Was The treaty of versallies a good treaty? Was it a treaty of complete flaws? I think there should be a debate on the treaty and its articles. Below I have a Word Document (sorry MAC people :( ) Which includes the entire treaty and all 440 of its articles, which is 212 pages in word. Overall I will post up sections of the treaty and I wish to review them and look for things that may have caused WW2/Rise of Hitler/ or other such actions that ultimately resulted from versallies

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/Treaty.zip

Article 1
The original Members of the League of Nations shall be those of the Signatories which are named in the Annex to this Covenant and also such of those other States named in the Annex as shall accede without reservation to this Covenant. Such accession shall be effected by a Declaration deposited with the Secretariat within two months of the coming into force of the Covenant Notice thereof shall be sent to all other Members of the League. Any fully self- governing State, Dominion, or Colony not named in the Annex may become a Member of the League if its admission is agreed to by two- thirds of the Assembly provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval, and air forces and armaments. Any Member of the League may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League, provided that all its international obligations and all its obligations under this Covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal.
Article 2
The action of the League under this Covenant shall be effected through the instrumentality of an Assembly and of a Council, with a permanent Secretariat.
Article 3
The Assembly shall consist of Representatives of the Members of the League. The Assembly shall meet at stated intervals and from time to time as occasion may require at the Seat of the League or at such other place as may be decided upon. The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world. At meetings of the Assembly each Member of the League shall have one vote, and may not have more than three Representatives.
Article 4
The Council shall consist of Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with Representatives of four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion. Until the appointment of the Representatives of the four Members of the League first selected by the Assembly, Representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and Greece shall be members of the Council. With the approval of the majority of the Assembly, the Council may name additional Members of the League whose Representatives shall always be members of the Council; the Council with like approval may increase the number of Members of the League to be selected by the Assembly for representation on the Council. The Council shall meet from time to time as occasion may require, and at least once a year, at the Seat of the League, or at such other place as may be decided upon. The Council may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world. Any Member of the League not represented on the Council shall be invited to send a Representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the Council during the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that Member of the League. At meetings of the Council, each Member of the League represented on the Council shall have one vote, and may have not more than one Representative.
Article 5
Except where otherwise expressly provided in this Covenant or by the terms of the present Treaty, decisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting. All matters of procedure at meetings of the Assembly or of the Council, including the appointment of Committees to investigate particular matters, shall be regulated by the Assembly or by the Council and may be decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the meeting. The first meeting of the Assembly and the first meeting of the Council shall be summoned by the President of the United States of America.
Article 6
The permanent Secretariat shall be established at the Seat of the League. The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary General and such secretaries and staff as may be required. The first Secretary General shall be the person named in the Annex; thereafter the Secretary General shall be appointed by the Council with the approval of the majority of the Assembly. The secretaries and staff of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary General with the approval of the Council. The Secretary General shall act in that capacity at all meetings of the Assembly and of the Council. The expenses of the Secretariat shall be borne by the Members of the League in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.
Article 7
The Seat of the League is established at Geneva. The Council may at any time decide that the Seat of the League shall be established elsewhere. All positions under or in connection with the League, including he Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women. Representatives of the Members of the League and officials of he League when engaged on the business of the League shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities. The buildings and other property occupied by the League or its officials or by Representatives attending its meetings shall be inviolable.
Article 8
The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years. After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.
Article 9
A permanent Commission shall be constituted to advise the Council on the execution of the provisions of Articles 1 and 8 and on military, naval, and air questions generally.
Article 10
The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Article 11
Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. In case any such emergency should arise the Secretary General shall on the request of any Member of the League forthwith summon a meeting of the Council. It is also declared to be the friendly right of each Member of the League to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever affecting international relations which threatens to disturb international peace or the good understanding between nations upon which peace depends.
Article 12
The Members of the League agree that if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the report by the Council. In any case under this Article the award of the arbitrators shall be made within a reasonable time, and the report of the Council shall be made within six months after the submission of the dispute.

Article 13
The Members of the League agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognise to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject-matter to arbitration. Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international law, as to the existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made or any such breach, are declared to be among those which are generally suitable for submission to arbitration. For the consideration of any such dispute the court of arbitration to which the case is referred shall be the Court agreed on by the parties to the dispute or stipulated in any convention existing between them. The Members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith any award that may be rendered, and that they will not resort to war against a Member of the League which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out such an award, the Council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto.
Article 14
The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.
Article 15
If there should arise between Members of the League any dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not submitted to arbitration in accordance with Article 13, the Members of the League agree that they will submit the matter to the Council. Any party to the dispute may effect such submission by giving notice of the existence of the dispute to the Secretary General, who will make all necessary arrangements for a full investigation and consideration thereof. For this purpose the parties to the dispute will communicate to the Secretary General, as promptly as possible, statements of their case with all the relevant facts and papers, and the Council may forthwith direct the publication thereof. The Council shall endeavour to effect a settlement of the dispute, and if such efforts are successful, a statement shall be made public giving such facts and explanations regarding the dispute and the terms of settlement thereof as the Council may deem appropriate. If the dispute is not thus settled, the Council either unanimously or by a majority vote shall make and publish a report containing a statement of the facts of the dispute and the recommendations which are deemed just and proper in regard thereto Any Member of the League represented on the Council may make public a statement of the facts of the dispute and of its conclusions regarding the same. If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League agree that they will not go to war with any party to the dispute which complies with the recommendations of the report. If the Council fails to reach a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof, other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of the League reserve to themselves the right to take such action as they shall consider necessary for the maintenance of right and justice. If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement. The Council may in any case under this Article refer the dispute to the Assembly. The dispute shall be so referred at the request of either party to the dispute, provided that such request be made within fourteen days after the submission of the dispute to the Council. In any case referred to the Assembly, all the provisions of this Article and of Article 12 relating to the action and powers of the Council shall apply to the action and powers of the Assembly, provided that a report made by the Assembly, if concurred in by the Representatives of those Members of the League represented on the Council and of a majority of the other Members of the League, exclusive in each case of the Representatives of the parties to the dispute shall have the same force as a report by the Council concurred in by all the members thereof other than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute.
Article 17
Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nations and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial, or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not. It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval, or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League. The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant breaking State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League. Any Member of the League which has violated any covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a Member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred in by the Representatives of all the other Members of the League represented thereon.
Article 18
In the event of a dispute between a Member of the League and a State which is not a Member of the League, or between States not Members of the League, the State or States, not Members of the League shall be invited to accept the obligations of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, upon such conditions as the Council may deem just. If such invitation is accepted, the provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive shall be applied with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Council. Upon such invitation being given the Council shall immediately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best and most effectual in the circumstances. If a State so invited shall refuse to accept the obligations of membership in the League for the purposes of such dispute, and shall resort to war against a Member of the League, the provisions of Article 16 shall be applicable as against the State taking such action. If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to accept the obligations of membership in the League for the purpose of such dispute, the Council may take such measures and make such recommendations as will prevent hostilities and will result in the settlement of the dispute.
Article 18
Every treaty or international engagement entered into hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered.
Article 19
The Assembly may from time to time advise the reconsideration by Members of the League of treaties which have become inapplicable and the consideration of international conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace of the world.
Article 20
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof. In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.
Article 21
Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.
Article 22
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League. There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population. In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge. The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council. A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

Article 23
Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League: (a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and for that purpose will establish and maintain the necessary international organisations; (b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control; (c) will entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs; (d) will entrust the League with the general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest; (e) will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of communications and of transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of all Members of the League. In this connection, the special necessities of the regions devastated during the war of 1914-1918 shall be borne in mind; (f) will endeavour to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease.
Article 24
There shall be placed under the direction of the League all international bureaux already established by general treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All such international bureaux and all commissions for the regulation of matters of international interest hereafter constituted shall be placed under the direction of the League. In all matters of international interest which are regulated by general conventions but which are not placed under the control of international bureaux or commissions, the Secretariat of the League shall, subject to the consent of the Council and if desired by the parties, collect and distribute all relevant information and shall render any other assistance which may be necessary or desirable. The Council may include as part of the expenses of the Secretariat the expenses of any bureau or commission which is placed under the direction of the League.
Article 25
The Members of the League agree to encourage and promote the establishment and co-operation of duly authorised voluntary national Red Cross organisations having as purposes the improvement of health, the prevention of disease, and the mitigation of suffering throughout the world.
Article 26
Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when ratified by the Members of the League whose representatives compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of the League whose Representatives compose the Assembly. No such amendment shall bind any Member of the League which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that case it shall cease to be a Member of the League.
Annex
I. ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS SIGNATORIES OF THE TREATY OF PEACE.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, BRITISH EMPIRE, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, SOUTH AFRICA, NEW ZEALAND, INDIA, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, FRANCE, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, ITALY, JAPAN, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHO-SLOVAKIA, URUGUAY
STATES INVITED TO ACCEDE TO THE COVENANT.
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, CHILE, COLOMBIA, DENMARK, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, PARAGUAY, PERSIA, SALVADOR, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, VENEZUELA.
II. FIRST SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
The Honourable Sir James Eric Drummond, K.C.M.G., C.B.

This is effectively the establishment of the league of nations. It adds the laws and those who are eligible. Are there any major flaws with this Idea?

I had to divide this because it was WAY too many characters.

The failure of the United States to join the League of Nations, and America's retreat back into neutrality were major mistakes.

