NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I proceed, if you know nothing of the period of Germany between 1918-1933, go and look it up before replying.


Why do I not believe it will work? I will be comparing Iraq as it is now to Germany in 1918, as the two countries in those periods are very similar.


In 1918, after the ludendrof offensive had failed, the German military knew it couldn’t win the war, so they said to the German government, to sue for peace. As a result, the German government decided to change the government (as at the moment, it was a semi dictatorship on behalf of the Kaiser, Wilhelm the 2nd, who was the king of Germany)

The government thought that, in order to get a better deal and look nice for the allies, to switch to democracy, into a country and culture which has never really had democracy before, a move which meant the Weimar republic, and, with hindsight, Adolph Hitler.

In Iraq, it has just lost a war, unlike Germany, its now occupied by two main foreign powers, (USA and Britain) Its dictator (saddam) is in prison, and now democracy is now being introduced to an area which hasn’t had democracy for almost 4000 years (ironically, the first ever parliament was in Iraq 2000 BC ish)

The reaction to democracy hasn’t been great, a guerilla resistance is going on, the Iraqi people have had years of hardship due to sanctions on Iraq (comparable with the desperation of the German people after 4 years of their ports being blockaded by the royal navy)

And, like the German people, the Iraqi people have been largely ignored in terms of politics and human rights by saddam (the Kaiser ignored Germans previously in Germany)

Im going to quickly explain why democracy in Germany failed, then draw comparisons with Iraq.

Well, the Interim government under Frederic Ebert made Germany a republic in 1918, Ebert though various pacts got the support of the military and unions, however, there were commie revolts after commie revolts Most notable in February 1919 in Berlin when the spartcists a commie group, tried to overthrow there German government, the German freikorps crushed the uprising, killing Rosa Luxemburg)

With this constant revolts and matinee’s going on, the Weimar constitution was hurriedly made, and upon this constitution, the Weimar republic was founded.

This was a mistake, hurriedly making a constitution means doom, and a particular article in that constitution, article 48, was used by Adolph Hitler to take emergency powers and create a dictatorship.

Reasons for Hitler coming to power were varied, but ill keep it short,

1. The Great depression, this mean unemployment soared and basically, the economy was crap.

2. The German culture, German people had never had democracy before, with the Kaiser being the absolute ruler of Germany, therefore it was a matter of time before it was abused , but, to be abused, it requires point 3 & 4 to happen.

3. The fact, as stated above, the constitution was hurriedly written, leaving holes and opportunities for Hitler to take power.

4. The proportional representation version of democracy is used, this is the most democratic version of democracy, (no the USA and Britain don’t use it) but, it has problems, IE like in Germany even today, having to form coalition governments, resulting in a weak government. And 2, letting more radical parties get a lot more power quickly (the national socialists, i.e., the Nazis)

5. World war 1, the fact the Germans lost, having sacrificed so many young men and enduring starvation for years, needlessly (IE, they lost)

All contributed to Hitler taking power.



Now with Iraq, the people are desperate after sanctions; theve just had a huge fundamental change in there life, IE foreign soldiers walking down the streets and democracy.

But, these are the comparables with Germany:

1. Theve just had a war, which theve lost, it doesn’t matter how just that war was, the fact is, and they lost in a matter of days.

2. They are a desperate population

3. The constitution is being hurried, unlike Germany, its being squabbled over, which is in fact worse, in the future; a portion of the population may just decide to reject the constitution of Iraq altogether.

4. Theve had years of dictatorship and being ignored, and now all of a sudden, all these voices are shouting, which is worse then everyone gradually getting there say.

There are a lot more, if you know of any more, please let me know but, I urge only those who can look at all points of view to reply no one like *well there free now, you anti American bastard!" Im not anti American, my fiancée is American, just putting a historical parallel to Iraq.

TO conclude, Iraq has 2 routes, direct/indirect control from Washington London, or dictatorship. History has proven you can’t go into a country and introduce a new political fundamental; Iraq will take one of those two routes, the idea of a fully independent democratic sovereign Iraq, will unfortunately, never happen for at least 20 years. And history ALLWAYS repeats itself, repeats itself.

Thanks for reading.

I apologize for grammar and spelling!

And history ALLWAYS repeats itself, repeats itself
History
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ad nausem

Look, Germany != Iraq, so basically it's rather silly to assume that the Weimar Republic is a roadmap for what will happen in Iraq.

wow.
Uhm. Ok...

Look, Germany != Iraq, so basically it's rather silly to assume that the Weimar Republic is a roadmap for what will happen in Iraq.


And why is that? both countrys were/are new to democracy, and both have relatively simerler cicumstances. I dont think iraw will follow the doom of weimar exaackly, but weimar is a warning from history, one which should be applied to whenever a country is new to democracy, gets is and is recovering from a national crises.

And why is that? both countrys were/are new to democracy, and both have relatively simerler cicumstances. I dont think iraw will follow the doom of weimar exaackly, but weimar is a warning from history, one which should be applied to whenever a country is new to democracy, gets is and is recovering from a national crises.Weimar wasn't as badly hurt as Iraq was. There is also no great depression going on. The Kaiserreich didn't "decide" to abolish itself. The socialist uprising in Kiel and the subsequent proclamations of the Republic saw to that. Likewise, there's nothing comparable to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles. Population density is much higher in Germany; there isn't really any room for guerrilla warfare in the form that it occurs in Iraq. Likewise Germany and Iraq's neighbors are completely different in ethnic similarity and diplomatic relations. And the Kaiserreich had a parliament with little power, but considerably more than the one in Iraq.
That and the fact that one country was populated by Germans and the other by Sunni and Shia Arabs as well as Kurds.

I think I might have found the flaw in your reasoning.

Why do I not believe it will work? I will be comparing Iraq as it is now to Germany in 1918, as the two countries in those periods are very similar.

why would you do that ???

while Britain as a whole doesnt use PR, Tehs scottish Parliament does

Another very significant factor that allowed Hitler to rise to power was the political crisis in Europe. The Soviet Union under Stalin funded massive communist insurrections all throughout Europe, and the backlash against this was seized upon by fascist movements. The Nazis from the beginning gained support by campaigning against communism, and by linking anti-communism with anti-semitism (Hitler's "Marx was a jew" speech). In fact throughout the 1930s the Nazis justified their policies as being necessary to defend Europe against Communism, which a lot of the western democracies bought.

I suppose you could compare that with the current pressure being exerted on Iraqi Sunnis by our backing of the Shia and Kurds. That is IMO the main reason the insurgency is now turning into a civil war.

[/QUOTE]That and the fact that one country was populated by Germans and the other by Sunni and Shia Arabs as well as Kurds[/QUOTE]

Back then, Germany was a HUGE collection of cultures and dialects, seen as germany was/is a federal country, made up of smaller countrys. Germans back then wernt germans, they only thing holding them together was language and nationalism, not a strong glue.



[/QUOTE]The Kaiserreich didn't "decide" to abolish itself. [/QUOTE]

The goverment volutarily turned into a democracy, you could call it a revolution from above, but even the interim goverment under ebert wanted to keep the kaiser as head of state, with much reduced powers of course. However, the kaiser VOLUNTARILY abdicated and went into exile in belgium , maybe in a few months he would of been forced, but at the time, he was under not much pressure or obligation to do so, he was hated, but he had been hated thoughout his entire reign.



[/QUOTE]Likewise, there's nothing comparable to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles.[/QUOTE]

There is , military occupation, Germany wanst occupied, part of it was demilitarised, but germany wasnt occupied, iraq is, so, that compensates for the "humiliting" factor for this argument.



[/QUOTE]And the Kaiserreich had a parliament with little power, but considerably more than the one in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

It did have a parliament, the head of whom was appointed by the kaiser, so , it had no power. They had little power and little influence , hence why i called it in my fist post a "semi - dictatership"

I think I might have found the flaw in your reasoning.
why would you do that ???

Why not? they were/are in simerler situations.

[snip]

There are a lot more, if you know of any more, please let me know but, I urge only those who can look at all points of view to reply no one like *well there free now, you anti American bastard!" Im not anti American, my fiancée is American, just putting a historical parallel to Iraq.

TO conclude, Iraq has 2 routes, direct/indirect control from Washington London, or dictatorship. History has proven you can’t go into a country and introduce a new political fundamental; Iraq will take one of those two routes, the idea of a fully independent democratic sovereign Iraq, will unfortunately, never happen for at least 20 years. And history ALLWAYS repeats itself, repeats itself.

Thanks for reading.

I apologize for grammar and spelling!

I'm British and did a lot to support the invasion of Iraq - arguing ong and hard that the war was both necessary and legal. One of the worst dictators and a major threat to regional peace is now broken and behind bars. The people of Iraq are, in the main, pleased to have their freedom.

However, having won the war, it is now necessary for all parties to win the peace.

Your comparison with Germany is valid, but fails (in my opinion) to give the necessary weight to two aspects.

1) The lose of land and punative damages inflicted post 1918.
2) The world-wide economic depression of the early 30s.

If neither of those existed, and as far as we know they will not exist in Iraq, then I doubt the WRep would have failed.

Your thoughts on that will be of great interest.

Another very significant factor that allowed Hitler to rise to power was the political crisis in Europe. The Soviet Union under Stalin funded massive communist insurrections all throughout Europe, and the backlash against this was seized upon by fascist movements. The Nazis from the beginning gained support by campaigning against communism, and by linking anti-communism with anti-semitism (Hitler's "Marx was a jew" speech). In fact throughout the 1930s the Nazis justified their policies as being necessary to defend Europe against Communism, which a lot of the western democracies bought.

I suppose you could compare that with the current pressure being exerted on Iraqi Sunnis by our backing of the Shia and Kurds. That is IMO the main reason the insurgency is now turning into a civil war.

Thats true, another comparable for today would be al queda helping insurgents, or indeed, being some of the insurgents,

and as hitler used communists and jews and scapegoats, a future dicater could use wetern infidels as scapegoats.

Some important points of difference between Germany 1918-1933 and Iraq.

1. Germany was never wholly occupied by a hostile enemy force. Iarq is still, and will be for the foreseeable future, under the heel of the US Army. A fairly strong example has been set for any contravention of whatever Washington wants to call "Democracy in Iraq". The minute power is meekly handed back to some tribal strongman (or austrian ex corporal) well see "shock and awe" back in action over Bahgdad skies

2. The Great Depression was a significant accelerant to events in Wiemar Germany

3. Long term, and with the benefit of an occupting army, Germany did ok democracy wise didn't they? At least they developed a democracy vigourous and valued enough to keep them out of the clusterfuck currenly going down in Iraq.

4. Of course, the German democracy was developed withthe help of a long term vision and the Marshall plan. No such luck for Iraq!

some random thoughts...

mm

The problem is Iraq doesn't have a george washington they don't have a man that everyone respects. We kind of took out Saddam for them and because of that they never had a man rise up because of this they're very divided because no man is universally liked.

Your comparison with Germany is valid, but fails (in my opinion) to give the necessary weight to two aspects.

1) The lose of land and punative damages inflicted post 1918.
2) The world-wide economic depression of the early 30s.

If neither of those existed, and as far as we know they will not exist in Iraq, then I doubt the WRep would have failed.

Your thoughts on that will be of great interest.


Ill give my thoughts, the damages and depression i can compare to the long sanctions imposed on iraq.

WW1 and the economic depression made the germans jobless and hungary and desperate.

The sanctions on iraq have made the iraqis jobless hungary and desperate, even with the coalition forces present, these problems will take a LONG time to recover from.

As for those reasons? well, you have to ask yourself, was Weimar doomed from the start? the constitution was flawed, everything hitler did up untill 1945 was legal under that constituition (except maybe the holocaust)

The reasons aside from those 2 you mentioned are, cultural, germany hadent had real domocracy before,

The fact it used a PR system resulting in weak coalition goverments and with radical partys like the nazis able to get into power quickly.

The political structure also caused division, the reichstag and president were seperately elected, meaning you could have a left wing reich stag, a right wing chanceller, which could cause the same problems as coalition goverments. (weimar almost never had a goverment formed by one party alone, it was allways coalitions)

Article 48, this i beleive is what doomed weimar, without it, its doubtfull hitler could over of been the dictater he was , not many constituions today have such a clause which is givern so lightly. (if you control the reichstag, as hitler did, you only need the reicstag to vote to activate article 48, when the nazis got a majority in the rechstag, germany was doomed to dictatership) thats a MAJOR flaw, which, i beleve if hitler didnt take advantage of, someone else would of.

Also the lander (equlivent of our house of lords , who reside in the reichrat) was basicly were the individual states are represented, and generally had there own agenda, and were too powerful, again causing another potential rift in the goverment.

All of the above reason contributed to a weak divided goverment, a goverment the german people hated, along comes my hitler, who promises a strong unified goverment, as soon as he gets majority, he activates article 48. The depression and ww1 arnt nessispry for that to take place.

Hope that was of interest!

