"Peace Without Victory"

[Cheezy the Wiz]

What if the Allies had adopted Wilson's Fourteen Points, and incorporated them into the Versailles Treaty? Do you think that World War Two would have eventually happenned anyway? I don't think so. The Second World War was very much a war of revenge, and the Versailles Treaty set up the Second World War in many ways.

It was an unfair peace.

First, the War Guilt Clause left Germany's pride wounded. After all, they were declared the losers, but no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil. The French occupation of the Ruhr Valley and the demilitarization of the Rhineland go hand in hand with this. The creation of Poland and the other countries out of the land ceded to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk I can understand, but using Germany territory, including the Polish Corridor, fits in with this as well: bad idea.

Second, the war reparations clause (6 billion Pounds) is rediculous, they would not have been able to pay it off until 1984, and at the rate they had to pay it at, there was no way for Germany to recover economically. This set Germany up for the desire for someone like Hitler or the Nazis to come to power; if Germany was not economically screwed forever by a treaty, there would be no need for some one to come along and preach about a "New Germany," because the Old Germany was never really gone.

 

[Adler17]

Well, yes, Versailles was the main cause for Hitler and ww2 as we know it. A mild peace would have made Hitler impossible.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

The Treaty of Versailles may have been unfair to Germany, but it was surely no worse than the terms Germany would have imposed on its enemies had it won. Just compare the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

 

[Dell19]

Second, the war reparations clause (6 billion Pounds) is rediculous, they would not have been able to pay it off until 1984, and at the rate they had to pay it at, there was no way for Germany to recover economically.

Assuming that something like our future occurred then they would be able to pay it off before 1984. It seems a bit simplistic to try and focus on one event and say that changing that event would stop the second WW from happening. You could be right but then again maybe France would have had a revolution from people unhappy that they hadn't been tough enough on Germany or someone similar to Hitler might have still risen to power in Germany anyway. Or alternatively WW2 could be avoided but then the cold war wouldn't be cold a la Red Alert.

 

[Dachs]

The Treaty of Versailles may have been unfair to Germany, but it was surely no worse than the terms Germany would have imposed on its enemies had it won. Just compare the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

That was a circumstance of situation. Brest-Litovsk was imposed because there was no way in hell the Russians would have been able to contest it. France and Britain would have, and therefore Germany wouldn't be able to impose such a peace. A peace between Germany as winner and France and Britain as losers would be much more of a peace, because it would have to be an actual compromise given the situation. A peace without Germany - with or without Fourteen Points - was always inherently unstable, unless through some miracle there were no territorial reparations of any kind against Germany and Austria-Hungary wasn't broken up.

Adoption of the Fourteen Points never would have happened anyway; from what I've seen, only Americans blither on about it. IMHO Wilson should never have tried to meddle on the Continent with virtually no basis for peacemaking. Redrawing borders and attempting to break up Austria-Hungary imply a lack of understanding about the European situation, especially since the borders chosen were not along national or cultural lines anyway.

 

[Theige]

I'd go even further and basically say it was the French's fault, they were the ones responsible for the treaty of Versailles being so harsh on Germany

My great-grandfather was a french translator after the war - didnt come home until 1921.

As soon as he got back he was predicting ww2, and saying what *******s the french were

 

[steviejay]

I remember a cartoon from my school days drawn just after WW1. I was certain it was Low but I cannot find it where the 3 Main Powers were seen walking into a building and Clemenceau is seen looking over his shoulder saying something like 'I hear a figure crying, why could it be' and learning against a pillar is a baby in a diper and it says Child of 1940'. Kinda spooky. It may have been the French's fault for the harshness of the treaty but you must understand their position, they'd been invaded twice in 50 years and came off worst in both times (beaten once, got damn close the second time) they wished to make Germany a hollow shell from which they couldn't come back from (thats also why the Rhineland was de-militerized, if they starting *****ing then the French would walk in and gut their industry like a fish)

However I am of the opinion that France went way beyond makign sure they stayed safe in the future, they wanted to embarass Germany, and no good can ever come of doing that to a nation.

subnote- Britain wasn't exactly angelic in what their aims were too. David Lloyd George got elected to office in 1918 by saying they should 'squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak'

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Ideas drawn from the fourteen points, such as changing the borders of Europe, could be considered to have led to WWII. The Polish Corridor is one example.

 

[happy_Alex]

Well, yes, Versailles was the main cause for Hitler and ww2 as we know it. A mild peace would have made Hitler impossible.

Adler

No it wasn't. Versaille was remarkably lenient on the germany (especially when compared to greedy Brest Litovsk, as pointed out by Plotinus)For example, contrary to popular belief, Germany actually paid very little of the reparations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations and the hyper inflation was caused primarily by debts incurred by germany in WW1.

World War 2 repesents a culmination of a number of trends in Germany
which had begun before WW1. In response to the OP, I don't think adopting the 14 points would have made the slightest difference, Germany was keen to restart the war long before the rise of the Nazis.

Germany did not recognize its Versialle borders as permanent, so why assume any other borders would have been accepted?

 

[happy_Alex]

Ideas drawn from the fourteen points, such as changing the borders of Europe, could be considered to have led to WWII. The Polish Corridor is one example.

Not really, the map of europe as it is now is baically that which was drawn up in the versailles treaty system

 

[MCdread]

Maybe part of the problem is that after 1919 Germany was stripped of any colonies it had to where it might direct some expansionist energy. But otoh, I guess that at the time, in the germans' mind, only central european Lebensraum had any value. Colonies were just for the prestige, since I don't think Germany's colonies had much raw materials or resources of significance.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ideas drawn from the fourteen points, such as changing the borders of Europe, could be considered to have led to WWII. The Polish Corridor is one example.

Poland is perhaps the only one I would have changed. It should have been made purely out of Brest-Litovsk Treaty land, not German soil, and no access to the sea. Or, if it does get access, then it should be Lithuania, not Pomerania.

The Autro-Hungarian Empire was going to break up anyway, there wasn't too much holding it together, and the individual states that resulted from that breakup were no worse off defense-wise than they would have been had they been one nation.

 

[Louis XXIV]

While I think the Versailles Treaty caused the war, I will also point out that, had the French gotten everything they wanted in the treaty (and reperations were actually enforced), Germany would never be capable of waging World War II.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

While I think the Versailles Treaty caused the war, I will also point out that, had the French gotten everything they wanted in the treaty (and reperations were actually enforced), Germany would never be capable of waging World War II.

That's probably true as well. The Paris Peace was an amalgim (sp?) of Wilson's Idealism, Clemenceau's viciousness, and Lloyd-George's desire to keep a trade partner while retaining the Empire (I'm just summarizing their ambitions, not the men themselves). I firmly believe that had either the United States or France gotten entirely what they wanted to happen(without divvying up German territory into Poland), that World War Two would not have happenned.

 

[Plotinus]

Surely it's just impossible to say something as sweeping as that. WWII wasn't caused solely by the Versailles Treaty. No-one knows how things would have played out without it.

 

[Adler17]

