document_title: Treaty of Versailles

question_text: who were the big 3 as associated to the treaty of versailles

question_tokens: who were the big 3 as associated to the treaty of versailles

text: Treaty of Versailles

text: Background

text: First World War

text: On 28 June 1914 the Bosnian-Serb Gavrilo Princip assassinated the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in the name of Serbian nationalism.[7] This caused a diplomatic crisis, resulting in Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia and sparking the First World War.[8] Due to a variety of reasons, within weeks the major powers of Europe—divided into two alliances known as the Central Powers and the Triple Entente—went to war. As the conflict progressed, additional countries from around the globe became drawn into the conflict on both sides.[9] Fighting would rage across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia for the next four years.[10] In 1917, two revolutions occurred within the Russian Empire, which led to the collapse of the Imperial Government and the rise of the Bolshevik Party led by Vladimir Lenin.[11]

text: US entry and the Fourteen Points

text: On 6 April 1917, the United States entered the war against the Central Powers. The reasons were twofold: German submarine warfare against merchant ships trading with France and Britain, which led to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the loss of 128 American lives; and the interception of the German Zimmerman Telegram, urging for Mexico to declare war against the United States.[citation needed] The American war aim was to detach the war from nationalistic disputes and ambitions after the Bolshevik disclosure of secret treaties between the Allies. The existence of these treaties tended to discredit Allied claims that Germany was the sole power with aggressive ambitions.[citation needed]

text: On 8 January 1918, United States President Woodrow Wilson issued a statement that became known as the Fourteen Points. This speech outlined a policy of free trade, open agreements, democracy, and self-determination. It also called for a diplomatic end to the war, international disarmament, the withdrawal of the Central Powers from occupied territories, the creation of a Polish state, the redrawing of Europe's borders along ethnic lines, and the formation of a League of Nations to guarantee the political independence and territorial integrity of all states.[12][13] Wilson's speech also responded to Vladimir Lenin's Decree on Peace of November 1917, which proposed an immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war and called for a just and democratic peace uncompromised by territorial annexations. The Fourteen Points were based on the research of the Inquiry, a team of about 150 advisors led by foreign-policy advisor Edward M. House, into the topics likely to arise in the anticipated peace conference.[14]

text: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 1918

text: After the Central Powers launched Operation Faustschlag on the Eastern Front, the new Soviet Government of Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany on 3 March 1918.[15] This treaty ended the war between Russia and the Central powers and annexed 1,300,000 square miles (3,400,000 km2) of territory and 62 million people.[16] This loss equated to a third of the Russian population, a quarter of its territory, around a third of the country's arable land, three-quarters of its coal and iron, a third of its factories (totalling 54 percent of the nation's industrial capacity), and a quarter of its railroads.[16][17]

text: Armistice

text: During the autumn of 1918, the Central Powers began to collapse.[18] Desertion rates within the German army began to increase, and civilian strikes drastically reduced war production.[19][20] On the Western Front, the Allied forces launched the Hundred Days Offensive and decisively defeated the German western armies.[21] Sailors of the Imperial German Navy at Kiel mutinied, which prompted uprisings in Germany, which became known as the German Revolution.[22][23] The German government tried to obtain a peace settlement based on the Fourteen Points, and maintained it was on this basis that they surrendered. Following negotiations, the Allied powers and Germany signed an armistice, which came into effect on 11 November while German forces were still positioned in France and Belgium.[24][25][26]

text: Occupation

text: The terms of the armistice called for an immediate evacuation of German troops from occupied Belgium, France, and Luxembourg within fifteen days.[27] In addition, it established that Allied forces would occupy the Rhineland. In late 1918, Allied troops entered Germany and began the occupation.[28]

text: Blockade

text: Both the German Empire and Great Britain were dependent on imports of food and raw materials, primarily from the Americas, which had to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean. The Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) was a naval operation conducted by the Allied Powers to stop the supply of raw materials and foodstuffs reaching the Central Powers. The German Kaiserliche Marine was mainly restricted to the German Bight and used commerce raiders and unrestricted submarine warfare for a counter-blockade. The German Board of Public Health in December 1918 stated that 763,000 German civilians had died during the Allied blockade, although an academic study in 1928 put the death toll at 424,000 people.[29]

text: Polish uprising

text: In late 1918, a Polish government was formed and an independent Poland proclaimed. In December, Poles launched an uprising within the German province of Posen. Fighting lasted until February, when an armistice was signed that left the province in Polish hands, but technically still a German possession.[30]

text: Negotiations

text: Talks between the Allies to establish a common negotiating position started on 18 January 1919, in the Salle de l'Horloge at the French Foreign Ministry on the Quai d'Orsay in Paris.[31] Initially, 70 delegates from 27 nations participated in the negotiations.[32] Russia was excluded due to their signing of a separate peace (the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and early withdrawal from the war. Furthermore, German negotiators were excluded to deny them an opportunity to divide the Allies diplomatically.[33][34]

text: Initially, a "Council of Ten" (comprising two delegates each from Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan) met officially to decide the peace terms. This council was replaced by the "Council of Five", formed from each countries foreign ministers, to discuss minor matters. Prime Minister of France Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of Italy Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Lloyd George, and President of the United States Woodrow Wilson formed the "Big Four" (at one point becoming the "Big Three" following the temporally withdrawal of Vittorio Emanuele Orlando). These four men met in 145 closed sessions to make all the major decisions, which were later ratified by the entire assembly. The minor powers attended a weekly "Plenary Conference" that discussed issues in a general forum but made no decisions. These members formed over 50 commissions that made various recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the final text of the treaty.[35][36][37]

text: French aims

text: France had lost 1.3 million soldiers killed, including 25% of French men aged 18–30 and 400,000 civilians. France had also been more physically damaged than any other nation (the so-called zone rouge (Red Zone)); the most industrialized region and the source of most coal and iron ore in the north-east had been devastated and in the final days of the war mines had been flooded and railways, bridges and factories destroyed.[38] Clemenceau intended to ensure the security of France, by weakening Germany economically, militarily, territorially and by supplanting Germany as the leading producer of steel in Europe.[38][39][40] A position, British economist and Versailles negotiator, John Maynard Keynes summarized as attempting to "set the clock back and undo what, since 1870, the progress of Germany had accomplished."[41]

text: Clemenceau told Wilson: "America is far away, protected by the ocean. Not even Napoleon himself could touch England. You are both sheltered; we are not".[42] The French wanted a frontier on the Rhine, to protect France from a German invasion and compensate for French demographic and economic inferiority.[43][44] American and British representatives refused the French claim and after two months of negotiations, the French accepted a British pledge to provide an immediate alliance with France if Germany attacked again, and Wilson agreed to put a similar proposal to the Senate. Clemenceau had told the Chamber of Deputies, in December 1918, that his goal was to maintain an alliance with both countries. Clemenceau accepted the offer, in return for an occupation of the Rhineland for fifteen years and that Germany would also demilitarise the Rhineland.[45]

text: French negotiators wanted reparations, to make Germany pay for the damage caused during the war and to weaken Germany.[38] The French also wanted the iron ore and coal of the Saar Valley, by annexation to France.[46] The French were willing to accept a smaller amount of reparations than the Americans would concede and Clemenceau was willing discuss Germany capacity to pay with the German delegation, before the final settlement was drafted. In April and May 1919, the French and Germans held separate talks, on mutually acceptable arrangements on issues like reparation, reconstruction and industrial collaboration.[47] France, along with the British Dominions and Belgium, opposed mandates and favored annexation of former Germany colonies.[48]

text: British aims

text: Britain had suffered little land devastation during the war.[49] However, the British wartime coalition was re-elected during the so-called Coupon election at the end of 1918, with a policy of squeezing the German "'til the pips squeak".[50][51] Public opinion favoured a "just peace", which would force Germany to pay reparations and be unable to repeat the aggression of 1914, although those of a "liberal and advanced opinion" shared Wilson's ideal of a peace of reconciliation.[24]

text: In private Lloyd George opposed revenge and attempted to compromise between Clemenceau's demands and the Fourteen Points, because Europe would eventually have to reconcile with Germany.[52] Lloyd George wanted terms of reparation that would not cripple the German economy, so that Germany would remain a viable economic power and trading partner.[51][52][49] By arguing that British war pensions and widows' allowances should be included in the German reparation sum, Lloyd George ensured that a large amount would go to the British Empire.[53]

text: Lloyd George also intended to maintain a European balance of power to thwart a French attempt to establish itself as the dominant European Power.[52] A revived Germany would be a counterweight to France and a deterrent to Bolshevik Russia. Lloyd George also wanted to neutralize the German navy to keep the Royal Navy as the greatest naval power in the world; dismantle the German colonial empire with several of its territorial possessions ceded to Britain and others being established as League of Nations mandates, a position opposed by the Dominions.[52][48]

text: American aims

text: Prior to the American entry into the war, Wilson had talked of a 'peace without victory'. This position fluctuated following the US entry into the war. Wilson talked of the German aggressors who there could be no compromised peace with.[54] However, on 8 January 1918, Wilson delivered a speech (known as the Fourteen Points) that declared the American peace objectives: the rebuilding of the European economy, self-determination of European ethnic groups, the promotion of free trade, the creation of appropriate mandates for former colonies, and above all, the creation of a powerful League of Nations that would ensure the peace.[55] The aim of the latter was to provide a forum to revise the peace treaties as needed, and deal with problems that arose as a result of the peace and the rise of new states.[56][52]

text: Wilson brought along top intellectuals as advisors to the American peace delegation, and the overall American position echoed the Fourteen Points. Wilson firmly opposed harsh treatment on Germany.[57] While the British and French wanted to largely annex the German colonial empire, Wilson saw that as a violation of the fundamental principles of justice and human rights of the native populations, and favored them having the right of self-determination via the creation of mandates. The promoted idea called for the major powers to act as disinterested trustees over a region, aiding the native populations until they could govern themselves.[58] In spite of this position and in order to ensure that Japan did not refuse to join the League of Nations, Wilson favored turning over the former German colony of Shandong, in Eastern China, to Japan rather than return the area to Chinese control.[59] Further confounding the Americans, was US internal partisan politics. In November 1918, the Republican Party won the Senate election by a slim margin. Wilson, a Democrat, refused to include prominent Republicans in the American delegation making his efforts seem partisan, and contributed to a risk of political defeat at home.[60]

text: Treaty content and signing

text: In June 1919, the Allies declared that war would resume if the German government did not sign the treaty they had agreed to among themselves. The government headed by Philipp Scheidemann was unable to agree on a common position, and Scheidemann himself resigned rather than agree to sign the treaty. Gustav Bauer, the head of the new government, sent a telegram stating his intention to sign the treaty if certain articles were withdrawn, including Articles 227, 230 and 231.[nb 1] In response, the Allies issued an ultimatum stating that Germany would have to accept the treaty or face an invasion of Allied forces across the Rhine within 24 hours. On 23 June, Bauer capitulated and sent a second telegram with a confirmation that a German delegation would arrive shortly to sign the treaty.[61] On 28 June 1919, the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the immediate impetus for the war), the peace treaty was signed.[2] The treaty had clauses ranging from war crimes, the prohibition on the merging of Austria with Germany without the consent of the League of Nations, freedom of navigation on major European rivers, to the returning of a Koran to the king of Hedjaz.[62][63][64][65]

text: Territorial changes

text: The treaty stripped Germany of 25,000 square miles (65,000 km2) of territory and 7 million people. It also required Germany to give up the gains made via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and grant independence to the protectorates that had been established.[17] In Western Europe Germany was required to recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and cede control of the Eupen-Malmedy area. Within six months of the transfer, Belgium was required to conduct a plebiscite on whether the citizens of the region wanted to remain under Belgian sovereignty or return to German control, communicate the results to the League of Nations and abide by the League's decision.[66] To compensate for the destruction of French coal mines, Germany was to cede the output of the Saar coalmines to France and control of the Saar to the League of Nations for 15 years; a plebiscite would then be held to decide sovereignty.[67] The treaty "restored" the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to France by rescinding the treaties of Versailles and Frankfurt of 1871 as they pertained to this issue.[68] The sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein was to be resolved by a plebiscite to be held at a future time (see Schleswig Plebiscites).[69]

text: In Eastern Europe, Germany was to recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia and cede parts of the province of Upper Silesia.[70] Germany had to recognize the independence of Poland and renounce "all rights and title over the territory". Portions of Upper Silesia were to be ceded to Poland, with the future of the rest of the province to be decided by plebiscite. The border would be fixed with regard to the vote and to the geographical and economic conditions of each locality.[71] The province of Posen (now Poznan), which had come under Polish control during the Greater Poland Uprising, was also to be ceded to Poland.[30][72] Pomerelia (Eastern Pomerania), on historical and ethnic grounds, was transferred to Poland so that the new state could have access to the sea and became known as the Polish Corridor.[73] The sovereignty of part of southern East Prussia was to be decided via plebiscite while the East Prussian Soldau area, which was astride the rail line between Warsaw and Danzig, was transferred to Poland outright without plebiscite.[74][75] An area of 51,800 square kilometres (20,000 square miles) was granted to Poland at the expense of Germany.[76] Memel was to be ceded to the Allied and Associated powers, for disposal according to their wishes.[77] Germany was to cede the city of Danzig and its hinterland, including the delta of the Vistula River on the Baltic Sea, for the League of Nations to establish the Free City of Danzig.[78]

text: Mandates

text: Article 119 of the treaty required Germany to renounce sovereignty over former colonies and Article 22 converted the territories into League of Nations mandates under the control of Allied states.[79] Togoland and German Kamerun (Cameroon) were transferred to France. Ruanda and Urundi were allocated to Belgium, whereas German South-West Africa went to South Africa and the United Kingdom obtained German East Africa.[80][81][82] As compensation for the German invasion of Portuguese Africa, Portugal was granted the Kionga Triangle, a sliver of German East Africa in northern Mozambique.[83] Article 156 of the treaty transferred German concessions in Shandong, China, to Japan, not to China. Japan was granted all German possessions in the Pacific north of the equator and those south of the equator went to Australia, except for German Samoa, which was taken by New Zealand.[81][84]

text: Military restrictions

text: The treaty was comprehensive and complex in the restrictions imposed upon the post-war German armed forces (the Reichswehr). The provisions were intended to make the Reichswehr incapable of offensive action and to encourage international disarmament.[85][86] Germany was to demobilize sufficient soldiers by 31 March 1920 to leave an army of no more than 100,000 men in a maximum of seven infantry and three cavalry divisions. The treaty laid down the organisation of the divisions and support units, and the General Staff was to be dissolved.[87] Military schools for officer training were limited to three, one school per arm, and conscription was abolished. Private soldiers and Non-commissioned officers were to be retained for at least twelve years and officers for a minimum of 25 years, with former officers being forbidden to attend military exercises. To prevent Germany from building up a large cadre of trained men, the number of men allowed to leave early was limited.[88]

text: The number of civilian staff supporting the army was reduced and the police force was reduced to its pre-war size, with increases limited to population increases; paramilitary forces were forbidden.[89] The Rhineland was to be demilitarized, all fortifications in the Rhineland and 50 kilometres (31 miles) east of the river were to be demolished and new construction was forbidden.[90] Military structures and fortifications on the islands of Heligoland and Düne were to be destroyed.[91] Germany was prohibited from the arms trade, limits were imposed on the type and quantity of weapons and prohibited from the manufacture or stockpile of chemical weapons, armoured cars, tanks and military aircraft.[92] The German navy was allowed six pre-dreadnought battleships and was limited to a maximum of six light cruisers (not exceeding 6,000 long tons (6,100 t)), twelve destroyers (not exceeding 800 long tons (810 t)) and twelve torpedo boats (not exceeding 200 long tons (200 t)) and was forbidden submarines.[93] The manpower of the navy was not to exceed 15,000 men, including manning for the fleet, coast defences, signal stations, administration, other land services, officers and men of all grades and corps. The number of officers and warrant officers was not allowed to exceed 1,500 men.[94] Germany surrendered eight battleships, eight light cruisers, forty-two destroyers, and fifty torpedo boats for decommissioning. Thirty-two auxiliary ships were to be disarmed and converted to merchant use.[95] Article 198 prohibited Germany from having an air force, including naval air forces, and required Germany to hand over all aerial related materials. In conjunction, Germany was forbidden to manufacture or import aircraft or related material for a period of six months following the signing of the treaty.[96]

