Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #1 
Many members of this forum dislike Woodrow Wilson, because they claim, that he demanded the abolition of the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany. But this claim is wrong. Woodrow Wilson demanded the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm, but he didn't demand the abolition of the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany. The main reason for the abolition of the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany on November 9 1918 was the refusal of Kaiser Wilhelm to abdicate. If Kaiser Wilhelm had abdicated, the Hohenzollern monarchy of Germany would have survived.
I admire Woodrow Wilson, because he supported the right to national self-determination, and he opposed France and Britain punishing Germany too harshly during the peace negotiations at Versailles. If France and Britain had heeded the advice of Wilson, the Treaty of Versailles would have been fairer.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #2 
Wilson's 14 Points were reasonable. Wilson demanded, that the German army should withdraw from Belgium, Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and occupied Russian territory, that Germany should cede Alsace-Lorraine to France, that an independent Polish state should be established and that Poland should have access to the sea, that Italy should annex the regions of Austria-Hungary, where Italians formed a majority of the population and that Turkey proper should remain a sovereign state after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
If the Treaty of Sevres had been based on the 14 Points, the Turkish monarchy would have survived. 
House_of_Luxembourg

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 157
Reply with quote  #3 
I think that the fall of the Ottoman Empire has greatly contributed to the rise of islamic terrorism.
__________________
"With God's help it will never be that a Bohemian king would run from a fight!"
- John the Blind
(according to an account in the Cronica ecclesiae pragensis Benesii Krabice de Weitmile)

ECH WUNN
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by House_of_Luxembourg
I think that the fall of the Ottoman Empire has greatly contributed to the rise of islamic terrorism.

Woodrow Wilson supported the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Wilson disliked multinational empires, such as the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary. Wilson was a staunch supporter of the right to national self-determination.
But Wilson supported Turkey proper remaining fully sovereign, while the Treaty of Sevres established Italian and French zones of influence in southern Turkey and restored the Ottoman capitulations, which limited Turkish sovereignty. Britain occupied Istanbul and dissolved the Ottoman Parliament on March 15 1920. Britain made Sultan Mehmed VI a puppet absolute monarch. On April 23 1920 established Atatürk a rival government.
Atatürk managed to defeat France, Italy, Greece and the Armenians. Atatürk abolished the Turkish monarchy on November 1 1922, and Sultan Mehmed VI was forced to leave Turkey on November 17 1922. The Turkish monarchy would likely have survived, if Britain hadn't dissolved the Ottoman Parliament in March 1920.
USA was the only decent Entente power (except Tsarist Russia, which had ceased to exist at the end of World War I). Britain and France were unfair to Germany, and Britain, France and Italy were unfair to Turkey. Fortunately Atatürk foiled the British, French and Italian plot against Turkey. The Weimar Republic was sadly unable to foil the French and British plot against Germany. Hitler took power due to the failure of the Weimar Republic to foil the French and British plot against Germany.
The territorial losses of Germany of the Treaty of Versailles were reasonable, except for Eupen, Sankt Vith and Danzig. Ethnic Poles actually formed the majority of the population of the Polish Corridor, but establishing the Polish corridor was a bad idea, because making East Prussia an exclave of Germany triggered German resentment.
But banning Austria from joining Germany voluntarily, demilitarizing the Rhineland and limiting the size of the German army were unacceptable, and the German war reparations were excessive. 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #5 
Germany and Turkey had, of course, done nothing that might deserve some retribution. Germany, of course, wasn't the leading course of the carnage of WWI and the responsible for the so called rape of Belgium. I must be thinking of someone else. And Turkey didn't commit one of the worst genocides of the century, as well as join with the aggressors.

