Treaty Of Versailles RIGHT OR Wrong

[unmerged(6964)]

I'm afraid I disagree. Had things been the way they were in Bismarck's time, under Bismarck I would say you were right, but to put WW1 as it happened down to some sort of conflict of the innocents (or the equally guilties) caused by the spontaneous combustion of the alliance system is far too simplistic and an attitude that is mired in the 1960s. The situation leading up to the war was inherently very bad, but was exacerbated by a post-Bismarck German regime which was both aggressive and militarist. As far as I'm concerned there is a moral high ground, or at least a moral less-low ground, and it ain't inhabited by the Central Powers. In terms of post war systems of government you may be right, but as far as causes and guilt goes I think you're wrong.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

For the French, the war reparations were just as much revenge for 1870 as Alsace and Lorraine.

France paid 4.5 bn (1871) Francs to Germany after 1870. That's on the order of $1 tn today I guess.

And every centime of it was paid.

In 1918, the whole of Northern France, a heavily industrialized area, was moonscape. Asking Germany to pay for the damage was perfectly justified. It's not as if they hadn't already set an example themselves!

 

[unmerged(8783)]

Right and Wrong?

Originally posted by Top Cat
I'm afraid I disagree. Had things been the way they were in Bismarck's time, under Bismarck I would say you were right, but to put WW1 as it happened down to some sort of conflict of the innocents (or the equally guilties) caused by the spontaneous combustion of the alliance system is far too simplistic and an attitude that is mired in the 1960s. The situation leading up to the war was inherently very bad, but was exacerbated by a post-Bismarck German regime which was both aggressive and militarist. As far as I'm concerned there is a moral high ground, or at least a moral less-low ground, and it ain't inhabited by the Central Powers. In terms of post war systems of government you may be right, but as far as causes and guilt goes I think you're wrong.

Top Cat -

ALL of the nations in question were militaristic, with the
exception of the Belgians

Germany did increase anxiety by the Naval Programme and
the incident in Morocco... No, I do not seek to save the Kaiser's
reputation for sane diplomacy.

I do take issue with the forced admission of guilt. Were any
ONE country to take the blame for lighting the match to the
'powder keg' - I'm sorry, it would have to be The Kingdom of
Serbia, which was aiding and abetting the Black Hand.
Granted, the Austrians were less willing to deal with Serbia
harshly unless there was strong German backing, but let's
face it - the Serbs 'pulled' the trigger as it were.

To claim that the Allies had 'moral superiority' is to stand on
very shaky ground. The submarine war was 'gentlemanly'
until the advent of the Q-Ship, which made it impossible for
German U-Boots to surface and force merchant ships to
abandon ship before the sinkings. Not to mention 'Freedom
and Democracy' - kinda moot when you are allied to Serbia
and Russia, which make Imperial Germany seem like Plato's
Republic. There are a host of other reasons...

I am not necessarily defending the Central Powers, but I
will hammer the Allies for extravagances and follies.
Winning a war does not necessarily make the victor the
'good guys' any more than losing a war makes one a 'bad guy'.
THAT is the simplistic analysis of history, my friend

---Ank

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Touche. But you're still wrong. Fair point about Russia, but I expect you to apply the same standards to WW2 in future.


*Ties an anchor to Ank's clankers and pushes him in the river*

 

[unmerged(8783)]

Touche?

Originally posted by Top Cat
Touche. But you're still wrong. Fair point about Russia, but I expect you to apply the same standards to WW2 in future.


*Ties an anchor to Ank's clankers and pushes him in the river*

Not still wrong, still attempting to correct a wrong

I absolutely apply the same strictures to WWII, which
is a totally different creature. There WAS a moral cause
there, and I do believe that Churchill made a comment
about an alliance with the Devil if it helped him win the
war, which is kinda what he must have felt like he was
doing vis a vis Stalin

***Yawn***

Still wrong, Top Cat.
(And I'm a fairly strong swimmer, the Rasputin treatment
won't work with ol' Ank.)

---Attempts to drown Top Cat in a vat of port wine---



---Ank

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Well I disagree. I think if you take into account then ature of the German Armed forces, the extent of militarisation of German society, the attitudes of most of the senior figures the Kaiser surrounded himself with and the general level of aggression shown by the Germans they are clearly the aggressors in comparison to Britain and France and more to blame. The idea of a final, great cleansing total war was generically popular in Europe and America in the early 20th century, but in Germany it took on a popular nature and was tuned to a fine art.


I would also argue that Britain and America were not militaristic, whereas Germany was.

 

[Dinsdale]

Versailles obviously was not harsh enough. The post WW2 solution was better.

Division of Germany into zones, occupation and complete replacement of the political system combined with large numbers of occupying troops appears to have done the trick

 

[Kasperus]

hmm, interesting trick of "rewarding" 3/4 of the Germans for the WW2 with economical support and rebuilding of the country while "punishing" all of eastern-europe for being the victim of the same Germany by making it victim of one another for the next 45 years.

 

[Intosh]

Originally posted by Kasperus
hmm, interesting trick of "rewarding" 3/4 of the Germans for the WW2 with economical support and rebuilding of the country while "punishing" all of eastern-europe for being the victim of the same Germany by making it victim of one another for the next 45 years.

Western allies didn't punish Central and Eastern Europe...

They allied with the devil Staline to fight the demonic Hitler. And in Yalta they had to give something to their "ally". They tried to negociate but the "demon" was too strong.

After the war, Germany wasn't reward, Germany needed economical support otherwise they will become communist. Same things in lot of european countries, where the Marshall Plan was seen as a mean to substract these countries from misery and communism.

Central and eastern Europe were only liberate in 1989-1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed after the WWIII also called the Cold War. A war won without blood poured in Europe.

To substract Central and Eastern Europe from the SU, it will need another war and in 1945, nobody wanted to fight more.

Bye,

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I think that Versailles is not a major determining factor in the rise of Hitler. The major reason for Hitler's rise is a lack of Democratic tradition. England and the US had economic problems in the 30's that were online with German problems of the 20's, but they produced very different leaders than Hitler.
After the passing of the Enabling Act, Hitler went on the radio and stated that there need not be any other political parties besides the NSDAP. The German populace didn't rise up and throw Hitler out of office, nor did they even voice their dissent in any available forum. They simply accepted it. If a British or American politician stated that he was going to eliminate all other political parties, the populace would rise up in outrage, totalitarianism notwithstanding.

About Eastern Europe:

The fate of the future Warsaw Pact nations was sealed by Roosevelt. He believed that he could outnegotiate and outwit Stalin, and convince him to give up what he spent so many lives to conquer. Roosevelt made many political mistakes, such as trying to keep DeGaulle out of the Anglo-American alliance, and excluding the Free French leader from political plans. DeGaulle went over Roosevelt's head, to the French people, and made himself a hero, and it became obvious that he was going to be the major French post-war institution, with or without Roosevelt's consent.
Roosevelt also made a political misjudgement in lobbying to make China a part of the permanent UN Security Council, as he admired China, and thought they would be a great ally, allthewhile ignoring advice from everyone with a mouth, who informed Roosevelt that it was likely that a Communist government could control post-war China, and that they likely wouldn't be US-friendly.

 

[Sire Philippe]

Originally posted by UberYuber
Roosevelt also made a political misjudgement in lobbying to make China a part of the permanent UN Security Council, as he admired China, and thought they would be a great ally, allthewhile ignoring advice from everyone with a mouth, who informed Roosevelt that it was likely that a Communist government could control post-war China, and that they likely wouldn't be US-friendly.

I don't know if anyone could have said at this time that China should have been controled by Commies.
In the basic principle that all allies' victorious power (even France, a generous action I admit it) must have their part in Security Council, it's obvious that China was at his right place.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by Intosh
Western allies didn't punish Central and Eastern Europe...

posting it with the "`s meant that i didn`t mean it literally of course

They allied with the devil Staline to fight the demonic Hitler. And in Yalta they had to give something to their "ally". They tried to negociate but the "demon" was too strong.

there was not much trying. ever heard of the Churchill note? It was English proposal to give Stalin most of the eastern Europe.

After the war, Germany wasn't reward, Germany needed economical support otherwise they will become communist. Same things in lot of european countries, where the Marshall Plan was seen as a mean to substract these countries from misery and communism.

well, once the situation was so blundered as it was by the west the German re-economification was the only option indeed.

Central and eastern Europe were only liberate in 1989-1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed after the WWIII also called the Cold War. A war won without blood poured in Europe.

To substract Central and Eastern Europe from the SU, it will need another war and in 1945, nobody wanted to fight more.

Bye,

Well, with a more opportunistic policy of the west right from the beginning central europe could have been saved. Stalin did not have much other options than to cooperate with the west in 1943. But the west, waiting and waiting faced finally the USSR in Berlin. Having already made lots of promises of zones of control to USSR, ignoring the true governments-in-exile of the occupied countries giving that way even more support to Stalins communist governments.

