Christian Lheureux writes


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.
---------------------------------------------------
Let's not forget the neutral zone between the Romulans and the Federation :)

Mike Berkowitz
Guess? Inc.

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