Why are the ww1-2 peace treaties valid?

[anotherlife]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

 

[airplanemechanic]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

Treaties are not contracts. They are bound by international law, not US contract law.

It's the same idea as when a parolee signs his parole contract with his parole officer. He doesn't want to sign it, but he has to. But it's still valid. There is no requirement that you have to WANT to sign a contract to make it valid. You might have to, for many reasons. One being your country got its ass kicked in a war. And the alternative to NOT signing it is continued ass kicking of your country.

So no, you don't HAVE to sign the peace treaty. Go ahead, don't sign it.

 

[Blackrook]

A treaty is not a contract and the rest of what you said is even dumber and doesn't require a response.

 

[Mushroom]

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

Actually, WWI did not end with a peace treaty, it ended with an Armistice. Hence, the end is celebrated as "Armistice Day".

Of course, most of the nations that were involved at the start of the war no longer existed at the end of the war. Russia, Germany, Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, none of those were even around when that war ended. In essence that war ended because there was nobody left who was able or willing to fight anymore.

 

[elektra]

If I get a treaty, which court do I go to pay the fine

 

[harmonica]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

..it's called War --someone loses--someone wins [a lot of times it's a ''STALEMATE'' ]
....it's not a contract between businesses
...they are called cease fires with terms.....the losers don't have to sign it!!!!....but if they don't, they get more ass whooopin.....
..they don't have to sign anything----
hahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[konradv]

If I get a treaty, which court do I go to pay the fine

No court, you pay the guy holding the gun.

 

[JoeB131]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

The US concluded a SEPARATE peace Treaty with Germany in WWI.

IN WWI, Germany wasn't occupied. that was the point.

 

[harmonica]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

....Japan was not under occupation when they surrendered!!..neither was Italy--Germany wasn't ''occupied'' in WW1
..the PURPOSE of war is to force a country's will on another

 

[ding]

To my understanding, in contract law, a signed contract is valid only if both parties enter it in free will, and a contract is invalid, termed an adhesion contract, if one of the parties is forced to sign it against his will, or is deceived to sign it.

At the end of ww1-2 the losing signatory countries were under foreign occupation, so they lost sovereignty and free will for signature.

So why do we consider the ww1-2 peace treaties valid? By the way I think the US didn't even ratify the first one, the ww1 treaties.

....Japan was not under occupation when they surrendered!!..neither was Italy--Germany wasn't ''occupied'' in WW1
..the PURPOSE of war is to force a country's will on another

hahahhahahaha

 

[whitehall]

Since the world turned upside down during the 2nd war to end all wars, it's assumed that the WW1 treaties expired. An interesting note is that Truman had the Korean War won in about a year but his hand picked old WW1 veteran had a better idea. It isn't widely recognized but the U.S. has been technically at a state of war with NK since the 1953 "truce" was signed.

 

[Mushroom]

....Japan was not under occupation when they surrendered!!..neither was Italy--Germany wasn't ''occupied'' in WW1
..the PURPOSE of war is to force a country's will on another

Exactly. Germany was occupied, because in WWII hey literally had to fight all the way to Berlin, and Der Frankenfurter had to assume room temperature before they surrendered.

But having learned their lesson in WWI, there was no way the Allied Powers were going to walk away again and leave a belligerent and military capable enemy to do it all over again 20 years later. Basically both countries were turned inside out and recreated, this time with more actual public say in their government.

And it worked, because the world has not been troubled again by either government since. Even though Japan is starting to regain more of its military, nobody is worried that they will again launch out on wars of expansion and aggression.

 

[Mushroom]

Since the world turned upside down during the 2nd war to end all wars, it's assumed that the WW1 treaties expired. An interesting note is that Truman had the Korean War won in about a year but his hand picked old WW1 veteran had a better idea. It isn't widely recognized but the U.S. has been technically at a state of war with NK since the 1953 "truce" was signed.

Which is an "Armistice". Technically, the Korean War is still ongoing to this day.

Many hardliners still believe that they should have pushed to the Yalu a second time and ended NK once and for all. And if that war ever goes hot again, that is likely exactly what will happen.

 

[harmonica]

Since the world turned upside down during the 2nd war to end all wars, it's assumed that the WW1 treaties expired. An interesting note is that Truman had the Korean War won in about a year but his hand picked old WW1 veteran had a better idea. It isn't widely recognized but the U.S. has been technically at a state of war with NK since the 1953 "truce" was signed.

Which is an "Armistice". Technically, the Korean War is still ongoing to this day.

