Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

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.

For various reasons, many of the misconceptions and negative views of Versailles which were established fairly soon after WWI, do not seem likely to lose their hold of the public imagination any time soon.

Quote:

---

Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, Eds., The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press and The German Historical Institute, 1998.


Years ago in a Holocaust course I co-taught, I had portrayed the Versailles Treaty as neither harsh nor conciliatory. Lucjan Dobroszycski, a survivor of Auschwitz, a great historian of Jewish history, thought the Treaty dealt harshly with Germany. I indicated the conflict between our interpretations. With a characteristic twinkle in his eyes he asked, "Might we agree that Germans perceived the Versailles Treaty to be harsh, and perceptions play crucial roles in history."



Realities, perceptions, and myths are all analyzed in The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. These twenty-six stimulating, often provocative, and always informative essays are essential reading for anyone interested in history of the twentieth century. There is surprising agreement, but disagreements endure over reparations, the severity of the treaty, and its impact.



I have been shaped by the same contemporary history and historiography that have shaped the minds of the contributors. My students have also influenced me as some of them, products of what I imagine are typical American primary and high schools, bring a stark simplification of the interwar years: The Versailles Treaty was unbearably harsh, particularly reparations, destroyed the German economy causing inflation and depression, brought Hitler to power, and caused World War II. They espouse monocausal history and cast France as the major villain. These essays help explain why more than eighty years after its creation the Versailles Treaty remains one of the most misunderstood events of the twentieth century.


Review and quick summary here: http://www.h-france.net/vol1reviews/blatt.html

The book, was the result of the the 1994 conference, by the German Historical Institute in Washington D.C., and the Center for German and European Studies at the University of California at Berkeley.
Site: http://people.virginia.edu/~sas4u/versailles.htm

---

Apart from the 1994 conference and subsequent book, both very influential, Margareth MacMillan in 2002 wrote the highly acclaimed:

Quote:

---

Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War



was published in 2002 and is a historical narrative based on the events of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. It was written by Canadian Professor Margaret MacMillan with a foreword by American diplomat Richard Holbrooke. The book has also been published under the titles Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World and Peacemakers: Six Months That Changed the World.


MacMillan is a history professor at the University of Oxford and was also Provost of Trinity College at the University of Toronto. For her work on this book, she had access to many private collections, including those of her great-grandfather, Prime Minister David Lloyd George.


Peacemakers recounts in precise detail the six months of negotiations that took place in Paris, France following World War I. The book focuses on the "Big Three", photographed together on its cover (left to right): Prime Minister Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, Premier Georges Clemenceau of France, and President Woodrow Wilson of the United States. Other participants included Vittorio Orlando, premier of Italy; an Arab delegation headed by Faisal ibn Husayn (later King Faisal I of Iraq), T. E. Lawrence, and Gertrude Bell, the "Uncrowned Queen of Iraq"; and Ho Chi Minh, then a kitchen helper at the Ritz Hotel who submitted a petition for an independent Vietnam.


The acclaimed book details the conditions imposed on Germany and how three men rewrote the map of the world. The book also details other parts of the peace conference, such as Yugoslavia, China, Romania, Poland, and other major events throughout the conference. It also attempts to debunk a much-quoted theory of John Maynard Keynes, who propagated the idea that the conditions imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles led to the rise of Adolf Hitler.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacema...mpt_to_End_War

---

Quote:

---

Vivid depiction of Versailles conference wins £30,000 prize for non-fiction


Peacemakers, published by John Murray, tells the story of the conference outside Paris that tried to fashion an enduring settlement for Europe and the wider world out of the ruins left by the First World War. Writing with dramatic gusto and a keen eye for character and incident, Professor MacMillan examines the intrigues of the leading players – Lloyd George from Britain, Georges Clemenceau from France, Woodrow Wilson from the US. She passes an unusually kindly judgement on them.


Previous historians have often seen the botched arrangements of Versailles as a trigger for the German resentment that culminated in the rise of Hitler and another, even deadlier, war. MacMillan spurns such hindsight as she dramatises the actions of confused politicians who had "to deal with reality, not what might have been".


