History adds its lessons here as well. The end of WWI directly led to WWII. The humiliation and reparation forced upon the losers made them bitter and vulnerable to a madman who promised them a restored pride.
This is the popular position, but it is a wrong one. The central example of the consequences of the treaty, hyperinflation, was a deliberate strategy by the German government in order to avoid any type of austerity measures domestically. The Treaty of Versailles was not even comprehensively enforced; it had been almost completely dismantled by follow-on treaties, including the indefinite postponement of reparations, by 1932.
It is a simplification, but not an oversimplification, to say that modern public opinion is fundamentally down to propagandists going to work in the wake of the treaty (which they would have done regardless what the treaty contained), and the American and British tending to take them at their word.
The problem with the treaty was that it was ineffective, not that it was cruel or excessive.
Thanks—I’ll have to do some more research; apparently high school lied to me! Who knew.
Of course, that simply begs the question of what sort of measures are effective, after the end of a conflict.
Regardless, the main point I’m attempting to give voice to here is that economic, social, and cultural warfare lack the centralized control of traditional organized warfare, and thus lack methods of uniformly ending.
For all its failures, the Treaty of Versailles did end the war, at least. (So far as I know.)
I agree it doesn’t change the main point at all—I pointed it out more as a public service, because this is the first time a lot of people are looking at geopolitics, rather than as a criticism of the post.
I also reiterate the popularity of the belief—I strongly expect a majority of the non-specialists in the President’s office, or the Prime Minister’s office, along with the overwhelming majority of both Senate and Parliament, share it. So it is completely fair to treat it that story as the social reality underlying any decisions about treaties for those two countries, at least.
Of course, that simply begs the question of what sort of measures are effective, after the end of a conflict.
This is a woefully neglected question, in my mind; but I do think we are going to learn a lot based on how the sanctions situation shakes out. At least I hope. Very hard.
I’m definitely grateful for the update—it really makes me want to do a deep dive into how conflicts end, at the very least to better contextualize current events.
It also makes me wonder just how much history I “know” is the result of successful propaganda. Or how much culture is the result of successful marketing.
This is the popular position, but it is a wrong one. The central example of the consequences of the treaty, hyperinflation, was a deliberate strategy by the German government in order to avoid any type of austerity measures domestically. The Treaty of Versailles was not even comprehensively enforced; it had been almost completely dismantled by follow-on treaties, including the indefinite postponement of reparations, by 1932.
It is a simplification, but not an oversimplification, to say that modern public opinion is fundamentally down to propagandists going to work in the wake of the treaty (which they would have done regardless what the treaty contained), and the American and British tending to take them at their word.
The problem with the treaty was that it was ineffective, not that it was cruel or excessive.
Thanks—I’ll have to do some more research; apparently high school lied to me! Who knew.
Of course, that simply begs the question of what sort of measures are effective, after the end of a conflict.
Regardless, the main point I’m attempting to give voice to here is that economic, social, and cultural warfare lack the centralized control of traditional organized warfare, and thus lack methods of uniformly ending.
For all its failures, the Treaty of Versailles did end the war, at least. (So far as I know.)
I agree it doesn’t change the main point at all—I pointed it out more as a public service, because this is the first time a lot of people are looking at geopolitics, rather than as a criticism of the post.
I also reiterate the popularity of the belief—I strongly expect a majority of the non-specialists in the President’s office, or the Prime Minister’s office, along with the overwhelming majority of both Senate and Parliament, share it. So it is completely fair to treat it that story as the social reality underlying any decisions about treaties for those two countries, at least.
This is a woefully neglected question, in my mind; but I do think we are going to learn a lot based on how the sanctions situation shakes out. At least I hope. Very hard.
I’m definitely grateful for the update—it really makes me want to do a deep dive into how conflicts end, at the very least to better contextualize current events.
It also makes me wonder just how much history I “know” is the result of successful propaganda. Or how much culture is the result of successful marketing.
Yikes.