Quote Originally Posted by Vivisteiner View Post
I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.
Hmmm, you make some good points.

I would argue that Germany wasnt crippled, it was weakened. Sure, the occupation of the Ruhr was pretty much a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, and that lead to hyperinflation and so on. But, and this a big but, Germany recovered in quite a few years due to Stresseman and negotiations such as the Dawes Plan. That period after the deoccupation of the Ruhr was known as the Golden Twenties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Twenties

The fact that Germany recovered so fast, the fact that Germans enjoyed the highest recorded standards of living according to some sources, shows to me at least that the Treaty of Versailles did not cripple Germany effectively. If Germany had been crippled it would not have recovered in such a short space of time. I do see your point that militarily it was still pretty weak, but economically it wasnt. And the fact that it was economically stable allowed for Hitler to build his army up. Of course, if Hitler had been prevented from doing so, history would be very different.


errr...wait..you're a history teacher aren't you. Maybe I shouldnt be arguing. :p
I'm not a history teacher, but I'd like to be one =p Couple of years off that, I don't start university (a year late) until September! At the moment, I'm just a bit of a nerd with a passion for history.

I suppose my point was that Versailles did cripple Germany and it was only as a result of actions in the 1920s that these effects were somewhat balanced out. Obviously Germany did gain greater prominence on the international stage through eventual membership of the League of Nations and through the Kellogg-Briand Pact and Streseman worked some real magic to sort Germany out, but I'd say they were in spite of Versailles.

Quote Originally Posted by Tavrobel View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Heath View Post
I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few.
If I remember what my history teacher taught up, the first one, Quota Act of 1921 limited the quota to 3% of immigrants from the census in either 1900 or 1910 (my leaning is toward the latter). The follow up, 1924, set it to 2% of immigrants from the census in 1890. The major immigration boost and the flowering of the Progressive Era did not occur until after 1890, when people realized that "hey, the States are actually a good place to live, screw famine." This in effect slashed immigration numbers to a screeching halt. However, my history teacher seemed to put the two Acts in the context of mostly preventing Asian immigration, as opposed to immigration in general, which makes sense, when put next to the numerous legislation attempts to limit the integration of Asians in the Western US.
I must admit, It's been a while since I actually studied the USA in the 1920s, 30s and 40s and the actual figures and acts escaped me (which is why I was so far off with the percentage). Thanks for the extra information. My point was really along the lines that, by limiting the extent of immigration to the USA, the nation itself was adopting a relatively isolationist stance as it was decreasing its relative role internationally by refusing immigrants, metaphorically closing the door to foreigners somewhat. As for the foreign nationals that benefited from those acts, I just knew off the top of my head that there happened to be a rather large number of Brits who moved over to the US at that point and just plucked Poland out of there as a country that probably had fewer people who had immigrated. Certainly makes sense in regard to Asian immigration though. Again, thanks for the info.