text: Reparations

text: In Article 231 Germany accepted responsibility for the losses and damages caused by the war "as a consequence of the ... aggression of Germany and her allies."[97][nb 2] The treaty required Germany to compensate the Allied powers, and it also established an Allied "Reparation Commission" to determine the exact amount which Germany would pay and the form that such payment would take. The commission was required to "give to the German Government a just opportunity to be heard", and to submit its conclusions by 1 May 1921. In the interim, the treaty required Germany to pay an equivalent of 20 billion gold marks ($5 billion) in gold, commodities, ships, securities or other forms. The money would help to pay for Allied occupation costs and buy food and raw materials for Germany.[102][103]

text: Guarantees

text: To ensure compliance, the Rhineland and bridgeheads east of the Rhine were to be occupied by Allied troops for fifteen years.[104] If Germany had not committed aggression, a staged withdrawal would take place; after five years, the Cologne bridgehead and the territory north of a line along the Ruhr would be evacuated. After ten years, the bridgehead at Coblenz and the territories to the north would be evacuated and after fifteen years remaining Allied forces would be withdrawn.[105] If Germany reneged on the treaty obligations, the bridgeheads would be reoccupied immediately.[106]

text: International organizations

text: Part I of the treaty, as per all the treaties signed during the Paris Peace Conference,[nb 3] was the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided for the creation of the League, an organization for the arbitration of international disputes.[107] Part XIII organized the establishment of the International Labour Officer, to regulate hours of work, including a maximum working day and week; the regulation of the labour supply; the prevention of unemployment; the provision of a living wage; the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment; the protection of children, young persons and women; provision for old age and injury; protection of the interests of workers when employed abroad; recognition of the principle of freedom of association; the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures.[108] The treaty also called for the signatories to sign or ratify the International Opium Convention.[109]

text: Reactions

text: Among the allies

text: Britain

text: The surrender of the German High Seas Fleet following the Armistice and its internment (and eventual scuttling) in Scapa Flow meant that Britain had already accomplished her primary war goal even before the Paris Peace Conference opened. With the German naval threat removed, Britain began focusing on Germany as a bulwark against the threat posed by the new Soviet Union.

text: Thus, British policy towards Germany began diverging from France's almost from the moment the guns fell silent. British officials at the conference declared French policy to be "greedy" and "vindictive," with Ramsay MacDonald later announcing, after Hitler's re-militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, that he was "pleased" that the treaty was "vanishing", expressing his hope that the French had been taught a "severe lesson".[110] In 1938, Lloyd George published a massive two-volume memoir titled The Truth About the Peace Treaties, in which he effectively repudiated the terms of the treaty that bore his signature.[111]

text: France

text: The signing of the treaty was met with roars of approval, singing, and dancing from a crowd outside the Palace of Versailles. In Paris proper, people rejoiced at the official end of the war.[112] The French people rejoiced that Alsace and Lorraine had been returned to France, and that Germany had agreed to pay reparations.[113]

text: Clemenceau faced a political backlash. The French Right saw the treaty as being too lenient and were dissatisfied with the treaty and saw it as failing to achieve all of France's demands. Left-wing politicians attacked the treaty and Clemenceau for being too harsh (the latter turning into a ritual condemnation of the treaty, for politicians remarking on French foreign affairs, as late as August 1939). Marshal Ferdinand Foch stated "this (treaty) is not peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."; a criticism over the failure to annex the Rhineland and for compromising French security for the benefit of the United States and Britain.[114][115][116][117][118][119][120] When Clemenceau stood for election as President of France in January 1920, he was defeated.[121]

text: Italy

text: Reaction in Italy to the treaty was extremely negative. The country had suffered high casualties, yet failed to achieve most of its major war goals, notably gaining control of the Dalmatian coast and Fiume. President Wilson rejected Italy's claims on the basis of "national self-determination." For their part, Britain and France—who had been forced in the war's latter stages to divert their own troops to the Italian front to stave off collapse—were disinclined to support Italy's position at the peace conference. Differences in negotiating strategy between Premier Vittorio Orlando and Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino further undermined Italy's position at the conference. A furious Vittorio Orlando suffered a nervous collapse and at one point walked out of the conference (though he later returned). He lost his position as prime minister just a week before the treaty was scheduled to be signed, effectively ending his active political career. Anger and dismay over the treaty's provisions helped pave the way for the establishment of Benito Mussolini's dictatorship three years later.

text: Portugal

text: Portugal entered the war on the Allied side in 1916 primarily to ensure the security of its African colonies, which were threatened with seizure by both Britain and Germany. To this extent, she succeeded in her war aims. The treaty recognized Portuguese sovereignty over these areas and awarded her small portions of Germany's bordering overseas colonies. Otherwise, however, Portugal obtained little at the peace conference. Her promised share of German reparations never materialized, and a seat she coveted on the executive council of the new League of Nations went instead to Spain—which had remained neutral in the war. In the end, Portugal ratified the treaty, but got little out of the war, which cost more than 8,000 Portuguese troops and as many as 100,000 of her African colonial subjects their lives.[122]

text: United States

text: After the Versailles conference, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson claimed that "at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!"[123] However, the Republican Party, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, controlled the US Senate after the election of 1918, and the senators were divided into multiple positions on the Versailles question. It proved possible to build a majority coalition, but impossible to build a two-thirds coalition that was needed to pass a treaty.[124]

text: A discontent bloc of 12–18 "Irreconcilables", mostly Republicans but also representatives of the Irish and German Democrats, fiercely opposed the treaty. One block of Democrats strongly supported the Versailles Treaty, even with reservations added by Lodge. A second group of Democrats supported the treaty but followed Wilson in opposing any amendments or reservations. The largest bloc, led by Senator Lodge,[125] comprised a majority of the Republicans. They wanted a treaty with reservations, especially on Article 10, which involved the power of the League of Nations to make war without a vote by the US Congress.[126] All of the Irreconcilables were bitter enemies of President Wilson, and he launched a nationwide speaking tour in the summer of 1919 to refute them. However, Wilson collapsed midway with a serious stroke that effectively ruined his leadership skills.[127]

text: The closest the treaty came to passage was on 19 November 1919, as Lodge and his Republicans formed a coalition with the pro-Treaty Democrats, and were close to a two-thirds majority for a Treaty with reservations, but Wilson rejected this compromise and enough Democrats followed his lead to permanently end the chances for ratification. Among the American public as a whole, the Irish Catholics and the German Americans were intensely opposed to the treaty, saying it favored the British.[128]

text: After Wilson's presidency, his successor Republican President Warren G. Harding continued American opposition to the formation of the League of Nations. Congress subsequently passed the Knox–Porter Resolution bringing a formal end to hostilities between the United States and the Central Powers. It was signed into law by President Harding on 2 July 1921.[129][130] Soon after, the US–German Peace Treaty of 1921 was signed in Berlin on 25 August 1921, the US–Austrian Peace Treaty of 1921 was signed in Vienna on 24 August 1921, and the US–Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1921 was signed in Budapest on 29 August 1921.

text: China

text: China felt betrayed as the German territory in China was handed to Japan. The sense of betrayal led to great demonstrations in China and the fall of the nascent Chinese Republic's government and poisoned relations with the West. [131][132]

text: House's views

text: Wilson's former friend Edward Mandell House, present at the negotiations, wrote in his diary on 29 June 1919:

text: I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months, with conflicting emotions. Looking at the conference in retrospect, there is much to approve and yet much to regret. It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way of doing it. To those who are saying that the treaty is bad and should never have been made and that it will involve Europe in infinite difficulties in its enforcement, I feel like admitting it. But I would also say in reply that empires cannot be shattered, and new states raised upon their ruins without disturbance. To create new boundaries is to create new troubles. The one follows the other. While I should have preferred a different peace, I doubt very much whether it could have been made, for the ingredients required for such a peace as I would have were lacking at Paris.[133]

text: In Germany

text: On 29 April, the German delegation under the leadership of the Foreign Minister Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau arrived in Versailles. On 7 May, when faced with the conditions dictated by the victors, including the so-called "War Guilt Clause", von Brockdorff-Rantzau replied to Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George: "We know the full brunt of hate that confronts us here. You demand from us to confess we were the only guilty party of war; such a confession in my mouth would be a lie."[134] Because Germany was not allowed to take part in the negotiations, the German government issued a protest against what it considered to be unfair demands, and a "violation of honour",[135] soon afterwards withdrawing from the proceedings of the peace conference.

