Treaty of Versailles

[Michael]

Versailles, 1919-2009: a new world order’s legacy

The real roots of many major recent and current political events - the convulsions surrounding Iran's Islamic regime, the bloody troubles in neighbouring Iraq, the ethnic cleansing and mass murders in the Balkans, even numerous wars and uprisings from Palestine to Indochina - lie in a ceremony that occurred ninety years ago. This was the gathering in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, outside Paris, on 28 June 1919, when the representatives of the victors in the first world war dictated the terms of peace to the quivering representatives of Germany's Kaiser.
...

The legacy of Versailles extends far beyond Iran, or Iraq, even the Balkans. It is a legacy of greed and hubris, ignorance and selfishness that should serve as a lesson for all governments, all statesmen who seek to impose their blinkered vision on other nations and other peoples.

Article (http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/versailles-1919-2009-a-new-world-order-s-legacy)

I've long argued that the Treaty of Versailles is almost as ugly as the Great War it represents the conclusion of.

That the Treaty was one of the driving forces in making sure the second world war was soon to follow is an argument that has been around for a long time.

Hitler's Germany and Imperial Japan deserve blame for WW2, rightfully so, but it is also true that neither of them could have done that without the Treaty of Versailles.

But WW2 wasn't the only outcome from the Treaty of Versailles. As the article notes, most of the problems of the Middle East today can be traced to this same source.

Anyone have any comments or thoughts on this issue? I think it is a very important issue because the Treaty of Versailles was meant to conclude the most horrific war in the history of the human race and ended up essentially just setting the conditions for a repeat of that horror twenty years later and nine long decades of Middle Eastern turmoil (that is still as big a problem as ever).

That's a long and very ugly legacy for a "peace treaty". At the very least, that's an epic failure of diplomacy. From my perspective, the Treaty looks more like a "war treaty" than a "peace treaty".

[Donkey]

For a while now I've considered WWII just a continuance of the centuries of warfare between Europeans, and the absurd strictures of Versailles largely to blame.

I didn't know that the fubaring of the Middle East fell under the Versailles treaty. I thought that it was a separate albeit concurrent series of poor decisions.

I find interesting the strategic lauding of the Ottoman empire in the article though. Very conspicuous is the absence of mention of the Hashemites and the broken promises too them. I think a neutering of the Ottoman empire was both appropriate, and could have been successful, if the allied powers had kept to their original promises to Faysal, who I believe was a visionary leader and could have been the Middle East's Simon Bolivar (or maybe he was... since Bolivar's dream for South America also foundered).

[Michael]

For a while now I've considered WWII just a continuance of the centuries of warfare between Europeans, and the absurd strictures of Versailles largely to blame.
I don't see WW1 like that at all since Germany was only created in 1870 and didn't previously exist so I don't see a specific continuance of a long history of war there, though the war does fit inside a larger theme of 'great power conflict' that has been running for centuries and appears to be still in effect.

I didn't know that the fubaring of the Middle East fell under the Versailles treaty. I thought that it was a separate albeit concurrent series of poor decisions.
Surprise surprise!

I find interesting the strategic lauding of the Ottoman empire in the article though. Very conspicuous is the absence of mention of the Hashemites and the broken promises too them. I think a neutering of the Ottoman empire was both appropriate, and could have been successful, if the allied powers had kept to their original promises to Faysal, who I believe was a visionary leader and could have been the Middle East's Simon Bolivar (or maybe he was... since Bolivar's dream for South America also foundered).
I think you might be missing the key element of the critique here. That is to say, the Treaty of Versailles was ugly not because it made poor decisions with regard to borders and peoples in the Middle East (and Balkans), but because the Great Powers themselves presumed to make decisions about these topics without any concern for the local populations.

The principal critique being that the error was the [elitist] presumption of the Great Powers that they could dictate national borders for other people. That's the legacy of Versailles and the reason that we are still dealing with the toxic fallout from Versailles some ninety years later (and still going strong!).

[dilettante]

I don't see WW1 like that at all since Germany was only created in 1870 and didn't previously exist so I don't see a specific continuance of a long history of war there, though the war does fit inside a larger theme of 'great power conflict' that has been running for centuries and appears to be still in effect.


I would think the memory of the Franco-Prussian War played a part in motivating people to start shooting in WWI. And more generally, I tend to think of WWI as the culmination of centuries old attempts to create/maintain a "balance of power" in Europe.
But that's really just an impression; my reading on WWI is liminal.

[Michael]

I would think the memory of the Franco-Prussian War played a part in motivating people to start shooting in WWI. And more generally, I tend to think of WWI as the culmination of centuries old attempts to create/maintain a "balance of power" in Europe.
But that's really just an impression; my reading on WWI is liminal.

Actually, there was a "balance of power" in Europe all along. Wars tend to come from those who seek to disrupt or overcome that balance. ;)

That being said, just looking at July 1914 (and nothing else), I think that consensus of historians on WWI is that Austria-Hungary, Russia and France were the ones who 'forced' the war. Germany and Britain were (relatively speaking) trying to 'stand down' the situation from escalation (they failed).

On that basis, I don't see how the Franco-Prussian war is relevant. Austria-Hungry and Russia were the truly bellicose nations that ultimately started the war. They were the ones demanding 'satisfaction' (or revenge) from the event at Sarajevo.

Ultimately though, there was a remarkably stupid 'meme' going around with ALL of these nations thinking that they could win such a war decisively and quickly. I've never seen anything so stupid, arrogant and totally wrong as this. The hubris of these nations' leadership knew no bounds. That was the true cause of WWI - the idiotic belief that they could win it.

