Just out of curiosity I'd like to bring this up. . . Now Germany signed the Versailles Treaty in 1918 declaring the end of the 1st World War. Hitler, some 20 years later decided to break it. Now at the time, there was no 'United Nations' Organization running things so, Britain, France and Russia (The Triple Entente). Also Serbia, whom began the 1st World War by the assassination of the Arch Duke, Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. (Germany pounced on this oppurtunity like a fat kid on a cupcake) since they were allied to Austria-Hungary.

So this is the order.

Franz Ferdinand, Arch-Duke of Austria-Hungary was touring Serbia with his wife (mind you he had plans of conquering Serbia), some Serbian resistance fighters assassinated Franze Ferdinand whom at the time was in a mutual protection pact (roughly) with Germany and Italy, refered to as (The Triple Alliance). So since Serbia was part of the Triple Entente (not really but they had a mutual protection pact with Russia who was part of the Triple Entente.

So when The Triple Alliance planned to conquer Serbia, Russia stepped in, then they brought Britain and France with them and hence the war began.

So this continued from 1914-1918, Versailles Treaty was signed in 1919 and then ended, Germany signed the Versailles Treaty that (in a nutshell) would never exceed 100,000 soldiers in their army, and were not allowed an air force or tanks, no war machinery whatsoever.

So all above being just irrelevent to the point of my thread, but just explaining it a bit (as I interpretted it from Canadian History). So Hitler did infact, secretly build his Luftwaffe and mass production of tanks, had millions of soldiers and definately shattered the Versailles Treaty as if it weren't even legitimate anymore, he was asked by the leaders whom defeated Germany 20 years prior why he was breaking this treaty, he basically said, (not a legitimate quote). "Because I can, and there is nothing you can do about it". Now this is why WW2 started, what did the British, French do? They let it happen. A few years later WW2 began, all because they did not enforce the treaty. Now yes, Germany broke the treaty, but the fact nobody did anything about it is why he got away with what he did. I would like to see this debated!

Ok GO!

Just to get this right:
So what you're asking is if not France and the UK was somehow negligent and partly responsible for allowing Germany to rearm in the 30's?

Just to get this right:
So what you're asking is if not France and the UK was somehow negligent and partly responsible for allowing Germany to rearm in the 30's?

Yes, because they forbid it when they made Germany sign the Versailles Treaty, it was their responsibilty to enforce it.

The treaty was unfair anyway. Germany didn't even start the war. Hitler would never have come to power if the treaty had been fair.

The treaty was unfair anyway.
Right.
It was a French demand. The French kept up the preassure all through the 20's while the US always thought it stupid and counterproductive and the British gradually came around to that position.

The opportunity to act would have been when Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland.
But France would have had to do that entirely on its own, taking a massive diplomatic hit for it as the agressor. Not a palatable option.

By the time Hitler came to power most nations in Europe felt that Versailles had a been overly harsh on the Germans, and effacing it was overdue anyway.

Your correct, they didn't start the war but they were much obliged to jump in when Serbia assassinated Franz Ferdinand. I don't think the treaty was unfair at all, simply they werent allowed more then 100,000 soldiers and no tanks/air force. Some other stuff too. This was smart IMO, Germany posed the greatest threat in that war. ONLY 20 years later they started another one, boy were they wrong to think it was too harsh. Don't say Hitler ONLY started the war because the Versailles Treaty, he completely neglected it as if there was none, it had nothing to do with why he tried to conquer the world. He took that 100,000 soldier limit and turned it into 8,000,000 soldiers, mass production of tanks, 88's, anti-air guns and a large navy and an extremely powerful air force, Luftwaffe. It seems the penalty wasn't harsh enough, imo. This was to prevent another rise to power and world dominance and it was because of negligence(sp?) by ALL nations that WW2 happened, it could have been prevented.

At first from a German´s point of view:
1. Germany did not start ww1! It was indeed together with Britain the only power to avoid the war but because of the alliances both were captured in them.
2. Versailles was unfair and stupid. Although the Germans were beaten, the German government called the generals if a continuation of the war is possible. Only because they denied the Germans signed that "treaty". Although the German chancellor Scheidemann, SPD, did resign before doing that!
3. The consequences for Germany in Versailles were disastrous: Not only to pay huge sums of money to especially France, but loosing the colonies, Alsace- Lorraine, Eupen- Malmedy, Northern Schleswig (what the hell did the Danish do there? They were not the part of the war!) and in the east Posen, but much more complicated part of upper Silesia and Western Prussia. Although the Germans won the referendum in Silesia parts of it were broken away from the Reich to Poland. That was seen as not justified. Also East Prussia was not longer connected to the rest of Germany. Also important is the fact Germany had only the permission of having an army of 100.000 soldiers. But it was too few to defend Germany properly. They were not able to fight against the Lithunians who annected the Memel area and the French, who invaded Germany because of some few tons of coal which came not in time. Only a Polish invasion of Silesia could be repelled in 1923.
4. So it is no wonder that ALL German governments tried to getr rid of that treaty. After years of chaos, civil war like uprisings and hyper inflation, this ended in 1923. Nevertheless all German parties from the KPD (at least partly) to the NSDAP wanted to get rid of the treaty and did everything to negotiate and to do so. And more. As for negotiations, foreign ministers Rathenau and Stresemann went a way forced by the Entente. Germany was isolated and so went to the other pariah state: Soviet union. In the treaty of Rapallo both sides agreed to make peace and to make joint ventures. So German pilots and crews were using German and Russian planes and tanks in Russia. Until the middle of the 1930s. The Russians got material and knowledge. In the west Stresemann made an agreement with France in the treaty of Locarno. In this treaty, for which he got the peace nobel price, Germany could destroy the French alliance with Poland de facto as it was agreed that new troubles should be judged by an international court. Old trouble not. But therefore the Germans made a non agression pact with France in the case of a war with Poland! This treaty was not understood by many people but each one who is really interested should look in the text.
Also Germany tried to get rid of the payments. As the Dawes and Young plans show the German government was on the best way. But another man got the fruits, an Austrian.
Also the German government tried to build up forces not allowed by the treaty. Infact there was something called "Schwarze Reichswehr", Black Reichswehr, a military organisation, secret and not allowed, because it made the army bigger than "allowed". Also German planes, uboats and tanks were designed and partly even built for the case of war.
5. Facit:
When Hitler came in power he earned the fruits others have planted. The problem in this is not that he was seen as legitimated to do so even by the foreing nations (and in this point he was) but that what he wanted to do. I mean he wanted to go for war crazy as he was. But his steps were until the annexion of the Czech republic seen as valid. Versailles was seen as unfair in England and the USA. That´s why he was able to cancel Versailles with the help of the other nations. France would have been alone able to end the reign of Hitler like also Chamberlain in Munich. Both did not go for war. There is indeed a tragedy. And also fault for ww2.
But this is not the point in this discussion: Versailles is the biggest cause that the Austrian got the power:
a) The Germans felt unsecure.
b) The government did some stupid things in the crise of 1929 to 1933 to get rid of Versailles but that helped Hitler.
c) The democracy in Germany had to live with the mortage of Versailles and so was in big troubles in being acccepted.
d) The crise of 1929 was in a big way in Germany made much stronger by the reparations.
e) Germany was blamed to have the guil about ww1. But it was together with Britain indeed the only power that wanted peace, so it was seen as unjust.