The worst part of Versailles were these harsh conditions demanded by the French Premier, tantamount to a continuation of the war by economic means. Clemenceau "the Tiger" didn't seem to realize that for Europe to recover from the war, Germany needed to recover too. Germany had most of the industry.

The United States kept the Weimar Republic afloat until the Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression set in, the money dried up. The horrible poverty in Germany helped usher in the Nazis and consequently a new and more horrifying war.

It was harsh and certainly flawed, but under the circumstances and prevailing political climates, particularly in the US, it is hard to see how it could have turned out differently. Hindsight is as always, a wonderful thing. The consequences - economic, political and social - of a harsh peace upon Germany and Europe in general were not forseen as there was no previous precedent to base consideration upon. The Great War was truly a new event under so many definitions of 'new'.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Hindsight is as always, a wonderful thing.

Yep.

No one could predict the depression nor the rise of Hitler, but the devastation of Europe's economy was a reality. Wilson and Lloyd George counciled for better terms for the Germans, but Clemeceau would not have it. Revenge was just too sweet to pass up.

Certainly. 4 years of war compounded by the humiliation of 1870 meant that no French Premier was going to heed calls for moderation. The Allies in general and even the French were aware that the economy had been kinghit, but this was given a backfoot status by the latter because of the aforementioned historical burden for vengeance.

I am believing less and less that Versailles was as flawed as it is made out to be. I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment here. Some points:

1. First of all, Germany did start the war. There is much to argue about the political situation in Europe that led to the war and indeed from that perspective all the eventual combatants come out looking fairly guilty, but it was Germany who first plunged into military operations and did so with the knowledge that a Continental-wide war would ensue. To quote Lloyd George when he was accosted by a German journalist after the signing of the Versailles Peace in 1919, the question being, "What will future generations say of this terrible treaty?"; the Lion replied simply, "I don't know, but I do know they won't say that Belgium invaded Germany."

2. Germany lost the war. Its armies - at least on the critical Western Front - were defeated decisively. It was a critical Allied mistake to allow the Germans to succumb to an armistice at the 11th hour (no pun intended), because it gave later Germans the illusion (through the "Dolchstosslegende") that their armies had not been militarily defeated, that Berlin had been falsely lulled by Wilson's 14 Points into believing it could achieve an equitable peace to end the suffering all around but in the end after Germany was helpless the Allies imposed a false victors' peace. O - and of course the Jews conspired in all this. The truth is Germany's armies were rapidly disintegrating along the Western Front and were losing ground at an increasingly rapid pace to the advance of the Allies. Berlin frantically tried to end the war in the first weeks of November because it saw its armies crumbling quickly - the few reinforcements that could be gathered and sent to the front were jeered and scorned by veteran Reichswehr units because they saw them as prolonging the war for no purpose - and it used this excuse with the Allies, that if they didn't settle an armistice quickly enough Germany might succumb to a Bolshevik-style revolution. Berlin needed its armies back at home to quell the Reds, was the excuse, and the Allies unfortunately bought it. It took another World War for the Germans to become convinced that yes, this time they had indeed been decisively defeated.

3. Brest-Litovsk: The German "peace" it signed with Lenin's Russia in March of 1918 makes the Versailles treaties seem like child's play. Massive land loss (many times Germany's own size), huge reparations, crippling military restraints and a permanent loss of influence in vast regions vital to Russian security, and a clause that said something to the effect that if Lenin so much as sneezes towards a German then Germany can by right re-invade and annex more land at will. The very naked imperialism of this treaty shocked even many Germans and Hitler in Mein Kampf and in his speeches throughout the 1920s and 30s fought vociferously against the belief among Germans that perhaps they deserved the Versailles Treaty because of what they attempted to do at Brest-Litovsk, or maybe even worse.

4. The Implementation of the Versailles Treaties: Ultimately, for whatever the merits of the treaty itself, they are effectively moot because the Allies spent most of the 1920s feeling guilty about the treaty and falling all over themselves to mitigate or nullify aspects of the treaty, so that in the end Germany felt very few of the intended effects. The massive reparations for instance were a joke; Stresemann was able to weasel out of them to the extent that by 1929, after the Dawes (1924) and the Young (1929) plans which created a circular system of loans between the U.S. and Germany, Germany actually made money in paying its reparations. Let me repeat that; Germany did not lose a single Pfennig to reparations, and on the contrary actually ended up with more money than when it started a decade earlier in 1919. Politically the Allies pretty much guaranteed another world war by allowing the Germans and Soviets to sign the treaty of Rapallo in 1922 and later signing their own idiotic treaty at Locarno in 1925 that left Eastern Europe open to eastward German military expansion. Militarily, that Rapallo treaty also had a secret claus ethat allowed the Germans to developm, test and train new crews for military equipment forbidden under the Versailles treaty system. In this way Germany throughout most of the 1920s was able to subvert the military restrictions of the Treaty. By rights, Germany could have been legally invaded in the early 1930s when Hitler came to power and openly professed his intention of disregarding the Versailles system - but the Allies did nothing. This is the critical aspect of the treaty's failure - that the Allies failed utterly to stick to it and enforce it.

The only aspect of the Versailles Treaty that the Weimar government was not able to mitigate or undermine was Article 231:

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been
subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Germany refused to accept blame for the war, and this was the driving force behind the many extremist political visionaries who swamped the country in the 1920s, all promising to do away with the Weimar Republic - although in many ways Weimar Germany was able to accomplish much for them. The problem was simply that Weimar had the stench of defeat, a defeat Germans refused to accept was theirs and even if they did, surely blame for the whole war isn't. The German historian Fritz Fischer in the early 1960s wrote a book detailing Germany's plans and actions in the war, and he came to the conclusion that indeed Germany was responsible for World War I, moreso than any other power. Fritz was not popular in Germany, as you can imagine, and his book has been picked apart by German historians but his was the first step for Germans in coming to the realization that the war began when the first German soldier invaded Belgium in August 1914.

In summary - and there's a word you don't hear from me often - the Treaty of Versailles was indeed flawed, but it is a major mistake to point to these flaws as the reason for the failure of the treaty. The culprit lies in both the stubborn refusal of Germans to accept the war and its result, and the refusal of the Allies to understand that by abandoning the treaty piece-by-piece throughout the 1920s and 1930s, they were laying the grounds for another World War.

Vrylakas,

An interesting and concise summation of Versailles. I would emphasize one part:

The very naked imperialism of this treaty shocked even many Germans and Hitler in Mein Kampf and in his speeches throughout the 1920s and 30s fought vociferously against the belief among Germans that perhaps they deserved the Versailles Treaty because of what they attempted to do at Brest-Litovsk, or maybe even worse.
As late as September 15, 1918, Ludendorf was demanding that control of Belgium was the least reparation that the German Army and Nation should expect as recompense for all the suffering they had indured during the war.
He [Ludendorf] also considered that Germany's suffering throughout the war had been such that no other country would refuse her the right to occupy Belgium upon such a basis as to give Germany full control of the Flemish coast, and that even the King of the Belgians could be brought to see the necessity for the city and fortress of Liege becoming an inalienable German possession.

Barrie Pitt, 1918: The Last Act. London, Pen & Sword Military Imprints, 2003. Page 242.
Many Germans believed that Germany should have received some recompense for fighting World War II. That they should get nothing was a complete shock and disillusionment to a large number of Germans.

Versallies was a bit too harsh. France's desire to punish germny while reasonable should have been kept in check. It was them in a sense who started WW2.

Is there anything wrong with this section on the leauge of Nations?

Versallies was a bit too harsh. France's desire to punish germny while reasonable should have been kept in check. It was them in a sense who started WW2.

Is there anything wrong with this section on the leauge of Nations?

Versallies was a bit too harsh. France's desire to punish germny while reasonable should have been kept in check. It was them in a sense who started WW2.

Is there anything wrong with this section on the leauge of Nations?

Versailles was a mistake not in that it was too harsh, but in that it punished germany rather than removing her threat. Versailles was about retribution and reparation, whereas a treaty made about pacification and reconstruction (along with a period of occupation) would likely have worked out better in the end - it certainly did after the second world war.

America's failiure to join the LoN was the vital in its collapse, along with lack of enforcement power and lazyness by France and Britain in the 1930s.

Versailles was a mistake because it didnt the exact opposite of what the treaty to end the Napoleonic Wars did. The aim should have been to create a balance of power, not anger future generations on the losing side.

Originally posted by archer_007
America's failiure to join the LoN was the vital in its collapse, along with lack of enforcement power and lazyness by France and Britain in the 1930s.

Versailles was a mistake because it didnt the exact opposite of what the treaty to end the Napoleonic Wars did. The aim should have been to create a balance of power, not anger future generations on the losing side.

True, but looking at the article on the league of nations can you see anything wrong with it? or is it generally a good idea.

Originally posted by Sarevok
Versallies was a bit too harsh. France's desire to punish germny while reasonable should have been kept in check. It was them in a sense who started WW2.


Sorry, but it was HITLER that started WWII, not the French.

Originally posted by joespaniel


Sorry, but it was HITLER that started WWII, not the French.

obviously, i know that but in tersm of hitler's reasoning and previous actions it was the french who provoked WW2.

I would have to agree with that to a certain degree, France were the country that forced the Versaille Treaty to be as harsh as it turned out to be and their lack of sensativity to the realities of post war Germany in terms of reparations simply fueled the Volkisch movement immeasuarble and gave Adolf the ammunition he needed.

Re the treaty, this part made me laugh..

Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League

Funny the way when italy (A League member of course) invaded Abbysinia (Also a League member) for purely colonial reasons the Leagues response was totally inadequate. A mild round of sanctions which didnt include oil, the one thing that might have actually made Italy stop. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sarevok


obviously, i know that but in tersm of hitler's reasoning and previous actions it was the french who provoked WW2.

That is about as sensed as saying that the US is responsible for 9/11 because it angered extremist muslims by having troops in Saudi Arabia...
For that matter, Hitler also thought he was entitled to half of Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Benelux, Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, and the list goes one. Should the Treaty of Versailles have included that as well?

I agree that Versailles was a stupid treaty, but as it has already been said in this thread it was not particularly harsh, especially compared to the one imposed on Russia by the Germans in 1917.
An other interesting comparison is with the Treaty of Frankfurt (1871) which followed the Franco-Prussian war. In it, Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine and imposed huge reparations on France, plus a military occupation until the reparations were fully paid. All in all, a treaty just as harsh than Versailles. And yet far from turning into a fascist dictatorship, France became a Republic instead of an Empire, rebuilt itself and ended up paying the reparations in full and in advance to get rid of the German troops. And that with a victorious power certainly not ready to re-negotiate the peace treaty out of shame at having been so harsh with the defeated opponent.
And while there was certainly a great deal of resentment toward Germany, it was still Germany who was the main country responsible for starting the next war.

Now, I very much prefer the way post-WW2 was handled, at last breaking of that seemingly endless cycle of wars in Europe. But Versailles was very much in line of practice at the time, and not even particularly harsh.

Originally posted by Sarevok
Below I have a Word Document (sorry MAC people :( )

:confused: Why?

Mac OS X can unzip your file without any outside software needed, and TextEdit (the equivalent of the NotePad, free and built-in) can read simple Word documents like yours. I did not even have to use any third-party software to read it...
And for more complex documents, there is always Office X for mac, which is fully compatible with the XP version.

Vrylakas,

An interesting and concise summation of Versailles. I would emphasize one part:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very naked imperialism of this treaty shocked even many Germans and Hitler in Mein Kampf and in his speeches throughout the 1920s and 30s fought vociferously against the belief among Germans that perhaps they deserved the Versailles Treaty because of what they attempted to do at Brest-Litovsk, or maybe even worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As late as September 15, 1918, Ludendorf was demanding that control of Belgium was the least reparation that the German Army and Nation should expect as recompense for all the suffering they had indured during the war.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He [Ludendorf] also considered that Germany's suffering throughout the war had been such that no other country would refuse her the right to occupy Belgium upon such a basis as to give Germany full control of the Flemish coast, and that even the King of the Belgians could be brought to see the necessity for the city and fortress of Liege becoming an inalienable German possession.

Barrie Pitt, 1918: The Last Act. London, Pen & Sword Military Imprints, 2003. Page 242.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Germans believed that Germany should have received some recompense for fighting World War II. That they should get nothing was a complete shock and disillusionment to a large number of Germans.

Yes, in the immediate aftermath of the war the German population - subjected to propaganda throughout the war to the effect that Germany was only days away from victory, only to hear with a shock in November 1918 that Germany had lost the war - many Germans did believe that this just couldn't be true, and in the least Germany should be allowed to keep areas its armies still occupied. However, as the soldiers straggled home with tales of the horrors of the war and the true nature of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk became known, many left-leaning Germans began to see German imperialism as an evil that led to the disaster of Versailles. No Germans believed Germany caused the war, but the socialists and communists began to believe that through the war Germany - under Hindenburg and Ludendorf - had morphed into something evil that provoked (and perhaps deserved) the response it got at Versailles. Let me quote a passage from Mein kampf, one of many like this, in which Hitler reacts with exasperation in the early 1920s to people who hold this opinion:

At the very first sentence containing a criticism of Versailles, you had the stereotyped cry flung at you: "What about Brest-Litovsk?" "And Brest-Litovsk?" The masses roared this again and again, until gradually they grew hoarse or the speake finally gave up his attempt to convince them. You felt like dashing your head against the wall in despair over such people!

[...]

Even then I always came out in favor of taking a position in important questions of principle against all public opinion when it assumed a false attitude - disregarding all considerations of popularity, hatred or struggle.
Hitler, Mein kampf, Ralph Manheim translation, 1971; pp. 464-465

Versailles was a mistake not in that it was too harsh, but in that it punished germany rather than removing her threat. Versailles was about retribution and reparation, whereas a treaty made about pacification and reconstruction (along with a period of occupation) would likely have worked out better in the end - it certainly did after the second world war.

I have seen convincing comparisons between the Treaty of Versailles, clearly a punitive treaty, and the Vienna treaty system that ended the Napoleonic wars and re-incorporated France into the European fold. Good point Oda.

Now, I very much prefer the way post-WW2 was handled,

:cringe

...at last breaking of that seemingly endless cycle of wars in Europe. But Versailles was very much in line of practice at the time, and not even particularly harsh.

:goodjob:

It was excessively harsh. Brest Litovsk was harsh but was signed because the bolshevik's had no hand to play and they fighured they could get it back when germny's fortunes worsened and theirs improvedd.

Can somebody post the terms of the Brest Litovsk Treaty or a link?

Article I

Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey, for the one part, and Russia, for the other part, declare that the state of war between them has ceased.

They are resolved to live henceforth in peace and amity with one another.

Article II

The contracting parties will refrain from any agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public and military institutions of the other party. In so far as this obligation devolves upon Russia, it holds good also for the territories occupied by the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance.

Article III

The territories lying to the west of the line agreed upon by the contracting parties which formerly belonged to Russia, will no longer be subject to Russian sovereignty; the line agreed upon is traced on the map submitted as an essential part of this treaty of peace. The exact fixation of the line will be established by a Russo-German commission.

No obligations whatever toward Russia shall devolve upon the territories referred to, arising from the fact that they formerly belonged to Russia.

Russia refrains from all interference in the internal relations of these territories. Germany and Austria-Hungary purpose to determine the future status of these territories in agreement with their population.

Article IV

As soon as a general peace is concluded and Russian demobilization is carried out completely Germany will evacuate the territory lying to the east of the line designated in paragraph 1 of Article III, in so far as Article IV does not determine otherwise.

Russia will do all within her power to insure the immediate evacuation of the provinces of eastern Anatolia and their lawful return to Turkey.

The districts of Erdehan, Kars, and Batum will likewise and without delay be cleared of the russian troops. Russia will not interfere in the reorganization of the national and international relations of these districts, but leave it to the population of these districts, to carry out this reorganization in agreement with the neighboring States, especially with Turkey.

Article V

Russia will, without delay, carry out the full demobilization of her army inclusive of those units recently organized by the present Government. Furthermore, Russia will either bring her warships into russian ports and there detain them until the day of the conclusion of a general peace, or disarm them forthwith. Warships of the States which continue in the state of war with the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance, in so far as they are within Russian sovereignty, will be treated as Russian warships.

The barred zone in the Arctic Ocean continues as such until the conclusion of a general peace. In the Baltic sea, and, as far as Russian power extends within the Black sea, removal of the mines will be proceeded with at once. Merchant navigation within these maritime regions is free and will be resumed at once. Mixed commissions will be organized to formulate the more detailed regulations, especially to inform merchant ships with regard to restricted lanes. The navigation lanes are always to be kept free from floating mines.

Article VI

Russia obligates herself to conclude peace at once with the Ukrainian People's Republic and to recognize the treaty of peace between that State and the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance. The Ukrainian territory will, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Esthonia and Livonia will likewise, without delay, be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard. The eastern boundary of Esthonia runs, in general along the river Narwa. The eastern boundary of Livonia crosses, in general, lakes Peipus and Pskow, to the southwestern corner of the latter, then across Lake Luban in the direction of Livenhof on the Dvina. Esthonia and Livonia will be occupied by a German police force until security is insured by proper national institutions and until public order has been established. Russia will liberate at once all arrested or deported inhabitants of Esthonia and Livonia, and insures the safe return of all deported Esthonians and Livonians.

Finland and the Aaland Islands will immediately be cleared of Russian troops and the Russian Red Guard, and the Finnish ports of the Russian fleet and of the Russian naval forces. So long as the ice prevents the transfer of warships into Russian ports, only limited forces will remain on board the warships. Russia is to put an end to all agitation or propaganda against the Government or the public institutions of Finland.

The fortresses built on the Aaland Islands are to be removed as soon as possible. As regards the permanent non- fortification of these islands as well as their further treatment in respect to military technical navigation matters, a special agreement is to be concluded between Germany, Finland, Russia, and Sweden; there exists an understanding to the effect that, upon Germany's desire, still other countries bordering upon the Baltic Sea would be consulted in this matter.

Article VII

In view of the fact that Persia and Afghanistan are free and independent States, the contracting parties obligate themselves to respect the political and economic independence and the territorial integrity of these states.

Article VIII

The prisoners of war of both parties will be released to return to their homeland. The settlement of the questions connected therewith will be effected through the special treaties provided for in Article XII.

Article IX

The contracting parties mutually renounce compensation for their war expenses, i.e., of the public expenditures for the conduct of the war, as well as compensation for war losses, i.e., such losses as were caused [by] them and their nationals within the war zones by military measures, inclusive of all requisitions effected in enemy country.

Article X

Diplomatic and consular relations between the contracting parties will be resumed immediately upon the ratification of the treaty of peace. As regards the reciprocal admission of consuls, separate agreements are reserved.

