|
|
|
|
Posted 2007-10-27, 03:16 PM
in reply to Atnas's post "Conflict and Compromise."
|
|
|
|
You could go for a less literal approach, and examine the discussion process whilst the Allies were drawing up the Treaty of Versailles?
Three main figures:
David Lloyd George - British Prime Minister
Georges Clemenceau - French Prime Minister
Woodrow Wilson - American President
Wilson wanted a trety based on his 14 points - punish Germany, yes, but not too hard. In all honesty, he couldn't give a fig about Europe. The war was over, the American soldiers were going home, what did America want with European problems?
Clemenceau was French. Need I say more? France was raped during WWI. The damage caused was extensive. And seeing as France and Geramny are neighbours, he wanted to crush Germany until it's pips squeaked. Get the country on its knees, and you'd see no more trouble from it. And whilst you're there, get them paying through the nose with reparations (the final figure of £6,600 million was decided in 1921).
Lloyd George was a mediator between the two. Whilst he didn't want to see Germany let off with a smack on the wrist, he also didn't want to see the country crippled.
Three men. Three views as to what should happen. All three were in conflict (particularly Clemenceau and Wilson), and all three finally came to a compromise.
---
If you'd prefer proper conflict, then there are probably hundreds of examples of two countries at war, and a compromise being decided between the two - maybe a surrender of territory to end it (another example from WWI is the Russian surrender to Germany, and the subsequent loss of a large amount of territory in West Russia to Germany).
Last edited by Lenny; 2007-10-27 at 03:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|