[QUOTE=Rougu Germans back then wernt germans, they only thing holding them together was language and nationalism, not a strong glue.
[/QUOTE]


What stronger glue is there? Perhaps the solution in Iraq is no glue and bust the place up into 5 or so little countries, with one little one in the middle for all the converts that the Fundi Christians flooding the country turn over!

mm

Some important points of difference between Germany 1918-1933 and Iraq.

1. Germany was never wholly occupied by a hostile enemy force. Iarq is still, and will be for the foreseeable future, under the heel of the US Army. A fairly strong example has been set for any contravention of whatever Washington wants to call "Democracy in Iraq". The minute power is meekly handed back to some tribal strongman (or austrian ex corporal) well see "shock and awe" back in action over Bahgdad skies

2. The Great Depression was a significant accelerant to events in Wiemar Germany

3. Long term, and with the benefit of an occupting army, Germany did ok democracy wise didn't they? At least they developed a democracy vigourous and valued enough to keep them out of the clusterfuck currenly going down in Iraq.

4. Of course, the German democracy was developed withthe help of a long term vision and the Marshall plan. No such luck for Iraq!

some random thoughts...

mm

I have to agree, of course ths situation does differ, but for most part, its a good historicle comparison, im sure youd agree.

I disagree. As far as I have been educated: The Iraquis were FREED by the war, while the Germans LOST the war. Apologies to any German's for reiterating that fact.

What stronger glue is there? Perhaps the solution in Iraq is no glue and bust the place up into 5 or so little countries, with one little one in the middle for all the converts that the Fundi Christians flooding the country turn over!

mm

Thats a good idea, if the iraqi people are splitting up, why not divide it up? easier to control ;)

Germany would of split up (there was a revolution in bavaria) but Ebert and his Freikorps destroyed any attemps at succession and revolution, otherwise germany could well of gone commie, and split apart.

I disagree. As far as I have been educated: The Iraquis were FREED by the war, while the Germans LOST the war. Apologies to any German's for reiterating that fact.

No, both were new to democracy, yes, the way it happened is different, the iraqis have been liberated, the german KAiser abdicated and the goverment voluntarily became a republic,

But thats not the point, the point is, both people were new to democracy.

History
ditto
ditto
ditto
ditto
ad nausem

To compare Weimar Germany with Iraq is like comparing suicide to murder.

To compare Weimar Germany with Iraq is like comparing suicide to murder.

Explain. Both germany and iraq were/are in very simerler situations, and iraq has only two paths, a foreign dictatership , or a iraqi dictatership, im just saying that, using the example of Weimar, Iraq will never be an independent democratic country anytime soon.

EDIT: afghanistan has just gone to the polls, afghanistan has a few years on iraq, but same story.

Barely anyone voted, why? because of the taliban? nope, because the elections change nothing. Exackly what happened in Weimar, because the goverments and political system was so weak, nothing could get done!

So, afghanistan is showing the hall marks of a new democracy slipping away.

TO conclude, Iraq has 2 routes, direct/indirect control from Washington London, or dictatorship. History has proven you can’t go into a country and introduce a new political fundamental; Iraq will take one of those two routes, the idea of a fully independent democratic sovereign Iraq, will unfortunately, never happen for at least 20 years. And history ALLWAYS repeats itself, repeats itself.

Thanks for reading.

I apologize for grammar and spelling!
So what about post WW2 Japan? They had a lot of problems, a quick constitution, but no new emperor rose to lead the country away from the democratic republic that it became? Could this version of history repeat itself?

Back then, Germany was a HUGE collection of cultures and dialects, seen as germany was/is a federal country, made up of smaller countrys. Germans back then wernt germans, they only thing holding them together was language and nationalism, not a strong glue. The Bavarians were the only ones itching to give up that unity. Germany still consists of large amounts of dialects and cultures.

The goverment volutarily turned into a democracy, you could call it a revolution from above, but even the interim goverment under ebert wanted to keep the kaiser as head of state, with much reduced powers of course. However, the kaiser VOLUNTARILY abdicated and went into exile in belgium , maybe in a few months he would of been forced, but at the time, he was under not much pressure or obligation to do so, he was hated, but he had been hated thoughout his entire reign. The Kaiser wouldn't have done jack shit if the navy hadn't rebelled. So, while he abdicated because he knew better, it wouldn't have happened without the revolution.