Article XI

As regards the economic relations between the Powers of the Quadruple Alliance and Russia the regulations contained in Appendices II-V are determinative....

Article XII

The reestablishment of public and private legal relations, the exchange of war prisoners and interned citizens, the question of amnesty as well as the question anent the treatment of merchant ships which have come into the power of the opponent, will be regulated in separate treaties with Russia which form an essential part of the general treaty of peace, and, as far as possible, go into force simultaneously with the latter.

Article XIII

In the interpretation of this treaty, the German and Russian texts are authoritative for the relations between Germany and Russia; the German, the Hungarian, and Russian texts for the relations between Austria-Hungry and Russia; the Bulgarian and Russian texts for the relations between Bulgaria and Russia; and the Turkish and Russian texts for the relations between Turkey and Russia.

Article XIV

The present treaty of peace will be ratified. The documents of ratification shall, as soon as possible, be exchanged in Berlin. The Russian Government obligates itself, upon the desire of one of the powers of the Quadruple Alliance, to execute the exchange of the documents of ratification within a period of two weeks. Unless otherwise provided for in its articles, in its annexes, or in the additional treaties, the treaty of peace enters into force at the moment of its ratification.

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty with their own hand.

Executed in quintuplicate at Brest-Litovsk, 3 March, 1918.

there you go constantine.

It was excessively harsh. Brest Litovsk was harsh but was signed because the bolshevik's had no hand to play and they fighured they could get it back when germny's fortunes worsened and theirs improvedd.

Much the same could be said of Germany's position and the Versailles Treaty.

Constantine - Link here. (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/brestlitovsk.html)

true, but remember that the revolution had only happened a few months earlier, germany still could have done something in 1919, they werent a totally chaotic state like russia was in 1918.

Well Sarevok, I'll just say what I've already said about it. As a treaty, Versailles wasn't harsher than any other treaties of that time. Moreover, The regions where the war occured in France weren't just empty lands, it was actually the main industrial regions in France (All the Northern border along Belgium). If France had devastated the Ruhr, I guess germans would have asked reparations to France once France had lost the war.

However, I didn't answer to your poll. Simply because even if Versailles Treaty wasn't harsher than most of the other of these times (Frankfurt, Brest-Litovsk), the economic conditions in the 30's made it way too harsh.

In the 1920's, Germany was economically dependant on the United States. After 1929 crisis, 6 or 7 million germans got unemployed. In such an economic disaster, of course, it became impossible for Germany to pay the reparations.

If I had done the poll myself, here would have been the options :
1- Of course it was too harsh, it was almost written in it some nazi guy would take the power in 1933.
2- The 1929 crisis made it too harsh.
3- No, it had no effect at all. Hitler made himself alone. :rolleyes:

And of course then, I would have answered the #2. :)

IT STIRRED ALOT OF Anger. Though i agree with you that france did have the right to punish germany, im just saying they went a bit too far.

Originally posted by Sarevok
IT STIRRED ALOT OF Anger. Though i agree with you that france did have the right to punish germany, im just saying they went a bit too far.This is where I disagree with you : the word "punish" isn't to me the most accurate to use. France was a devastated country. Of course other countries did lose as many if not more youngsters in that stupid war, but France had the war on its soil, which wasn't the case of Germany... and I repeat it, not in desertic lands but in the most important lands of the country economically speaking.

France had mainly 2 aims to me : Be sure germans won't attack another time (obviously they've screwed up ! ;))
Be sure that the rebuilding of French economy will be partly paid by Germany (don't believe the reparations were enough to rebuild the country actually).However, I share the same conclusion than you do. They went a bit too far. No question about it. The History proved it actually... even if other events like the 1929 crisis shares also a strong responsibility to me.

well? does anyone want to look at section 2 and its flaws?

Alsace-Lorraine should have been returned to France, and Poland should have become independant. The problem was the way the Allies impovrished Germany after the war. We shouldn't have made them give us all serface vessels and pay for the allies cost of war. There would have been a Nazi movement anyway, but they never would have taken power had we made a soft peace, instead of the harsh one we imposed.

true, the harshness of versallies justified the nazi rise to power in every aspect of the treaty.

Sarevok, I'm amazed to see how much you believe the only reason of the rise of Nazism in Germany is the Versailles Treaty. :eek: You should know that never any extremist party can be lead to power if there's not any deep social crisis in the country.

If things are as automatic as you seem to believe, explain me why we didn't see any French Hitler 15 years after the Frankfurt Treaty following the 1871 debacle ? After all, nationalism was as strong in 1885 France than it was in 1933 Germany. The Frankfurt Treaty was just the same than the Versailles Treaty : Just as strong "reparations" to be paid to Germany even if Germany hadn't been hit at all during the 1871 war. Alsace-Lorraine being lost and given to Germany even if the people of these regions were feeling French and supporting France. That was quite harsh to me !! Then why we didn't see any French Hitler... ??
:confused:

The reason is simple : After 1871 war, Europe experienced the 2nd Industrial Revolution with the development of combustion, steel, electricity, etc... France was, just like the rest of Europe, in a strong economic prosperity.

If the nazis were that much the "son" of the Versailles Treaty, they should have already been strong in the 20's before the Economic Crisis... but they simply weren't !

1929 : Worldwide Crisis has knocked out Germany

If you don't consider that event as important in the rise of Nazism, then you know nothing about History I'm sorry. The Nazis developped as fast as the country were deepening into Poverty. Versailles Treaty was more an argument than a cause, the deep reason why a part of germans had been convinced the Nazis were the solution was the Crisis.

What was Hitler's first goal ?

It was not to re-take Alsace-Lorraine and Poznan. It was actually to lift the nose of German economy. It's only once he succeeded to do so that germans really start to follow him. Before that, only a minor part of Germans were trusting in him. That proves (if it had to be proven) that without the deep social crisis, Germany would have certainly not experience Nazism. And that's why your argument saying "France declared WW2 in 1919 because it was almost written in the Versailles Treaty" is deeply wrong.

of course, there is never 1 reason for anything. What i was saying was that the inequities of versallies was what motivated hitler and those who followed him. but the crash in '29 has to be #2

marla, i never saw any hint that i believed versallies was the only reason that hitler rose to power. perhaps instead of assuming that is the only thing i think you should put up another alternative. In other words, write what you did before but scratch the stuff about me assuming something or only believing one truth.

Originally posted by Sarevok
marla, i never saw any hint that i believed versallies was the only reason that hitler rose to power. perhaps instead of assuming that is the only thing i think you should put up another alternative. In other words, write what you did before but scratch the stuff about me assuming something or only believing one truth. Ok then Sarevok, sorry about my misunderstanding :). It's just that when I've re-read your thread I noticed, you've written three times that message :Versallies was a bit too harsh. France's desire to punish germny while reasonable should have been kept in check. It was them in a sense who started WW2.I guess you've written it thrice because of Civfanatics bugs... but as it was shown, it was truelly giving the impression Versailles was to you the easy guilty of everything. ;) Sorry again for my misunderstanding :).

sometimes i am a bit of a herd person to understand... even to myself ;)

Generally, what parts of germny should have been ceceded?

Originally posted by Sarevok
of course, there is never 1 reason for anything. What i was saying was that the inequities of versallies was what motivated hitler and those who followed him. but the crash in '29 has to be #2

France can be helded accountable for the treaty, since the other three powers had almost no say in its construction. Lloyd George was too busy out looking for whores. Wilson was a pushover who gave France everything they wanted to get the League of Nations (which, ironically, the US couldn't join), and Italy was driven out of the summit relativly early.

