Versallies: A Flawed Peace

A Flawed Peace?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 73.4%
  • No

    Votes: 17 26.6%
  • Dont Know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    64
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.
 
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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :).
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom