Quote: (08-07-2014 04:09 PM)DChambers Wrote:
You said, "Economical migrants who moved somewhere under invitation from a sovereign of that place do not consist an ethnic territory. "
Once more, irrelevant. Your original statement simply stated that "Not a single German was left outside it's territories, apart from Austria."
Please study German census in Russia and figure out they didn't compose neither 1% of population.
Quote:Quote:
Second, I find it incredibly difficult to see how you could come to the conclusion that Hitler went to war in 1939 for the same reasons as the Germans went to war in 1914. The underlying motives were entirely different. The German's in 1914 cobbled together a list of war aims after the war commenced. These aims were mainly concerned with German dominance in regards to trade, and the creation of new buffer states along the eastern frontier.
Duh, by using historical facts. Hitler openly stated that he wanted to:
1. Avenge defeat in WW I
2. To reclaim territories gained in Brest-Litovsk agreement, also in WW I
3. To destroy Anglo-Saxon colonial world order and replace it with German hegemony
If that's not copy-paste WW I war goals (excluding race theories and other bunch of mythological crap), then i don't know what is.
He did exactly and precisely what Versailles was supposed to prevent.
Quote:Quote:
In World War 2 Hitler desired to create a new world order based around Fascism and the superiority of the Aryan/Anglo/Teutonic races.
Yes, hence his war goal was drag nacht osten, just as it was in WW I, bundled with dismantling the western colonial powers, also seen in WW I.
Quote:Quote:
Herein lies the problem. A good study of the War shows that Germany is not responsible for WW1
Of course they were, the only difference is - they were defeated. They had choice, you can't argue that.
Quote:Quote:
, no more than the other powers, less than some. Thus the draconian terms that were placed upon them were not moral.
Compared to damage Germans inflicted to neutral nations, of course it was moral.
Quote:Quote:
I have no problem with the terms given in WW2, but the situation at the end of the two wars were radically different. In the 1st, you had a Germany that was beaten, but not broken. In the 2nd you had a Germany who was fully occupied by the Allies and the Soviets, with a decimated armed forces.
Of course Germany was broken in WW I, why else would they surrender. Germans don't exactly surrender when they are not beaten on all fronts. Besides, you forgot to calculate what they did very well - war was not fought on their soil at all.
Quote:Quote:
What did the hard peace of WW2 bring us though? A Cold War, where the Americans and Soviets watched each other from amongst the ruins of Europe. Where the threat of Nuclear annihilation hung over the world. A foreign policy of interventionism that has made the United States a pariah among the nations of the world.
Peace agreement had nothing to do with cold war. In fact ,original peace agreement was supposed to be even more harsh - complete disassembling of united German state. Which happened only partially by coincidence, since Soviets pressed for Eastern Germany.
Quote:Quote:
And look at Europe today. Germany is the strongest nation on the continent. In spite of WW2.
Germany is economically strongest. Economy is not the sum.
Quote:Quote:
No, your way of peace wrong, not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The strain of occupation is immense, politically and financially. Neither Britain, France, the U.S., or Russia were willing to expend that kind of blood and treasure in 1918. Even knowing this, they craft a peace in Versailles that is bound to be broken. That will set the stage for a new war. That is the part that I don't think you are getting.
It's easy to talk about practicality from Washington where not a single house was destroyed in either war. It's a bit more difficult topic for someone living in Minsk. You know, the guy who lives in Minsk, doesn't want 3rd in a row complete annihilation of his country, economy, family, nation, everything, because someone in Germany was "partially responsible" for war abroad.
Quote:Quote:
Even if the Allies were willing to enforce Versailles, they would still need to go to war to do so.
How come when German army and navy was completely reduced, along with arms industry. It was Allies decision to let Germans rearm that made WW II possible, along with allowing Germans to occupy further state, including Austria and Czechoslovakia. Now that's reasonable.
Quote:Quote:
If however a peace was given that was not so hard for Germany to swallow, then war is unlikely to occur. So which is preferable, a greedy peace that you will likely have to spend the next few decades enforcing after which you will still probably have to go to war, or a peace that leaves the defeated adversary their pride and you can get on with the work of nations.
Peace that you have to enforce of course, why else was WW I fought, for fun and pat on the back, chill brother no big deal ?
Quote:Quote:
Another factor to consider. A disarmed Germany would likely quickly have been swallowed up by the Soviets as they began their expansion in the 1940's. The 2nd world war might well have been fought on the Fields of France between the Allies and the Red Menace.
Soviets could never even capture Finland and Poland if there was no Hitler, let alone advance to Germany.
Quote:Quote:
We are in fact seeing a result of the peace of WW2 today. A comparatively disarmed Germany and Europe can do little to effectively halt Russia.
Europe is armed to teeth. New generation fighters, nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, missile shields, much larger troops and reserve force than Russia, young population etc...
Quote:Quote:
The once mighty Empires of the old world can barley field a proper combat division, let alone field armies.
Pls use Google. Every major power in Europe can field couple of armies without any difficulties. And not any army, but equipped by last miracles of technology.
Quote:Quote:
With the influence of the United States shrinking, who knows what will happen in Europe. Because they were occupied and guarded, and not allowed to rearm.
Brother, 3 European nations, Germany, France and UK combined have larger military expediture than Russia. Not to take into account other EU nations. 3 of them are in top 10 nations by military expeditures. Italy is on 11th place. As i said, Europe is armed to teeth and very capable. Bundled with USA, they surpass Russia in virtually every field by more than 10 times. Use google instead of reading media propaganda about huge Russian empire threatening tiny paradisiac innocent Europe.