Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(History Channel)   On this day in history, in 1919, the post-World War I peace conference began in Paris in the hopes of finding a lasting peace in Europe. And as we all know, that worked out swimmingly   (history.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, World War I, Treaty of Versailles, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, Leaders of the victorious Allied powers, Adolf Hitler's National Socialist, Great Britain, United States, end of the First World War  
•       •       •

573 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2022 at 7:26 PM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



45 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-18 1:50:24 PM  
Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.
 
2022-01-18 7:23:25 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.


Plus Japan was completely ignored during the meetings. They left after lunch on the second day and everybody pretended not to notice.   A general that was there famously said something to the effect that the armistice is baloney because we'll just have to fight the same war all over again in 20 years. He was 3 months off.
 
2022-01-18 7:31:50 PM  
The first mistake was giving the French as seat at the table.
 
2022-01-18 7:32:11 PM  
If you happen to be in Kansas City, Missouri...the National WW I Memorial is always worth a visit.
 
2022-01-18 7:33:14 PM  

Jake Havechek: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Plus Japan was completely ignored during the meetings. They left after lunch on the second day and everybody pretended not to notice.   A general that was there famously said something to the effect that the armistice is baloney because we'll just have to fight the same war all over again in 20 years. He was 3 months off.


Beat me to it. The conference in Paris set up pretty much every major conflict for the remainder of the century.
 
2022-01-18 7:35:45 PM  
We also ran a train on Russia. Along with France, UK, Japan, and china.
 
2022-01-18 7:36:34 PM  
You all need to read "Paris 1919" by historian Margaret MacMillan to get a great idea of all of what was going on and what it meant for the 20th century.
 
2022-01-18 7:36:40 PM  

Tyrosine: The first mistake was giving the French as seat at the table.


The French had about 2.5 million soldiers under arms at the end of WWI and had suffered something like 6 million casualties. Who was supposed to say "no" to that?
 
2022-01-18 7:38:11 PM  

iheartscotch: Kansas City, Missouri


There's a KansasCity in Missouri? Somebody needs to tell the former guy.
 
2022-01-18 7:40:42 PM  

hoodiowithtudio: We also ran a train on Russia. Along with France, UK, Japan, and china.


fark Russia. fark Russia with a goddamn knife. They caused more then their weight in harm and horror in this world, and if they did anything right by fighting Nazi Germany, the only did so by accident.

fark Russia, fark Putin, and fark any and all republican 'conservatives' who are selling us out to these literal farking monsters.
 
2022-01-18 7:42:02 PM  

rummonkey: Jake Havechek: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Plus Japan was completely ignored during the meetings. They left after lunch on the second day and everybody pretended not to notice.   A general that was there famously said something to the effect that the armistice is baloney because we'll just have to fight the same war all over again in 20 years. He was 3 months off.

Beat me to it. The conference in Paris set up pretty much every major conflict for the remainder of the century.


Not really.

It set up the world, the conflicts were either always there or started because a group of people wanted it to and made sure it happened.

This was a moment when empires transitioned  into nations, and that process could never happen seamlessly.  This wasn't some great moment where the desire for conflict was going to be forever extinguished.

There was some overblown rhetoric at the time and people still buy into it.
 
2022-01-18 7:48:42 PM  
WW1 itself started from a cluster fark.  It was a poor exercise in detenté, what we call MAD, and it was sparked by a stupid nearly random event. WW1 was a conflict waiting for a reason.
 
2022-01-18 7:56:19 PM  

ObscureNameHere: You all need to read "Paris 1919" by historian Margaret MacMillan to get a great idea of all of what was going on and what it meant for the 20th century.


Came here to say this.

Lots and lots and lots of bad decisions, primarily through greed and nationalism and the European powers' stubborn refusal to give up colonizing people who didn't want to be colonized. Pretty much everyone involved made bad decisions. I feel like maybe there were a couple nations that were really blameless for the Treaty of Versailles? Can't remember though. Middle Eastern countries I think.

The strangest thing about MacMillian's book though, is that she tears into the leaders on how they were full of greed and stubbornness and racism all throughout the book... only to end it by saying it wasn't all their fault and who can say what really led to WWII. I was like, did someone else finish writing this thing?
 
2022-01-18 8:00:50 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.


Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.
 
2022-01-18 8:11:59 PM  
Wonder Woman started WW1. Any island of warrior women that hot would trigger a global war.
 
2022-01-18 8:12:01 PM  
 
2022-01-18 8:15:52 PM  
John Maynard Keynes The Economic Consequences of the Peace

It is an extraordinary fact that the fundamental economic problems of a Europe starving and disintegrating before their eyes, was the one question in which it was impossible to arouse the interest of the Four. Reparation was their main excursion into the economic field, and they settled it as a problem of theology, of politics, of electoral chicane, from every point of view except that of the economic future of the States whose destiny they were handling.

One of the interesting aspects of Keynes'  beliefs is how wrong in practice they were:

from wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace

For example, Keynes believed European output in iron would decrease, but by 1929, iron output in Europe was up 10% from the 1913 figure. Keynes predicted that German iron and steel output would decrease, but by 1927, steel output had increased by 30% and iron output increased by 38% from 1913 (within the pre-war borders). Keynes also argued that German coal mining efficiency would decrease, but labour efficiency by 1929 had increased on the 1913 figure by 30%. Keynes contended that Germany would be unable to export coal immediately, but German net coal exports had grown to 15 million tons within a year and by 1926 the tonnage exported had reached 35 million. Keynes also claimed that German national savings in the years after the treaty would be less than 2 billion marks: however, in 1925, the German national savings figure was estimated at 6.4 billion marks and, in 1927, 7.6 billion marks.

On the other hand, the immediate orthodoxy that Keynes was correct was used to make application of the terms of the treaty to check German re-armament problematic. Everyone saw the treaty as unjust and that created reluctance to check German expansion. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Since I often write about poetry I wonder if this orthodoxy seeped into WH Auden's famous poem

September 1, 1939

[...]
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.

[...]
 
2022-01-18 8:17:47 PM  
Peace with a boot to the neck isn't peace. Subsequently, dicking around the Middle East to carve out resources isn't peace.
 
2022-01-18 8:18:44 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.


Paris 1919 or Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?  ;-)

/yes, yes, it can be both
 
2022-01-18 8:21:52 PM  

iheartscotch: Tyrosine: The first mistake was giving the French as seat at the table.

The French had about 2.5 million soldiers under arms at the end of WWI and had suffered something like 6 million casualties. Who was supposed to say "no" to that?


There are still "lost" town in France - les villages détruits - that can't be inhabited due to all the unexploded WWI ordinance lying around.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_villages_destroyed_in_World_War_I

Just another weird fact about WWI: Not only is is possible the last casualty hasn't died yet, it's possible that person hasn't even been born.
 
2022-01-18 8:53:20 PM  
No peace plan was going to completely prevent another war, short of carving Germany back up and returning it to pre-1870 borders.

The fighting ended with the German Army still holding Brussels and half of Belgium, and Metz and a large part of northeastern France.  To the Germans, they were not defeated - betrayed, they lied to themselves, but not defeated.  That would set the tone for German internal politics going forward.  The Entente could have dictated Germany pay nothing, or every mark it owned, and the outcome would not have been different.  It was a partial peace for a partial victory.

A lasting peace would have required knocking the Germans out of conquered territory and pushing the war into Germany, and leaving no doubt who was the victor.  But such a plan would have required a major offensive in 1919. France and Britain weren't keen on another year of fighting - especially if the US continued to pile men and material into Europe.  They might come out of the fighting with the ability to more strongly dictate the terms of peace...a prospect which disturbed Lloyd George and Clemenceau.  So they bargained for peace without fully securing victory.

It was a mistake the Allies would not make 25 years later.
 
2022-01-18 8:54:59 PM  

Jake Havechek: WW1 itself started from a cluster fark.  It was a poor exercise in detenté, what we call MAD, and it was sparked by a stupid nearly random event. WW1 was a conflict waiting for a reason.


To quote Blackadder, it was easier to have a war than not.  Also didn't help Wilhelm's cousin all thought he was a crippled little a-hole.
 
2022-01-18 9:02:41 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: Jake Havechek: WW1 itself started from a cluster fark.  It was a poor exercise in detenté, what we call MAD, and it was sparked by a stupid nearly random event. WW1 was a conflict waiting for a reason.

To quote Blackadder, it was easier to have a war than not.  Also didn't help Wilhelm's cousin all thought he was a crippled little a-hole.


The last episode in that Blackadder series was excellent.
 
2022-01-18 9:06:33 PM  
Farking over Germany was a fantastic idea!
 
2022-01-18 9:07:04 PM  
api.time.comView Full Size
 
2022-01-18 9:15:39 PM  

djslowdive: Farking over Germany was a fantastic idea!


Since the Hapsburg's weren't around, Bulgaria and Turkey didn't have much that was profitable so the Entente powers couldn't just go home and say they ended this threat but now you're all going have massive tax hikes for a decade to pay for the war.
 
2022-01-18 9:17:53 PM  

rummonkey: Jake Havechek: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Plus Japan was completely ignored during the meetings. They left after lunch on the second day and everybody pretended not to notice.   A general that was there famously said something to the effect that the armistice is baloney because we'll just have to fight the same war all over again in 20 years. He was 3 months off.

Beat me to it. The conference in Paris set up pretty much every major conflict for the remainder of the century.


To this day
 
2022-01-18 9:24:36 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

Chamberlain!
 
2022-01-18 9:31:41 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.


I've heard others say that the surrender terms for Germany were pretty normal for the time.

Perhaps it was just in an unhappy medium: Much tougher, and they wouldn't have been able to start the next war, much  easier and they might not have cared to.
 
2022-01-18 9:47:00 PM  
I'm just making shiat up, but I'm pretty sure the tulip bubble threw Europe into chaos in the mid 17th century, and all the world's ills extend from that singular event. Wait til Bitcoin pops.
 
2022-01-18 9:50:19 PM  

Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.


Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?
 
2022-01-18 10:22:33 PM  

knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?


It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We could have resisted Communism without fighting a major war to force capitalism on people who didn't want it, especially because they assumed we were just being colonialist.

/That said, we didn't go in there with the intention of starting a major war.
 
2022-01-18 11:18:52 PM  

knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?


In the case of Vietnam specifically, the North Vietnamese were more committed to their cause (communism) than the South were to theirs (feudalism?). We went in an interfered with their social revolution ONLY because wealthy people the world over saw that the peasants revolt in the Soviet Union actually worked (at first, at least), and all the rich people's stuff was taken away. The wealthy didn't give a shiat about spreading democracy in Vietnam, the only thing they cared about was stopping communism anywhere and everywhere because they didn't want the poors in the U.S. to get the idea that life might actually be better off without the rich people's boots on their necks. The wealthy were terrified that they might have their privilege and possessions confiscated and they'd be forced to live like the people they were used to shiatting on.

Of course, communism never makes it past the "state confiscates all possessions" stage and into the actual "classless, stateless, egalitarian society" stage because the people who confiscate all the possessions decide they'd rather be dictators now. Regardless, it was the U.S. interfering AGAINST a popular uprising for no other reason than to assuage the fears of the wealthy. If the North Vietnamese had simply been tribal warlords instead of so-called "communists" I doubt there even would be a Vietnam War in US history.
 
2022-01-18 11:35:13 PM  

Fireproof: knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?

It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We could have resisted Communism without fighting a major war to force capitalism on people who didn't want it, especially because they assumed we were just being colonialist.

/That said, we didn't go in there with the intention of starting a major war.


Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.
 
2022-01-19 12:12:12 AM  

knbwhite: Fireproof: knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?

It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We could have resisted Communism without fighting a major war to force capitalism on people who didn't want it, especially because they assumed we were just being colonialist.

/That said, we didn't go in there with the intention of starting a major war.

Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.


It's an interesting "what it?" for sure. There's people way more educated than I am on the subject, I'm sure there's lots of theories out there on what the world would be like had we not opposed communism.

My guess would be that those regimes would likely have played out roughly the same way they did. Though that also depends on whether the US also abandoned its policy of having the world's largest military along with being less interventionist. If we still insisted on being the largest military, it's likely the USSR and USA would still get into an arms race, since both countries were trying to do it.

Vietnam would likely have become what it is today, though probably much faster.

China would also likely turn out the same.

Cuba would likely be better off, as it's unlikely the embargo would have gone on for so long (or possibly not have started in the first place, though the whole reason the embargo exists is, again, because wealthy people want revenge).

No idea how all the South and Central American countries would have turned out had the US left them alone.

I rather doubt though, that communism would keep spreading. Everyone saw that as soon as the wealth and land was taken from the wealthy, those who took it, kept it instead of re-distributing it. So-called communist nations were nothing but autocracies or plutocracies. Seeing enough of them probably would have eventually soured the idea in the minds of future revolutionaries.

But again, I'm really speculating.
 
2022-01-19 1:20:33 AM  

Moose out front: knbwhite: Fireproof: knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?

It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We could have resisted Communism without fighting a major war to force capitalism on people who didn't want it, especially because they assumed we were just being colonialist.

/That said, we didn't go in there with the intention of starting a major war.

Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.

It's an interesting "what it?" for sure. There's people way more educated than I am on the subject, I'm sure there's lots of theories out there on what the world would be like had we not opposed communism.

My guess would be that those regimes would likely have played out roughly the same way they did. Though that also depends on whether the US also abandoned its policy of having the world's largest military along with being less interventionist. If we still insisted on being the largest military, it's likely the USSR and USA would still get into an arms race, since both countries were trying to do it.

Vietnam would likely have become what it is today, though probably much faster.

China would also likely turn out the same.

Cuba would likely be better off, as it's unlikely the embargo would have gone on for so long (or possibly not have started in the first place, though the whole reason the embargo exists is, again, because wealthy people want revenge).

No idea how all the South and Central American countries would have turned out had the US left them alone.

I rather doubt though, that communism would keep spreading. Everyone saw that as soon as the wealth and land was taken from the wealthy, those who took it, kept it instead of re-distributing it. So-called communist nations were nothing but autocracies or plutocracies. Seeing enough of them probably would have eventually soured the idea in the minds of future revolutionaries.

But again, I'm really speculating.


I appreciate your thoughts. It would be interesting to see a lecture/paper on the topic. I assume there are works out there.
 
2022-01-19 2:02:12 AM  
Old men who wouldn't have to face the consequences dictating what young people and the yet to be born would be saddled with.

Sounds familiar.
 
2022-01-19 8:27:19 AM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: Also didn't help Wilhelm's cousin all thought he was a crippled little a-hole.


He was.
 
2022-01-19 8:33:51 AM  

knbwhite: Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.


Too often "opposing Communism" meant "supporting oppressive, corrupt right-wing dictatorships" plus occasionally "toppling legitimate left-wing regimes because everything left of center is Communism."

South Vietnam never had a government capable of standing on its own and no amount of US firepower could fix that.
 
2022-01-19 9:39:50 AM  

Permanent Solutions For Permanent Problems: knbwhite: Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.

Too often "opposing Communism" meant "supporting oppressive, corrupt right-wing dictatorships" plus occasionally "toppling legitimate left-wing regimes because everything left of center is Communism."

South Vietnam never had a government capable of standing on its own and no amount of US firepower could fix that.


The amount of firepower required was something that those who had access were not willing to use.

In this alternate timeline, lets see what president Mt. Dew Camacho did:   Oh dear ... its an ice age AND the air is on fire.  But all of the mammals are dead, so we win.  Well done, Mr. President!
 
2022-01-19 10:24:38 AM  

UNC_Samurai: No peace plan was going to completely prevent another war, short of carving Germany back up and returning it to pre-1870 borders.

The fighting ended with the German Army still holding Brussels and half of Belgium, and Metz and a large part of northeastern France.  To the Germans, they were not defeated - betrayed, they lied to themselves, but not defeated.  That would set the tone for German internal politics going forward.  The Entente could have dictated Germany pay nothing, or every mark it owned, and the outcome would not have been different.  It was a partial peace for a partial victory.

A lasting peace would have required knocking the Germans out of conquered territory and pushing the war into Germany, and leaving no doubt who was the victor.  But such a plan would have required a major offensive in 1919. France and Britain weren't keen on another year of fighting - especially if the US continued to pile men and material into Europe.  They might come out of the fighting with the ability to more strongly dictate the terms of peace...a prospect which disturbed Lloyd George and Clemenceau.  So they bargained for peace without fully securing victory.

It was a mistake the Allies would not make 25 years later.


