|
|
|
|
|
by CamouflagedKiwi
311 days ago
|
|
Not all of your examples are simply hubris (although there certainly was some of that). > Enjoining WW1 was completely unnecessary It effectively was necessary. They were drawn it via a pre-existing treaty with Belgium; it also does not seem like a good long-term plan for them to allow Germany to dominate the entire European mainland.
The whole thing was a mess, but not because Britain was out of touch with the reality of the situation. They were very aware but felt they had no choice. > The Treaty of Versailles was painfully myopic - all but ensuring WW2 It was, but that's a perspective that's very clear in hindsight, and at the time it arose more from ignorance of the consequences (and possibly some vindictiveness) than hubris. |
|
It was clear at the time at least to people like Keynes who wrote a book on the subject: The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
"My purpose in this book is to show that the Carthaginian Peace is not practically right or possible. Although the school of thought from which it springs is aware of the economic factor, it overlooks, nevertheless, the deeper economic tendencies which are to govern the future. The clock cannot be set back. You cannot restore Central Europe to 1870 without setting up such strains in the European structure and letting loose such human and spiritual forces as, pushing beyond frontiers and races, will overwhelm not only you and your "guarantees," but your institutions, and the existing order of your Society."