Many hardliners still believe that they should have pushed to the Yalu a second time and ended NK once and for all. And if that war ever goes hot again, that is likely exactly what will happen.

they did push to the Yalu--and the Chinese gave us an ass whooping

 

[harmonica]

Since the world turned upside down during the 2nd war to end all wars, it's assumed that the WW1 treaties expired. An interesting note is that Truman had the Korean War won in about a year but his hand picked old WW1 veteran had a better idea. It isn't widely recognized but the U.S. has been technically at a state of war with NK since the 1953 "truce" was signed.

Which is an "Armistice". Technically, the Korean War is still ongoing to this day.

Many hardliners still believe that they should have pushed to the Yalu a second time and ended NK once and for all. And if that war ever goes hot again, that is likely exactly what will happen.

...the USMC was the only unit to kick the Chinese ass in the 2nd Chinese Offensive---General Smith said:

''' I believe a winter campaign in the mountains of North Korea is too much to ask of the American soldier or Marine, and I doubt the feasibility of supplying troops in this area during the winter or providing for the evacuation of sick or wounded."

a USMC intel officer said a boy scout troop could stop any unit in that terrain

 

[Mushroom]

they did push to the Yalu--and the Chinese gave us an ass whooping

I am aware of that. Notice, I did say "a second time". By July 1953 the PLA "Volunteers" had pretty much been eliminated as a force, and the NK Army was barely holding together.

One of the funniest footnotes in a way is that one of the main sticking points to the armistice is over POWs. Huge numbers of Chinese and North Korean POWs simply did not want to go home. They literally had to be forced back at gunpoint, they did not want to go home. That alone is quite telling, There were even uprisings at UN controlled POW camps. Not against the UN, but by soldiers who did not want to "go home".

Ultimately the matter was decided by a neutral "Repatriation committee", and over 50,000 Chinese and North Korean soldiers instead either remained in South Korea after the war ended, or went to Taiwan.

But by 1953, if not for a change in administration and policies in the US the war could have ended quite differently. A second push to the Yalu was planned, but Ike quashed it.

 

[Mushroom]

...the USMC was the only unit to kick the Chinese ass in the 2nd Chinese Offensive---General Smith said:

''' I believe a winter campaign in the mountains of North Korea is too much to ask of the American soldier or Marine, and I doubt the feasibility of supplying troops in this area during the winter or providing for the evacuation of sick or wounded."

a USMC intel officer said a boy scout troop could stop any unit in that terrain

This is for many reasons.

The US Army for years had been using Korea as a dumping ground for incompetents and old equipment (we don't want this here, send it to Korea!). Sent as "advisors", huge numbers had never fought, and the first reinforcements were sent from garrison and occupation duty from Japan and not much better.

The term "Bug-out Fever" is often used, huge numbers of the Army just turned tail and ran when the war started. The Army stayed at huge manning levels even after WWII, with a huge number of the Army now made up of recent conscripts. The Marines on the other hand downsized, and kept a larger percentage of WWII vets in their service. So they were much more "battle hardened and experienced" than the Army units they were sent in to reinforce.

And this showed in the winter of the Chinese intervention. Army units often fled the battle, while the Marines staged a fighting withdrawal. But by 1953, all were veterans and the Army was just as battle hardened as the Marines were by that time. Especially as a large number of WWII vets were called up to reinforce the sagging Army morale.

 

[harmonica]

they did push to the Yalu--and the Chinese gave us an ass whooping

I am aware of that. Notice, I did say "a second time". By July 1953 the PLA "Volunteers" had pretty much been eliminated as a force, and the NK Army was barely holding together.

One of the funniest footnotes in a way is that one of the main sticking points to the armistice is over POWs. Huge numbers of Chinese and North Korean POWs simply did not want to go home. They literally had to be forced back at gunpoint, they did not want to go home. That alone is quite telling, There were even uprisings at UN controlled POW camps. Not against the UN, but by soldiers who did not want to "go home".

Ultimately the matter was decided by a neutral "Repatriation committee", and over 50,000 Chinese and North Korean soldiers instead either remained in South Korea after the war ended, or went to Taiwan.

But by 1953, if not for a change in administration and policies in the US the war could have ended quite differently. A second push to the Yalu was planned, but Ike quashed it.

..it wasn't going to be a cakewalk......it would've been very wrong to have more killed by going North....

 

[Mushroom]

..it wasn't going to be a cakewalk......it would've been very wrong to have more killed by going North....

Notice, I am not promoting one or the other.

But in hindsight with a nuclear NK threatening several nations constantly, you can be sure that many are second-guessing that decision now. Ultimately, that may end up costing even more lives of Emperor Kim III looses control.