text: Germans of all political shades denounced the treaty—particularly the provision that blamed Germany for starting the war—as an insult to the nation's honor. They referred to the treaty as "the Diktat" since its terms were presented to Germany on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Germany′s first democratically elected head of government, Philipp Scheidemann, resigned rather than sign the treaty. In a passionate speech before the National Assembly on 21 March 1919, he called the treaty a "murderous plan" and exclaimed,

text: Which hand, trying to put us in chains like these, would not wither? The treaty is unacceptable.[136]

text: After Scheidemann′s resignation, a new coalition government was formed under Gustav Bauer. President Friedrich Ebert knew that Germany was in an impossible situation. Although he shared his countrymen's disgust with the treaty, he was sober enough to consider the possibility that the government would not be in a position to reject it. He believed that if Germany refused to sign the treaty, the Allies would invade Germany from the west—and there was no guarantee that the army would be able to make a stand in the event of an invasion. With this in mind, he asked Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg if the army was capable of any meaningful resistance in the event the Allies resumed the war. If there was even the slightest chance that the army could hold out, Ebert intended to recommend against ratifying the treaty. Hindenburg—after prodding from his chief of staff, Wilhelm Groener—concluded the army could not resume the war even on a limited scale. However, rather than inform Ebert himself, he had Groener inform the government that the army would be in an untenable position in the event of renewed hostilities. Upon receiving this, the new government recommended signing the treaty. The National Assembly voted in favour of signing the treaty by 237 to 138, with five abstentions (there were 421 delegates in total). This result was wired to Clemenceau just hours before the deadline. Foreign minister Hermann Müller and colonial minister Johannes Bell travelled to Versailles to sign the treaty on behalf of Germany. The treaty was signed on 28 June 1919 and ratified by the National Assembly on 9 July by a vote of 209 to 116.[137]

text: Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders condemned the treaty. Politicians of the Weimar Republic who supported the treaty, socialists, communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion as persons of questionable loyalty.[citation needed] It was rumored that Jews had not supported the war and had played a role in selling Germany out to its enemies. Those who seemed to benefit from a weakened Germany and the newly formed Weimar Republic were regarded as having "stabbed Germany in the back". Those who instigated unrest and strikes in the critical military industries on the home front or who opposed German nationalism were seen to have contributed to Germany's defeat.[citation needed] These theories were given credence by the fact that when Germany surrendered in November 1918, its armies were still on French and Belgian territory. Furthermore, on the Eastern Front, Germany had already won the war against Russia and concluded the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In the West, Germany had seemed to have come close to winning the war with the Spring Offensive earlier in 1918.[citation needed] Its failure was blamed on strikes in the arms industry at a critical moment of the offensive, leaving soldiers with an inadequate supply of materiel. The strikes were regarded by nationalists as having been instigated by traitors, with the Jews taking most of the blame.[citation needed]

text: Implementation

text: Territorial changes

text: In February and March 1920, the Schleswig Plebiscites were held. The people of Schleswig were presented with only two choices: Danish or German sovereignty. The northern Danish-speaking area voted for Denmark while the southern German-speaking area voted for Germany, resulting in the province being partitioned.[69] The East Prussia plebiscite was held on 11 July 1920. There was a 90% turn out with 99.3% of the population wishing to remain with Germany. Further plebiscites were held in Eupen, Malmedy, and Prussian Moresnet. On 20 September 1920, the League of Nations allotted these territories to Belgium. These latter plebiscites were followed by a boundary commission in 1922, followed by the new Belgian-German border being recognized by the German Government on on 15 December 1923.[138] The transfer of the Hultschin area, of Silesia, to Czechoslovakia was completed on 3 February 1921.[139]

text: Following the implementation of the treaty, Upper Silesia was initially governed by Britain, France, and Italy.[140] Between 1919-1921, three major outbreaks of violence took place between German and Polish civilians, resulting in German and Polish military forces also becoming involved.[140][141] In March 1921, the Inter-Allied Commission held the Upper Silesia plebiscite, which was peaceful despite the previous violence. The plebiscite resulted in c. 60 per cent of the population voting for the province to remain part of Germany.[142] Following the vote, the League of Nations debated the future of the province.[143] In 1922, Upper Silesia was partitioned: Oppeln, in the north-west, remained with Germany while Silesia Province, in the south-east, was transferred to Poland.[140]

text: Memel remained under the authority of the League of Nations, with a French military garrison, until January 1923.[144] On 9 January 1923, Lithuanian forces invaded the territory during the Klaipėda Revolt.[145] The French garrison withdrew, and in February the Allies agreed to attach Memel as an "autonomous territory" to Lithuania.[144] On 8 May 1924, after negotiations between the Lithuanian Government and the Conference of Ambassadors and action by the League of Nations, the annexation of Memel was ratified.[145] Lithuania accepted the Memel Statute, a power-sharing arrangement to protect non-Lithuanians in the territory and its autonomous status while responsibility for the territory remained with the great powers. The League of Nations mediated between the Germans and Lithuanians on a local level, helping the power-sharing arrangement last until 1939.[144]

text: On 13 January 1935, 15 years after the Saar Basin had been placed under the protection of the League of Nations, a plebiscite was held to determine the future of the area. 528,105 votes were cast, with 477,119 votes (90 per cent of the ballot) in favour of union with Germany; 46,613 votes were cast for the status quo, and 2,124 votes for union with France. The region returned to German sovereignty on 1 March 1935. When the result was announced 4,100 people, including 800 refugees from Germany fled to France.[146][147]

text: Violations

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The German economy was so weak that only a small percentage of reparations was paid in hard currency.[citation needed] Nonetheless, even the payment of this small percentage of the original reparations (132 billion gold marks) still placed a significant burden on the German economy.[citation needed] Although the causes of the devastating post-war hyperinflation are complex and disputed, Germans blamed the near-collapse of their economy on the treaty, and some economists estimated that the reparations accounted for as much as one-third of the hyper-inflation.[citation needed]

text: In March 1921, French and Belgian troops occupied Duisburg, which formed part of the demilitarized Rhineland, according to the Treaty of Versailles.[citation needed] In January 1923, French and Belgian forces occupied the rest of the Ruhr area as a reprisal after Germany failed to fulfill reparation payments demanded by the Versailles Treaty. The German government answered with "passive resistance", which meant that coal miners and railway workers refused to obey any instructions by the occupation forces.[citation needed] Production and transportation came to a standstill, but the financial consequences contributed to German hyperinflation and completely ruined public finances in Germany. Consequently, passive resistance was called off in late 1923.[citation needed] The end of passive resistance in the Ruhr allowed Germany to undertake a currency reform and to negotiate the Dawes Plan, which led to the withdrawal of French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr Area in 1925.[citation needed]

text: Some significant violations of the provisions of the treaty were:

text:
At the time of signing in 1919, the dissolution of the General Staff according to Article 160 appeared to happen; however, the core of the General Staff was reestablished and hidden in the Truppenamt.[148][149]
March 1935, under the government of Adolf Hitler, Germany violated the Part V of the Treaty of Versailles by introducing compulsory military conscription in Germany and rebuilding the armed forces.[150][151]
March 1936, Germany violated Article 43 of the treaty by reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland.[90][152]
March 1938, Germany violated Article 80 of the treaty by annexing Austria in the Anschluss.[153][154]

text: Historical assessments

text: According to David Stevenson, since the opening of French archives, most commentators have remarked on French restraint and reasonableness at the conference, though Stevenson notes that "[t]he jury is still out", and that "there have been signs that the pendulum of judgement is swinging back the other way."[155]

text: In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace", a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. He stated: "I believe that the campaign for securing out of Germany the general costs of the war was one of the most serious acts of political unwisdom for which our statesmen have ever been responsible."[156] Keynes had been the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and used in his passionate book arguments that he and others (including some US officials) had used at Paris.[157] He believed the sums being asked of Germany in reparations were many times more than it was possible for Germany to pay, and that these would produce drastic instability.[158]

text: French economist Étienne Mantoux disputed that analysis. During the 1940s, Mantoux wrote a posthumously published book titled The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes in an attempt to rebut Keynes' claims. More recently economists have argued that the restriction of Germany to a small army saved it so much money it could afford the reparations payments.[159]

text: It has been argued (for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book A World At Arms[160]) that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II). In a 1995 essay, Weinberg noted that with the disappearance of Austria-Hungary and with Russia withdrawn from Europe, that Germany was now the dominant power in Eastern Europe.[161]

text: The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was "extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies". Furthermore, he claimed, it was "hardly a slap on the wrist" when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia's population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia's industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia's coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks.[162] Eventually, even under the "cruel" terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany′s economy had been restored to its pre-war status.

text: Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany′s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the treaty "much enhanced" German power.[163] Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) "divided and permanently weakened" Germany by undoing Bismarck's work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again.[164] By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain "had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War".[165]

text: The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them.[166] Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles.[166] Evans further noted that the parties of the Weimar Coalition, namely the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the social liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Christian democratic Centre Party, were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar Republic.[166] Finally, Evans argued that it is untrue that Versailles caused the premature end of the Republic, instead contending that it was the Great Depression of the early 1930s that put an end to German democracy. He also argued that Versailles was not the "main cause" of National Socialism and the German economy was "only marginally influenced by the impact of reparations".[166]

text: Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty—such as Poles or Czechs—it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours.[167]

text: Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi Party.[citation needed] The German historian Detlev Peukert wrote that Versailles was far from the impossible peace that most Germans claimed it was during the interwar period, and though not without flaws was actually quite reasonable to Germany.[168] Rather, Peukert argued that it was widely believed in Germany that Versailles was a totally unreasonable treaty, and it was this "perception" rather than the "reality" of the Versailles treaty that mattered.[168] Peukert noted that because of the "millenarian hopes" created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash.[168] Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles.[168] Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles.[168]

text: French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[169] Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[169] In 1926, the Polish Ministry of the Interior estimated the remaining number of Germans at fewer than 300,000.[citation needed] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands to reattach the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler′s annexations of Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland.[169]


document_title: Bull riding

question_text: what do they put on bulls to make them buck

root

text: Bull riding

text: History[edit]

text: The taming of bulls has ancient roots in contests dating as far back as Minoan culture.[3] Bull riding itself has its direct roots in Mexican contests of equestrian and ranching skills now collectively known as charreada.[3] During the 16th century, a hacienda contest called jaripeo developed. Originally considered a variant of bull fighting, in which riders literally rode a bull to death, the competition evolved into a form where the bull was simply ridden until it stopped bucking.[3] By the mid-19th century, charreada competition was popular on Texas and California cattle ranches where Anglo and Hispanic ranch hands often worked together.[3]

tag: p

text: Many early Texas rangers, who had to be expert horsemen and later went on to become ranchers, learned and adapted Hispanic techniques and traditions to ranches in the United States. Many also enjoyed traditional Mexican celebrations, and H. L. Kinney, a rancher, promoter and former Texas Ranger staged what is thought to be the first Anglo-American organized bullfight in the southwest in 1852. This event also included a jaripeo competition and was the subject of newspaper reports from as far away as the New Orleans Daily Delta.[3] However, popular sentiment shifted away from various blood sports and both bullfighting and prize fighting were banned by the Texas legislature in 1891.[3] In the same time period, however, Wild West Shows began to add steer riding to their exhibitions, choosing to use castrated animals because steers were easier to handle and transport than bulls.[3] Additionally, informal rodeos began as competitions between neighboring ranches in the American Old West. The location of the first formal Rodeo is debated. Deer Trail, Colorado claims the first rodeo in 1869 but so does Cheyenne, Wyoming in 1872.[4]

text: Although steer riding contests existed into the 1920s, the sport did not gain popularity until bulls were returned to the arena and replaced steers as the mount of choice.[3] The first-known rodeo to use brahma bulls was in Columbia, Mississippi, produced in 1935 by Canadian brothers Earl and Weldon Bascom with Jake Lybbert and Waldo Ross. This rodeo was the first to feature a bull riding event at a night rodeo held outdoors under electric lights. A pivotal moment for modern bull riding, and rodeo in general, came with the founding of the Rodeo Cowboy Association (RCA) in 1936, which later became the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA). Through this organization many hundreds of rodeos are held each year. Since that time, the popularity of all aspects of the rodeo has risen. In addition to the PRCA, which has PRCA ProRodeo with bull riding and the Xtreme Bulls events for bull riding only, there are two separate organizations that promote and produce shows for stand-alone professional bull riding in the United States: Championship Bull Riding (CBR) and Professional Bull Riders (PBR). CBR tours all over the United States and its major league tour, the Road to Cheyenne Tour, is broadcast on Fox Sports Networks. The CBR world championships take place at Cheyenne Frontier Days. The Professional Bull Riders (PBR) stages a large number of events in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia. For many years the annual PBR World Finals were held at the Thomas and Mack Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. However, starting in 2016, the Finals are now held at the T-Mobile Arena in Las Vegas.[5] The PBR's major league tour, currently titled the Unleash the Beast Series, is broadcast on CBS Sports Network, with the primary broadcast network televising selected bonus rounds (known as 15/15 bucking battles). The previous tour name, which ran from 2003 until 2017 was titled the Built Ford Tough Series.[6][7] From these roots, bull riding as a competitive sport has spread to a number of other nations worldwide.

text: Rules and regulations[edit]

text: Each bull has a unique name and number used to help identify it. A sufficient number of bulls, each judged to be of good strength, health, agility, and age, are selected to perform. The rider and bull are matched randomly before the competition, although starting in 2008, some ranked riders are allowed to choose their own bulls from a bull draft for selected rounds in PBR events.

text: A rider mounts a bull and grips a flat braided rope. After they secure a good grip on the rope, the rider nods to signal they are ready. The bucking chute (a small enclosure which opens from the side) is opened and the bull storms out into the arena. The rider must attempt to stay on the bull for at least eight seconds, while only touching the bull with their riding hand. The other hand must remain free for the duration of the ride. Originally, the rules required a 10-second ride, but that was changed to the current eight seconds.

text: The bull bucks, rears, kicks, spins, and twists in an effort to throw the rider off. This continues for a number of seconds until the rider bucks off or dismounts after completing the ride. A loud buzzer or whistle announces the completion of an eight-second ride.

text: Throughout the ride, bullfighters, also popularly known as rodeo clowns, stay near the bull to aid the rider if necessary. When the ride ends, either intentionally or not, the bullfighters distract the bull to protect the rider from harm.

text: Many competitions have a format that involves multiple rounds, sometimes called "go-rounds". Generally, events span two to three nights. The rider is given a chance to ride one bull per night. The total points scored by the end of the event are recorded, and after the first or first two go rounds, the top 20 riders are given a chance to ride one more bull. This final round is called the "short go". After the end of the short go, the rider with the most total points wins the event.

text: Points and scoring[edit]

text: The ride is scored from 0–100 points. Both the rider and the bull are awarded points. There are usually two judges, each judge scoring the bull from 0–50 points, and the rider from 0–50 points. The combined point totals from both judges make up the final score for the ride. This system was spearheaded by former PRCA president Dale Smith.[8] Scores of zero are quite common as many riders lose control of the animal almost immediately after the bull leaves the bucking chute. Many experienced professionals are able to earn scores of 75 or more. Scores above 80 are considered excellent, and a score in the 90s exceptional.

text: Judges award points based on several key aspects of the ride. Judges look for constant control and rhythm in the rider in matching their movements with the bull. Points are usually deducted if a rider is constantly off balance. For points actually to be awarded the rider must stay mounted for a minimum of 8 seconds, and they are scored only for actions during those 8 seconds. The ability to control the bull well allows riders to gain extra style points. These are often gained by spurring the animal. A rider is disqualified for touching the bull, the rope, or themselves with their free arm.[9]

text: Bulls have more raw power and a different style of movement from bucking horses. One move particular to bulls is a belly roll or sunfishing, in which the bull is completely off the ground and kicks either his hind feet or all four feet to the side in a twisting, rolling motion. Bulls also are more likely than horses to spin in tight, quick circles, while they are less likely to run or to jump extremely high and "break in two".

text: For the bull, judges look at the animal's overall agility, power and speed; its back end kicks; and its front end drops. In general, if a bull gives a rider a very hard time, more points will be awarded. If a rider fails to stay mounted for at least 8 seconds the bull is still awarded a score.[9] The PBR, CBR, PRCA, IPRA and PRS record bulls' past scores so that the best bulls can be brought to the finals, ensuring that riders will be given a chance to score highly. All five organizations also award one bull the "Bucking Bull of the Year" award, decided by scores and the number of riders it has bucked off. The award brings prestige to the ranch at which the bull was raised.

text: If a rider scores sufficiently low due to poor bull performance, the judges may offer the rider the option of a re-ride. By taking the option, the rider gives up the score received, waits until all other riders have ridden, and rides again. This can be risky because the rider loses their score and risks being bucked off and receiving no score. A re-ride may also be given if a bull stumbles or runs into the fence or gate.

text: Equipment[edit]

text: Rider equipment[edit]

text: Bull riders use many pieces of equipment both functionally and to ensure maximum safety, both to themselves and to the animals involved.

text: The primary piece of equipment used is the bull rope. The bull rope is a braided rope made of polypropylene, grass, or some combination. A handle is braided into the center of the rope and is usually stiffened with leather. One side of the rope is tied in an adjustable knot that can be changed for the size of bull. The other side of the rope (the tail) is a flat braid and is usually coated with rosin to keep it from sliding through the rider's hand. A metallic bell is strapped to the knot and hangs directly under the bull throughout the ride. In addition to the sound the bell produces, it also gives the rope some weight, allowing it to fall off the bull once a rider has dismounted.

text: Chaps are probably the most noticeable piece of bull rider clothing, as their distinctive coloring and patterns add flair to the sport. Usually made of leather, chaps also provide protection for the rider's legs and thighs.

text: Bull riders are required to wear a protective vest, most usually wear one made of high impact foam that allows the shock to disperse over a wide area, thereby reducing pain and injury.

text: To prevent a rope burn, riders must wear a protective glove, usually of leather. This glove must be fastened to the rider's hand since the force the animal is able to exert could tear the glove away. The rider often applies rosin to the glove, which allows for additional grip.

text: Cowboy boots are also worn. The dull and loosely locked spurs help keep the rider balanced and is crucial piece of equipment to the sport as a whole. The bulls are unharmed by the rowels, as their hide is roughly seven times thicker than a human being's skin. Truly skilled riders will often spur the bull in the hope of achieving extra style points from the judges.

text: Cowboy hats remain the primary headwear used. While the professional organizations permit protective helmets and masks, some riders continue to believe that this equipment can detrimentally affect balance, and many professionals still avoid wearing them. However, the trend is changing, as more champion riders begin to wear helmets for added safety.

text: Public health researchers found evidence suggesting that bull riding helmets are protective, when riders wearing one particular type of helmet suffered approximately 50% fewer head and facial injuries.[10][11] In 2004, at the 1st International Rodeo Research and Clinical Care Conference in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, a group of top rodeo medicine researchers and clinical care providers came to a consensus on the use of helmets declaring that all youth rodeo participants should wear helmets, and that helmets should be recommended for adult bull riders.[12]

text: For competitors under the age of 18, protective headgear incorporating a helmet and ice hockey style face mask are worn. While optional at the upper levels of the sport, it has become mandatory at younger levels, and riders who use helmets and face masks as youths tend to continue to wearing them as they reach adulthood and turn professional.[13]

text: Bull equipment[edit]

text: The flank strap is a rope made of a soft cotton rope at least 5/8” in diameter is acceptable as a flank strap and does not require extra padding with sheepskin or neoprene. It is tied around the bull's flank.[14] Contrary to popular belief, the flank strap is not tied around the bull's testicles. This rope is to encourage the bull to use its hind legs more in a bucking motion, as this is a true test of a rider's skill in maintaining the ride. If it is applied improperly a rider may request to ride again, as the bull will not buck well if the flank strap is too tight. The flank strap is applied by the stock contractor or his designate.

text: The arena[edit]

text: The arenas used in professional bull riding vary. Some are rodeo arenas that are used only for bull riding and other rodeo events. Others are event centers that play host to many different sports. Common to all arenas is a large, open area that gives the bulls, bull riders, and bull fighters plenty of room to maneuver. The area is fenced, usually 6 to 7 feet high, to protect the audience from escaped bulls. There are generally exits on each corner of the arena for riders to get out of the way quickly. Riders can also hop onto the fence to avoid danger. One end of the arena contains the bucking chutes from which the bulls are released. There is also an exit chute where the bulls can exit the arena.

text: North America[edit]

text: In the United States and Canada, most professional bull riders start out riding in high school rodeo or other junior associations. From there, riders may go on the college rodeo circuit or to one of several semi-pro associations including the Southern Extreme Bull Riding Association (SEBRA), the Southern States Bull Riders Association (SSBR), the International Bull Riders Association (IBR), the Professional Championship Bull Riders Tour (PCB), Bull Riders Canada (BRC), the American Bull Riders Tour (ABT), the International Professional Rodeo Association (IPRA), the Cowboys Professional Rodeo Association (CPRA), the United Professional Rodeo Association (UPRA), the Southern Rodeo Association (SRA), the Professional Western Rodeo Association (PWRA), the Canadian Cowboys Association (CCA), among others. Bull riders compete in these organizations as they are climbing the ladder to the professional ranks and to supplement their income.

text: The top bull riders in the world compete on the Professional Bull Riders (PBR), Championship Bull Riding (CBR) and Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) circuits. Most of the riders who compete in the CBR tour also compete in the PRCA's rodeos and 'Xtreme Bulls' tour (a small series of one day bull riding events sanctioned by the PRCA), while only a handful of PBR riders also compete in the PRCA. Professional bull riders can win in excess of $100,000 a year while competing in any of these three organizations.

text: In Mexico, there are several American-style bull riding organizations. The big five include PBR Mexico, Cuernos Chuecos (Crooked Horns), Jinete Supremo (Supreme Bull Rider), Danger Bull Riding Company and Bull Masters Championship. La Federacion Mexicana de Rodeo (Mexican Rodeo Federation) is Mexico’s top organization that includes all of American Rodeo’s standard events, including bull riding. There are also a number of regional associations.

text: Australia and New Zealand[edit]

text: There are approximately 200 rodeos and bushmen's carnivals held annually across Australia. At most of these events bull riding is one of the featured competitions.

