Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (87736)	3/29/2003 3:56:27 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The negotiations at the end of WWI did not involve imposing democracy on Germany but were rather about influencing the conflict between the Reichstag (as elected representatives) and the Kaiser in the direction of the former. I take that from the line in the speech but it could easily be contradicted by the activities of the occupying powers. Now you're beginning to understand.. And that makes it much easier to debate this issue. One of the principles of diplomacy is to tell the other side to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip... IOW, you don't necessary state what your actual intentions are, but rather, in a manner that is more palatable to the other side. As a tangent to that, we also seek to maneuver the other side into such a position that they have no real choice but to adopt the policies we prefer.. Imperial Germany was at a crossroads. They had clearly lost WWI, but possessed sufficient resources to perpetuate the battle for some time, forcing the Allies to cross the Rhine, while risking the razing of their cities and conquest and subjugation of their people by France and Britain (as we did after WWII).. So they bargained.. they put out peace "feelers" in order to reach a mutually beneficial "armistice" which would end the war with some semblance of honor, rather than a humuliating surrender. But, in effect, it was still a surrender. We just called it something else, and the terms of that armistice were humiliating.. Terms we imposed upon the German Empire, which they opted to accept in order to prevent a even harsher fate. So for Wilson to attempt to subvert the Kaiser by trying to advance the democratically derived authority of the Reichstag, was in fact, and attempt to impose the terms of WHO we would deal with.. It would be like the Coalition refusing to deal with Saddam, but deal with some "elected" political entity in Iraq which didn't represent the elite Baathist party. By calling into question the authority and motivations of the Imperial German government, preferring to deal with the weak Reichstag (thus empowering it), he imposed a shift in the parties with which the US was willing to deal with. And we have to ask.. What right did he have not to be forced to deal with the Kaiser and Bundesrat?? Hawk