but little more.

Britain attempted to come to agreements with Germany mainly because it accepted that it couldn't acutally stop the Germans from doing what they wanted by that point. It was the best solution they had at the time, that doesn't mean it was the one they thought was ideal.

No, Britain wanted to come to agreements early on, during the Weimar republic, because they wanted a powerful Germany in Europe to couterbalance France. Britain did not want France to be the sole power on the European continent, and Spain wasn't a viable power anymore. Germany was the perfect instrument to keep French power in check, and to allow a balance of power in Europe favorable to the British.

That's because I'm placing my position entirely from the viewpoint of the victorious allies trying to avoid a repeat of The Great War down the time, not as some distant third party looking for an ideal fair yet almost certainly unacceptable solution. I see no point to considering a treaty which the victor who holds the power to dictate wouldn't agree to.

No, I'm looking at the situation as a structural realist, not the viewpoint of the victorious allies you weren't interested in realistic and viable objectives but emotional and irrational desires for vengence against the enemy. Anyone with any political sense could tell that the draconian peace wouldn't work, but the people in charge we quite simply idiots.

It took another war with even more deaths to shake some sense into the Europeans' heads. And fortunately the second time around, the allies had enough sense not to pull the same lame bullshit that they did in WW1.

Imagine if a peace agreeable to all sides would've been reached after WW1.

1. The economic recovery of Europe would've gone much faster.
2. The European economies would'nt of had to suckle off of the US' teet for as long, as a result the Great Depression may have not been so devastating.
3. Expansion of Soviet Communism would've been contained, as WW2 wouln't have happened, and if the Soviets did try to move westward, the Europeans would've been powerful enough to stop them.
4. Democracy would be viewed favorably by Germans. Germany was on it's way to Democracy anyway, but due to the harsh treaty terms, Democracy was despised by the German people.
5. Most importantly, the seeds that would lead to World War II wouldn't exist. Germany would have no reason to wage another war again, and all the European nations, Germany included would be relectant to ever fight each other again after the damage WW1 caused. The only thing fueling Germany to go to war was the desire to reverse the humilation of Versailles. And even Hitler was reluctant to wage a war of conquest. The only reason Hitler even engaged in any hostile acts is because he knew that by that time, France and Britain were so scared of another European war, that they would back down to Hitler. And even then Hitler was reluctant because he was afraid Britain and France would retaliate. If you remove versailles, Germany would have no motivation to wage war against Britain and France again.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Germany during WW1 wasn't any more militaristic than any of the other European powers during the war.

Instead of punishing Germany, the allies should've assured that the German state remained a powerful and prosperous member of the European community. Sort of the same situation that exists today.

In fact Britain tried to do exactly that before WW2, but France would not tolerate a powerful and proseperous German nation.

You're treating the Germans as if they were the bad guys in WW1. There were no good guys and bad guys in that war. What there was were a collection of states on different sides concerned with one thing, power.

Sadly, in hindsight it would have been a good, correct thing to do, but that is rarely the case with reality. They were so bent on revenge, that they did not/could not possibly forsee the consequences later on downt he road.

[CJvR]

The ending of WWI and the "peace" following it was a complete disaster. It was the last gasp of the old imperialists and ultimatly it brought ruin on them all.

The list of Franco-British stupidity in that time is a long one but a few of the main points would be:

Maintaining the food blockade through the hunger of 1919.
Shifting borders according to the principle of self-determination for everyone, except Germans.
Declaring economic war on the coming four generations of Germans.
Being inflexible and hard on the new German republic greatly contributing to it's fall.

Having made sure all of Germany hated and resented them for generations to come, having placed strategic minorities in all bordering areas, having given the new democratic regime the finger and burdend it with the sins of it's autocratic ancestor the French and the British had one more masterstroke in store...

Being soft on the German dictatorship once Hitler grew some fangs.

Yes, when the Allies finally realized that perhaps they had been a bit excessive in their enthusiasm and started to back down Hitler was in power and the Allied appeacement politics greatly contributed to keeping him there as their previous hostility had aided in placing him there.
At Versailles and even before that a golden oppertunity to create a better world preached by the French and British was lost and sadly it was the prophets themselves who failed.

[Dahak]

I don't think the 14 points had a "levy one motherfucker of a war fine" in it. It had a "self-determination" point, which is what Austria got chopped up, but it doesn't explain why Germany lost Ethnically German lands in the East.

Apart from in the Polish corridor and maybe the Sudetenland, Germany lost “Ethnically German lands in the East” because they weren’t “Ethnically German lands” but areas populated by other ethnic groups which desired independence, with significant ethnic German minorities,

But they have been German for a LONG time, and thus should've been rightfully ours.
But this is a moot point, since Germany has accepted the Oder/Neiße border.

[CJvR]

Anyone with any political sense could tell that the draconian peace wouldn't work, but the people in charge we quite simply idiots.

Yes, but anyone with political sence could also tell you that if you wanted to be elected then screaming the loudest for German blood be an invincible platform. Getting elected tomorrow against the risk of a new war for som future generation to fight... Well there are always a next war isn't there but there might not be a next election victory.
Democracy showed one of it's uglier sides at Versailles.

[TheDarkling]

You simply can't have a lax Versailles, if you set up Germany along ethnic lines after the War Germany actually grows. You don't allow the aggressor who has just lost a war to profit by it, you also don't let them get away with burning Belgian towns down and not paying reparations for it. Even after all this the great depression will still destroy the German economy and lead to the rise of extremism.

Oh and Britain wasn’t worried about France being to powerful on the continent during the inter war years, Britain was far concerned about the Russians.