(the Franco-Prussian war was an anomoly - the true battlefield precursors for WWI are the US Civil War and the Crimean War - both of which had horrific casualty levels and lots of indecisive battles).

[Daktoria]

Perhaps if the U.S. never got involved, things would have never gotten messed up anyway? Fascinating that after winning the Spanish American War, we still decided to follow them in trade policy by taking advantage of war demand. I mean it wasn't like the Far East and Latin America weren't viable markets to get involved in.

Interventionism ftl? :shrug: Sometimes, people just gotta learn things (such as the meaninglessness of nationalism) the hard way, you know?

[Daktoria]

That being said, just looking at July 1914 (and nothing else), I think that consensus of historians on WWI is that Austria-Hungary, Russia and France were the ones who 'forced' the war. Germany and Britain were (relatively speaking) trying to 'stand down' the situation from escalation (they failed).

Britain may have wanted to (at least appear to) stay neutral, but the volatility of the Balkans and the insecure maneuvering between A-H, Russia, and OE is what catalyzed the rest of it. Had France not signed its initial alliance with Russia generations before, Germany wouldn't have had a reason to support A-H.

What's funny here though is we're blaming the Treaty of Versailles without realizing how obsolete the OE was anyway for at least the past century and a half, and on top of that, it was the Great Game between (supposedly neutral) Britain and Russia that kept it from being overrun.

I mean really, the alliances of the whole matter were completely backwards, and Italy's decision to backstab the central powers is the least of what was wrong with the entangling alliances of the whole matter. Just a big mess overall with competing empires trying to at least discover who's on top and where the top is. Sure, the Black Hand fired off the powder keg, but if the balance of powers was really balanced, Russia wouldn't have waited so long to take initiative in the east, and a domino effect of Slavic independence movements would have dismantled A-H and part of Russia ahead of their time. Instead, Germany got to use the Black Hand as an excuse for making the conflict a lot bigger than it was, Russia lost its national identity and a lot more land that it considered, and the British and French egotistically extracted reparations from the strongest Central Power remaining as a fortunate result of America's reinforcement.

[Daktoria]

So the exuberant French want revenge against the Germans in order to prevent a central European superpower from arising, but what happens anyway? They get petrified from paranoia and completely run over by the Germans 20 years later :owned::owned::owned: only to get bailed out AGAIN by the Russians (who inflicted over 80% of German casualties) and Americans.

Yeah for syndicalist-existentialism! :dumbass:

[Michael]

Perhaps if the U.S. never got involved, things would have never gotten messed up anyway?
I don't believe that US involvement was decisive in WWI.

I believe the end of the war only came because the German army actually achieved the impossible - in the 1918 offensive under Ludendorf, the German army smashed the allied lines, broke out of the trenches and was able to take the field. This was an incredible feat of arms. Unfortunately, it was also a natural trap in that the "no man's land" (a muddy moonscape) that they just crossed made forward supply lines and reinforcement by rail completely impossible. The German Army essentially stranded itself inside France after smashing through the deadlocked lines of trenches and thus had to surrender.

That is why the German people never really seemed to accept that WWI was a decisive defeat of Germany (because it really wasn't - the Germans proved that they were the better fighting army). They lost because of the strategic error of 'too much' success on the battlefield in 1918.

The American contribution was certainly significant and welcomed by the allied powers - no doubt of that. The British and the French High Commands had chosen to fight a war of attrition (because they outnumbered the Germans) and that's very expensive way to fight a war with human lives. American contributions were part of that strategy of war by attrition - and did provide fresh troops to meet the German breakthrough advance in 1918.

Overall though, I have very little praise for the allied war machine in WWI - it was just too nasty and brutish the way they sacrificed millions of their own soldiers like that. Only Marshal Foch (a Frenchman no less! :eek: ) earns high marks from me as an allied general in WWI. :)

Though, I suppose, nothing short of that could have stopped the Kaiser's war machine, so to win, that was the price to pay. Just goes to show how foolish and short-sighted political leaders were at that time. Russia and Austria were the most bellicose and yet they turned out to be pathetically weak nations at the time - completely outmatched by the Germans, British and/or French.

Fascinating that after winning the Spanish American War, we still decided to follow them in trade policy by taking advantage of war demand. I mean it wasn't like the Far East and Latin America weren't viable markets to get involved in.
The US military-industrial complex has deep roots that reach back to the late 19th century.

Interventionism ftl? :shrug: Sometimes, people just gotta learn things (such as the meaninglessness of nationalism) the hard way, you know?
I fear that the US (and the rest of the world) are very slow learners on that particular issue. Alas.

[Michael]

Britain may have wanted to (at least appear to) stay neutral, but the volatility of the Balkans and the insecure maneuvering between A-H, Russia, and OE is what catalyzed the rest of it. Had France not signed its initial alliance with Russia generations before, Germany wouldn't have had a reason to support A-H.

What's funny here though is we're blaming the Treaty of Versailles without realizing how obsolete the OE was anyway for at least the past century and a half, and on top of that, it was the Great Game between (supposedly neutral) Britain and Russia that kept it from being overrun.
Agreed that the Ottoman Empire was non-functional at that time - no doubt of that. It was long propped up by the Brits-French-Russian-Austrian rivalries because to let it fall appart naturally would disturb the European balance of power (and European defacto authority in the Middle East).

So I don't really fault the Treaty of Versailles for the death of the Ottoman Empire - it was already dead. It was the Great Powers carving up the remains of the Empire that sows many of the seeds of trouble (that still fester to this day). That's just more arrogance of the Great Powers - precisely the thing that started WWI in the first place!

... and the British and French egotistically extracted reparations from the strongest Central Power remaining as a fortunate result of America's reinforcement.
Indeed. And thus was sowed the seeds of WWII.

Please note that this argument is not meant to absolve Germany of blame for causing WWII. My only point is to show that Britain and France played a significant role in making it happen with reparations demands that led to the rise of Hitler.

[Michael]

So the exuberant French want revenge against the Germans in order to prevent a central European superpower from arising, but what happens anyway? They get petrified from paranoia and completely run over by the Germans 20 years later :owned::owned::owned: only to get bailed out AGAIN by the Russians (who inflicted over 80% of German casualties) and Americans.
I agree with that. :)

My only quibble is that Russia saving France's ass in WWII was not a 'repeat' situation. Russia (remarkably) defeating Germany was a unique and generally unexpected event.

Just shows how stupid warmongering nationalism can be. There is a lesson here for our modern day and age!

Yeah for syndicalist-existentialism! :dumbass:
I don't agree with that. ;)

[Donkey]

I don't see WW1 like that at all since Germany was only created in 1870 and didn't previously exist so I don't see a specific continuance of a long history of war there, though the war does fit inside a larger theme of 'great power conflict' that has been running for centuries and appears to be still in effect.


Surprise surprise!


I think you might be missing the key element of the critique here. That is to say, the Treaty of Versailles was ugly not because it made poor decisions with regard to borders and peoples in the Middle East (and Balkans), but because the Great Powers themselves presumed to make decisions about these topics without any concern for the local populations.

The principal critique being that the error was the [elitist] presumption of the Great Powers that they could dictate national borders for other people. That's the legacy of Versailles and the reason that we are still dealing with the toxic fallout from Versailles some ninety years later (and still going strong!).I guess I didn't get that much from the article, but I could give it a re-read.

That would be my criticism as well, that the Europeans chopped up the Middle East according to their own caprice.

I still maintain if the British hadn't betrayed the Hashemites, the Middle East would be wholly different, more democratic, less religion oriented, and altogether less violent.

[Daktoria]

Maybe, but without the British, OE would've been run over from the north and the middle east would be speaking Russian instead, Russians who treated Jews far worse then the Muslims did.

[Donkey]

Maybe, but without the British, OE would've been run over from the north and the middle east would be speaking Russian instead, Russians who treated Jews far worse then the Muslims did.
I tend to view "would be speaking" statements with a fair degree of skepticism.

[Daktoria]

Fine, but there isn't any difference between them and "if ___ hadn't" statements. ;)

[Donkey]

What? I mean, the Ottoman Empire had a massively huge empire for really unusually long amounts of time, but Turkey is really only spoken in... well, Turkey.

[Daktoria]

What does the Turkish language have anything to do with McMahon-Hussein, Sykes-Picot, and the Balfour Declaration?

Also, you're aware of how Britain interfered by threatening hostility against Russia after Russia wanted to impose killer conditions on OE following OE's continual massive defeats in their wars, no? The Ottomans replaced the Byzantine Empire in the east as both a religious and political authority, and Russia's combined hospitality to the Orthodox church and desire to be the future eastern Roman Empire (something demonstrated by their, by then, militant historical rivalry with OE) would have wrecked havok on Ottoman social infrastructure.

[Donkey]

What does the Turkish language have anything to do with McMahon-Hussein, Sykes-Picot, and the Balfour Declaration? Nothing. It was in reference to "they'd all be speaking Russian.


Also, you're aware of how Britain interfered by threatening hostility against Russia after Russia wanted to impose killer conditions on OE following OE's continual massive defeats in their wars, no? The Ottomans replaced the Byzantine Empire in the east as both a religious and political authority, and Russia's combined hospitality to the Orthodox church and desire to be the future eastern Roman Empire (something demonstrated by their, by then, militant historical rivalry with OE) would have wrecked havok on Ottoman social infrastructure.
Yeah. If it hadn't been the unsustainable unreasonable "killer" conditions imposed by Britain, it would have been killer conditions imposed by Ze Russians.

[Daktoria]

Nothing. It was in reference to "they'd all be speaking Russian.

Right, because the Russians had so much trouble covering barren wastelands (see Siberia and central Asia).

Tell me, if it wasn't for the Ottomans or British, who would have prevented the Russians from swiping through against Turk and Arab alike?

Yeah. If it hadn't been the unsustainable unreasonable "killer" conditions imposed by Britain, it would have been killer conditions imposed by Ze Russians.

Your timeline's messed up. The Russians wanted to impose killer conditions first, not the British. Heck, if there's anyone you should be favoring here, it's the Central Powers who were the homeland of the Zionist Congress for forming an original Jewish state in Palestine. With that, the Entente wouldn't have had grounds for divvying up OE's provinces, and today's debacle wouldn't have taken place (at the veryleast because the Zionists wouldn't have had western support and would've had their political self-determination revoked).

[Donkey]

Right, because the Russians had so much trouble covering barren wastelands (see Siberia and central Asia).

Tell me, if it wasn't for the Ottomans or British, who would have prevented the Russians from swiping through against Turk and Arab alike?

What? I mean... so Russia's an empire. I don't really get what your point you're trying to make. That is, you seem very determined to drive your point home without really telling us what it is.



Your timeline's messed up. The Russians wanted to impose killer conditions first, not the British. Heck, if there's anyone you should be favoring here, it's the Central Powers who were the homeland of the Zionist Congress for forming an original Jewish state in Palestine. With that, the Entente wouldn't have had grounds for divvying up OE's provinces, and today's debacle wouldn't have taken place (at the veryleast because the Zionists wouldn't have had western support and would've had their political self-determination revoked).
Favoring? What do you mean? I don't think I'm favoring anyone in particular (except maybe Faysal ibn-Hussein al-Hashemi, because I think he was fuckin' sweet and should have gotten his due).

But if you think that Britain and France needed the Jewish homeland as an excuse for doing a hatchet job on the Middle East you are seriously underinformed. Actually the Jewish nationalists were a major thorn in the side of the British in the ME.

[Michael]

Maybe, but without the British, OE would've been run over from the north and the middle east would be speaking Russian instead, Russians who treated Jews far worse then the Muslims did.

Agreed. If the British/French didn't establish hegemony in the Middle East (protectorates) circa 1919, this entire region likely would have fallen prey to the militant Reds seeking to spread their revolution. Though this point is moot because the Brits were moving into the Middle East in 1919 because of oil anyway.

The Middle East may not have ended up speaking Russian, but definitely would be inside the Russian sphere of influence. Arguably a worse scenario than the present one - particularly in light of the oil issue.

[Daktoria]

What? I mean... so Russia's an empire. I don't really get what your point you're trying to make. That is, you seem very determined to drive your point home without really telling us what it is.

Strawman. I won't go over this if you're going to ignore the balance of powers or the effects of pogroms so recklessly. The point I'm trying to make is encapsulated in my first post in this thread, and if you care to read it, you'll see what my motive is. For future reference, if you're going to interject, the least you can do is stay on course.

Favoring? What do you mean? I don't think I'm favoring anyone in particular (except maybe Faysal ibn-Hussein al-Hashemi, because I think he was fuckin' sweet and should have gotten his due).

This is a horribly weak defense since the Brits subordinated OE's preservation against the Russians to the interests of remaining friendly with France in a conflict with Germany. The Brits wouldn't even have engaged in an agreement with the Arabs if support for France wasn't more important than support for OE, and if Germany stayed out of A-H's affairs, the Brits would have been flat out ENEMIES of the Arabs....

But if you think that Britain and France needed the Jewish homeland as an excuse for doing a hatchet job on the Middle East you are seriously underinformed. Actually the Jewish nationalists were a major thorn in the side of the British in the ME.

...which makes your argument HILARIOUS because it was the BRITISH who appointed Faysal to lead Iraq (and did a mighty fine job governing) anyway to CHECK the French! If they didn't trust the French that much, what makes you think they trusted OE enough to make the scenario you require even possible?!

Regardless, I am well aware of how much a pain in the neck Israel has been for the west, but the point here is that it has been the west who has supported Israel, not Israel who has supported the west. Had the west just left Israel alone (by refraining from interventionism as I suggested in my first post), today's debacle wouldn't have had a shot at even being born.

[Daktoria]

Agreed. If the British/French didn't establish hegemony in the Middle East (protectorates) circa 1919, this entire region likely would have fallen prey to the militant Reds seeking to spread their revolution. Though this point is moot because the Brits were moving into the Middle East in 1919 because of oil anyway.

The Middle East may not have ended up speaking Russian, but definitely would be inside the Russian sphere of influence. Arguably a worse scenario than the present one - particularly in light of the oil issue.

Nonono, I'm talking about something that happened way before even the start of world war one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin

What's odd especially though is how despite all of Bismarck's efforts, neither the Triple Alliance nor the Three Emperors League survived.

[Michael]

Nonono, I'm talking about something that happened way before even the start of world war one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Berlin

What's odd especially though is how despite all of Bismarck's efforts, neither the Triple Alliance nor the Three Emperors League survived.
Yes, but this just illustrates more of the same arrogance of the Great Powers of the day trying to dictate the national borders of other people (and the unforeseen ill-effects that naturally follow from this).

And I'd say that Russia was unable to truly keep here conquests because she was the weakest of the Great Powers of the day.

And as I alluded to above, Britain's need for a supply of crude oil to supply her Navy guarenteed that Britain was going to get heavily involved in the Middle East beginning in 1919. Oil fired warships were a strategic necessity to Britain at that time.

So even if Russia was able to start swallowing the Ottoman Empire before WWI, she was still likely to fall to Lenin and the Brits were coming into the Middle East no matter what after WWI.

[Donkey]

Strawman. I won't go over this if you're going to ignore the balance of powers or the effects of pogroms so recklessly. The point I'm trying to make is encapsulated in my first post in this thread, and if you care to read it, you'll see what my motive is. For future reference, if you're going to interject, the least you can do is stay on course.
First off, why are you being all rude?

Second, what strawman am I building? I'm still not sure what I've said that makes you jump down my throat. I don't really car what your motive is... I don't come here to fight, I come here to discuss, and often as not learn.

As for your first post:
Perhaps if the U.S. never got involved, things would have never gotten messed up anyway? Fascinating that after winning the Spanish American War, we still decided to follow them in trade policy by taking advantage of war demand. I mean it wasn't like the Far East and Latin America weren't viable markets to get involved in.

Interventionism ftl? :shrug: Sometimes, people just gotta learn things (such as the meaninglessness of nationalism) the hard way, you know?

:ummm:


This is a horribly weak defense since the Brits subordinated OE's preservation against the Russians to the interests of remaining friendly with France in a conflict with Germany. The Brits wouldn't even have engaged in an agreement with the Arabs if support for France wasn't more important than support for OE, and if Germany stayed out of A-H's affairs, the Brits would have been flat out ENEMIES of the Arabs....
I really, really don't understand this in context of my post. All that I said is that I don't favour either the British, the Ottomans or the Russians in the history of the Middle East. If you haven't yet observed, I'm a big fan (both morally and practically) of self determination. In terms of what happens in Arab countries, I am pro-Arab, and any Empire can go piss up a rope.

Not sure what you're on about.

...which makes your argument HILARIOUS because it was the BRITISH who appointed Faysal to lead Iraq (and did a mighty fine job governing) anyway to CHECK the French! If they didn't trust the French that much, what makes you think they trusted OE enough to make the scenario you require even possible?! Oh for fuck's sake. If you insist on being all belligerent, at least get your facts and chronology straight. Yes, Faysal was appointed King of Iraq (well, technically elected, sort of...), but that was after a fair amount of other shit went down. First, Faysal more than anyone was responsible for throwing the Ottomans out of the Arabian Peninsula. Lawrence of Arabia is a great flick, but it's kind of a lie. In exchange for uniting the Arabs and sticking it to the Ottomans, he was promised by the British an Arab state spanning (now my memory fails me on the exact borders but the following is an approximation) what is now Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, much of Saudi Arabia and much of Iraq. What he got was the nominal leadership of Syria. As I'm sure you know, the real hands at the wheel in Syria were the French, and no sooner did Faysal attempt to assert himself as the rightful leader of Syria, the French threw him out, and the British gave him Iraq. He was an excellent administrator of the country while he lived, but the pooch was screwed, so to speak.


Regardless, I am well aware of how much a pain in the neck Israel has been for the west, but the point here is that it has been the west who has supported Israel, not Israel who has supported the west. Had the west just left Israel alone (by refraining from interventionism as I suggested in my first post), today's debacle wouldn't have had a shot at even being born.
I'm not talking Israel. I believe I was very specific in my post. I did not say Israel, I said Jewish Nationalists. I was referring to pre-state Jews living in the Palestinian mandate. Jewish terrorist groups such as the Irgun and the Haganah were essentially at war with the British until the British threw up their hands and dumped the problem. Take the bombing of the King David Hotel as an example.

If the West hadn't supported Israel the situation would be very different indeed. I wouldn't go so far as to say that there wouldn't be a similar debacle. European Jews started emigrating to Palestine in the late 1800s. The problems were born before anyone in Europe gave a shit about Palestine (clue: not a ton of resources).

Could the Israelis have won repeatedly without help from, first the Soviet Union, and later Western Europe and the United States? Probably not. Would there still be ethnic problems? Damn right there would be.

[Daktoria]

First off, why are you being all rude?

Sorry, but I don't particularly enjoy when you interject elsewhere and make comments such as, "Because from what I'm inferring, it seems like humanity is the "illness" to which you are referring, an illness from which your government would apparently be immune," and "Perhaps it's because I'm lazy, but I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. But I'm gonna go poop and take a shower."

Second, what strawman am I building? I'm still not sure what I've said that makes you jump down my throat. I don't really car what your motive is... I don't come here to fight, I come here to discuss, and often as not learn.

Your strawman is that it was the great powers neglect towards Middle Eastern ethnic struggles that lead to the current debacle rather than their general interventionist policies. There was a lot more going on during world war one than just the secondary (by personnel and industrial capacity) theater of the Middle East, and the foreign policy follow throughs that took place had their precedents established far in advance.

I really, really don't understand this in context of my post. All that I said is that I don't favour either the British, the Ottomans or the Russians in the history of the Middle East. If you haven't yet observed, I'm a big fan (both morally and practically) of self determination. In terms of what happens in Arab countries, I am pro-Arab, and any Empire can go piss up a rope.

Not sure what you're on about.

Oh for fuck's sake. If you insist on being all belligerent, at least get your facts and chronology straight. Yes, Faysal was appointed King of Iraq (well, technically elected, sort of...), but that was after a fair amount of other shit went down. First, Faysal more than anyone was responsible for throwing the Ottomans out of the Arabian Peninsula. Lawrence of Arabia is a great flick, but it's kind of a lie. In exchange for uniting the Arabs and sticking it to the Ottomans, he was promised by the British an Arab state spanning (now my memory fails me on the exact borders but the following is an approximation) what is now Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, much of Saudi Arabia and much of Iraq. What he got was the nominal leadership of Syria. As I'm sure you know, the real hands at the wheel in Syria were the French, and no sooner did Faysal attempt to assert himself as the rightful leader of Syria, the French threw him out, and the British gave him Iraq. He was an excellent administrator of the country while he lived, but the pooch was screwed, so to speak.

It's this neglect of foreign policy that's preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. I don't care about western assistance in the Arab Revolt even though the British held a dominant influence on unifying cooperation among the Arabs including those under Sharif Hussein bin Ali and provided the naval and marine distraction needed to open a window against Ottoman policing efforts (see: Gallipoli, Mespotamia, and Sinai campaigns; the Russians didn't stretch the Ottomans to their limits by themselves). What you should be caring about however is the Faysal Weizmann Agreement which showed that Faysal himself didn't care about Palestine and opened the door for Jewish Nationalist and western intervention (indicated by the term of UPHOLDING the Balfour Declaration)....

...yet still, you recognize that the French subjugated Syria without acknowledging the larger trust issues at hand.

I'm not talking Israel. I believe I was very specific in my post. I did not say Israel, I said Jewish Nationalists. I was referring to pre-state Jews living in the Palestinian mandate. Jewish terrorist groups such as the Irgun and the Haganah were essentially at war with the British until the British threw up their hands and dumped the problem. Take the bombing of the King David Hotel as an example.

If the West hadn't supported Israel the situation would be very different indeed. I wouldn't go so far as to say that there wouldn't be a similar debacle. European Jews started emigrating to Palestine in the late 1800s. The problems were born before anyone in Europe gave a shit about Palestine (clue: not a ton of resources).

Could the Israelis have won repeatedly without help from, first the Soviet Union, and later Western Europe and the United States? Probably not. Would there still be ethnic problems? Damn right there would be.

Irgun, Haganah, and other Jewish terrorist organizations came together after World War One, so I don't see your point. OE should have been able to engage Russia independently of, and simultaneously during, France's war with Germany.

However (now follow me here because you didn't before when I tried to abbreviate it), the precedents for why Britain's allegiance switched from pro-Ottoman to pro-Russia were:

1. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.
2. Russia's strategic (but not political) victory in the Russo-Turkish War
a. Germany's mediation in the Congress of Berlin.
b. Russia's withdrawal from the Three Emperors League.
c. The Franco-Russian alliance.
3. The Entente Cordiale.

From here, the British were tied to French foreign policy, and when the French declared war on Germany out of opportunistic spite from previous provocation (see: French encouragement of Slavic independence movements before and during the Balkan Wars), the British were obligated to go along despite British-German collaboration during the Congress of Berlin.

Not only should you pity the Germans after this, but you should also be mad at the French because the German considerations made before to the Zionist Congress would have settled the Palestine question over 20 years before World War One either ended or started (making it a domestic Ottoman issue rather than the international palooza it mutated into)....

...and to think, the French got their asses kicked and saved in the most fortunate turn of events, yet they were the most adamant pursuers of German reparations.

[Daktoria]

Yes, but this just illustrates more of the same arrogance of the Great Powers of the day trying to dictate the national borders of other people (and the unforeseen ill-effects that naturally follow from this).

And I'd say that Russia was unable to truly keep here conquests because she was the weakest of the Great Powers of the day.

Russia couldn't hold onto her conquests because of a weak Mediterranean Navy that couldn't challenge the British, so yeah, that makes sense.

However, if we look at the course of the negotiations, Bismarck was a staunch anti-interventionist who's primary concern was balancing Germany's relationships between A-H and Russia.

Ironically, it was British Conservative (and Jewish) Prime Minister Disraeli who pursued an aggressive interventionist policy towards the eastern question. Had Gladstone extended his Liberal government beyond 1874, the British response to the Treaty of San Stefano should have been far more passive.

And as I alluded to above, Britain's need for a supply of crude oil to supply her Navy guarenteed that Britain was going to get heavily involved in the Middle East beginning in 1919. Oil fired warships were a strategic necessity to Britain at that time.

So even if Russia was able to start swallowing the Ottoman Empire before WWI, she was still likely to fall to Lenin and the Brits were coming into the Middle East no matter what after WWI.

OK, but if this course of events happened, I don't see how the Palestine question would have been resolved since Britain's best courses of interventionist policy would have been to intervene in Persia and Arabia instead from both a logistical and natural resource perspective.

[Donkey]

Sorry, but I don't particularly enjoy when you interject elsewhere and make comments such as, "Because from what I'm inferring, it seems like humanity is the "illness" to which you are referring, an illness from which your government would apparently be immune," and "Perhaps it's because I'm lazy, but I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. But I'm gonna go poop and take a shower."



Your strawman is that it was the great powers neglect towards Middle Eastern ethnic struggles that lead to the current debacle rather than their general interventionist policies. There was a lot more going on during world war one than just the secondary (by personnel and industrial capacity) theater of the Middle East, and the foreign policy follow throughs that took place had their precedents established far in advance.



It's this neglect of foreign policy that's preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. I don't care about western assistance in the Arab Revolt even though the British held a dominant influence on unifying cooperation among the Arabs including those under Sharif Hussein bin Ali and provided the naval and marine distraction needed to open a window against Ottoman policing efforts (see: Gallipoli, Mespotamia, and Sinai campaigns; the Russians didn't stretch the Ottomans to their limits by themselves). What you should be caring about however is the Faysal Weizmann Agreement which showed that Faysal himself didn't care about Palestine and opened the door for Jewish Nationalist and western intervention (indicated by the term of UPHOLDING the Balfour Declaration)....

...yet still, you recognize that the French subjugated Syria without acknowledging the larger trust issues at hand.



Irgun, Haganah, and other Jewish terrorist organizations came together after World War One, so I don't see your point. OE should have been able to engage Russia independently of, and simultaneously during, France's war with Germany.

However (now follow me here because you didn't before when I tried to abbreviate it), the precedents for why Britain's allegiance switched from pro-Ottoman to pro-Russia were:

1. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.
2. Russia's strategic (but not political) victory in the Russo-Turkish Wara. Germany's mediation in the Congress of Berlin.
b. Russia's withdrawal from the Three Emperors League.
c. The Franco-Russian alliance.3. The Entente Cordiale.

From here, the British were tied to French foreign policy, and when the French declared war on Germany out of opportunistic spite from previous provocation (see: French encouragement of Slavic independence movements before and during the Balkan Wars), the British were obligated to go along despite British-German collaboration during the Congress of Berlin.

