Archer 007
Rebirth
President Wilson would have loved to signed the treaty, but he could not get it passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.
Versallies: A Flawed Peace
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
President Wilson would have loved to signed the treaty, but he could not get it passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
how did that work out? i know they didnt because of its general imperialism, but why else did the US reject versallies?
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.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
Constantine
at least it isnt the sens
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.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
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
2300 posts
Aramazd
Deity
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
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
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.
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
? 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.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
except it wasnt invicibility, it was revenge.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
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
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
Archer 007
Rebirth
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.
EmpireofVirtue
Warlord
Versails was just flawed, end of topic.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
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'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.
Yago
came undone
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, and their old nationality would be meaningless. The way it was taught, and the hard times in which Germany fell later, where a dangerous brew. And the knowledge of the Germans, that the really were the dominating military power of Europe (except for Russia, but which was tied down with its on problems and the resulting incapality to really matter in that time period) made for one the "backstabbing"-legend so plausible, the cutting off of many its land so "hurting" and "humilating" and the "unfairness" of obviously "weaker" countries having a bigger share of the pie. They would be much harder hit after WW2, which so the near complete destruction of the diversity of central-Europe with its language patchwork (which was not bad in itself) swept away by nationalism and is only remembered by the architecture which survived and history books.
And I think the Versailles-treaty had a huge aspect of trying to contain the Germans, while power-politics started to interfere.
Think how many people take the "alliance" between USA/UK/France easily for granted. Or now the infamous "British/US" alliance with the "special relationship". When taking such things for granted and look back in history, one might get a distorted picture. I don't claim my view is correct, but the huge writings about this all and different views that exist on the way the first great war ended, shows how complex it is.
And then this "Elsace-Lorraine" belongs to me, no me, no me. Elsace-Lorraine belongs to Elsace-Lorraine. If history would have been slightly different, there would be a country Elsace-Lorraine, as there are Belgium and the Netherlands today. One should not forget, that Belgium once was dissolved and swallowed by another country too. But by another country not about 20 or 30 times bigger in size. Obviously, Elsace is happy now where it is.
And to the war-guilt. All those bigger European nations where like a pack of hungry wolves, which couldn't wait to get on eachothers throat. The war had to happen, no country had more guilt then the other
Kamilian
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2002
- Messages
- 3,473
Technically, there was no Poland to invade anymore - it had already been invaded by 3 nations during the Three Partitions of Poland more than a century ago. Germany, Russia, and Austria each already succeeded in wiping the country from the map of Europe, although they failed to wipe out the Polish nation (not nation as in country, but nation as in culture, language, etc).
Of course they could have done it, but would it make things better in the long term? Hell no! If they destroyed the Ruhr and kept the Versailles Treaty harsh as it already was (especially in terms of the reparations payments), then Germany would NEVER have been able to even begin recovering economically. The already weak democracy would be weakened even further and be more vulnerable to the extreme right (monarchists, nationalists...) and the extreme left (communists). Also, it would create even more hatred and resentment and bitterness among the German people and probably would have allowed Hitler and his Nazis to gain power even earlier than 1933-1934. The destruction of the Ruhr industrial region would have crippled Germany economically and would be the death warrant for the inefficient and unstable Weimar Republic.
Again, I disagree, Marla. But I agree with what Adler said in response - Germany did not stand a chance by 1918/1919. If it would not sign the dictated Treaty of Versailles, then the Allies would invade Germany and the result would be a much much much weaker Germany and an even harsher treaty that would make German people resent the outcome of the war and the victors of the war even more. And, as I said above, they would go vote for the nationalists or the communists in Reichstag elections.
Note that I am not German - I am Polish and some people would think that I, as a Pole, would be the last person to defend German plight at the end of World War I. But the fact is that the treaty was harsh and unfair. AND, to link it with Poland, it failed to sufficiently mark the Polish-German post-war border, and there were skirmishes between German and Polish militias and/or volunteers in several areas that were marked for plebiscite votes.
Marla_Singer
United in diversity
I totally agree with Yago and I'm glad the time of European Wars have ended. We needed two world wars and several genocides to finally understand the best choice was simply to live together. Why so many dead people for just that ?
Kamilian, I agree with you except on one point. You don't have to imagine what would have happened if German main industrial regions had been destroyed... simply because that's exactly what happened in France. The economic and demographic costs were huge in France actually. Now, there are many topics we didn't talk about like the inflation in Germany during the Weimar Republic... It's also an interesting story.
My last point is that from 1805 to 1945, France and Germany did awful things one against each other. It's something quite obvious and we don't have to answer Frankfurt Treaty to Versailles Treaty... it's an endless chat. The main guilty of all that is simply nationalism. I'm glad we finally understood how dangerous that sickness was.
If I talk about it as if it was behind me, it's simply because I hope it's behind me... but I'm not sure at all. Let's see how History will be written in the future.
The EU rules !!
Kamilian, I agree with you except on one point. You don't have to imagine what would have happened if German main industrial regions had been destroyed... simply because that's exactly what happened in France. The economic and demographic costs were huge in France actually. Now, there are many topics we didn't talk about like the inflation in Germany during the Weimar Republic... It's also an interesting story.
My last point is that from 1805 to 1945, France and Germany did awful things one against each other. It's something quite obvious and we don't have to answer Frankfurt Treaty to Versailles Treaty... it's an endless chat. The main guilty of all that is simply nationalism. I'm glad we finally understood how dangerous that sickness was.
If I talk about it as if it was behind me, it's simply because I hope it's behind me... but I'm not sure at all. Let's see how History will be written in the future.
The EU rules !!
Kamilian
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2002
- Messages
- 3,473
I'm assuming (and I'm probably correct in this assumption) that you are saying that the destruction of Germany's industrial regions (which is what indeed happened in France) would have hindered its potential to generate weapons and war. With this, I definitely agree. HOWEVER, it also brings me back to my earlier statement that it would have generated more resentment and encouraged extremism, especially that of vengeful nationalists. EVENTUALLY, once the nationalists took over, they would find ways to rearm - whether internally or imported from or assisted by other countries who also became pariahs in post-WW1 world (ehem... USSR and to some extent Italy). The bitter resentment and lust for vengeance would make a brutal war inevitable - the destruction of the industrial powerhouses yould only postpone it.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
they would have likely rebuilt the ruhr and then started churning out weapons. for all you know the industrial build-up could have been all of germany built up with massive production. Then the allies and russians would have gotten wasted in WW2 because of numerical superiority of superior equipment.
Archer 007
Rebirth
The Germans would have lost anyway because they were landlocked for all pratical purposes.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
they werent land locked, and after the fall of russia they could have set an armstice with the allies which would allow germny to keep its territory that it holds. Remember also that higher production would have made the luftwaffe overwhelmingly outnumbering the RAF so that britain wouldnt have held by air and an invasion would soon follow.
Similar threads
