Germany´s defeat in WW2

[Penelope_Grey]

[Split from the "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" thread - Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Why don't you tell us what the relevance of "created" versus "forced" was vis a vis WWII.

The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

At the end of World War 2 like melnibonian said, the defeated nations were given the chance for a better future.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

I think you need to pick up any history book of WW1 and read it.

[melnibonian]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I think you need to pick up any history book of WW1 and read it.

I have the feeling that Mrs Grey is talking about the harsh terms of the Versailles Treaty. In WWI Germany lost but the terms imposed on them were not proportional to the level of their defeat. The German General Staff claimed throughout the 1920s and 30s that Germany was not defeated and that the communists betrayed the Empire, but that of course was a lie. Germany did not suffer the devastating and total defeat though that the peace terms were implying, but did lose the war (or as a number of Generals thought the 1st Half of the match).

[Penelope_Grey]

melnibonian, you are definately somebody who gets me.

Yeah Germany lost, but they took the brunt of the harshness of the versailles treaty, because France wanted Germany punished harsh as they suffered quite badly at the hands of the German forces.

While Germany was not beat as in beat beyond all shadow of doubt, the treaty treated them as the main villain, they were forced into peace and that created future problems, the coming of Hitler etc etc. Which was what I was driving at.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

melnibonian, you are definately somebody who gets me.

Yeah Germany lost, but they took the brunt of the harshness of the versailles treaty, because France wanted Germany punished harsh as they suffered quite badly at the hands of the German forces.

While Germany was not beat as in beat beyond all shadow of doubt, the treaty treated them as the main villain, they were forced into peace and that created future problems, the coming of Hitler etc etc. Which was what I was driving at.

The new rising of nationalism could probably have been prevented only by occupation, like after WW2 in Germany and Japan.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

[Split from the "Should Britain have nukes? (article)" thread - Gizzmoe]

The relevance is, the Germans were forced to surrender when in fact really, Germany was not beaten was it? So as a result several years later Hitler comes along and wham! More fighting.

At the end of World War 2 like melnibonian said, the defeated nations were given the chance for a better future.

We've jumped threads here.

For the record, let me remind you that the topic was nukes and whether they can bring about peace. The A-bombs dropped on Japan resulted in the surrender of Japan in WWII. The surrender of Germany resulted in the Treaty of Versailles in WWI. Cart before horse. The sequences are completely relevant and therefore these particular events are incomparable.