Britain actually was a much more moderate influence on the Treaty of Paris than France, so it's silly to lump them together. The Treaty wasn't perfect, especially the Treaty of Versailles and the issue of reparations, but it wasn't simply a plot either. Germany was a defeated aggressor and could hardly expect to not lose out. The rise of Hitler was more immediately a reaction to the Great Depression than the Treaty (and Germany wouldn't be excused even if it were).
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Germany and Turkey had, of course, done nothing that might deserve some retribution. Germany, of course, wasn't the leading course of the carnage of WWI and the responsible for the so called rape of Belgium. I must be thinking of someone else. And Turkey didn't commit one of the worst genocides of the century, as well as join with the aggressors.

Britain actually was a much more moderate influence on the Treaty of Paris than France, so it's silly to lump them together. The Treaty wasn't perfect, especially the Treaty of Versailles and the issue of reparations, but it wasn't simply a plot either. Germany was a defeated aggressor and could hardly expect to not lose out. The rise of Hitler was more immediately a reaction to the Great Depression than the Treaty (and Germany wouldn't be excused even if it were).

World War I wasn't a conflict between good and evil, unlike World War II. Germany was no worse than the Entente. The Armenian Genocide was indeed the worst crime of World War I, but Wilson was merely proposing Turkey proper remaining independent rather than being partitioned by the Entente. Wilson actually supported the establishment of an independent Armenian state, which should include large parts of present-day Turkey, such as Van and Kars. Establishing an independent Armenian state on Turkish territory was a fair punishment of Turkey for the Armenian Genocide, but establishing Italian and French zones of influence in southern Turkey was unacceptable. 
Britain was indeed far more reasonable than France during the negotiations for the Treaty of Versailles, but David Lloyd George still wanted to punish Germany harshly. USA was the only Entente power, which supported offering lenient peace terms to Germany. Germany ceding Alsace-Lorraine to France was reasonable, because Alsace-Lorraine was part of France before the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, but France demanding demilitarization of the Rhineland was unfair. Most of the territorial losses of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles were reasonable, but banning Austria from joining Germany voluntarily was unfair. 


Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #7 
Germany was actually considerably worse than the Allies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

Obviously, Imperial Germany was a hell of a lot better than the Nazis, but they were the bad guys. They were the bad guys not least because they deserve the lion's share of the blame for the war. It was the designs of the German High Command to embark on a war, and the blank cheque given to Austria-Hungary, which was the main reason for this massively destructive conflict. After all the slaughter, what do you expect to have happened? Things to go back to the status quo ante? The reparations were too steep, but much of the Treaty of Versailles was unobjectionable. Germany had threatened the peace of Europe twice in its short existence. I don't blame the Allies, especially the French, from wanting to make sure it wouldn't in the future, even if not all the measures were wise. Prussian militarism was a major reason for German aggression prior to and in the war, so I can see why it may have been wise to partly disarm Germany. Germany's predominance in wealth and power was a major reason for the unsettling of the balance of power on the continent. I can also, therefore, see why it was seen as important to prevent Austria joining with Germany, which would have simply increased that predominance. It was the myth of the stab in the back and the unwillingness of Germans to face up to their responsibilities that helped create more ground for Hitler than the Treaty itself.

Turkey joined the aggressors and they lost, not to mention embarked on a massive genocide. The settlement enjoined on it was largely fair. If anything the Allies were too half-hearted in enforcing the settlement on a defeated opponent. It's galling they withdraw from Turkey so quickly. That doesn't excuse the conduct of the British and French in Syria and Mesopotamia, where we had prosed freedom to the Arabs, but that is a distinct issue.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #8 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Germany was actually considerably worse than the Allies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

Obviously, Imperial Germany was a hell of a lot better than the Nazis, but they were the bad guys. They were the bad guys not least because they deserve the lion's share of the blame for the war. It was the designs of the German High Command to embark on a war, and the blank cheque given to Austria-Hungary, which was the main reason for this massively destructive conflict. After all the slaughter, what do you expect to have happened? Things to go back to the status quo ante? The reparations were too steep, but much of the Treaty of Versailles was unobjectionable. Germany had threatened the peace of Europe twice in its short existence. I don't blame the Allies, especially the French, from wanting to make sure it wouldn't in the future, even if not all the measures were wise. Prussian militarism was a major reason for German aggression prior to and in the war, so I can see why it may have been wise to partly disarm Germany. Germany's predominance in wealth and power was a major reason for the unsettling of the balance of power on the continent. I can also, therefore, see why it was seen as important to prevent Austria joining with Germany, which would have simply increased that predominance. It was the myth of the stab in the back and the unwillingness of Germans to face up to their responsibilities that helped create more ground for Hitler than the Treaty itself.

