One of the main reasons why I think the Versailles treaty ultimately failed to keep the peace in Europe long term was the fact that the United States withdrew from the continent once the war was over.
Supposing the Americans decided to keep a military presence in the border region between France and Germany. That presence could have been paid for by Britain and France as it was their own national security that was being safeguarded by it.
Would Hitler have been as bold and reckless as he was originally if he knew the three big western democracies would very likely come into a war started by Germany in the east against her as belligerents?
I highly doubt it.
The contrast between the aftermath of World War One and World War Two is striking. The US military stuck around following WWII and long term peace between the major nations of Europe followed.
Treaty of Versailles
Re: Treaty of Versailles
Paid for by Britain and France. Not likely. For starters France had economic problems, both Britain and France had large issues with the US about inter allied war debts. And US domestic politics was unlikely to embrace such a policy.
And both the US and British armies were simply not large forces in the interwar period, so money and motivation has to found for that.
Whatever arrangement made in the immediate post war settlement was unlikely to last though to the mid thirties, not only does the policy of US troops in Europe face huge problems to get up in the first place the resolve has to be maintained for 20 years.
And both the US and British armies were simply not large forces in the interwar period, so money and motivation has to found for that.
Whatever arrangement made in the immediate post war settlement was unlikely to last though to the mid thirties, not only does the policy of US troops in Europe face huge problems to get up in the first place the resolve has to be maintained for 20 years.
Re: Treaty of Versailles
Hmm, Hitler was popular in Germany for correcting the injustices of Versailles Treaty. However his project to make Germany again "equal" ended up even less favourably than the WW1: further permanent losses of territory and the shattered country divided in two halves for 45 years.
Although I try to understand Germans of 1930´s for their support to Hitler one must say that the end result was even worse than the treaty of Versailles. Did Germans really need a revenge war which ended in maximum disaster?
Although I try to understand Germans of 1930´s for their support to Hitler one must say that the end result was even worse than the treaty of Versailles. Did Germans really need a revenge war which ended in maximum disaster?
Re: Treaty of Versailles
The junkerkaste in Germany, like the caste of samurai in Japan, was going to go down swinging. Which they did. Until the military caste is removed (or at minimum neutered a la France 1815) trouble will brew, as they can sway the industrialist clique and play the nationalist card* in support of their favored politician.durb wrote:Although I try to understand Germans of 1930´s for their support to Hitler one must say that the end result was even worse than the treaty of Versailles. Did Germans really need a revenge war which ended in maximum disaster?
*which is the crux of the legitimacy of the modern nation-state.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion