HP3000-L Archives

February 2003, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"William L. Brandt" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
William L. Brandt
Date:
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:42:29 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Wayne - we can certainly debate all day about the morality of the Versailles Treaty - you certainly won't get me to defend all of it - it could be said that it allowed the rise of Hitler with the Depression  - but it set up the Rhineland area as a "neutral zone" with no German military allowed. 

Only partly tongue in cheek one could say that Germany's mastery of sail plane and air rifle design today was thanks to the Versailles Treaty. 

You would get the same argument with the Alsace Lorrain (sp?) area - over the centuries passed between Germany and France. If by your logic Hitler was perfectly justified in marching back to the Rhineland area then he was justified in marching back to Alsace Lorraine - which Germany lost after WW1, and retaking if from France.  

Compare the "neutral zones" set up by the Versailles Treaty to the "no fly" zones today - and Hussein's attempts to nullify them. 

BTW in order to bluff France & Britain Hitler had soldiers march across during the day - then at night they would go back across the Rhein - only to march across again the next day -  making Britain & France think he had a much larger army than was there. 

When I was stationed in the Army over in Germany during the early 1970s, I had many conversations with then middle aged Germans over Hitler and WW2 - and most said that prior to Stalingrad they thought he was great. He gave them work again - with the Depression -  and pride in being German - something the Versailles Treaty emasculated. 

I would say that his march across the Rhein in 1936 - a direct challenge to Britain and France - was the true beginning of WW2. 

Bill

  Wayne wrote: 

  Minor point: Germans occupying a part of Germany is not exactly an aggressive act.  Hitler's action in this case contributed to his popularity inside of Germany.  the existance of the Rheinland situation allowed Hitler to gain popularity among the German people.  Had that part of Germany stayed a part of Germany after WWI, Hitler would have had no action to take and no popularity to gain.

  Another lesson in how to create enemies.  Think a bit about the future of Iraq AFTER the possible war.  Who are we going to make mad at us?

  Wayne 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

ATOM RSS1 RSS2