27 Nov 2004
As previously mentioned, there has been a relocation of sorts occurring in these parts over the last several days, during which time I have lived a most unusual kind of life. As always, “unusual” is entirely subjective, and pertains only to my normal pattern of existence. Incidentally, existence is one of those words I’m never sure if I’m spelling correctly or not… and generally can’t be bothered to check, more so now. For a few reasons. One, I’m trying to conduct other work whilst composing this message, and asides such as
dictionary.com consume far too much time and/or effort — I will inevitably end up flicking to the thesaurus, and spend hours devouring various information about synonyms and antonyms, and, if I drift back to dictionary.reference.com, where I further immerse myself in all kinds of other mindless (or perhaps not so mindless, but certainly not relevant to the task at hand) reading.
ANYWAY. Asides are bad. Enjoyable, but a vice of sorts.
So, I last posted on Tuesday. After I’d scanned, resized, uploaded and posted those two images (alas, there is no wonderful digital camera technology at work here, a fact which brought me great discomfort as I discovered that a roll of 24 had misfed, and I had captured 24 shots of nothingness!), the two remaining computers were reduced to one — and even that was packed neatly into a bag to be transported. My regular Linux monstrosity now sits in storage, as does everything but the laptop I now type on. Incidentally, I have located the Xircom network adapter for this thing — the means by which I now communicate with the world (other credits go to Telstra BigPond cable, and a nifty patch panel and the like… more on that, later.) — so that was good.
Aside: Thanks for loan of your PCMCIA card, Dale :) Unfortunately, Windows ME didn’t play nicely with default drivers, and I eventually gave up… I’ll get it back to you sometime in the near future!
And so most of my life was packed. I filled one more box, cleared up miscellaneous garbage, threw a bit more stuff out, taped some boxes shut, discovered I’d left my bin unpackaged, couldn’t be bothered re-opening boxes, and subsequently left the bin to do whatever it would in storage. It’s a mildly unexciting object, so I figured I may just buy a new one upon finally moving to a new place of (more) permanent residence. And then I fell asleep, too late at night (or morning?).
Which, so it seems, has been the story of my week — I started on 5 hours sleep, then managed to get about the same every night until Thursday, when I got home, collapsed into bed with my head about to implode (or explode, or something…), and didn’t awake until the next morning; I got up for about half an hour, then fell back into bed until the next morning.
It’s hit Saturday now, and the headache has gone away, but I’m still stupidly tired, despite copious quantities of sleep and a day spent at home doing… very little.
Actually, I got a bit done. I setup the ‘net connection from which I now type, which was interesting, and involved shuffling of my USB disk up and down stairs in order to automagically get the BigPond Cable login client onto my laptop — you’d think they could use some kind of uber proxy to direct unauthenticated users to a download page to let them grab the login client, but evidently not — anyway, that was fairly uneventful (although deciphering someone’s handwriting in order to get the password was a little… interesting). I’m kind of wondering why there isn’t just a router setup here, given that they’ve got a 12 or 16U cabinet with a patch panel, switch, and cable modem in it… but hey, it works, so I’m not complaining.
I also struggled to setup a network laser printer using IPX/SPX, which was… interesting, to say the least. At last I stumbled upon a nice application from HP which basically autodetects everything on your network for you, and sets it all up, which was nice of it! So now I have a snappy Telstra link, and a laser printer (which lives downstairs, meaning that I’ll probably be a little more restrained in my paper/printing usage — defininitely a GOOD thing!) which is snazzy.
Ummm… yes. So that was yesterday in a nutshell. I also put together a couple of quotes, and read Les Misérables for a bit, and slept a bit more. Then spent too long on the phone, watched the first half-hour of Notting Hill (the movie goes downhill from there, I think!), and read, before once again falling asleep. Lots of sleep was had.
I have an assessment of sorts due Monday, but I can sort of negotiate that one back to Tuesday of next week, on account of being notified somewhat late, if I so desire. Which I think I do. So I will.
27 Nov 2004
An amusing — and interesting — read, over at a webpage entitled [strike out]. Yet another case for Adobe PDF as a document distribution standard? Microsoft stubbornly continue to be one of the few remaining (large) IT companies who persist in using software designed for authoring, not redistribution, over the PDF format.
Cool though this feature of Word may be, it’s a shame the creators (speaking of Microsoft as a collective, not individual programmers) of this software have to be so ignorant…
23 Nov 2004
I haven’t got time to post (and likely won’t properly for a few weeks, at least — my email may also be out for a period of a few days, depending on transition), due to work and moving and everything else, but I thought I’d share a couple of photos (completely unrelated).
This first one comes from my Firefox propaganda-ing escapades, which was mildly successful in my mind. Yes, that is someone crashed out on the desk in the background…
And this one, of my esteemed friend, Michael Dale — so esteemed, in fact, that we shoved him in the boot of a car for transport on his 18th birthday!
Hey, it was a big boot!
21 Nov 2004
Hmm. Just finished (as in printed, stapled, backed up ad infinitum and then shoved into a bag to be dealt with later) that proposal, which I am now refusing to read again, on the basis that, having glanced at it as it printed, the document doesn’t seem anywhere near as good in hard copy. So I don’t really want to know about it.
In other news, I’m down to two computers now, as everything else has been packed. The printer is about to go, too, now that I’ve finished this assessment off. My room remains in a state of anarchy. This is to be dealt with… now.
20 Nov 2004
Standard Creative Commons licence applies, as with all content on this website not otherwise marked. Reproduction outside these guidelines is strictly prohibited. This work is (except where otherwise noted) wholly original, and was first published at this address on November 20, 2004, at 16:47.
