History
r/history
This past weekend the New York Times published a series of articles called The Ransom, where they claim to have new research showing the true scale of Haiti's enforced reparations to France, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise have resulted in tens of billions more available for infrastructure and schools.
I, for one, was never taught why Haiti was so much poorer than its neighbors. I knew only that they had won their freedom through the slave revolt, and had no idea that France came back later with new warships to demand ransom as "reparations" to the former slave-holders, which lasted for generations. As the debts (actually a double-debt, as France offered them a usurious loan to "help" them pay their debt) finally neared a close, France then locked Haiti's national bank into a system where they could syphon money off of every transaction back to France, making it impossible to build the country.
Then an American bank, which would later become Citigroup, muscled its way in, buying up a controlling share of the national bank, and continuing the process of syphoning money out of every Haitian transaction. A few years later, that bank was one of the main instigators of the United State's occupation of Haiti, where more wealth was extracted.
This series was eye-opening for me, and well done (although it is one of those Times articles with funky scrolling to show you different images and documents as you scroll, which isn't for everyone but I thought it worked pretty well here. It doesn't always work well in the archive.org links, though). I'm interested to know how it compares to other expert views (or non-expert).
Through the Paris Peace Conference of 1919–1920 and the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, Romania gained decent amounts of land, compared to its state right before the war. It doubled in size after WW1, and 16,500 sq miles after WW2.
What's debatable (through solid efforts of Romanian diplomacy) is who's side was Romania on in each war and did it actually lose in each of them.Â
In WW1, Romania delayed entering the war for 2 years and negotiated extensively with both sides. After being forced, through an ultimatum, to declare war on Austria-Hungary. Over the next few months, Central Powers forces occupied nearly 2/3 of Romania's territory, prompting Romanian-German negotiations, which resulted in the Treaty of Bucharest (1918). The treaty respected Romania's independence required Romania's assistance to Central Powers in the war and awarded Romania more territory (what an interesting way to lose) through the union with Bessarabia. Despite the treaty being de facto active, and its terms of it being followed, Romanian king Ferdinand delayed the royal ratification.
The day, before WW1 ended, Romania re-declared the war on Central Powers, formally retaining the status of an ally of the Entente. But was it?
During the Paris Peace Conference of 1919–1920 that followed, Romania gained 60,000 square miles of land and 8,500,000 inhabitants.
In WW2, despite being an active Axis participant, and being named a defeated side in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, Romania had Northern Transylvania (16,643 sq miles and a population of 2,577,260 before the war) recognized as its integral part.
!!! Clarification: I specifically wanted to compare its territories right before, and after joining the war. Because, if we start looking at what happened before/between the wars, the territorial disputes can be traced way back to Balkan Wars, then to 19th century, etc.
Romania did lose a large portion of its territories in 1940 (Molotov ultimatum of 1940, Second Vienna Award, Treaty of Craiova), but was NOT involved in WW2 at the time, thus making it an interwar diplomatic issue.
I look specifically at:
We have to keep in mind that there is no such thing as an EASY battle. Each and every battle is difficult in and of itself, and every soldier enters battle knowing that death is a possibility.
The purpose of this post is by no means to compare atrocities across battles. More-so, what I am interested in, is an Examination of Battles Featuring Extreme Examples of Mother Nature.
I am interested in learning from the guys and girls in the sub about battles that included examples of one or more of these three main facets:
Battles Featuring Extreme Weather, Climate, or Natural Disasters
Battles Featuring Extreme Terrain Challenges
Battles Featuring Extreme Encounters with Nature or Wildlife
About Community
Members
Online
Filter by flair
Related Communities
97,931 members
2,052,846 members
580,304 members
237,710 members
187,388 members
211,390 members
1,870,519 members
1,850,103 members
20,909,867 members
136,365 members
Introduction
/r/History is a place for discussions about history. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is!
Moderation policy
All posts will be reviewed by a human moderator first before they become visible to all subscribers on the subreddit.
The full rules and guidelines for /r/history can be found here