You forgot that the German news at the time was "all win all the time!" When in reality it was a meat grinder that sucked up firearms as fast as it sucked up men, it was a war of attrition and once the US joined, it was inevitable that the Allied powers (once Italy joined we had the name change) would outlast the Central
 
2022-01-19 10:24:49 AM  

Permanent Solutions For Permanent Problems: knbwhite: Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.

Too often "opposing Communism" meant "supporting oppressive, corrupt right-wing dictatorships" plus occasionally "toppling legitimate left-wing regimes because everything left of center is Communism."

South Vietnam never had a government capable of standing on its own and no amount of US firepower could fix that.


Same problem as Afghanistan, except it was even worse there.

Vietnam had a number of other problems as well.
 
2022-01-19 10:27:12 AM  

knbwhite: Moose out front: knbwhite: Fireproof: knbwhite: Moose out front: Nadie_AZ: Yes- blame it all on Germany and make them pay for it all. Great idea. Foolproof.

Didn't Woodrow Wilson's speech on allowing for all to have self determination piss off British and French colonies? I seem to recall Ho Chi Min asked to talk to him about gaining independence from France- and was ignored. The seeds of the Vietnam conflict were planted then.

Yeah, Ho Chi Minh was basically asking Wilson to make the French leave Vietnam, and it's unknown if Wilson ever read it.

The main problem of the US's completely backwards defense of South Vietnam was the "OMG COMMUNISM WHARBLEGARBLE" that infected the US in the mid 20th century. So, nope, can't let Vietnam decide on its own destiny because that would upset the wealthy.

Would the world have been better off if there wasn't the resistance to Communism?

It's not an all-or-nothing kind of thing. We could have resisted Communism without fighting a major war to force capitalism on people who didn't want it, especially because they assumed we were just being colonialist.

/That said, we didn't go in there with the intention of starting a major war.

Not to say the US always did the right thing, but I wondering about resisting Communism in the global sense. Was there zero merit to the domino theory? What if we chose isolationism with regards to Europe? I've seen a lot about what the US did wrong, but I haven't seen much about what the world would be like if we chose an easier path.

It's an interesting "what it?" for sure. There's people way more educated than I am on the subject, I'm sure there's lots of theories out there on what the world would be like had we not opposed communism.

My guess would be that those regimes would likely have played out roughly the same way they did. Though that also depends on whether the US also abandoned its policy of having the world's largest military along with being less interventionist. If we still insisted on being the largest military, it's likely the USSR and USA would still get into an arms race, since both countries were trying to do it.

Vietnam would likely have become what it is today, though probably much faster.

China would also likely turn out the same.

Cuba would likely be better off, as it's unlikely the embargo would have gone on for so long (or possibly not have started in the first place, though the whole reason the embargo exists is, again, because wealthy people want revenge).

No idea how all the South and Central American countries would have turned out had the US left them alone.

I rather doubt though, that communism would keep spreading. Everyone saw that as soon as the wealth and land was taken from the wealthy, those who took it, kept it instead of re-distributing it. So-called communist nations were nothing but autocracies or plutocracies. Seeing enough of them probably would have eventually soured the idea in the minds of future revolutionaries.

But again, I'm really speculating.

I appreciate your thoughts. It would be interesting to see a lecture/paper on the topic. I assume there are works out there.


I know that there's some academic-level theories that the US could have won just buy focusing solely on Europe and not worrying about everywhere else, but I don't know of any papers or lectures in particular. And Googling it would be just the same as having you do it.
 
2022-01-19 1:00:32 PM  

baka-san: UNC_Samurai: No peace plan was going to completely prevent another war, short of carving Germany back up and returning it to pre-1870 borders.

The fighting ended with the German Army still holding Brussels and half of Belgium, and Metz and a large part of northeastern France.  To the Germans, they were not defeated - betrayed, they lied to themselves, but not defeated.  That would set the tone for German internal politics going forward.  The Entente could have dictated Germany pay nothing, or every mark it owned, and the outcome would not have been different.  It was a partial peace for a partial victory.