Further of course the point is more an idealistic one - that the west left the countries who fought on their side against the germans for the eastern monster without any opposition. And finally after 45 years of "slavery" they became free themselves (well, the effects of the cold war are surely not arguable though finally the countries indeed all liberated themselves without any direct help of the west) and then the west came over imposing their laws on them, trying to block their "rights" to be a part of Europe. There is certainly something in the thought that the west has a debt toward eastern europe as it could (symbolically speaking) live in peace and safety thanks to the fact that eastern europe was enslaved. And many people in eastern europe also see it that way, especially when looking at the rich and proud German who after all caused those 45 years (not to mention what happens when the German starts questionning danzig, silesia or the sudettenland )

 

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Well I disagree. I think if you take into account then ature of the German Armed forces, the extent of militarisation of German society, the attitudes of most of the senior figures the Kaiser surrounded himself with and the general level of aggression shown by the Germans they are clearly the aggressors in comparison to Britain and France and more to blame. The idea of a final, great cleansing total war was generically popular in Europe and America in the early 20th century, but in Germany it took on a popular nature and was tuned to a fine art.


I would also argue that Britain and America were not militaristic, whereas Germany was.

After the scramble for africa, british gun boat diplomacy and a general fear of loosing the balance, I would hardly say britain wasn't militaristic. And don't forget, at the turn of the centuray America was just finishing off the native Americans.

I don't have a clue where you get off saying that Britain wasn't militaristic, if it wasn't, then why did it give a flying f*ck weather germany rose to great power domination? The whole war was born out of militarism, if Britain wan't militaristic then it would have been all to happy to have Germany assume the position of domination, as it would mean less spending on navalism This is by no means to say that britain was as militaristic as Germany.

As far as I'm concerned there is a moral high ground, or at least a moral less-low ground,

that is rubbish, the british 'high ground' was born out of radical patriotism and an unbeleivabley high level of pomposity in the British Govt. of the late 19th, early 20thC, the idea that they had the ultimate govt. and that liberal democracy was the only 'civilised' form of govt. Calling one of the most Social Darwinistic Countries of the period 1890-1918 on a moral high ground is almost a disgrace. British Govt. rhetoric of the time is akin to the modern day US Rhetoric of 'fighting for freedom'.

 

[Dinsdale]

Woe is me! I need more hankys to wipe the tears away thinking of the poor innocent Germans who had Versailles imposed on them for no reason at all :sniff: :sniff:

Before stringing up effigies of Lloyd George-Wilson-Clemenceau the three headed monster who raped a German woman and inseminated her with Adolph Hitler, lets try and think of what was going on in the world in 1919.

Oh yes, I remember, NE France was ruined, millions dead and maimed, merchant sailors dead for trying to navigate the Atlantic and Med, Paris shelled, London bombed by Zeps, and 2 years removed from Brest Litovsk, one of the must punishing treaties of all time, imposed by Germany on Russia

Perhaps the "no-Versailles-no-hitler-because-germany-was-always-a-peace-loving-people-who-never-heard-of-Fred the great-30 years war-or-Freddy Barossa" crew could explain why there are no he mass murdering monsters who only rose to power because of bad treaties in Hungary, Austria, Turkey and Russia, who all lost more territory than Germany in the post WW1 treaties.

Perhaps it's time to face the facts that Hitler was popular for his rabid anti-semitism, his militarism, promise of empire etc as much as for a hatred for Versailles. Ouch! perhaps that means that Germany in 1933 was filled with people who agreed with him! Gasp! the horror, I thought we killed all the Nazis (about 15 right?) and that the rest of Germany was just misled. That means...that means...that means that many people alive today agreed and supported Hitler and...well I don't know how that could have been allowed to happen. Can we ever think that so many people enjoyed Hitler, and that perhaps if Hitler were French, British, Dutch or Spanish that those nations might have done the same thing because their populations were just as anti-semitic, militaristic etc as the Germans?

 

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
Perhaps it's time to face the facts that Hitler was popular for his rabid anti-semitism, his militarism, promise of empire etc as much as for a hatred for Versailles. Ouch! perhaps that means that Germany in 1933 was filled with people who agreed with him! Gasp! the horror, I thought we killed all the Nazis (about 15 right?) and that the rest of Germany was just misled. That means...that means...that means that many people alive today agreed and supported Hitler and...well I don't know how that could have been allowed to happen. Can we ever think that so many people enjoyed Hitler, and that perhaps if Hitler were French, British, Dutch or Spanish that those nations might have done the same thing because their populations were just as anti-semitic, militaristic etc as the Germans?

It is true that Hitler was popular for more then his anti-versaille etc, but had there not been the economic troubles of the interwar period, such extremism wouldn't have been so popular and saying that versaille was fair just because of what Germany ignores the fact that the whole german population was punished servirley for a war they didn't start, which is where alot of the resentment came from. Whitout this sort of resentment, a major part of the Nazi appeal is taken out, and for anti-semitism the more moderate Nationalist party would probab;y have been preferable. Don't forget how many votes the communist party won in the 32 elections, and in 33 when the economic crisis seemed to be dying down, the Nazi's and communists started to loose votes.

