It is, I believe, of singular importance for understanding the antecedents of a war meant "to end all wars", the extraordinary decisions made at Versailles, and the consequences of those decisions, some of which laid the seeds to festering problems that bedevil part of the world to this day.

Paris 1919

"Margaret MacMillan received her Ph.D. from Oxford University and is provost of Trinity College and professor of history at the University of Toronto. Her previous books include Women of the Raj and Canada and NATO. Published as Peacemakers in England, Paris 1919 was a bestseller chosen by Roy Jenkins as his favorite book of the year. It won the Samuel Johnson Prize, the PEN Hessell Tiltman Prize, and the Duff Cooper Prize and was a finalist for the Westminster Medal in Military Literature. MacMillan, the great-granddaughter of David Lloyd George, lives in Toronto."

"It's easy to get into a war, but ending it is a more arduous matter. It was never more so than in 1919, at the Paris Conference....This is an enthralling book: detailed, fair, unfailingly lively. Professor MacMillan has that essential quality of the historian, a narrative gift." Allan Massie, The Daily Telegraph (London)"

 
"Over There" 
by George M. Cohan in 1917 

(George M. Cohan was awarded 
the Congressional Medal of Honor 
for writing this song.) 

Johnnie, get your gun, 
get your gun, get your gun, 
Take it on the run, 
on the run, on the run, 
Hear them calling you and me, 
ev'ry son of liberty 
Hurry right away, 
no delay, go today 

Make your Daddy glad 
to have had such a lad, 
Tell your sweetheart not to pine, 
to be proud her boy's in line 

Over there, over there! 
Send the word, send the word, 
over there! 
That the Yanks are coming, 
the Yanks are coming, 
The drums rum-tumming ev'rywhere! 

So prepare, say a prayer, 
send the word, send the word 
to beware! 
We'll be over, we're coming over, 
And we won't come back 
'til it's over Over There! 

Johnnie, get your gun, 
get your gun, get your gun, 
Johnnie show the Hun 
you're a son of a gun! 
Hoist the flag and let her fly, 
Yankee Doodle do or die 

Pack your little kit, 
show your grit, do your bit 
Yankees to the ranks 
from the towns and the tanks 
Make your mother proud of you and 
the old Red White and Blue 

Over there, over there, 
Send the word, send the word, 
over there! 
That the Yanks are coming, 
the Yanks are coming, 
The drums rum-tumming ev'ry where 

So prepare, say a prayer, 
send the word, send the word 
to beware 
We'll be over, 
we're coming over, 
And we won't come back 
'til it's over Over There!

Yankee Doodle went to town, a riding on a pony. He stuck a feather in his cap, and called it macaroni.

I got my copy from our local library but will abide by your wishes about reading it too far ahead.

"When the President (Woodrow Wilson) talks of self-determination......what unit has he in mind? Does he mean a race, a territorial area, or a community?"

I like johnq's question. I certainly hope he returns with book in hand and questions you again.

The 14 Points

The 14 points is not all that is available at this site. Lots of maps, lots of info about before and after the war plus much more. Its a regular treasure trove.

Yes, the map page flipping is driving me nuts so I will try to find some of the same maps online and do the same thing with those that I can do with the 14 Points. There are four maps at that site but Asia and Africa didn't appear. I will look for them.

Whatever helps! I need all the help that I can get! LOL!

The Versaise Treaty

Scroll down for the maps and other things. These should be in color.

"Today, some argue, resurgent Islam is the menace. In 1919 it was Russian Bolshevism. The difference is that we have not held a universal peace conference."

I was also dumbfounded by the amount of work it was going to take to bring a peace to the world. Just can't imagine anyone keeping track of all those details.

Harold

Do you think that those now well known attendants and assistants like Sygman Rhee, Ho chi Minh, Winston Churchill, FDR, ect. had any ambitions at that time to become leaders of their countries in the later years?? Were they already looking out for their futures??

Did anyone here know that over 100,000 Chinese laborers were used by the British Army to dig trenches on the Western Front?? According to a history site here, this was the first war fought on three continents. What three continents are we speaking of here? Also, on that site is an incredibile list of WWI alumni including Walt Disney, Humphey Bogart, Pope John the XXIII, Mussollini, Fiorello La Guardia, Generals Montgomery, Patton and Rommel and many more familiar names. There are lots of firsts for this war listed also.

1. First war using air power

2. First use of a blood bank

3. First use of using trillions estimating war costs

4. First use of x-ray in the military

5. First use of guide dogs for blinded soldiers( I have to ask! Was that for continuing in battles or after the war?)

6. First commissioning of war art for propaganda

Here's the link for anyone interested. WWII Facts

Back to the peace talks, the French just didn't trust anyone whose borders touched theirs.

I just heard that when the US entered the war, it was after the sinking of the Lusitania by Germany and that Germany claimed that the sinking was within International Law as the ship was loaded with arms going to London. And, recently, that has been proven true by a dive team.

"Fears were more important than ambitions. Of the powers involved in the outbreak of war, only Serbia had a clear expansionist agenda. The French hoped to recover the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine lost to Germany as a result of their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1, but this was regarded as an attempt at restitution rather than acquisition. Otherwise, defensive considerations were paramount. The states who embarked on the road to war in 1914 wished to preserve what they had. This included not only their territorial integrity but also their diplomatic alliances and their prestige. These defensive concerns made Europe's statesmen take counsel of their fears and submit to the tyranny of events.

The Austrians feared for the survival of their multi-racial Empire if they did not confront the threat of Serb nationalism and Panslavism. The Germans feared the consequences to themselves of allowing Austria, their closest and only reliable ally, to be weakened and humiliated. The Russians feared the threat to their prestige and authority as protector of the Slavs if they allowed Austria to defeat and humiliate Serbia. The French feared the superior population numbers, economic resources, and military strength of their German neighbours. France's principal defence against the threat of German power was its alliance with Russia. This it was imperative to defend. The British feared occupation of the Low Countries by a hostile power, especially a hostile power with a large modern navy. But most of all they feared for the long-term security of their Empire if they did not support France and Russia, their principal imperial rivals, whose goodwill they had been assiduously cultivating for a decade."

A link to the paper submitted by Dr Bourne Total War I: The Great War

The Great War Timline

_____________

There is nothing better than a stimulating, spirited (non-combative) discussion. Thank you, ELLA and HAROLD, for leading this one, and thank you to all participants, especially KLEO and JONATHAN.

KLEO, the knowledge of "foreign" languages, i.e. languages other than one's own native tongue, is part and parcel of one's education in Europe where I was born, raised and educated. The curriculum in European college prep high schools includes Latin, Greek and modern languages, as well as world geography, world history, phsycis, chemistry, sciences and math in all its diverse ramifications. All are REQUIRED subjects. I had no idea what "electives" were until we came to this country, precisely 50 years ago.

The under-appreciation, actually the NON- appreciation of proficiency in languages other than English I encountered, was an enormous disappointment to me, wich has never abated. Because among other things my great passion and field of endeavor are languages and linguistics. I will not elaborate because this has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

"This archive of primary documents from World War I has been assembled by volunteers of the World War I Military History List (WWI-L). The archive is international in focus and intends to present in one location primary documents concerning the Great War.

”Where Wilson believed that the use of force ultimately failed, Clemenceau had seen it succeed too often. ‘I have come to the conclusion that force is right….why is this chicken here? Because it was not strong enough to resist those who wanted to kill it. And a very good thing too.” (p.24)

Language learning seems to be an anathema for America and some of the other English speaking countries. The interest in other languages, learning them and knowing where they come from is so prolific in Europe. I understand that learning English in the Scandanavian countries is required and the students study it for 9 years. Too bad that we don't do the same.

Like Ella, I am taking a back seat and just learning from all the knowledgeable folks in this discussion. I think we have struck a mother lode of history buffs!! Yay!!

The Great War had begun with a series of mistakes and it ended in confusion. The allies (and let us include their Associate, the United States, in the term) were not expecting victory when it came. Austria-Hungary was visibly collapsing in the summer of 1918, but Germany till looked strong. Allied leaders [had] planned for at least another year of war. By the end of October, however, Germany's allies were falling away and suing for armistices, the German army was streaming back toward its own borders and Germany itself was shaking with revolutionary outbursts ... emphasis mine; pg. 19, second paragraph.