This is only a small summary. I could explain all these points in side long articles. But for now that should be enough. Versailles meant Hitler. Full stop. Without Versailles Hitler would never have become chancellor- he would now only be a small foot note in a book about radical parties in the beginning of the Weimar republic, if any. And here is the main guilt of the Allies. Versailles was, as marshall Foch said, only a cease fire for twenty years. The peace was lost in Versailles.

Adler

We've had this discussion before, so I'll just offer my overall view on the matter and be done with it.

Anyone inclined to think that Germany wouldn't have done pretty much the same if they had won might like to consider the treaty signed after the Franco-Prussian war. Versailles was harsher than others but not so much that it gives a permanent cover-all excuse for what happened between the wars in Germany. Just a shame that the Germans happened to pick the worst possible solution to their troubles. I don't think Versailles naturally caused Hitler's rise to power on it's own, more factors were in play than the treaty that caused that. Blaming the rise of Hitler on Versailles alone is implying that the Germans were victims of circumstance and had no control over preventing his rise something I'd disagree with. Shifting blame for Germany's actions onto others alone is both unfair and ridiculous.

Post war treaties are always unfair, if you loose a war you put up with them or start another war to rectify the problem. What you don't do is then try to avoid responsibility for your own actions by blaming everyone else for decisions you made, even if they were influenced by the actions of others.

PH, I did never say Hitler was ONLY caused by Versailles but MAINLY. Without Versailles no Hitler. That is the simple truth.
OTOH Frankfurt 1871 was much more moderate. The French did loose Alsace Lorraine only because they did not make peace in the right moment, shortly after Sedan. Also Germany never demanded the French fleet, as it was suggested by Britain (!), nor any of their colonies. The reparations were high but not so high that they had to pay it for 75 years. Indeed they could pay it before the date.
You can´t compare both treaties. In the first the victor was mostly moderate. In the other one of them went amok.
Versailles meant Hitler. Without Versailles Hitler would never have occured. That is sure. I do not say he had to become Chancellor with Versailles, but it was the main cause. Yes he could have avoided by several other facts. Indeed Stresemann could not have died, indeed the SPD did not leave the government in the wrong time because of the wrong thing. Indeed Marx, SPD, could have become president and not Hindenburg. Indeed Hindenburg could not have chosen Hitler. But in the comparison these facts have a much lower weight than Versailles.

Adler

Yes, because they forbid it when they made Germany sign the Versailles Treaty, it was their responsibilty to enforce it.Indeed, but they couldn't. And Hitler knew it. That's why he has broken the treaty. Germany was still the most powerful country in Europe, despite the Versailles Treaty.

They were indeed other powers then, the US across the Ocean, and Britain, accross the channel. France was isolated, and much less powerful than Germany. Especially that France has never really recovered from ww1. France's population was indeed decreasing during those years.

If the world would want today to sanction the United States, how could it do it ? The US is the strongest power in the world. If the US says "no", then the world complies. The thing was very different after ww2, since Germany wasn't anymore the most powerful power in its region... it was a second-zone country splitted in half between two dominating powers.

So all above being just irrelevent to the point of my thread, but just explaining it a bit (as I interpretted it from Canadian History). So Hitler did infact, secretly build his Luftwaffe and mass production of tanks, had millions of soldiers and definately shattered the Versailles Treaty as if it weren't even legitimate anymore, he was asked by the leaders whom defeated Germany 20 years prior why he was breaking this treaty, he basically said, (not a legitimate quote). "Because I can, and there is nothing you can do about it". Now this is why WW2 started, what did the British, French do? They let it happen. A few years later WW2 began, all because they did not enforce the treaty. Now yes, Germany broke the treaty, but the fact nobody did anything about it is why he got away with what he did. I would like to see this debated!

Ok GO!

He was smart, he let his tank and air force crews train in the Soviet Union, to avoid having them found out through "weapons inspections" of sorts. They couldn't really prove Hitler was raising his armed forces, because if they said they were training in Russia, then the Russians could say that they were training them for the Russian Military.

"Because I can" is correct, and the victorious allies of WWI wouldn't risk war with Germany because of the PR disaster it would cause. They were still licking their wounds from the First World War at the time, and the thought of war right now was extremely unpopular (as WWI was still fresh in their minds). And it isn't that the Allies couldn't do anything about it, it's more like they wouldn't do anything about it. For all of Hitler's bad points, being a politician was for damn sure not one of them. He understood the down side of the democratic system and played it to his advantage.

He knew that the citizens of England and France would not sit idle by as their countries mobilized to go to war. Their mindset was that it would be another drawn out trench warfare massacre, and that they would not let that happen again.

I believe it was the "take what you want, just don't hurt us" stance that the Allies took that started World War 2.

He was smart, he let his tank and air force crews train in the Soviet Union, to avoid having them found out through "weapons inspections" of sorts. They couldn't really prove Hitler was raising his armed forces, because if they said they were training in Russia, then the Russians could say that they were training them for the Russian Military.
Already the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union struck up a relationship well before the Nazis.
Both countries were ostracised by the victors of WWI (especially France) anyway.

And a big reason Germany could rearm as quickly as it did was the the chief of the general staff after WWI, von Seekt, knew very well that the actual limit to a future German army would be set by the size of its corps of trained officers. Grunts can be trained in months, good officers take years.
Consequenly the 100.000 man army the Weimar Rep. was allowed to keep was positively brimming with officer training and talent.

Germany is guilty of handing the "card blanche" to the Austrian ambassador. I think they knew the consequences when they did it.

Violating the Belgium neutrality also forced England to participate. Also, didn´t Germany declare war on France and Russia first? They are far from innocent, imo.

Versailles was well within the scope of the peace treaties from 1871 and 1917, imo. The reparations France had to pay were comparable, but they had the opportunity to let their colonies pay a part from it, Russia lost very valuable land in the 1917 treaty.

Germany is guilty of handing the "card blanche" to the Austrian ambassador. I think they knew the consequences when they did it.

Violating the Belgium neutrality also forced England to participate. Also, didn´t Germany declare war on France and Russia first? They are far from innocent, imo.

Versailles was well within the scope of the peace treaties from 1871 and 1917, imo. The reparations France had to pay were comparable, but they had the opportunity to let their colonies pay a part from it, Russia lost very valuable land in the 1917 treaty.What has followen the war of 1870 was the 2nd industrial revolution and a new era of prosperity. What has followen ww1 was inflation and the 1929 crisis.

So Hitler did infact, secretly build his Luftwaffe and mass production of tanks, had millions of soldiers and definately shattered the Versailles Treaty as if it weren't even legitimate anymore, he was asked by the leaders whom defeated Germany 20 years prior why he was breaking this treaty, he basically said, (not a legitimate quote). "Because I can, and there is nothing you can do about it". Now this is why WW2 started, what did the British, French do? They let it happen. A few years later WW2 began, all because they did not enforce the treaty. Now yes, Germany broke the treaty, but the fact nobody did anything about it is why he got away with what he did. I would like to see this debated!


The only way Britain and France could enforce the treaty would be by force (ie by war), and that would have been WWII anyway. So saying that WWII happened because Britain and France allowed it is a crazy thing :crazyeye:

Germany gave the card blanche to Austria in 1914 mainly for PR reasons and to show the ally they were on his side. Also a minor war on the Balkan if the Serbs refused to negotiate was calculated. But the Germans thought about negotiations of guilt and punishment, but not what happened. Here the Austrian went a way the Germans didn´t want. They withdrew the card blanche when they got to know that but it was too late. Serbia and Austria were at war. Russia declared war on Austria and as Austrian ally Germany had to declare war on Russia, as the ally was attacked. In the west the French were eager to take revenge for 1871. They would have attacked anyway and the German generals believed it would be the best solution to attack. And also to violate Belgium´s neutrality. That´s why the British had a reason to go into the war. And I admit here is the German guilt. They shouls have waited for the French to attack. But I doubt that even in this case the British would have kept their starting neutrality.
All in all Germany slipped in the war like any other major power in Europe. Because of their treaties no nation could keep neutral. But indeed the German guilt on that war is very minor.
Also Hitler terminated the agreements with the USSR very quickly. The Weimar republic was using the USSR as test area.
Concerning the Versailles treaty in context of the treaties of Frankfurt and Brest Litowsk. The first one was a mild treaty, although the reparations were high. Also consider that Alsace Lorraine was German until Louis XIV. was able to annex it. The Germans did in that time not have the power to defend it, but in 1871. The French would have kept it, if they made peace after Sedan. Also another treaty has to be considered here: Tilsit 1807. Wilhelm was a small boy when Prussia was rescued as nation only by the Czar. The humilation of 1807 was well known in that time but Bismarck did not want France to be the enemy for ever (for the next decade yes, but not longer. The German attempts to normalize the situation however did not lead to anything). So Frankfurt was a very moderate treaty.
Now Brest Litowsk. From the first view it was a very harsh treaty. But Russia in that days was a state with many minorities, all eager to become independent. Finland, Ukraine, Belorus, Estonia, Lithunia, Latvia, Georgia, Armenia,... So the Germans gave them their independence. However it was so harsh as the new guys in the Russian government should have kept small: Lenin, Stalin, Trotzky and co. Russia did loose nearly only colonial areas but no real Russian territory.
Versailles was out of these treaties by far.
Concerning the strength of the German army in the time of the Rhineland occupation. The strength was much more exaggerated. Only a small unit of French soldiers could have swepth through the German lines. The tanks were not able to cope with the French and the 6 Me 109 fighters to give air superiority had no ammo! The same later in Munich... Hitler was aware of this and he would have resigned in the case of resistance. But there was no resistance...