Not only should you pity the Germans after this, but you should also be mad at the French because the German considerations made before to the Zionist Congress would have settled the Palestine question over 20 years before World War One either ended or started (making it a domestic Ottoman issue rather than the international palooza it mutated into)....

...and to think, the French got their asses kicked and saved in the most fortunate turn of events, yet they were the most adamant pursuers of German reparations.
I'm about done with you, but I'll probably respond tomorrow nonetheless. :rolleyes:

[Donkey]

Sorry, but I don't particularly enjoy when you interject elsewhere and make comments such as, "Because from what I'm inferring, it seems like humanity is the "illness" to which you are referring, an illness from which your government would apparently be immune," and "Perhaps it's because I'm lazy, but I really don't have any idea what you're talking about. But I'm gonna go poop and take a shower."
If you don't like the fact that I am occasionally flippant and casual there's not much to be done here. But you should recognize that often as not, your point is extraordinarily hard to discern. You dance an odd dance, attacking where you will, and then backing up some point which is not terribly relevant to the argument which you attack.

If your goal is to communicate and discuss, then I humbly submit that your posts are collectively an abject failure. If your goal is to lord your knowledge of terminology and theory over philosophical laymen (which most of us here are, to an extent, then I would say you're doing pretty well.

At any rate, the fact that you come to this thread armed with resentment from other threads, and upon that base your barrage of derisive posts is... well... pathetic.


Your strawman is that it was the great powers neglect towards Middle Eastern ethnic struggles that lead to the current debacle rather than their general interventionist policies. There was a lot more going on during world war one than just the secondary (by personnel and industrial capacity) theater of the Middle East, and the foreign policy follow throughs that took place had their precedents established far in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Familiarizing yourself with the term that you are using should put an end to this nonsense.


It's this neglect of foreign policy that's preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. I don't care about western assistance in the Arab Revolt even though the British held a dominant influence on unifying cooperation among the Arabs including those under Sharif Hussein bin Ali and provided the naval and marine distraction needed to open a window against Ottoman policing efforts (see: Gallipoli, Mespotamia, and Sinai campaigns; the Russians didn't stretch the Ottomans to their limits by themselves). What you should be caring about however is the Faysal Weizmann Agreement which showed that Faysal himself didn't care about Palestine and opened the door for Jewish Nationalist and western intervention (indicated by the term of UPHOLDING the Balfour Declaration)....

...yet still, you recognize that the French subjugated Syria without acknowledging the larger trust issues at hand. You claim that Faysal didn't care about Palestine, but don't really have any basis for this assertion. You may be referring to the semantic nonsense which the British engaged in to try to deny that the area which they had promised to Faysal included Palestine. Any reasonable reading of the agreement clearly demonstrates that Faysal considered Palestine as part of what the Hashemites would recieve. The British were ultimate shisters on this. But the point is moot, because they overall fucked Faysal anyway.

What I "should" be concerned about? I'll concern myself with what I damn well please, thank you. If you don't want to address the points that I am making, then feel free not to, but don't tell me what I should be talking about and then go off about that topic.

Faysal agreed to the Balfour declaration because he didn't see a problem with having Jews coexist with Arabs. This doesn't mean he didn't care about Palestine. He also agreed to Balfour on the condition that the British kept their promises to him. They didn't.



Irgun, Haganah, and other Jewish terrorist organizations came together after World War One, so I don't see your point. OE should have been able to engage Russia independently of, and simultaneously during, France's war with Germany.

However (now follow me here because you didn't before when I tried to abbreviate it), the precedents for why Britain's allegiance switched from pro-Ottoman to pro-Russia were:

1. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.
2. Russia's strategic (but not political) victory in the Russo-Turkish Wara. Germany's mediation in the Congress of Berlin.
b. Russia's withdrawal from the Three Emperors League.
c. The Franco-Russian alliance.3. The Entente Cordiale.

From here, the British were tied to French foreign policy, and when the French declared war on Germany out of opportunistic spite from previous provocation (see: French encouragement of Slavic independence movements before and during the Balkan Wars), the British were obligated to go along despite British-German collaboration during the Congress of Berlin.

Not only should you pity the Germans after this, but you should also be mad at the French because the German considerations made before to the Zionist Congress would have settled the Palestine question over 20 years before World War One either ended or started (making it a domestic Ottoman issue rather than the international palooza it mutated into)....

...and to think, the French got their asses kicked and saved in the most fortunate turn of events, yet they were the most adamant pursuers of German reparations.
This thread isn't about what got WWI started. It's about the treaty of Versailles. We're talking about the Middle East because I took issue with how the original article addressed the issue. I frankly don't know why you can't come into a conversation without trying to eviscerate those with whom you are discussing.

I'm here because this forum offers an opportunity for civil discussion. If I want to go to verbal fisticuffs there are plenty of areas on the internet where I can, and do, indulge.

If, for whatever reason, you don't feel like I'm on your level, intellectually or knowledgably, do me the favor of not engaging my posts.

Pip pip, cheerio.

[Daktoria]

If you don't like the fact that I am occasionally flippant and casual there's not much to be done here. But you should recognize that often as not, your point is extraordinarily hard to discern. You dance an odd dance, attacking where you will, and then backing up some point which is not terribly relevant to the argument which you attack.

If your goal is to communicate and discuss, then I humbly submit that your posts are collectively an abject failure. If your goal is to lord your knowledge of terminology and theory over philosophical laymen (which most of us here are, to an extent, then I would say you're doing pretty well.

At any rate, the fact that you come to this thread armed with resentment from other threads, and upon that base your barrage of derisive posts is... well... pathetic....

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Familiarizing yourself with the term that you are using should put an end to this nonsense....

...This thread isn't about what got WWI started. It's about the treaty of Versailles. We're talking about the Middle East because I took issue with how the original article addressed the issue. I frankly don't know why you can't come into a conversation without trying to eviscerate those with whom you are discussing.

I'm here because this forum offers an opportunity for civil discussion. If I want to go to verbal fisticuffs there are plenty of areas on the internet where I can, and do, indulge.

If, for whatever reason, you don't feel like I'm on your level, intellectually or knowledgably, do me the favor of not engaging my posts.

Pip pip, cheerio.

Eviscerate?

Mind showing me who else I've "eviscerated"?

And then you have the balls to say I'm the one who's pathetic and trying to bring everything to fisticuffs.

Well that's some audacity you have there trying to behave all humble-like despite asking me to excuse your flippancy.

Let me tell you something. If you actually read what I've written instead of presuming that I like to tear people to shreads, you would have realized long before what I think of humility, that it's just a different way of being arrogant from the bottom-up by pulling the rug out from under someone's feet rather than from the top down by pulling the wool over someone's eyes....

...PLUS you have the arrogance to claim you're done while insisting on firing off yet more parting shots.

Are you just that naive to not understand what you're doing?

No, I don't think so especially when you chastise me for "engaging" you (despite your interjections being the cause of whatever) because I'm not willing to overlook your supposedly admitted stupidity.

You sir are a troll, and everything you've claimed here is a perfect model of what a strawman really is.

You claim that Faysal didn't care about Palestine, but don't really have any basis for this assertion.

:wtf:

Not even gunna bother with everything else, I explicitly referred to the Faysal Weizmann agreement as evidence for my assertion. If you can't acknowledge direct sources, there's no getting through to you.

[Donkey]

Eviscerate?

Mind showing me who else I've "eviscerated"?
You'll have to forgive me my poetic license in choosing words to describe your apparent modus operandi, which is to dismantle arguments for the sake of dismantling arguments.


And then you have the balls to say I'm the one who's pathetic and trying to bring everything to fisticuffs.
Please. It doesn't take balls to say anything on the internet. But your behaviour is certainly childish; I refer to your attempt to excuse your rudeness by citing a post of mine that you did not like from another thread.


Well that's some audacity you have there trying to behave all humble-like despite asking me to excuse your flippancy.
What is audacious about it?


Let me tell you something. If you actually read what I've written instead of presuming that I like to tear people to shreads, you would have realized long before what I think of humility, that it's just a different way of being arrogant from the bottom-up by pulling the rug out from under someone's feet rather than from the top down by pulling the wool over someone's eyes.... I don't make a habit of stalking you, or anyone around the website. I enter discussions which I am interested in, and do my best to contribute thoughtfully. As such, I have yet to glean your opinion of humility. Though the fact that you have such a bizarre view of humility is not terribly surprising, as it is obviously a concept with which you have little or no familiarity.


...PLUS you have the arrogance to claim you're done while insisting on firing off yet more parting shots. I said "about" done, and then said that I would probably respond (with the following response implying that I was still interested to continue the discussion). I wouldn't call my post a "parting shot."


Are you just that naive to not understand what you're doing?
Apparently. :rolleyes:


No, I don't think so especially when you chastise me for "engaging" you (despite your interjections being the cause of whatever) because I'm not willing to overlook your supposedly admitted stupidity.
I'm going to ignore the latter part of this quoted section because I don't think it merits a civil response.

As for interjections... I'm curious as to what exactly you mean. The nature of discussion boards is an open forum for discussion. There is no propriety to any of the debates here. You act as if I came in and interrupted a conversation out of my place. If you want to have a private discussion, use private messaging. Besides, if anyone interjected themself into this conversation it was you, as I posted first. But I don't mind when other people say what they are thinking, because, well, that's the point.


You sir are a troll, and everything you've claimed here is a perfect model of what a strawman really is.
Hardly. You apparently still don't understand the concept of a strawman in an argument, and have an odd definition of troll.


:wtf:

Not even gunna bother with everything else, I explicitly referred to the Faysal Weizmann agreement as evidence for my assertion. If you can't acknowledge direct sources, there's no getting through to you.And I specifically responded to your argument. Apparently you are not interested in actually discussing the issue, but I'll try to lay it out for you in clear terms.

The Balfour declaration did not establish a Jewish state. It was carefully crafted to avoid this. It called for a Jewish homeland, which is not the same thing. The Faysal-Weizmann agreement, when taken in context of Faysal's other actions, other agreements, and ideology clearly demonstrate that Faysal did not have a problem with their being a home for Jews within the Arab state which he would administer.

If you're interested in discussing the aftermath of WWI in the Middle East in a civil manner, without assuming what my positions are and being altogether rude about it, I'm happy to do so. If not, then there are plenty of other individuals here who debate with civility.

[Michael]

Please, we must not let animosity or misunderstandings interfere with a good thread discussion. :)

[Americano]

Those who take university degrees majoring in political science do study historical agreements and sovereign declarations for knowledge purposes. If it comes down to a bet on who's right regarding the Balfour declaration I'll take Donkey. Being married to a practicing Jew with historical familiarity of how the current state of Israel came to be makes it a bad bet against me.