Merry Christmas from Germany.
As a German I have a point of view from the looser´s side. Many things were written here, whic are right indeed. I can say no fact was completely wrong, but som conclusios were.
1. The peace of Brest Litowsk should also keep the Bolsheviks small. If a Republican or Czar governmet were there no such treaty were ever signed. And later the situation should have changed this treaty nearly automaitically. But that´s speculation.
2. Was Versailles too harsh? A GIANT YES. Why? Because of the loss of all colonies, the fleet, the areas of Posen and Westpreußen in the east and Nordschleswig in the North as well as Eupen and Malmedy in the west. This was not predicted. Alsace was and some ships and colonies, but such never. Especially the Eastern areas were not justfied in Germans eyes to that time. East Prussia weas cut off. The army not really able to defend Germany, so the German didn´t feel secure any more. And there were enemy raids by Polish and Lithunian troops.
3. The reparations were way too hard. Germany should pay even the loan of the enemy soldiers. You may say Germany stated the war, but that´s not completely right.
After the assasination of the Austrian Crownprince in Sarajevo the road lead to war. Neither Austria nor Russia and France were willing to find a peacefull solution. Even German and British pressure didn´t help. Both nations were caught to fight although the governments were not so keen (I don´t mention the militairs who were indeed for war in all countries). So this was an accident. And even if Germany were a parlamentary monarchy the Reichtag would have vowed for war when Austria was at war. But there are too many aspect to mention here.
Indeed the reparations were payed, but it weakened the state. After not delivering a few pound of coal not on point the French and Belgium troops inveded the Ruhr area to take their reparations. In other contents you may say they were plundering and even murdering. Nevertheless this was never justified. So it isn´t a wunder that all German parties wanted to abolish this treaty. His leads to:
4. Hitler. I know there were many factors which lead to Hitler. Some were foreign causes some inter German.
Each German government wanted to abolish this treaty and without Hitler Germany would have been successfull in the 30s too. He got the merits of the work of Stresemann and Rathenau and all other politicians. But that´s not the question. The question is, what lead to Hitler and is the Versailles treaty the main reason. First the inter- German causes (shortly): An old monarchistic president, who was too old. He would have been a perfect figure for a Shakespearean tragedy. Then some conservative circles who believed in Hitler having a puppet. No normal man even in these circles believed his Mein Kampf. Then the Preußenschlag 1932, when Papen abolished the Prussian government, which was a stabile democratic one until that date. If the Prussian governmet would have been still there in 1933 Hitler would have never got the power he got. The commusists, which had a negative majority in the Reichstag together with the Nazis. Errors in the Constitution of Weimar. Mistakes in the policy against the reparations to get rid of them. This lead to over 6 million people without work. And the Social democrats who destroyed the Weimar Coalition because of a rising of 0,5% of the annuity insurance due to the reparations and the depression. Both were the main factors which were of German origin which lead to Hitler.
Now the foreign ones: The Great depression. This alone was never a reason but together with the reparations they were catastrophic. Such should have never happened. Although this crise was not predictable in 1919 a crise in generalis was predictable. There was no room for maneuver when the reparations were made. So they were too hard. The German reparartions 1871 were also hard but not so hard. A crisis would have ever lead to an end of the reparations. Germany had no place to maneuver the ship out of the crisis even if there were no errors by the Germans. So the depression hit especially Germany hard.
Another point is the small army and navy which was not nearly able to defend Germany against a power like Poland. Not to mention Belgium or even France. The loss of areas to Poland and this lead the German national proud hurt so even moderate Germans hated Versailles. A whole people felt unsecure. And the right parties (excluding NSDAP) were not able to become a total part of the republic due to that treaty.
5. Result. So at the end I summerize: Versailles was too harsh. It was not the only cause for Hitler but the main one. A mild peace and Hitler would have been only a small remark in a pupil´s homework. I know that only one of the causes I mentioned here briefly, would have hindered Hitler to become "Führer" but without Versaille the propability of such an accident would have been 0 than 90 with. Please also read my posts on http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1456065#post1456065 for some further infos. As well I am able to comment any of these facts. Just ask.

Frohe Weihnachten.

Adler

Merry Christmas from Germany.
As a German I have a point of view from the looser´s side. Many things were written here, whic are right indeed. I can say no fact was completely wrong, but som conclusios were.
1. The peace of Brest Litowsk should also keep the Bolsheviks small. If a Republican or Czar governmet were there no such treaty were ever signed. And later the situation should have changed this treaty nearly automaitically. But that´s speculation.
2. Was Versailles too harsh? A GIANT YES. Why? Because of the loss of all colonies, the fleet, the areas of Posen and Westpreußen in the east and Nordschleswig in the North as well as Eupen and Malmedy in the west. This was not predicted. Alsace was and some ships and colonies, but such never. Especially the Eastern areas were not justfied in Germans eyes to that time. East Prussia weas cut off. The army not really able to defend Germany, so the German didn´t feel secure any more. And there were enemy raids by Polish and Lithunian troops.
3. The reparations were way too hard. Germany should pay even the loan of the enemy soldiers. You may say Germany stated the war, but that´s not completely right.
After the assasination of the Austrian Crownprince in Sarajevo the road lead to war. Neither Austria nor Russia and France were willing to find a peacefull solution. Even German and British pressure didn´t help. Both nations were caught to fight although the governments were not so keen (I don´t mention the militairs who were indeed for war in all countries). So this was an accident. And even if Germany were a parlamentary monarchy the Reichtag would have vowed for war when Austria was at war. But there are too many aspect to mention here.
Indeed the reparations were payed, but it weakened the state. After not delivering a few pound of coal not on point the French and Belgium troops inveded the Ruhr area to take their reparations. In other contents you may say they were plundering and even murdering. Nevertheless this was never justified. So it isn´t a wunder that all German parties wanted to abolish this treaty. His leads to:
4. Hitler. I know there were many factors which lead to Hitler. Some were foreign causes some inter German.
Each German government wanted to abolish this treaty and without Hitler Germany would have been successfull in the 30s too. He got the merits of the work of Stresemann and Rathenau and all other politicians. But that´s not the question. The question is, what lead to Hitler and is the Versailles treaty the main reason. First the inter- German causes (shortly): An old monarchistic president, who was too old. He would have been a perfect figure for a Shakespearean tragedy. Then some conservative circles who believed in Hitler having a puppet. No normal man even in these circles believed his Mein Kampf. Then the Preußenschlag 1932, when Papen abolished the Prussian government, which was a stabile democratic one until that date. If the Prussian governmet would have been still there in 1933 Hitler would have never got the power he got. The commusists, which had a negative majority in the Reichstag together with the Nazis. Errors in the Constitution of Weimar. Mistakes in the policy against the reparations to get rid of them. This lead to over 6 million people without work. And the Social democrats who destroyed the Weimar Coalition because of a rising of 0,5% of the annuity insurance due to the reparations and the depression. Both were the main factors which were of German origin which lead to Hitler.
Now the foreign ones: The Great depression. This alone was never a reason but together with the reparations they were catastrophic. Such should have never happened. Although this crise was not predictable in 1919 a crise in generalis was predictable. There was no room for maneuver when the reparations were made. So they were too hard. The German reparartions 1871 were also hard but not so hard. A crisis would have ever lead to an end of the reparations. Germany had no place to maneuver the ship out of the crisis even if there were no errors by the Germans. So the depression hit especially Germany hard.
Another point is the small army and navy which was not nearly able to defend Germany against a power like Poland. Not to mention Belgium or even France. The loss of areas to Poland and this lead the German national proud hurt so even moderate Germans hated Versailles. A whole people felt unsecure. And the right parties (excluding NSDAP) were not able to become a total part of the republic due to that treaty.
5. Result. So at the end I summerize: Versailles was too harsh. It was not the only cause for Hitler but the main one. A mild peace and Hitler would have been only a small remark in a pupil´s homework. I know that only one of the causes I mentioned here briefly, would have hindered Hitler to become "Führer" but without Versaille the propability of such an accident would have been 0 than 90 with. Please also read my posts on http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1456065#post1456065 for some further infos. As well I am able to comment any of these facts. Just ask.

Frohe Weihnachten.

Adler

Sorry for postin twice.

Adler

Actually you're quite a curiosity Adler17... You're the first alive german nationalist I'm meeting. :eek: American nationalists are everywhere in these days but I actually used to consider at least all germans understood nationalism was everything but good.

Come on ! A German claiming Poznan in 2003 is totally freaky !! The worst is that you still use the German name of the city to call it even if you're obviously born 60 years after we started to use the polish name. POZNAN. To other people, you should know Wroclaw (Breslau) and Kaliningrad (Königsberg) were peopled by germans in 1918... but germans didn't lose them ! Germans had only lost polish territories peopled by poles in 1919 !the areas of Posen and Westpreußen in the east and Nordschleswig in the North as well as Eupen and Malmedy in the west.Actually, you may use the german names to make it sounds better but these areas had always been peopled by poles. Just like Alsace-Lorraine was peopled by French since people over there were claiming to be French. I'm actually quite surprised you didn't use the expression "lebensraum" in your post.

I was actually wondering what to answer in the poll. Your post just convinced me I should click on "No".

Originally posted by archer_007

Wilson was a pushover who gave France everything they wanted to get the League of Nations (which, ironically, the US couldn't join

actually the US was disgusted with versallies and they refused to join the league of nations and returned to their isolation.

Originally posted by Andrewz
Actually you're quite a curiosity Adler17... You're the first alive german nationalist I'm meeting. :eek: American nationalists are everywhere in these days but I actually used to consider at least all germans understood nationalism was everything but good.

Come on ! A German claiming Poznan in 2003 is totally freaky !! The worst is that you still use the German name of the city to call it even if you're obviously born 60 years after we started to use the polish name. POZNAN. To other people, you should know Wroclaw (Breslau) and Kaliningrad (Königsberg) were peopled by germans in 1918... but germans didn't lose them ! Germans had only lost polish territories peopled by poles in 1919 !Actually, you may use the german names to make it sounds better but these areas had always been peopled by poles. Just like Alsace-Lorraine was peopled by French since people over there were claiming to be French. I'm actually quite surprised you didn't use the expression "lebensraum" in your post.

I was actually wondering what to answer in the poll. Your post just convinced me I should click on "No".

despite that, if it was up to me id give germny back east prussia, as it is a traditional german area. trade that to germny in excange for russia's entry inot the EU. (hopefully not, i dont want to see russia in the EU at all nor the UK).

(from hindsight of course) in my view, there were mainly two ways to deal with Germany. Either crush them completly or build a framework with them. If not, they would regenerate and come again. Crushing them was attempted after WW1. But not enought. Germany should have been split apart into it's former states. Building a framework with them was, obviously successfull, impemented after WW2.

So, the failing of Versailles was: It did not go far enough with crushing Germany, so it failed in weaking Germany enough, as a full functioning Germany (or Japan) is/was more then the Brits and French can/could handle (The bigger failure would have been to not establish a framework, including the Germans, which I think needed WW2 to become clear).

The same actually would be for Japan. Either build a framework with them, or crush them completly, so they could neve come back and never regain their industrial strength.

Leaving an angered Germany (or Japan) behind, still able to regenerate was (or would have been) a dangerous gamble.