Adler

PH, I did never say Hitler was ONLY caused by Versailles but MAINLY. Without Versailles no Hitler. That is the simple truth.

I know what it sounds like you're saying, you're trying to place the bulk of the responsibility for Hitler's rise to power and all the results of that firmly off Germany's shoulders and I don't buy it one bit.

OTOH Frankfurt 1871 was much more moderate

Doesn't matter, I never compared them directly, just used that example to show that reparations, reductions in physical threat and loss of territory was simply a matter of course for post-war treaties. The only thing that would have stopped Germany doing the same if they had won WW1 is that their victory was liable to be less complete, therefore their position in negotiations weaker. But if they had pulled a versailles on the British and we'd put Mosley into power (for example) I'd accept that the responsibility for that was ours, not throw that blame onto the treaty. Ultimately countries are each responsible for their own actions.

Also it would be helpful to get away from the misguided notion that a peace treaty should be based on who was morally in the right during the war. Peace treaties like all politics are based on what you can get, not what you should get. Versailles was harsh because the allies had it well within their power to make it harsh.

The only way Britain and France could enforce the treaty would be by force (ie by war), and that would have been WWII anyway. So saying that WWII happened because Britain and France allowed it is a crazy thing :crazyeye:

Obviously when they created the treaty, they were obviously more superior to the Germans at this time, so they could have set up inspections as part of the treaty if they felt like it, what would Germany do? They just lost.

Obviously when they created the treaty, they were obviously more superior to the Germans at this time, so they could have set up inspections as part of the treaty if they felt like it, what would Germany do? They just lost.
But since Britain wasn't really involved in continental politics, in effect what you're saying is that France alone should have done it. You can count all other nations out on this.

Well, France did occupy the Rhinlenad for years. That situation becsame a political liability.
Versailles was unfair by common agreement, France was a brutal occupier, Germany was now a democracy (sort of), etc.
And in that situation your recomendation is that France should have embarked on a de facto occupation of Germany in the early 30's or so?

Considering how much fight was still left in Germany just after WWI, though mostly Germans ended up fighting each other, I'm not so sure the Entente powers would have wanted to get themselves stuck in Germany proper in any case.

It's one thing to defeat the armies of a nation, and another to actually occupy the whole damn place. Victory on the field of battle is nice, but the number of problems it solves is actually very limited.
(And victors always tend to overestimate the advantages they will get.)

PH I also never said that Hitler was not also a homemade problem. But the cause of many of these homemade problems leading to Hitler is also lying in Versailles. I only spoke about the cause and not the responsability for Hitler as it is clear the Germans have to take much of them, but not all.
OTOH if the French, as driving force behind Versailles, made a mild peace on the base of Wilson´s plan, there would have been not so much hatred and urging for revenge. So a much milder peace would have lowered the chances for Hitler to zero.

Adler

The Treaty of Versaille was slightly harsher than other treaties to compare it to (1871, Brest-L?). At the end of the day Germany wasn't occupied in any serious way. I doubt the French would have got a much better deal had the German offensive in March 1918 won the war. Lose some territory pay some $$$$. nations have been totally destroyed by warfare. Germany got to keep its independence and even before Hitler most effects of the treaty were null and void anyway. In reality it screwed Germany for around 5 years, made them weak for a few more and then the depression rolled around.

OTOH if the French, as driving force behind Versailles, made a mild peace on the base of Wilson´s plan, there would have been not so much hatred and urging for revenge. So a much milder peace would have lowered the chances for Hitler to zero.

The French got what you consider a mild peace after the Franco-Prussian war. Their desire for revenge and anger at their loss was still very strong, so I doubt the effect of a milder treaty would be as great as you imply. As Zaardanar mentions Versailles was all to often circumvented, bypassed or flat out ignored and it's impact has been greatly overstated.

PH I also never said that Hitler was not also a homemade problem. But the cause of many of these homemade problems leading to Hitler is also lying in Versailles

Oh I understand what you're saying, I just find it a copout.

People often says that the Versailles Treaty was too harsh when the 1945 peace was a lot better measured. But sincerly I don't see how ?

After 1945, Germany has lost one third of its territory, the remaining part has been divided in half, all its main cities have been razed, the country has been fully occupied and has lost all its sovereignty on foreign affairs (both east and west), the capital city has been divided by a wall (ok in 1961 but still) and finally it was forbidden for Germany to build again an army (outside defence). Seriously, I don't see how this was softer than Versailles !!

Nah, I see two main difference. Firstly, as I've said 1945 has been followen by economic prosperity. People were too busy in making money to care about revenge (especially that such a revenge was doomed to fail). And second, ww1 was an unfinished war... as Germans have simply retreated to their original borders, they didn't feel they've lost it. Germany hasn't known any destruction during WW1.

There is by the way a common idea, taught in French school, saying that France should have given money to Germany, like the US did in 1945, instead of asking money. That's utterly absurd. France was destroyed when Germany was intact. Giving money to the Germans would have simply been thanking Germans for their attempt to invade the country. I know most americans believe French people are cheese eating surrendering monkeys, but please !