 

[pithorr]

Well, in 1918 when the Versailles was signed Hitler was just an ordinary guy and nobody has even thought of such nightmare like Nazi's rules...
It is an exaggeration to blame that treaty for future German madness.
Germans lost the WWI and had to take suffer consequnces of it.
That could be Versailles or another kind of treaty, be sure - Germans would not be glad of it at all!

 

[unmerged(5120)]

It could be said that the one good thing to come out of the extraordinary political power the German general staff held during WWI is that when by August 1918 it was obvious to Ludendorff et al that the war was lost they decided to start talks about an armistice before Germany was invaded and laid to waste.

In the summer of 1944, it was also obvious Germany had lost, yet the only option German generals had was trying to kill Hitler. They failed and Germany was laid to waste.

 

[Kasperus]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
It is true that Hitler was popular for more then his anti-versaille etc, but had there not been the economic troubles of the interwar period, such extremism wouldn't have been so popular and saying that versaille was fair just because of what Germany ignores the fact that the whole german population was punished servirley for a war they didn't start, which is where alot of the resentment came from. Whitout this sort of resentment, a major part of the Nazi appeal is taken out, and for anti-semitism the more moderate Nationalist party would probab;y have been preferable. Don't forget how many votes the communist party won in the 32 elections, and in 33 when the economic crisis seemed to be dying down, the Nazi's and communists started to loose votes.

interesting to see then that before 1929 world crises the support for extremist parties was very low. So in the 10 years of Versailles the common German wasn`t affected by such "shamefull" treaty to run to extremists but suddenly 15 years later he fully changed his mind? Do you implicate that the conomical recess was just a push of something that was all about to happen? If so: then where was the big right-extremist movement in 1923?
The whole "shame" about the treaty was not something that came from the "depths of the feeling of German people". It was nothing more than a trick of the nazi`s to give themselves an excuse for their agressive policy. But people didn`t vote on that.

 

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Kasperus
interesting to see then that before 1929 world crises the support for extremist parties was very low. So in the 10 years of Versailles the common German wasn`t affected by such "shamefull" treaty to run to extremists but suddenly 15 years later he fully changed his mind? Do you implicate that the conomical recess was just a push of something that was all about to happen? If so: then where was the big right-extremist movement in 1923?
The whole "shame" about the treaty was not something that came from the "depths of the feeling of German people". It was nothing more than a trick of the nazi`s to give themselves an excuse for their agressive policy. But people didn`t vote on that.

o, people voted o the ecoomic crisis, the 'Golden Period' was probably the first sign during the interwar period in germany when Democracy was just about starting to get off its feet, but it was still in a very fragile position.

The shame was no trick of the Nazi's, it had been there since 1919, and throughout the whole period of the 20's was something people still felt bad about, don't forget that pre-1918 they had had The German Empire, and all its Prussian Greatness, after 1918 they were humiliated for a war they didn't start*, forced by some 'elites' into an unpopular and flawed democracy, thrust into a virtual civil war until 1924, and had rather useless leaders throughout.

By 1932 breaking point had been reached and an extremist party offering an end to all of this, aswell as an extremley charismatic leader (but Hitler was by no means a political genius), they voted Nazi. And don't forget Germany pre-1945 was always inclined towards Nationlism, the Nazi's obviously had a very great appeal for this reason.

But the Nazi party was something born out of the interwar period, the economics, the politics and the political system made it very easy for a tiny party to get just enough lee-way so that under a character like Hitler it would instantly riuse to the top.



*Wheather it was just or not, it was still extremley easy for politicians to play on the Versaille treaty as a national humiliation.

 

[joak]

IMO the stupidest things about Versailles were the utterly gratuitous ways in which it was insulting without benefitting the victors. The refusal to even negotatiate with the German representatives, the repeated violation of the basis for the "14 points" armistice, the occupation of the Saarland, the guilt clause, even (I'd argue) the demilitarization of the Rhineland and limits on the army weren't going to significantly benefit France or Britain but provided the Germans with plenty of reason for resentment, and de-legitimatized the post-war government. Years later, it would also provide Hitler with a succession of "reasonable" demands that led to far-too-easy victories that helped him cement his position.

Even if I were to agree with the claim that Germany was primarily to blame for the war, the guilt clause was especially stupid--it was clearly a "confession" extracted by force, it tacked the sins of the Kaiser onto the new republic, and accomplished absolutely nothing else.

I'm not saying it was responsible for all the problems that followed, but it certainly cleared the road for many of them.