Splitting a country up into its states would have been a horrendous breach of precedant and have been totally unjustified. How about France? Should they have been broken up into their component states after Napoleons rampage through Europe? Attempting to crush a country is usually doomed to failure and will inspire only hatred and loathing as its result.

Versaille was a piece of trash for many, many reasons however the way Germany was treated after the treaty was signed was in many ways worse. The earlier mentioned French incursion into the Ruhr is a good example of this. Germany were pushed towards extremism through fear and a desire for revenge. As has been said previously, hindsight makes such things so much easier to preach upon, however it is difficult to see how even those present at the time could have believed Germany were ever going to tolerate reparations over the timescales in question. Just to put things in perspective for instance, the second US plan to help solve Germanies debts called for Germany to be paying off reparations on a lower level until 1983 I believe the estimated date was, over 60 years after WW1 ended for gods sake!

Originally posted by Sarevok


actually the US was disgusted with versallies and they refused to join the league of nations and returned to their isolation. Well Sarevok, you seem to forget why Wilson were disgusted of the Versailles Treaty. Wilson was considering Alsace-Lorraine should stay german since the alsacian language is coming from germanic roots. The issue is that alsacians wanted themselves to join back France. Wilson really insisted on that point even if he had never been to Strasbourg. Wilson's intentions were good... but more in theory than in reality. And of course, I know there was other things Wilson wanted in the Versailles Treaty he didn't get... but the most important for him was a more balanced Treaty where, mainly, Germany was keeping Alsace-Lorraine.

I've been to Strasbourg last year to visit a friend of mine. During a dinner there with alsacian friends of him, I actually stated alsacians were more german than french since their food is germanic, their language is germanic and their city names are germanic. I've been totally insulted during the rest of the evening. Alsacians told me they actually felt completely flawed in 1871. Actually, I've been impressed to see such a hostile reaction when we know how the border between France and Germany is open today. I remember they were also 2 germans from Bade-Wurtemberg at that dinner and they agreed to say the germanic roots of Alsace didn't make of it a German land... they took example of the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerlands and Austria to explain me so.

To me, the real bad idea of the 20th century about Germany borders was to "move" Poland a bit more in the West. That's a russian idea and I don't understand well why they did so (if it's not for their own expansion). Well of course, germans couldn't complain then since their country was destroyed and split in two, but I still think it was a mistake to give Breslau (Wroclaw) to Poland and to move all germans from Silesia and Pommerany into the BRD. Anyway, that's past now and there's not anymore any reason to give these territories back to Germany since there are no more germans there ! The most accurate shape of Germany to me had been actually the one after the Versailles Treaty...

PS : It's written Versailles, not Versallies... that's true even in english ;)

Splitting a country up into its states would have been a horrendous breach of precedant and have been totally unjustified. How about France? Should they have been broken up into their component states after Napoleons rampage through Europe? Attempting to crush a country is usually doomed to failure and will inspire only hatred and loathing as its result.

Well, the one about France after Napoleon. I think that would in example for the other option I gave in my post, include them in a framework. Like Metternich did. And Bismarck with Austria after the Prussian-Austrian war. So nothing new from you there. I still stay with my opinion. You either go the one or the other way, but completly then. I think I made also clear, that I think the second option is smarter.

Not that after WW1 hasn't been the breakup of ther Austrian and Ottoman Empire.

Originally posted by Andrewz
Actually you're quite a curiosity Adler17... You're the first alive german nationalist I'm meeting. :eek: American nationalists are everywhere in these days but I actually used to consider at least all germans understood nationalism was everything but good.

Come on ! A German claiming Poznan in 2003 is totally freaky !! The worst is that you still use the German name of the city to call it even if you're obviously born 60 years after we started to use the polish name. POZNAN. To other people, you should know Wroclaw (Breslau) and Kaliningrad (Königsberg) were peopled by germans in 1918... but germans didn't lose them ! Germans had only lost polish territories peopled by poles in 1919 !
I don't really get what you mean.

He didn't claim Posen/Poznan for today (or did I miss something?) and using the names the respective cities were called at the time is certainly not inappropriate, besides that they are common use in German anyway, without being Nationalistic. We also say "Brüssel" to the Belgian capital without trying to claim it.

And his description of why the treaty was one of the main reasons (probably the one main reason) for Hitler's rise is quite accurate in my opinion.

You shouldn't forget the impact on German domestic politics. Weimar was doomed from the beginning thanks to it. The "stab-in-the-back legend" of the "undefeated army" that was betrayed by treacherous forces from within the country was not just the idea of some right-wing extremists. It was plausible to alot of people, for obvious reasons. If you lose an almost unprecedented amount of territories and have to pay reparations until 1988 (as was the plan) while there was "never a single foreign soldier on German ground in 1918" and that all due to a treaty signed by the same people who ended the war that is certain to stir up alot of trouble.

There's nothing Nationalist about stating that.

Actually, Yago, I agree with most of what you just said except on one thing. After WW2, we can't say it was a "framework" kind of peace even when we count the Marshall Plan. After WW2, Germany had been split in 2, Eastern german territories had been shared between a Poland under russian guardianship and Russia itself. Huge populations had been moved out of their home which was some kind of ethnic cleansing in a way. The country had no army, and even Berlin was divided in two. Such a situation lasted 45 years actually. I'm sorry but Germany had been totally crushed after WW2. Germans are calling 1945 "Die Jahre Nul" (the year zero).

The Germans had just positively react to the situation. They were crushed, destroyed and at the beginning, they didn't react well at all. It's only because of the cold war beginning that they started to think about something else : they were seeing their country being divided more and more into two ideological blocks. That became fast their main concern actually... and the division between "communism" and "capitalism" had been interestingly the best way to "denazify" the country ! Germans were so much scared to see another war where they would be at the center that they simply were getting more and more pacifists. I guess any other people would have reacted the same if a wall were dividing their capital city.

Well, we've talked a lot about accusation in this thread... it was actually the purpose. I would like just everyone of you to recognize that whatever happened between France and Germany and after three wars between them, they are today the best friend in the planet. Actually, I think France and Germany shares today more friendship than Canada and the United States or even the UK and the US... I just say so to prove you what had been done was amazing.

The building of the European Union had been and is still a huge hope for Peace. Churchill was totally right : Europe should unify itself peacefully and democratically cause that's the only way to avoid more wars on that soil. Churchill rules !

Originally posted by Hitro

And his description of why the treaty was one of the main reasons (probably the one main reason) for Hitler's rise is quite accurate in my opinion.So Hitro, you think that even without the 1929 crisis and the 6 or 7 million germans unemployed, Hitler would have still succeeded to reach the head of Germany ?

Well, I doubt a lot about that. I'm convinced the Versailles Treaty was definitly harsh, but what made it too harsh was the 1929 crisis.

Actually, after 1871, France had to pay reparations to Germany during 50 years and it's only because of the current economic prosperity of that time that France succeeded to pay everything earlier and then to find back it's whole independance. And by the way, it was even worse in 1871 since France had to pay reparations to a country where not a single shot had been fired during that war !

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
So Hitro, you think that even without the 1929 crisis and the 6 or 7 million germans unemployed, Hitler would have still succeeded to reach the head of Germany ?
Probably not, no. But the Republic was unwanted before that as well.
The important point is that while Hitler would most likely never have risen to power without the crisis of 1929 he would certainly never have risen to it without Versailles. After 1929 with the unemployment the Republic was dying, but without the Nationalist trump card Versailles it is more likely to have turned another way, probably Communist or eventually truly Democratic.
Well, I doubt a lot about that. I'm convinced the Versailles Treaty was definitly harsh, but what made it too harsh was the 1929 crisis.

Actually, after 1871, France had to pay reparations to Germany during 50 years and it's only because of the current economic prosperity of that time that France succeeded to pay everything earlier and then to find back it's whole independance. And by the way, it was even worse in 1871 since France had to pay reparations to a country where not a single shot had been fired during that war !
And France lost Alsace-Lorraine as well as certain colonies.

True and certainly not a good thing (I'm not defending Bismarck's policies ;) ). But still considerably "normal" in diplomatic terms of the time. Versailles was, as Adler17 described, "over the top" (or in other words, too harsh) in terms of losses of territory and money, if it would only have been the colonies and Alsace-Lorraine that would have been bad enough but the way it was done was even worse.
Apart from that the losses of the actual war were already much worse than in any war before for anyone. While France (and Belgium) had to bear most of the impact of actual fighting on their soil the immense loss of people and material hit Germany even harder (which is why, unlike 1871 where it was a strategic matter, the war was ultimately lost).

The lesson of that war that was devastating for all mainly involved countries should have been one of reconciliation and not one of conquest and revenge.

Actually, Yago, I agree with most of what you just said except on one thing. After WW2, we can't say it was a "framework" kind of peace even when we count the Marshall Plan. After WW2, Germany had been split in 2, Eastern german territories had been shared between a Poland under russian guardianship and Russia itself. Huge populations had been moved out of their home which was some kind of ethnic cleansing in a way. The country had no army, and even Berlin was divided in two. Such a situation lasted 45 years actually. I'm sorry but Germany had been totally crushed after WW2. Germans are calling 1945 "Die Jahre Nul" (the year zero).

The Germans had just positively react to the situation. They were crushed, destroyed and at the beginning, they didn't react well at all. It's only because of the cold war beginning that they started to think about something else : they were seeing their country being divided more and more into two ideological blocks. That became fast their main concern actually... and the division between "communism" and "capitalism" had been interestingly the best way to "denazify" the country ! Germans were so much scared to see another war where they would be at the center that they simply were getting more and more pacifists. I guess any other people would have reacted the same if a wall were dividing their capital city.