There is , military occupation, Germany wanst occupied, part of it was demilitarised, but germany wasnt occupied, iraq is, so, that compensates for the "humiliting" factor for this argument. Bullshit. If a Kurdish state had been created, if Iraqi oil production had been used to repay the Coalition's war costs, if the Iraqi army was severly limited, if areas were given to Iran, Turkey, and Kuwait, then, maybe, just maybe, it would come close to what Versailles meant to the Germans (and the Rhineland WAS occupied). And don't forget some equivalent to the 14 points that got dropped over Iraq, Iraq ousting Saddam on its own, and then receiving said humiliations.
It did have a parliament, the head of whom was appointed by the kaiser, so , it had no power. They had little power and little influence , hence why i called it in my fist post a "semi - dictatership"I.e. it had more power than the Iraqi one. Germans got to vote on more than just keeping the Kaiser.

[/QUOTE]
The Bavarians were the only ones itching to give up that unity. Germany still consists of large amounts of dialects and cultures..[/QUOTE]

And all the German citys being ruled outside of the goverment? IE the workers and soldiers councils taking control of the citys whilst Eberts Interim goverment was being formed, of course, the freikorps then went roud retaking control for the federal goverment. And i never said germany still isnt very diverse, its still a federal foverment, meaning those states that made up germany, still exist to a degree! only the central goverment rules it all. You said the fact that there are many different cultures in iraq is different, germans are just germans, now your agreeing with me germany is diverse, hmmmm.
Of course, now its different, northern germans arnt fighting a guerilla war against germans from augsburg, its not a relevent reason, but its more a reason then you said otherwise.


[/QUOTE]
The Kaiser wouldn't have done jack shit if the navy hadn't rebelled. So, while he abdicated because he knew better, it wouldn't have happened without the revolution.[/QUOTE]

The Kaiser still didnt have to leave because of the navy, the navy mutineed because AFTER a peace note was sent to president wilson, the navy was ordered to attack the royal navy, historicly, a military force WONT do anything if the cause is lost. If its in the papers germany will lose, of course if your then being told to attack your gonna tell high command to go to hell, the Kaiser didnt need to abdicate,

and thats ignoring the fact Ebert wanted the KAiser to return as head of state with limited power, like the moanachy in my country (britian)


As for versailles and occupation? its up to you to decide which is worse, both are equal in terms of national humiliation, justified or not, being occupied by any power is humiliating. Though , my personal belief is, versailles was too harsh on the germans.

Germans back then wernt germans, they only thing holding them together was language and nationalism, not a strong glue.
Do you know where the word "Deutsch" comes from?
You are utterly and completely mistaken, by 1914 (and even more certainly in 1918/19) Germany was Germany against everyone else. The local Governments were left by the wayside, powerless, and you can thank first and foremost Bismarck for that.

[Kaiser Wilhelm II.] was hated, but he had been hated thoughout his entire reign.
That is most certainly not true. When the war looked lost, people were unhappy, yes. But during the entire time the perception was that the war had been forced on Germany and the Emperor, not the other way around.
Perhaps he wasn't as popular as Wilhelm I. had been, but "hated" is certainly the wrong word.

There is , military occupation, Germany wanst occupied, part of it was demilitarised, but germany wasnt occupied, iraq is, so, that compensates for the "humiliting" factor for this argument.
Apart from much of Prussia, Elsaß-Lothringen, Saarland at some point and the French occupation of the Ruhr area, then the colonies...
You need to look at the different mentalities. Iraqis do make a distinction between them and Saddam's Government. Not so Germans at this time, who felt not that the Emperor had gone to war, but they all had. What was done to Germany in 1919 hurt every one of them, much moreso than Iraq, which for the time being didn't have any ambitious superpower-dreams either.

It did have a parliament, the head of whom was appointed by the kaiser, so , it had no power. They had little power and little influence , hence why i called it in my fist post a "semi - dictatership"
Excuse me? There were political parties, newspapers were routinely critical of the Emperor etc etc.
That during the war all parties agreed to put their own interests aside should not be taken to mean there was no political process.
Nonetheless, the Emperor held a lot of power, although there was no oppression like you would've seen in Saddam's Iraq - another reason why Germans were more distraught by the fall of their Government than the Iraqis.

