How do we apply the treaty of Versailles situations that concern the world today?
447517
WWII, basically the same thing. Germany was blamed the  most for everything.
605044
Long before any of those.  Check out what Mark Twain wrote about the US action in Cuba and the Philippines, way back in 1901.  Or Washington Irving on the treatment of the Native Americans.  It's been going on a long time.  (And no, I'm not saying that we Europeans are any better.)
151783
This sounds like a homework question.   But maybe this will help.\n\nEnding the War\n\nExpectations were simply too high on all sides because of the intense, brutal years of war which preceded the peace conference. WWI as the World’s first “total war” in which all segments of society, military and civilian, were deeply affected by the war\n\nAllies (Britain and France especially) wanted revenge and hoped to punish/weaken Germany and its allies substantially. Germany thought it would be treated as a equal power at the negotiations.\n\n\nVersailles Peace Treaty-1919\n\nWilson’s “14 Points” are almost completely rejected\n\nTerritory: Germany is forced to surrender roughly 15% of its pre-war state to the allies or new countries like Poland; many important mining and industrial areas put under Allied occupation\n\nMilitary: Few limits on victor powers; Germany forced to a 100,000 man army, few modern weapons, and almost no navy\n\nFinancial: In effect, forced Germany to hand the Allies a blank check; repayment of war penalties was not fixed at the conference and Germany was left to repay an incredibly large sum over years. \n\nA very bad treaty: satisfies almost no one, including the victors, and deeply angers Germany and leaves a strong sense of resentment about the lost war.
166930
The Trade Treatiese that might be collectively useful for group may not specifically be useful for country X, Y , Z\n\nGeo Political, Cultural, Ideological differencences.. like which can come from say, countries with major Islamic ideology joinging EU and constant jibes that go on betwixth the French-German-Brit etc...\n\nWith (relatively) free movement of labour n capital, old fortê of a nation might not remain theirs.. like if cheap labour is available in Polland.. & country X (wealthier) joins EU.. the labour of Country X, might be surpassed & Polland find advantage..\n\nAnd ofcourse any combine (SuperPower) with higher bargaining power will have detractors & people trying to find faults/ run up against (like hackers try to take on MicroSoft)\n\nPlease take these examples at face value.. am not trying to hurt or take sides...
809293
I guess that because of the world becoming a global community, every country is concerned about it's image.\nIf the States had to launch a "Scorched Earth" policy as you mention, then this would make them extremely unpopular with the global community (and here I'm talking specifically about the overly liberal world leaders who would criticise the States).\n\nIn the Middle Ages, nations would unmercifully attack each other and the rest of the world would not even know about it. This is in complete opposite to today's world where news and views travel like lightning.\nIf the world had to take a negative view of any country, it could make things extremely difficult for them (even a country as great as the States would suffer from sanctions).\n\nWhat the world needs to understand though, is that sometimes it is necessary to completely obliterate the enemy - before they do the same to you. In actual fact, this would decrease the number of deaths in the long run.\n\nImagine if a US soldier was killed. Now imagine if the US, to avenge that soldier's death, they blow up an entire town. Then if a local person found out that there were more plans to kill US soldiers, then that person would be much more likely to inform the US authorities if they knew what the consequences would be if they did not.
1016463
I think that the first step is to make the rest of the world realise what's going on so that more people care about finding a solution. The majority of people who read this question will unfortunately not have a clue what you are talking about and that has got to change.
112732
WWI Peace Settlement\n\nhttp://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/History/WorldWars%5CWWI_Peace_Settlement.htm
108667
We are not going to have a WWIII anytime soon.  The polarization that affected the world in the 20th century is not present.  Democracies rarely if ever go to war with one another.  Since almost the entire worlds wealth is in 10 countries, all democracies, I do not see a political conflict ever arising.  The only wild card is China. When they do rise to economic and military prominence, there could be a destabilization of Asia.  If they also convert to a social democracy there will be no real threat of a world war.\n\nCulturally there is a war, between Jedo-Christianity and Islam.  The birthrate in European countries is so low that their Islamic immigrants will outnumber the original inhabitants of France, Italy, and Germany in 100 years.  The distinct differences beftween the cultures will have to blur or there will be another holocaust, which side will do it, who knows?  Remember Bosina-Herzogovina??  Orthodox Christians decimating and raping muslims to wipe them out.   If nations are pushed to the brink of extinction, they will use all means available.  Another cultural wildcard, India.\n\nNo one knows what will happen, I just hope that the Israeli-Palestinian confllict is resolved fairly and justly for both sides, that moderate and tolerant religeous leaders of all faiths prevail, instead of the fear and hatred that is growing all over the world.  \n\nI have hope, that with no facist or expansionist communist regime with any money or resources, our world will eventually learn to be at relative peace.
525484
In 1914 all of Europe was connected by various treaties.  The Germans to the Austro-Hungarian Empire; Britain to Belgium; Belgium to France etc.  This meant that one small local disagreement would quickly drag in lots of other countries.