By the way, saying Frankfurt treaty's reparations were fair and Versailles treaty's reparations were unfair is silly. What Germany had to repair anyway in 1871 ? The war has never reached the German territory ! :crazyeye:

Okay, you'll tell me, purposedly, that France had to pay reparations because they've declared war in 1871. However, that war was the only thing Prussia wanted, it's not more stupid to say France is responsible of 1871 than to say Germany is responsible of 1914. And finally, reparations for the Versailles treaty were based on the reparations from the Frankfurt treaty. They've been calculated in order to be the same, inflation being taking into account. This being said, I'm glad there's been a Frankfurt treaty since at least it has allowed Republic to be restored in France.

I totally agree to say that Versailles treaty has only maintained hatred instead of leading to a real peace, but all those believing it would have been easy to make a fairer treaty are dead wrong.

In 1918, Germany was the most powerful country on the European continent. Having lost a war, no matter the treaty, wouldn't have changed that. In a pre-nuclear era, when the most powerful country has lost a war, what do you believe it will do ? It will start another one ! It's not so hard to understand this.

Germany hasn't known any destruction during WW1.

I am sorry but I have to disagree. The German people were starving by 1918, industry was way down, commerce was nonexistant, money was getting less value....even if you fight a war on another country's territory, the home country gets hit hard, especially if there has been five years of hard fighting, and you have to support 3,000,000+ soldiers.

That is basically saying that the US wasn't hurt during Vietnam. I think a lot of damage was done there too.

The treaty was ofcourse unfair, but those were different times. In 1919, the Netherlands almost declared war on war-crippled Belgium, because Belgium wanted to have Zeeland and Dutch Limburg from the Netherlands while the Netherland could expand eastward and annex German land (Mönchengladbach) in return so the neutral Dutch wouldn't lose land and the Belgians gained a lot
That almost caused a war
Hard to imagine these days.

I am sorry but I have to disagree. The German people were starving by 1918, industry was way down, commerce was nonexistant, money was getting less value....even if you fight a war on another country's territory, the home country gets hit hard, especially if there has been five years of hard fighting, and you have to support 3,000,000+ soldiers.

That is basically saying that the US wasn't hurt during Vietnam. I think a lot of damage was done there too.

There was economic damage to Germany but its cities and farms were more or less intact. A few cross border raids, light scattered bombing and maybe some long range artillery fire were all the damage done to the Fatherland.

The biggest and most dangerous damage to Germany was to its pride combined with the 1923 hyper inflation and 1929 stockmarket crash. Germany surrendered in 1918 as the army/economy started to collapse. Hence the myth "undefeated on the battlefield". The threw in the towel before Germany itself got invaded. Hurting a countries pride is dangerous. Think of the French in 1940- don't think they'll ever live that one down. The English super weapon won that war- the English Channel.

Marla I don't think most of the world thinks the French are apack of cheese eating surrender monkies. Its just a way to annoy the French when it so suits us. Kinda like sheep jokes where my own country is concerned.

By the way, saying Frankfurt treaty's reparations were fair and Versailles treaty's reparations were unfair is silly.
I agree.

The Big Idea in both cases was to cripple the enemy for the forseeable future, preventing him from launching a war of revenge.

If Frankfurt turned out to be mild, it was entirely because the French economic bounce-back after 1871 was more spectacular than anybody could have dreamt of when the treaty was signed.

The situation itself brought on a diplomatic crisis in the 1880's when Bismarck had an article re. France published entitled "Ist Krieg im Gesischt?", i.e. the "Is War In Sight?"-crisis.

Marla, You have to consider that the sum was made higher and higher until even the pensions of the soldiers should be included. Germany had to pay it until the 1980s, which was not accepted. A lump sum like in Frankfurt would have been accepted but not on this way. Also the territorial consequences, 1/4th of the territory of 1914 was lost, lead to a big hatred, much more concerning Northern Schleswig, Western Prussia and Upper Silesia than the Alsace. Also the 110.000 men (including navy) were too few to defend Germany properly leading to a feeling of unsecureness. Even stronger if you consider the invasions of the Poles and French in 1923. That the government tried to do the best to secure Germany by secretly building up stronger forces, is only valid.
Also Germany was not incorpoarted into the international treaties until 1926. That also lead to some obscure treaties like Rapallo.
The war guilt article I do only mention here shortly as another fact not to accept the treaty.
Also Germany in 1919 was for nearly 4 years unable only to a start from recovering from the war. Until 1923 there was no economical upgoing. Also you have to see that the money used for the reparations and the economical upturn was given by the US. In 1929 this system collapsed as it had to in the case of a crise. So this lead to even more unployees and votes for the radicals, as Germany was hit very badly. The only "good" thing of this was that Germany got rid of the reparations. But that fruit earned a certain Austrian...
Also you can´t compare this situation and 1945. Germany had here to rebuild nearly everything. It was parted in 4 parts. And it was guilty of the Holocaust. I think the treaty would have been much harder leading to another unification wars, if not Stalin became recognized as an evil as big as Hitler and with much greater power. Both sides needed the Germans as ally. So Germany was rebuilt but now incorporated into the western world (as I see the so called GDR as no real German state but a sattelite of Moscow). The Germans OTOH had the chance to rebuild the country and to defend themselves against Stalin and Co. So both situations can´t be compared.
Versailles made nearly everything wrong it could. To say it was a mild peace is just ridiculous.

Adler

I agree.

The Big Idea in both cases was to cripple the enemy for the forseeable future, preventing him from launching a war of revenge.

If Frankfurt turned out to be mild, it was entirely because the French economic bounce-back after 1871 was more spectacular than anybody could have dreamt of when the treaty was signed.

The situation itself brought on a diplomatic crisis in the 1880's when Bismarck had an article re. France published entitled "Ist Krieg im Gesischt?", i.e. the "Is War In Sight?"-crisis.

