I like WW2, the current "war on terror" (at times the information is really good) And really anything about Canadian militray history, but sadly where I am, they (school boards/governments) do not teach about that anymore. Although I like to learn about "ALL" of WW2, the allies ect ect...
Though I do not know much about WW1, it seems people over-shadow it, when compared to WW2.
I like learning about Nelson and the like, Battle of Trafalgar was genius work. (Shame this period of history is largely ommited from the curriculum). After studying the Vietnam War in GCSE history though I think it runs Nelson's CV close. Just the content of what happens and it ties into so much going on int he world before and since.
The first world war, of course. The influence of the economic depression on peace treaties and allies, Hitler's entrance and it's effects, League of Nations, Locarno treaty and France's fear of Germany. USA's isolation from European affairs after the world war.
I quite enjoy reading about WWII, and one of the most famous groups to hit Northern Africa: Rommel's German Afrika Corps. They pounded British and American forces with such might and strength, that they seemed invincible. That was, until Gerneral Montgomery threw a crushing blow at El Alamein.
Ha, Wilson adding the League of Nations into the Treaty o' Versaille then not joining, made it pointless from the beginning.
Not really, it wasn't pointless. History tries to show that the League of Nations was a complete disaster, Britain and France managed to settle some trouble:
In Upper Silesia, 1921 when it made Silesians (German and Polish) vote for who they wanted to rule (Germany or Poland.) The rural areas voted for Poland and the industrial areas voted for Germany. Leading to Germany ruling the industrial areas while Poland ruled the rural areas, the dispute was settled.
In Aaland Islands, Sweden and Finland both wanted control over the Aaland Islands and so the matter was taken to the League which said the islands should go to Finland. Sweden accepted the League's ruling and the matter was taken care of peacefully.
In the 1921 Washington Conference, USA, Britain, France and Japan agreed to limit the size of their navies to prevent a large war such as the one that has occured previously.
In the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris), 65 nations agreed to use their armies only for self-defence.
I'm not saying the League was all good. In fact, it was more bad than good. Still, it was a difficult time for anyone to make things better, don't forget the Walstreet Crash which ruined the League's work in the 1920s and made it even harder to keep security as Britain and France had their own economic issues.
You bring up a very interesting point Skyla, I don't have much knowledge in this topic you brought up, but you've covered all I know and then quite a bit more.
I just meant that the league got off on the wrong foot by having the U.S. not join. The largest super power rejecting it gives a negative view to others that it isn't as important. THe Abysinian crisis just showed how selfish France and Britain were when it came to helping out. It could have been easily averted.
Anyway I apologise sincerely for such a flipant post. ha flipant gotta use that word more.
I just meant that the league got off on the wrong foot by having the U.S. not join.
President Wilson of the USA at the time wanted to join and tried to convince the court multiple times, but there were many factors which I will state briefly that didn't allow him to join:
1) The amount of German immigrants in the US at the time. Versailles' treaty squeezed reparation money out of Germany and the League is linked to that treaty. These immigrants which made up a large number of the citizens didn't want America to take part in it.
2) Many Americans thought that their soldiers' would be sent off to settle every little conflict in the world, Citizens were appalled at the carnage of the first world war and they wanted the USA to stay out of disputes.
3) People were worried about the economic cost (due to trade sanctions which were the League's 2nd degree warning before sending troops to the offending nation). Also the US was promising to solve all international problems regardless of the cost. They thought the USA should mind it's own business.
4) Other Americans opposed the league because they were Anti-British or Anti-French. They thought "Why should the USA be dragged into fighting for Britain's empire?" Americans believed in freedom, they opposed the whole idea of empires. They didn't want the USA to safeguard the colonial possessions of Britain and France.
The Abysinian crisis just showed how selfish France and Britain were when it came to helping out.
I agree they did do a terrible job with this one. France thought Italy was a potential ally against Germany if it decided to attack France, and so France didn't want to "make any trouble" with Mussolini. Britain did not want to send their army on it's own. The only thing the League did in this dispute was "Morally condemn" Italy, in other words, they told him to "Please stop."
Keep in mind that took place after the Walstreet Crash when they didn't want to refuse to trade with the aggressor. They also had their own countries to manage and had an economic depression of their own.
Anyway I apologise sincerely for such a flipant post. ha flipant gotta use that word more.