The best outcome for Versailles is Germany smashed into individual parts and thus prevented from starting anything again,. at least not until the allies have had time to recover.

[HemlockGrey]

You know, after Napoleon's defeat France retained all of its original possessions, surrendering only the lands conquered by Bonaparte, and retaining an independent monarch and a strong nation. Metternich's balance of power prevented another major European war for nearly 100 years (the unification wars not withstanding) and I find it bizarre that doing the same thing never occured to the European Allies in WW1.

[Bob McDob]

Anyone care to list the 14 points, for the record?

1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.

11. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

12. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.

[CJvR]

You simply can't have a lax Versailles, if you set up Germany along ethnic lines after the War Germany actually grows. You don't allow the aggressor who has just lost a war to profit by it, you also don't let them get away with burning Belgian towns down and not paying reparations for it. Even after all this the great depression will still destroy the German economy and lead to the rise of extremism.

Only on paper. Germany might grow but it's powerbase would shrink with the loss of territory. Adding to it the remnant Austrian empire would technicaly make it bigger but the Wien-Berlin Alliance would be severly weakened as a result of the loss of the rest of the Habsburg empire.

Also I never said anything about Germany not paying any reparations, but the reparations in the actual treaty was insane. IIRC payment would be complete in the 1980'ies! And the only way Germany could pay would be to outcompete French and British industries! Germany could pay but the demands against it were more emotional than realistic. WC suggested in a speach that Germany should pay 10 times the French reparations in 1871 and was cheered for that. His suggestions was essentially the entire German supply of gold and foreign cash, all that Germany realisticaly could pay.

The great depression might still wreck the German economy but without the German dependance on US loans to pay reparations Germany might not be as badly hit and without foreign foes to blame for the troubles electing an agressive military dictatorship might not be the first chioce of the German people.

The best outcome for Versailles is Germany smashed into individual parts and thus prevented from starting anything again,. at least not until the allies have had time to recover.

Well suppose Germany don't wan't to be smashed? German nationalism was every bit as strong as French, US or British. Splitting Germany is absolutely no safer than demanding huge reparations. Even worse is if you set up democracys - how long before you get votes stating that Germany should be united? Consider how easily Austria was absorbed.

If you seriously want the great War to be the war to end all wars then you cant conclude a peace with terms that automaticaly makes it into little more than a ceasefire. The Allied leaders talked big but when the time came to deliver they forgot their proud proclamations.

Changing borders by referendums, an affordable reparation that wont damage the economy of Germany or the Allies, removing the "everything is Germany's fault" clause the Allied leadership placed there to cover their own asses. Try to make a peace that both sides can live with rather than the traditional optimum placement before the next round, which always generate a next round.

[TheDarkling]

Only on paper. Germany might grow but it's powerbase would shrink with the loss of territory. Adding to it the remnant Austrian empire would technicaly make it bigger but the Wien-Berlin Alliance would be severly weakened as a result of the loss of the rest of the Habsburg empire.

However Germany itself would grow in power, that isn't acceptable and wouldn't have been tolerated. Not to mention that this more powerful Germany would be able to attack its neighbours far more easily (with Austria and the Sudetenland in German hands Czechoslovakia has no chance of defending itself and would be carved up at the first opportunity).

Also I never said anything about Germany not paying any reparations, but the reparations in the actual treaty was insane. IIRC payment would be complete in the 1980'ies!

Britain is still paying off WW2 debts and we won don't expect me to feel sorry for teh Germans having to pay for a war they started.

And the only way Germany could pay would be to outcompete French and British industries! Germany could pay but the demands against it were more emotional than realistic. WC suggested in a speach that Germany should pay 10 times the French reparations in 1871 and was cheered for that. His suggestions was essentially the entire German supply of gold and foreign cash, all that Germany realisticaly could pay.

But they could pay it and should have, they chose not to and wrecked their economy in the process.

The great depression might still wreck the German economy but without the German dependance on US loans to pay reparations Germany might not be as badly hit and without foreign foes to blame for the troubles electing an agressive military dictatorship might not be the first chioce of the German people.

The US loans weren't spent paying off reparation, they were spent on German infrastructure which is why Germany was rather well off before the Wall Street crash.

Well suppose Germany don't wan't to be smashed? German nationalism was every bit as strong as French, US or British.

Germany had only existed for 50 years and Bavaria at least still had an independence movement (since the Prussians forced them to join Germany) which actually attempted to break away after the war.

Splitting Germany is absolutely no safer than demanding huge reparations. Even worse is if you set up democracys - how long before you get votes stating that Germany should be united? Consider how easily Austria was absorbed.

Austria was absorbed because the government was forced to accede to Hitler’s demands at the point of a gun, if they had the power they would have fought (Governments tend to wish to maintain themselves as the big fish in the small pond. Anyway the way you keep Germany separate is to make the Prussians take the bulk of the blame and debt, that way nobody will want to reunify and take on that burden and be associated with those evil Prussians who caused the war.

Changing borders by referendums, an affordable reparation that wont damage the economy of Germany or the Allies, removing the "everything is Germany's fault" clause the Allied leadership placed there to cover their own asses. Try to make a peace that both sides can live with rather than the traditional optimum placement before the next round, which always generate a next round.

Actually the war guilt clause was inserted by the American delegation and in truth that clause wasn't far off the mark.
The best way to prevent another war is to ensure the Germans can't start it, making them even more powerful isn't the best way to do that and will probably lead to another war somewhere down the line anyway (any treaty that treats the Germans like they lost will result in anger because the Germans didn't think they had lost).