And now to my point:
a) The Weimar Republic didn't fail because there hadn't been a democracy before in Germany. If that would be so, there couldn't be a democracy anywhere, afterall everything needs to start some time.
It was the pressures from outside, the economic collapse and the lack of a 5% rule in the Parliament that made it unworkable.

b) Iraq is a lot more fractional than Germany was. Yes, some people in Bavaria thought now would be a good idea to do the pre-Stoiber. But that movement probably didn't have majority support, considering how apathetic the masses had become.
It may also be worth noting that the Soviets in Bavaria were against the local Wittelsbach dynasty rather than the Empire per sé.
And finally, I wouldn't connect the Freikorps too much with Ebert if I were you.

c) Indeed Communist groups were taking to the streets, trying to establish communes and the like, and for a few weeks there was anarchy. What that has to do with Iraq though is beyond me.

d) Wilhelm II. abducated for personal reasons. Yes, he could've stayed a puppet king like in England, but he wasn't going to stand for that. Again though, the parallels to Iraq 2005 elude me.

A few comments to place against your arguments. Germany was devestated during those periods. They were basically abandoned by the world. They quickly attempted to make a constituion and didn't think anything through.
Iraq has huge economic potential, mostly through their oil fields. They have two very powerful nations in there that will help them stabilize before dropping out of the game. And Iraq is taking much more time to make a Constitution. I mean, the US Constitution took how many years to make? 7, 8? Time just means they are going to solve as many issues as they can.
Furthermore, the insurgency represents only a tiny portion of the Iraqi people. As the Iraq elections showed us, more than 80% of the Iraqi people are willing to work in a government where they get choices.

The Iraqis will take the proper means to have a strong stable nation, and with the support of World superpowers, it will most certaintly happen.

Before I proceed, if you know nothing of the period of Germany between 1918-1933, go and look it up before replying.


Why do I not believe it will work? I will be comparing Iraq as it is now to Germany in 1918, as the two countries in those periods are very similar.

Reasons for Hitler coming to power were varied, but ill keep it short,

1. The Great depression, this mean unemployment soared and basically, the economy was crap.

2. The German culture, German people had never had democracy before, with the Kaiser being the absolute ruler of Germany, therefore it was a matter of time before it was abused , but, to be abused, it requires point 3 & 4 to happen.

3. The fact, as stated above, the constitution was hurriedly written, leaving holes and opportunities for Hitler to take power.

4. The proportional representation version of democracy is used, this is the most democratic version of democracy, (no the USA and Britain don’t use it) but, it has problems, IE like in Germany even today, having to form coalition governments, resulting in a weak government. And 2, letting more radical parties get a lot more power quickly (the national socialists, i.e., the Nazis)

5. World war 1, the fact the Germans lost, having sacrificed so many young men and enduring starvation for years, needlessly (IE, they lost)

All contributed to Hitler taking power.

<Snip>

Now with Iraq, the people are desperate after sanctions; theve just had a huge fundamental change in there life, IE foreign soldiers walking down the streets and democracy.

But, these are the comparables with Germany:

1. Theve just had a war, which theve lost, it doesn’t matter how just that war was, the fact is, and they lost in a matter of days.

2. They are a desperate population

3. The constitution is being hurried, unlike Germany, its being squabbled over, which is in fact worse, in the future; a portion of the population may just decide to reject the constitution of Iraq altogether.

4. Theve had years of dictatorship and being ignored, and now all of a sudden, all these voices are shouting, which is worse then everyone gradually getting there say.

There are a lot more, if you know of any more, please let me know but, I urge only those who can look at all points of view to reply no one like *well there free now, you anti American bastard!" Im not anti American, my fiancée is American, just putting a historical parallel to Iraq.

TO conclude, Iraq has 2 routes, direct/indirect control from Washington London, or dictatorship. History has proven you can’t go into a country and introduce a new political fundamental; Iraq will take one of those two routes, the idea of a fully independent democratic sovereign Iraq, will unfortunately, never happen for at least 20 years. And history ALLWAYS repeats itself, repeats itself.

Thanks for reading.

I apologize for grammar and spelling!


While this is all very nice, its extremely incomplete. You've missed several of the CORE issues as to why the Weimar Republic failed.

http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/hist/tyra.html

The treaty of Versailles being the primary reason:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWversailles.htm

Germany was named primarly cause of the war and thus was charged to repay for ALL damages accross Europe. THIS is what truely bankrupted Germany on top of the Great Depression.

Germany had to surrender all of its colonies

Germany surrendered its right to maintain a standing army

in fact Germany post Worldwar 1 and Iraq today have very few parallels. Firstly, Iraq is bearning non of the financial cost as all of their vast international debits have largely been forgiven, and Countries like the United States are infusing vast sums of money for reconstruction.

The debate over the contitution in fact is BETTER for the nation as more compromise is required taking into account all different sects of the society (even now, consessions are being made to the Sunni's in the face of rising violence). The primarly resistance in Iraq is foregin based, not national, and as thus is not reflective of the national opinion and in fact has no or little support from the general population (who are largely the target). And the constitution itself isn't being rushed, all that has come so far is a DRAFT. The constitution itself will be more fully developed after a referendum and the next round of elections, so there is much more room for debate and consideration.


You say history has shown you cannot go into a nation and introduce new political fundamentals. What was Germany post world war 2? or Japan post world war 2 ?... What about India after the British empire abanoned it as a colony... There are many examples where nation building has successfully taken place.

And of course a fully stable democracy will take 10 years or more to develop... even our own democracy has taken more then 100 years to develop and is still developing today. Democracy dosn't not flurish over night, We are only giving them the foundations. And there is no evidence of direct or even indirect control over Iraqs government. Iraq itself is a sovergin nation today, and could today expell the American forces if it so sees fit. You can be skeptical of how little control America as over Iraq, but without evidence, it is nothing more then conjecture.

I have the solution! If Iraq is like Weimar Germany now...

We must divide Iraq into rival political spheres: East Iraq and West Iraq. West Iraq will have the democratic government. We'll give China sovereignty over East Iraq.

Inevitably, three key events will happen:
1) West Iraqis will stop hating us, Iran, and/or Israel
2) East and West Iraqis will unify under the western, democratic government
3) Communism will soon fall in China

It's the BEST plan! Repetition history rocks!!!!

The main differences are that Iraqis do support democracy, and seem to understand it (and are being guided), the forces dedicated to bringing down the Wiemar Republic were in powerful positions (the Army, and the extremist socialist parties such as the Communists and the National Socialists), while in Iraq, the main forces opposed to democratic government are powerless to change it, all they can do is slaughter, slaughter which has been counter-productive to their "cause"

So what about post WW2 Japan? They had a lot of problems, a quick constitution, but no new emperor rose to lead the country away from the democratic republic that it became? Could this version of history repeat itself?
Japan is, well, Japan. For one thing, the Showa Emperor was activly helping SCAP in making sure that the occupation proved peaceful in an attempt to keep himself on the throne and not be hauled up in front of the Tokyo Tribunals as a war criminal. For another, MacAuthur agreed to place the blaim for the war on the military (choosing to use the Emperor to keep control) and went about dismantling that, but left the polictical system, and the polticicans in it, pretty much alone. They too had a stake in maintaining the Imperial house.

Pretty much the US would have had to have kept Saddam and the Ba'ath Party in order to paraell Japan in post WWII.

Another thought, the political groups opposed to Wiemar (Communists and National Socialists) could articulate some sort of alternative, true, both alternatives offered were totally insane, but with Germany the way it was, total insanity could look sane. It did to German voters.

Both germany and iraq were/are in very simerler situations, and iraq has only two paths, a foreign dictatership , or a iraqi dictatership, im just saying that, using the example of Weimar, Iraq will never be an independent democratic country anytime soon.

Rougu, you love making outlandish assertions, but what they lack is any sort of supporting argument and evidence. The only support for the assertion is the assertion itself.

Barely anyone voted, why? because of the taliban? nope, because the elections change nothing. Exackly what happened in Weimar, because the goverments and political system was so weak, nothing could get done!

The Afghan election turnout was over 50%, and this is only based upon the preliminary reports from 35% of polling places.

Some Afghans interviewed cited the fact that the warlords, and regional strongmen weren't kept out as a cause for not voting.

There was also a lack of awareness of the electoral process.

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=49136&SelectRegion=Asia&SelectCountry=AFGHANISTAN (Link)

A 50% turnout is adequate, and inline with many Western democracies. British turnout in 2001 was 59.4%. The last 'elections' for the European Parliament had a turnout of about 25% in the new member states, 16.96% in Slovakia.

The EU Overall was 45.5%.

inetesting opinion but i think that iraqis want democracy.now lets not delude ourselves usa and brittain want a puppet government there saddam himself was instaled there by americans. people would want a democracy but not a--usa sponsored one.they would like to have an Islamic state there simmilar to that in Iran so thats the core of future conflict that will last very very long ,untill usa leave that is.so only after usa is defeated and retreats like in vietnam will there be a true peoples government and some kind of islamic democracy!

Another one for unsupported outlandish assertions. Reading tea-leaves? Coffee-grains?

Another one for unsupported outlandish assertions. Reading tea-leaves? Coffee-grains?

What are you referring to? Most of the previous post was fairly obvious, that Iraqis want democracy but don't want a US puppet government. There will be a lack of trust for any US-approved government.

There are some pretty big challenges to democracy in Iraq. There are three broad areas, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. The Shiite and Kurdish areas are the most oil-rich, so if power is distributed in a democratic fashion the Sunnis will end up in the weakest position. Given that the Sunnis have been the dominant power for a long time and the US are supporting them in holding on to power to try and reduce the Sunni insurrection, democracy starts to look pretty unlikely. I think Iraq would probably be more viable as three democracies thn as one.

SERBIJANAC claimed that Iraqis wanted a democratic Islamic state "like Iran". A singularly stupid assertion, because it is unbacked by evidence, and Iran is (obviously) not democratic. They hold elections, but its not the same thing. The candidates must be approved by the Mullahs, as must any policies and laws etc.

There will be a lack of trust for any US-approved government.

Evidence?

In most countries, the way people measure their government against alternatives is performance of the incumbents, and the new proposals of the incumbants and challengers, not which country approves of which politician.

There are some pretty big challenges to democracy in Iraq. There are three broad areas, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. The Shiite and Kurdish areas are the most oil-rich, so if power is distributed in a democratic fashion the Sunnis will end up in the weakest position.

What you're talking about is not unique to Iraq, or even unusual. It is the basic challenge of any state which is not totally homogeneous.

Australia managed to sort out a similar problem. Australia's Federal Parliament has 150 members in 6 states and 2 territories, but the Divisions the members represent aren't allocated equally to each state, they are allocated so each has about the same population. This means that one state (New South Wales) has 50 seats, another 37, while the smallest state has only 5 seats.

So we have an upper house with 12 members from each state, and 2 each from each of the territories.

The question presented us with no great challenge. Nor did similar questions in the United States.

And, the point is not the oil wealth, it is the population.

interesting take on it. I think one fundamental thing is that, as was exposed in the 1980s esp with economic policies, you can't go round imposing things like this from outside.

It's all very well America n Britain going in and saying that their systems are the best and only they work but you have to bear in mind what went before. The Americans had to wipe an entire continent of people before instigating a system that half of the people don't use.

In Iraq democracy may come but it will take it's time. In Germany the rush for democracy overtook the desire for a working democractic system that engendered within it all the necessary bits and pieces that are boring and unglamourous that make the world a much better place. Same in Iraq. I think alot has to do with Bush etc being able to go on TV and say about how they've put democracy in place in Iraq, that's more important than the intracate workings of the whole thing

In Iraq democracy may come but it will take it's time.

Find me a place where that isn't/wasn't the case (and places like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada don't count, as they inherited from Britain)

What's remarkable about Iraq isn't how long its taking. The speed and success are what's remarkable.

For England, it took centuries. Germany didn't become a fully democratic nation, with fair and free elections for all Germans for 45 years after the war ended.

In the German case, the system wasn't the problem, except insofar as Proportional Representation tends allow the boneheads into Parliament, though the bad situation in which Germany was also tends to bring extremists, especially of the socialist variety, to the fore. New Zealand uses proportional representation for part of their Parliament, and while this tends to bring weak governments, the place hasn't fallen into the depths that National Socialists, or Communists would surely bring.

The problem in Germany was the people, at all levels. The ordinary German knew nothing about democracy, except that it was alien. This attitude in turn favoured such groups as the Army (who wanted to restore the old system), the National Socialists, and the Communists. The only effort made by anyone to fight these extremists was intended to get the favoured extremists in, not protect a democratic system.

I'm a big fan of the US idea of teaching Civics to school children. Iraqi democracy, in order to survive, will need children educated in their democratic system, and their rights and responsibilities in it.

And why is that? both countrys were/are new to democracy, and both have relatively simerler cicumstances. I dont think iraw will follow the doom of weimar exaackly, but weimar is a warning from history, one which should be applied to whenever a country is new to democracy, gets is and is recovering from a national crises.

I disagree for several reasons:

1) Iraq has oil. Germany, like the rest of Europe, had depleted its natural resources.

2) Iraq is more like Germany after World War II. Think: occupational army, international focus, ending of genocide.

3) The majority was being oppressed by a religious minority. Exact opposite of Germany's history. Different kind of animal.

4) Middle East culture is vastly different than German. Compare Islamic tradition with Teutonic.