Turkey joined the aggressors and they lost, not to mention embarked on a massive genocide. The settlement enjoined on it was largely fair. If anything the Allies were too half-hearted in enforcing the settlement on a defeated opponent. It's galling they withdraw from Turkey so quickly. That doesn't excuse the conduct of the British and French in Syria and Mesopotamia, where we had prosed freedom to the Arabs, but that is a distinct issue.

A Briton preferring the Entente is hardly surprising. As a German Kurd, I prefer the Central Powers (the Kurds remained loyal to the Ottoman Empire during World War I, unlike the Arabs). Banning Austria from joining Germany voluntarily is unacceptable, because a sovereign state is entitled to join another sovereign state according to international law.

My proposal for a fair treaty of Versailles:
Germany cedes Alsace-Lorraine to France.
Germany cedes North Schleswig to Denmark.
Germany cedes Posen to Poland.
Germany cedes its colonies to Britain or France.
Austria is allowed to join Germany voluntarily.
The Sudetenland becomes part of Czechoslovakia.
The size of the German navy is limited to 35 % of the size of the British navy.

My proposal for a fair treaty of Sevres:
Turkey cedes Israel, Jordan and Iraq to Britain.
Turkey cedes Syria and Lebanon to France.
Turkey grants Kurdistan, Hejaz and North Yemen independence. An Osmanoglu prince is elected Shah of Kurdistan.
Turkey cedes Vilayet of Van (except the Sanjak of Hakkari, which shall be part of Kurdistan), Vilayet of Bi, Erzurum Vilayet and Trabzon Vilayet to Armenia.
Turkey cedes Imbros and Tenedos to Greece. Istanbul, Izmir and East Thrace remains parts of Turkey. 
No Italian and French zones of influence shall be established in Turkey. 



Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #9 
That doesn't respond properly to what I wrote, which wasn't about preferences. International law is partly a matter of treaty. Germany as a defeated aggressor had to take the terms offered, which included, wisely, the ban on unification with Austria.

I wait to hear back from you how Wilson, Lloyd-George, and the rest received your proposals.

Ed Davis is the vice-regent of Kurdistan. There can be no Shah.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
That doesn't respond properly to what I wrote, which wasn't about preferences. International law is partly a matter of treaty. Germany as a defeated aggressor had to take the terms offered, which included, wisely, the ban on unification with Austria.

I wait to hear back from you how Wilson, Lloyd-George, and the rest received your proposals.

Ed Davis is the vice-regent of Kurdistan. There can be no Shah.

Do you support NATO trying to prevent Belarus from joining Russia voluntarily?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #11 
Do you put the milk in before the tea or the reverse?

If we're asking irrelevant questions....
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Do you put the milk in before the tea or the reverse?

If we're asking irrelevant questions....

Banning Austria from voluntarily joining Germany limits the sovereignty of Austria, and banning Belarus from voluntarily joining Russia limits the sovereignty of Belarus.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #13 
Yes, yes it does.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Yes, yes it does.

If Austria had joined Germany in 1919, the Entente would likely have accepted a restoration of the Habsburg monarchy of Hungary. The Entente opposed restoration of the Habsburg monarchy of Hungary, because they feared re-establishment of Austria-Hungary.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #15 
Who knows what they would have supported or what might have occurred. It is a distinct issue from whether they were justified in preventing the union.

Also, you didn't answer my question.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.