(2) Czechoslovakia is mentioned twice even though at that time, before the conference ever began, there was NO SUCH entity yet created, since the Austro-Hungarian Empire had only just collapsed;

(3) A "Frances Stevenson" is mentioned but not identified until chapter 4 as Lloyd George's mistress, who had tutored his youngest daughter (pp 40-41).

It is not immediately clear what relevance the juicier details of Clémenceau's and Lloyd George's affairs have regarding the subject matter at hand; or why it may matter that Clémenceau LOVED Claude Monet but couldn't STAND Renoir (pg. 31).

Rather surprising is this sentence on pg. 44:

" The dominions - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa - were already self-governing."

"was infuriated when Clémenceau conceded that English would be an official language at the Peace Conference alongside French."

"I find myself between Jesus Christ on the one hand and Napoleon Bonaparte on the other!"

I am overwhelmed by this book because I don't have any recollection of learning much in history about it. Probably just names and dates for each of the countries involved.

I find these leaders either very brave or very ???????? Their coming together to try for a world peace is a unforgettable project even though they failed in more ways than one. That the League failed to pass here in the US is too bad since it was a start towards ajudicating the problems of the world. Yes, Wilson should have taken a more diverse group, politically, with him to Paris.

Harold, you asked if the non-fiction or religious books group had read and discussed anymore titles than you listed here. Only two were left out that I can think of and they were:

1.When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball which dealt with the three Abrahamic faiths.

2. Walking the Bible by Bruce Feilor which was quite a nice way to introduce most of us to the Middle East geography and its religious history.

So, Kleo, those discussions are also in the Archives under these titles if you want to read them.

Do we have a page that we are referring to today? I find that I want to wait to read the whole book before deciding who I prefer of the Big Three or Four! Am into the Balkans and discovering so much more than I have ever read or heard from my SIL who is 2nd generation Croatian and who's grandfather came to the US to raise funds to help Croation during WWI. How I wish that I had the opportunity discuss this with him but he lived in the south and I in the north. And, now he is gone, at the age of 97.

I think regardless of examples set for successful diplomatic relations there will always be leaders who are power drunk and agenda bent who will never negotiate. We see this all through history and unfortunately, as we well know, history continues to repeat itself ad infinitum.

Saying that, I think also that we do still perceive cultures separately and as different from ours. Its part of what makes us human, I guess, but I certainly hope that most of us would have second thoughts and try to understand someone who is raised differently than ourselves.

Ella, per your question about how many delegates or representatives, I think I read that were over 1000 in Paris and that doesn't mean anyone but those who were involved with the making of the treaty plus the league. Above all that were many journalists, petitioners, the curious and quite a few social thinking folk like Elsa Maxwell.

Japan rendered vital, worldwide naval support to Great Britain during the First World War, culminating in the service of Japan's first and only Mediterranean squadron. This long-forgotten Japanese flotilla fought alongside allied warships throughout the most critical period of the struggle against German and Austro-Hungarian U-boats in 1917 and 1918. Japan in fact stretched its naval resources to the limit during the First World War. Japanese naval assistance in the Mediterranean Sea in 1917 boosted the strength of allied naval escorts during the darkest days of the war. Beyond the Mediterranean, an argument can be made that without Japanese assistance Great Britain would have lost control of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. That would have isolated the British Empire's two dominions in the Far East, Australia and New Zealand, from the campaigns in Europe and the Middle East. Other British colonies, from Aden and India to Singapore and Hong Kong, would have been exposed. Despite this help, Japan, at best a mistrusted and suspect ally of Great Britain in 1914, emerged from the conflict feared and despised by its "friends."

Well, there has to be more this story and if you are interested you can read more here: Japan's Involvement in WWI

”They took a high moral tone (not for the first time in international relations) saying repeatedly that they wanted nothing for themselves…..The main Canadian concern, however, was to keep on good terms with the United States and to bring it together with Britain.

(1) between Bohemia and the Palatinate, 1618-23;

(2) Denmark and the north of Germany, 1625-29;

(3) the Swedes who from 1630-35 under King Gustav Adolf (father of Queen Christina played by Greta Carbo in the movie of the same name) marched way down to Bavaria in the south of Germany, and

(4) between and France, 1635-48.

___________

KLEO, I had no idea that Oprah's book club has spawned some 55 affiliated clubs around the globe; some public, some even private, several indeed following up on "Anna Karenina", quite a necessity, IMHO.

I admit I was very surprised that Oprah chose Anna Karenina, knowing how difficult and demanding the book is and how unprepared we are for the history of Russia.

But, here's a link to one map that has a little animation with it that shows when and where the war started and who joined in where and who was on whose side.

PBS Animated Map of WWI

I keep an extra window open on my desktop with this map on it so that I can refer to it without having to look for it daily. I also keep it as a bookmark to bring up in that extra window. Its a visual help, that's all. Well, mental, too, I guess! And, I need all the help that I can get!

African map on the eve of WWI

Togo

Cameroon, - both on the coast of W. Africa -

German South-West Africa (Namibia today) and

German East Africa (today Tanzania)

JONATHAN, perhaps your library contains information also about Hans Jakob Christoph von Grimmelshausen (born in Hesse ca. 1620), who wrote "Abenteuerlicher Simplicius Simplicissimus" (The Adventures of ...) (and survived the war) about his participation in it as Page of Swedish officers and his participation in the excesses and cruelties of war, for which he atoned until the end of his life.

Oh yes, I am familiar with Ricarda Huch's work on the Thirty-Years War and the prose epos "Der grosse Krieg in Deutschland", and also with her two volumes of "Geschichten von Garibaldi", about Giuseppe Garibaldi who brought about the unification of Italy. Thomas Mann praised her work highly. She lived in Heidelberg for some years, and we hovered over her books in the magnificent University Library.

I look forward to the discussion of the next chapters, beginning tomorrow.

At 'dictionary.com', the word revanchism means, 1. The act of retaliating; revenge. 2. A usually political policy, as of a nation or an ethnic group, intended to regain lost territory or standing.

” The five most powerful Nations, France, the British Empire, U.S., Italy and Japan, simply decided all issues in their own private council appropriately referred to as the “Supreme Council.” Later this Council was effectively reduced to four by the exclusion of Japan on many issues. Apparently in the Supreme Council each of the five member nations (later 4), had one vote.”

My reading so far has led me to want to understand the Brest-Litovsk Treaty between Germany and Russia. I did look it up and here's what I found, for any who are interested.

On the 3rd December 1917 a conference between a Russian delegation, headed by Leon Trotsky and German and Austrian representatives began at Brest-Litovsk. Trotsky had the difficult task of trying to end Russian participation in the First World War without having to grant territory to the Central Powers. By employing delaying tactics Trotsky hoped that socialist revolutions would spread from Russia to Germany and Austria-Hungary before he had to sign the treaty. After nine weeks of discussions without agreement, the German Army was ordered to resume its advance into Russia. On 3rd March 1918, with German troops moving towards Petrograd, Vladimir Lenin ordered Trotsky to accept the German terms. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty resulted in the Russians surrendering the Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic provinces, the Caucasus and Poland.

Since 1919, however, it has become clear that the diplomats called together at the close of a general European war are so bound by earlier agreements and by the exigencies of the moment that they cannot build a New Jerusalem. They are fortunate if they are able even to reconstruct an old order.

”It is tempting but misleading to compare the situation in 1919 to that in 1945. In 1919 there were no superpowers, no Soviet Union with its millions of soldiers occupying the center of Europe and no United States with its huge economy and its monopoly of the atomic bomb. In 1919, the enemy states were not utterly defeated. The peacemakers talked expansively about making and unmaking nations, but the clay was not as malleable and the strength to mold it not as great as they liked to think. Of course, the peacemakers had considerable power. They still had armies and navies.. They had the weapon of food if they chose to use it against a starving Europe. They could exert influence by threats and promises, to grant or withhold recognition, for example. They could get out the maps and move borders this way or that, and most of the time their decision would be accepted, - but not always…The ability to conrol events was limited by such factors as distance, usable transportation and available forces-and by the unwillingness of the Great Powers to expend their resources.”

A general association must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political Independence and territorial integrity to the great and small states alike.

t 'dictionary.com', the word revanchism means, 1. The act of retaliating; revenge. 2. A usually political policy, as of a nation or an ethnic group, intended to regain lost territory or standing.

“The very word ‘mandate’ had a benevolent and pleasing sound. Initially it also caused considerable confusion when it was produced at the Peace Conference. Was it merely a bit of window dressing, as cynics thought, to describe old-fashioned land grabbing, or was it a new departure in international relations?”

HAROLD,thank you for the link to Mussolini's bio. It contains a factual error in the beginning : Mussolini was born in the small town of Predappio, which is located in the province ("regione") of Romagna. (Other Italian provinces/regioni are Lombardia, Piemonte (Piedmont), Toscana (Tuscany), Umbria, Calabria, Sicilia, to name just a few.)

I have been reading all of the posts and from them, I gather that we all hope or wish that the UN will work and continue to improve as time permits. When I see all of the misery still in the world after 80 some years, it makes me sad. I just finished another article about Sudan and wonder what the UN can do there. The more I read of the passing around of parts of countries (mandates) during 1919, the casualness of it all, I am astounded.

But, still hopeful, that we will one day get it right and want the whole world to have the freedom and rights that we enjoy.

I am beginning to see where stories of outer space, aliens, galaxies. space ships, other worlds that we haven't even touched on yet are originating. The decisions made in 1919 have affected more than is printed here. And, in the end, there is always the oil to run it all.

One thing mentioned about Germany in another book is that there was nationalism and pride and greed in that country when those in charge realized how powerful they had become since 1900, with one of the largest industrial complexes in place.

What none of the representatives seemed to realize was how technology would affect the outcome of future wars. When I read of France and Clemanceu's fears about their population being so much smaller than Germany's, it sort of sickens me. How casual they are with their use of the soldiers and worried about having more available for future wars. Its as if the people were only there as baby machines,producing for the next war!!

Traude

Are the countries that you listed before the ones that were considered mandatable in 1919?? The countries that are listed as Germany's?? Here's that map again: Africa 1900

"None of the victorious powers thought Germany should get back its colonial possessions, which included several strings of Pacific islands and pieces of Africa, and Wilson had made it clear that he expected the League to assume responsibility for their governance. ...

The French wanted Togoland and Cameroon and an end to German rights in Marocco ... The Italians had their eyes on, among other things, parts pf Somalia; in the British Empire, South Africa wanted German South West Africa, Australia wanted New Guinea, and New Zealand wanted German Samoa. The British hoped to annex German East Africa to fill in the missing link beteen their colonies to the north and south.

They had also made a secret deal with the French to divide up the Ottoman empire. The Japanese too had their scret deals, with the Chinese to take over German rights and concessions, and with the British to keep the German islands north of the equator."

Germany relinquished all the territory it had conquered since 1914, as well as Alsace Lorraine. Allied troops occupied the whole of the Rhineland as well as three bridgeheads on the east bank of the river; it submarines, its heavy guns, its mortars, its airplanes and 25,000 machine guns. (This brought an anguished cry frm the German negotiators:"Why, we are lost! How shall we defend ourselves against Bolshevism?")

The great high fleet which had done so much to alienate Britain from Germany sailed out of port one last time. On a misty November day sixty-nine ships, from battleships to destroyers, passed between lines of Allied ships on their way to Scapa Flow in the British Orkneys. It was a surrender and the Allies treated it as such."

And the other countries' losses War Losses

I did not know that the Rhineland was occupied/controlled by France. Didn't much of the war occur there? I remember the red fezzes that the Morrocons wore from old movies that I have seen.

"Many people in Paris found the Balkans confusing. At his first meeting with Pasic (prime minister of Serbia) Lloyd George inquired whether Serbs and Croats spoke the same language. Only a handful of specialists, or cranks, had made it their business to study the area. What most people knew was that the Balkans were dangerous for Europe; they had caused trouble for decades as the Ottoman empire disintegrated and Austria-Hungary and Russia vied for control; and they had sparked off the Great War when Serb nationalists assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne in Sarajevo."

According to our book

What started with a few mainly Croat intellectuals and priests along the Dalmatian coast grew by the 1860s into--jugoslovjentsvo--Yugoslavism--with a Yugoslav academy, schools, journals, all to promote unity among South Slavs. The Peace Conference, contrary to what many people have believed since, did not create Yugoslavia--it had already created itself by the time the first diplomats arrived in Paris.

I thought that the author gave us a pretty complete picture of King Nicholas of Montenegro.

Like Ella, I wish we could have a sit-down, our own conference, with all there is to learn. I told Ella on Saturday night that we needed a conference call of all the posters. There is so much in the book and on the internet to learn and share. This book could spawn a class!!

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/austhung.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/hungary.htm

P.S. I see it DID work this time.

ANN, see how tiny Herzegovina seems!

"King Peter I of Serbia became the first monarch; his son, Alexander I, succeeded him on Aug. 16, 1921. Croatian demands for a federal state forced Alexander to assume dictatorial powers in 1929 and to change the country's name to Yugoslavia."

The disintegration of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary in the final months of World War I gave tremendous impetus to the south-Sav independence movement, which had been festering for more than a century. In October 1918, representatives from the various south Slav dependies under the former Austrian and Hungarian sovereignty assembled in Zagbreb. After organizing a provisional government, the delegates approved a resolution for union with Serbia.

The national assembly of Montenegro took similar action in November. Alexander, Prince of Serbia, pending recovery of his ailing father, King Peter I Karageorgevitch of Serbia, accepted the regency of the provisional government on December 1, 1918. The new state, officially styled the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was then proclaimed.

As a result of Italian demands for Slav territory, the Paris Peace Conference became deadlocked on the question of the western frontiers of the new kingdom. During the deadlock in 1919, the port city of Fiume also known as Rijeka, one of the disputed areas, was seized by a quasi-official force of Italian troops under the writer and nationalist leader Gabriele d'Anunzio. This action as well as pressure from other Allied powers finally led to direct negotiations beween the Italian and provisional Yugoslav governments. With the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo on Nov. 12, 1920 by Italy and Yugoslavia the two nations reached an amicable settlement.

Mainly in exchange for renunciation of its claims on Dalmatia, Italy obtained the province of Istria with its port city Trieste (where James Joyce lived for a while) and other important territorial concessions. The treaty also stipulated that Fiume was to be a free city under the administrative control of the League of Nations. This provision did not go into effect, however, and Italy, in 1924, secured formal Yugoslav recognition of its de facto ownership of the port.

Harold

You asked if the new borders were fair and its hard to single out one country's claims from another to see if they received what they wanted but it could be done if we had a huge wall map with the old borders and the new ones and the claims to each. I think that when the word 'nationalism' arose most of the folks involved didn't even know what it meant.

That's why when we deal with Iraq in today's world, its confounding to me that the country's citizens are very nationlist thinking since Iraq was another of the new countries formed after WWI. Why didn't that happen with Yugoslavia and Chechloslovakia??

"The English writer Rebecca West airily dismissed rumors, probably true, that he (Pasic) had known about the plot to assassinate the archduke in Sarajevo: ... Mr. Pashitch, could not feel the same embarrasment at being suspected of complicity in the murder of a national enemy that would have been felt by his English contemporaries, say Mr. Balfour or Mr. Asquith.'" emphasis mine

Traude

I have read somewhere else about 'nationalism' in Yugoslavia and why it didn't work.

Were you aware of the many other treaties signed at the Peace Conference?? There's so much that we don't know or understand. For instance, why were the Balkans in such a disruptive mess? In today's world, wouldn't you think that they could get along without constantly warring with each other?? Have we not learned anything??

And, in the midst of all these wars, a small country (was it not part of Chechoslovakia), Slovakia has become the Silicon Valley of Europe. Many companies have built their headquarters there and are conducting business as if these wars weren't happening.

The Supreme council did not explain what made a just settlement. Did it mean providing defensible borders? Railway networks? Trade Routes? In the end the experts agreed only that they would try to draw boundaries along lines of nationality>

”the splintered trees, the little wooden crosses with palm leaves dotting the fields, the shrapnel littering the road, the shell craters, the tangles of rusting barbed wire, the tanks and guns buried in the mud, the scraps of uniform, the unburied bones….for miles and miles the ground is just a mass of deep shell craters, filled with water……I have never seen such horrible waste and such intense destruction.”

With Rumania and its 'con artist' approach to the council and who seems to me to be the wiliest of wolves in the Balkan pack, I am surprised that they ended up with anything.

About the EU and Slovakia, I believe that I read today that they were accepted into the EU in May of this year and are already preparing to protect the far eastern EU border which means 98 miles along Ukraine. This is expected of them according to another treaty, The Schengen Treaty of 1999. Well, you can read it here: Slovakia's Border Protection System with the newest of electronic devices. There are more Slovakians trying to escape to the Ukraine than vicey-versey. Now, I wonder why that doesn't compute for me. And so, the beat goes on!!

The Schengen process is a separate one from EU ascession. The EU ascession treaty assumes that the 10 new countires will try to meet Schengen criteria, but Schengen acceptance, like Euro currency acceptance, is a process separate from EU membership, itself. The UK and Ireland are EU countries, but not Schengen countries; Iceland and Norway are Schengen, but not EU. Interestingly, while there will remain a border between Slovakia and its neighbors, new legistlation before the EU, the Freedom of Movement legislation, will permit Slovak citizens to live and work in all other EU contries without restriction, except for a simple non-discrectionalry registration in the host country. For instance, a Slovak can simply rent an apartment in Paris and get a job, all by only showing his Slovak I.D. card. The Slovak will not need to get any french residency permit or working papers. After living in Paris for 6 months, the Slovak will simply need to go to a Paris police station and sign a form sayiing that he is living in Paris. Affter five years there, the Slovak will be entitled to permanant residency in France. But yes, to physcially enter the other EU countries, Slovak citizens will need to show their identity cards, but not passports, to a border guard.

Sounds like Green cards here in the states.

Let me please clarify one point

The Eastern states of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria became part of the East Block satellites after World War II under the influence of the former Soviet Union and effectively inaccessible behind the Iron Curtain.

Germany was divided also, as I have said, into the Federal Republic of Germany, and East Germany, which was under Russian dominance and called Democratic Republic of Germany. Occupied Berlin was situated right in the middle of East Germany, isolated and insulated.

When the Russians cut off supply lines to Berlin, the Americans organized the famous airlift and supplied the city until the Russians gave in.

Another point:

Germany was not unified as a country until 1871.

Until then there was the state of Prussia in the east; the rest of the country had sovereign states under dukes, archdukes, princes. Saxony had a king, and so did Bavaria (remember mad Luwig). The death of a reigning monarch often resulted in a fight for succession that could expand into a wider conflict. The northern provinces of Schleswig Holstein were several times fought over with Denmark. There was rarely a peaceful period.

I plan to draw up a brief timeline for you to glance at, showing how many conflicts and wars were fought on European soil after the French Revolution in 1789 up to WW I.

In the article that I cited here ,it says,

The Schengen Treaty is a set of rules governing border controls between EU countries and between the EU and the bloc's non-members. It became effective in 1999. Slovakia is expected to become a part of the Schengen system in January 2007.

On the Balkans, especially Rumania and Bulgaria, I liked Wilson's note on the discussions with the Balkan countries saying "that they did not represent their facts in the same way, and there would always be something that was not quite clear." I find that applies to the Treaty Council when it comes to making some of their decisions. IMHO, it seemed that when they came to sticky wicket where they couldn't agree, they either tabled it or sent it to another committee to deal with, making vague comments about 'that can't be decided until we get this or that treaty in place'.

"Hitler was the natural outcome of the abuses heaped upon Germany."

"A fresh conference met in London in February [1920], which dealt less drastically than had been expected with the question of the 'war criminal,' since the chief of them was on neutral Dutch territory where he could not be seized and whence the Dutch government declined imperturbably to eject him."

http://www.worldwar1.com/biokais.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWversailles.htm

_______________

Thank you for # 296 and correcting the two errors in the earlier link quoting the terms of the Versailles Treaty as they applied to Germany.

” Misconception: The Kaiser was a war monger solely responsible for the First World War. The Kaiser did not start the war. The Kaiser did not want the war. "Saber rattling" is one thing, a war with the other major European powers is something very different indeed! The most that can be said is that the Kaiser did not do enough to try to control the actions of Austria-Hungary and prevent the outbreak of war. In the end he accepted war.”

”The mistake the Allies made, and it did not become clear until much later, was that, as a result of the armistice terms, the great majority of Germans never experienced their country’s defeat at first hand. Except in the Rhineland, they did not see occupying troops. The Allies did not march in triumph in Berlin, as the Germans had done in Paris in 1871. In 1918, German soldiers marched home in good order, with crowds cheering their way; in Berlin, Friedrich Ebert, the new president, greeted them with ‘No enemy has conquered you.’ ……..The Allied advantage over Germany began to melt.”

______

Back to our book and, for a minute, to the timeline. It will not be "brief", I'm afraid, but I'll do my best. There were lots of wars within Europe between the end of the 30-years war and WW I, none of them "minor" conflicts; the American colonies did come into play).

The Napoleonic Wars particularly were hugely disruptive. Now talking about punishment : Napoleon (wouldn't he be considered a major war criminal now???) was exiled to the island of Elba, from which he escaped, recruited another army and went to war, again.

After the decisive defeat at Waterloo he was exiled once more, this time to the more remote island of St. Helena, where he died. Of cancer, or of poisoning. No one knows. Should he have been put to death, if death is the ultimate punishment? And who is to mete it out?

The Kaiser went into exile voluntarily. Should HE have been put to death? And if he had, would it have made any difference? Rebellion and the quest for ethnic independence started way before him and last to this present moment, decades later. But what about the people in the warring countries? Were they just numbers? Expendable? "Collateral damage"?

We should perhaps devote a brief time to consider te METHODS the supplicants and petitioners used when they came to Paris for territorial and monetary compensation. Some were clearly more effective than others. Those who were able to put their point across in English were definitely more successful !! Some brought crooked maps of obscure regions only the natives knew for sure.

To go back to whence I started: how do we know where and with whom truth lies? Don't we sometimes tend to believe what we WANT to believe?

MARGARETHA, I am so glad to see you back and appreciate your posting very much indeed. I saw your posts when I went back to correct mine. I'm not sure whether I succeeded and apologize for typos and such.

When Nazi leader Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933, he was able to destroy much of the Versailles treaty by exploiting two pervasive sentiments of the 1930s. The first was the lingering suspicion, particularly widespread in Britain, that Germany had been treated unfairly at the peace conference and that its demands for territorial changes should be considered. The second was the uni------

"As House (one of the USA commissioners) put it "If after establishing the League, we are so stupid as to let German train and arm a large army and again become a menace to the world, we would deserve the fate which such folly would bring upon us.'"

I will concentrate henceforth on our book, possibly the effects of WW II, if warranted, but NOT engage in contemporary political issues.

Margaretha

From what I heard on tv yesterday on the BooksTV on C-SPAN, just for France to have the buffer of Alsace and Lorraine plus the military occupation( or mandate by the League) of the Rhineland gave them a feeling of safety against another German invasion.

I also thought that winning the citizens over by festivals and parades was ludicrous. Reminded me of the 'bread and circuses' offered by the Romans. Surely the citizens of that time knew better than to fall for that old saw!

”It was up to the Europeans to sort out their own problems; the more the United States helped them, the less likely they were to stand on their own feet. In any case, there was not much chance of Congress, dominated as it now was by Republicans, approving massive financial support for the Euopeans.”

Published posthumously in 1964, A Moveable Feast remains one of Ernest Hemingway's most beloved works. It is his classic memoir of Paris in the 1920s, filled with irreverent portraits of other expatriate luminaries such as F. Scott Fitzgerald and Gertrude Stein; tender memories of his first wife, Hadley; and insightful recollections of his own early experiments with his craft. It is a literary feast, brilliantly evoking the exuberant mood of Paris after World War I and the youthful spirit, unbridled creativity, and unquenchable enthusiasm that Hemingway himself epitomized.

Margareetha, ”It was up to the Europeans to sort out their own problems” was certainly the WW I US thinking. I, however, don’t remember it as US policy after WW II. The times had changed materially and Press and radio had preached all through the WW II years that we must not repeat the mistakes of 1919. Further more at the time we were in no way inhibited by deficit spending and we knew we had to bolster Europe as allies against Russia. Of course there was some opposition to the Marshal Plan, but I sure don’t remember it as seriously threatening its passage. To day I think that most Americans who know what it is and what it achieved judge it a great success.

Another IMHO, the economies of Europe had to be restablized to keep the whole world from imploding. I believe that is true today but that there are more countries involved.

Did the US attitude of let Europe sort itself out come from our initial response of remaining neutral during WWI?? Did we recognise the danger of Russia's new government?? I read somewhere that Wilson had many "Bolshevik" leaning citizens imprisoned. Eugene Debs was one and several other well known people were jailed for more than a few months, more like a few years because they were thought to be 'communist' sympathisers.

Ella

I agree with you about the personalities as I think, if and when, we get to know the people involved in this history, we begin to understand what happened then. One cannot leave out the people's mindset when these very important decisions were made that would change the whole world.

I didn't know that Poland was not a country at this time and am assuming that Prussia and Poland were about in the same location geographically. Here's a brief description of "Prussia" which included more than one country and tells me I am not correct about where it was located. Prussia

And, also, here's a look at the Past in Poland. Poland in the Past Just the first few sentences tells us of its importance in the past. That it ruled much of Europe at one time and that it disappeared completely by 1795 being dived among Austria, Prussia and Russia. And, here is an excellent little history of Poland after WWI. History of Poland This brings us back to Harold's post about the the countries at war having to switch back to a peacetime economy while damage inflicted during the war had to be repaired.

about Wilson's "malicious pleasure in stirring up trouble between House and Lansing and was delighted when he heard anything to Lansing's discredit." But "... Lansing would take his revenge when the peace settlements came up for approval back home."

The effects of Treaty on Germany.

KleoP,

To read that someone in the discussion studied Polish geography and history while learning Polish!! What's the story there!

I have a tiny background in Poland as my step-father's parents were from Poland but the only two things that I really can recall are the fantastic Polish weddings that we attended plus the gathering of clothing and dry foods to send to Polish relatives after WWII.

That Poland was awarded West Prussia which gave her access to the sea must have meant quite a lot to the Poles who finally had their own country back after many years of being non-existent.

I remember that Chopin was from Poland and sent money that he earned in France to his compatriots to help free Poland during one of the wars. Will have to look that up.

Margaretha

I see what you are saying about the Rhineland and its difficult passages of rivers and woods for anyone to invade France from that point but as you point out, there are other points of entry into France. I do understand why France felt that she should have the Rhineland and Alsace and Lorraine to help pad easy access to her borders. Yes, the French were paranoid at the time but they had good reason to be.

Hats off to whoever gave the proper description of Lloyd George's condescending manner toward the Poles. He really didn't care, did he!!

Etymology: Russian bol'shevik, from bol'shii greater

Now, what I want to ask others is, do you sense a bias for Poland in her writing, that explains this, or do you think I misjudged her earlier, and she was just as acute in analyzing the situations amongst European friends and enemies in other countries?

"Where the Poles tended to bring exasperated sighs, even from their supporters, the Czechs basked in general approval. The Poles were dashing and brave, but quite unreasonable; the Rumanians charming and clever, but sadly devious; the Yugoslavs, well rather Balkan. The Czechs were refreshingly Western."

Do you observe any evidence of bias (positive or negative) displayed by the Council in deciding the Czechoslovak ? How about bias from Margaret Macmillan or any of us participations?

In your judgment did the Councils decision incorporating 3 million ethnic Germans into the new Nation violate 14-Point principals. What did Wilson say to explain his vote accepting the borders that if a current US President used today would be a sure subject for a Leno and Letterman late night TV sketch?

Do you see any signs of the friction between Czechs and Slovaks that lead to the divorce in 1994?

Vladivostok Location

What I don't understand is how you get to France with 50,000 soldiers by boat in 1918. The talk about roundabout route is really minimalistic!! I looked in my own Atlas and found that one would have to travel north, up through the the Pacific, the Bering Sea and then to the Arctic Ocean to come down and through the North Sea to reach the northwestern coast of France. Is that right?? Seems like they would have taken a better route. And then, they take control of the railroad and, by chance, the gold reserves of the old government. I would love to know how that happened. I am sure that story is covered somewhere on the net.

"With the collapse of the eastern front imminent, Masaryk in Russia and Eduard Benes in France desperately tried to arrange a plan whereby the Czechoslovak Legion would be evacuated through Archangel and shipped to France, where it would be employed in the Allied cause. After the Bolshevik takeover, when the Czechoslovak leaders deemed it impossible to evacuate such a large force through northern Russia, a new plan called for the legion to travel across Siberia to Vladivostok and cross the Pacific, North America, and the Atlantic to France, where it would be committed to combat."

Good grief, can you believe their thinking?? Oh, well, I will continue on with the chapter and hope to get more answers later. I am still looking for the history of the gold reserves.

I read somewhere that the Polish people have survived almost anything with a will to persevere surpassing any mistreatment. They willed themselves to rise above the situations. They have three words that they use but I don't remember what they were.

"As a shattered world looked for someone to blame, who better than the kaiser, together with his weak, womanizing son and his (the Kaiser's, one presumes) military leaders?"

Harold, before we go into Austria-Hungary, I wanted to briefly ask about Ruthenia which I looked up and found this:

Where is and what is Ruthenia

I am beginning to think of these now called 'countries' as more small bishoprics or empires or kingdoms, tied together over time. Especicially, with Austria/Hungary. The list of the emperor, Karl, titles is endless.

Since the commission has taken large slices of this empire and given them to Rumania, Yugoslavia and Chechoslavia, there seems to be a completely new small Austria left to deal with and I agree with their leaders that its no longer the same large country and has a different government. They are in not condition to pay for reparations since their markets and raw materials have been stripped from them. How will they earn moneies to repay for the war??

Is geographical distance the cause for the US and the British Empire not particularaly caring about Austria's plight? What is left of this huge empire is a mess, with starvation and unemployment its final condition.

When the author mentioned that the coffee houses were still open and that the orchestras still played, I was reminded of Rome burning while Nero played his violin. Was most of Europe in the same boat? Would the markets and trade across the new borders restart their buying and selling? Would the League of Nations be able to help, in this instance?

But I don't really see any current political or economic advantage to Austria in remaining separate. Would their be political and economic advantage both to Germany and Austria today if again they merged? What is your thinking on this?

==========

Let me now please clarify something in answer to a post from ROSE:

Stalingrad is considered a turning point in WW II. But before the Allies landed in Normandy, the Russians had long started to steam-roll thousands of men westward through the Baltic countries, Poland, East Prussia, West Prussia, Brandenburg, raping and plundering, and millions of people fled ahead of them, taking only what they could carry.

By 1944 Germany was in an ever-tightening vise, the Russians, unstoppable, coming from the East, the Allies from the West and then, through Italy, from the South. General Eisenhower met the Russians on German soil in the province of Thuringia. From there he voluntarily PULLED his troops BACK and let the Russians move in, to the despair of the people who had been unable to flee, had just been liberated by the Americans and did not understand. The Russians were there to stay.

Despite continued shortages of foodstuffs and everything else, East Germany was considered a prize (!) in the Soviet-dominated iron curtain countries and a popular vacation destination for Poles, Hungarians, etc. It has to be remembered that traveling to the West from any of the Iron Curtain countries was not allowed. The only way out was escape. Many died trying. Thousands made it.

Larger towns like Weimar, where I visited my husband's family, had one shop (I think it was called Inter-Shop)), where everything not available for ordinary mortals COULD be purchased, if paid in a Western currency, especially Deutsche Mark and Dollars, but ONLY by Westerners. East Germans could enter with them and look, but NOT purchase.

On entering East Germany (we went by train), all periodicals and newspapers were confiscated. No books by western authors were allowed. Each compartment and each passenger was checked thoroughly. The train remained in the station for more than an hour. Soldiers wih Police dogs and rifles on their shoulders patrolled up and down during the procedure. It was designed to intimidate, and it did.

Upon arrival, the visitor had to register with the East German police and PREPAY a fixed sum for each day of his planned sojourn.

On leaving, none of the Ost Mark could be taken out, not coins, not paper, or else ... But the currency wasn't even worth anything or negotiable in the west.

Despite all the privations, the people had social services, a guaranteed job, an apartment (after long waiting, the size of it depending on the number of people in the family), no unemployment, health insurance, free day care, free kindergarten, free schools, free universities. The state ruled the lives of each and every person. And they became resigned to it. Always with help from people in the west, they made do. Precisely as CAROLYN said.

It may come as a surprise to hear, ROSE, that more than a decade after reunification with West Germany, not all former "Osties" = Easties, as they are called behind their back, are deliriously happy. Many are discontent and wish the old times back!

