Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "vlogbrothers"
channel.
-
IMO, one of the gravest outcomes of the Armistice in 1918 and a fact seldom mentioned, was the result of the renunciation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
The armistice demanded the immediate removal of German (also Turkish and A-H) forces, and the resulting power vacuum was quickly exploited by the Reds, who rolled over Ukraine, Poland and the Caucasus region, whose population had only just plucked up the courage to declare their independence.
The second clause of the Armistice of 1918 (concerning the Eastern front) was a short-sighted vindictive and self centered decision, especially since the Russian invasion of Finland in 1918 had already shown what the Reds were capable of, and what they thought about independence and freedom of others.
Allied leaders completely underestimated the Reds, and millions of people subsequently suffered the loss of their lives, health and property.
Even worse, the returning German troops subsequently roamed the streets of Berlin, or signed up for private militia, a serious risk to the shaky new democratic Weimar Republic.
My conclusion?
It would have been better for the peoples of these areas if the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk had remained intact, since it legally bound Russia (or rather the SU), to peace in these areas.
The Allies should have used their victory in the west, to ease some of the harsher conditions, without altering the main conditions, at least until the newly formed independent nations had organized and consolidated their own nations into self-supporting (and defensible) states.
Hindsight?
Certainly, but there isn't much in history which isn't....
1
-
1