http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/20140121.aspx
This is a list of the really bad decisions of leadership during the century. Overall, can't really fault the listings. Any suggestions out there for more?
Here's one from the SP article
Quote3-The victorious allies impose harsh terms on Germany after World War I. This created the economic and political atmosphere that enabled the Nazis to come to power. It was the same kind of harsh treatment of the French by the Germans after the 1870 war that helped cause World War I. This pattern finally was noted after World War II and a more practical approach adopted. In the 1920s German politicians allowed petty feuds and a desire for political revenge to make it possible for Adolf Hitler to take power in 1933. None of the mighty politicians, generals and business leaders thought a petty operator like Hitler could hold onto power even after he got it. They were wrong.
but here's what the BBC released just on the 19th as part of a list of myths about WWI (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836)
Quote9. The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh
The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, her factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.
Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.
Well, Hitler certainly did play on the evils of Versailles, but it wasn't hard to sell it to the people considering the economy was in a shambles. Yep, because a war just happened, but nope, it's not our fault!
Also, it's hardly Germany's fault that WWI was started. Germany was but one player among many when the fuse was lit. They just happened to be on the losing side, and you know what they say about history and the victors. Granted Germany was probably the most powerful of the Central Powers, but the Machiavellian web of treaties, inbreeding royalty, and back-room promises, in the years leading up to WWI, is one of the most fascinating periods of history for me.
The problem was that Kaiser Wilhelm was not just a figure head monarch, he had absolute powers and he was not a stable personality - not a good combination. His actions (and his choice of ministers) up to 1914 did nothing to help the worsening situation. It started going down hill when he kicked out Bismarck, and worsened when he encouraged a naval arms race with Great Britain, along with many other SNAFU's along the way.
Germany's expansion in Africa, and the naval expansion that had to follow it was the Kaiser's and Von Tirpitz's idea. Bismarck did not care about Africa. He was quoted as saying 'here is my map of Africa: France to left, and Russia to the right. This is my map of Africa. However, Wilhelm II and Bulow IIRC insisted on not being limited in the world ambitions by other countries. If you consider the time, I guess you can say they were partly right - why should other countries have colonies, but not Germany?
It was the thing to do at the time, and the Kaiser would have to have had a lot of modesty and humility in order not to jump into the game I guess.
(reading a lot of McMillans " The War that Ended Peace" lately).
It can be argued that Bismarck is partly to blame for allowing such a monarch under the German constitution. I think Bismarck believed he wanted it that way, as he had a good relationship with Wilhelm I and Bismark thought he could manage the situation to his liking. However that all changed with Willy II came along sooner than expected.
In the years between 1919 and 1929, I think at one point Germany had loans from other countries which helped ease the situation after Versailles. However, the Weimar government was weak, and once the Great Depression hit, Hitler capitalized on the situation. Von Papen, Schliecher and the industrialists indeed did think they could be the ones controlling Hitler, however he managed to get around that.
I remember reading a quote from Field Marshall Foch somewhere, that when he visited Germany after the Armistice, he noticed things were not as bad as he had hoped. He said this was not a peace, but a sort of pause, and that the war would continue in about 20 years.
It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Allies could have settled for a Germany with a continued monarchy ( as the model in Great Britain). This lack of a power void might have made Germany more stable than it turned out to be after 1918-1919.
It definitely is an interesting period an also one of my favorites. So much could have been prevented by cooler heads, and more capable diplomats however, that's all in hindsight.
I'm reading 1913: The Eve of War right now (http://www.amazon.com/1913-Eve-War-Paul-Ham-ebook/dp/B00GGMKQMS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390312989&sr=1-1&keywords=1913). It's a decent enough but very short book so far. The author mentioned that those in power throughout Europe actually wanted war in the worst way; they all felt it was inevitable.
I got a copy of The Guns of August, which I'm hoping will be a more in-depth read.
Most historians seem to lay a measure of blame on Wilhelm, for the chaos after WWI. He held off abdicating, so that it became almost impossible to put a different monarch on the throne. This led to a great deal of chaos as everything came unhinged.
Had he abdicated in a reasonable time, then the transition of power would have been smoother, and the steet fighting of the different factions would have been put down quickly. The populace was not against another constitutional monarch, they wanted
Willy out.
.
Quote from: eyebiter on January 21, 2014, 07:16:06 PM
US and UK allowing the Soviet Union at Yalta to occupy Eastern Europe and install communist client states didn't make the list?
Yeah, seriously.....how did that one not make the list, much less the top ten?
IDK... they got Eastern Europe and we got Japan. from an industrial/technology standpoint we got the better deal.
Somewhere in there, our guarantee of Saudi Arabia's security in return for a steady flow of oil has to at least have been in consideration.
Similarly, if we knew then what we know now, would we have backed the Mooj in Afghanistan against the Soviets if we knew it would turn into the Taliban?
Quote from: bayonetbrant on January 21, 2014, 08:23:07 PM
Somewhere in there, our guarantee of Saudi Arabia's security in return for a steady flow of oil has to at least have been in consideration.
Similarly, if we knew then what we know now, would we have backed the Mooj in Afghanistan against the Soviets if we knew it would turn into the Taliban?
Probably. Geopolitics always seems to be about the 'now' and 'soon come' but not the 'later on'. If you flew your Tardis back to the early 80s and somehow convinced the notable actors in the Congress, Executive Branch, Pentagon and the TLAs of what you knew they would still think that knowing what you told them would make them too smart to let it happen. Thus, they would go ahead anyway.
I keep thinking this is a thread about my dating history.
you date fascist women with moustaches?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on January 21, 2014, 10:15:57 PM
you date fascist women with moustaches?
Fascist yes. Moustaches yes. Both at once? No.
Simplistic question: what about our aid to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War?
Is that in the same league as supporting the 'anti-Soviet' forces in Afghanistan during their little fracas, only to regret it later?
that falls under the pragmatism.
Well, hindsight can be easily brought to the fore with the pragmatic application of a TARDIS.