A few centuries ago, part of war used to be that the victor “got the spoils”. This was certainly the case in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war, where Germany annexing Alsace and Lorraine was a major source of resentment on the part of France, and contributed - along with the horrors and the destruction of the war itself - to France’s hardline attitudes at Versailles, and thus a peace treaty to end World War (part) One that is widely (but not universally) considered to have been so harsh that it was a major cause of World War (part) Two. (There were a few other major aspects, such as the stab-in-the-back & “didn’t lose in the field” myths.)
From https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25776836:
The Treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.
It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.
The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 200 and 300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.
After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, its factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.
Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by H_____, who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.
The above suggests the economic aspect of the Versailles Treaty was achievable; others - notably John Maynard Keynes - disagree.
Militarily, the treaty was widely considered to be harsh, and was intended to prevent Germany being able to cause a war again. The perceived harshness is a significant part of why no objections were made when Germany began to re-arm - the sense was that Germany should be able to defend itself. Contrast that with Japan after WW2, which had a self defence force, but limits to prevent a war of aggression.
It should also be noted that the above has conflated East and West Germany after WW2, which is an excessive simplification, and ignores the Marshall Plan.
With Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the topic of who pays for the rebuilding of Ukraine is already being considered.
The consensus - see the articles below - is what I consider viable: use the income (or profits) from Russia's natural resources businesses to pay for the rebuilding.
However, I consider it will also be necessary to consider the psychology on both sides to prevent setting the scene for a future war. Groups/issues to consider will likely include:
- the Ukrainian victims of Russia’s aggression, who have a valid and vital need to see justice done for their well being;
- those Russians who opposed the war and/or want a genuine democracy in Russia;
- those Russians who were injured in the fighting, and the families and friends of those Russians killed;
- the oligarchs and the sock puppets in Russia who want to hold on to power, and who have skills at manipulation that match and possibly exceed those of H_____.
The needs of Group 1 must be met, Group 2 should be strengthened, Group 3 should not be further embittered, and Group 4 must be weakened - and preferably removed by those Russians in Group 2.
And attempting to destroy a nation so it will never be a problem again rarely succeeds.
Some news articles on all this follow:
“Rebuilding Ukraine: What would it take?” https://theweek.com/politics/rebuilding-ukraine-war
“Russia continues to raze large sections of Ukraine, but that gives Kyiv
a unique opening to build a better country — if somebody is willing to
pay”
CSIS: “Rebuilding Ukraine after the War” https://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-ukraine-after-war
“How to Make Russia Pay to Rebuild Ukraine” https://time.com/6317191/russia-frozen-assets-rebuild-ukraine/
“In
the face of these atrocities, a long-overdue consensus is now forming
among U.S. and European policymakers that the profit and interest
generated on Russian assets (an estimated $3 billion per year) should be
transferred to Ukraine for its defence and reconstruction” ... but, more troubling, this article also advocates for transfer of frozen assets, which risks getting into problematic territory
Assumptions / basis
In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following:
- this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan
Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post.
If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.
Vote Yes for the Voice in Australia.
Finally, remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing.