At first Versailles was not soley causing WW2 but mainly.
However a few remarks on the points here:
1. Brest Litowsk
This peace is commonly said to be a harsh treaty for Russia and an "excuse", why to make such a harsh peace with Germany at Versailles. On the first view it might be correct, but only at the first view. Russia was dominating many peoples being no Russians. Of them the Fins, the Baltic peoples, the Belorus and the Ukrainians were not glad to be under Russian control, to say the least. They all wanted freedom. And so they should get it. So in one way no real Russian soil was departed, but new states emerged from a fallen empire. Also we have to see the Bolsheviks as new rulers, who were also feared by the Germans. So Brest Litowsk was only the first peace to accept the freedom of the people, which was later said with Versailles amd the other treaties forming a new Poland and other states.
2. Germany did not ivade France for the second time!
In 1870 France was opposing the German unification and indeed tried to make an aggressive alliance with Austria and Denmark to attack Germany, when they saw, they were unable to stop that without being involved themselves. So the war was inevitable and only a question of time. The French army was not in a good shape, although this was seen only by the Germans, as everyone else expected a French victory. In 1870 also France declared war on Germany, not the other way round (although Bismarck provoked it (Emser Depesche)). In 1914 France was allied with Russia and mobilized their army. In this sentiment of war war was again inevitable, so that the German declaration of war could be seen as a kind of preventive action. Although IMO it was a mistake not to let the French fire the first shot.
3. Reparations
Although I agree that less was paid indeed, the initial ammount was too high. And only about that we talk. It was a master piece of German diplomacy of the Weimar republic to get rid about that.
4. Consequences
Versailles was the main point for ww2, not the only one but the main one. So how Versailles might have been a real peace ending up all troubles?
a) German forces
Germany was still allowed to have an army of 500.000 men in peace time. This number was sufficient to defend Germany in a proper way, but not much to being offensive.
The fleet should have been like in the Washington Treaty for the navies of the main powers: 5 (Britain, US):3 (Japan, Germany):1,75 (France, Italy).
b) Territories
There should have been a referendum in Alsace- Lorraine, to whom they want to be part of. The winnter takes it. The same can be said about some areas in the East, namely Posen and Upper Silesia. Posen would have gone to Poland, but Silesia indeed decided to stay in Germany. That should have been recognized completely and not departed the country. West Prussia I let open, but according to the latest population figures they mainly would have voted for Germany. Also as connection with East Prussia a Polish corridore here was ever a casus belli for Germany. Either Poland got its port via Lithunia, as a revival of the Polish- Lithunian union, or was allowed to import things via Germany for (nearly) free. Also the Germans in the Sudeten and Austria should have been allowed to join Germany.
c) Colonies:
Germany should keep at least some of the colonies.
d) Reparations:
None for all. All should pay their sum.
e) War guilt:
Everything for all. No such Art. 231.

This is only a brain storming. However on this way the mistakes of Versailles were not made, that were the Corridore, Silesia, reparations, colonies, war guilt and the inability of German forces to defend Germany on a proper way. This meant ww2.

Adler

 

[Louis XXIV]

That's probably true as well. The Paris Peace was an amalgim (sp?) of Wilson's Idealism, Clemenceau's viciousness, and Lloyd-George's desire to keep a trade partner while retaining the Empire (I'm just summarizing their ambitions, not the men themselves). I firmly believe that had either the United States or France gotten entirely what they wanted to happen(without divvying up German territory into Poland), that World War Two would not have happenned.

What was Lloyd-George's quote? He didn't do too badly considering he sat between Jesus Christ and Napoleon (or something like that).

 

[Dachs]

I firmly believe that had either the United States or France gotten entirely what they wanted to happen(without divvying up German territory into Poland), that World War Two would not have happenned.

Problem with what America wanted: Germany would still have had A) the capability to make war and B) the anger at losing Elsaß-Lothringen, the "Polish" corridor, Memel, a large chunk of Schleswig-Holstein, and the loss of Malmedy/Eugen in the Ardennes. Wilson would have just pissed off the French but not prevented Germany from either hurting the French or getting angry.

Problem with what France wanted: Germany, even emasculated the way France wanted, could still put a hurtin' on France. Never, never, never underestimate the power of the sorely wronged and aggrieved. IMHO if Clemenceau had gotten everything he wanted Britain would have moved pro-German and helped them in a repeat of 1871 later on. A possible upside: Greek victory in the Greco-Turkish War (under French leadership, the Allies lean more towards intervention in Russia and the East as opposed to the Anglo-American middle stance). Hell, Italy wanted to intervene and even kept a garrison in southwest Anatolia for about a year until they withdrew following the Allies' anti-Constantine-ness.

Either way you cut it, there wasn't any real good chance at Germany and France coexisting unless Germany won or France managed to completely wipe out Germany as a national concept, much less a smaller, angrier nation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I guess the alternative would have been to throw everything we had into it and pushed all the way to Berlin. Then we could do whatever the hell we wanted, take Germany apart completely, what have you.

Not that I'm fond of throwing more American boys into that meat grinder, but in the end it might have saved lives, had we taken Berlin, and then taken Germany apart.

 

[Adler17]

If you did that, a new series of unification wars would have been come up. If you were able to take Berlin. I do not the willing of the nations doing so.

Adler