Communist Holocaust-memorial

[unmerged(8387)]

Hrv123 wrote:

Only a small corection, Osijek(Eszék)is not in Baranja region.
Baranja is on left bank of Drava river, while Osijek is or right bank, what was/is part of Croatia before and now.

You misread my post. I didn't say Osijek is in Baranya County; I say the city of Pécs is in Baranya. Osijek is in the next sentence.
Perhaps I should have mentioned that Osijek is in eastern Slavonia to be clearer.

Zoltán wrote:

Hey,i think this topic went off topic,i began with communist crimes...

Apologies if this thread got hijacked. I was walking along Ándrássy ut once and was stunned to find myself staring at No. 60, a very inconspicuous apartment building. At the time MDF (a political party in Hungary at the time) had hung a plaque on the site, but there was no official government commemoration. I suspect part of the problem is the lack of willingness to confront unpleasantness from history, especially recent history, but as well there was an attitude after 1989 that it was best just to get on with rebuilding society and not get hung up on old crimes. There is a great comedy film from Hungary I just mentioned on another forum, A Tanú (The Witness) from about 1972 or so, about a simple man whose job it is to catch gophers on an earthen dam, and how this simple guy gets caught up accidentally in a political show trial in the early 1950s. It is a hysterical film but also a very apt one for understanding the times. At one point the main character, József Pelikán, has a confrontation over lunch with a neighbor of his - a neighbor who had been a Nyilaskereszt turncoat thug and who had had Pelikán tortured during the war, knocking out his front teeth. Now they were sharing a lunch in their home village together, in communist times. This kind of scene was re-enacted over all of Eastern Europe, where the Soviets would employ local criminals, former Nazi collaborators, or whoever to be their thugs.

I've stood over mass graves from the communists in Powazki cemetary in Warsaw, over several sites in Warsaw actually, and have heard of others elsewhere. I recall the city council in Kecskemét, a central Great Plains city in Hungary, being afraid of renovating a local Soviet military cemetary because of strong rumors that a mass grave of Hungarian civilians from 1956 lay in its back areas. There is a genuine sense of gratitude among Eastern Europeans for the Soviet armies' role in overthrowing the Nazi occupations, but this gratitude is darkened by the reality that the USSR replaced the Nazi empire with a Soviet one, and treated our countries as mere colonial possessions to be exploited. The relationship between puppet regimes and Moscow was more complex than that and changed over the decades of the Soviet imperianum but this does not detract from the fact that there was a Soviet empire, and all of the communist regimes of Eastern Europe were on a short leash, and were victims of Moscow's terror.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Zoltan
Eighty years wasted on nationalism and communism ... a tragedy.

Clemanceau'S Trianon caused them all.And the treaties of Versailles....:-( [/B][/QUOTE]

How about the willingness of the Hungarian people to wage war?

Austria-Hungary lost a war and signed a treaty, that does not allow excuses to go on murdering rampages through Europe. Take some responsibility. It's not the treaty's fault, it's the peoples's.

Then again, it's so much easier to blame France isn't it

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Zoltan
Hey,i think this topic went off topic,i began with communist crimes,and you are using your old weapon-forget our crimes,say that the others had crimes,too!
What about openeing a thread: "Hungarian crimes 1000BC-2003AD"?Hmmm,would u like it?Maybe i'll make u one,if you promise that you will talk here about evil communits..OK?
But really,don't mess this thread with communist LIES.
Yes,it'S a LIE you said,that 1956 was anti-semitic and the Hungarian goverment was also anti-semitic.
This was our only chance,England did not want to ally with us,i agree that being neutral could have been better,but see Norway!What happens if the Axis won?Norway was occupied for years....

Don't know who said,but during WW1 Hungary was not invaded by Russia,neither by Soviet Russia...

And by Horthy's goverment no Jews were departed to Germany,only during the German occupation,but it was an other era,like the Russian occupation.

I said LIE because what you told was simply a LIE.
Hungary suffered during this century,we weren't agressors.I agree it was a bad move to join the Axis,but it was a bad deision,and the best of the worsts.
Before 1944 Slovakia,Romania and the neighbouring countries had worse Jewish-laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So from now,please,close this Hungary evil issue,OK?Really,open a thread for us!Here discuss communism!

It could be your poor command of English (or, more likely, my inability to understand you) but you don't seem to make any sense. Capitalizing words don't give credibility to an idea that is not backed up by facts and common sense. I posted several web links and a book that prove that 1956 rebellion was strongly linked to anti-semitism for a variety of reasons. It was by no means about anti-semitism exclusively, but to deny that it was anti-semitic at all (as you seem to do so unconvincingly) is like saying that only criminals were arrested during Stalinists purges.
I agree that Hungary was in a tight spot between the wars, but then again, your argument is rather old and is often used for Germany as well - blame it all on WWI results. This idea has some truth to it, but if we accept that Hungary was justified in its actions because it was treated unfairly after WWI we should also accept that actions of Germany and the SU were justified as well - they also wanted a better deal for themselves, no? In other words, you seem to believe is it OK for Hungary to pursue its interests at the expense of its neigbours, but it is not OK for Hungary's neighbours to pursue their interests at the expense of Hungary. Where is the logic here? You can't follow a revisionist poilicy and then compain that someone else wants a revision too.
As for going off-topic - this is very understandable. How do you expect to discuss communist policies in Hungary without looking at WW2? What kind of a discussion would that be? Or did you expect everyone here to say how terrible communist actions were without analyzing their cause and effect?

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale

Austria-Hungary lost a war and signed a treaty, that does not allow excuses to go on murdering rampages through Europe. Take some responsibility. It's not the treaty's fault, it's the peoples's.

Then again, it's so much easier to blame France isn't it [/B]

The dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a stated Entente war-aim from 1916 because part and parcel of Wilson's 14 points.

WWI was in fact a "regime change" war to impose "democracy" on Central Europe.

Dinsdale, you treat the Paris suburb treaties as if they were holy writ. That is your prilvilege. A lot of people disgree with you.

Blaming the French? If the French had any "right" to Alsace-Lorraine then Hungarian revisionism is perfectly justifiable.

Yes, I'm blaming the French of course. And the bunch of hypocritical British bastards with their outdate balance of power ideas - but no ideas about how to preserve peace when the balance of power is irretrieveably broken. And absolutely no will or moral backbone to do anything about it.

And that wooly headed internationalist idealist Wilson. Yes.

The Paris suburb treaties set up a bunch of third-world countries like Greater Serbia and Romania on European soil. These were countries incapable of coiverning themselves, or any oithers, in a civilized manner. The Entente threw both the catholiic and muslim South Slavs and the Peoples of Transilvania to the dogs.

Bloody hell.

 

[unmerged(502)]

yes, sadly French and British border-drawing are known all over the world. Just look at Africa and India.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Hardu
The dismemberment of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a stated Entente war-aim from 1916 because part and parcel of Wilson's 14 points.

WWI was in fact a "regime change" war to impose "democracy" on Central Europe.

Dinsdale, you treat the Paris suburb treaties as if they were holy writ. That is your prilvilege. A lot of people disgree with you.

Blaming the French? If the French had any "right" to Alsace-Lorraine then Hungarian revisionism is perfectly justifiable.

Yes, I'm blaming the French of course. And the bunch of hypocritical British bastards with their outdate balance of power ideas - but no ideas about how to preserve peace when the balance of power is irretrieveably broken. And absolutely no will or moral backbone to do anything about it.

And that wooly headed internationalist idealist Wilson. Yes.

The Paris suburb treaties set up a bunch of third-world countries like Greater Serbia and Romania on European soil. These were countries incapable of coiverning themselves, or any oithers, in a civilized manner. The Entente threw both the catholiic and muslim South Slavs and the Peoples of Transilvania to the dogs.

Bloody hell.

It was a terrible treaty, but that is not an excuse for war. It's a factor in the political atmousphere of post war Europe, but It is not the reason for war.

It's as though Europe dissolved into automatons, unable to think for themselves due to the harshness of the treaty, was this the first time nations lost territory due to a war?

Why is it that France did not begin a murderous rampage around 1835 to regain territory lost under the Vienna Treaty?

It was an awful idea to destabilize central Europe under the pretense of self-determination, but that does not mean that those individual nations should not look further than the treaties to find the causes for WW2.

Zoltan wrote that it was all Clemenceau's fault, an attitude which guarantees abrogating the people from their own responsibility.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

The Vienna/Paris Treaties of 1814/1815 were reactionaru and equitable. The Revolution and Napoelon got the blame for the horrors that France had brought upon Continental Europe. France was not punished, paid no indemnity and eas not subject to military restrictions. The Powers in essence reenacted the status quo ante 1791 and accepted Bourbon restoration France into the community of nations.

Except for Wallonia France did not lose any French speaking territories in 1815. It even got to keep the then monoligual German Alsace. A fact that upset the newly nationalist and liberal bourgeoisie of Germany.

There was no reason for France to go on a rampage. But Fracne did go to war in 1834 - when it successfully intervened in the Carlist Wars in Spain. For påurely domestic reasons it also began the conquest of North Africa.

I have no doubt that if France had e3xerpienced a successful Bonapartist revolution in 1830s France would have gone to war. As it happens, no such reolvuion occurred.

As a result peace ensued for 30 years until shattered by the combined forces of national liberation and liberalism.

If the Paris suburb treaties had been as equitable as the Paris/Vienna settlements there would have been no World War II.

It's as though Europe dissolved into automatons, unable to think for themselves due to the harshness of the treaty, was this the first time nations lost territory due to a war?

Yes, more or less. Nations in the modern sense did not yet exist in 1815. The first modern nation to lose territroy was France in 1871. French revanchism, the root cause of WWI, is apparently regarded as perfectly legitimate because of the "odious" nature of Wilhelmine Germany.

The Paris suburb treaties reek from fear of revanchism - and thus from a terribly guilty conscience on the part of the UK and the US.
The moralizing of the treaties is enough to make an impartial observer puke (I'm Norwegian and have no historical part in it). You British defend WWI as a "balance of power war" to avoid any one country from dominating the Continent. What versailles did was to create a power vacuum on the Continent. Chuirchill the Great Romantic has some very valid observations on the stupidity of forcing regime changes on Central Europe.

Of course, the losers of WWI should of course have accepted their defeat. The problem is that the victors claimed to be acting on universal principles - but ones that did not apply to the vanquished. If they had not then British and US public opinion would not perhaps have become so guilt-ridden as to alllow the
fascist revolutions on the Continent. Revolutions that were just as destructive in their effects as the French.

And without the war that was the inevitable outcome of these revolutions Hungarian revisionism would have been just another irredentist grudge held by an unimportant small country.

And there is consensus that French intransigence shaped the Treaty of Versailles just like it foreclosed on all attempts to reinetgrate democratic Germany into the world community as an equal.

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Hardu
The Vienna/Paris Treaties of 1814/1815 were reactionaru and equitable. The Revolution and Napoelon got the blame for the horrors that France had brought upon Continental Europe. France was not punished, paid no indemnity and eas not subject to military restrictions. The Powers in essence reenacted the status quo ante 1791 and accepted Bourbon restoration France into the community of nations.

Restoration of the Bourbons was not an equitable settlement. It took 100 men and a great leader to overthrow the newly restored regieme. Lousis began undoing 20 years of reforms in 6 months. His imposition upon the French people was if anything worse than 1919. At least the WW1 nations did not foist a halfwit on Germany to rule her.

Except for Wallonia France did not lose any French speaking territories in 1815. It even got to keep the then monoligual German Alsace. A fact that upset the newly nationalist and liberal bourgeoisie of Germany.

Ahh, but looking at territory and political power held by France pre 1814 to post Waterloo, France lost an enormous amount of land.

A/H did not lose purely ethnic regions, they lost areas that they too had conquered, albeit for longer than Revoutionary France.

Do we have a timer for when conquered land becomes "national." If so, how long, and which Austrian and German conquered territory should fall under it?

I have no doubt that if France had e3xerpienced a successful Bonapartist revolution in 1830s France would have gone to war. As it happens, no such reolvuion occurred.

I agree, but would that be a result of Vienna, or a result of Bonapartists?

If the Paris suburb treaties had been as equitable as the Paris/Vienna settlements there would have been no World War II.

Europe has been at war for more than a thousand years. It took the destruction of the continent to prevent another war after 1945, and the threat of MAD.

How can 1 treaty be held responsible for the continuing struggle for land and power, mixed with potent nationalism?

Was the post 1945 treaty equitable? Germany split in two, ethnic cleansing, castration of the central European powers and their incorporation into global power blocks by their former enemies?

Why no WW3 yet?

Yes, more or less. Nations in the modern sense did not yet exist in 1815. The first modern nation to lose territroy was France in 1871. French revanchism, the root cause of WWI, is apparently regarded as perfectly legitimate because of the "odious" nature of Wilhelmine Germany.

Absolutely not, and I have never heard the excuse that WW1 started only because of 1871. It was a factor, but not a spark. WW1's blame is IMHO spread evenly among the major powers.

I disagree that post 1815 is the starting point for assessing treaties. While national will might not have been a factor, dynastic revenge was. Do we blame every war for the treaty of the previous?

The Paris suburb treaties reek from fear of revanchism - and thus from a terribly guilty conscience on the part of the UK and the US.
The moralizing of the treaties is enough to make an impartial observer puke (I'm Norwegian and have no historical part in it). You Britih defend WWI as a "balance of power war" to avoid any one country from dominating the Continent. What versailles did was to create a power vacuum on the Continent. Chuirchill the Great Romantic has some very valid observations on the stupidity of forcing regime changes on Central Europe.

I do not like being treated as a herding animal. Because I am British does not necessarily mean that I or any of my countrymen hold ingrained national views. I do not assume you to be a great ski jumper because you are Norwegian

WW1 was a bloodletting by monarchists and nationalists who thought a quick war would simply be a continuation of previous power struggles. There is no right or wrong side, all share the blame.

However, one side lost. They lost and revenge was taken upon them. It was certainly not the first time, or the last, but I reject the concept that the fate of 1939 was set in stone 1919. There were other paths to take, and the rejection of those paths should not be discounted.

People make wars, not treaties.

Of course, the losers of WWI should of course have accepted their defeat. The problem is that the victors claimed to be acting on universal principles - but ones that did not apply to the vanquished.

Absolutely, the treaty was certainly not motivated by self-determination. If it were then it did not apply to Ireland, Middle East, or any region outside Ger-A/H-Tur.

However, post war treaty propaganda aside, are you claiming that WW2 was sparked because Germans did not accept the hypocrisy of Versailles?

And without the war that was the inevitable outcome of these revolutions Hungarian revisionism would have been just another irredentist grudge held by an unimportant small country.

Well I don't agree. When war is potentially winnable, and long remembered hatreds still simmer, war can occur. Take Yugoslavia for example.

I fail to believe that Europe would simply have settled down to enjoy a tray of tea and sandwiches together post 1919 had the treaties been equitable. War was inevitable.

And there is consensus that French intransigence shaped the Treaty of Versailles just like it foreclosed on all attempts to reinetgrate democratic Germany into the world community as an equal.

I don't understand why France receives all the blame for this. Much as I would like to Britain and the US share responsibility for post 1919 Europe.

I just believe people should take personal responsibility for their actions, nations too. I know it's very chic to blame all the troubles of one's life upon one's parents, but should this apply to government too?

The Axis Powers followed a path. They did not fall down a well.

 

[unmerged(8900)]

French revanchism, the root cause of WWI, is apparently regarded as perfectly legitimate because of the "odious" nature of Wilhelmine Germany.

Such an historical nonsense... Most french people didn't want to go to war even in 1913... If France had ever been willing to attack Germany, they had many opportunities to do it before the WW1 (for instance during Morocco crisis)

There are tens of root causes for WW1 (as well as WW2) boy

 

[Duque de Bragança]

Originally posted by Hardu

And there is consensus that French intransigence shaped the Treaty of Versailles just like it foreclosed on all attempts to reinetgrate democratic Germany into the world community as an equal.

There is no consensus. What about the efforts done by Aristide Briant in favour of Franco-German reconciliation ?

 

[unmerged(6340)]

Dinsdale:
There had been so much wars lost,and nations did not get such terrible peace treaties.Do you think it was an option not to sign it?there were Romanian,Czeh,French troops around us waiting for invasion...Do you think that a Hungarian in Kassa(Kosice) should pay for the war?It was the king's war,not the people's.And even the Czeh did lose the war,and what did they get?
I don't claim back thoose lands now,i agree it would have been no use to own 100%slovak,romanian terrorities,but there were 100%Hungarian terrorities along the border...not only in the Hungarian side of it.
Oh,Webbrave,you can say what do you want,but please,don't try to stain 56's honour.It wasn't glorious for you,but it is for us.I still say,people can say what do they want.If in 56 there was a Jewish killed,it was because he was communist collaborator.


Hungary's claim to the neighbouring terrorities.There were Hungarians living in thoose lands,so we had a right to claim thoose lands back.
The neigbours' claims...there have been no significant number of minorities in Hungary since Trianon.So they had no right to claim our lands.This is the reason why their claims are not acceptable,but ours are acceptable.I can also accept Germany'S claims on neighbouring provinces with German majority,like Alsace-Lotharingia,the Sudeten,etc...Of course the "Lebensraum" is a nonsense.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by Zoltan

Oh,Webbrave,you can say what do you want,but please,don't try to stain 56's honour.It wasn't glorious for you,but it is for us.I still say,people can say what do they want.If in 56 there was a Jewish killed,it was because he was communist collaborator.

Can you please explain what makes it glorious? I am not trying to make fun of your feelings - I honestly don't understand the appeal of these events. My guess is that you simply don't know enough about the events of 1956 in Hungary - it was extremely bloody, the country was on the verge of civil war, there was struggle for power in the Communist Party. It was a tragic event, that is true, but calling it "glorious" is a bit strange.

 

[pithorr]

Originally posted by webbrave
Can you please explain what makes it glorious? I am not trying to make fun of your feelings - I honestly don't understand the appeal of these events. My guess is that you simply don't know enough about the events of 1956 in Hungary - it was extremely bloody, the country was on the verge of civil war, there was struggle for power in the Communist Party. It was a tragic event, that is true, but calling it "glorious" is a bit strange.

No, webbrave - it was heroic uprising of the nation aginst Soviet Empire represented by domestic communist traitors, strangled ruthlessly by Russians in the sea of bood. All nations of Central Europe see it this way, sorry...

I posted several web links and a book that prove that 1956 rebellion was strongly linked to anti-semitism for a variety of reasons. It was by no means about anti-semitism exclusively, but to deny that it was anti-semitic at all (as you seem to do so unconvincingly) is like saying that only criminals were arrested during Stalinists purges.

Let me guess: from Russian sources?

 

[Dinsdale]

Originally posted by Zoltan
Dinsdale:
There had been so much wars lost,and nations did not get such terrible peace treaties...

You lost, signed a treaty, then went to war again to restore it. After losing again (and participating in a war of extermination against Russia) don't be surprised that the Russian victors treated you harshly.

So if I sign a contract I dont like, I can tear it up and kill my vendor?

Hungary's claim to the neighbouring terrorities.There were Hungarians living in thoose lands,so we had a right to claim thoose lands back.

Depends what the starting point is. If those lands are Hungarian the second Hungarians conquered them yes, but more than Hungary claimed those territories.

AustriaHungary did conquer land in the first place didn't it? Or do those conquests not count. Do the "unfair" treaties A-H imposed on other nations give anyone a free shot to go to war?

Zoltan, as I said before, the communists escaped the 20th century without paying for their crimes. However, I ask you again, put Hungary in Russia's position, how lenient would you be to an habitual aggresor?

The only truely innocent victim of post 1945 was Poland. They fought for the bloody allies and still ended up under Stalin's boot. The countries conquered by Russia at least provoked their fate.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by pithorr

Let me guess: from Russian sources?

Maybe you should learn to read again? Go back to my post - it mentions 1 book published in the US and gives links to two English-language websites.
Anti-semitic aspect of 1956 events was never really mentioned in Russia - I learned it from western sources.

 

[unmerged(502)]

Originally posted by pithorr
No, webbrave - it was heroic uprising of the nation aginst Soviet Empire represented by domestic communist traitors, strangled ruthlessly by Russians in the sea of bood. All nations of Central Europe see it this way, sorry...

I don't deny that you see it this way. Everyone needs national mythology. I can bet most people that see it this way can't even name the main participants of these events. After all anything anti-communist is automatically heroic, right?

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by webbrave
I don't deny that you see it this way. Everyone needs national mythology. I can bet most people that see it this way can't even name the main participants of these events. After all anything anti-communist is automatically heroic, right?

Resistance against a foreign oppressor is always heroic, Webbrave.

Fighting communism is a democratic duty.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

One thing should be made clear:

WWII started because Hitler wanted war. Everything else is detail.

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Restoration of the Bourbons was not an equitable settlement. It took 100 men and a great leader to overthrow the newly restored regieme. Lousis began undoing 20 years of reforms in 6 months. His imposition upon the French people was if anything worse than 1919. At least the WW1 nations did not foist a halfwit on Germany to rule her.

France was not occupied or forced to pay crippling indemnities. The Pont de Jena was not blown up (Wellington talked Bücher out of it).

A/H did not lose purely ethnic regions, they lost areas that they too had conquered, albeit for longer than Revoutionary France

.

Yes, but from whom? The Roman Empire? In the caseof Hungary it lost lands that had been "Hungarian" since the time of St.Stephen - 1000 AD.

Do we have a timer for when conquered land becomes "national." If so, how long, and which Austrian and German conquered territory should fall under it?

Europe has been at war for more than a thousand years. It took the destruction of the continent to prevent another war after 1945, and the threat of MAD.

How can 1 treaty be held responsible for the continuing struggle for land and power, mixed with potent nationalism?

The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it was not justified in terms of right = might. It was justified in terms of the universal principle of national sovereignty.

There seems to be consensus that a piece of terriroy is "national" if its inhabitants, when asked to express an opinion on the matter, maintain that they belong to a certain national state.

Was the post 1945 treaty equitable? Germany split in two, ethnic cleansing, castration of the central European powers and their incorporation into global power blocks by their former enemies?

The treaty that ended WWII in Europe was actually the 4 + 2 treaty of 1990. There was no "peace" treaty with Germany after 1945 because the victorious allies abolished the German Reich and created two brand new states on parts of its former territory.

Absolutely not, and I have never heard the excuse that WW1 started only because of 1871. It was a factor, but not a spark. WW1's blame is IMHO spread evenly among the major powers

French revanchism was one of the forces that structured IP in the 1871-1914. It made the French willing to risk war if the conditions were right. When Russia decided to take on Austria-Hungary in 1914 the French decided that the time was ripe - especialy as they had a secret militray treaty with Britain. France flatly denied the German request to stay out of the war. Of course, France was as much compelled to act because it was allied to Russia as Germany was compelled to act because it was allied to Austria-Hungary. But it was the French, not the Germans, that had a motive to wage offensive war. Germany in 1914 was strategically on the defensive - and acted according to pure, but limited, Clausewitzian military rationality. Germany has never really had intelligent politicians ...

I disagree that post 1815 is the starting point for assessing treaties. While national will might not have been a factor, dynastic revenge was. Do we blame every war for the treaty of the previous?

The only "dynastic revenge" war was the Seven years's War (1756-1763). The other large wars between 1648 and 1789 were pure exercises in geopolitics - mainly in French expansionism.

Of course, the most flagrant breach of international law were the British attacks on Denmark in 1801 and 1807 - actions that can be cited as direct precedents for the German march through belgium in 1914. (And thus makes Lloyd George's "scrap of paper" speech relly hypocritical)

I do not like being treated as a herding animal. Because I am British does not necessarily mean that I or any of my countrymen hold ingrained national views. I do not assume you to be a great ski jumper because you are Norwegian

Norwegians are not great ski-jumpers - and I don't ski except on direct orders. I'm sorry for stereotyping you. But you do argue in the conventional British manner on the subject.

WW1 was a bloodletting by monarchists and nationalists who thought a quick war would simply be a continuation of previous power struggles.

As you do with this argument. Have you ever bothered to read up on what the Germans thought about the war in 1914. To most of them 1914 was an unwelcome, but necessary part of the Wars of Liberation and Unification that began in 1809.

Those theoretically inclined couched it in terms of a struggle between British robber capitalism using superior might to stifle the very unwelcome competition of German organized capitalism.

Not only was honest German industrial capital threatening the interests of British global financial capital. The British ruling classes felt threatened by the great social experiment of Germany where the working classes were being integrated into socieity through superior state-financed health, welfare and education schemes instead of being treated as "White Niggers" as was the lot of the British working class. The existence of a society based on social justice and a fair deal for the working man was a threat to the profits of the coupon clippers than ran Britain.
In the face of such a threat the British ruling classe had to resort to the instrument that had made them rich: War.

And as they were totally incompetent at fighting civilized wars the wepon of war was the blockade: The war of starvation against civilians.

Or so the German argument ran.

(In fact there is not a single anti-imperialist argument that does not originate in the German WWI academic defence of the war. Makes listening to the present debate on Iraq quite amusing).

However, one side lost. They lost and revenge was taken upon them. It was certainly not the first time, or the last, but I reject the concept that the fate of 1939 was set in stone 1919. There were other paths to take, and the rejection of those paths should not be discounted.

I fail to believe that Europe would simply have settled down to enjoy a tray of tea and sandwiches together post 1919 had the treaties been equitable. War was inevitable.

Make up your mind Dinsdale.
It may be that the 1918 prophets of doom are remembered only because they were right in the end. But 1918 Germany was not militarily defeated in the crucial sense that the soldiers on the ground actually felt beaten. They did not - which is the root cause of the nazi success. The German High Command recommended ending the war because it could no longer be won. The ensuing revolution was a cave in to the Allied demand for a regime change as a preconditon for an armistice. The German sociald emocrats and liberals actually believed that the Entente were telling the truth when they said they wer fighting to make the wrodl safe for democracy.

However, post war treaty propaganda aside, are you claiming that WW2 was sparked because Germans did not accept the hypocrisy of Versailles?

That is, for one, the standard social democratic version of history. It was consensus in neural Europe as well. And it was of course the unbeatable argument of the German nationalists

Well I don't agree. When war is potentially winnable, and long remembered hatreds still simmer, war can occur. Take Yugoslavia for example.

Stress winnable. Hungary on its own could win no wars against anybody. Its major foreign sponsor was in fact Mussolini and the most likely common enemy Yugoslavia. In 1939 and 1940 Hungary made hay while the sun shone. Just like Poland in 1938 when it grabbed Teschen from the Czechs.

I don't understand why France receives all the blame for this. Much as I would like to Britain and the US share responsibility for post 1919 Europe.

Blame British hypocrisy. But France dragged its feet on the subject of disarmament and torpedoed the 1930 disarmament conference - which was the last chance the Weimar republic had to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the majority of the German people. Remember, the disarmament of Germany in 1919 was only the first step in a process of general disarmament in the world. Or so the Versailles treaty proclaimed.

I just believe people should take personal responsibility for their actions, nations too. I know it's very chic to blame all the troubles of one's life upon one's parents, but should this apply to government too?

So true. But the Soviet occupation of Hungary had nothing to do with Hungarian irredentism. It was basically a consequence of the Soveit victory ib WWII and the impostion of communism inherent in that geopolitical fact.

 

[Dinsdale]

Posts are getting longer and longer Assume agreement for any point not brought up here.

Originally posted by Hardu
France was not occupied or forced to pay crippling indemnities. The Pont de Jena was not blown up (Wellington talked Bücher out of it).

Not as harsh as Versailles I grant you, but the imposition of of government which attempted to reverse all Napoleon's social reforms does not mean fair nor equitable.

Now I really do sound like a leftist but the immediate attempt to restore land to pre-revolutionary owners an impact on the lives of a Frenchman similar to the imposition of reparations to a Germans

Yes, but from whom? The Roman Empire? In the caseof Hungary it lost lands that had been "Hungarian" since the time of St.Stephen - 1000 AD.

Hungary's borders were far from fixed during that 900 year period. The difficulty with westerners imposing treaties on the Balkans is our over-simplified attitude toward national boundaries. The Yugoslavia negotiations post 91, and the 2 years of arguments in the fora about Siebenburgen etc should demonstrate that

The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it was not justified in terms of right = might. It was justified in terms of the universal principle of national sovereignty.

Well it might have been advertised as sovereignty, but sovereignty issues were only important when it was convenient. National boundaries were redrawn to shift power in Central Europe, not to introduce a new epoch of self-determination.

The thing of it is, what does it matter if Versailles et al were false billing. Would WW2 have been avoided had Wilson, Clemenceau and L George announced that it was a treaty of revenge?

There seems to be consensus that a piece of terriroy is "national" if its inhabitants, when asked to express an opinion on the matter, maintain that they belong to a certain national state.

So there are questionaires and polls dating back a couple of hundred years for us to rely on when deciding what is or is not Hungarian

This alone is not enough. Take Kosovo and Ulster for example. Two areas where the current population and historic population have changed.

The treaty that ended WWII in Europe was actually the 4 + 2 treaty of 1990. There was no "peace" treaty with Germany after 1945 because the victorious allies abolished the German Reich and created two brand new states on parts of its former territory.

You aren't a politician are you? Masterful avoidance of the question at hand

immediate post 45 harsher on Germany than post 1919? Yes or no please

French revanchism was one of the forces that structured IP in the 1871-1914. It made the French willing to risk war if the conditions were right. When Russia decided to take on Austria-Hungary in 1914 the French decided that the time was ripe - especialy as they had a secret militray treaty with Britain. France flatly denied the German request to stay out of the war. Of course, France was as much compelled to act because it was allied to Russia as Germany was compelled to act because it was allied to Austria-Hungary. But it was the French, not the Germans, that had a motive to wage offensive war.

So the Austrians and Germans had no part to play in leading Europe to war?

The only "dynastic revenge" war was the Seven years's War (1756-1763). The other large wars between 1648 and 1789 were pure exercises in geopolitics - mainly in French expansionism.

I did not explain clearly. I was countering your point that Versailles is the first example of an overly harsh treaty as it is the first example of a nation-state beeing fleeced. My point was, prior to nation states there would still have been a class who could use prior treaties as an excuse for every war.

Of course, the most flagrant breach of international law were the British attacks on Denmark in 1801 and 1807 - actions that can be cited as direct precedents for the German march through belgium in 1914. (And thus makes Lloyd George's "scrap of paper" speech relly hypocritical)

That was below the belt!
The true scope of LG's hypocrisy is amply demonstrated through his government's negotiations with Sinn Fein to conclude the Irish Independence issue.

You cannot use Copenhagen as an example of International Law breach, as there is no clause of international law to breach at the time.

Anyway, Britain had to save Europe from the ravages of Bonapartism much as it tried to save America from the ravages of Democracy

Norwegians are not great ski-jumpers - and I don't ski except on direct orders. I'm sorry for stereotyping you. But you do argue in the conventional British manner on the subject.

Not true as a matter of fact; Stock Modern History O Level answer to "What were the causes of WW2" is pretty much to explain that Versailles and to a lesser extent economic crisis were the only causes.

As you do with this argument. Have you ever bothered to read up on what the Germans thought about the war in 1914. To most of them 1914 was an unwelcome, but necessary part of the Wars of Liberation and Unification that began in 1809.

I would love to find a source which demonstrates the German people's, or French and Britons for that matter, unwelcome attitude to WW1 published in 1914.

Those theoretically inclined couched it in terms of a struggle between British robber capitalism using superior might to stifle the very unwelcome competition of German organized capitalism.

Does that make it any more or less right than Britain's arguement that we had to defend the chastity of Belgian nuns being violated by the marauding and uncivilized Hun?

(In fact there is not a single anti-imperialist argument that does not originate in the German WWI academic defence of the war.

That doesn't prevent it from being bollox though does it

The decision for Europe to go to war was in the hands of a couple of inbred descendants of Victoria, and a handful of neo-aristocrats in Britain and France. Any relation to the will of their populations are truely coincedence. When one talks of Europe wanting war, the actual decision makers would fit comfortably in an oversized SUV. That being said, I do not recall any of those nations being short of volunteers for the war.

But 1918 Germany was not militarily defeated in the crucial sense that the soldiers on the ground actually felt beaten.
They did not - which is the root cause of the nazi success. The German High Command recommended ending the war because it could no longer be won. The ensuing revolution was a cave in to the Allied demand for a regime change as a preconditon for an armistice. The German sociald emocrats and liberals actually believed that the Entente were telling the truth when they said they wer fighting to make the wrodl safe for democracy.

I agree, and now we are coming to the real seeds of war. The old moral victory chesnut, or the "what-if we did this" syndrome. Germany would still believe they could win the next war, they had grievances, what better solution than another war to prove the last one was really a betrayl.

Stress winnable. Hungary on its own could win no wars against anybody. Its major foreign sponsor was in fact Mussolini and the most likely common enemy Yugoslavia. In 1939 and 1940 Hungary made hay while the sun shone. Just like Poland in 1938 when it grabbed Teschen from the Czechs.

But as you say, the war did become potentially winnable when Hungary was part of the Axis. There is a very real alternative for Hungary in 1940; to stay neutral.

So true. But the Soviet occupation of Hungary had nothing to do with Hungarian irredentism. It was basically a consequence of the Soveit victory ib WWII and the impostion of communism inherent in that geopolitical fact.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the consequences of Hungary et al staying neutral would have been far less grave than attempting to right the wrongs of the previous treaty. It's like the degenerate gambler who sees his only way out from debt being one big win on the horses. He never looks at giving up the game until it is too late.

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Posts are getting longer and longer Assume agreement for any point not brought up here.

So there are questionaires and polls dating back a couple of hundred years for us to rely on when deciding what is or is not Hungarian

No, but the linguistic maps of Europe in 1900 were very clear. The Hunagrian-Slovak border in particular amade a mockery of every notion of national self-determination. Still does.

You aren't a politician are you? Masterful avoidance of the question at hand immediate post 45 harsher on Germany than post 1919? Yes or no please

***Feigning complete innocence*** No, but I've been into quite a few political arguments in my life.
There was no treaty in 1945.

The answer is of course yes. Germany was occupied. That regime was no better or no worse than that imposed by the Germans in Norway. But it was based on the idea that the Allies had to do some "nation-building" and "democratization" there to avoid a third war.

Of course, the German nationalist right had been totally dicredited by the defeat. The German Social Democrats discredited themselves in the eyes of the occupying powers by being obnoxiously nationalistic and uncooperative (somewhat like the Austrians - being the "first victims" of nazism"). This opened the way for the "arch-collaborator" Adenauer and the catholics to reshape Germany in their image.

IMO the Allied did the politically right thing in 1943-45. The demand for unconditional surrender, costly in human lives as it was (approx 7 million), ensured the total defeat of Germany. The moralvictory of democracy.

But the treaty ending WWII made Germany a full member of the international community - a membership the Social Democrats are throwing overboard in their antimilitarist nationalism.

So the Austrians and Germans had no part to play in leading Europe to war?

August 1914 is a case of dominos falling because somebody rocks the table. Austria was totally unprepared for war. Germany in particular had no earthly strategic reason to start a war against any of its neighbours. It did of course have the capacity - which was the problem. The problem in 1914 is that all the powers thought that they would win the war...

I did not explain clearly. I was countering your point that Versailles is the first example of an overly harsh treaty as it is the first example of a nation-state beeing fleeced. My point was, prior to nation states there would still have been a class who could use prior treaties as an excuse for every war.

.

Prior to the 19th century "war" was as much "feud" - the exercise of private forcible constraint in a legal dispute - as an act of state. (It was an act of state because the king was the state)

That was below the belt!
The true scope of LG's hypocrisy is amply demonstrated through his government's negotiations with Sinn Fein to conclude the Irish Independence issue.

You cannot use Copenhagen as an example of International Law breach, as there is no clause of international law to breach at the time.

Yes, international law is the only law that develops through being broken. There was in fact a treaty of friendship and cooperation between us and you in force in 1801. And there was no British declaration of war prior to the opening of hostilities.

Anyway, Britain had to save Europe from the ravages of Bonapartism much as it tried to save America from the ravages of Democracy

No disagreement.

I would love to find a source which demonstrates the German people's, or French and Britons for that matter, unwelcome attitude to WW1 published in 1914.

The German professors who wrote "The ideas of 1914" were certainly not warmongers. My point is that nobody wanted war in 1914 - except possibly the most revanchist segment of the French populaiton and a handful of Russian slavophiles.

The strike below the belt once more. The British cabinet went into a blue funk when it heard of the Christmas truce on 1914 and prohibited all further such fraternizaiton with the enemy because iot feared for the moral of the trrops. The German High Command ingnored the entire event. As Max Weber put it: "Our troops know what they are fighting for".

The decision for Europe to go to war was in the hands of a couple of inbred descendants of Victoria, and a handful of neo-aristocrats in Britain and France. Any relation to the will of their populations are truely coincedence. When one talks of Europe wanting war, the actual decision makers would fit comfortably in an oversized SUV. That being said, I do not recall any of those nations being short of volunteers for the war.

You are a true adherent to the Lords Shrewesbury and Macauly interpretation of Continental political systems as pure despotisms I notice. Your description of pre-1914 Europe is the kind I'd expect from the contemporary American right. What you're saying just is not true.

I agree, and now we are coming to the real seeds of war. The old moral victory chesnut, or the "what-if we did this" syndrome. Germany would still believe they could win the next war, they had grievances, what better solution than another war to prove the last one was really a betrayl.

Most Germans put the blame for their defeat squarely on incompetent military leadership in 1914. Of course they wanted a new round. They knew they were better at fighting wars than any others - and Versailles had squarely stated that might = right.

But as you say, the war did become potentially winnable when Hungary was part of the Axis. There is a very real alternative for Hungary in 1940; to stay neutral.

It was a very real alternative for Britain to stay neutral in 1939 as well. It would have meant throwing every principle and every foreign policy goal overboard. As you say

Hindsight is a wonderful thing,