False assumptions, national self-interest, and short-term solutions

According to Steve, Josh, and Kevin B, these were the fundamental reasons for the failure of post-war peacemakers. It was the false assumption upon which everything was based, endorsed by the historians and experts of the time, that Germany was completely to blame for the war. If you kept Germany down, conventional wisdom dictated, future wars would be avoided. (So ignorance of objective history contributes to the outbreak of wars; beat that one science and math!) National self-interests were placed ahead of world peace, nations refused to stand up to Hitler before he was too strong to be stopped. Further, nations opposed imperialism and supported national self-determination, but only when it meant rivals (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire) would lose colonies or be dissolved, and as a result, imperialism and militarism continued. Lastly, short-term solutions, like crushing Germany at the Treaty of Versailles. This was pursued largely out of revenge and thus greatly contributing to the rise of Germany once again.

On your blog, identify a current issue/policy/situation in which you feel the world or a nation is tackling a problem based on either false-assumptions, national self-interest over global security, and/or short-term solutions. What do you think will be the result of such mistakes? Lastly, what do you think is the "true" assumption, the global interest, or the long-term solution? You are not limited to the topic of peacemaking.

When complete, comment on a minimum of 3 other blogs. I look forward to reading your posts and comments! This will serve as the basis for our discussion on Monday.

Keegan; America and Armegeddon

Having read pages 372-414 from John Keegan's masterpiece The First World War, our goal is ultimately to establish a firm understanding of WHY/HOW the Allies were victorious in 1918. We know supplies were short and that the addition of the US meant that the Allies could sustain heavy losses and replace those losses but Germany could not, and that ultimately, this is why the Allies won. Let us now look deeper.

It is time for hypotheticals. Why, you might ask, would we discuss what did not happen if it indeed never happened? Good question! Our goal is to establish the importance of all the factors which contributed to theAllied victory, and determine their importance. For example, we often criticize the Germans for their mistakes (strategic, unrestricted submarine warfare, etc), but did they really matter? Or, was the outcome inevitable given the superiority of Allied supplies? If it doesn't matter, then why criticize them in the first place? If it does matter, than that criticism is very important. Make sense? So here is today's question; Could Germany have won World War I? If so, how? If not, why not? Be specific with references to the reading wherever possible, support your perspective with sound logic, and have fun!

Lastly, our previous posts and comments regarding land, sea, and homeland were excellent. Go back to your post, read the comment(s), add a comment explaining your current thinking, and then read and comment on at least three other blog posts.