NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/bit/listserv/history/6163

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 1.8 KB | 38 lines

Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!rodan.acs.syr.edu!crdunlea
From: [e-mail] (Christopher R. Dunlea)
Subject: Re: Does knowing history make any difference in policy?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:38:49 EST
Lines: 27

In article <[e-mail]> Walter Felscher <[e-mail]> writes:
>While President Wilson's ideas were no doubt noble and, apparently,
>influenced by his knowledge as a historian, their realization was
>anything but successful. The USA did not join the league of nations,
>and the Paris peace treaties of 1919 resulted in a mockery if the
>good intentions of Wilson's 14 points. They actually set the stage
>for Hitler and WWII.  [read "of" instead of "if" above]
>
>Walter Felscher, Tuebingen

True, to some extent, but we should not confuse intent or policies with the
course of events. My point was merely that he TRIED to do something more
original in foreign policy than his predecessors (the old carry-a-big-stick-
and-walk-softly hegemony approach to world affairs).

There is some debate over whether Versailles led to Hitler, as commonly
believed, or rather the abandonment of the treaty by the US and Britain
after 1924's London Conference led to Hitler. Consider the thesis of
Stephen Schuker's _The End of French Predominance in Europe_. One of the
main points is that France was sold out by her allies, slowly at first,
then wholesale after 1924. After 1924 Versailles was a dead letter and
politically unenforceable. Had the Allies stuck to the terms, Germany
would certainly have played a much more cautious hand in world affairs
in the 1930's.

Chris