In a broader sense, I do actually agree completly with you. But I think the devasting expirience of WWII itself, was a big reason to not glorifiy war, as some of them used to do before. I rember having read the epitaph of a German news editor, which died 2 years (or so ago). She had to flee from the Russian from East-Prussia on a horse. That expirience was seen as crucial for her later work. After WW2, it would have been unthinkable, that a book like "storms of steel" would be a bestseller again. And as you pointed out somewhere else, before WW2, their own lands where "war-free" for some reasonable amount of time.

And I think the main reason, why the other nations didn't want to leave Germany without "framework", that is, leave them to the (rightous) wrath of the Russians, was the fear of would have happen, if they get a hold of Germany. That also made the French open for new ways with dealing with the Germans.

And the "Framework"-idea actually stayed from my Bismarck lessons. If I remember, Bismarck wanted a "amicable" solving of the French-Prussian war afterwards, not unlike those with Denmark and Austria. But he didn't get that through, and then acted according to the damage done.

Actually, as I said before 1871 had been a terrible shock in France. We must remember 1871 happened only 56 years after Vienna's agreement. Which means Napoleon's aura as a myth was still strong. French were building a strong colonial Empire at that time... so it increased a lot more their feeling that France was a strong and proud military power. (I deeply disapprove such a statement, I just want you to feel as french did at that time)

At the opposite, Germany was seen as the country of philosophers, music, romanticism and science. To summarize, frenchmen considered themselves as soldiers and germans as poets. That's the main reason why France had been completely stunned once Prussians had taken over Paris. Poets were stronger than soldiers. In some kind of way, it would be a bit like if today's French Army was taking over Washington... even if, of course, Germany was already economically more powerful than France which isn't the case of today's France compared to the US :lol:

Actually, before that, french people didn't have any real bad feelings towards the germans. But they did live 1871 as a humiliation... and a strong one since France became a bit a conqueered vassal of Germany in next years. Germany just had to threaten France to get what it wanted... That's how even in 1912, France gave Cameroon to Germany to avoid a war.

Let's be careful everyone, I don't want to picture the "2nd Reich" as an evil thingy. Germany was actually at that time a brand new Nation becoming the first economical power before England and France. As any country who were formerly dominating, France and England blocked Germany... they took advantage of their situation to make everything to avoid Germany to become too strong. That's the main reason why both England and France decided to form the Entente, they were sharing both colonial interests threatened by Germany (which doesn't mean Germany was evil, I'm repeating it).

Today, when I think about Germany, I generally think about my first boyfriend which was a german guy I've met in Mainz during holidays. Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of classical music and Germany is undoubtedly the European country of Culture. I don't have any bad feelings against Germany even if I do consider Joel Schumacher deserved a red card when he had sent Battiston to the Hospital at the World Cup semi-final in 1982 :p.

Well generally speaking, I just wanted to add I like objectivity more than everything. And I don't consider my point on Versailles to be a subjective one. ;)

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Actually, as I said before 1871 had been a terrible shock in France. We must remember 1871 happened only 56 years after Vienna's agreement. Which means Napoleon's aura as a myth was still strong. French were building a strong colonial Empire at that time... so it increased a lot more their feeling that France was a strong and proud military power. (I deeply disapprove such a statement, I just want you to feel as french did at that time)

The problem was that what was Napoleon's aura to the French was the trauma of the French occupation of the early 19th century to the Germans. It was the main reason for the success of (pan-)German Nationalism and the eventual foundation of a single nation state. Before Napoleon Nationalism in Germany was mainly a thing of romantic philosophers, while the rulers were quite happy with the status quo. After Napoleon's invasion teared up the almost 1000 year old order that changed and Nationalism grew in the general population as well as in the ruling class, culminating in 1871.
That is also the reason why they marched on to Paris instead of signing a "soft" peace like in the cases on Denmark and Austria.

Only when both countries had effectively lost the war (Germany in 1945 and France effectively in 1940) it ended.
At the opposite, Germany was seen as the country of philosophers, music, romanticism and science.
Much like it was seen from within. The rise of Prussian militarism is one of the most tragic developments in history.
today's French Army was taking over Washington
:mischief:
Today, when I think about Germany, I generally think about my first boyfriend which was a german guy I've met in Mainz during holidays.
Uh-la-la. ;)
I don't have any bad feelings against Germany even if I do consider Joel Schumacher deserved a red card when he had sent Battiston to the Hospital at the World Cup semi-final in 1982 :p.
Isn't Joel Schumacher some director or actor? And it was 1986, but yes, he certainly deserved a red card. ;)
Well generally speaking, I just wanted to add I like objectivity more than everything. And I don't consider my point on Versailles to be a subjective one. ;)
I do neither, and I admit that it may have turned out different at a different time. But I remain of the opinion that with the circumstances as they were it was too harsh and that with a different treaty a whole lot of death and suffering might have been prevented.

today's French Army was taking over WashingtonActually if I said so, it wasn't at all any kind of unconscious wet dream, it was simply because american kids are all doing jokes about how much french army sucks in all schools of the USA. So they would be quite amazed to see washington taken by the french... well okay my example suck since what I'm saying is impossible... but I just hope you get the purpose of the analogy.


An interesting question would be :

Instead of Versailles, what was the thing to do to avoid a new war ?

Actually, the answer isn't that easy. Letting Germany as if anything happened wouldn't have been a better solution to me. "Crushing" Germany wasn't do-able without 10 million soldiers dead more. No reparations to pay ? Well, to me it would have been unfair to France since it had to bear the destruction of its main industrial regions. By the way, we had to wait 1955 to see the same level of population in France than in 1914. A Marshall Plan from the US ? Woodrow Wilson didn't propose it and I would have been really surprised that if it had been proposed by the french he would have accepted so easily.

The answer isn't that easy. I think that since Nationalism was still seen as the best of all virtues in 1918, it was impossible to avoid a new war afterwards. The question is only about time and scale... and nothing is saying it wouldn't have happened later in an even wider scale.

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
Actually if I said so, it wasn't at all any kind of unconscious wet dream, it was simply because american kids are all doing jokes about how much french army sucks in all schools of the USA. So they would be quite amazed to see washington taken by the french... well okay my example suck since what I'm saying is impossible... but I just hope you get the purpose of the analogy.

I got it before as well, the :mischief: was there to indicate that for me it could also be some kind of very concious wet dream. ;)
An interesting question would be :

Instead of Versailles, what was the thing to do to avoid a new war ?

A much more limited peace deal would have been better. Not declaring a clear guilt for the war (which in fact was questionable at least) including not declaring winners/losers would have been very smart, though probably impossible to realize.
Reparations would have been justifiable and possible some territorial changes, but that would have been very carefully to be thought out. Alsace-Lorraine would have been a major problem in that. It should have sufficed to appease the French urge for revenge and it would have been much less bad than the actual outcome for Germany.
Still the most important part would have been the formalities.

But in the end the Versailles treaty was as it was because certain people wanted it to be that way, and that couldn't have been changed so this is merely speculation.
The answer isn't that easy. I think that since Nationalism was still seen as the best of all virtues in 1918, it was impossible to avoid a new war afterwards. The question is only about time and scale... and nothing is saying it wouldn't have happened later in an even wider scale.
True. But that is no argument against the thesis that it was too harsh. Maybe there would have been another dictator in Germany if someone would have shot Hitler and maybe that guy would have caused even more damage but I'd still say it would have been a good thing to get rid of Adolf. Because it is at least equally but probably much more likely that the outcome would have been better than in reality. And that is the same with Versailles.

Originally posted by Kentonio
Splitting a country up into its states would have been a horrendous breach of precedant and have been totally unjustified. How about France? Should they have been broken up into their component states after Napoleons rampage through Europe? Attempting to crush a country is usually doomed to failure and will inspire only hatred and loathing as its result.

Versaille was a piece of trash for many, many reasons however the way Germany was treated after the treaty was signed was in many ways worse. The earlier mentioned French incursion into the Ruhr is a good example of this. Germany were pushed towards extremism through fear and a desire for revenge. As has been said previously, hindsight makes such things so much easier to preach upon, however it is difficult to see how even those present at the time could have believed Germany were ever going to tolerate reparations over the timescales in question. Just to put things in perspective for instance, the second US plan to help solve Germanies debts called for Germany to be paying off reparations on a lower level until 1983 I believe the estimated date was, over 60 years after WW1 ended for gods sake!

you either treat them nice at the peace table like at vienna in 1815, or you crush them completely like in 1945. you dont leave them to regenrate like versallies did.

Originally posted by Sarevok


actually the US was disgusted with versallies and they refused to join the league of nations and returned to their isolation.

President Wilson would have loved to signed the treaty, but he could not get it passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.

how did that work out? i know they didnt because of its general imperialism, but why else did the US reject versallies?

Originally posted by Sarevok


you either treat them nice at the peace table like at vienna in 1815, or you crush them completely like in 1945. you dont leave them to regenrate like versallies did.

Do you imagine for 1 minute that they COULD have crushed Germany after WW1 like they did after WW2? You are aware that Spanish flu probably did about as much to win the war as any fighting did yes?

