- How did our Treaty compare to the original? Did we make some of the same mistakes? Why weren't we more willing to compromise, as we certainly had no real stake in the outcome?
- I thought it interesting that the "colonial powers" fought defining parameters on the granting of self-determination (no time limits), and that current geo-political debates echo similar refrains.
- How many of you were aware of the link between the conflicts in the Persain Gulf and decisions made at the conclusions of the First and Second World Wars?
Welcome to Mr. Kirby's AP Euroblog. This site is for all CHS students and guest to comment on topics relating to AP Modern European history.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The Treaty of Versailles and Beyond
I have decided to use this blog as a forum to exchange ideas on essential questions or broad themes. As a result, I will be posting several topics per week. I will tell you which responses are required, but will give additional credit to those who respond beyond the weekly requirement. I will not give credit for half-baked drivel, and will apply the rubric for reflective responses. Scores of A/B will receive credit. I WILL NOT penalize you for attempting to respond, but I will not give credit for substandard responses. In essence, it cannot hurt you. You have already completed this weeks mandatory response. Other topics that came to mind:
1 comment:
Our Treaty, had it been real, would probably have led to a collapse in the world economy and another world war, just as the original Treaty did. No nation can be expected to pay such exorbitant reparations, especially not one recovering from a devastating war. Also, the problem of Africa, unresolved in our conference, would tempt many colonial powers to settle their affairs by force rather than diplomacy. The age of imperialism could well be reborn.
Then again, had our conference been real, we would have taken greater care in the procedures, given each issue more thought, and certainly taken more time for debate. The future of the world should not be decided in one day.
It follows that people were reluctant to compromise because we did not in fact have a real stake in the matter. We were deciding no one's fate, only trying to learn something and have fun. Also, delegates from the big three powers had little reason to compromise, since they could veto any measure that did not suit their own interests. Compromise was, then, only a way to move things along, to keep from stalling too long on one topic.
As for the conflicts in the Persian Gulf, I do not know enough to draw any connections. I do, however, recognize that all of history is a web of cause and effect and that problems that plagued society in the past can resurface in the future.
Post a Comment