This document covers part of the Board of Studies point regarding the role and goals of Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson at the Paris (Versailles) Peace Conference.
The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was conducted at the Palace of Versailles shortly – some would argue too shortly – after the conclusion of the First World War. The participants of this conference included then-British Prime Minister Lloyd George, his French counterpart, Premier Clemenceau, Italian President Orlando and US President Wilson. The defeated powers lacked representation at this conference.
The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, had been elected on the basis of his (party’s) slogans, such as “Make Germany payâ€, and “Hang the Kaiserâ€. His actions were restricted by the public expectation, and the divided support of the Liberal Party and Conservatives in Britain, which had forced his dependence upon the Conservatives, despite holding a considerable majority for his coalition in December 1918. Popular support of a “harsh†peace against Germany was one of the leading factors behind his election, and this political insecurity domestically constrained his ability to negotiate.
French Premier, Clemenceau, similarly favoured a harsh peace, although the motivation differed from that held by Lloyd George and Britain.
Clemenceau, a figure who entered French politics in 1870, witnessed the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian war soon after this entry. This event may be seen as a catalyst for the establishment of his anti-German sentiments which are so prevalent at the conclusion of the First World War, specifically, manifested at the Paris Peace Conference, in which Clemenceau was unyielding in his calls and demands for heavy reparations against Germany, and, ultimately, for the complete destruction of Germany both in an economic and military sense. The notion of a peace that would permit Germany any degree of self-determination in the years to follow was, to Clemenceau, something unacceptable.
Despite his misgivings against the German state, however, Clemenceau recognised the impossibility of achieving the utter destruction of Germany, regardless as to how much himself and the people he represented may desire this outcome. Having said that, the “peace†process presented an opportunity to France by which Germany could be temporarily neutered, both militarily and economically, allowing France at least a temporary reprieve, during which it could enjoy and exploit trade opportunities (amongst other things) which would not have been possible if Germany’s greater population and economic capabilities were permitted to flourish as their full potential would permit them to (as had previously been the case).
It was understood that such an advantage would only be temporary; whilst Germany could be weakened, it was only a matter of time before the nation reasserted itself, through the re-establishment of its economy, which Clemenceau desired to hinder by harsh reparations, and by the size of the population of Germany which would make this re-establishment possible.
For two reasons, then, it is clear exactly why Clemenceau desired the outcome he did: for France, a severe burden placed upon Germany by way of reparation terms would result not only in the financial support necessary for the reconstruction of post-World War One France – it would, perhaps just as importantly, hold Germany down, permitting the French people greater economic advantage in the years to come.
Clemenceau’s demands were clearly against those consistent with the ideals of a “just peaceâ€, something that was clearly not in accord with Wilson’s fourteen points. Clemenceau, fully aware of this, said of Wilson’s points:
“Mr. Wilson bores me with his Fourteen Points. Why, Almighty God has only Ten Commandments!”
– Clemenceau regarded the fourteen points as contradictory to his goals, and the goals of his country.
Not that dissimilarly, Lloyd George likewise conflicted with Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the notion of a “just peaceâ€, although his behaviours during the Peace Conference were significantly less anti-German than those exhibited by his French counterpart, Clemenceau.
Lloyd George’s goals are commonly surmised in five specific points upon which he wished to gain a concession from other participating parties. These concessions relate to:
- The destruction of the German fleet;
- The destruction of the German colonial empire;
- An increase in British colonial interests and possessions, specifically those in the Middle East for the purposes of attaining oil resources;
- The re-establishment of European trade, which had been interrupted by the war, and;
- The prevention of any country, including France – or especially France – from dominating Europe.
The last point is perhaps the most significant, and conveys the misgivings held by Lloyd George towards the motive and activities of France even at the beginning of the Peace Conference.
Points one and two are in accordance with Clemenceau’s demands: the destruction of the German fleet is a move toward the destruction of Germany’s military capacity (albeit in a sphere which Britain wishes to dominate), and the destruction of colonial satellites under Germany’s possession assists both in the diminishing of the influence and power of the German empire, whilst simultaneously having a negative economic impact (although not an impact as severe as Clemenceau would desire) upon Germany.
Point three, relating to the expansion of British colonial interests, can be seen as another motive behind Lloyd George’s support of the destruction of Germany’s colonial possessions: by attaining more colonies through the reparations levied against Germany.
Lloyd George’s fourth point, pertaining to the re-establishment of trade, is in contradiction to Clemenceau’s goals of utterly crushing the German nation in an economic sense; the ‘re-establishment of trade’ encompasses trade with Germany, also.
Britain had become increasingly suspicious of the motives of France, and the final concession Lloyd George wished to achieve ensured that France’s position could not become one of negative dominance over Europe.
Both Lloyd George and Clemenceau aimed at an outcome beneficial only to their interests, showing little concern for the notion put forward by Wilson of a “just peaceâ€. This, combined with the timing of the conference so soon after the war, and the location of the conference – Versailles, centre of anti-German sentiment – lead to an outcome which was unable to simultaneously appease Germany and quell French security fears.
- McCallum, Anne, Evidence of War: Studying the First World War through Sources. Rigby Heinemenn, 1996.
- O’Brien, Carolyn and Merritt, Alan, 1914-1918: The World at War. Heinemann Educational, 1991.
- Guest, Vic, Eshuys, Joe and Lawrence, Judith, World War I: Causes, Course and Consequences. Macmillan Education, 1990.
- “Aftermath of World War I” Wikipedia. 2004.
Accessed 14 Nov. 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I>.