The treaty wasn't harsh enough, nor lenient enough, and that was the problem. It didn't cripple Germany, but was otherwise too extreme to be accepted. Most statesmen and academics realised this at the time; B.H Liddell Hart wrote in the early twenties that war was inevitable following the failure of Versailles in this respect.
Of course history repeats itself, to refute that speaks volumes of ignorance. Churchill saw through Adolphs charade because he'd studied the reign of Louis XIV and the build up to the Wars of the Sapnish Succession... There's one relevant example for you.
No ice the allies in WW 2 demanded an unconditional surrender they beat the Germans till they had levelled huge areas of the country then they kept on pounding away until the Germans surrendered totally. An unconditional surrender is a total collapse you've given up the fight and your country is no longer yours. There was no treaty defining the conditions of victory and the consequences of defeat. That you don't know these simple historic facts suggests you need to actually study some history .
Hitler didn't decide to be the leader of the party for 'living space', he simply wanted revenge. He already had a house and a family silly
Andy your lack of knowledge exposes the weakness of the gcse history course . The lebensraum " living space " was an ideal of the national socialist party. They had the idea that " stronger " races had the right to take lands from " inferior " peoples. They felt this was particularly true if the stronger race was over populated in their existing lands. In effect this lead to the extermination of poles Slavs Russians either killed or deported from rural lands slaughtered in urban areas or turned cities into ghettos were they slowly starved to death.
It's definitely an idea. However it would make us just as bad as them if they were to be killed off, then again we're not doing it for no reason. They dehumanized people for no valid reason. I wouldn't mind it but there's no way I see it happening because they are people too.
Such good people on here. Don't anyone of ye believe in God, if so then just do your best to be good people and let God deal with all who have done wrong when their day comes.
I'm not saying they didn't believe that, but that believe was formed When land was taken away from them after ww1
Andy the lands they claimed hadn't ever been Germany they weren't being reclaimed they were being taken from the people already living there.
As nice as it seems to just kill people off, you're effectively no better than the nazis. I mean, they cant legally cause any damage to anyone so their existence is merely an opinion, one that very few agree on. I mean, if we kill of nazis whos to say we shouldnt kill off creationists? Or homophobes? I mean i dont agree with homophobia but everyone is allowed their opinion. If I drop the word gay does that make me a homophobe? Does that make me illegible for killing? This proposal is basically just lowering yourself to the nazi standard of "if we dont like u, u dont deserve to live"
So we should kill people…because they might make people think it is okay to make others feel bad? this is moronic. If they commit crimes, punish them accordingly, possibly including death if the crime warrants it. Otherwise, you are just as bad as they are.