Verbose, I admit Bismarck wanted for a short time to have France as enemy to make sure the South German states would be incorporated into the Reich. But as soon as he could he tried everything possible to make an agreement with France. He didn´t want any wars. But the French, although they had still their fleet and colonies, were unwilling to accept the status quo. "Ist Krieg in Sicht" was the danger of war as it was always immanent in times of Bismarck being chancellor. However he tried his best to avoid a war and for 43 years in middle Europe no war took place also because of his system. Which had to fail, what is clear.

Adler

Verbose, I admit Bismarck wanted for a short time to have France as enemy to make sure the South German states would be incorporated into the Reich. But as soon as he could he tried everything possible to make an agreement with France. He didn´t want any wars. But the French, although they had still their fleet and colonies, were unwilling to accept the status quo. "Ist Krieg in Sicht" was the danger of war as it was always immanent in times of Bismarck being chancellor. However he tried his best to avoid a war and for 43 years in middle Europe no war took place also because of his system. Which had to fail, what is clear.

Adler
Sure, Bismarck had a very clear idea of what was in Germany's best interest, and war with Franceclearly wasn't after 1871.
Germany had come out victorious, and gotten about as much as could be hoped out of it for with a relatively small investment. At that point it was wise to try to ensure that the French wouldn't do anything rash.

So the idea still was to put a check on any French ability to wage war by making the conditions for peace harsh enough to handicap them. It didn't really work though. Just like Versailles didn't really work.

But it's entirely possible that the conditions imposed in 1871 were such that the subsequent development made them seem mild, while the events following 1919 conspired to land Germany in trouble time and time again. In neither case was it entirely forseeable how things would work out in practice. But the intention was always to make it hurt.

Sure, a peace treaty should hurt but in the case of Frankfurt France, although defeated totally, kept their fleet, army and colonies. Also the territorial integrity was kept mostly. Remember Alsace- Lorraine was annexed by Louis XIV. And the French only lost it because they continued fighting after Sedan. And also not completely, since several locations, which were some important for France remained French. Sure, the French should not go for the next turn into war, so they had to pay reparations. But not for over 70 years! So even if we do not show about the following time, French economical boom resp. 1929, Frankfurt was mild.

Adler

So Hitler did infact, secretly build his Luftwaffe and mass production of tanks, had millions of soldiers and definately shattered the Versailles Treaty as if it weren't even legitimate anymore,

I know that this is not probably what KingKHAN was asking and certainly not what is being debated but I feel as though I must say it. Hitler was not afraid of the response of Britain and France because of their responses to Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931, which was nothing. Japan in 1931 was a weaker nation than Germany and it would have been relatively easy for Britain and France to for them out of Manchuria. The British Fleet could have easily beaten the Japanese fleet and forced Japan out. However their compliancy with a nation that could have been easily beat at that time encouraged Hitler that they wouldn't do anything to Germany, the big boy of the continent.

-the Wolf

Ok the Germans did start world war one, The austrians russians and serbias were having a spat. But then Germany invaded France? Come along.. this is what started the world war. Germany shouldnt have declared war on Russia and France they should have let Austriahungry and Russia fight it out. Then because germany got beat they got a treaty slapped on them. Now it isnt the judges fault if jail makes robber a muderer. Its the Robber/murderers fault. And it isnt the allies fault that they appeased the germans. If someone robs you its not your Fault for not having a alarm its the damn robbers fault for being a crimnal. It wasnt the allies fault for letting germany wage war it was their own fault for being a warmongering nation.

Germany invaded poland, not the otherway around and because of it they got their burnt out citys handed back to them. The treaty was make it so Germany could not fight again, it failed it was not harsh enough. Really they should have burnt germany down and occupied it in 1918, that would have stoped the war.

In the end it was Germanys fault for backing up Austria (hey they might of been freinds, but they chose the wrong side and had to live with what they got) and Germanys Fault for starting ww2. And once again they got punished.

Although please relise that when i say "germanys fault" or "Britians fault" i do mean the governing elite who made the stupid decisions and killed millions of regular people like me and you.

Germany didn't pay reparations until 85 though. They only pay them for 10 years or so.

Nobody, if a terroristical attack hits your strongest ally, backed up by parts of the government of an extremely nationalistic state, then WHO is attacked?!??! No the Germans didn´t start ww1. Germany wasn´t able to leave the Austrian side as Austria was the strongest ally, a position they abused. With the Russian declaration of war a declaration of war by the Germans was only a logical consequence, also the war with France and also Britain, although I agree it was an error to declare war on France and not to wait until they do it. However you have not only to see who wanted war but peace. That is way easier: Germany and Britain. But both failed. France and Russia were not hearing on Britain while Austria didn´t hear on Germany. Germany and Britain had no interest in a war. You don´t see the facts.

Zardnaar, it was planned to pay reparations until the 1980s. That this did not happen makes the treaty in no way milder per se.

Adler

However you have not only to see who wanted war but peace. That is way easier: Germany and Britain. But both failed. France and Russia were not hearing on Britain while Austria didn´t hear on Germany. Germany and Britain had no interest in a war. You don´t see the facts.Alright, alright. But then... how do you explain the crisis of Morocco in 1911.

Morocco was at the time a French protectorate. And one day, for no particular reasons, the Germans asked France to give them Morocco otherwise the Kaiser would declare war against France. Are my facts correct ?

If I recall correctly, in order to prevent the German attack, the French succeeded to negociate to give Cameroon for free to the Germans instead of Morocco. Am I right or am I wrong ?

That was only three years before ww1 has been declared.

