Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal [Archive] - Page 2

Louis VI the Fat

02-27-2010, 16:27

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my viewThis indeed is my evolution of thought, and apparantly that of Brenus and several other as well.

Until not that long ago, I was of the same mind as TinCow, Wizard, many others. 'Harsh treaty, unfair, caused resentment, this resentment went wrong in 1933, however Germany overeacted with Htiler etc'. There is a clear attraction to this history. It reconciles Germany with its neighbours, it allows for self-criticism both outside and within Germany, it leaves Hitler as an exceptional period.
One can then build on this history by attractively contrasting it with post-WWII, which then looks as concilliatory, 'the way it should be done', and this time we all lived happily ever after.

Unfortunately, there is one slight problem with this history. As the world's greatest philosopher of WWI - Edmund Blackadder - put it so succinctly: it is bollocks.

It simply does not confirm to the facts, does not hold up to close scrutiny of the sources, and moreover it is based on several fundamentally erroneous notions. Unfortunately the assesment of the Treaty that arises from a closer look has the curse of being of later date. It finds itself difficult to replace existing notions, many of which existed even before the Treaty was signed. First impressions are always exceedingly difficult to overcome, no matter the extent to which they contradict more subtle later understanding. Sober analysis has been overshouted from the get go.
History, however, has the advantage of time. The immediate bad press of Versailles and the politicised sentiments surrounding the tragic subsequent events will slowly reside, leaving the field to a more sober and factual analysis of its real merits and shortcomings.

@Husar - 'beggars can't be chosers' is not my verdict of Versailles. On the contrary, the reverse is. Beggars were given a choice here, and a respectable one at that.
As for you getting nervous about 'look at evil Germany', especially for you: Sarko admits French 'mistakes' in Rwandan genocide of 1994. (http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-sarkozy-rwanda-first-visit-france-rwanda-diplomacy)

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 18:02

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough. There's a standard mythology on WW1 that goes from war poets to the interwar period. The more I read about the war, the more I feel the standard line teaches the wrong conclusions, or at least overly simplistic conclusions. Here's another myth from the period: the British Army consisted of lions led by donkeys.

agreed, one of the most interesting threads in backroom for some time, my thanks to the OP and other sundry wise heads.

Beskar

02-27-2010, 18:43

Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough.

Being honest, in hindsight, perhaps the French position to dissolve Germany into smaller states would have been better, as Hitler would have been out of the limelight. There would have been no holocaust, or any other of the atrocities brought upon the world by the Germans.

It is a very dangerous position to hold. Especially, hypothetically you got into a time-machine and did this, the world would be a vastly different place and the results of which we do not know.

Louis VI the Fat

02-27-2010, 19:20

Being honest, in hindsight, perhaps the French position to dissolve Germany into smaller states would have been betterWhat should've been done, quickly descends into 'what-if' scenarios, so I'll refrain from that.

The French position was not to dissolve Germany. To reduce German preponderance, yes. A hegemonic power could not be tolerated. But wild plans to dissolve Germany were not serious diplomatic suggestions. France had long conciled itself to the existence of a united Germany. A Germany that would always be structurally larger than France. What Clemenceau sought, was security in light of this accepted fact.

The French policy had two pillars: an alliance with the US and the UK, and co-operation with Germany.
French posturising was a means to get the Anglo powers to accept France's position: that as a victor it could not be expected to accept the goal of Versailles to restore Germany as Europe's greatest power without guarantees of security. Either Germany is diminished*, or France's security is guaranteed by alliance. Thus the Anglo powers agreed to a guarantee of alliance. (Hence the strong US presence in Europe in 1940, making good on this essential element of the Versailles system and thereby preventing in the first place any renewed German aggression.
No, wait...)
The other pillar was co-operation with Germany to offset the reliance on the Anglo alliance, in which France would always be the junior partner, her interests easily brushed aside. France needed Germany, economically and politically.

French policy has been remarkably consistent ever since 1918. :beam:
The above impulses still govern French foreign policy issues, with the difference that after 1945 the Americans could be persuaded. French logic of the state is usually quite rational. Many American analysts overlook these fundamental impulses of French foreign policy, to this day, creating the impression of French erraticism.

*Unfortunately, this created the impression that France was a hardliner, implacably hostile to Germany, unforgiven in peace. Not so, of course, as the above shows. Even so, it didn't help in the atmosphere of disillusionenment that quickly took hold in 1919. French stupidity, arrogance, lingering wartime calls for ever more reduction of Germany (including in Clemenceau's head) didn't help either. The US nearly wholly withdrew from the Versailles system. The British could never fully make up their mind either way. This left France as the power to see to the fulfillment of the Treaty.
Germany from the get go tried to undermine the system, leaving France no choice but to intervene on behalf of the system. At each step, re-inforcing the perception that France was implacably set against reconcilliation. Thereby further allienating the US, and to a lesser extent, the UK.

Brenus

02-27-2010, 21:18

"apparently that of Brenus" Yeap. As every pupils in France I was told that Versailles was harsh and "punished" Germany for starting a war. We were told that after 1870 and French it was revenchism but after 1918 and German it was valid claim and unjust humiliation.
Until Louis' intervention, it was still in my mind.
I never really questioned Brest-Litosvk, nor really saw Frankfurt Treaty for what they were.

I do accept Louis' analyze about the bouts et aboutissements, the reasons why this explanation was convenient in a Post WW2 and Cold War.
But it perhaps time to be adult and to face the reality which is History now.

Husar

02-28-2010, 14:50

Until not that long ago, I was of the same mind as TinCow, Wizard, many others. 'Harsh treaty, unfair, caused resentment, this resentment went wrong in 1933, however Germany overeacted with Htiler etc'. There is a clear attraction to this history. It reconciles Germany with its neighbours, it allows for self-criticism both outside and within Germany, it leaves Hitler as an exceptional period.
One can then build on this history by attractively contrasting it with post-WWII, which then looks as concilliatory, 'the way it should be done', and this time we all lived happily ever after.

Germany didn't just overreact with Hitler, it's not like he promised to kill all the jews and try to conquer the world and got elected because of that. I've never seen it as an exceptional period either, merely as a follow up of the previous periods. Racism, imperialism etc. weren't even Hitler's inventions, he just built them upon existing notions and the apathy of large parts of the population which still exists today ("oh, look, a girl kicks another girl in the head, let's not get involved, someone might sue us" only back then it was "the SS might kill/question us"). That doesn't say a lot about the treaty of Versailles though, except the part where the French and British didn't enforce the treaty until Hitler had a few more than those 100.000 allowed soldiers.

@Husar - 'beggars can't be chosers' is not my verdict of Versailles. On the contrary, the reverse is. Beggars were given a choice here, and a respectable one at that.
As for you getting nervous about 'look at evil Germany', especially for you: Sarko admits French 'mistakes' in Rwandan genocide of 1994. (http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-sarkozy-rwanda-first-visit-france-rwanda-diplomacy)
Well, it was Beskar who posted that, your fault is just being french and posting it here, should have PMed it to PJ or EMFM and have them open the thread. but what was this choice? Pay or don't pay or do you mean the choice between accepting that treaty that would make us slaves of the French or going on and getting annexed? :inquisitive:

About evil Germany, it's my pipe dream that if I ever get robbed in another country I'll just have to mention I'm german and the criminals will run away in horror. :juggle2:

The Wizard

02-28-2010, 14:55

Until not that long ago, I was of the same mind as TinCow, Wizard, many others. 'Harsh treaty, unfair, caused resentment, this resentment went wrong in 1933, however Germany overeacted with Htiler etc'.

Just to clarify my position, I don't think it was too harsh (or too lenient), I don't know about that. I think it was counterproductive and damaging to Europe's international climate. You need two to dance, so it's more or less another subject.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2010, 15:41

Unfortunately, this created the impression that France was a hardliner, implacably hostile to Germany, unforgiven in peace. Not so, of course, as the above shows. Even so, it didn't help in the atmosphere of disillusionenment that quickly took hold in 1919. French stupidity, arrogance, lingering wartime calls for ever more reduction of Germany (including in Clemenceau's head) didn't help either. The US nearly wholly withdrew from the Versailles system. The British could never fully make up their mind either way. This left France as the power to see to the fulfillment of the Treaty.
Germany from the get go tried to undermine the system, leaving France no choice but to intervene on behalf of the system. At each step, re-inforcing the perception that France was implacably set against reconcilliation. Thereby further allienating the US, and to a lesser extent, the UK.

Imposition of an un-negotiated treaty after what was NOT an unconditional surrender will do that. Germany did not agree to anything to the treaty, she was merely made to sign.

How this point still escapes you, Loius, I don't know.

Brenus

02-28-2010, 15:47

“Pay or don't pay or do you mean the choice between accepting that treaty that would make us slaves of the French or going on and getting annexed”:
That was the choice offered by the German t France in 1870. France got occupied and paid for the cost of the occupying forces, and paid the “war reparations” for having started the war.
Germany after 1918 didn’t pay and wasn’t “enslave” and voted for Hitler.
France had no choice in 1870 or Germany in 1918. The protests from the French in 1870 were ignored, and the French had to accept the humiliation.

“Germany didn't just overreact with Hitler, it's not like he promised to kill all the jews and try to conquer the world and got elected because of that. I've never seen it as an exceptional period either, merely as a follow up of the previous periods.”
Unfortunately you are right. Hitler anti-Semitism was not exceptional and was considered as normal.
He in fact capitalised on Weimar successes in not paying the debts, in creating the Reichswehr (and freikorps) and the system which allowed to train Officers and NCO in USSR, the training of the Tanks Tactics with the Red Army starting in 1920, the cracking down of the Spartakist movement.

The development of new planes, tanks and various materials thanks to the treaty of Rappallo which clearly show that the non-nazi Germany had no intention to respect Versailles, in the letter or in the soul.
Links showing this appeared early in 1920, but the Allies were decided to ignore them as proofs pf good will towards Germany. Junkers linked with Tupolev and air forces training were established (Lipstek Base).
By 1929 the German instructor staff had developed a cadre of fighter experts and a fighter tactics manual that were the equal of any major air force's.
Same story with tanks development… In 1925, the Reichswehr's weapons office contracted the engineering firms of Daimler, Rheinmetall, and Krupp to build prototype heavy tanks.
Some of Germany's most able panzer commanders, including General. Wilhelm von Thoma, Walter Nehring, and Georg-Hans Reinhardt, first learned about tanks at Kazan.
It was at Kazan in 1930 that Heinz Guderian saw his first larger-scale armoured manoeuvres.

So, you right. Hitler wasn’t the one who built it all.
[U]Hitler could never have rearmed the nation so quickly without the testing programs in Russia.

Fisherking

02-28-2010, 20:56

Several times I have heard Versailles compared to the harshness of the Frankfort Treaty.

I guess I must be missing something. Frankfort gave Germany Alsace-Lorraine, a favorable trade agreement with France and reparations amounting to 5 billion francs.

When the Armistice was signed the siege of Paris was lifted at once and food was shipped in, including German supplied food, by the way.

Alsace-Lorraine were deemed necessary to the union of the German States. No one wanted to border France for some reason. It was not done to cripple France but to bring about Germany. (not that that is good or bad on its own)

Still it was harsh for France who lost 20% of its industrial might. They fumed over it for 40 years. But it was negotiated wasn’t it?

The German Treaty with Russia was much harsher. It took a lot of land and created quite a few new states. But it too was negotiated.

Versailles forced the Germans to repudiate that treaty and every other treaty back to 1843.

The Armistice rather than surrendering a couple of forts involved the surrender of the navy, the air force, artillery, machineguns, and merchant shipping. That and 5000 locomotives and 150,000 rail cars. That isn’t all of course there was much more.

In exchange the Allied forces left the blockade in place starving to death and estimated 750,000 people.

Then of course we get to the reasonable and moderate terms of the treaty.

Now the new look examines the reparations. They don’t find them exorbitant, in fact they find them most reasonable.

To me the reparations were just adding insult to injury anyway. It was the giving up of 5 provinces and parts of others. Turning over the Saar to France and the following plebiscite. The surrender of all colonies. The creation of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of refugees. The destabilization of the greater part of Europe when it was recovering from war.

The process was not limited to Germany. And Russia didn’t receive its lands back it had surrendered to Germany. It isn’t that the former Austrian or Ottoman territories were better off. But this is about how fair and reasonable Versailles was.

I don’t think that addressing a part of the mess sheds any light on the problems. It was divisive at the time and hasn’t gotten a lot better with time.

The Americans were disgusted and disillusioned with the process and withdrew into isolationism. The other parties didn’t have that option.

It is not that it was a French mistake, or a British, or American. It was the blending of those interests that led to a mess and they got pretty much what they deserved twenty years down the line.

It wasn’t something anyone was happy with. Wouldn’t that normally be an indicator that there was something wrong with it?

Pannonian

02-28-2010, 21:39

So how does Versailles compare with its contemporary, Brest-Litovsk? One was imposed by the Germans, the other was imposed on the Germans. Which was harsher?

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2010, 21:43

The German Treaty with Russia was much harsher. It took a lot of land and created quite a few new states. But it too was negotiated.

Versailles forced the Germans to repudiate that treaty and every other treaty back to 1843.

Then of course we get to the reasonable and moderate terms of the treaty.

Now the new look examines the reparations. They don’t find them exorbitant, in fact they find them most reasonable.

To me the reparations were just adding insult to injury anyway. It was the giving up of 5 provinces and parts of others. The surrender of all colonies. The creation of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of refugees. The destabilization of the greater part of Europe when it was recovering from war.

The process was not limited to Germany. And Russia didn’t receive its lands back it had surrendered to Germany. It isn’t that the former Austrian or Ottoman territories were better off. But this is about how fair and reasonable Versailles was.B...but Fisherking, you yourself argued at great length that the Fourteen Points ought to have been the basis for peace.

Well, what you describe above IS the Fourteen Points. :beam:

The reparations, the stripping of colonies, the territorial concessions, the dismemberment of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, the military reduction, the return of Alsace-Lorraine. These ARE the Fourteen Points.

In exchange the Allied forces left the blockade in place starving to death an estimated 750,000 people.
Not true.

Turning over the Saar to France Not true either.

The Saarland, despite its complicated modern history as in-between land between France and Germany, was granted a plebiscite. The population decided to stay with Germany. This was respected.
See? That's how enlightened Versailles was: it introduced national self-determination. This principle still governs our international law.

It wasn’t something anyone was happy with. Wouldn’t that normally be an indicator that there was something wrong with it? One could argue that this is telling of Versailles being a skillful compromise, the best possible under the circumstances. Nobody got it their way. Everybody had to take the interests of others into account.
Perhaps the rest of society ought to have shown this maturity too, and accept that no country can have it his way, all the way, all of the time.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2010, 21:49

Imposition of an un-negotiated treaty after what was NOT an unconditional surrender will do that. Germany did not agree to anything to the treaty, she was merely made to sign.

How this point still escapes you, Loius, I don't know.It doesn't escape me. I think it is fundamentally erroneous.

All countries that lose a war are 'forced at gunpoint to an agreement they don't agree with'. It's the very definition of losing a war.

If Germany wanted a negotiated peace, it should've opted for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This did not come about. Instead, Germany was defeated, and acknowledged defeat. This defeat was formalised in a peace treaty.
And a great and idealistic peace treaty at that, far more lenient than any treaty Germany ever gave any country it defeated, and far more lenient than Germany expected.

Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology. :book:

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2010, 22:03

???

not supposed to be here.

Pannonian

02-28-2010, 22:12

One could argue that this is telling of Versailles being a skillful compromise, the best possible under the circumstances. Nobody got it their way. Everybody had to take the interests of others into account.
Perhaps the rest of society ought to have shown this maturity too, and accept that no country can have it his way, all the way, all of the time.

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Sintra). Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.

Louis VI the Fat

02-28-2010, 22:20

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Sintra). Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.Duh. The fighting didn't take place in France so we were not defeated.

So British lies and a duplicitous act. :furious3:

PanzerJaeger

02-28-2010, 23:46

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Sintra). Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.

This thread gets more and more... interesting... each day. :wiseguy:

Husar

03-01-2010, 00:51

Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology. :book:

Are you sure about that? It's not like Hitler ever tried to sue for peace...

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 01:18

Are you sure about that? It's not like Hitler ever tried to sue for peace...Fair point.

However, one can wonder what would've become of Germany's tentative peace overtures if the allies had not snubbed them because of their policy of unconditional surrender.

Strike For The South

03-01-2010, 01:22

Fair point.

However, one can wonder what would've become of Germany's tentative peace overtures if the allies had not snubbed them because of their policy of unconditional surrender.

So what you're telling me is, fear the Germans even when bearing gifts?

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 01:28

Fear mass delusion, hysteria and nationalist agitation.
And, fair is fair, fear British and French stupidity and arrogance.
Always go back to the sources for historicla truth, never accept conventional wisdom.
Don't let victors be played against each other by the vanquished.

Strike For The South

03-01-2010, 01:31

Fisherking

03-01-2010, 08:42

@ Louis IV the Fat

Okay, I am wrong and you are the Authority. So, could you enlighten me on a few points?

What were the effects of the continuing blockade of Germany after the Armistice?

What were the treaty conditions regarding the Saarland? (it is handled in more than one section of the treaty)

What was Wilson’s point about the handling of German Colonies, and what actually happened?

As regards plebiscite, there were other regions where they were also mandated. Despite the people voting to remain part of Germany, the regions were transferred to Poland. Why do you think that was?

This whole discussion has left the impression that I am very pro German, which is not actually the case.

It just seems to me they were made the whipping boy for everyone’s mistakes. Why did they deserve the treatment?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-01-2010, 12:24

It doesn't escape me. I think it is fundamentally erroneous.

All countries that lose a war are 'forced at gunpoint to an agreement they don't agree with'. It's the very definition of losing a war.

If Germany wanted a negotiated peace, it should've opted for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This did not come about. Instead, Germany was defeated, and acknowledged defeat. This defeat was formalised in a peace treaty.
And a great and idealistic peace treaty at that, far more lenient than any treaty Germany ever gave any country it defeated, and far more lenient than Germany expected.

Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology. :book:

The excesses of the treaty, particularly the humiliating and absurd military reductions help to explain the German attitude. That the Allies would dein to inflict that alone would offend the Prussian mindset. You have said it yourself, France sought to weaken Germany for her own benefit. I'm sure you recognise the irony of France fearing a hegemonic Germany.

The problem with your comparison to the Franco-Prussian war is obvious and I am surprised no one has picked you up on it. The Prussians defeated the the French army in France, captured the Emperor and besieged Paris. ?Under the circumstances the goverment surrendered, ceding the forts around Paris in the process and effectively giving the Germans the city.

The armastice was signed at Versailles and food imediately began to flow into the city.

By constrast, Germany's army was intact in 1918 (though no longer really effrective) and her territory was unvioated. Germany was not deated in the same manner as France had been, and as such the treaty terms were inapropriate.

This does not make Versailles harsh as a treaty, but it's imposition on Germany was an intenational affront.

cegorach

03-01-2010, 19:07

Few treaties are as contentious as the Treaty of Versailles. For even fewer, there is as large a discrepancy between modern, serious scholars, and the public at large.

Whereas the general public has since almost the very beginning swallowed hook, line and sinker German propaganda, serious historians have in the past two decades reached a far more balanced view. 'Versailles' is currently regarded in a much more positive light. It was a moderate, pragmatical, lenient treaty.

Unfortunately, in this instance, the losers have managed to write history.

I certainly agree with that. Decades of writing managed to turn it almost upside down.

Of course pretty much ANY treaty would be considered harsh by the losers and if for example the famous 'corridor' was kept by Germany it would rather strenghten this country than weaken it.

After all who would emerge as a dominant power in the CEE with the Soviets threatening everyone?

Weakened Czechoslovakia and weak Poland (without a port) could only create some sort of Mitteleuropa, especially with almost obliterated Austria, scarred Hungary, internally fractured Yugoslavia and not so powerful Romania facing the Soviets.

What would the point in that to win the war, but grant the fruits of victory to your enemy.
Would it at least save peace in Europe?
No freaking way.

Pannonian

03-01-2010, 19:28

I certainly agree with that. Decades of writing managed to turn it almost upside down.

Of course pretty much ANY treaty would be considered harsh by the losers and if for example the famous 'corridor' was kept by Germany it would rather strenghten this country than weaken it.

After all who would emerge as a dominant power in the CEE with the Soviets threatening everyone?

Weakened Czechoslovakia and weak Poland (without a port) could only create some sort of Mitteleuropa, especially with almost obliterated Austria, scarred Hungary, internally fractured Yugoslavia and not so powerful Romania facing the Soviets.

What would the point in that to win the war, but grant the fruits of victory to your enemy.
Would it at least save peace in Europe?
No freaking way.

Britain tried that once. Nearly cost Wellesley his career, as the British back home were aghast at the terms granted to the defeated French. Wordsworth wrote a lengthy rant against it.

Louis VI the Fat

03-01-2010, 20:09

Poland The perfidious allied act of granting self-determination to Poland, in accordance to the Fourteen Points, was a duplicitous act that humiliated the Prussian mind by stripping him of his God given right to supress the Pole. :furious3:

Britain tried that once. Nearly cost Wellesley his career, as the British back home were aghast at the terms granted to the defeated FrenchWe were not defeated on French soil so we were not defeated at all. Perfidious Albion broke every law and tradition by having the nerve to expect the loser should lose something. :furious3:

Sarmatian

03-01-2010, 21:27

Is it simple coincidence that when the word "French" is used, the word "defeated" always finds its way to the same sentence?

Prince Cobra

03-01-2010, 21:34

Is it simple coincidence that when the word "French" is used, the word "defeated" always finds its way to the same sentence?

It must be because of Napoleon!

Brenus

03-01-2010, 21:58

Well, me thinking in order to avoid a war against Germany, we have to loose it. Then they are not humiliated and… errr…. They started another one thinking they are invincible and it is their right to expend.
So, what if, just to say, the winners pay compensation to Germany, and apologies for its victory. The winners don’t invade Germany proper territory and even Germany can organize it own Parade in her untouched Capital… Ah, It was tried as well…
OK. We said naughty to the German and we never mention it again.

“By contrast, Germany's army was intact in 1918 (though no longer really effective) and her territory was inviolate. Germany was not deated in the same manner as France had been, and as such the treaty terms were inappropriate.”
You having a laugh, have you?
So, Germany 1870 having no whatsoever fighting on her own territory got “war compensation” and that is right but Germany raging war in France (11 % of the French population killed or injured, mostly male between 17 and 40 years old) and Belgium shouldn't been ask to pay a bit.
In what terms do we have to tell you? Do you not see you are just prolonging the myths of the undefeated army stabbed in the back.
So what is your explanation for Germany asking for Armistice? A visit of the Holly Spirit, a bad dream, the Kaiser seeing the bad path he was walking, remorses?
Tell me, why the German Army was in full retreat in November 1918? Why the Germany Army being at the door of Paris in July 1918 was near to be home in November 1918? Because it was so successful?
The only thing that Germany was expecting in 1918 was to see the Entente Soldiers in her towns. Form the East, South or West.

“We were not defeated on French soil so we were not defeated at all”
So, Napoleon never lost at Waterloo, as it is not French territory…
But is it working only for defeats? It looks like:
England won at Crécy and Azincourt. But Formigny and Castillon are not English defeat as it was not on English Soil.
Right.
On another hand, Austerlitz, being a victory counts.

Brenus

03-01-2010, 22:00

"Is it simple coincidence that when the word "French" is used, the word "defeated" always finds its way to the same sentence? ": To avoid to humiliate the Germans as they are quite sensitive on this subject...

Sarmatian

03-01-2010, 22:58

It must be because of Napoleon!

Relax, mate, it's just a good natured jab at my French friends here. Long Live French-Serbian Alliance (tm) - kicking German butt since 1914...

Anyway, sorry to derail one of the finest discussion I've participated in since I've joined the .org.

I just don't see how people can scream murder when they talk about Versailles but completely ignore Brest-Litovsk. No one looks for deeper meaning there, like whether the Russians would felt victimized by the west and seek to regain lost territories and lost pride (as did happen), did it bring stability and long-term peace (it didn't), did it leave Russia in a position to rebuild its economy (it didn't) and so on... It's pushed on the sidelines while Versailles where Germany was dealt such "harsh terms" (that would ruin its economy and leave it defenseless only to raise again as the top economic and military power 20 years later) is given the spotlight.

Fisherking

03-02-2010, 09:37

Relax, mate, it's just a good natured jab at my French friends here. Long Live French-Serbian Alliance (tm) - kicking German butt since 1914...

Anyway, sorry to derail one of the finest discussion I've participated in since I've joined the .org.

I just don't see how people can scream murder when they talk about Versailles but completely ignore Brest-Litovsk. No one looks for deeper meaning there, like whether the Russians would felt victimized by the west and seek to regain lost territories and lost pride (as did happen), did it bring stability and long-term peace (it didn't), did it leave Russia in a position to rebuild its economy (it didn't) and so on... It's pushed on the sidelines while Versailles where Germany was dealt such "harsh terms" (that would ruin its economy and leave it defenseless only to raise again as the top economic and military power 20 years later) is given the spotlight.

I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.

But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.

:laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2010, 19:40

I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.

But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.

:laugh4:Germany indeed was forced to cancel its annexations in the East, and its overlordship of what remained.

Versailles then granted independence from Russia to the Baltics, Poles, etc. Versailles, and the Fourteen Points, are therefore rightly admired for introducing self-determination into international law.

Are you in favour of the Soviet re-annexation of half of Eastern Europe after WWII, and the political dominance over what was left after WWII? This is what Germany sought to do with Brest-Litovsk. Are you in favour of having handed over half of Eastern Europe to the Bolshevists in 1919? Because that is what you are having a laugh about here.

This was halted by Versailles. Then Versailles was castigated because people believed the German nonsense (As they surprisingly do to this very day, including me until not all that long ago) that this was an insufferable humiliation of the Prussian right to dominate. All the laughter at silly Versailles ensured Germany was alowed to try again. It failed again, but the price this time was a Soviet annexation of the Baltics and half of Poland, and political overlordship of the remainder. Not until 1989 was the Versailles solution restored.

Edit: I myself may be wrong. Come to think of it, this happens quite a lot. France as a whole, when speaking ex cathedra in matters pertaining politics, art or philosophy, is infallible.
Whether it's Iraq, warnings over German revanchism after WWI, the excesses of casino capitalism, and everything else.

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2010, 19:44

dp.

Fisherking

03-02-2010, 19:45

I think you are starting to believe your own propaganda.

:laugh4:

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2010, 19:54

Will you not admit that you just lambasted Versailles/ the Entente for not handing over Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland to Russia / the Bolshevists?

Fisherking

03-02-2010, 20:26

I think it my have been more of a question, along with quite a few others that weren’t answered.
:wacky:

.
:tongue3:

Sarmatian

03-02-2010, 21:08

I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.

But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.

:laugh4:

That wasn't my point. I was merely implying that you should look at a bigger picture. Repudiated later or not, that treaty was enforced by Germany, leaving Entente little illussion what's gonna happen with them should Germany win the war. Germany refused any question of self-determination in territory ceded by Russia and would have claimed overlordship of the territories, minus those that would have been annexed outright.

After losing the war, they were dealt a less harsh treaty than they themselves imposed on a defeated enemy not so long ago and the whining about Germany being a victim started...

Brenus

03-02-2010, 21:13

Being French is a good start in order to be right…

But, in this case, Louis showed and established facts. He gave evidences, figures, analyse.

When Versailles is compared with others treaties the anti-Versailles just don’t answer to the questions and argue about others circumstances or others times…

His opponents carried on denials, complain and proved nothing: It was not right, intolerable humiliation and other words…
So until his opponents prove the Treaty and its application really destroyed something else than Germany’s pride…

Louis VI the Fat

03-02-2010, 21:16

quite a few others that weren’t answered.Sorry, I read all of those questions. Should've replied maybe. But I had a feeling we were running around in circles, kind of both hade made our points regarding the topics disputed, and I didn't want to repeat myself.

I shall have to get back to them later. You've stated your case well, and it's been a pleasure debating this with you, so if you want answers, I shall happily oblige.

Fisherking

03-02-2010, 21:34

That wasn't my point. I was merely implying that you should look at a bigger picture. Repudiated later or not, that treaty was enforced by Germany, leaving Entente little illussion what's gonna happen with them should Germany win the war. Germany refused any question of self-determination in territory ceded by Russia and would have claimed overlordship of the territories, minus those that would have been annexed outright.

After losing the war, they were dealt a less harsh treaty than they themselves imposed on a defeated enemy not so long ago and the whining about Germany being a victim started...

There is no doubt what the Kiser and the Junkers had in mind for the conquered territories.

They would at best have been puppet states.

As for the whining Germans, that they did but it was not them alone who found the treaty (if you can call it that) too much. There was no shortage of home grown decent.

The Entente had already succeeded in changing Germany’s form of government.

Treating (note root word for treaty, meaning negotiate) with that government, even with stringent terms, could have still resulted in a better understand between nations than dictating unequivocal terms.

The Germans could blame themselves or thrash around for someone else to blame.

The Allies have not one to blame but themselves.

It was a bad war fought for bad reasons with bad tactics and resulted in a bad peace. The Entente dictated that peace and deserve the lions share of the blame.

edit:That is kind of you Louis but this sums up my position and you can take it up from here. ;)

Pannonian

03-02-2010, 21:50

edit:That is kind of you Louis but this sums up my position and you can take it up from here. ;)

"The conditions in your army are terrible."
"I'm sorry, but those are my conditions and you'll just have to accept them."

cegorach

03-03-2010, 08:57

The perfidious allied act of granting self-determination to Poland, in accordance to the Fourteen Points, was a duplicitous act that humiliated the Prussian mind by stripping him of his God given right to supress the Pole. :furious3:

We were not defeated on French soil so we were not defeated at all. Perfidious Albion broke every law and tradition by having the nerve to expect the loser should lose something. :furious3:

Though Versailles didn't liberate Poland - it was certain from the moment the Central Powers had to deal with those 22+ million people somehow, that is pretty much what the Germans claimed and the majority of lovely German colonists would agree that any concession made to those people is an act of aggresion against the Reich.
True, my heart bleeds whan I am thinking about all those Germany officials, judges, policemen, teachers etc. who were suddenly forced to learn Polish. How absurd it was - those pesky Poles formed just 80% of local population!
We should agree with gen. Montgomery once asked nicely general Maczek 'so what language are you using in your country anyway? Is it German or Russian?'
Just a pinch of wonderful, pompous ignorance and everything is easy and european map is much simplier to read without all those unnerving names you have to remember.

But seriously. It is amazing how far local German population has departed from the loyal citizens of the Commonwealth.
So many people were made to believe is semi-racist slogans fuelling not only distaste of 'inferior slavic culture', apartheit laws inforced in Greater Poland or Pomerelia but also rather ironically forced germanization which backfired and convinced many Silesians and Kashubians that they are Polish after all. With another decade or two Mazurians might be foced to choose this option as well. Under this pressure even Lusatian Sorbs started asking to join slavic Czechoslovakia after I WW.
Bismarck deserves a decent loking monument in the center of Warsaw or rather deserved because presently relations with Germany are back to normal - this Prussian nonsense which stole Germany's future for a century is over.

P.S. Good one Louis. A similar discussion was concluded in the TWC weeks before.
It sems that opinions about the treaty are really changing even if it is still possible to find really 'nice' lines in some 'sources' such as Osprey's 'The German Freikorps 1918–23' where Greater Poland is described as 'traditional Prussian territory'. Well, traditions are traditions - noone asks how old they are.

Prince Cobra

03-03-2010, 10:38

I am quite sure the Central Powers planned to restore the Polish Kingdom as a puppet state with a German dynasty on the top.

Meneldil

03-03-2010, 13:03

Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D

Sarmatian

03-03-2010, 13:50

Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D

Albert Einstain was really a woman. How's that?

KukriKhan

03-03-2010, 14:25

Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D

Here's another: All this re-writing of history, so that Versailles inevitably CAUSED National Socialism and wwII, is a clever conspiracy by the Bush administration to persuade today's Germany that it is now OK (after decades) for them to again nurture their inner warrior and to send German soldiers out of their country TO SUPPORT US MILITARY ADVENTURES, mirroring similar subterranean movements in Japan.

Sarmatian

03-03-2010, 19:06

Here's another: All this re-writing of history, so that Versailles inevitably CAUSED National Socialism and wwII, is a clever conspiracy by the Bush administration to persuade today's Germany that it is now OK (after decades) for them to again nurture their inner warrior and to send German soldiers out of their country TO SUPPORT US MILITARY ADVENTURES, mirroring similar subterranean movements in Japan.

He said outlandish, not plausible.

Fisherking

03-03-2010, 19:57

hum, how is this.

It wasn't Germanys fault. It was Bismarck's curse against the Kiser that stared it all.
:eyebrows:

Brenus

03-03-2010, 21:54

All this was Serbian manipulation

Louis VI the Fat

03-03-2010, 23:42

Just a minute there.

While I agree that the evil Serbian state was behind all of this, I am nowhere near done with the subject.

subliminal manipulation of your mind: Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious

A debate is not won by arguments. It is won by setting the parameters of the debate before the debate has begun. This is what happened with Versailles. Ever since before the Treaty took effect, Germany cried bloody murder, as did all those who did not see their goals achived, or those belonging to any of the many extremists political cults that the first decades of the 20th century bred.

As a result, debate from the very beginning has centred on the question of allied misconduct. The victors have been on perennial trial. A criminal process, with the entente powers as the accused. They can plead their case, can rubbish any allegation, but the one thing people will remember is that 'the allies are accused of humiliating Germany with a duplicitous act'.

Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious Versailles is great Versailles is good Versailles is glorious

There are other ways to describe Versailles, other narratives. Take a step away from the very politicised history of World Wars, (politicised history, and, moreover, a perennial playground of amateur historians and political analysts, armchair generals, and pimple-faced teenage boys with an internets), and there are other ways to look at this Treaty.

For example, international law. The Treaty enjoys an entirely different status here. An idealistic treaty that introduced such modernities as: respect for the defeated, persecution of war crimes, national self-determination, a massive shift towards morality in international law, legal regulation of war and peace, and international peaceful resolvement of conflict.

The Treaty of Versailles remains the gold standard in most of these aspects. It was more enlightened than anything before, more enlightened than virtually anything that came after. What a glorious treaty!

This little link alone will be an eyeopener. It deals with the less publicly debated aspect of prosecution of war crimes, the chapter before the one that remains the stuff of legend, reparations. It, will be sure to make you rethink what you thought you knew about Versailles:

Introduction
War is a contest between competing legal orders. In every street battle, with every bullet fired and every bomb dropped, one side seeks to obliterate the existing or proposed order and replace this with or retain its own 'order'. History contains few examples where victors have resisted the urge to impose their own order and control. In September 1919, President Woodrow Wilson gave an address at Pueblo, Colorado in support of the League of Nations. Of the treaty of peace, ratified at the Palace of Versailles, earlier that year, he said:

It is a people's treaty, that accomplishes by a great sweep of practical justice the liberation of men who never could have liberated themselves, and the power of the most powerful nations has been devoted not to their aggrandizement but to the liberation of people whom they could have put under their control if they had chosen to do so.

Not one foot of territory is demanded by the conquerors, not one single item of submission to their authority is demanded by them. The men who sat around that table in Paris knew that the time had come when the people were no longer going to consent to live under masters, but were going to live the lives that they chose themselves, to live under such governments as they chose themselves to erect. That is the fundamental principle of this great settlement.

Much has been said of that great settlement being one of the causes of the 2nd World War. Less that the European analysis with which Wilson gave to those 'who no longer consent to live under masters' ignored the struggle for self-determination that was being experienced throughout the world (1). But by seeking to dramatically alter the way in which conquerors considered defeated nations the treaty was a thoroughly modern document (2).

A gesture of Political maturity
Partly as a response to German public outrage, partly as a sign of maturity by the English delegation at Versailles, a recommendation made by the German delegation was supported (5). The German delegation settled the problems arising from the findings of the Commission and I would respectfully submit here that it said a great deal about the maturity, trust and diplomacy of those seeking lasting peace that their recommendations were accepted.

The German proposal was that a trial be held in Leipzig's Criminal Senate of the Imperial Court of Germany and that trials be conducted under German law. The Peace Conference agreeing to this, legislation was duly passed

Present day relevance
The Leipzig war trials were remarkable for particular reasons in relation to the conduct of the victors of the Great War. Following the German suggestion of jurisdiction, the Allied Powers demonstrated their belief that the German judiciary would uphold justice following an examination of the evidence put before them.

This belief is founded not only on Wilson's terms as quoted above, but also within the context of Lloyd George's belief that the salvation of the greater good of Europe was reliant on a German state that could be seen to be functional in the eyes of the citizens of that republic. This gave considerable support to the notion that national stability following conflict was possible, that its legal system remained efficacious and credible, although, ultimately events of 1923 in Munich would conspire to eliminate this suggestion.

This notion of an efficacious legal system of a conquered state is a notion quite alien in modern global politics. It would be unthinkable for a military power to hand back the keys to the kingdom to the judiciary of a defeated state for fear that their ideologies would result in sham sentencing or acquittal without due reason. But the understanding that a legal system maintains validity invests the decision of the Allied Powers of 1919 with considerable maturity since that decision recognises the legal system of the defeated nation. A conquering force that chooses to indefinitely detain and interrogate war 'criminals' without the light of judicial scrutiny and public knowledge does so by debasing not only the legal order of the state it has conquered but so too other legal systems that could bring justice to bear. This cements a vision emptied of trust in the justice that characterises every legal system.

Lloyd George was accused publicly of kowtowing to a nationalist fervour seeking to bring blooded revenge through legal punishment, but privately he argued for the importance of an international empathy. This belief consolidated international understanding, offered force back to the 'enemy' and created a legacy of which present legislators find impossible to avail themselves.

http://www.lawreports.co.uk/Newsletter/OnlineArticles/LeipzigWarTrialsAug05.htmA side note: compare the Leipzig Trials with the Neuremberg Trials, and - disregarding, perhaps, that those nazis ought to have been hung indeed - and you might never again think that Germany was brutalised in 1919, but dealt with in a conciliatory matter in 1945.
It was, as in virtually every other aspect, the reverse.
The difference is that perhaps concilliation requires a full overthrow of order before it can be achieved. Military, politically and legally. A hard lesson to learn, with political consequence and difficult moral dilemmas for the modern world and conflict resolution.

Louis VI the Fat

03-04-2010, 00:58

More documents for further reading.

The Armistice.
Should be most enlightening for those who think of the armistice as some sort of 'ceasefire'. The terms were, rather, dictated by the allies to Germany, and were non-negotionable. Apart from that, the very terms leave no doubt: it is a full defeat.

Noteworthy are:
- Germany already in the armistice is forced to surrender its military fighting capability
- the blockade will remain in effect
- allied occupation, to be paid by Germany
- territorial concessions

10 November, 1918
Official release by the German Government, published in the Kreuz-Zeitung, November 11, 1918.
The following terms were set by the Allied powers for the Armistice.

1. Effective six hours after signing.

2. Immediate clearing of Belgium, France, Alsace-Lorraine, to be concluded within 14 days. Any troops remaining in these areas to be interned or taken as prisoners of war.

3. Surrender 5000 cannon (chiefly heavy), 30,000 machine guns, 3000 trench mortars, 2000 planes.

4. Evacuation of the left bank of the Rhine, Mayence, Coblence, Cologne, occupied by the enemy to a radius of 30 kilometers deep.

5. On the right bank of the Rhine a neutral zone from 30 to 40 kilometers deep, evacuation within 11 days.

6. Nothing to be removed from the territory on the left bank of the Rhine, all factories, railroads, etc. to be left intact.

7. Surrender of 5000 locomotives, 150,000 railway coaches, 10,000 trucks.

8. Maintenance of enemy occupation troops through Germany.

9. In the East all troops to withdraw behind the boundaries of August 1, 1914, fixed time not given.

10. Renunciation of the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest.

11. Unconditional surrender of East Africa.

12. Return of the property of the Belgian Bank, Russian and Rumanian gold.

13. Return of prisoners of war without reciprocity.

14. Surrender of 160 U-boats, 8 light cruisers, 6 Dreadnoughts; the rest of the fleet to be disarmed and controlled by the Allies in neutral or Allied harbors.

15. Assurance of free trade through the Cattegat Sound; clearance of mine fields and occupation of all forts and batteries, through which transit could be hindered.

16. The blockade remains in effect. All German ships to be captured.

17. All limitations by Germany on neutral shipping to be removed.

18. Armistice lasts 30 days.
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Conditions_of_an_Armistice_with_Germany

Louis VI the Fat

03-04-2010, 01:00

Wilson's right hand man explains the Fourteen Points in more detail. Very enlightening too.

This leaves no doubt:
Germany to lose its colonies.
Colonies to be mandated by France and Britain, German colonies - unspecified as yet - presumably so too.
Germany to return Alsace-Lorraine
Germany to lose territory in the East to Poland and others
Germany to pay reparations to France for the full damage of the civil destruction
Germany to pay reparations to Belgium and others

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/doc31.htm

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

These two documents should go a long way to dispelling the notions that:

- Germany did not lose the war
- That Germany was duped by a promise of a more lenient treaty (Most of the contentious provisions are part of the Fourteen Points no less)
- The Fourteen Points are the honourable peace, and Versailles a brutal humiliating one.
- That the allies were duplicitous, by abusing a 'ceasefire' and then exploit this for a harsher treaty than Germany expected
- That Germany would've fought on if it would've known the terms of the treaty.
- That Germany even considered itself capable of fighting on in the first place, regardless of what the eventual peace would be like.

The actual Versailles Treaty and subsequent alterations gave Germany a more lenient peace than the Fourteen Points, and a more lenient one than Germany could or should have expected when it declared itself defeated on November 11th.

Fisherking

03-04-2010, 06:04

Louis, It is breaking down.

I wanted to point out what point five said about the handling of colonies. And what your summation said.

Instead I see the point interpreted by Colonel House.

You bring up points interrupted by one of the most divisive personalities in all of American History?

There are some who would equate that to bringing in the Devil to defend the Thief.

I will just say that I think most of what was expected was not what was delivered.

I do indeed think that the Entente was duplicitous. But I will leave it at that.

I am not going down that road.

We can argue what the definition of “is” is and it won’t change a thing.

cegorach

03-04-2010, 07:54

The excesses of the treaty, particularly the humiliating and absurd military reductions help to explain the German attitude. That the Allies would dein to inflict that alone would offend the Prussian mindset. You have said it yourself, France sought to weaken Germany for her own benefit. I'm sure you recognise the irony of France fearing a hegemonic Germany.

I can agree with that.

I think that these reduction helped a lot Germany in forming more modern fighting forces. If, as all their neighbours' they were forced to maintain a sizable army all this time, use older equipement (because it was cost effective to keep for example those cannons), feed and expand large navy and deal with even greater traditionalist opposition in the army they could pose less serious danger in later decades.
That is ignoring psychological consequences of this military reduction.

@Prince Cobra

I am quite sure the Central Powers planned to restore the Polish Kingdom as a puppet state with a German dynasty on the top.

Yes some sort of 'congress Poland' most likely bigger in the east, but without losing an inch of the Reich, most likely on the contrary - textile industry of Łódź could be annexed for example.
The Mittleeuropa would consist of a series of semi-colonial puppets, formed in conflicting borders so the old rule 'divide at impera' could be used effectively.
In other words another Balcans. That is really something the world and Europe needed...

Seamus Fermanagh

04-08-2010, 12:59

This wonderful thread, begun by the new Monast-in-chief in the Backroom, was a natural fit for the Monastery....but engendered such a lovely discussion that none of the BR mod staff had the heart to give it away. As it has now slipped from view in the BR, I have shifted it into the Monastery so that those of you who never deign to roll around in the political mud with the rest of the Backroomers can partake of one of the better discussions on the .org these past few years. I now turn it over to Louis' and CBR's tender care.

Louis VI the Fat

04-08-2010, 14:06

Now that the thread has been released in its natural habitat, I might as well feed it one more time.

The Versailles Treaty of 1919 remains one of the most profoundly misinterpreted international events of modern history. Eighty years after the victors attempted to put “Humpty Dumpty” back together again, a simplistic account of the international conference continues to be deeply embedded in public consciousness and at least some high school curricula. This reading of the Treaty alleges extraordinarily harsh treatment of Germany, featuring ruinous reparations that caused calamitous inflation and later the Great Depression, leaving Hitler and World War II in their wake. William Keylor’s The Legacy of the Great War offers a contemporary reassessment in a sagely selected collection of essays in Houghton Mifflin’s Problems in European Civilization series. Keylor is the author of a text on twentieth-century international relations, which provides him with a century-long and international overview, and he has published recently two relevant essays.[1]

In his “Introduction,” Keylor sketches the context of the peace conference, its historiography, and the structure of his volume. He ascribes the negative impressions of the Paris Peace Conference largely to the first fifty years of historiography, which held that a “Carthaginian peace” had undermined Woodrow Wilson’s moral vision. To wit, John Maynard Keynes’s Economic Consequences of the Peace “sold like a potboiler” (p. 13). Ray Stannard Baker and Harold Nicolson reinforced these negative images, while “Revisionist” historians in the United States cast doubt on Germany’s responsibility for the outbreak of war. Cold War historiography of the Versailles Treaty remained negative. For example, Arno Mayer and others stressed the influence of anti-Communism on peacemaking in 1919. During the 1970s and 1980s, however, newly opened French archives encouraged more favorable interpretations of the Versailles Treaty, and the essays in this volume are based primarily on new archival material. They also address issues relegated to the back burner at Paris: the rights of minorities, appeals for racial equality and consideration of the “Third World,” conflicting imperialisms and nationalisms in the Middle East, as well as the settlement with Germany.

http://www.h-france.net/vol1reviews/blatt2.html

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

For those with an appetite for a scientific article, try the mother of all re-revisionst articles, Sally Marks' The Myths of Reparations (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545835). It is from 1978. Since that time, she seems to have largely won her struggle for a more...'balanced' appraissal of the reparations issue:

- War guilt clause? What war guilt clause?
- Germany crippled? Germany made a large financial profit from reparations, while the European allies were left financially crippled.
- Versailles a duplicitous peace? Why, indeed it was. In the armistice negotiations, Germany accepted responsibility for all the loss and damage by German aggression. At the peace conference, this was toned down by the allies, to make the peace: Germany would not be asked to pay what it had already agreed to. Duplicitous alright - to those allies who had actually experienced enormous damages and had accepted Germany's defeat on the condition of full restoration.

KrooK

04-12-2010, 21:25

For Poland it was very good treaty. Due to it we regained lands stolen into 1776, 1793 and 1793 and gained some parts of Silesia.
For Germans it was something bad - they lied that they lost something that has always been their.
But they were living on polish soil and it was right that stolen territory must be polish again.
Anyway similar situation appeared after war - Germans forget that they started war and they claimed themselves victims.

PanzerJaeger

04-12-2010, 21:46

But they were living on polish soil and it was right that stolen territory must be polish again.

Not true.

Germans forget that they started war and they claimed themselves victims.

Not true.

Strike For The South

04-12-2010, 21:57

The Lurker Below

04-13-2010, 04:06

glad this was selected to be shared here. very interesting discussion.

Centurion1

04-17-2010, 02:26

WE got a poland patriot on our hands boys and a very ardent one at that.

this should be interesting.

KrooK

04-18-2010, 16:36

Panzerjaeger maybe you could explain us why in your opinion Greater Poland wasn't polish territory annexed by Prussia?
Or Polish Prussia?

Watchman

04-18-2010, 20:57

You know, European states don't really "steal" stuff like real estate from each other so much as rob it at gunpoint... or swordpoint, if talking earlier times. Something of a long and distinguished tradition around the place nevermind now a fairly universal pasttime of rulers. Also pretty much how what we now call "states" got started.
(Kind of passé these days due to the expenses involved in all-out wars with modern tech, though; the World Wars taught that if nothing else.)

Back in the day everyone who could did it as much as they could for the proverbial fun & profit. Polandball is just being whiny 'cause he's been on the wrong end of it so long... :wiseguy:

Pannonian

04-18-2010, 21:18

PanzerJaeger

04-19-2010, 00:29

Panzerjaeger maybe you could explain us why in your opinion Greater Poland wasn't polish territory annexed by Prussia?
Or Polish Prussia?

The partition of Poland was completely acceptable in the time in which it was conducted. Poland had grown weak and dependent on Austria, and was thus split up among greater, more powerful states, as was the norm during the 1700's. That is how modern nations were forged - in the annexation of weaker ones. If you want to retroactively apply statehood to every nation that existed in 1795, the world would look much different.

And before you misinterpret my words, let me just make clear that I do not believe that Poland should be given back to Germany or Russia. Just like the Polish Commonwealth in the late 1700s, Germany and Russia played their geopolitical cards poorly in the world wars and lost their claims on Polish lands. However, you should not take Allied generosity and scheming to weaken Germany and the USSR after World War 1 as some kind of proof that Poland had a right to exist all along.

Strike For The South

04-20-2010, 17:27

Dont worry Pnazer soon he'll give up and move to Chicago

Louis VI the Fat

04-20-2010, 19:11

Hmmm, the standard of this thread has dropped since it has been released into the wild from the confines of the peaceful and tranquil Backroom.

Pannonian

04-20-2010, 19:22

Hmmm, the standard of this thread has dropped since it has been released into the wild from the confines of the peaceful and tranquil Backroom.

Frontroom - Kingdom of Peace and Love
Backroom - Republic of War and Hate

cegorach

04-21-2010, 14:38

@PanzerJaeger

The partition of Poland was completely acceptable in the time in which it was conducted.

Actually it is very far from the truth.

It was seen as exceptional event. Especially because of its consequences - removing one of european powers from the map and the attempts to eraze it from history.

By which of course I mean the treaty from 25th January 1797 you surely remember, but for convenience I will quote it.

In the language it was written, the language of diplomacy and of civilised elites from that time i.e. French:

'La necessite d'abolir tout ce qui peut rappeler le souvenir de l'existence du Royaume de Pologne, lorsque l'aneantissement de ce corps politique est effectue (...) les hautes Parties contractantes sont convenues et s'engagent de ne jamais faire inserer dans leur intitule (...) la denomination ou designation cumulative du Royaume de Pologne, qui demeurera des a present et pour toujours supprimee.'

Poland had grown weak and dependent on Austria,

Which is of course true as long as by Austria you meant Russia, Prussia or even France and Turkey or just european balance of power.
In other words you are almost 100% right.

However, you should not take Allied generosity and scheming to weaken Germany and the USSR after World War 1 as some kind of proof that Poland had a right to exist all along.

Well. Again almost correct. The fact that the state erazed from history bacomes a subject of a troubled discussion only centuries later
less than 10 years after 1797 might suggest slightly different situation.

I also am intrigued how Allied powers supported Poland against the Reds considering that Lloyd George suggested it should capitulate to their demands.

Solid help was given by France, USA and Japan though someone might notice that only American (volunteers and charity help for civilian population during epidemics which swept through the region) and Japanese (Siberian Brigade, help with refugees and cooperation with Polish intelligence about Russian secret codes) was without any noticeable interests in mind.

Haller's 'Blue Army' just like Czech forces transported at the similar time to their homeland was deployed so quickly because of a possiblity that Germany won't accept the treaty so several divisions attacking from Poland and Bohemia might help in convincing them it is still a treaty thay can accept - otherwise the stick, or rather a baseball bat is always there...

Dont worry Pnazer soon he'll give up and move to Chicago

All right Strike For the South, you obviously enjoy good arguments where you can present your extensive knowledge.

I know I will never be able to counter your brilliant arguments, but perhaps for a change you would like to confront me?

Frankly - forgive me, but if this little line is all you can offer I dare say it will be very brief.

@Louis VI the Fat

Hmmm, the standard of this thread has dropped since it has been released into the wild from the confines of the peaceful and tranquil Backroom.

My intrusion won't last too long so I am sure it will be rised again very soon. Don't worry. ;)

Strike For The South

04-21-2010, 16:45

@PanzerJaeger

All right Strike For the South, you obviously enjoy good arguments where you can present your extensive knowledge.

I know I will never be able to counter your brilliant arguments, but perhaps for a change you would like to confront me?

Frankly - forgive me, but if this little line is all you can offer I dare say it will be very brief

I have no doubt your knowledge on this issue trumps mine, my post wasn't even directed towards you to begin with merley a playful jab against krook and PJ seemingly endless fight.

Prince Cobra

04-21-2010, 17:04

I've said what I think on the Versailles "generous, all-forgiving and all-stable" system.

Just to add something about the division of Poland. Poland was divided because: Russia, Prussia and Austria were getting stronger and more expansionist while Poland (indeed a power with potential) was suffering by its weird model of electing each of its kings (the HRE model). The reluctance of the large aristocratic families to obbey one dynasty made them try to find Kings from all over Europe each time the previous King died. This constant instability and the rivalry of the different aristocratic families may explain why Poland became so weak that it finally fell victim to its neighbours.

cegorach

04-21-2010, 17:41

Since I see nothing new added to the discussion perhaps I will throw something.

What do you think about possible conflict between in 1919?

At that time the war could still return and I wonder how long would it last and indeed if Germany were in any condition to fight at all.

I have no doubt your knowledge on this issue trumps mine, my post wasn't even directed towards you to begin with merley a playful jab against krook and PJ seemingly endless fight.

I've noticed, but since there are more Poles here than Krook you could see this coming.
Plust I enjoy it from time to time. [insert overused and somehow bored, but still very much diabolical laugher]

@Prince Cobra

Just to add something about the division of Poland. Poland was divided because: Russia, Prussia and Austria were getting stronger and more expansionist while Poland (indeed a power with potential) was suffering by its weird model of electing each of its kings (the HRE model). The reluctance of the large aristocratic families to obbey one dynasty made them try to find Kings from all over Europe each time the previous King died. This constant instability and the rivalry of the different aristocratic families may explain why Poland became so weak that it finally fell victim to its neighbours.

Since this is very much off-topic I only marked points which I would question.

One point - aritocracy ceased to exist in 1505 in Poland, de facto it still was there, but with numerous shifts and changes, but de iure it appeared only... after the partitions because it existed in the three powers.

In addition not weakness doomed Poland at that time, but atttempts to reform the satte which was seen by the three countries as dangerous.
Without those attempts the country would survive as another sick man of Europe of that period together with the Ottomans, the Netherlands, Spain, Venice etc.

But what survival it would be... better die trying.

KrooK

04-22-2010, 22:08

Pannonian

04-22-2010, 23:02

Strike ...best reply would be from Philippe le Bel (maybe you know this name): "silence Strike".
And my endless dispute with panzerj... is not your job.

Of course you see everything from your narrow French spoint of view.
But you know - I'm really pround I'm from Poland. Really.
Can you be pround that you come from France?
Same time when mine country is rising, your is falling.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with SFTS showing his pride in being quintessentially French. The sunlit vineyards of the provincial town of Eaux-tonnes and his countrymen's wars with the Latin barbarians to the south are substance enough for him to raise his head with pride, and hail the sacred red, white and blue flag.

drone

04-23-2010, 03:03

There is absolutely nothing wrong with SFTS showing his pride in being quintessentially French. The sunlit vineyards of the provincial town of Eaux-tonnes and his countrymen's wars with the Latin barbarians to the south are substance enough for him to raise his head with pride, and hail the sacred red, white and blue flag.

:laugh4:

Strike For The South

04-27-2010, 16:50

Strike ...best reply would be from Philippe le Bel (maybe you know this name): "silence Strike".
And my endless dispute with panzerj... is not your job.

Of course you see everything from your narrow French spoint of view.
But you know - I'm really pround I'm from Poland. Really.
Can you be pround that you come from France?
Same time when mine country is rising, your is falling.

I think I just won the game

I'm sorry I took two seperate jabs at Poland but in my defense they were more than a week apart.

cegorach

04-27-2010, 18:53

Vladimir

04-29-2010, 16:21

Yea. That is pretty good.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-10-2011, 22:27

The treaty of Versiallies should have been more harsh,We french have had problems from you germans!You blame us when it is not true!

sulla1982ad

06-11-2011, 22:00

The treaty of Versiallies should have been more harsh,We french have had problems from you germans!You blame us when it is not true!

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

ShadesWolf

06-12-2011, 20:15

Germany was planning a war well before 1914. they were looking for an excuse and the Austrian incident was just perfect. Russia was the main target but with France has her ally she needed to remove France before she could attack Russia. Germany was concerned that if it waited too long she would get overtaken by Russian and be unable to beat her.

sulla1982ad

06-13-2011, 05:30

Boths sides are whinning that the other side wanted war. As far as I'm concerned both sides wanted war just as much as each other. Also I've always found it funny that the British propaganda got hysterical about belgium being invaded. This is the British empire we are talking about!

There are no good or bad guys in international politics, just bad guys and more bad guys.

Sarmatian

06-13-2011, 08:25

Fisherking

06-13-2011, 09:47

As far as I am concerned the treaty was about assuaging French pride and punishing Germany.

Both reasons are ludicrous.

If it were written today there would be an outcry, just as there was then.

Alsace-Lorraine was still more German than French. The French grabbed it while the Austrians (HRE) had their backs turned dealing with a Turk invasion.

The redrawing of borders and the breakup of Austria and Germany didn’t seem to lead to greater European security or end war for all time.

It was like most things in international politics, it looked like it was handled by six-year-olds.

Graphic

06-13-2011, 11:54

The Morgenthau Plan was a few decades too late if you ask me!

Fisherking

06-13-2011, 13:21

sulla1982ad

06-13-2011, 13:48

Britain guaranteed Belgium's neutrality and was bound by treaty to respond.

Great powers make, and break treatys at there convenience.If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

06-18-2011, 20:44

Great powers make, and break treatys at there convenience.If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

Of course,anti -French hater

Louis VI the Fat

06-19-2011, 00:18

Punishing the citizens of a nation because of the actions of dictatorial or hereditary rulers, to me is ridiculous.

Democratization of the states was the better plan, and not saddled with debt while depriving them of their industrial base.

Rehabilitation, not punishment is the better path to peace.

edit: Of course, had the Congress of Vienna used the same logic as the Treaty of Versailles then France would have been dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states.

That may have had more of an impact on future wars than Versailles did.Myth myth myth

Germany in Versailes was not at all 'dismembered and given to surrounding countries and its core divided into tiny states'. This is propaganda by German ultranationalist agitators of the period. Strangely, it is still believed by many, despite being so easily checked for factual correctness.

Germany lost 13% of its territory. In the west, this consisted of a return of the areas Germany had seized a few decades earlier. In the east, this consisted of territories Germany had conquered a little over a century earlier, namely Poland. Together with territories given up by Russia and Austria the state of Poland was restored.

That's it. None of these territories could be deemed core German areas. In mixed territories, plebiscites were held, a democratic vote to decide on whether to remian part of Germany or join neighbouring countries.

On top of that, to all of this Germany had eagerly agreed in its surrender in the armistice of November 1918. Well they would have agreed eagerly, becauser it was a phenomenally good deal for the defeated German Empire. Germany received this great deal out of the magnanimity with which democracies commonly treat their vanquished, and because the victors of WWI sought to maintain Germany as Europe's most powerful state.

Louis VI the Fat

06-19-2011, 00:21

If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle. Britain was the world's largerts Empire in this period. As empires go, it had to be maintained against competition. France was not a strategical threat to Britain. Germany, by contrast, was. By default by its sheer size and power and industrial base. And in actual pursued policy once Germany openly sought a power struggle for supremacy by its fleet building program.

That is why Britain fought. Not because the British prefer the French over the Germans (hah!), nor because Britain was sucked into a war in which it had no business. On the contrary, Britian very much had a business in this war: the fight for supremacy against a German Empire which sought open confrontation.

To maintain the balance of power on the continent, this has always the foundation of British foreign policy, and on this foundation rested the very Empire itself, hugely overstretched but unchallenged as long as the balance in Europe remained. The maintanance of the balance of power together maintaining unrivalled naval supremacy were the guiding principles of British foreign policy in this period. To say that Britian shouldn't have met Germany's naval challenge or should've let France be turned into a German vassal state doesn't take into account the most basic fundamentals of international relations of the era.

Strike For The South

06-19-2011, 03:36

Brenus

06-19-2011, 10:35

Louis VI the Fat

06-19-2011, 22:09

“and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.”
Like what?
When it has to be proved that Germany would have kicked France Ass?
To do so, Germany HQ always knew they had to attack France in the back therefore the Von Schlieffen plan and the attack of Neutral Belgium, or the attack from the Ardennes in 1940.
Can’t blame them to do it, it was the only way to compensate their military inferiority.Inferior...I would not call them inferior. The pointy-helmeted machine managed to throw more monstrosities from all the depths of hell at the French lines than the Persians managed in 300. But unlike the Spartans, France persevered, held and won. After which France still had the reserves and willpower to send an entire army halfway around Europe, and to equip the whole of Serbia, and march all the way to the heartland of that other German speaking empire too.

Something went horribly wron pr-wise. (Mainstream amateur) history thinks France lost the war but won a peace on her terms. Reality is the exact reverse. France won the war and lost the peace.

Seldom has a victor accepted such an unfavourable deal as France did in 1919. Meanwhile her allies ensured for themselves everything they needed, only to then break all of their assurances, and leaving France's foes an open invitation to try again within a generation, this time against a ravaged, bankrupted, bled-dry France.

PanzerJaeger

06-19-2011, 23:34

Inferior...I would not call them inferior. The pointy-helmeted machine managed to throw more monstrosities from all the depths of hell at the French lines than the Persians managed in 300. But unlike the Spartans, France persevered, held and won. After which France still had the reserves and willpower to send an entire army halfway around Europe, and to equip the whole of Serbia, and march all the way to the heartland of that other German speaking empire too.

Something went horribly wron pr-wise. (Mainstream amateur) history thinks France lost the war but won a peace on her terms. Reality is the exact reverse. France won the war and lost the peace.

Yet again you are straying from valid to invalid revisionism.

Louis VI the Fat

06-20-2011, 00:56

Yet again you are straying from valid to invalid revisionism.Which bit? :beam:

What I'm doing in the past few posts is not about an exercise in nationalist chest-thumping. Rather, my aim is set against the notion that, roughly, 'Britain (/the US) saved France in WWI. Fought on behalf of France. France then humiliated Germany, thus pushing it into a new world war. In which the UK / US had to save France yet again'. This is the narative behind 'we should've left France to rot'. Within that narrative an entire predictable, and perfectly logical conclusion. Fortunately it is based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

Britain and the US did prove invaluable French allies. France alone against Germany would've been a long shot (but not impossible to pull off). But then, only during Louis XIV and Napoléon did France not have to rely upon alliances. Few countries ever are a hegomonic power, and seldom for very long.
But it is equally true that France protected the British Empire at Verdun, and American interests too. It was a war fought for common interests. One should not confuse a war fought in France for a war on behalf of France. Compare how, for example, the British fought in Belgium, but not for, or even over Belgium. Belgium simply is where the two rivals Germay and Britain met.

Yet France lost more in blood than both anglo powers combined, and immeassurably more in destruction and money than both the much larger anglo powers combined. In the peace, America and especially Britain ensured for themselves all they needed (naval supremacy, colonies, balance of power, a share in the reconstruction payments for France and Belgium) then took the moral high ground against French demands - which were arguably more pressing. But which were nearly all given up for the one thing France sought most of all at Versailles: security. This security was reached upon in the central compromise of the peace, the Anglo guarantee of alliance.

Germany was to be left intact as Europe's greatest power. For practical and economic and strategic and humanitarian purposes. Nobody was interested in dismantling Germany, the statesmen were too mature for that, and too aware of the interests at stake.
It was clear that France alone was no match against Germany. What's more, this would be nothing but an open invitation to Germany. So this option was completely unacceptable to France, as a victor. It was well understood this amounted to nothing more than a truce for twenty years, a nearly inevitable path to French disaster. It was also clear that Germany would not challenge the peace if there was a continued, insurmountable French-British-American alliance. This was the central element of the Versailles system, the central solution. Sadly, in the 1920s/30s this simple principle proved itself nigh impossible for any Frenchman to explain to nearly any Briton / American.

PanzerJaeger

06-20-2011, 02:54

Which bit? :beam:

Any discussion of French victory in the First World War that does not acknowledge or even mention the broader coalition is misleading at best.

France did not, in fact, persevere, hold and win. The French Army was largely spent after 2nd Aisne with nearly half of its units in outright mutiny and much of the rest refusing any attack orders. Pétain killed hundreds and sentenced thousands more to hard labor and eventually had to promise no more attacks in the immediate future and never again to attack German lines without British support to quell the uprisings.

It was only due to a propitious combination of British forces on the front, events in the East, Italy's intervention, the growing effects of the embargo, and the arrival of American troops that allowed France to survive and rebuild some level of morale in its units. It was not until over a year later that France was able to launch another large scale offensive - against an equally spent German army.

IMHO, your response to my comment was far more reasoned and less chest-thumping, and I tend to agree that Britain and particularly America had way more leverage in the Versailles negotiations than the collective sacrifices of the nations they represented should have allowed. It amazes me that Wilson was not only given equal footing but was in many ways the final arbiter in the negotiations. I suppose he who holds the purse strings holds the ultimate power.

What I'm doing in the past few posts is not about an exercise in nationalist chest-thumping. Rather, my aim is set against the notion that, roughly, 'Britain (/the US) saved France in WWI. Fought on behalf of France. France then humiliated Germany, thus pushing it into a new world war. In which the UK / US had to save France yet again'. This is the narative behind 'we should've left France to rot'. Within that narrative an entire predictable, and perfectly logical conclusion. Fortunately it is based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

As I've said before, the narrow focus of this discussion misses the broader picture. France's humiliation of Germany largely came after Versailles was signed. If any French actions could be said to be a contributing factor to the rise of the Nazi Party, they were her extremely shortsighted efforts to instigate instability and rebellion in the Rhine and the use of French soldiers to collect state debts from local shops and cripple Germany's industry in the Ruhr. These actions - along with the French-demanded and Versailles-mandated draconian restrictions on the German military - led to an atmosphere of insecurity in Germany, a loss in public confidence in the Weimar Republic, and a growing mainstream acceptance of far Right politics promising to secure Germany's borders. Consider the first major foreign policy decision Hitler made. :book:

Louis VI the Fat

06-20-2011, 04:48

Any discussion of French victory in the First World War that does not acknowledge or even mention the broader coalition is misleading at best. I know, I agree. It is pointless to describe French military involvement in WWI outside the broader perspective of the alliance which completely dictated France's limits and possibilities. That is what I mean with 'the point is not about chest thumping'. I omit the others for the sole purpose of focusing in on a specific French perspective. The others are still in the picture, but blurred, for the purpose of clarity of detail. Never underestimate how often it seems to be forgotten that France did not lose, but won, WWI. A wee little detail of course, but one that nevertheless has some consequences for an understanding of the postwar settlement.

France's humiliation of Germany largely came after Versailles was signed.Yes, that was the original focus of this thread, not any event before November 1918. I have argued at some lenght what I have to say about that throughout this thread, so I'll skip on repeating myself by going over all of it again.

Brenus

06-20-2011, 09:29

40 soldiers were executed for refusing to attack, 600 is for the entire war.
During the Nivelle’s Offensive, more than 100 soldiers were dying per minutes…
Executed by fire squads for various reasons is 1200-2000 as overall total for the war.

Then, the German’s mutinies in 1918 were fatal to Germany as the German HQ was less skilled in handling the problem than the French were.
I am not a Pétain Lover, even for his alleged victory (his part was largely overestimated, in my opinion) but at least he succeeded to maintain the lines.

I agree that the German lines were broken in 1918 so circumstances were different as defeat was obvious for the Germans soldiers in full retreat, but no efforts were done to rally the troops and perhaps held the lines.
The Germans Generals failed in winning the war when they could (even with the element of surprise, thanks to attack on Belgium), failed to hold the lines, failed in protecting their country.
This is in my opinion due to a total disrespect (even deeper than the French Generals) and a total ignorance of their soldiers. Theirs plans ignored the physical and mental endurance of their troops.

“It was not until over a year later that France was able to launch another large scale offensive”
At least, The French Aristocrats Officers finally got the point and succeeded at keeping their soldiers in the fight. It can't be said for their German Counterparts.

“France did not, in fact, persevere, hold and win.”
Didn’t know that Germany won WW1, or Verdun, or the Marne battles, or any battles after the Borders Battles due to invasion of Neutral Belgium.

“The arrival of American troops that allowed France to survive”
In 1918, Germany couldn’t win the war as proved 1918 German Offensive. Between March and April 1918, the German Army sustained 230,000 casualties. It was too much even for the biggest European Country. In the French Counter Offensive (with US participation) on the Marne in July, Germany lost even more soldiers.
The big plan for the US Army was in fact for 1919. Fortunately it was not needed as finally the German HQ decided to concede defeat and to put the blame on everybody but them.
The US Army had to be equipped with French material, tanks and Airplanes. The US Army was just the reinsurance that Germany will loose for sure as it reversed the Numbers Superiority Germany had before.
So concerning the revisionism you reproach to Louis, he still have a lot of effort to reach this level…
Germany was not alone either. So, the defeat was the Central Empires’ defeat.

PanzerJaeger

06-21-2011, 04:59

Yes, that was the original focus of this thread, not any event before November 1918. I have argued at some lenght what I have to say about that throughout this thread, so I'll skip on repeating myself by going over all of it again.

Fair enough, but if the focus of the thread is going to shift from a narrow retrospective on the Versailles Treaty to a broader effort to absolve France of any contributory negligence in fueling the shift in German public opinion to the far Right then the treaty cannot remain in a vacuum, and must be viewed in the context of French-German relations during the period.

Then, the German’s mutinies in 1918 were fatal to Germany as the German HQ was less skilled in handling the problem than the French were.

The Germans, of course, also didn't benefit from having the British Army (2/3 the size of the French Army by 1917) or the Royal Navy to pick up the slack.

I agree that the German lines were broken in 1918 so circumstances were different as defeat was obvious for the Germans soldiers in full retreat, but no efforts were done to rally the troops and perhaps held the lines.
The Germans Generals failed in winning the war when they could (even with the element of surprise, thanks to attack on Belgium), failed to hold the lines, failed in protecting their country.
This is in my opinion due to a total disrespect (even deeper than the French Generals) and a total ignorance of their soldiers. Theirs plans ignored the physical and mental endurance of their troops.

Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection? It seems any criticism of the French military is answered with a "well the Germans were worse", regardless of how laughable the assertion. The German Army endured far greater organizational strains for far longer while achieving far greater results than that of the French Army, which shattered against German lines during the Nivelle Offensive and gave out. And speaking of Nivelle, I'm not sure if the commanders of any offensive of any participant in any stage of the war could be considered more ignorant of the limitations of their soldiers than those who marched the brave French boys into that spectacular defeat.

At least, The French Aristocrats Officers finally got the point and succeeded at keeping their soldiers in the fight. It can't be said for their German Counterparts.

More deflection. It can also not be said that the Germans benefitted from an alliance with the most powerful nation in the world.

Didn’t know that Germany won WW1, or Verdun, or the Marne battles, or any battles after the Borders Battles due to invasion of Neutral Belgium.

I think you understood what I was saying. France technically won WW2 as well, but I don't think anyone would say she 'persevered, held, and won'. The benefits of membership in a winning coalition can erase a multitude of sins. A closer look, however, reveals an operationally broken French Army in complete mutiny. Luckily, Pétain could rely on the British Army to pick up the slack while he rebuilt French forces.

In 1918, Germany couldn’t win the war as proved 1918 German Offensive. Between March and April 1918, the German Army sustained 230,000 casualties. It was too much even for the biggest European Country. In the French Counter Offensive (with US participation) on the Marne in July, Germany lost even more soldiers.
The big plan for the US Army was in fact for 1919. Fortunately it was not needed as finally the German HQ decided to concede defeat and to put the blame on everybody but them.
The US Army had to be equipped with French material, tanks and Airplanes. The US Army was just the reinsurance that Germany will loose for sure as it reversed the Numbers Superiority Germany had before.

Americans often receive a lot of (deserved) flak for over claiming their role in the World Wars. However, I've noticed a similar phenomenon in the opposite direction among some Europeans. Despite being last in a list of half a dozen reasons why France was able to survive the mutinies, the American contribution is the one singled out and challenged. The US lost 117,000 men in France. I believe those soldiers earned their place on the list, especially considering the morale benefits/losses and the effects on German decision making their presence had.

Strike For The South

06-21-2011, 07:18

This arguement has been covered ad naueseum....in this very thread

https://img824.imageshack.us/img824/2044/migv.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/migv.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

Brenus

06-21-2011, 09:24

“The Germans, of course, also didn't benefit from having the British Army (2/3 the size of the French Army by 1917) or the Royal Navy to pick up the slack.”
Err, this has nothing to do with the handling of mutinies.
Then, the German had the supplies from Ukraine and the spoil of war from Russia and Brest-Litvosk Peace Treaty.

“Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection?” Yes. You are right.

“It seems any criticism of the French military is answered with a "well the Germans were worse", regardless of how laughable the assertion. The German Army endured far greater organizational strains for far longer while achieving far greater results than that of the French Army, which shattered against German lines during the Nivelle Offensive and gave out.”
Well, all evidences show that the assumption of German Army best Army is without any ground.
Except during the first months of the WW1, the German didn’t succeeded to break the French/English/Belgium lines.
As the logistic strain, Germany was the most industrialised country of Europe and used the French Railways network. That is true that in marching to Paris made theirs lines of supply longer and the French ones shorter, but that is what happened when you invade neighbours.
Nivels’offensives were disastrous for the French, but the same can be said for all German late offensives. From (roughly) 1915 all German Offensive failed. All strategies failed due to a lack of agreement within the German HQ (see Verdun).

“any participant in any stage of the war could be considered more ignorant of the limitations of their soldiers than those who marched the brave French boys into that spectacular defeat.”
Err, the ones who try to apply Von Schlieffen Plan could be a good start.

“More deflection. It can also not be said that the Germans benefitted from an alliance with the most powerful nation in the world.” Germany WAS the most powerful European nation and allied with (at least on paper) a powerful Empire.

“A closer look, however, reveals an operationally broken French Army in completely mutiny” If so why the Germans didn’t brake through? It is because the French soldiers refused to go in senseless offensives. They didn’t refuse to fight; they refused to go on a slaughter, to be killed by either the German Machine guns or the French Artillery.
Again, you want to see a broken French Army in full mutiny when it was a army on mutiny for so good reasons than even the arrogant, useless aristocratic French Officers were obliged to concede the point.
The German Soldiers had the bad luck to have even worst officers.

“I believe those soldiers earned their place on the list, especially considering the moral benefits/losses and the effects on German decision making their presence had.” Of course they did.
My intervention is not to down size the US involvement or deny the UK participation.
I just want to point out the myth of the German Military superiority that proved wrong during the WW1 (in WW2 as well, but the German HQ was better).
Germany didn’t loose WW1 by chance or bad luck. Germany lost because bad planning, ill conceived plans and stubbornness and heroism of the French soldiers who persevered, hold and won on the battle fields despite the French Officers Caste.
Germany had all the reasons to win the war. Better equipped, better trained, long planning and surprise elements, the Germans soldiers should have won and didn’t. They gave their best, and sometimes were not far to achieve victory… But didn’t.
The will of some to belittle (not you) the French heroism in “without US or UK, French would have collapse –as usual-)” is obvious.
The French lost 1,600,000 soldiers in defending their country.

“France technically won WW2 as well, but I don't think anyone would say she 'persevered, held, and won'” France as such no, but French individuals did, and in 1943, the individuals together represented 120,000 fighting in Italy to reach 500,000 in mid 1944.
“During WW2 France lost about 253,000 KIA (92,000 alone during the 45 days of the 1940 campaign) and 390,000 civilians killed and of course numerous mutilated people. Among these civilians there were 67,000 deaths due to allied bombings. The USA for example suffered about 300,000 losses for a much bigger country.” From Axis History Factbook.com

So I think France didn’t usurped the right to be in the table of the winners.

But, in short, I am fighting on “and left France to get its ass kicked” as it was certain, when reality (and not parallel history) shows it was far from certain. I don’t know what would have been the outcome of WW1 with only France and Germany, without the invasion of Belgium. The assumption by some it would have resulted in a French Defeat is an insult to the French Dead.
Some assume that Germany had always had Military Superiority in term of spirit and knowledge, that Germans were defeated only by vast numbers superiority. It has to be said that is a myth, in both World War.
What Louis describes in this debate is true as well for WW2.
The rewriting of History for various reasons can’t be left unchallenged.

Louis VI the Fat

06-21-2011, 19:43

Do I detect a bit of defensive deflection?There is not 'a bit' of defensive deflection. As far I'm concerned, there is only defensive deflection. :beam:

I mean, come on, PJ. Is it not obvious what Brenus and I are arguing against in this past half a page? We are not about inflating military achievements or about national egos and that sort of blahblah. We are only about arguing against 'should've let France to get it's arse kicked, would've been better for the world'. As an isolated comment that would be fine. But it is the logical conclusion of a much larger narrative, widely shared: 'Britain and the US fought on behalf of France. Saved France. Then France abused this victory for her own gain, humiliating Germany, thus provoking another war. Where once again France had to be saved. To top it all of, France is unfgrateful about it too'. My conclusion from that too would be that 'we should've let France get its arse kicked'. :shrug:

Against that we argue. Nothing more. Mainly by pointing out two things:
1) France did not lose, but win.
If one reads the interwebs, one gets the impression many think of WWI as a war which was in all but name lost by France, and which was 'not really' lost by Germany. Both of which are silly. Unthinkable perhaps to some, but such is Europe's fluid and competitive history that we've all won some and we've all lost some.

2) To fight in France does not automatically mean to fight on behalf of France.
It is true Britain and America relieved France from a difficult predicament. But then it is equally true that France saved the British Empire from its main rival. As the saying back then went, 'London is prepared to defend the Empire to the last Frenchman'.
Within an understanding of the larger international relations framework, it is equally valuable, perhaps equally silly, to argue that 'Britian should not have gotten entangled in a continental war' as it is to argue that 'France should not have gotten involved in the German-British struggle for supremacy. Next time, just show the Germans the way to the North Sea ports and let's see if Britain can really build as many ships as German industry'.

Neither Britain nor Germany saw any fighting on their soil. These two empires faced each other in Belgium and France. It was the French and Belgian civilians which died, whose villages were destroyed, their industries crippled. Then one hundred years onwards, you are told you are 'ungrateful' about it. Yeah, right...
Should Belgium be 'grateful' to France and Germany and Britain for having fought their war on Belgian soil? No, of course not. To a large extent, the same applies to France too. France does not need to be grateful for being a conveniently located battlefield with agreeable weather and workable infrastructure.

Look, France sought war as much as everybody else, her gaze never left Strasbourg for decades. No need to cry about anything, France got what she deserved. But that is not the issue. The issue is that WWI was not a war fought for France, nor a war in which France had to be saved. On the contrary, it was a war that France won, for her allies too, perhaps more than the reverse, and a war for which the cost was overwhelmingly borne by France as well, in blood and physical destruction.

Mind that I've got no issue with what anybody back then did or not. Not the British dealings in WWI, nor even the Germans, least of all the Americans. The issue is with the historical narrative that leads to 'Britian should've left France to rot', which I think rests on several fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

PanzerJaeger

06-22-2011, 07:04

Err, this has nothing to do with the handling of mutinies.

It has everything to do with them. The French were essentially able to take the rest of 1917 off after Nivelle, while the British assumed the offensive and kept the Germans from exploiting the situation. The Germans did not have a powerful ally at their flank after Michael ran out of steam.

Also, there is a functional distinction between soldiers in retreat and soldiers in mutiny. At war's end, the vast majority of German soldiers were still fighting and still following orders - they were just losing. The Kriegsmarine suffered the one famous example, but mutiny was not a systemic issue as it was in the French military even at the end.

Then, the German had the supplies from Ukraine and the spoil of war from Russia and Brest-Litvosk Peace Treaty.

Administrating the war-torn remnants of the eastern Russian Empire was far more of a burden for Germany than a blessing.

Well, all evidences show that the assumption of German Army best Army is without any ground.

I disagree, and as evidence I offer not the German experience, but that of the Ottomans.

Except during the first months of the WW1, the German didn’t succeeded to break the French/English/Belgium lines.
As the logistic strain, Germany was the most industrialised country of Europe and used the French Railways network. That is true that in marching to Paris made theirs lines of supply longer and the French ones shorter, but that is what happened when you invade neighbours.

The supply lines against the French weren't the problem. It was marching about in Russia that caused the real issues. Do keep in mind that while fighting the French and British, the Germans also had to contend with the Russian Empire, which fielded the largest army of the war, by far. We won't even get into the Southern Front and Italy...

Nivels’offensives were disastrous for the French, but the same can be said for all German late offensives. From (roughly) 1915 all German Offensive failed. All strategies failed due to a lack of agreement within the German HQ (see Verdun).

I suppose you're speaking only of the Western Front. In regards to Nivelle, there is failure and then there is outright slaughter.

Err, the ones who try to apply Von Schlieffen Plan could be a good start.

See above. Von Schlieffen was also distorted, as were most German actions in the west, by concerns over the East.

Germany WAS the most powerful European nation and allied with (at least on paper) a powerful Empire.

And that was the problem. Austria was to handle Russia. They couldn't even hold them up for a few months, much less engage them independently. This completely threw Germany's game plan off.

If so why the Germans didn’t brake through?

As explained before - primarily the British and Germany's focus in the East. Remember, the whole reason Nivelle was launched was because of percieved German numerical inferiority on the French Front - 1.2m French versus 450k Germans. After absorbing the French offensive, the German's were in no condition to take advantage of their victory.

It is because the French soldiers refused to go in senseless offensives. They didn’t refuse to fight; they refused to go on a slaughter, to be killed by either the German Machine guns or the French Artillery.
Again, you want to see a broken French Army in full mutiny when it was a army on mutiny for so good reasons than even the arrogant, useless aristocratic French Officers were obliged to concede the point.

I made no judgments about the reasons for the mutiny or whether it was justified - only that it happened.

The German Soldiers had the bad luck to have even worst officers.

I don't know where you're coming from with this. The Germans had fine officers, competent enough to realize the new realities of modern warfare and completely overhaul German military doctrine in the middle of the war.

I just want to point out the myth of the German Military superiority that proved wrong during the WW1 (in WW2 as well, but the German HQ was better).
Germany didn’t loose WW1 by chance or bad luck. Germany lost because bad planning, ill conceived plans and stubbornness and heroism of the French soldiers who persevered, hold and won on the battle fields despite the French Officers Caste.
Germany had all the reasons to win the war. Better equipped, better trained, long planning and surprise elements, the Germans soldiers should have won and didn’t. They gave their best, and sometimes were not far to achieve victory… But didn’t.

The mere fact that Germany eventually lost is not, in itself, an indictment of the German military. The outcome of wars involves much more than military competence. In the case of WW1, Germany's geopolitical miscalculations and the immaturity and incompetence of its emperor had far more to do with the loss than its military.

But, in short, I am fighting on “and left France to get its ass kicked” as it was certain, when reality (and not parallel history) shows it was far from certain. I don’t know what would have been the outcome of WW1 with only France and Germany, without the invasion of Belgium. The assumption by some it would have resulted in a French Defeat is an insult to the French Dead.
Some assume that Germany had always had Military Superiority in term of spirit and knowledge, that Germans were defeated only by vast numbers superiority. It has to be said that is a myth, in both World War.
What Louis describes in this debate is true as well for WW2.
The rewriting of History for various reasons can’t be left unchallenged.

I agree, and that is why I bristled at some of Louis' comments. I understand why he makes them, but I think a critical reassessment of France's role in WW1 and the interwar period can be achieved without overcompensating. It ultimately weakens one's argument.

Obviously we disagree at the margins on the capabilities of the French versus German militaries of the period, but I have no doubt that the French soldiers fought just as hard, just as tenaciously, and were just as brave as those of any of the other major combatants.

There is not 'a bit' of defensive deflection. As far I'm concerned, there is only defensive deflection.

I mean, come on, PJ. Is it not obvious what Brenus and I are arguing against in this past half a page? We are not about inflating military achievements or about national egos and that sort of blahblah. We are only about arguing against 'should've let France to get it's arse kicked, would've been better for the world'. As an isolated comment that would be fine. But it is the logical conclusion of a much larger narrative, widely shared: 'Britain and the US fought on behalf of France. Saved France. Then France abused this victory for her own gain, humiliating Germany, thus provoking another war. Where once again France had to be saved. To top it all of, France is unfgrateful about it too'. My conclusion from that too would be that 'we should've let France get its arse kicked'.

Against that we argue. Nothing more. Mainly by pointing out two things:
1) France did not lose, but win.
If one reads the interwebs, one gets the impression many think of WWI as a war which was in all but name lost by France, and which was 'not really' lost by Germany. Both of which are silly. Unthinkable perhaps to some, but such is Europe's fluid and competitive history that we've all won some and we've all lost some.

2) To fight in France does not automatically mean to fight on behalf of France.
It is true Britain and America relieved France from a difficult predicament. But then it is equally true that France saved the British Empire from its main rival. As the saying back then went, 'London is prepared to defend the Empire to the last Frenchman'.
Within an understanding of the larger international relations framework, it is equally valuable, perhaps equally silly, to argue that 'Britian should not have gotten entangled in a continental war' as it is to argue that 'France should not have gotten involved in the German-British struggle for supremacy. Next time, just show the Germans the way to the North Sea ports and let's see if Britain can really build as many ships as German industry'.

Neither Britain nor Germany saw any fighting on their soil. These two empires faced each other in Belgium and France. It was the French and Belgian civilians which died, whose villages were destroyed, their industries crippled. Then one hundred years onwards, you are told you are 'ungrateful' about it. Yeah, right...
Should Belgium be 'grateful' to France and Germany and Britain for having fought their war on Belgian soil? No, of course not. To a large extent, the same applies to France too. France does not need to be grateful for being a conveniently located battlefield with agreeable weather and workable infrastructure.

Look, France sought war as much as everybody else, her gaze never left Strasbourg for decades. No need to cry about anything, France got what she deserved. But that is not the issue. The issue is that WWI was not a war fought for France, nor a war in which France had to be saved. On the contrary, it was a war that France won, for her allies too, perhaps more than the reverse, and a war for which the cost was overwhelmingly borne by France as well, in blood and physical destruction.

Mind that I've got no issue with what anybody back then did or not. Not the British dealings in WWI, nor even the Germans, least of all the Americans. The issue is with the historical narrative that leads to 'Britian should've left France to rot', which I think rests on several fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

Couldn't agree more.

sulla1982ad

06-24-2011, 17:04

Of course,anti -French hater

Don't hate the French. Just wasn't the British Empires business to get involved in that war. Germany smashes France, Germany is the biggest power in Europe, Britain trades with a more powerful Germany, not the end of the world. I don't like Germany any better than France. I've find all European imperial powers of the era distasteful.

Brenus

06-25-2011, 07:59

“Just wasn't the British Empires business to get involved in that war.” And how long UK would have been able to compete against a Continental German Empire? Germany was producing Battleships faster than the UK. With the Industrial French North in its grasp, it would have been even faster…
UK didn’t go to war for French and Belgium for their beautiful eyes but for a reality check of where was the most dangerous opponent to her interest.

“Germany smashes France”: Didn’t succeed this in 1914, or 1915, or 1916, 1917 and 1918.
I remember now, Germany was defeated...
You are just following the anti-French propaganda based on no fact to sustain this assertion.
It is of course your right to follow blindly non-sense.

“I've find all European imperial powers of the era distasteful.” Is a contradiction with “Germany smashes France, Germany is the biggest power in Europe, Britain trades with a more powerful Germany, not the end of the world.”
You wouldn’t mind a Imperial Germany apparently.

Louis VI the Fat

06-27-2011, 02:19

Don't hate the French. Just wasn't the British Empires business to get involved in that war. Germany smashes France, Germany is the biggest power in Europe, Britain trades with a more powerful Germany, not the end of the world. I don't like Germany any better than France. I've find all European imperial powers of the era distasteful.Fortunately for our little discussion, Britain's strategical position after a French defeat is not a matter of what-if history. There is a concrete historical example: Britain after 25 Juin 1940.

Britain's position after the fall of France was 'clinging on for dear life'. Oversees possessions were falling like domino blocks. Even at the height of the Japanese threat the UK insisted on Australian reinforcements for Europe. An incapacitated, impotent Empire, until either the Russians or Americans could be persuaded into an alliance.

That was the actual strategic position of Britain, in the event of a German conquest of Western Europe. It would not have been much different in the first decades of the 20th century. There was no such thing as blissfully remaining aloof, remaining outside of European affairs for Britain. Britain was a European affair. The entire Empire was build on Britain´s careful maintenance of a European balance of power. It is a British myth that Britain had (or has) the luxury of staying aloof of 'European' affairs.

There is great strenght in the isle of Britain, and a phenomenal strategic position. Britain is not easily under acute threat. The fantastically overstretched Empire, however, always was. In the event of a French defeat, the Empire had to be given up. Yes. This is what was at stake. France defended the British Empire. (As much as the more easily visible reverse: Britain defending France and her Empire). As it is, even the victory in WWI already meant Britain had to provide for many home rule / independence movements throughout the Empire.

A French defeat in WWI or WWII would, by and large, have spelled the end of the British Empire. As it did in actual fact in WWII. A French defeat means British concessions. To several demanding parties: independence movements (India), US pressure (an end to colonialism as the price for American intervention), imperialist competitors - see Japan in the Far East in WWII.
Likewise, a French defeat in either WWI or WWII would mean Eastern Europe will fall to the victor of the German-Russian struggle for supremacy in that part of the world.

Not that the world revolved around France. It is an interconnected world, that is the point. A British defeat would've meant the end of France as the world knew it, period.
Then again, perhaps France and Germany could've formed an alliance, close economic cooperation, and challenge the anglosaxons together...
Nah...that would never happen...

Brenus

06-28-2011, 07:37

So, in short, a French defeat would have been a German Empire to The Atlantic to Pacific after the WW1, and a Russian (Communist) World after WW2.
In both case good luck UK.:inquisitive:

Vladimir

06-30-2011, 18:32

Then again, perhaps France and Germany could've formed an alliance, close economic cooperation, and challenge the anglosaxons together...Nah...that would never happen...

Perhaps those European countries would enter into Union. It could happen...

Kralizec

07-01-2011, 01:25

Alsace-Lorraine was still more German than French. The French grabbed it while the Austrians (HRE) had their backs turned dealing with a Turk invasion.
....

It was like most things in international politics, it looked like it was handled by six-year-olds.

I've never visited Alsace-Lorrraine, met anyone who lives there or know much about their culture in general. I do know that they speak a germanic language. And I know that this means next to nothing.
I speak a germanic language, and that doesn't make me more German than French. It doesn't make me much of either. As a matter of fact, your first language is germanic as well.

As for the redrawing of the borders following WW1, you'll have to be more precise. Restoring the Polish state made sense, and (in my opinion) so did giving back Alsace-Lorraine to France. You might say that it was unfortunate that Sudetenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland) became part of Checkoslovakia, but to that I'd say that it would make absolutely no sense to give it to Germany, because it was part of Austria-Hungary before WW1. And for that matter, most if not all eastern-European countries had significant German-speaking minorities before WW2. One of Russia's more prominent generals during WW1, Von Rennenmapf, was an ethnic German.

Germany was planning a war well before 1914. they were looking for an excuse and the Austrian incident was just perfect. Russia was the main target but with France has her ally she needed to remove France before she could attack Russia. Germany was concerned that if it waited too long she would get overtaken by Russian and be unable to beat her.

Care to back this up? It's true that Germany had a strategic plan (the Schlieffen plan) for just this situation, but that should come as no surprise. I believe there's been a topic in the monastary about how the USA had a strategic plan for a war with Canada at the turn of the 19th to 20th century. Because they wanted to be prepared.

The facts are that Germany ended up in war against Russia because it was Austria's ally, and that Germany offered France a way out by offering an ultimatum to stay neutral (in France's defense, I probably wouldn't have caved in to this either).

Great powers make, and break treatys at there convenience.If Britian stayed out of the war, and left France to get its ass kicked, it would of saved the world a lot of hassle.

Nowaydays states make treaties all the time about the most technical and sometimes even trivial issues, but in those days treaties were considered serious obligations that states took upon themselves (I'd argue that by and large, they still are, but that's another topic)
Furthermore, garantueing Belgium's neutrality was a very strict and concrete treaty obligation, not some nebulous or open-worded directive. For that matter, Germany was bound to the same terms, since the empire was a successor state to the Prussian kingdom.

While the UK had other important reasons to enter the war, it was not some kind of empty pretext that was convieniently used to wage war.

Louis VI the Fat

07-01-2011, 02:15

I've never visited Alsace-Lorrraine, met anyone who lives there or know much about their culture in general. I do know that they speak a germanic language. And I know that this means next to nothing.
I speak a germanic language, and that doesn't make me more German than French. It doesn't make me much of either. As a matter of fact, your first language is germanic as well.

As for the redrawing of the borders following WW1, you'll have to be more precise. Restoring the Polish state made sense, and (in my opinion) so did giving back Alsace-Lorraine to France. You might say that it was unfortunate that Sudetenland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland) became part of Checkoslovakia, but to that I'd say that it would make absolutely no sense to give it to Germany, because it was part of Austria-Hungary before WW1. And for that matter, most if not all eastern-European countries had significant German-speaking minorities before WW2. One of Russia's more prominent generals during WW1, Von Rennenmapf, was an ethnic German.France is surrounded by countries with large 'French' minorities: Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Monaco.

This is not a problem. To be French-speaking does not mean to be French. They are Belgians and Swiss and Luxembourgians. There are also Dutch, German, Italian, Catalan, Basque speakers in France. By and large, they are perfectly happy about it.

Yet, that German minorities after 1918 should've ended up in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and elsewhere is considered a heinous crime. A stupidity. Arrogance. An injustice which had to be rectified. A sign of the criminal stupidity of the Treaty of Versailles.

Quod non. This criticism is lingering nationalist hysteria of the age. Sheer fascism. The fascist idea of a unified national body, which must include to the last person and village and farm anybody deemed a member of the nation (by bloodline and language), and which must exclude to the last farm, village and baby anybody deemed alien to the Volk. In this respect - German minorites outside of Germany - as in so many other respects, the criticism of the Versailles is firmly rooted in German ultranationalist/fascist hysteria. A sober, modern assesment from a democratic perspective yields a very different appreciation of the peacemakers of 1919. A Czechoslovakia consisting of Czechs and Slovaks and Germans and Jews is not a crime. No more than it is a crime for Belgium to exist, to be composed of Walloons, Flemings, and multilingual Brussels.

sulla1982ad

07-03-2011, 14:24

So, in short, a French defeat would have been a German Empire to The Atlantic to Pacific after the WW1, and a Russian (Communist) World after WW2.
In both case good luck UK.:inquisitive:

Are you seriously claming those where German aims in the first world war? I'm confused here. Germany may of been out to conquer Europe during the second world war, but to claim this is the case for the first is wrong.

Brenus

07-03-2011, 18:30

Well, knowing what the Germans imposed on Russia, I can imagine what they would have impose on the French. You can read what they imposed in 1871 War, and makes the multiplication.
So the French would have put as a vassal (as Ukraine), the Northern Industrial Zone occupied and use for the German benefit.

The people complaining about Versailles should read the Brest-Litovsk.

Vladimir

07-05-2011, 20:57

Oops. Sorry. Wrong war.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-26-2011, 22:28

We imposed our choice of government on the French, so it wouldn't have been prudent to carve off chunks of France. We were fighting against Napoleon, and the deposed and later reinstated French royals were our friends.

They were corrupt fools that did nothing for France! And don't you dare talk like that! We French had Napoleon,and he was a great leader!

Louis VI the Fat

09-26-2011, 22:36

They were corrupt fools that did nothing for France! And don't you dare talk like that! We French had Napoleon,and he was a great leader!http://matousmileys.free.fr/amour4.gif

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-26-2011, 22:42

http://matousmileys.free.fr/amour4.gif

I'm half french ,but I don't speak French well.It is true! Many people in france and in the army felt saddedned and broken,without a identity,after Napoleon abdicated,The Bourbons bascillay weakened france and gave it a weak army.Had they not destroyed Napoleon's army(We would have won the Franco-Prusso war easily) and in WW1,Put way more resistance.

The problem with your comparison to the Franco-Prussian war is obvious and I am surprised no one has picked you up on it. The Prussians defeated the the French army in France, captured the Emperor and besieged Paris. ?Under the circumstances the goverment surrendered, ceding the forts around Paris in the process and effectively giving the Germans the city.

This is the very reason why Versialle should have been made.It was a great embarresement to France itself.I would never surrender,I would fight to the death!

Louis VI the Fat

09-26-2011, 23:37

I'm half french ,but I don't speak French well. It is true! Hah, at last you admit it!

I knew my Spidey instinct was correct. I can sniff Frenchness from a mile away.

A semi-Frenchman lost in a foreign European capital. How odd...:2thumbsup:

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-26-2011, 23:40

Hah, at last you admit it!

I knew my Spidey instinct was correct. I can sniff Frenchness from a mile away.

A semi-Frenchman lost in a foreign European capital. How odd...:2thumbsup:

Are you French by the way?

Louis VI the Fat

09-26-2011, 23:40

Are you French by the way?I'm Texan. :us-texas:

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-26-2011, 23:43

I'm Texan. :us-texas:

Texan! Well that's a damn honour to meet you sir!

Louis VI the Fat

09-26-2011, 23:46

Texan! Well that's a damn honour to meet you sir!It's an honour to meet you too!

Did you know Texas is bigger than France? I also own a farm the size of Auvergne. :us-texas:

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 00:13

It's an honour to meet you too!

Did you know Texas is bigger than France? I also own a farm the size of Auvergne. :us-texas:

Amercia is bigger than france,yes.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-27-2011, 04:41

Bloody-handed Jacobins...

Sarmatian

09-27-2011, 09:27

I would never surrender,I would fight to the death!

That's because you're only half-French. If you do want to be more in tune with your French side, you'd have to explore and familiarize yourself with the beautiful French concept of surrender.

Pannonian

09-27-2011, 12:28

They were corrupt fools that did nothing for France! And don't you dare talk like that! We French had Napoleon,and he was a great leader!

I'm half french ,but I don't speak French well.It is true!

Are you Corsican, perchance?

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 18:17

That's because you're only half-French. If you do want to be more in tune with your French side, you'd have to explore and familiarize yourself with the beautiful French concept of surrender.

And what are you? A land of people who have no country? You serbians are the one that started the war anyway. Because we never did surrender.(I'm half Japanese by the way) We may have,but they were descions made by our corrupt politicans and weak leaders.

Perhaps you have heard of Borodino? The French fought bravely in that battle.So did Napoleon as well.

We French were the first to stop the muislims from spreading Islam to Europe.Our efforts have never been recognised,only ridculed thanks to people like you.

Louis VI the Fat

09-27-2011, 20:53

And what are you? A land of people who have no country? You serbians are the one that started the war anyway. Because we never did surrender.(I'm half Japanese by the way) We may have,but they were descions made by our corrupt politicans and weak leaders.

Perhaps you have heard of Borodino? The French fought bravely in that battle.So did Napoleon as well.

We French were the first to stop the muislims from spreading Islam to Europe.Our efforts have never been recognised,only ridculed thanks to people like you.Oh, I am quite sure Sarmatian was just being a wee bit naughty. He didn't mean any offense. ~:grouphug:

I think we can all agree here that of all the European tribes, the French are the bravest. The most noble race in Europe, superior in all the arts. The natural centre of European civilisation, around which all the other nations sit, feeding themselves on the crumbs of culture that spill over from the fifteen centuries of French cultural superiority.

Louis VI the Fat

09-27-2011, 20:54

Are you Corsican, perchance?:2thumbsup:

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 21:04

Are you Corsican, perchance?

No.Half Japanese(Samurai family) and Napoleonic family war(soilder)

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 21:05

Oh, I am quite sure Sarmatian was just being a wee bit naughty. He didn't mean any offense. ~:grouphug:

I think we can all agree here that of all the European tribes, the French are the bravest. The most noble race in Europe, superior in all the arts. The natural centre of European civilisation, around which all the other nations sit, feeding themselves on the crumbs of culture that spill over from the fifteen centuries of the French cultural banquet.

I don't want to boast about France being this and that,But yes,it is true that most of Europe has been from France.

Sarmatian,many people like him write replies like this,I would not be suprised at all if he were to write this.

Pannonian

09-27-2011, 22:16

Oh, I am quite sure Sarmatian was just being a wee bit naughty. He didn't mean any offense. ~:grouphug:

I think we can all agree here that of all the European tribes, the French are the bravest. The most noble race in Europe, superior in all the arts. The natural centre of European civilisation, around which all the other nations sit, feeding themselves on the crumbs of culture that spill over from the fifteen centuries of French cultural superiority.

'tis true. We sup on the treasure of French culture on those regular occasions when we sit in the French capital, deciding which government the French should have. It's rude to sit in their palaces deciding what to do with the French, and not partake of their civilisation while we're at it.

Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout

09-27-2011, 22:23

'tis true. We sup on the treasure of French culture on those regular occasions when we sit in the French capital, deciding which government the French should have. It's rude to sit in their palaces deciding what to do with the French, and not partake of their civilisation while we're at it.

I can agree with what you have said.

Strike For The South

09-28-2011, 18:03

:france:

Sarmatian

09-28-2011, 20:31

I understand what you are doing, but this will not end well. Others will come in and reply, followed by yet others responding to that. Etcetera. It will be a bloodbath by tomorow. Sorry. LVI. :bow:

...now if you would just PM me that sort of stuff...:beam:

Kralizec

09-28-2011, 21:21

Wrong thread, Kralizec. Also, criticism of France isn't allowed under my watch. I expected better of you. LVI.

Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; Tomorrow at 00:56.

Sarmatian

09-28-2011, 21:28

A simple, big, "IT'S A JOKE" would have done the trick. It took me ten minutes to write that post. No one respects my time :no: :bigcry:

Louis VI the Fat

09-28-2011, 21:52

Wrong thread, Kralizec. Also, criticism of France isn't allowed under my watch. I expected better of you. LVI.

Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; Tomorrow at 00:56.I would love it! :beam:

But what of others? We all know how these things work, and how they will escalate.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't want to be accused of preferences, so the edited out bit:

And what are you? A land of people who have no country? You serbians are the one that started the war anyway. Because we never did surrender.(I'm half Japanese by the way) We may have,but they were descions made by our corrupt politicans and weak leaders.

That's the Japanese in you. When you get the urge to sit down, smell flowers, not shower and surrender to the Germans, that's the French in you.

Perhaps you have heard of Borodino? The French fought bravely in that battle.So did Napoleon as well.

Yes, I've heard. A famous battle in what was a big French defeat.

We French were the first to stop the muislims from spreading Islam to Europe.Our efforts have never been recognised,only ridculed thanks to people like you.

Just the fact that you were "the first" means that there were second and third and so on... which coincidentally means you didn't really stop them, did you? Since other had to stop them all over again...

For the grand finale, some jokes about French military feats (if applicable) :laugh4:)

https://img36.imageshack.us/img36/7295/frenchgoogleresultse.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/36/frenchgoogleresultse.jpg/)

Q: How do you confuse a French Soldier?

A: Give him a rifle and ask him to shoot it.

-----------------------------------------

Q: What Does "Maginot Line" mean in French?

A: "Speed bump ahead"

-------------------------------------------

Q: What's the motto of the US Marine Corps?

A: Semper Fi (Always Faithful)

Q: What's the motto of the French Army?

A: Stop, drop, and run!

-------------------------------------------

Person A: What's the most common French phrase?

Person B: I don't know.

A: C'mon, try!

B: I don't know, I give up...

A: That's it!!!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...

Relax, I'm just kidding with you. I like to pull the leg of my French friends here