
12-17-2011, 11:19 AM
|
 |
Sha Tin
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i say forced on germany because france in particular laid most of the blame for the start of the war on germany, when in fact that's really not true. the weeks leading up to ww1 were a colossal cluster**** of epic proportions. had austria just gone into serbia on her own, things probably wouldn't have escalated as they did. but there's a saying that an unjust peace is better than a just war, so they ultimately agreed to the terms.
then there's the fact that an armistice was declared; it wasn't a win-more of a temporary ceasefire while they tried to work up a plan to end the war. germany almost went back to fighting again, rather than accept france's offer. wilson did his best to keep france from imposing such harsh terms. the harshness is what lead to everything that germany went thru after, and what lead to hitler's rise, and eventually to ww2 in europe.
and i agree completely-when one looks at iraq in a historical vein, it's nothing. however, it's impact on this country in its short history is huge.
on another note about ww1, if anyone is ever in kansas city, mo, the ww1 museum is located there. excellent displays, lots of info. 34000 miles of trenches on the western front alone.
|
Sure but what if we hadnt got involvd and France and other countries were annexed. It would have only been a matter of time until Russia ramped up and went to war with Germany again and with the Germans so spread out most likely constantly putting out fires from the underground which wouldnt have been so happy with being taken over they might have actually lost. Would Russian control of Europe be a positive? Obviously hypo's but it isnt a given that germany would have sucessfully ruled Europe peacefully. As a matter of fact you could argue that there might have been multiple wars.
|