The "old provinces", as they are officially called, are still lagging badly behind the west, unemployment is high. And there is the discontent I mentioned. Tourism is a big thing, though, and a niece of mine runs a small "pension" in Weimar.

Sorry to go on so.

"My conclusion is that the Council in making the decision was convinced they were on firm grounds with a rationally fair decision and by the terms of their decision the reborn Poland was viable and strong enough to fend off the Bolsheviks threat."

"Do you see any signs of the friction between Czechs and Slovaks that lead to the divorce in 1994?"

"On the issue of Austria what were the Pro’s and Con’s of the alternate options of keeping Austria independent or combining it with Germany? Who on the Council was adamant against the union and why? "

I only have the recent chapters from which to make a decision on the unifying of Germany and Austra. Well, plus the stories and opinions of the few here who have experience with these two countries. My family is from the Black Forest/Wurtemberg area of Germany but left there in the 1850's or '60 's, I believe. To escape the plague?? or to escape being drafted into the war over Alsace-Lorraine? I don't know which. Anyway, I agree that unifying the two countries doesn't sound right and certainly the representatives of Austri were against it, for the most part.

This has been the most informative day in this discussion that I have witnessed so far. And, personal stories of living in Germany and escaping after the war. What incredibly fascinating tales many of you have to tell. I concur that these experiences should be written down for posterity.

There are just too many scarred human beings from the aftermath of WWI and WWII to favor the scars of one nation over the other. Kleo

I was wondering if the taxes paid in Germany and the Netherlands for the churches amounts to 'tithing' or is it a different amount?? And, do I understand that the goverment takes care of dividing it up to the churches. How does that work?? Does the amount going to a church depend on the number of members??

Are we on to another chapter? I am still wandering through the one about Hungary. Wasn't there a big hulabaloo about a Cardinal in Hungary who was eventually released from prison through the pleas of Catholics worldwide? Mindszenty?? something like that?? I 'googled' the name and came up with Cardinal Mindzsenty.

As we have already seen, the idea of self-determination was wonderful, the reality disastrous. Self-determination for the Romanians of Transylvania meant new-found and unwelcome minority status for their Hungarian neighbors in a Greater Romania.

Danzig (Gdansk) was a predominantly German city surrounded by a Polish hinterland;

Trieste and Fiume (Rijeka) were Italian outposts in a sea of rural Slovenes and Croats;

Smyrna (Izmir) was an overwhelmingly Greek port in otherwise Turkish Asia Minor.

I think that's one reason why the U.S.A. is like a bit of a miracle to me. Everyone except Native Americans has come from somewhere else, and somehow, with the exception of minor frictions, they manage to live together even though things are far from perfect. It's amazing really, when you think about it.

Traude S - 10:25am Aug 12, 2004 PST (#464 of 470) DL Books and Literature

KLEO,

May I suggest that we not jump to unwarranted conclusions merely on the basis of one Wall Street Journal article.

I believe we should take this article as one piece of information, and nothing more; what it refers to is the resentment and unrealistic hope of some individuals and former occupants of ceded German territory, and NOT anything all the "bad","militaristic" Germans have dreamed up now. The borders were LONG AGO recognized as official by the government of the Bundesrepublik, and it is inconceivable that a change in established policy is even remotely considered.

This really changes my mind about how the French bargained during the Peace Treaty conferences--the United States has never faced an enemy like this. I don't think I can even begin to comprehend what it is like to have Germany as a neighbor. I'm going to print this article out and paste it on my bookshelves to glance at while I read the rest of this book, to remind myself of how little I understand the German psyche. And of how much the French and the Poles had to fear. Really fear.

But AGAIN is this a German thing or a communist thing imprinted on the East Germans?

This really changes my mind about how the French bargained during the Peace Treaty conferences--the United States has never faced an enemy like this. I don't think I can even begin to comprehend what it is like to have Germany as a neighbor. I'm going to print this article out and paste it on my bookshelves to glance at while I read the rest of this book, to remind myself of how little I understand the German psyche. And of how much the French and the Poles had to fear. Really fear.

But, then again, is this about Germans or about former communists?

In addition, I find it extremely distressing and, forgive me, absurd that the German psyche is now being questioned, all in the wake of this Wall Street Journalarticle! Such perusal would include me, since I am a native born German, and I feel frankly offended- especially in view of the fact that I have tried all along to be scrupulously impartial.

It was my fond hope that we could discuss all the historic aspects in our book with respect and an open mind, and that along the way we might be able to clear up some misconceptions and preconceived notions, which clearly exist.

"As for reading more nonfiction books specifically about other World Wars here, I leave it to ELLA and HAROLD, our discussion leaders and nonfiction coordinators, to indicate the procedure followed in selecting a(ny) book in Books and Literature." Traude

. . . using the court system to settle differences of opinion is a step in the right direction? Isn't it better than to turn to aggression? Although I admit I am NOT entirely comfortable with something like a world court making decisions that each country has traditionally made for itself, and I hope the court puts a quick end to this Pandora's box of claims to property.

I think it's not only silly but dangerous to try and be compensated for things that were lost in a war. What's been lost is lost, and life ought to go on from that starting point.

I mean, think about it----how far back should these lawsuits go? Should the Jews sue Egypt because they were once enslaved there? With all the property changes throughout history, just how seriously can these claims be taken? It's absurd!

" When I tell stories about the war it is merely because to me the "human condition" in whatever circumstances are interesting."

It's not for sympathy as to what we supposedly "suffered", because even though the common man who usually has very little to do with the higher politics ends up suffering, it is a necessary suffering to atone for the mistakes of the regimes he has allowed to be foisted on him. It is and always has been the way of humanity and is inevitable.

And regarding Harold's post #462, yes, I do think that various immigrant groups get along in America because they are busy pursuing a decent life and have the opportunity to do that here. But the other thing that has helped them get along is the fact that immigrants truly left everything behind---their families, their property, their prejudices, their history---and they can reinvent themselves here.

"But to me prejudice and intolerance are different from a search for the truth, and sometimes one can't tell where one begins and the other ends." Mountain Rose

We can't skip the fact that these four men of GB, the US, Italy and France broke off into a separate Council of Four while forming another Council of Five which would then include Japan. I am amazed that the new council decided, in the beginning, not to keep notes of decisions and their meetings although from MM's book here, we find that there are quite extensive recorded notes made by an interpreter, Paul Mantoux, who dictated his recollections of the day's meetings in a confidential memo for Clemenceau, keeping copies for himself which survived WWII. It took a full month for Orlando to bring a secretary but in spite of this, there are copius notes which completely cover the council's meetings.

The story about Wilson's unwellness and his paranoid changing of the furniture in his study, his inability to remember what decisions had been discussed the previous makes one wary of what will come.

I have seen the forests, owned by the Japanese in the Aluetians, chopped down, put on the great ships, hauled out to sea where they meet up with lumber ships and the trees are turned into usuable products, then hauled back to the US and sold to us. Some of the wood is shipped to Japan but much of it is sold to us.

And, of course, we are harvesting the oil from their oceans and seas and the same exchange goes with that operation. And we can't forget the whale harvesting that goes on in the Pacific.

As one world, we have so much available to us and we should be sharing it. Talk about the Garden of Eden! And, as Jonathan</> concludes, "God made it! I am sure that there is enough to go around for all of us, if we could just quit worrying about borders and profits.

I am somewhat cynical and believe that greed is running the world and maybe always has.

Harold, thanks for those kind words but I will never lead with the talents that you and Ella have.

Traude Harold is right! You really ought to consider doing a non-fiction once in awhile. In today's world of reading, there is so much for us to discuss and I hope it never ends.

Eloise Thanks for clearing up the French language claims of Quebec and Montreal. I had the wrong impression that the French speaking party had forced everyone to use "French only" in public. I have also heard that the universal language is English for aviation and the French Canadians didn't want that to be true when one flew into Quebec?? Can you imagine all of the different countries who fly there requiring their crews to speak French plus their own language plus English??? AGGGGGGHHH!! Fortuneately, I don't think that it did become the rule of aviation law for that area.

Francoise Oh, my gosh, I forgot to watch the opening of the Olympics last night! That's my fault because I was so thrilled to get to see another Braves baseball game after a whole week without. I will see if they repeat them on our digital channel this morning.

We all have to begin somewhere to concentrate on where we are now and then look to the future instead of looking back, and make sure new opportunities are there in the future. Rose post #482

But I do admit that sometimes when I drive by these huge ranches here in the west and think about them having been in families for generations, there is a sort of nostalgic longing to "belong" that I've simply never experienced.

[the Americans of Japanese ancestry imprisoned during WWII--not too worried about the Japanese found on the wrong island at the start of the War, as the American citizens] began again and are doing very well, except for a very few I know who are still resentful and angry and continue to hate, but they are very few and are getting old,and their children don't feel that way.

But again, that's just my opinion and the way I prefer to live my life. I have little patience for anything else, because as soon as people want restitution they bring up all the same problems that began the wars in the first place.

I do agree with Harold that this used to me a "melting pot" country and has now become a "multi-cultural" country, and I thank Harold for defining that, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Cultural indoctrination causes division. ...The Mexicans in So. Calif. are like that also, never really becoming part of the greater picture because of their lack of English acceptance but building resentments because they can't get the good jobs. What the hell do they expect? The last time I mentioned to a Hispanic that she ought to speak English she just said "This used to be Mexico before it was the U.S.A." and that settled it for her. Same ol' same ol' territorial disputes and resentments. Sad, sad, sad. .... Eventually we all have to do that in a new country and a new environment after a war because to try and hold on to the old causes endless strife,and new personal maps need to be made throughout our lives as we change and our environment changes. Working from old maps means we just feel always lost with all the anxieties of feeling lost that can easily turn to aggression.

"I am somewhat cynical and believe that greed is running the world and maybe always has." Ann Alden

___

HAROLD, I had my son's Black Lab here while the family was on a brief vacation and was busy with ministering to him since he suffers from a variety of ailments. That accounts for my absence from the folder.

Now to get back to our subject, at least trying to follow the schedule within the allotted time frame.

Precisely in the interest of saving time I have decided NOT to pursue the timeline for Poland, as important and interesting as it would have been. However, there are many other countries and regions whose destinies were changed in 1919. To familiarize ourselves with their location, check their history, even briefly, and then discuss in detail what happened to them in 1919 would mean a much longer process, particularly in view of the tendency to branch out into other directions.

Thank you, HAROLD and ANN. I'd love to lead a discussion of another nonfiction book. I have done one, you may recall: Sisters, The Legend of the Mitford Family. The book involved hot political issues of the time, and I am infinitely glad that with the help of the participants we managed to navigate the ship of our discussion through some roiling waters and emerged fine.

Brief article about Manchuria and Japan

When I posted about the wood, I wondered if owning forests here in the states has not been a better way for them to go: attaining wood plus much profit from wood sales to other countries. And, HAROLD, did you say we are paying for their defense?? Does that mean that we have armed forces stationed there?

Military personnel assigned to large, permanent bases:

Britain 10,000 Air Force

Germany 56,000 Army, 15,000 Air Force

Italy 10,000 Air Force

South Korea 28,000 Army, 10,000 Air Force

Japan 14,000 Air Force, 20,000 Marines, 6,000 Navy.

...

Globe Staff Graphic/David Butler"

Sorry, I never discuss political issues, but those questions had to be be asked.

I have come to the preliminary conclusion that no matter WHAT is printed in our book in black and white, there will be incredulity, second guessing, contrary assertions and unending disputations, all of which I heartily abhor.

I don't consider you preachy just full of information that I didn't know and now do. I have asked two or three others if they knew of that difference in meaning of 'translator' and 'interpetor' and no, they didn't so I felt so smart, just because of you. Yayyyy, Traude!!

Margaretha, Has there been any discussion about Turkey as a EU member? It would seem there would be advantages to both Turkey and the other members. Cyprus today seems a continuing problem from the 1919 conference.

"One more thing i took from this book is, how important it is not to belittle the feelings of the 'ordinary man and woman in the street", whether it is in Kosovo, Lithuania, Sudetenland, Ruanda...etc..etc. It is my observation that the leaders in Versailles did this over and over again, and it cost us dearly. "

"And who else could they have delt with? History has not shown the radicals on the street particularly capable of using street power in a positive way. The French and Russian revolutions are examples. Do you really think the Council could have constructively acted differently than they did? "

Before we leave the Turkey-EU discussion, I found this on the net from an article printed on July 28, 2004.

EU, Cyprus and Turkey

And yet another article concerning the Christian make-up of the EU and the Vatican ,written August 16, 2004.

Vatican Cardinal Tries to Exclude Turkey From EU I certainly don't agree with the Cardinal and his views could just start more trouble among the Christians, Jews and Muslims. I see that most people don't agree with him. I think that much harm has been done in the name of religion and here's one more example. We certainly don't need more trouble like this and it would seem that Europe has to consider the ecomical reasons for a union among these countries.

I didn't know until I read this chapter and these articles that there was still so much trouble on Cyprus. Like Margareeta, if I kept notes, I could write another chapter on what I didn't know about Turkey.

"Do you really think the Council could have constructively acted differently than they did? "Harold

"I suppose that in 1919 the World leadership was simply not yet ready to abandon their old 19th century colonial goals." Harold

Well, it's not so much who else they could have dealt with as who (what) else's, other than their own selfish interests, they could have considered while making these decisions.

I, on the other hand, feel that they could place the mosque or a new temple next to the Dome of the Rock or the Temple Mount and still have a sacredness to the whole site. I can feel the sacredness of sites in my bones when I have the chance to see a few like Stonehenge, the Chalice Well where the chalice of Jesus is supposed to be, the remains of the Glastonbury Cathedral where Guinivere and Arthur are supposedly are buried, Avalon, Sarum, Salisbury, etc etc. I think that we carry our feelings of sacredness in our hearts.

"Do we have a similar controlling force governing our political decisions today? What might they be; a Cold War mindSet. Individualism, fundamentalism, what else? "

I read another book about WWI and the arms dealers who called a conference in the 1890's so they could decide which dealers would supply which countries they thought would be in a world war that they were already predicting.

And here's a brief article from Smithsonian about Ataturk: Ataturk

I read an article about Cyprus just recently but will have to look for it before I comment on it. Here's another Smithsonian article which is about Cyprus, an island which remains separated by a thin line established in 1974, and it sounds like its the same division that we have between Palenstine and Israel, but its much more peaceful. Why the UN is still there, it does not say. I will look further. Cyprus-Still Divided

Well, here's something interesting about Baku in Azerbajani and its oil rich area which has been in action since the 1800's and fought over among several countries before WWI. Baku-3000 Oil Wells If you click on each of the pictures in all of these article, you can learn some more history about these places.

Yes, I also agree that I have become more aware of my geography while reading this book and its so nice to know where all these Olympic atheletes are from. I hear their country's names and I can find them on the map immediately. Its amazing what gives me a thrill today! I think I could get a good score in the National Geographic's geography contest for school children.

I have a couple of questions here, since it is a subject I have not much knowledge about. #1 - If Turkey had control of the island for 300 years, how come Greeks are the 80% majority? That doesn't make sense to me. #2 - What is the current status regarding Cyprus? Have things settled permanently or are they still flaring up between the two ethnic groups? #3 - Does the United Kingdom still have bases there? Why? #4 - Does the U.N. still have peacekeeping forces there?

And another which makes an attempt to explain the UN's prescence there. Cypress Celebrates a Dubious Birthday

You may ask now: "Well! Grandpa- did you have to go to school too?" Of course-I did have to go to school. Even if my parents would not have had any interest in it, the Church and the State law would have compelled them to send me to school, but that was quite unnecessary because my parents were just as anxious for us children to learn all we could learn. They always encouraged us to do so too.

You ask: "But Grandpa, did you have any vacation sometimes too, as we have?" 0(h) Yes, we had vacation sometimes too, at different times during the year, but I will tell you what. All those vacations were so arranged that we had our vacations always just at the busiest times of the year, in the time of making hay, in the time of harvest, and at some other times when our parents needed us so badly for work. This was our vacation time, and so it happened that our vacation time was no vacation at all for us. No, that was always the time of hard work from early of morning to late of night. Oh, how hard we did have to work, my sisters and myself, in those days which you call vacation.

You ask, "Well, in ordinary times, when you had no vacation, how did you fare then?" How?- four days in the week, - Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, we had to go to school from eight to twelve in the morning and from one to four in the afternoon; on Wednesday and Saturday only of mornings from eight to twelve. But I will tell you- all the time between those school hours were filled out with work which our parents had given us to do. Here is a sample of it. Besides feeding the cattle and similar, my father would tell me at the breakfast table: "August when you come home from school you take the team and get a load of clover for the cattle," or some such kind of work. Oh! there was always more work than I could do, but my dear father was in that line very reasonable. He never expected more of me than I really could do.

Now you may ask: "Well, Grandpa what Church did you belong to? or did you NOT belong to any church at all?" Oh Yes, I did belong to a church; Of course I did. My Parents belonged to the EVANGELICAL CHURCH. That was NOT your Evangelical Association. Your church was then just in its beginning in America, but was not in existence in Germany in those days. The Evangelical Church of which my parents were members was a composition of the Lutheran Church and the REFORMED CHURCH, but the doctrine or teachings of that Church are in all the main points the same as the Doctrine of your church. Now, as that EVANGELICAL CHURCH was the Church of my parents, it was also- it had to be- my church too. I was baptised (the author ‘s spelling) in that Church and I was educated in it too. I received an education as good as time and circumstances permitted it. We all, boys and girls, had to begin school when we were six years old. The girls had to go to school until they were thirteen years old, that was in all seven years; but we boys had to go to school until we were fourteen years old, that was in all eight years. You may ask, "but why did the boys have to go one year longer to school than the girls?" I don’t know. Maybe the girls were brighter in their heads than we boys were, maybe too, that our wise men thought that we boys needed more education than the girls.

In ordinary lessons such as spelling, writing, reading, ciphering or arithmatic (his spelling), in geography, in history, especially in bible and church history, and in singing and learning and casting the notes, and such lessons, I am sure that we were fully equal to the boys and girls of our age in America, only that we have not learned the English Language. Well, we learned in place of it, the German Language. In addition to all this we received a splendid education in the biblical doctrines and in the biblical history and in the catechism and church history, of course only in substance. I have always praised the Lord and thanked that good Evangelical Church for that, that she has given us such a good and blessed instruction in the bible and in spiritual things.

Regular Sunday Schools, we had none, and I doubt if this blessed institution had been in existence in those days. If it was it was then a small institution, whereas it is now spread all over the world. But we got our religious knowledge and training mostly in our day schools. Then on Sundays we had to attend Church and on Sunday afternoons we had to go to church too, not to hear a sermon, but for religious instructions. (So they scheduled their Sunday school) after the morning worship instead of before)

Margarethe, I'm not quite sure what you mean . . . about me comparing Europe to the U.S.A. On the contrary, having spent part of my life in Europe and even going to school there, I see very little comparison at all. The cultures and ways of thinking are totally different. Rose

So it's a confederation of states that makes this country. The EU is a confederation of countries that makes an economic unit. Rose

In speaking of others who come into our discussions, I think that they might be staying their own SN discussions which exist in other countries. I am aware of the ones in Germany, France, etc etc. Seniornet is a worldwide organization. We are so lucky to have citizens from other countries here. There is a man named 'Trevor'who is from Aukland(3 kings) in one of the discussions and another couple who are Otto and Ingeborg. I believe they are from Germany. And, we can't forget Kiwi, from NZ, plus ladies from Africa,Margret Walbeck, from South Africa, and Margrit from Nigeria(she is originally from Switzerland and Austria. The lady from Africa has been over here to attend several of the Seniornet bashes. So we have some non-US people here and its so delightful to hear there stories of their own countries.

If you look into the Discussions folder under Geographic Communities, you will find many more.

I can't read a word of it but its there for the Swedes.

I believe there's one in Japan also. Yes, here's a link to it. Japan's SN

My husband questions the alphabetical lettering on the Japan site since my computer seems to use the alphabet that we use. Maybe my computer doesn't speak Japanese. LOL! I know I don't!! ROFLOL!

By the way, I have the capability to change my preferred language on my computer but I am afraid it will get stuck there so haven't tried to change it. Chicken me!! I thought I would go upstairs to our office and change the grans computer, just to see what happens. Tee hee!

"In France and Germany it's not that great. I have been paging through lots and lots of discussion groups on the net, esp. on Oprah's website, and I have never once met a German or a French member. They just lack the language skills."

In your post you also say regarding language education "In France and Germany it's not that great. I have been paging through lots and lots of discussion groups on the net, esp. on Oprah's website, and I have never once met a German or a French member. They just lack the language skills." In other words, based on the absence of Germans "on lots and lots of discussion groups on the net, especially Oprah's website" you jump to the conclusion that the Germans (I can't speak for the French) "just lack the language skills". Isn't it remotely possible that they have no interest in discussions on the net and (Lord help them!) no interest in Oprah's websites? Aren't we all about choices and preferences and options? Well, I certainly don't lack language skills and I had no idea Oprah HAD websites all over the world until we were told here by KLEO. With due respect, the assertion that "They just lack the language skills." does not sit well with me.

Harold

Are we into the Hall of Mirrors?? In reading that chapter, I was quite surprised to see that the Germans thought they were innocent of starting the war and certainally weren't to be blamed for the atrocities committed by their soldiers. And Herbert Hoover's prediction did come true. After reading the German treaty, he is quoted, speaking of talking to Jan Smuts, "We agreed that the consequences of many parts of the proposed Treaty would ultimately bring destruction." His prophecy certainaly came true!

Harold, Are we into the Hall of Mirrors??

In your opinion did the next generation, the 1945 leaders (principally FDR/Truman, Churchill/Atlee, and Stalin), learn any thing from the 1919 experience? What 1919 mistakes did they avoid in 1945; what new mistakes did they make? Did the new power position of the Bolsheviks make the post-WW II issues a completely new ball game?

In America though, it is a different story. English is spoken throughout the continent minus a few people in Quebec who speak French only. A large majority in the Greater Montreal area speak French and English fluently.... Learning a second language in America is a question of geography. The whole continent speaks English and does well enough with it and second language education does not rate a very high priority.

Europeans must realize that in America a second language is not absolutely necessary.

I personally think that if America does not make a priority to teach languages as early as in primary school it will cost them plenty in the long run with increasing international tension. High level Diplomats on missions arrive from the US unable to speak anything but English, to me that is not good diplomacy because in most other countries they have better language skills, if I go by what I see in the news on television where most negotiations are held in English.

Public opinion in Britain and the United States increasingly swung round to the view that the peace settlements with Germany were deeply unfair. During the next decade, memoirs and novels such as the German All Quiet on the Western Front (which sold 250,000 copies in the first year of its English edition) showed that soldiers on both sides had suffered equally from the horrors of trench warface. The publication of confidential documents from prewar archives undermined the assumption that Germany alone was responsible for the war. Books on the origin of the war apportioned the blame more evenly, to the vanished regimes in Russia or Austria-Hungary, to arms manufacturers or capitalism generally." pg. 479, emphasis mine.

The provisions for an International Labour Organization, for treaties to protect minorities, to set up a permanent court of justice or to try men such as the kaiser for offenses against international morality underlined the idea that there were certain things that all humanity had in common and that there could be international standards beyond those of mere national interest. And when those treaties were attacked in the interwar years it was generally because they had failed to match those standards."

This comment really sums up my own feelings about the whole procedure of trying to bring a sensible peace to the world through the 14 Points plus writing acceptable treaties for different countries of the world.

Unfortuneatly, Africa was left for the crows to pick over, Japan was given Shantung, China was stunned at that decision, the Middle East was not well thought out and oil was becoming a big deal that no one wanted to admit.

I feel that these men did their best with the information that they had but I also think that they were overwhelmed once they began to hear from each of the different countries' representatives.

They also had to deal with the pre-treaties that were made, such as the Sykes Picot Agreement, made by France and Britain in 1916, where the representatives of the two countries agreed that they would divide up the Arab-speaking areas. And that in the Turkish speaking parts, France would have a zone extending north into Cilicia from Syria. Another agreement was made (with whom I cannot figure out) that Russia would annex Constantinople and the straits. It seems to go on and on. Didn't Britain and France have other agreements made during the war that had to be cancelled?? Concerning the Middle East???

There was so much involved that I can't keep track of it all without re-referring to the book(tome).

I am finished with the book and going on to other things, like packing for a two week trip to Florida so will say

We should have made reservations for MIchigan or Chicago or someplace away from hurricane weather in September!! Oh, well, its not 'til Tuesday that we leave so we will hope that its over and hasn't blown away our hotel which is on the west coast at the beach.