A lasting peace would have required knocking the Germans out of conquered territory and pushing the war into Germany, and leaving no doubt who was the victor.  But such a plan would have required a major offensive in 1919. France and Britain weren't keen on another year of fighting - especially if the US continued to pile men and material into Europe.  They might come out of the fighting with the ability to more strongly dictate the terms of peace...a prospect which disturbed Lloyd George and Clemenceau.  So they bargained for peace without fully securing victory.

It was a mistake the Allies would not make 25 years later.

You forgot that the German news at the time was "all win all the time!" When in reality it was a meat grinder that sucked up firearms as fast as it sucked up men, it was a war of attrition and once the US joined, it was inevitable that the Allied powers (once Italy joined we had the name change) would outlast the Central


German internal propaganda was a partial factor, but the civilian population started to figure out something was up when they were putting sawdust in bread and word came home from/with soldiers in Operation Michael talking about the food they were finding in captured Allied trenches.

By the time of the peace process, the German population knew they'd been lied to, but the German Army's fastest operation before 1939 was blaming the 1918 loss on dissidents "stabbing them in the back."
 
2022-01-19 3:09:35 PM  

UNC_Samurai: baka-san: UNC_Samurai: No peace plan was going to completely prevent another war, short of carving Germany back up and returning it to pre-1870 borders.

The fighting ended with the German Army still holding Brussels and half of Belgium, and Metz and a large part of northeastern France.  To the Germans, they were not defeated - betrayed, they lied to themselves, but not defeated.  That would set the tone for German internal politics going forward.  The Entente could have dictated Germany pay nothing, or every mark it owned, and the outcome would not have been different.  It was a partial peace for a partial victory.

A lasting peace would have required knocking the Germans out of conquered territory and pushing the war into Germany, and leaving no doubt who was the victor.  But such a plan would have required a major offensive in 1919. France and Britain weren't keen on another year of fighting - especially if the US continued to pile men and material into Europe.  They might come out of the fighting with the ability to more strongly dictate the terms of peace...a prospect which disturbed Lloyd George and Clemenceau.  So they bargained for peace without fully securing victory.

It was a mistake the Allies would not make 25 years later.

You forgot that the German news at the time was "all win all the time!" When in reality it was a meat grinder that sucked up firearms as fast as it sucked up men, it was a war of attrition and once the US joined, it was inevitable that the Allied powers (once Italy joined we had the name change) would outlast the Central

German internal propaganda was a partial factor, but the civilian population started to figure out something was up when they were putting sawdust in bread and word came home from/with soldiers in Operation Michael talking about the food they were finding in captured Allied trenches.

By the time of the peace process, the German population knew they'd been lied to, but the German Army's fastest operation before 1939 ...


When I was a kid I rode my bike to a lecture set on WW2 and managed to meet the former Hitler's youth who was touring with the Concentration camp survivor.

On his side of things, the parents knew something was up.  It wasn't going great if those signs were popping up.  But even in the Berlin suburbs, when the Hitler's youth were called up to defend the area, they only knew things were really intense out there.  You don't call cub scout troop 315 up to run patrols around DC for fun.

And when the leadership of Hitler's youth got pulled into the bunkers, they got a speech from the man himself, talking about how they were the future, and their victory would be glorious.  He ordered them to report for duty, saying they were now man enough to defend the kinfolk, or something like that.  Then he left.

Apparently, he committed suicide within an hour of giving that order.  This guy walked out of the bunker, presumably to go to his command and start preparing.  Instead, he ran all the way home, stuffed his uniform into the dirt behind the basement brick wall, rebuilt the wall, then ran in civilian clothing hard for the allied lines.  His entire family did.  Most people didn't know enough to flee.

That's how completely ignorant they were.  They didn't even know the lines were that close, or that anything was really going on.  Imagine if you found out we were losing a war against China right now, and you hadn't even realized we had already lost Alaska and they were about 100 miles from Seattle.  That's how surprised many Germans were, apparently.

Of course, first you need complete control of the media, propaganda, and secret service informants everywhere so you can 'disappear,' anyone who speaks about what's really happening.  So our loose-lipped media and constant barrage of contrary information suggests we're not in a land war with China, but there are plenty of things being hidden from us as well.

Like the war with the aliens at the south pole.  Art Bell did a whole special on that, and you morans don't even know it.  And now he's dead, and who will tell you now?  You won't know until you find out we've had concentration camps for aliens in antarctica for nearly 5 years, now.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.