Nobody, if a terroristical attack hits your strongest ally, backed up by parts of the government of an extremely nationalistic state, then WHO is attacked?!??! No the Germans didn´t start ww1. Germany wasn´t able to leave the Austrian side as Austria was the strongest ally, a position they abused. With the Russian declaration of war a declaration of war by the Germans was only a logical consequence, also the war with France and also Britain, although I agree it was an error to declare war on France and not to wait until they do it. However you have not only to see who wanted war but peace. That is way easier: Germany and Britain. But both failed. France and Russia were not hearing on Britain while Austria didn´t hear on Germany. Germany and Britain had no interest in a war. You don´t see the facts.

I didn't mean germany was bad for sideing with Austria. just that they did and they got beaten for their decision. Really Germanys decision was no worse than Britains to declare war over belgium

Nobody, if a terroristical attack hits your strongest ally, backed up by parts of the government of an extremely nationalistic state, then WHO is attacked?!??! No the Germans didn´t start ww1. Germany wasn´t able to leave the Austrian side as Austria was the strongest ally, a position they abused. With the Russian declaration of war a declaration of war by the Germans was only a logical consequence, also the war with France and also Britain, although I agree it was an error to declare war on France and not to wait until they do it. However you have not only to see who wanted war but peace. That is way easier: Germany and Britain. But both failed. France and Russia were not hearing on Britain while Austria didn´t hear on Germany. Germany and Britain had no interest in a war. You don´t see the facts.
Adler
Of course it can be said that Germany had no real interest in the war. It wasn't fought over vital German issues. OTOH it mostly wasn't fought over anybody's vital interests. And Germany still sits in the middle of the mess WWI turned into.

If Germany had simply told Austria that it wouldn't back them to a point where war with Russia became a possibility, there would have been no WWI then and there. Instead the German leadership seems to have told the Austrians to go hard on the Serbs and let Germany worry about Russia.

Generally I'd say everybody's problem in 1914 was that 1.) they were expecting a showdown sooner or later, might as well be now, and 2.) this was diplomatic situation based on a kind of chicken-race logic:

Austria makes outrageous demands on Serbia — Russia backs Serbia to intimidate Austria — Germany backs Austria to make Russia back down — Russia doesn't, wich brings France in — and with France in here comes Britain, which was a nasty surprise for Germany.

That game had been played before without going all the way to war, but this time it did. Germany had specialised at it. Since it was a latecomer to greatpower politics and colonialism, it was perhaps the best way to cut deals with the already entrenched Brits, French and Russians (no innocents by far). The attempts to avert war only came when Austrians and German realised that this time the intimidation wouldn't work and the war was on.

I think it's very clear that with the expception of Russia, the participants in WWI were mostly reacting to events set in motion by Germany.
With no entirely blameless parties in this mess, Germany still had the ball most of the time, and the outcome was very much due to German decisions and stances.

Marla, Germany and France had both close ties to Marocco. Germany had some great corpoarations active in Marocco, when suddenly the French annexed it as colony. To make sure the German rights in Marocco were saved they sent a gunboat, the SMS Panther (Panthersprung nach Agadir), to Agadir to make clear the Germans would not accept the loss of these rights. France in the end accepted that and additionally gave a part of the French Congo colony to the already existing German colony Cameroon, which indeed existed since 1884.
The only thing here we can is discussing the means if it was neccessary to be so harsh.

Adler

The reason for giving the Austrians the card blanche were:
1. To back up Austria in the negotiations following. A war against Serbia was in the case of a fruitless negotiation also backed up. Since it was a kind of 9/11 for the Austrians.
2. To be sure that the Austrians do not abuse the card blanche, but to go in negotiations.
But here is the point. The Austrians were abusing the card blanche. But when the Germans got to know that it was too late.
Also we have to see the whole situation:
1. Serbia: The Serbian government wanted to create a Great Serbia, the same what Milosevic also tried. So the Austrians with their Balkan possessions was the enemy. Also many members of the government were supporting the Black Hand, an ultranationalistic terror organzation. They had so many influence that the Serbian prime minister feared for his life, when revealing the plan for the assassination, as far as he knew. He only send a vague warning to the Austrians, who could not see the importance of the message until it was too late. So it is no wonder that the Serbian government refused to let Austrian and neutral inspectors in to make investigations. It would have been disastrous.
2. Russia: The Czar was in massive decline. He had lost the war against Japan and revolts were common. He was also unwilling to make Russia to a real constitutional monarchy. He had massive problems at home. Also he had without France and perhaps Britain only Serbia as ally, which was supported because the Czar saw himself as leader of the Slavs. So a loosing of power here would meant loosing the status of world power and lead to other pressure on the monarchy. So the Russians were nearly unable not to support Serbia. This was not seen in the other capitals, especially Vienna and Berlin.
Additionally the Russian secret service seems to be incorporated in the assassination plot but exact infos are still secret in Russia. Although Russia was not able to go into a war without ally.
3. Austria: Austria was also in decline. But there was still hope with the Arch Duke. When he was assassinated the whole nation was shocked and wanted revenge. The German card blanche was a good mean to prepare for war. The Austrians saw the last negotiations as defeats and so did not want to do this again. They also did not really expect the Russians would go for war. So they did not hear on the German warnings and knew very well, it was nearly impossible for Germany to not follow them into a war.
4. France: Like Britain at first they supported the Austrian side, but soon switched the sides. They had also strong ties with Serbia and also wanted revenge for 1871, so it was easy for the Russians to make sure they went for war, as shortly before the war a bit earth from the Alsace was given to France by the Russian prime minister. They did not hear on the British warnings. So in the west a war was imminent.
5. Germany: When the Kaiser got the news about the assassination he was in the holidays and just met the British ambassador. Both were shocked. In this time Germany and Britain were in positions very close together. An end of the fleet struggle or some few questions in the colonies was in sight, but now? The Germans gave the card blanche to the Austrians for the mentioned reasons but they were not able either to persuade the Austrians to come back to negotiations nor to leave the main ally they had. So with the declaration of war of Russia on Serbia war had to be declared on Russia. The only mistake in Germany´s position here is declaring war on france and invading Belgium. Like Bismarck did in 1871 the odium of the first shot the French should have.
6. Britain: Like Germany the only power to try to save peace. They were also caught in the treaties like Germany and also their allies, France and Russia, did not hear on them. But they did not clearly said in times of war they would stay on their allies´side. So even if the Germans did not violate the Belgish neutrality, the british would have found another reason to go for war.
7. Facit: The great powers slipped into the war. But Germany and Britain were the one with the least guilt. Both were unable to persuade their allies to give peace a chance. So both were only reacting but their allies acting.

Adler

7. Facit: The great powers slipped into the war. But Germany and Britain were the one with the least guilt. Both were unable to persuade their allies to give peace a chance. So both were only reacting but their allies acting.

I agree the war was more Sebia,Russia and Austrias fault. But can you really say it was french. Germany policy was that in the event of any war with Russia to hit France first to knock them out. You can'y blame France for Germanys invasion. Also you make it sound like it was Russias fault for supporting Serbia, and Frances Fault for supporting Russia. but not Germanys fault for supporting Austria. I actually remeber having this debate in 6 form (year12) history i argued Germany was 4th most gulity on the list. Also you could say it was Germanys fault because all its recent Crisis had humiliated France and Russia so they didnt want to stand down again.

Anyway another question for you guys. If Austria had declared war and invaded Serbia the day after the assaination would the rest of europe said anything. I mean that because everybody was shocked at the terrorist act would russia have stepped to Austria.

Also anyone know the first allied nation to capture german land during world war 1? ill give you a clue it was also the first nation to capture a Italian Ship during ww2.

Also as far as "vital intrests" go It was in Germanys Vital Intrest to launch a war in 1914 rather than wait for Russia to fully industrialise. It was in Russias Vital Intrest to fight to defend its water ways to the mederterain. And it was in Britians intrest to smash the Germany Navy before it got to large.

I agree the war was more Sebia,Russia and Austrias fault. But can you really say it was french. Germany policy was that in the event of any war with Russia to hit France first to knock them out. You can'y blame France for Germanys invasion. Also you make it sound like it was Russias fault for supporting Serbia, and Frances Fault for supporting Russia. but not Germanys fault for supporting Austria. I actually remeber having this debate in 6 form (year12) history i argued Germany was 4th most gulity on the list. Also you could say it was Germanys fault because all its recent Crisis had humiliated France and Russia so they didnt want to stand down again.


Well, when Germany failed to ally with Russia, Austria was the only nation left, and a country with no alliances was weak, with the Triple Entente...

Russia didn't have to support Serbia...I mean it was a local action. They still had that hope they could get a Balkan Empire.

Also anyone know the first allied nation to capture german land during world war 1? ill give you a clue it was also the first nation to capture a Italian Ship during ww2.

New Zealand taking German Samoa?

I do not say that it was their fault supporting an ally, in this time Serbia. But they were too fast on the road to war and were renitent in not hearing the voices which demanded a peaceful solution. Also say me an example where Germany humilated France or Russia after 1871. Indeed Germany did everything not to do that, as they wanted to be accepted by the status quo by Frence, resp. not loosing an ally (or at least a potential ally).
However IF Austria declared war on Serbia in the very next days nobody would have made trouble. It was holiday time and nearly no official was in the capitals. So the 3rd rate crews (mostly) still working would have seen that as a legal attack, based upon the reactions from the European capitals following the assassination. No world war would have took place. And after a short war against Serbia, this had to accept relative harsh terms for them but would stay independent as many Austrians and Hungarians did not want another minority in the empire. So delivering the men behind the plot, destroying the Black Hand and a reparations sum were nearly the only demandings of the Austrian empire after that war to be realistic even in times of a total victory over the Serbs. Then the other powers would have negotiated to calm down Austria. WW1 would not have happened.

Adler

Also say me an example where Germany humilated France or Russia after 1871

Its been along time since i done this subject (causes of world war 1) so i dont remeber the dates or exact names. But i meant one of the Balkan Crisis when Germany said or did mobilse and russia stood down. Also during one of the Morocan things, didn't france bow down to Germany because russia couldnt assit. (cause the japense war was on at the time) France lost face, Russia lost face and i think at this time Britian first said that it would have fought with France which made Germany calm down a bit.

In the Balkan conferences Germany, starting under Bismarck, tried to be so neutral as possible to be recognized as fair judge. Unfortunately Russia made such big demands Germany could not give them without risking its position. So they found a fair compromize but the Russians did not forgive that. That was one of the reasons why the German- Russian alliance did collapse in 1890 and Russia found a new ally- France.
The Marocco crises were both initialized by France to annex it. Germany did only try prevent that or at least have a guarantee that the treaties with Marocco were kept. At last both parties got what they wanted: France Marocco and Germany a part of Congo and a guarantee.
These crises show a massive mistrust between the two powers which would not end before de Gaulle and Adenauer. Although the German staff in a secret memorandum of the 1920, in which all neighbours and other powers were included, said, France was the perfect ally, it said it is because of the known reasons impossible.
So Germany did not humiliate France again, and only tried to save their claims. Also at Marocco you have to consider there were strong ties to France but also to Germany. Both were in a race. France won it but I do not see there any humiliations- especially since they were successful.

Adler