text: Initially bullocks and steers were used for roughriding events and these were owned by local graziers that lent them for these events. Nowadays bulls are used for the open events and stock contractors supply the various roughriding associations. Contract stock has produced a more uniform range of bucking stock which is also quieter to handle. The competitions are run and scored in a similar style to that used in the United States.[15]

text: In May 1992 the National Rodeo Council of Australia (NRCA) was formed to promote and further the sport of rodeo and has represented the following associations, which also control bull riding:

text:
Australian Bushmen’s Campdraft & Rodeo Association (ABCRA)
Australian Professional Bull Riders Association (APBA)
Central Rodeo Cowboys Association (CRCA)
Indigenous Rodeo Riders Australia (IRRA)
National Student Rodeo Association (NSRA)
National Rodeo Association (NRA)
Northern Cowboys Association (NCA)
Queensland Rodeo Association (QRA)
Rodeo Services Association (RSA)
West Coast Rodeo Circuit (WCRC)[16]

tag: ul

text: There are strict standards for the selection, care and treatment of rodeo livestock, arenas, plus equipment requirements and specifications.[17]

text: Chainsaw was one of Australia's most famous bucking bulls. Only nine contestants scored on him and he won the Australian national title of Bull of the Year a world record eight times during 1987 to 1994.[18]

text: Some of Australia’s best bull riders travel and compete internationally in Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Some of Australia's leading bull riders conduct bull riding clinics to assist learners and novice riders.[19]

text: A World Challenge of Professional Bull Riders (PBR) was held on 29 May 2010 at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre (BEC). The 2010 PBR Finals were held over two nights at the Australian Equine and Livestock Events Centre (AELEC), with five top-ranked professional bull riders from the United States and 25 of Australia’s best bull riders contesting the event.[20]

text: Rodeo is also popular in country regions of New Zealand where approximately 32 rodeos, which include bull riding contests, are held each summer.[21]

text: Animal welfare[edit]

text: There is debate between animal rights/welfare organizations and bull riding enthusiasts over many aspects of the sport. One source of controversy is the flank strap. The flank strap is placed around a bull's flank, just in front of the hind legs, to encourage bucking. Critics say that the flank strap encircles or otherwise binds the genitals of the bull. However, the flank strap is anatomically impossible to place over the testicles. Many point out that the bull's genes are valuable and that there is a strong economic incentive to keep the animal in good reproductive health. Further, particularly in the case of bulls, an animal that is sick and in pain usually will not want to move at all, will not buck as well, and may even lie down in the chute or ring rather than buck.[22]

text: Critics also claim that electric cattle prods ("hot shots") are used to injure and torture bulls, while supporters of bull riding claim that the cattle prod simply gets the bull out of the chute quickly and is only a moderate irritation due to the thickness of the animal's hide. Cattle prods have not been used in the Professional Bull Riders (PBR) tour for several years. However, in smaller associations, a cattle prod is still sometimes used to ensure that the animal leaves the chute as soon as the rider nods their head. Cattle prods are not allowed by any major association.

text: Spurs are also a source of controversy, though modern rodeo rules place strict regulations on the type and use of spurs and participants point out that they are a tool commonly used in other non-rodeo equestrian disciplines. Spurs used in bull riding do not have a fixed rowel, nor can they be sharpened. The PBR currently allows only two types of rowels to ensure the safety of the animals.

text: Bull riding has the highest rate of injury to humans of any rodeo sport. It accounts for approximately 50% of all traumatic injuries to rodeo contestants, and the bullfighters have the highest injury rate of any non-contestant group.[23]


document_title: List of Houston Texans starting quarterbacks

question_text: who's the starting quarterback for the texans

question_tokens: who 's the starting quarterback for the texans

text: Regular season[edit]

text: The number of games they started during the season is listed to the right:

text:
Season(s)
Quarterback(s)
References

2017
Tom Savage (2) / Deshaun Watson (6)
[1]

2016
Brock Osweiler (14) / Tom Savage (2)
[2]

2015
Brian Hoyer (9) / Ryan Mallett (4) / T. J. Yates (2) / Brandon Weeden (1)
[3]

2014
Ryan Fitzpatrick (12) / Ryan Mallett (2) / Case Keenum (2)
[4]

2013
Matt Schaub (8) / Case Keenum (8)
[5]

2012
Matt Schaub (16)
[6]

2011
Matt Schaub (10) / T. J. Yates (5) / Matt Leinart (1)
[7]

2010
Matt Schaub (16)
[8]

2009
Matt Schaub (16)
[9]

2008
Matt Schaub (11) / Sage Rosenfels (5)
[10]

2007
Matt Schaub (11) / Sage Rosenfels (5)
[11]

2006
David Carr (16)
[12]

2005
David Carr (16)
[13]

2004
David Carr (16)
[14]

2003
David Carr (11) / Tony Banks (3) / Dave Ragone (2)
[15]

2002
David Carr (16)
[16]

tag: table

text: Postseason[edit]

text:
Season
Quarterback(s)

2016
Brock Osweiler (1–1)

2015
Brian Hoyer (0–1)

2012
Matt Schaub (1–1)

2011
T. J. Yates (1–1)

text: Due to injury to both starting quarterback Matt Schaub and backup quarterback Matt Leinart during the 2011 regular season, T. J. Yates became the starter for the rest of the season as well as the playoffs.

text: Most games as starting quarterback[edit]

text: These quarterbacks have the most starts for the Texans in regular season games.

text:
Name
Period
Starts
Wins
Losses
Ties
Win %

Matt Schaub
2007–2013
88
46
42
0
.523

David Carr
2002–2006
75
22
53
0
.293

Brock Osweiler
2016
14
8
6
0
.571

Ryan Fitzpatrick
2014
12
6
6
0
.500

Sage Rosenfels
2007–2008
10
6
4
0
.600

Case Keenum
2013–2014
10
2
8
0
.200

Brian Hoyer
2015
9
5
4
0
.556

T. J. Yates
2011, 2015
7
4
3
0
.571

Ryan Mallett
2014–2015
6
2
4
0
.333

Deshaun Watson
2017
6
3
3
0
.500

Tom Savage
2016–2017
4
1
3
0
.250

Tony Banks
2003
3
2
1
0
.667

Dave Ragone
2003
2
0
2
0
.000

Matt Leinart
2011
1
1
0
0
1.000

Brandon Weeden
2015
1
1
0
0
1.000


document_title: Ain't

question_text: when was the word ain't added to the dictionary

question_tokens: when was the word ai n 't added to the dictionary

text: Ain't

text: Etymology[edit]

text: Ain't has several antecedents in English, corresponding to the various forms of to be not and to have not that ain't contracts. The development of ain't for to be not and to have not is a diachronic coincidence;[1] in other words, they were independent developments at different times.

text: Contractions of to be not[edit]

text: Amn't as a contraction of am not is known from 1618.[2] As the "mn" combination of two nasal consonants is disfavoured by many English speakers, the "m" of amn't began to be elided, reflected in writing with the new form an't.[3] Aren't as a contraction for are not first appeared in 1675.[4] In non-rhotic dialects, aren't lost its "r" sound, and began to be pronounced as an't.[5]

text: An't (sometimes a'n't) arose from am not and are not almost simultaneously. An't first appears in print in the work of English Restoration playwrights.[6] In 1695 an't was used as a contraction of "am not", in William Congreve's play Love for Love: "I can hear you farther off, I an't deaf".[7] But as early as 1696 Sir John Vanbrugh uses an't to mean "are not" in The Relapse: "Hark thee shoemaker! These shoes an't ugly, but they don't fit me".[8]

text: An't for is not may have developed independently from its use for am not and are not. Isn't was sometimes written as in't or en't, which could have changed into an't. An't for is not may also have filled a gap as an extension of the already-used conjugations for to be not.[6] Jonathan Swift used an't to mean is not in Letter 19 of his Journal to Stella (1710–13): It an't my fault, 'tis Patrick's fault; pray now don't blame Presto.[9]

text: An't with a long "a" sound began to be written as ain't, which first appears in writing in 1749.[10] By the time ain't appeared, an't was already being used for am not, are not, and is not.[6] An't and ain't coexisted as written forms well into the nineteenth century—Charles Dickens used the terms interchangeably, as in Chapter 13, Book the Second of Little Dorrit (1857): "'I guessed it was you, Mr Pancks," said she, 'for it's quite your regular night; ain't it? ... An't it gratifying, Mr Pancks, though; really?'". In the English lawyer William Hickey's memoirs (1808–1810), ain't appears as a contraction of aren't; "thank God we're all alive, ain't we..."[11]

text: Contractions of to have not[edit]

text: Han't or ha'n't, an early contraction for has not and have not, developed from the elision of the "s" of has not and the "v" of have not.[6] Han't appeared in the work of English Restoration playwrights,[6] as in The Country Wife (1675) by William Wycherley: Gentlemen and Ladies, han't you all heard the late sad report / of poor Mr. Horner.[12] Much like an't, han't was sometimes pronounced with a long "a", yielding hain't. With H-dropping, the "h" of han't or hain't gradually disappeared in most dialects, and became ain't.[6]

text: Ain't as a contraction for has not/have not first appeared in dictionaries in the 1830s, and appeared in 1819 in Niles' Weekly Register: Strike! Why I ain't got nobody here to strike....[13] Charles Dickens likewise used ain't to mean haven't in Chapter 28 of Martin Chuzzlewit (1844): "You ain't got nothing to cry for, bless you! He's righter than a trivet!"[14]

text: Like with an't, han't and ain't were found together late into the nineteenth century, as in Chapter 12 of Dickens' Our Mutual Friend: "'Well, have you finished?' asked the strange man. 'No,' said Riderhood, 'I ain't'....'You sir! You han't said what you want of me.'"[15]

text: Contractions of to do not[edit]

text: Ain't meaning didn't is widely considered a feature unique to African American Vernacular English,[16] although it can be found in some dialects of Caribbean English as well.[17] It may function not as a true variant of didn't, but as a creole-like tense-neutral negator (sometimes termed generic ain't).[16] Its origin may have been due to approximation when early African Americans acquired English as a second language; it is also possible that early African Americans inherited this variation from colonial European-Americans, and later kept the variation when it largely passed out of wider usage. Ain't is rarely attested for the present-tense constructions do not or does not.

text: Linguistic characteristics[edit]

text: Linguistically, ain't is formed by the same rule that English speakers use to form aren't and other contractions of auxiliary verbs.[3] Most linguists consider usage of ain't to be grammatical, as long as its users convey their intended meaning to their audience.[18] In other words, a sentence such as "She ain't got no sense" is grammatical because it generally follows a native speaker's word order, and because a native speaker would recognize the meaning of that sentence.[19] Linguists draw a distinction, however, between grammaticality and acceptability: what may be considered grammatical across all dialects may nevertheless be considered not acceptable in certain dialects or contexts.[20] The usage of ain't is socially unacceptable in some situations.[21]

text: Functionally, ain't has operated in part to plug what is known as the "amn't gap" – the anomalous situation in standard English whereby there are standard contractions for other forms of to be not (aren't for are not, and isn't for is not), but no standard contraction for am not. Historically, ain't has filled the gap where one might expect amn't, even in contexts where other uses of ain't were disfavored.[22] Standard dialects that regard ain't as non-standard often substitute aren't for am not in tag questions (e.g., "I'm doing okay, aren't I?"), while leaving the "amn't gap" open in declarative statements.[23]

text: Prescription and stigma[edit]

text: Ain't has been called "the most stigmatized word in the language,"[24] as well as "the most powerful social marker" in English.[25] It is a prominent example in English of a shibboleth – a word used to determine inclusion in, or exclusion from, a group.[24]

text: Historically, this was not the case. For most of its history, ain't was acceptable across many social and regional contexts. Throughout the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, ain't and its predecessors were part of normal usage for both educated and uneducated English speakers, and was found in the correspondence and fiction of, among others, Jonathan Swift, Lord Byron, Henry Fielding, and George Eliot.[26] For Victorian English novelists William Makepeace Thackeray and Anthony Trollope, the educated and upper classes in 19th century England could use ain't freely, but in familiar speech only.[27] Ain't continued to be used without restraint by many upper middle class speakers in southern England into the beginning of the 20th century.[28][29]

text: Ain't was a prominent target of early prescriptivist writers. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, some writers began to propound the need to establish a "pure" or "correct" form of English.[30] Contractions in general were disapproved of, but ain't and its variants were seen as particularly "vulgar."[24] This push for "correctness" was driven mainly by the middle class, which led to an incongruous situation in which non-standard constructions continued to be used by both lower and upper classes, but not by the middle class.[27][31] The reason for the strength of the prescription against ain't is not entirely clear.

text: The strong prescription against ain't in standard English has led to many misconceptions, often expressed jocularly (or ironically), as "ain't ain't a word" or "ain't ain't in the dictionary."[32] Ain't is listed in most dictionaries, including the Oxford Dictionary of English[33] and Merriam-Webster.[34] However, Oxford states "it does not form part of standard English and should never be used in formal or written contexts,"[33] and Merriam-Webster states it is "widely disapproved as non-standard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated".[34]

text: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, published in 1961, went against then-standard practice when it included the following usage note in its entry on ain't: "though disapproved by many and more common in less educated speech, used orally in most parts of the U.S. by many cultivated speakers esp. in the phrase ain't I."[35] Many commentators disapproved of the dictionary's relatively permissive attitude toward the word, which was inspired, in part, by the belief of its editor, Philip Gove, that "distinctions of usage were elitist and artificial."[36]

text: Regional usage and dialects[edit]

text: Ain't is found throughout the English-speaking world across regions and classes,[37] and is among the most pervasive nonstandard terms in English.[38] It is one of two negation features (the other being the double negative) that are known to appear in all nonstandard English dialects.[39] Ain't is used throughout the United Kingdom, with its geographical distribution increasing over time.[40] It is also found throughout the United States, including in Appalachia, the South, New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the Upper Midwest.[25] In its geographical ubiquity, ain't is to be contrasted with other folk usages such as y'all, which is confined to the South region of the United States.[41]

text: In England, ain't is generally considered a non-standard or illiterate usage, as it is used by speakers of a lower socio-economic class, or by educated people in an informal manner.[42] In the nineteenth century, ain't was often used by writers to denote regional dialects such as Cockney English.[43] Ain't is a non-standard feature commonly found in mainstream Australian English,[44] and in New Zealand, ain't is a feature of Maori-influenced English.[45] In American English, usage of ain't corresponds to a middle level of education,[42] although it is widely believed that its use establishes of lack of education or social standing in the speaker.[46]

text: The usage of ain't in the southern United States is distinctive, however, in the continued usage of the word by well-educated, cultivated speakers.[47] Ain't is in common usage of educated Southerners.[48] In the South, the use of ain't can be used as a marker to separate cultured speakers from those who lack confidence in their social standing and thus avoid its use entirely.[49]

text: Rhetorical and popular usage[edit]

text: Ain't can be used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to give emphasis, as in "Ain't that a crying shame," or "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives an example from film critic Richard Schickel: "the wackiness of movies, once so deliciously amusing, ain't funny anymore."[50] It can also be used deliberately for what The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style describes as "tongue-in-cheek" or "reverse snobbery".[51] Star baseball pitcher Dizzy Dean, a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame and later a popular announcer, once said, "A lot of people who don't say ain't, ain't eatin'."[52]

text: Although ain't is seldom found in formal writing, it is frequently used in more informal written settings, such as popular song lyrics. In genres such as traditional country music, blues, rock n' roll, and hip-hop, lyrics often include nonstandard features such as ain't.[53] This is principally due to the use of such features as markers of "covert identity and prestige."[53]

text: Ain't is standard in some fixed phrases, such as "You ain't seen nothing yet".

text: Notable usage[edit]

text:
"Ain't I a Woman?", 1851 speech by abolitionist Sojourner Truth.[54]
"If you want to know who we are", from The Mikado lyrics by W. S. Gilbert "We figure in lively paint: Our attitude's queer and quaint—You're wrong if you think it ain't." (1885).[55]
George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion "I ain't done nothing wrong by speaking to the gentleman" said Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle.[56]
Great baseball hitter Willie Keeler's advice to young hitters was: "Keep your eye on the ball, and hit 'em where they ain't."[57]
"Say it ain't so, Joe", apocryphal quote from a young baseball fan to Shoeless Joe Jackson after the fan learned about the Black Sox scandal involving throwing the 1919 World Series.[58] "Say it ain't so" was subsequently used as the title of a song by Weezer and an album by Murray Head, and an opera about the 2008 US vice presidential debate.
"You ain't heard nothing yet!" spoken by Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer (1927), the first feature-length motion picture with synchronized dialogue sequences.[59] That spoken line, and others in the film, introduced the "talkies" and revolutionized the movie industry.[60]
"It Ain't Necessarily So", song from Porgy and Bess (1935); music by George Gershwin, words by Ira Gershwin.[61]
"He ain't heavy, he's my brother" has been used as the motto of Boys Town since 1943,[62] and inspired a song He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother, written by Bobby Scott and Bob Russell, and recorded by The Hollies, Neil Diamond, and other artists.
"Ain't That a Shame" is a song written by Fats Domino and Dave Bartholomew, released by Imperial Records in 1955, which went on to sell over a million copies and introduced Fats Domino to a wider audience.[63]