English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hi, just wondering what ur opinions were of this and if there r any historians / students / people who know their stuff out there id be very grateful 2u.

2006-10-23 03:48:07 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

3 answers

Good question. Even tougher to answer. The treaty of Versailles was really designed as a boot to keep Germany under the heel of the allies after WWI. One has to remember that the Kaiser was really the aggressor here, influencing Emperor Franz Josef of Austria to declare war on Bosnia-Herzogovina after the assination of Archduke Ferdinand. England and France (as well as germany) had been bled white of it's entire generation of young men. The war was more of a stalemate with little ground gained and just men in trenches fighting for 100 yards of ground one day, only to lose 400 yards of it the following.
By the time the war ended England and france were out for blood. American also but the former on a much grander scale. The treaty neutered Germany and saddled her with large war reparations, damn near driving the country into bankruptcy. In the mid-20's Germany began to pull itself up from the ashes and become prosperous, only to have the Stock market crash (followed by the Depression) of 1929 run it into financial and political ruin. This of course paved the way for Hitler and his NSDAP.
So it is rather difficult to predict here. I suspect that as hard as it may seem, Wilson's points were probably more generous than what could have been had Congress or any European nation would have agreed to. I suspect the results would have been considerably more stringent. Of course...Hitler always referred to the signers of the treaty (his countrymen) as the "November criminals" for their shameless and cowardly selling of the German people after the war. That was one of his points constantly made in his bid for power.

2006-10-23 04:12:01 · answer #1 · answered by Quasimodo 7 · 0 0

There were many consequences.

Mainly, it led to a "compromise peace" at the end of the First World War as America was promoting principles which it itself was not able to commit to.

America did not want to be involved in international relations, but the League of Nations was based on Wilsonian principles, and without American support it was largely impotent. This led to problems in maintaining the balance of power in post-war world, and made efforts to contain revisionist powers such as Italy, Japan and, later, Germany ultimately ineffective.

It would be a stretch to say that Wilson's failure to get his 14 points ratified by Congress caused the Second World War, but it was certainly contributory to the international climate of the post-war world.

Domestically, there were probably consequences, but these did not have such widespread and longterm implications. The most influential implications of Wilson's failure to ratify the 14 Points are related to exactly what the 14 Points were all about - world order and a liberal, progressive future.

2006-10-23 16:10:09 · answer #2 · answered by Boo Boo B 1 · 0 0

he is not re elected. the league of nation is not powerful because united states is not backing up. world war 2. germany gain power again. japan left the league and invaided the pacific and china.

2006-10-23 11:15:14 · answer #3 · answered by icac83 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers