I feel that this class has definitely prepared me for college, both in what I have learned, and in the way that I have learned it. This was a fast-paced course, which I feel is beneficial, having already experienced a college-paced course. Because it is an AP level history class it goes by faster, but there was also a significant amount of material to cover, especially compared to other AP level courses. With nearly one thousand years to study, it is difficult to go over all the information necessary to complete the curriculum. However, I feel that the instruction was excellent, and honestly could not have been better.
As a teacher, Maz brought history to life, making it much easier to wrap our heads around the difficult concepts and often complicated events that make up Europe's background. On a personal level, I have found history to be much more interesting this year. I feel that this has something to do with the fact that it is European History, which brings something different than the American History I have learned about for twelve years in school. Also, it encompasses so much more, both time-wise and concept-wise, than just American History. European History is so interconnected, it is impossible not to feel the repercussions even today of something that took place five hundred years ago.
I feel I was also exposed to more "secrets" of history this year as well. I have learned more than just events. I have learned about the Catholic church's hidden and murky past, I have read detailed descriptions of the vile acts performed by Ivan the Terrible, and upon further research I have learned that Maximilien Robespierre may not have had it all "together", as he had so many believe.
Through this course, I have learned not only about European History, but about how to conduct myself in a collegiate environment. I have also learned much about myself and my, often poor, study habits. I feel that this course has truly prepared me for my many years to come in college, and if nothing else has shocked me into a new work ethic. Looking back, I do not regret my decision to take this course, and I would advise all who come through WAHS to do the same as I did and take APEH.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Age of Anxiety - Atomic Power and the Atomic Bomb: Connection Across Time
The discovery of atomic power and the atom split by Rutherford led to the atom bomb. Many people, mainly scientists and politicians, were ecstatic about these discoveries and the knowledge that came with them. This picture represents what I feel is the biggest part of the discovery of atomic power: knowledge.
The knowledge that came with the power of atomic power was a big part of the early 20th century. The Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty was a result of this knowledge. The Heisenberg Principle states that it is impossible to predict the behavior of an electron because they are constantly moving, and therefore it's exact location cannot be pinpointed at any one time.
Because much of this knowledge is at such a high level, the average citizen could not understand much of it. Because it was so difficult to understand, most citizens were afraid of this "new physics". They had no idea exactly what science was capable of after this, and frankly, they were terrified. But it was not only the citizens that were terrified. It was also the scientists who discovered atomic power and who created the atomic bomb.
The scientists themselves were afraid of what they had created, and many had reservations about putting this power into practice as a bomb. But many felt that the benefits atomic power provided were too great to abandon the quest for more knowledge altogether. So the research continued, and the atomic bomb was eventually constructed and used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What drew me to this picture is that what I feel is the scariest thing about the atomic bomb is the knowledge that came with it. Nobody had ever dreamed that human kind would be capable of such power and destruction, and now that they are, what will we devise next? The power of the human mind is unbelievable, and what we can do with it when it is put to use is both frightening and awesome, much like the thought of what power the atom could provide in the early 20th century.
Ban Ki-moon and the UN (PP Presentation)
Ban Ki-moon and the Future of the United Nations
Tara Gaab pd. 5 APEH 5/5/09
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
• From the
• 8th Secretary-General of the United Nations
• Formerly
• Goal was to create a peaceful
• Loyal to his native
• Speaks both English & French fluently
Role of the Secretary-General
• FDR, when he devised the UN, pictured the S-G as a “world moderator”
• Now, a “spokesman for the interests of the world's peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them” (United Nations)
• Job outlined in the Charter of the United Nations
• Though technically restricted to a “chief administrative officer”, holds true to FDR’s vision & often gives personal input
Role of the Secretary-General (cont’d)
• Recommended by the Security Council, & finally decided on by the General Assembly (Article 97)
• Responsible for bringing up anything they feel will threaten international peace, from economic to humanitarian issues and everything in between
• Must give an annual report
• All members of his staff must answer to only him & not their native governments
Charter of the United Nations
• Preamble
• “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”
• “To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person…”
• To create environments where justice can be can be practiced
• To better the life of humankind by promoting progress and bettering society
Charter of the United Nations (cont’d)
• 19 chapters, 111 articles
• Completed in
• Went into effect October 24, 1945
• United Nations Day!
• Outlines every aspect of the UN, from members and the General Assembly to the International Court of Justice
• Available in Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish
Creation of the United Nations
• Name first given by FDR to 26 countries who vowed to fight against and defeat the Axis powers
• Later signed by 50 countries intending to keep lasting peace
• FDR never saw the creation of the UN, but was the primary creator as he came up with most of the ideas
• Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed to the first American position
• Assisted in creating the Universal Declaration of Rights while holding this position
Future of the UN under Ban Ki-moon
• Website states: “We the peoples… A stronger UN for a better world”
• Indicates reformation
• Ban Ki-moon’s current priorities:
• Peace & Security in Africa and the
• Non-proliferation and disarmament
• Development
• Climate Change
• Human Rights
Reform Within the UN
• One of Mr. Ban’s personal priorities
• Wants to “simplify and streamline rules, policies, and procedures”
• Form alliances with both private and public institutions
• Reform is needed in order to adapt to constantly changing situations, and new situations altogether
Only countries not members of the UN:
• Kosovo
•
• Vatican City/Holy See
UN: “
• Mr. Ban feels that the UN has “come full circle” since it’s creation in 1945, and it is needed now more than ever
• Currently 192 Member States
“I do not believe in miracles, but I do have faith in human decency, diligence and incremental progress.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVnL6NHn4uw&feature=featured
Works Cited
• “Biography of Secreatary-General Ban Ki-moon.” United Nations. 5 May 2009
• "Charter of the United Nations." United Nations. 5 May 2009
• "Google Image Result for http://upload.wikimedia.org//wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/
United_Nations_Members.svg/1000px-United_Nations_Members.svg.png." Google Images. Google/
Wikipedia. 5 May 2009
1000px-United_Nations_Members.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/
User:Chanheigeorge&usg=__m6FFDfAeLxDYtzpJ1k4wpPKeUlY=&h=441&w=1000&sz=122&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=EB
_T3gcBPR_43M:&tbnh=66&tbnw=149&prev=/
images%3Fq%3Dcurrent%2Bmap%2Bof%2Bmember%2Bstates%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bunited%2Bnations%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26
um%3D1>.
• "Non-Members of the United Nations." About.com:Geography. New York Times. 5 May 2009
• "Secretary-General of the United Nations." Wikipedia. 27 Apr. 2009. 5 May 2009
• The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers."United Nations." Teaching Eleanor Roosevelt, ed. by Allida Black, June Hopkins, et. al. (
• "The United Nations at a Glance." United Nations. 5 May 2009
• "UN Taking Swift Action against influenza (H1N1)." YouTube. 27 Apr. 2009
Meeting of the Minds - Robespierre (2)
During the Reign of Terror, Maximilien Robespierre was a name that sent chills down the spine. He became this sort of all-powerful being, almost inhuman. He instilled such fear & had so much power that he was looked upon as a fearsome power that could not be stopped. And with all that power and fear, Robespierre himself felt that he was nearly immortal in a sense. He felt that he held so much power that he could basically create another God, the Etre Supreme (The Supreme Being). He created the cult and the Festival that went along with it, and he went all out. He even had a special "sky-blue" coat made for the occasion of the Festival.
This sky-blue coat brings to mind something I came across while researching Robespierre. I was reading about his death by guillotine, and how he was not able to talk because he had his jaw bound shut. He had been shot in the lower jaw by a pistol, reportedly by a "gendarme" during a National Guard seizure after he was declared an outlaw of the Convention. The official story tells something like:
Robespierrre tried to speak at the National Convention on July 27, 1794, but was forced out by opponents. He was accused & declared an outlaw, and was pursued by the National Guard in their effort to protect the Convention. He was shot in the lower jaw during the fray, and he was hauled away to be executed by guillotine the next day. His jaw was bound in a dirty rag, and he never spoke another word before he died.
However, the story that I came across in The French Revolution: Complete and Unabridged by Thomas Carlyle told of someting entirely different. Carlyle claims that after Robespierre's failed speech at the Convention, he fled into another room in the convention hall. He knew it was all over for him, and so all alone in this room, he attempted to commit suicide. He failed however, much like he failed to keep his powerful position minutes earlier while giving his speech, and shot himself in the lower jaw, breaking it into splinters. Whether he "missed" due to a lack of confidence or some other reason matters not. He lay helpless as the National Guard came for him, ready to cart him off to jail in preparation for is execution. It was a man by the name of Meda who took credit for shooting Robespierre. Although few at the time actually gave him credit for doing so, the story stuck.
I have a feeling that Robespierre would be disgusted if he knew that today, everyone thought that it had been someone else who had brought him down, rather than his own doing. He was a man who did everything for himself, and thought himself all-powerful. He would never want his reputation tarnished by the fact that someone else had shot him. Personally, I think that he would rather people know that he attempted to kill himself and failed, rather than someone else succeeded in shooting him. This persona is exactly what I hope to bring with me to the Meeting of the Minds discussion in class on Tuesday.
Meeting of the Minds - Robespierre
By doing this Meeting of the Minds project, I am learning much more about Maximilien Robespierre than I would have otherwise. Because of the fact that we must personify whatever historical person we chose, we must gain insight into this person, learning not only about their history and achievements, but their personal views and personality as well. I personally love how this is not just another research project, but an in-depth view of an important figure in Europe's history.
One of the things I have found by researching Maximilien Robespierre is that I am often surprised by the views and personality of this man. He was very complicated, extremely intelligent, and often contradictory. I realize that I could spend years upon years researching and studying Robespierre, and may never understand the complexities of his thought processes and persona.
One such example of Robespierre's complicatedness is his abrupt change in his view on the death penalty. As a young judge, he did very well until he was forced to hand out the death sentence to a criminal. He couldn't bring himself to do so, & he was force to resign. Yet, as we all know, during the French Revolution he initiated the Reign of Terror, where countless lives were lost to the guillotine because they didn't support the revolution. I find this very confusing, and I am making it my goal to find out what exactly changed him as I finish my research on him.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Cubism: A Form of Rebellion
Three Musicians
Pablo Picasso - 1921
Picasso's Three Musicians is a perfect example of the effect art had on the world during the Age of Anxiety. Cubism was a way to revolt against the conventional artistic standards of the art world, and therefore revolt against all other things conventional in our world at the time. Although I am far from being an expert on Cubism, or any other form of art for that matter, the few bits of information I do know have led me to believe that this was a very important movement for European culture during the Age of Anxiety.
There are two main types of Cubism: Analytic and Synthetic. Three Musicians is technically an example of analytic cubism, but incorporates a great deal of Synthetic cubism as well. Analytic cubism uses actual objects as subjects, but is generally limited to gray shades. Synthetic cubism however makes use of bright, bold colors, but is non-objective (has no distinguishable characters or subjects). Thus, it is apparent that Picasso melds the two types of cubism in Three Musicians, creating a sort of hybrid piece of art. I suppose you can do that if you're Picasso.
Much like Picasso broke the rules of cubism, Cubism itself broke the rules of the art world, making a statement to the world. Because it breaks scenery up into geometric structures rather than abiding by the natural, realism rules, Cubism, and it's relative Dadaism, were able to change the way art is perceived even today. It made a political statement, and fit in nicely with the disillusionment felt at the time. These feelings were made even stronger with the help of the literature of the age, thanks to men like Kafka and Eliot. This painting in particular shows exactly the type of nonconformity that artists and citizens alike were attempting to achieve. The bright, contrasting colors are a far stretch from the classically subtle color changes characteristic of realism, while the bold lines separating the shapes and colors provide an almost puzzle-like quality to the painting.
By rebelling in their art, artists like Picasso were able to rebel against society as well, creating a new movement in Europe and all around the world.
Much like Picasso broke the rules of cubism, Cubism itself broke the rules of the art world, making a statement to the world. Because it breaks scenery up into geometric structures rather than abiding by the natural, realism rules, Cubism, and it's relative Dadaism, were able to change the way art is perceived even today. It made a political statement, and fit in nicely with the disillusionment felt at the time. These feelings were made even stronger with the help of the literature of the age, thanks to men like Kafka and Eliot. This painting in particular shows exactly the type of nonconformity that artists and citizens alike were attempting to achieve. The bright, contrasting colors are a far stretch from the classically subtle color changes characteristic of realism, while the bold lines separating the shapes and colors provide an almost puzzle-like quality to the painting.
By rebelling in their art, artists like Picasso were able to rebel against society as well, creating a new movement in Europe and all around the world.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Logical Empiricism
I found the topic of Wittgenstein and his Logical Empiricism one of interest. His greatest work, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", written much like Machiavelli's work "The Prince", is one of great insight, and is something I hope to be able to not only read but understand one day. I find Wittgenstein's views on the world fascinating, and I actually feel that they make more sense than society's current beliefs.
For example, I find it easier to believe that the world is based upon facts rather than chance, karma, a superior being, etc. I also find it easy to believe that all objects are inherently designed to be with other certain objects. In other words, if someone (or something) is meant to be with someone (or something) else, they will be, and what happens, happens. This specific belief reminds me, in a strictly superficial sense, of how people talk about love, and how if one is meant to be with someone else, it will just happen. Perhaps this is where that idea originated.
On the other hand, the idea of objects inherently having their "partners" already seems almost too easy, like all the work and thought put into life are just wasted because no matter how hard one tries to determine one's own course, they will not avail. In this sense, I find Wittgenstein's ideas similar to that of the Ancient Greeks' beliefs in fate. The contrast between the two interpretations of this idea is really what drew me to Wittgenstein's works.
Other ideas of Wittgenstein's also hold interest for me. His belief that philosophy can be used as therapy rather than research, for example. Here, his one simple idea has evolved into an entire career that one must attend numerous years of schooling to achieve... making it almost an art form. Also, Wittgenstein's separation between thought and language is something that I find both ingeneous and extremely simple. When one really thinks about it, there is an obvious separation between thought and language. Otherwise, people would not have the same thoughts even though they cannot speak the same languages. However, who really thinks about these kinds of things? This is what makes Wittgenstein so special in my mind - the fact that he was willing to take on these seemingly impossible questions and answer them in the simplest way possible. One other example of this being his 7th proposition in "Tractatus" which states, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". An impossibly simple answer to an apparently obvious question that, when one tries to answer it themselves, cannot find the words to do so, that question being What does one do when one cannot speak?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
World War I Propaganda - Then and Now
World War I Poster
Illustrating Total War
This poster is a perfect example of the propaganda spread by the different governments during World War I. "Total War" became an important part of World War I because the war itself depended on it. The people ultimately determined how the war went... they could make it easy or hard for the government. Therefore, the government would distribute posters, such as this one, to try and gain the support of the people.
This poster in particular really caught my attention. For one, the slogan "Sow the Seeds of Victory" is a great example of total war propaganda. It's not only attention-grabbing, but it targets the citizen's sense of patriotism. The beautiful "Lady Liberty" in her flowing patriotic dress is meant to stir any patriot's heart and move them to help with the cause, just as she is doing. As she sows her seeds for the war, she expects all other good, patriotic citizens to do the same so that they too may fulfill their duty to their country.
This is the definition of Total War, and World War I was really the first war to present itself as a total war. Since then, many have tried to gain the support of the people both prior to and during a war. World War II was probably the most effective at doing this, especially in America. Other wars, be they in Europe, the Americas, or the Middle East, also try to follow this same principle of total war. Generally, the more support a government has, the better their soldiers fare. Applying this same principle to today, perhaps America's current War on Terror would not only be more popular, but would have a more positive and quicker outcome.
This poster in particular really caught my attention. For one, the slogan "Sow the Seeds of Victory" is a great example of total war propaganda. It's not only attention-grabbing, but it targets the citizen's sense of patriotism. The beautiful "Lady Liberty" in her flowing patriotic dress is meant to stir any patriot's heart and move them to help with the cause, just as she is doing. As she sows her seeds for the war, she expects all other good, patriotic citizens to do the same so that they too may fulfill their duty to their country.
This is the definition of Total War, and World War I was really the first war to present itself as a total war. Since then, many have tried to gain the support of the people both prior to and during a war. World War II was probably the most effective at doing this, especially in America. Other wars, be they in Europe, the Americas, or the Middle East, also try to follow this same principle of total war. Generally, the more support a government has, the better their soldiers fare. Applying this same principle to today, perhaps America's current War on Terror would not only be more popular, but would have a more positive and quicker outcome.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Dogfights
Squadron over the Brenta 1917
Max Edler von Poosch
World War I was the first war where planes were used not only in battle, but in any aspect of war period. At first, planes, along with zeppelins on the side of Germany, were used to carry cargo and to spy on enemy territory. It was quickly realized that zeppelins were inefficient and dangerous, so they quickly became outdated. It was also found that planes could also serve a perhaps better purpose in other areas of the war. Airplanes were soon outfitted with all sorts of guns and ammunition, and the fighting took to the skies.
Dogfights, as they came to be called, are what define the Great War. Pilots became something of legend, and the more "kills" you had as a pilot, the more legendary you became.
A pilot needed five kills to become an Ace, and there were no two better aces than Eddie Rickenbacker, from America, and his German equivalent, the Red Baron. These two legends only added to the rapidly growing romantic view of dogfights during World War I, which this painting by Max Edler von Poosch depicts perfectly.
In this painting, dogfighting takes on an almost enchanting notion, where one is free from everything but the fight, and is in total control. The pilot is one with the sky, shown through this painting by the almost blending of the fighter planes with the clouds against the bright blue sky. The bright yellow time in the middle displays a majestic quality as it passes over the snow-capped mountains.
This painting is a perfect example of how dogfighting was viewed during World War I. It was seen as a romantic, courageous, valiant event to be a part of, and it was sorely misrepresented. In reality, dogfights were scary, bloody, and deadly. However, if the majority of the public felt that way, they would be less likely to support the war effort. By portraying dogfighting as a valiant war effort, this contributed to the total war, and created war heroes.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Shot That Rang Throughout Europe - Connection Across Time
What I find most fascinating about World War I has nothing to do with the fighting, with alliances, or even with the faulty Treaty of Versailles. What I feel is the most unbelievable thing about World War I is the way it began: with one small, misguided bomb and two bullets from a single pistol. As if this doesn't seem insignificant enough to spark a global war, consider the fact that these were the doings of 5 college students, 3 of whom were too scared to do anything, and one of whom wasn't even intelligent enough to successfully commit suicide.On one hand, this event could easily be named the single greatest event of the 20th century... which I'm certain it has before. Just imagine, the one fatal gunshot that killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand is what not only set off World War I, but is also the origin of just about every war since then. For example, World War II was a direct result of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Also, the wars that have taken place in the Middle East, (i.e. the Gulf War and the current War on Terror), are all results of the Treaty of Versailles, and the mess that it created. If not for the actions of those five college boys, Gavrilo Princip in particular, our world today would not be the same. Perhaps it would even be a better world.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure this event should ever be associated with the word "great". This assassination could be at best described as a complete and utter mess. All things considered, it really should not take more than one grown man to assassinate the Archduke and his wife, let alone five grown men. This was a poorly planned, and even more poorly executed assassination, and it was sheer luck that Princip was able to shoot Ferdinand and his wife. As if the fact that three of the men chickened out isn't enough of an insult to the assassination and all those associated with it, Cabrinovic's bombing attempt was atrocious, as was his failed suicide. If anyone should be given credit for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, it should be the driver of their car, for taking the wrong route to the hospital.
