Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
It's a perfectly good analogy.
You are being ridiculously pedantic, and also wrong. Caiming that the use of the term "armistice" means Germany didn't actually surrender is nonsense.
The German war machine was spent. The German high command may have hoped to come to an amicable truce with the Allies but what they got was extremely harsh. Woodrow Wilson even demanded the abdication of the Kaiser as a precondition, and stipulated that there would not be ceasefire or peace talks, but surrender.
Armistice demanded extensive demilitarisation, de-occupation of French and Belgian territories held for almost 50 years and a whole host of other things, with the Allies promising next to nothing in return. All of that was achieved with the surrender of Germany in 1918. The treaty of Versailles the following year was more focused on what the future shape of Europe would be.
While it is true that war memorials created in the immediate aftermath of the conflict date its end to 1919, there is no doubt that 11 November 1918 was the day the Allies won and Germany surrendered.
|
Just to add Ferdinand Foch was spot on when he said of the treaty of Versailles that this isn't a peace treaty it's a twenty year armistice, if only someone had listened
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
But that again completely misrepresents what the debate is again. No one is saying dismantle them because they were slave owners but rather because they fought a war to maintain the right to own slaves.
This is Donald Trump again with this comparison of George Washington to Robert Lee which is nonsense.
That's one way of putting it.  |
And you're misrepresenting history, Virginia amongst others voted for session because they didn't want to fight other Southern States or isn't that relevant