"War is about profit" is an old trope. It's often inaccurate, and always simplistic. International and ethnic relations are far more diverse and complicated than that.
*How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.* Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: *Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia."* After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics). After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input. *One down, 4 to go.* Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying (Wilson *sowing dissent* between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's secret deals counted more that the secret deals made with Italy) *Two down, 3 to go...* After GB was persuaded to "dump Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance with a wishy-washy non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)... *Three down, 2 left..."* All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France). These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies). Europe was divided again. Just like 1914. Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe... Reality? He was there as a forerunner of the American Century. He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered. Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion. Then he left again. The USA didn't sign anything. The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations. The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules. There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research). A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire. From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years. Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-) He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first. *And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.*
It may have pissed Hitler off sure. But he would have found a reason to raise the Arian nation regardless. The treaty didnt make him hate Jews and become one of the biggest racists the world has ever seen.
@@vasilileung2204 I don't know. Article 231 of the Treaty states: *The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies* Though neither the words "blame" nor "guilt" are used, many Germans at the time took the treaty as a national humiliation
@@vasilileung2204 Granted most of the ariticles in the treaty were fair. Most of the treaty says Germany had to reduce it's armed forces, give up territory, and pay 132 billion gold marks (or 33 billion$ in US money at the time) But forcing Germany to take responsibility for the entire war was pretty harsh
I don't understand why Americans insist on calling him "Ay-dolf" Hitler when it's not exactly difficult to call him "Ah-dolf" Hitler which is how his name is actually pronounced. Same with Vincent Van "Go" instead of Vincent Van "Goff" which is closer to how it's actually pronounced.
Asking "peace or dishonor" is a false dichotomy. It only provides two options as answers. Open questions are better. Then I would have answered "It was stuuuuupid"...lol
Peace of Dishonor or Dishonor of Peace yeah no question will bend that truth. Foch was considerate to Germans by telling this Treaty was just Armistice for 20 yrs.
"War is about profit" is an old trope. It's often inaccurate, and always simplistic. International and ethnic relations are far more diverse and complicated than that.
When Germany recommenced reparations in 1953-2010, why did they make that conditional on Australia being singled out to be paid nothing?
*How "divide and rule/conquer" is revealed by events, not by digging around in archives.*
Wiki: "The Paris Economy Pact was an international economic agreement reached at the Paris Economic Conference, held from 14 June 1916 in Paris. The meeting, held at the height of World War I, included representatives of the Allied Powers: *Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Russia."* After a "won war" (perspective of 1916), these powers plus their dominions, colonies, and the potential "liberated assets" of the defeated nations after the "won war"-scenario (German colonies, German naval vessels, markets and concessions,etc.), formed a ring of powerful European survivors (plus one upcoming power in Asia) almost encircling the USA (geopolitics).
After the USA joined the war in full force, Russia was soon out of this potential "alliance of the winners" after the November Revolution in 1917, without much outside input.
*One down, 4 to go.*
Next out was Italy, by sending her liberals running back home crying (Wilson *sowing dissent* between the "winners" from the inside, a means used in "divide and rule". In this case, by "ruling" that her favorite's secret deals counted more that the secret deals made with Italy)
*Two down, 3 to go...*
After GB was persuaded to "dump Japan" by replacing a binding defence alliance with a wishy-washy non-binding "4 power treaty" (more detail in the thread below)...
*Three down, 2 left..."*
All that was left was the "cordial" non-binding "Entente of 1904 (GB/France).
These two "no obligations, just friends" (GB/France), just happened to be "US favorites" too. More "no obligations, just friends" (favoratism, another means used in "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies).
Europe was divided again.
Just like 1914.
Wilson at Versailles is often hailed as the idealistic neutral who wanted to save Europe...
Reality?
He was there as a forerunner of the American Century.
He came, he saw, and [divided and] conquered.
Vini, vidi, vici in slow motion.
Then he left again.
The USA didn't sign anything.
The USA didn't join any "leagues" of nations.
The USA didn't tie its hands with any rules.
There were no obligations, except the "rules" written by an expansionist Washington DC in the background ("think tanks" and other centers of strategic research).
A few years later, at the Washington Conference, her navy was "on par" with GB/Empire.
From an obscure colony on the fringes to a "5-5-3-2-2" (GB/USA/Japan/France/Italy) division of naval power in a 150 years.
Wilson: "Look at them jojos...that's the way you do it, get your empire for nothing and division for free..." ;-)
He was no different to most previous US Presidents, who put the USA first.
*And the "USA first" was best achieved by keeping those plucky Europeans divided.*
The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles was the main cause of the Second World War
It may have pissed Hitler off sure. But he would have found a reason to raise the Arian nation regardless.
The treaty didnt make him hate Jews and become one of the biggest racists the world has ever seen.
Versailles was anything but harsh.
@@vasilileung2204 I don't know. Article 231 of the Treaty states: *The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies* Though neither the words "blame" nor "guilt" are used, many Germans at the time took the treaty as a national humiliation
@@jimhuffman9434 what do you mean you don’t know? So what are you trying to say?
@@vasilileung2204 Granted most of the ariticles in the treaty were fair. Most of the treaty says Germany had to reduce it's armed forces, give up territory, and pay 132 billion gold marks (or 33 billion$ in US money at the time) But forcing Germany to take responsibility for the entire war was pretty harsh
Greed will imprison us all
I don't understand why Americans insist on calling him "Ay-dolf" Hitler when it's not exactly difficult to call him "Ah-dolf" Hitler which is how his name is actually pronounced. Same with Vincent Van "Go" instead of Vincent Van "Goff" which is closer to how it's actually pronounced.
So you're telling me that nobody on either side, liberal or conservative, liked this treaty? That doesn't surprise me.
Asking "peace or dishonor" is a false dichotomy.
It only provides two options as answers.
Open questions are better.
Then I would have answered "It was stuuuuupid"...lol
Peace of Dishonor or Dishonor of Peace yeah no question will bend that truth.
Foch was considerate to Germans by telling this Treaty was just Armistice for 20 yrs.
Rip German Empire, 💔😭
First lol 9th of January 2022 xx
👍