However, whether the assassination is viewed as the most influential moment of the 20th century or as a lucky break matters not. All that matters is that this is the event that sparked the Great War, that this is the event that all other wars since then can be traced back to, and that this event is in more than one way both historic and fascinating.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Art From the Front Lines - Paul Nash
"We are Making a New World" (1918)
Paul Nash - Official War Artist
Here is a painting by Paul Nash that represents "no man's land". "No man's land" was the area between enemy trenches in World War I. Oftentimes, this was the scariest part of the war because there was literally no protection from enemy fire. Therefore, most of the deaths occurred here when using trench warfare.
From this painting, one can see that this was a dismal, depressing place straight out of a horror movie. Nash was obviously influenced by this as he experienced the trenches for himself in 1917 after he enlisted in the Artists' Rifles, a volunteer regiment of the British Army. A few months later, Nash fell into one of the trenches and broke a rib, needing to return home to heal. It was during this recuperating period that he worked on his pieces from the front lines, including this piece.
This piece represents the horrors of trench warfare on the front lines of the Western front where he was deployed. The entire landscape is barren and dead, with nothing but what appear to be stumps of trees and a pock-marked field, a result of countless hours of fire on each side. One can see the sun peeking through the clouds and smoke over the mountains, symbolizing a few things.
The sun can represent a beacon of hope, lighting the way to the end of war. It shines over "no man's land", shedding light over a shadowy wasteland. But as this sun can represent hope for a brighter future, it shows the ugliness of the war at the same time. It lights up "no man's land" so everyone can see what destruction has taken place there. While previously in shadow, the shockingly corpse-like trees are now visible, and the evils of the Great War are now illuminated. All of humanity can now see the dead trees grasping at the air like a dead man's fingers, and they can see war for what it really is: death and destruction, not glory and heroism.
After returning home from the war, Nash made it his mission to educate the citizens of the world on what the war really was like. He did this through his paintings from the front lines, doing a great service to the world.
From this painting, one can see that this was a dismal, depressing place straight out of a horror movie. Nash was obviously influenced by this as he experienced the trenches for himself in 1917 after he enlisted in the Artists' Rifles, a volunteer regiment of the British Army. A few months later, Nash fell into one of the trenches and broke a rib, needing to return home to heal. It was during this recuperating period that he worked on his pieces from the front lines, including this piece.
This piece represents the horrors of trench warfare on the front lines of the Western front where he was deployed. The entire landscape is barren and dead, with nothing but what appear to be stumps of trees and a pock-marked field, a result of countless hours of fire on each side. One can see the sun peeking through the clouds and smoke over the mountains, symbolizing a few things.
The sun can represent a beacon of hope, lighting the way to the end of war. It shines over "no man's land", shedding light over a shadowy wasteland. But as this sun can represent hope for a brighter future, it shows the ugliness of the war at the same time. It lights up "no man's land" so everyone can see what destruction has taken place there. While previously in shadow, the shockingly corpse-like trees are now visible, and the evils of the Great War are now illuminated. All of humanity can now see the dead trees grasping at the air like a dead man's fingers, and they can see war for what it really is: death and destruction, not glory and heroism.
After returning home from the war, Nash made it his mission to educate the citizens of the world on what the war really was like. He did this through his paintings from the front lines, doing a great service to the world.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
WWI - Treaty of Versailles
In my opinion, the Treaty of Versailles the biggest mistake ever made. It was a global mess, and resulted in not only a second world war, but also in the ultimate destruction of President Woodrow Wilson. Though it was created with the best of intentions, in reality it was one of the biggest blunders in history.
One of the many problems included the massive difference in opinion between the Big Four: President Woodrow Wilson of the US, Premier Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of GB, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy. Virtually the only thing these four agreed on was that Germany was the "bad guy", and all others should be considered victorious. Wilson and Clemenceau especially butted heads more than a few times, due mostly to their literally opposite personalities. Where Clemenceau was liberal and science-oriented, Wilson was conservative and was deeply rooted in his faith. My favorite quote describing the two comes from Lloyd George when asked how the Paris Peace Conference went. He replied with "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon".
"Jesus" and "Napoleon", while both agreed that Germany should bear at least some responsiblility for the Great War, each had his own personal opinion on how to make Germany shoulder this responsibility. Clemenceau demanded revenge, retribution, and harsh punishments. Wilson, on the other hand, was more level-headed, and proposed self-determination along with his Fourteen Points. These various disagreements resulted in more time spent arguing and less time spent actually finding ways to end the hostility peacefully.
Another huge problem with the Treaty was the little, or even no, thought given to the people that lived in the Balkans when dividing up the area into random territories. These were areas that were volitile to begin with due to racial and ethnic differences - the very reason World War I started. Dividing this area up even more, with no regard toward people's families and heritage only added fuel to the constantly burning fire. From this treaty, virtually every war since can be traced back to either the hacking up of the Balkan region, or to the hostility toward Germany - another major issue.
Blaming the war solely on Germany may have seemed like an easy out at the time, but it has come back to haunt those who did so. Germany was bitter about the entire treaty, which demanded they pay 6,600 million pounds, demanded that they cut back drastically on their armed forces, and made them take full responsibility for the war. Personally, I do not think this was fair either. There were plenty of other countries that were involved. Why were those who started the entire thing, those in the Balkans, not punished? Would that not be the fair thing to do? And isn't "fair" what the Big Four, especially Wilson, aiming for? I myself do not understand what the reason was for this huge wrong-doing, when there was the perfect opportunity for peace right there in front of them. If this had been handled correctly, the world could have been spared a second world war, and probably most of our wars since then.
One of the many problems included the massive difference in opinion between the Big Four: President Woodrow Wilson of the US, Premier Georges Clemenceau of France, David Lloyd George of GB, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy. Virtually the only thing these four agreed on was that Germany was the "bad guy", and all others should be considered victorious. Wilson and Clemenceau especially butted heads more than a few times, due mostly to their literally opposite personalities. Where Clemenceau was liberal and science-oriented, Wilson was conservative and was deeply rooted in his faith. My favorite quote describing the two comes from Lloyd George when asked how the Paris Peace Conference went. He replied with "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon".
"Jesus" and "Napoleon", while both agreed that Germany should bear at least some responsiblility for the Great War, each had his own personal opinion on how to make Germany shoulder this responsibility. Clemenceau demanded revenge, retribution, and harsh punishments. Wilson, on the other hand, was more level-headed, and proposed self-determination along with his Fourteen Points. These various disagreements resulted in more time spent arguing and less time spent actually finding ways to end the hostility peacefully.
Another huge problem with the Treaty was the little, or even no, thought given to the people that lived in the Balkans when dividing up the area into random territories. These were areas that were volitile to begin with due to racial and ethnic differences - the very reason World War I started. Dividing this area up even more, with no regard toward people's families and heritage only added fuel to the constantly burning fire. From this treaty, virtually every war since can be traced back to either the hacking up of the Balkan region, or to the hostility toward Germany - another major issue.
Blaming the war solely on Germany may have seemed like an easy out at the time, but it has come back to haunt those who did so. Germany was bitter about the entire treaty, which demanded they pay 6,600 million pounds, demanded that they cut back drastically on their armed forces, and made them take full responsibility for the war. Personally, I do not think this was fair either. There were plenty of other countries that were involved. Why were those who started the entire thing, those in the Balkans, not punished? Would that not be the fair thing to do? And isn't "fair" what the Big Four, especially Wilson, aiming for? I myself do not understand what the reason was for this huge wrong-doing, when there was the perfect opportunity for peace right there in front of them. If this had been handled correctly, the world could have been spared a second world war, and probably most of our wars since then.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)