Besides things arent as simple as that 'either-or' solution you propose, Europe has a long tradition of fighting wars and having to deal with the peace afterwards, they should have done a better job quite simply. As with all things in life however it was a giant compromise between a group of countries that while allies, didnt actually like each other much and didnt give a monkeys about each others interests. Americas usual lack of understanding regarding European nations certainly didnt help things. Their refusal to negotiate peace with an unelected government was simply meddling in affairs that they should have kept well out of.

NONE of the allied countries come out of Versaille looking good.

First of all I´m not a Nationalist demanding Posen or Alsace for Germany! I only meant in 1920 it was seen too harsh to give up these areas. Although I wouldn´t complain if Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia would become German again, but I also think this will never happen. But I´m not demanding it.
France and Germany are brother states wich were both formed out of the Frankish Empire. A series of was made them to foes until 1950. Germany was in fear of france, which annexed Alsace- Lorraine in 1700 or so and the French raids into South Germany for centuries and Napoleon od course, while the French were beaten in 1814/15, 1871 and 1940 badly. So there had to be men like Stresemann, Briand, Adenauer or De Gaulle who broke this terrible spirale.
Again I say the peace of Versailles was way too harsh. If Germany wouldn´t have had to pay so much and was a member of the league of nations from the beginning as well as certain areas still German like areas in upper Silesia or West Prussia Hitler would never become leader.
Alsace Lorraine was German since 1700 (round about) when France occupied this area. When this area became German again many inhabitants were not very keen about this indeed. Many were allowed to leave it and many left it and went back to France. In 1919 also many people left it going to Germany. In both wars many families were devided into pro Germans and pro Frenchs. IIRC Robert Schuman later French prime minister and secretary of foreign affairs was a German officer in ww1 fighting against the French! So this area was both German and French with both sides sympathizing. That´s why both sides were looking at the population very carefully. This was 1871 the same as 1920 or 1940/45.
At least Kentonio is right saying no allied country looked good in Versailles. Britain and USA should have pressed the French more to make a milder peace. They should have said sign or we´ll make a seperate peace with Germany. Although the Germans were back in Germany I doubt without allied help the French would be able to win this war. The Germans had still their heavy weapons at this date.
Another point mentioned here was deviding Germany like the plans of the 40s. But this wasn´t possible. The US would never have agreed and fought for this aim. Even if million of people would have died to reach this goal there would have been new unification wars later. Under such a treaty the propability of a new war was 100%.
I again say Versailles was the main reason for Hitler because of being too harsh. And again I´m not a nationalist. I only argue with the Germans point of view in the 20s and not today. If you want to understand history, you must understand the poeple in the time you want to see.

Adler

Originally posted by Sarevok
how did that work out? i know they didnt because of its general imperialism, but why else did the US reject versallies?

The Senate which must approve of a treaty with a 2/3 vote. Wilson lost the vote mainly due to many Sentaors wanting a return to isoaltionism(sp?). Also he pissed off most Republcian Sentoars who had a slight majority at the time iirc.

the us was the only country that did come out of versallies in a good condition, but all european countries were a total wreck by the war.

2300 posts :cool:

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I am believing less and less that Versailles was as flawed as it is made out to be. I guess I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment here. Some points:

1. First of all, Germany did start the war. There is much to argue about the political situation in Europe that led to the war and indeed from that perspective all the eventual combatants come out looking fairly guilty, but it was Germany who first plunged into military operations and did so with the knowledge that a Continental-wide war would ensue. To quote Lloyd George when he was accosted by a German journalist after the signing of the Versailles Peace in 1919, the question being, "What will future generations say of this terrible treaty?"; the Lion replied simply, "I don't know, but I do know they won't say that Belgium invaded Germany."



I must say that the Serbs started the war by assainating the Arch-duke o f Savajero having Austria-Hungary declare war
The treaty was flawed and thats why Hitler rose to power

Originally posted by Abgar

I must say that the Serbs started the war by assainating the Arch-duke o f Savajero having Austria-Hungary declare war
The treaty was flawed and thats why Hitler rose to power Yeah of course. Germans didn't think one second about invading France and Poland before the Arch-duke got killed ! The proof is that they weren't prepared at all... in just a month they got Warsaw and were at the suburbs of Paris. Everyone knows we can prepare an invasion in just a month. :rolleyes:

This thread is getting totally silly. I guess the best thing to do after Saddam invaded Kuwait was to give that country back to Saddam so that we would be sure then he will not attempt to invade it a second time ? Are you mad people :eek: ? We couldn't let Germany as it was before ! It deliberately invaded Belgium and attempted to invade Poland and France.

By the way, I now totally disagree with Hitro. With or Without the Versailles Treaty, a war would have happened once the country got the recession. If Germany still kept Poznan and Strasbourg, germans would have been even more convinced of their invincibility and the unfair thing would have then been I guess to not have any colony. The world war 2 would have still occured and people would say here it was unfair to take back Cameroon from Germany.

Now I'm thinking just like Vrylakas and Andrewz, the Versailles Treaty was not a flawed peace. Just a conventional treaty between a winner and a loser at that time. If Germany was really not ready to sign it, it was still free to continue the war. That's true as much for Frankfurt Treaty, Brest-Litovsk Treaty and Versailles Treaty.

except it wasnt invicibility, it was revenge.

Germany wasn´t able to fight in 1919. When the treaty was known to the Germans they considered this, of course, but the saw they wouldnt have the chance, for now, so they had to accept- and to wait for another chance. That´s true, but if you think Germany should have then still harder hit by that treaty, an even harder treaty would have meant a continuing of fighting in 1919. That was under these circumstances possible. In my eyes a revanche of Versailles was justified, peacefully, like Stresemann tried it.
In 1914 Germany wasn´t prepared, but Marla, you underestimate the dpeed of mobilization in Germany which was very fast. Very fast the troops were in attack positions. The French were not so fast, that´s right. So they thought the Germans were ready in 1914 to attack even without any reason. That´s not true.
Marla are you French? I don´t ask because I hate this country. Indeed I love it but I know the French history books generally have a still too french positive point of view. The causes are not seen from a lonely objective point of view. I do not say our books are without a German positve view, but very less than French.

Adler

Originally posted by Constantine


The Senate which must approve of a treaty with a 2/3 vote. Wilson lost the vote mainly due to many Sentaors wanting a return to isoaltionism(sp?). Also he pissed off most Republcian Sentoars who had a slight majority at the time iirc.

Both parties actully liked the treaty. The problem was the leader of Senate Foreign Committee was angered by President Wilson's parisanship by not taking him along to Versailles (which he would have been a logical choice to attend). When the treaty came before his committee, they gave it a recogniamation without the President's pet provision (LoN). IIRC, it either failed the vote or he vetoed it.

Versails was just flawed, end of topic.

Well Adler17, in French History books, we learn the same things as in any History books : The French were angry because they've lost Alsace-Lorraine and their had a avenging behaviour ("Esprit revenchard") at the Versailles Treaty. We also learn the so bad Versailles Treaty directly lead Germany into Hitler. We don't learn anything else.

I'm not France, I'm just a French girl like there are a lot... and we are all different. I'm saying that story of Versailles Treaty being the basics of WW2 is a superficial analyzis.... most French people will tell you Versailles Treaty was crap, because that's how it's learnt everywhere in the world. :)

I just want to go beyond that. Adler, Germany had already threatened to attack in 1912 during the Morocco crisis. How can you believe Germany had never thought about the war before. You think the Americans only prepared the Iraq invasion one month before ? I don't know what we're learning in German school... but it's well known to have a biased pro-German point of view ;).

Now, Germany had signed the Armistice on November 11th, 1918 because they didn't want to see any destruction on their own soil. Germany knew how was Northern France and Belgium. They certainly wanted to avoid such a disaster in the Ruhr, the German industralized region of the time. Now, I believe more and more the right thing to do would have been to destroy the Ruhr so that Germans would have understood the war was lost. The Allied and particularly France had been way too kind with Germany when they decided to not destroy Germany... because they could.

Germany wanted to take Paris to force the French to give them all their colonies or at least a very large part. The idea of that time was that a succesful invasion was the best way to win the jackpot. Germany had won the jackpot in 1871, there was no reason they wouldn't in 1914. If a failed invasion that had totally destroyed several countries had no consequence, what would have been the thing to understand ?

The thing to do in 1918 was undoubtedly to destroy the Ruhr. That was the only thing to do... something harsher than Versailles, not kinder.

And what I'm saying to you is not what is written in French History books, it's just the results of my own reflexion.

I again say Versailles was the main reason for Hitler because of being too harsh. And again I´m not a nationalist. I only argue with the Germans point of view in the 20s and not today. If you want to understand history, you must understand the poeple in the time you want to see.


I think the Versailles-treaty can't be looked at without looking at it's backround. And it's backround is a mess of European and international geo- and powerpolitics and nationalism and domestic-issues of that time and lots of other dynamics which come into play. Recently I've read history of Europe written by a British guy, which noted, that the British 1871 where to caught up with other issues, that they failed to see the poblems caused by a new born nation, dwarfing any other on the continent, including the UK and omitted to interfere with the founding of Germany, making it a little bit smaller. And the power-void a declining Austrian-Empire, would leave open, which would be sadly missed, when a few years later, things would have to be "balanced-out" (the need for an ally versus the Russians, brought Austria close to Germany).

And one of the main problems with the raise of Hitler was, I must confess, that was a reflexion which I got taught in school, the mithology of a "Germany which had to be unified" and the way Bavarians, Frisians, Hessians, Saxons and all the rest got taught that they are "Germans" now,