Wayne wrote :

> Minor point: Germans occupying a part of Germany is not
> exactly an aggressive
> act.

As far as the Germans were concerned, I may agree. It remains nevertheless a
blatant violation of one provision of the Versailles Treaty which was signed
in 1919 and effectively ended WWI.

> 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.

True, once again as far as the Germans were concerned. The discussion here
should focus on the difference of perception to the same message between a
domestic audience and an international one.

> 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.

This is not true, due to a technicality. Rhineland (actually, all the
territories west of the Rhine) were still part of Germany. They had not been
annexated or otherwise taken over by anyone else. They were technically
demilitarized, i.e. no troops (of any nationality) were allowed in these
territories. The intended purpose was to create a demilitarized buffer zone
between Germany and the countries flanking Germany's western border, i.e.
France, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Demilitarized zones have been commonly used to create buffers between former
or actual foes. A few examples I can think of are North/South Korea, the two
parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern
Irak.

By analogy, what does everyone think of the analogy that had Hitler reoccupy
Rhineland and could have Saddam re-flying the no-fly zones ? We all assume
that can't happen since, under a past UN resolution (sorry, I don't remember
its number), US and British planes are allowed to intercept Iraki planes in
these areas.

By the way, shouldn't we let our German friends on this list express their
feelings about Rhineland and possible (but far from proved) analogies
between Saddam and Hitler ?

> Another lesson in how to create enemies.

Read the provisions of the Versailles Treaty, the enormous financial
penalties that were exacted against Germany after 1919 and you get a case of
how to push innocent people (the German civilians that were hurt by the
penalties) into your enemy's arms (Hitler). Now substitute Saddam for
Hitler, UN sanctions for war reparations, Irak for Germany, and you may
understand why the Irakis are dead set against the West. Add an overdose of
Saddam propaganda, and you get the picture. Of course, in the future we may
bring them democracy and a few other nice features, but that is long term.
In the short term, all the Iraki civilians perceive from us is that the West
is starving them. Whether it is the truth or not is irrelevant. I'm talking
about perception.

I'm certainly not advocating yielding to Saddam. The West yielded to Hitler
in 1935 and we saw the results.

>  Think a bit about
> the future of
> Iraq AFTER the possible war.  Who are we going to make mad at us?

This is exactly my concern. I could not have said it better.

Christian

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