687795
Issues left over from WWII:\n\n1)  We still have bases in Germany and Japan.  Neither country wants our bases to be removed.\n\n2)  Technically, some countries still owe us monetary debt from WWII.  Over the years, the U.S. made concession after concession about what percentage of these debts would actually have to be repaid.  Probably in the 1960s or 1970s, France, in typical form, bristled at our inquiries as to when they intended to pay their remaining obligations.  The French foreign minister, in his own haughty way, replied "A debt repaid too quickly is a sign of ingratitude"\n\n3)  The conclusion of WWII gave rise to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.  Now, Iran's president is claiming that we unfairly foisted the Jewish problem on the Arabs, Persians, and Palestinians.\n\n4)  There is still some property (such as artwork) whose ownership is still being debated.  A lot of this artwork was seized by the Nazis.\n\n5)  German reunification is probably considered complete, but it will take decades for the country to recover completely.  For example, many East German youths ended up being uneducated street punks, while children in West Germany had the education their parents intended for them.  I once saw a 60-minutes episode about this.  A woman had two sons, and was only able to leave with one.  The son she raised grew up to be a successful professional (architecture, I believe).  The other son dropped out of high school and had no ambition to improve himself.  Had these two sons remained together, they probably we have turned out similarly.
210753
Unfortunately,not. Remember that the world ended in 1918,don't you agree?  :)
252720
Please take the time to\nvote for the best answer\n\nThank You!!\n\nBritish White Paper of 1939 -Mandate on Palestine\n\nIn the statement on Palestine, issued on 9 November, 1938, His Majesty's Government announced their intention to invite representatives of the Arabs of Palestine, of certain neighboring countries and of the Jewish Agency to confer with them in London regarding future policy. It was their sincere hope that, as a result of full, free and frank discussions, some understanding might be reached. Conferences recently took place with Arab and Jewish delegations, lasting for a period of several weeks, and served the purpose of a complete exchange of views between British Ministers and the Arab and Jewish representatives. In the light of the discussions as well as of the situation in Palestine and of the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Partition Commission, certain proposals were formulated by His Majesty's Government and were laid before the Arab and Jewish Delegations as the basis of an agreed settlement. Neither the Arab nor the Jewish delegation felt able to accept these proposals, and the conferences therefore did not result in an agreement. Accordingly His Majesty's Government are free to formulate their own policy, and after careful consideration they have decided to adhere generally to the proposals which were finally submitted to and discussed with the Arab and Jewish delegations. \n\nThe Mandate for Palestine, the terms of which were confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, has governed the policy of successive British Governments for nearly 20 years. It embodies the Balfour Declaration and imposes on the Mandatory four main obligations. These obligations are set out in Article 2, 6 and 13 of the Mandate. There is no dispute regarding the interpretation of one of these obligations, that touching the protection of and access to the Holy Places and religious building or sites. The other three main obligations are generally as follows:
1131821
I am concerned about the issues in the whole world.
610354
Why do you keep asking this question?\n\nAre you really stupid?\n\nWhy not look it up on the internet?\n\n(The initial charter was part of the Versailles peace treaty signed in Versailles, 1919; the treaty was ratified in London in 1920)
94727
History has taught us that peace must be kept at all costs. At the end of World War 1, the common goal between the victorious nations throughout the world was to declare peace. The leading statesmen of these triumphant nations met in Paris to draw up the Treaty of Versailles, which would decide the fate of the central powers. Woodrow Wilson, the American President, created fourteen points as the basis for peace negotiations. Among these fourteen points was the most controversial and yet the most important to President Wilson, the League of Nations. President Wilson developed its charter and soon died from exhaustion after his own country, the United States, refused to ratify it in the senate. American policy had temporarily shifted from isolationism to internationalism because of the war, however the United States senate was not ready for the responsibilities of a world peacekeeper. Due to a republican majority, senators Henry Cabot Lodge, Alfred Beveridge, and other isolationist senators helped to sway the rest of congress to deny the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. These senators believed that by entangling themselves in an international organization they would create new alliances, which would commit them to go to war. Also, Lodge felt that the League of Nations would be able to control the United States military by limiting the number of armaments that a nation could have. Due to Article 10 and the limitations on armaments, which the senators objected, and the inability to compromise on the deadlock between the President’s beliefs and the Senators, led to the failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. These factors lead the senate to their decision, which left the world vulnerable for another war and the eventual demise of the League of Nations.
431211
I don't understand why people expect "the world" to fix other people's problems.Most of the time,when people say "the world",they mean Europe or the U.S.,and then,if we do act,everybody starts getting all post-colonial on us,shooting up the blue helmets,or the peacekeepers,or whoever...and kidnapping NGO personnel,and all that other gangster crap.We don't intend to open a third,fourth or fifth front.\nMaybe the next time we go in to aid a situation,and get our people shot up,we should treat you to a real war,Ala Dresden,WWII.
215838
Its up in the air at the moment.  they have to meet certain requirement, prerequisites.. They do have things in their culture that Europe doesnt want in the union so there are talks and negotiations.  We should see something about it soon but not sure when.