In particular, she challenges the widely accepted view, first espoused by John Maynard Keynes, that the "harshness" of the Versailles Treaty towards Germany ultimately led to the Nazi takeover. Peacemakers even suggests that, if their aim was long-term peace in Europe, the Versailles negotiators were not harsh enough.


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...on-646370.html
[To which I would like to add, that apart from prestigious prizes, MacMillan was rewarded with a promotion from Toronto to Oxford.

---

From my point of view the placing of any punitive conditions on Germany was wrong, as was the American refusal to deal with the Kaisar.

I always seen it as moderate. I believe it was EMFM (or Husar? One of the German posters anyway) were saying about 'Crippling Reperations' which totalled in real-terms to 2% GDP during that time-period, so only little skim off the cream.

The worst part of the treaty, was that the German government purposely signed the armistice before the allies over-ran Berlin, so the perception of the Germans at the time were "Why are we surrendering? They not laid a foot in Germany yet!". Perhaps allowing the allies to overrun Germany would change perception.

Also, France's idea of obliterating Germany always gets forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

From my point of view the placing of any punitive conditions on Germany was wrong, as was the American refusal to deal with the Kaisar.

---

They lost the war, that's standard procedure.

Winner takes it all, just like ABBA says...

And Germany basically just lost what they had gained through war 50 years earlier, so they're just whiners.

Well, compare the average Total:War game to the terms of the treaty. Makes the treaty look like a slap on the wrist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

They lost the war, that's standard procedure.

Winner takes it all, just like ABBA says...

And Germany basically just lost what they had gained through war 50 years earlier, so they're just whiners.

---

but they weren't responsible for it, Austria was. Why was Germany singled out? Only because they fought well and France was afraid of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

but they weren't responsible for it, Austria was. Why was Germany singled out? Only because they fought well and France was afraid of them.

---

Austria didn't recieve any punishment? LOL The Habsburg Empire was obliterated and split up into several states. (Austria, Hungry, Yugoslavia, Czechoslavikia, etc, etc) Germany got a slapped wrist in comparison.

1914 - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/p...Europe1914.gif
1919 - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/p...Europe1918.gif

You have a very funny version of events.

Look at Austria in those two pictures.. they weren't punished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

but they weren't responsible for it, Austria was. Why was Germany singled out? Only because they fought well and France was afraid of them.

---

Because they lost. When you lose a war, you get punished. You don't have to start it, all you need to do is be a part of it.

And as Beskar noted, Austria-Hungary was completely dismantled...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Also, France's idea of obliterating Germany always gets forgotten.

---

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening. :sweatdrop:

---

Yes.... You need a strong leader, Husar!! Someone who can speak the truth about the jews who betrayed your country!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening. :sweatdrop:

---

Are we still talking about the Treaty of Versailles, or are you talking about the Treaties of Rome?

The treaty and its restrictions are readily available online. I encourage anyone who hasn't read it to do so, and then come to their own judgment as to whether it was fair to impose it on a nation that was not responsible for the war, and made far more effort than the victors to end it. Further, would you and your nation accept such a treaty or support its overturning? I know that America wouldn't put up with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The treaty and its restrictions are readily available online. I encourage anyone who hasn't read it to do so, and then come to their own judgment as to whether it was fair to impose it on a nation that was not responsible for the war, and made far more effort than the victors to end it. Further, would you and your nation accept such a treaty or support its overturning? I know that America wouldn't put up with it.

---

From the British POV, you were indeed responsible for the war. If you hadn't invaded neutral Belgium, we wouldn't have entered the war.

Full text of the treaty: http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

Other documents: http://people.virginia.edu/~sas4u/versailles.htm

I've always thought it an overly harsh Peace Treaty, the Germans had done well throughout most of the war and still had a fair amount of holdings in France at the time. While they were bound to lose the war they were given much harsher terms than necessary. Nullifying the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk put Eastern and Central Europe at the mercy of the Bolsheviks which was thankfully stopped by the Poles. Taking away ALL of Germany's colonial possessions was ridiculous, especially seeing as not all of them had been captured by the Allies (German East Africa). Limiting the size of the army to 100k was again harsh because it meant a great power in Europe was at the mercy of it's two larger neighbors which in the case of the Russian Civil war made it ineffective and practically defenseless if say Poland had lost to the USSR and the Bolsheviks had continued pressing West. The 20s were a turbulent time in Europe and limiting a great power in such a way was unnecessary and destabilizing. The reparations were in order though, Germany's trying to flout it by devaluing their own currency to pay it off was just stupid and it bit them back.

Taking some colonies would be understandable, taking back Alsace-Lorraine would be natural too, as well as demilitarizing the Rhineland and making Germany pay reparations but demands that were made were far in excess of this and it is not surprising that it lead to the rise of a ultra nationalist such as Hitler.

I can understand that after the amount of blood that had been shed that they would want to get some territorial possessions or something but they went overboard. The Prussians after winning a total victory over France's Imperial armies and then defeating the various attempts by the 2nd Republic's army's to relieve Paris only demanded Alsace and part of Lorraine; they didn't limit France's Army, take a lot of territory, or even really punish France, and remember the Franco Prussian war was started by the French because Napoleon III opposed the attempt to put a Prussian on the Spanish throne.

While it is true that the losers in a war will have to bite the bullet and give in to terms, the terms given to Germany were extremely harsh and this attempt to try and say that it was a moderate kind treaty is wrong. Just because They didn't give the Rhineland to France or split Germany into the various duchies and kingdoms that it was prior to Franco Prussian war does not mean it was moderate in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I've always thought it an overly harsh Peace Treaty, the Germans had done well throughout most of the war and still had a fair amount of holdings in France at the time. While they were bound to lose the war they were given much harsher terms than necessary. Nullifying the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk put Eastern and Central Europe at the mercy of the Bolsheviks which was thankfully stopped by the Poles. Taking away ALL of Germany's colonial possessions was ridiculous, especially seeing as not all of them had been captured by the Allies (German East Africa).

---

I'd have been happy if the Germans were allowed to keep those overseas possessions we hadn't yet captured, but we continued the war and kept any bits of Germany we managed to take. What say you to the British port of Kiel? Sounds good to me.

I just thought of something, it just had to be said.

The Treaty was obviously not harsh enough, as you see in the next blockbuster, German Empire Strikes Back. If the treaty was all that harsh, Germany wouldn't have been able to take France out, govern the majority of Europe, and require an Alliance of British, Americans and Russians to defeat. (Though arguably, America and Britain wasn't needed as Russia would have eventually won.)

Thanks Loius.

The military reductions were the most idiotic, aside from excluding Germany from the League; which was moronic.

I don't know enough about the actual terms to judge if they were harsh or not. There are, however, plenty of economists who disagree with the notion that the reparations were an impossible burden.

But more generally, treating Germany as a pariah state was wrong and counterproductive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I just thought of something, it just had to be said.

The Treaty was obviously not harsh enough, as you see in the next blockbuster, German Empire Strikes Back. If the treaty was all that harsh, Germany wouldn't have been able to take France out, govern the majority of Europe, and require an Alliance of British, Americans and Russians to defeat. (Though arguably, America and Britain wasn't needed as Russia would have eventually won.)

---

That would have more to do with the failure of France and Britain to enforce the treaty. Germany occupied the Rhineland and began rearming and nothing happened, if France had sent troops to counter the German reoccupation of the Rhineland the world would be a vastly different place.

'Versailles' remains highly contentious. I spoke in the OP of a discrepancy between modern historians, and lingering perceptions at large.

To see this in action, the history of the Wikipedia entry on 'Versailles' is very enlightening. Wikipedia keeps a mirror image of all previous versions of its pages. In the case of the entry on Versailles, one could write a fine thesis on the spread of evolving historical insight.

For example, until a few months ago, wiki followed this - by now - obsolote interpretation of Versailles:

Quote:

---

France's aims

Further information: Revanchism

While both American and British leaders wanted to come to a fair and reasonable deal, France's interests were much more aggressive and demanding as many of the battles had been fought on French soil. Although they had agreed after the treaty was signed many world leaders agreed that some of France's demands were far too harsh and unsympathetic. France had lost some 1.5 million military personnel and an estimated 400,000 civilians to the war. (See World War I casualties) To appease the French public, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau wanted to impose policies meant to cripple Germany militarily, politically, and economically, so as never to be able to invade France again.[citation needed] Clemenceau also particularly wished to regain the rich and industrial land of Alsace-Lorraine, which had been stripped from France by Germany in the 1871 War.[citation needed] Clemenceau wanted the Rhineland to be separated from Germany as it was a key area of industry.[citation needed] This land also acted as a buffer zone between France and Germany in case of repeated attack.[citation needed]

---

Once all those '[citation needed]' were filled in with the findings of modern economic and strategical historians, a different, more balanced, picture emerged:

Quote:

---

France's aims

Further information: Revanchism

France's chief interest was security. France had lost some 1.5 million military personnel and an estimated 400,000 civilians (See World War I casualties) and had suffered great devastation during the war. Like Belgium, which had been similarly affected, France needed reparations to restore its prosperity and reparations also tended to be seen as a means of weakening any future German threat[7]. Clemenceau particularly wished to regain the rich and industrial land of Alsace-Lorraine, which had been stripped from France by Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.[8]

---

Quote:

---

America and Britain wasn't needed as Russia would have eventually won.

---

Lol. If america hadnt flooded the market with our war goods you all would have fallen. and russia could not have won that war all on their own

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Lol. If america hadnt flooded the market with our war goods you all would have fallen. and russia could not have won that war all on their own

---

They could. That is the reason America jumped into the European front, to get the Germans from behind and to quickly take the land before the Russians get there.

Even russias vast manpower reserves were almost gone. And stalin was screaming for a two front war and stalin never ever demanded help unless he truly needed it.

If the Nazi's from the British air campaign, n. africa, and their whole u-boat fleet as well as no american aid and japans likely eventual entrance into the war on behalf of nazis would have resulted in complete destruction.

Though the japan thing is only hypothetical thinking of course.

Hey i love russian ive been there but i dont think they would have won ww2 single handedly against the german war machine.

Topic derail in 3... 2... :yes:

he started it by instigating my post....... *sulk*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

From my point of view the placing of any punitive conditions on Germany was wrong, as was the American refusal to deal with the Kaisar.

---

Don't even try to put this on us Bond.

The thanks we get :angry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Lol. If america hadnt flooded the market with our war goods you all would have fallen. and russia could not have won that war all on their own

---

Yeah, cause facts are simply gushing from from that assertion... Where did you pick that up, in your World History textbook - the one which covers all of history starting Neolithic in ~500-800 fully-illustrated pages? :laugh4::laugh4:


Read Glantz before posting on the Eastern Front. No-one in the West really cared much about representing the Soviet WWII experience accurately, save for a handful of scholars, Glantz being without a doubt the leading one, and he still retain his position as the expert on the Eastern Front. They say victors write the history, but for the most part, it was the German experience which shaped the Western understanding of the Great Patriotic War. I daresay the Cold War and the natural temptation to dismiss the enemy as incompetents or cowards was very much present as well, whether subtle or not so.

Whatever it is, your posts did not strike me as particularly indicative of knowledge on this field. Nothing above the average American teenage-young adult netizen level of comprehension of this subject. It is not that simple. I could spew such unfounded assertions as well. Here is one - about eight or nine out of ten German soldiers died on the Eastern Front. And this one is actually rather true, especially if you take the eight out of ten figure, which is actually quite accurate.

hld tht thought im in no conditin to argue........ and glantz nt only authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

and glantz nt only authority.

---

Ha, that only shows you are not interested in the Eastern Front history. Let me put it this way - Turtledove is often called the king/master of alternate history. Glantz is the master of the Eastern Front. He is the foremost living scholar on this topic, and anyone already dead is too old of a source to trust anyhow, since 1:too much was de-classified/opened to the Western public after Cold War and 2:Cold War was not receptive to basically - a)any research in USSR regarding such a sensitive field or b)the tendencies of Western authors to present unbiased accounts of USSR.

Oh, and I have not heard of any other authors of his calibre, on this topic, who have already died.