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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

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, whether subtle or not so.

---

I completely agree with your assertion that the Eastern Front is very much misrepresented in popular culture, when it is brought up at all, and that Glantz is an excellent source. However, as Glantz himself points out in many of his books, Russian post-war propaganda was certainly not innocent in the distortion of facts.


Sorry Louis :shame:

srlsy cn we discuss ths later ima nt going put up much fight right nw.

but as for glantz, i read him one of the top american military historians blah blah blah, you wanna know bout slav he knows it, etc., wht about stephen ambrose. yeah not best example but im reallyyyyyyy not in it right now.


look russia was a huge force in ww2. but it woulda been much harder alone if nt impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

look russia was a huge force in ww2. but it woulda been much harder alone if nt impossible.

---

Russia didn't need America jumping into Europe like it did. If anything, America jumping into Europe benefited American interests more in stopping an USSR advance into the West than it did than defeating Hitler. America's fight in WW2 was against the dregs of German armed forces with the Russian's fighting the vast majority. If America didn't make the big last minute assualt into Europe, then a Greater Proportion of Europe would have been under USSR control. The USSR was winning, it suffered some bloodly setbacks, but once they were in that gear, the Germans lost.

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

Quote:

---

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory.

---

dnt take advantage of my conditin. tht was ww1. in ww2 our war materiels really were a key part. though maybe our actul war fightin wasn't really "neccassary:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

but as for glantz, i read him one of the top american military historians blah blah blah, you wanna know bout slav he knows it, etc., wht about stephen ambrose. yeah not best example but im reallyyyyyyy not in it right now.

---

Yeah, you may want to put off the debate, because I am sorry to say you are making well, a... I do not want to say it, but I will say that mention of Ambrose could not have been more irrelevant. For one, he is not an Eastern Front historian. Second, he is not even a valid WWII historian in this discussion. I mean, I his books are a mix of personal experiences of soldiers, anecdotes, highly specialised books, some tactics, but very little overall strategy, the in-depth, large-scale analytical works of Glantz or similar historians. Sometimes, I would even say Ambrose is more of a populariser of WWII history. Yes, I have read most/much of his works on WWII - namely D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, Americans at War, The Victors: Eisenhower and his Boys, and Band of Brothers.




Just a question, are you typing from a computer? You must be on something else or really busy, huh?

wisdm teeth painkiller, no ima nt drnk.

yes i feel stupid for sayng ambrose. he did bnd of brthers for gods sakes.

geez.

Alright, rest well, Centurion :yes::kiss:

I thought you were typing from a phone or something at first... That normally impairs the spelling and grammar.

jst you weait we gnna talk bout americas manufactirning might when i get bck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

---

Downplaying America's contributions to such an extent is just as bad...

Well, Bismarck already said the when you beat an enemy you either make sure they can't rise again or treat them so they can still look into a mirror afterwards. Versailles was an attempt at the former but it wasn't enforced so it ended up somewhere in between. Everybody is aware of the results, case closed, Bismarck won. (oh and we sunk our fleet at scapa flow, nanana!)

WW1 was partly the result of a similar story, the new Kaiser disregarded all the treaties Bismarck established to keep the french(who had previously proven their evil imperialistic tendencies over and over again) down and in the end we had to fight WW1 with only Austria on our side, not to forget that we had to fight WW1 in the first place because that ******** of a Kaiser was only concerned about his own gloria and making every german boy look like a sailor... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, you may want to put off the debate, because I am sorry to say you are making well, a... I do not want to say it, but I will say that mention of Ambrose could not have been more irrelevant. For one, he is not an Eastern Front historian. Second, he is not even a valid WWII historian in this discussion. I mean, I his books are a mix of personal experiences of soldiers, anecdotes, highly specialised books, some tactics, but very little overall strategy, the in-depth, large-scale analytical works of Glantz or similar historians. Sometimes, I would even say Ambrose is more of a populariser of WWII history. Yes, I have read most/much of his works on WWII - namely D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, Americans at War, The Victors: Eisenhower and his Boys, and Band of Brothers.

Just a question, are you typing from a computer? You must be on something else or really busy, huh?

---

Ambrose has now been totally discredited, as well. His books have been shown to be a mix of populism, bad history and outright lies. His opinion of Monty is an excellent example of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

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.

---

In 1873, France lost 20% of her industrial capacity, and 15% of her mineral resources, 1.600.000 inhabitants and 6% of her territories. Despite the quasi-state of civil war, the Paris commune, the political instability, France was requested to pay for the war, which was started by France accordingly to Bismarck's plan (who did all what possible to start the war). Germany wasn't invaded in the slightest, large parts of France were destroyed and then occupied (the Prussian army stayed in northern France until the reparations were paid). So yeah, Frankfurt treaty wasn't any less harsh than Versailles.

Then, have a look at the conditions of the Brest Litovsk treaty, which would have effectively turned Russia into a third world country. Harsh treaties were the norm, not the exception.

The Habsbourg empire was litteraly dismantled into several rival nations, and so was the Ottoman Empire (who joined the war after 1914). Germany, despite being labelled responsible for the war, wasn't the only country to face a harsh treaty.
Fact is, the two countries who suffered the most from the war were France and (far behind) Russia. Russia abandonned all claims for reparations and a seat at the negociation table when it accepted a separate peace.

In 1918, the most influencial nation within the allies was France. It took most of the hit, and lost many more men than the rest of the allies. Some parts of it had been occupied for 4 years, and a quarter of the country was in 1918 a wasteland. No governement could have opposed France's will to make Germany pay.
The reparations weren't pulled out off someone's ass either, but calculated by economists, based on the destruction that had occured in France and Belgium (actually, the money requested was lower than the estimated cost of the destructions). They weren't excessive or out of proportion, they were meant to pay for the rebuilding of these two countries. And since Germany had lost, and since - despite what's being said in this topic - she was more responsible for the war than most other countries (this has been debatted in another thread), it was requested to pay for most of it.

Now, that is all fine and dandy. "The treaty was harsh!" "No it was not!". Those are opinions, and each of us can read the treaty and compare it to other similar treaties (some enforced by Germany or Prussia) to make his own mind. What can't be rejected though is that France, the UK and the US agreed to lessen the burden of the treaty, and to give Germany a chance to rejoin the international society.

The reparations requested were lowered at least 3 times, Germany was admitted into the Society of Nations, relations were restablished on a fair basis (the unfair commercial clauses of the treaty were cancelled in the late 20's, unlike the ones that hit France in 1873 and that were still enforced in 1914), all the while Germany wasn't respecting the terms of the treaty. In France, a large part of the Radical Party (the main political party), led by Aristide Briand, sought to reevalute even further the treaty, in a attempt to establish friendly relationships with Germany. The only time the treaty was really harshely enforced was during the invasion of the Ruhr (which was indeed a retard move, but was permitted according to the treaty).

The whole diktat idea and bitterness toward the west didn't come from the Treaty itself, but from the fact that Germany surrendered while the country had more or less be spared from the war. Except for the blocus, Germany had been mostly untouched. This gave birth to various dangerous ideas, such as:
- Germany was backstabbed from the inside (by the Jews, communists, liberals)
- Germany could still fight, and victory was still within reach (which obviously meant the treaty was unfair: Germany should have been offered an honorable peace because it decided on its own to end the war)
- An international conspiracy was trying to bring down Germany

The treaty is peanut. Saying it was responsible for the rise of Nazism is by definition stupid, given that many fascist and proto-fascist movements emerged in several countries, even among the victorious ones (Italy obviously, but France too).

To say it was reasonable and moderate is ridiculous.

The loss of territory alone made it harsh.

The creation of all of the new states in eastern Europe was a recipe for war.

France was upset over 6% of her lands being taken and loosing a bunch of German speaking citizens.

Had it all been dictated by plebiscite it may have been different but it was not.

Did the treaty lead to resentment and war?

I think we have the answer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Did the treaty lead to resentment and war?

I think we have the answer...

---

The biggest link between WW1 and WW2 isn't Versailles, but the fact that the war was concluded before Germany was invaded and its inevitable defeat made even clearer. Whatever the terms of the treaty, the likes of Hitler would still have found reason to resent the government for ending the war while Germany was still unbeaten in the field. Germany should have been beaten back past its borders, and its centres of government occupied, to impress on them the fact that they've been fairly and utterly beaten. The dolchstosslegende came about because the Germans were able to pretend that, because they were still on enemy territory, the German Army was victorious but for the treacherous collapse of the civilian government. The Allies did it right second time round, flattening Germany when they had the chance.

Let's dispell some persistent myths:

1) 'War Guilt Clause'

Myth: Versailles places the blame for WWI on Germany.

Reality: the treaty says no such thing. There is no war guilt clause in the ToV. This is German propaganda.

The reviled article in question, art.231, merely states that Germany is responsible for paying reparations, and seeks to provide a legal title for these reparations.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

The American historian Sally Marks has pointed out that the so-called "war guilt clause" says no such thing, and all that the clause does say is “the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies”

---

Quote:

---

[2] The claim that Article 231 implies “war guilt” was the work of various German politicians and apologists who misinterpreted Article 231 as saying that as a way of gaining international sympathy[3] Moreover, Marks points out that the next article, Article 232 of the Versailles treaty limits German responsibility to pay only for civilian damages, and that when a conference was called in London in 1921 to determine how much Germany should pay, the Allies calculated on the basis of Germany could pay, not on their needs[4]
Apart from "Article 231", there is no title for this article in the treaty itself. The names "Guilt Clause” and "War Guilt Clause" were assigned in later commentaries.
The Weimar government was forced to sign this in 1919. The signing of this later led them to be called the 'November Criminals'.
By blaming only Germany for causing the war, Article 231 has been cited as one of the causes that lead to the rise of national socialism in Germany[5]. At least one historian, Margaret MacMillan, has outlined that this long held notion is fundamentally erroneous [6].

---

2) Reparations.

Myth: Germany was forced to pay an exorbitant amount of reparations.
Reality: Germany only had to pay a very small sum.

Of this sum, they paid only a small bit. This small bit, they could borrow from America. In fact, America lend the Germans more money then they used for reparation payments.
Germany paid some 2% of GDP in reparations, for about a decade. This money was borrowed. Then Germany defaulted on this loan in 1932.

The astonishing conclusion of modern economic historians is: Germany profited financially from the reparations.

As has often been noted, few things are so profitable as losing a war to America. WWI was no exception. Where Germany gained financially from the treaty, Britain and France - the victors - had to bear the costs.


3) Consequences of reparation payments.

Myth: The reparations were responsible for the German hyperinflation of 1923. Responsible for the crisis of 1929. And caused hardship and poverty for Germans.

Reality: all of the above notions are false.

The hyperinflation was created by the German government itself to undermine Versailles. The crisis of 1929 and subsequent years were an international event. This crisis struck Germany harder because of German deflation, again as a result of Germany's efforts to obstruct Versailles.

What was once thought extreme and Germanophobe, is now no longer disputed by serious economic historians: both the inflation of the early 1920's and the deflation of the early 1930's - both with devasting consequences for the German economy - were not the result of Versailles, but of deliberate German sabotage.


4) Germany received a harsh treaty after WWI. And a humane treatment after WWII.

Reality: the reverse.

Versailles was a lenient treaty. Germany was asked to pay only a small percentage of the devastation of WWI. Germany was made a democracy. Germany was left a great power, with the request not to re-militarize. Only territories were stripped that were either not part of the traditional German lands, or were borderlands of mixed settlement. Most were recent aquisitions by Germany.
A peace was accepted before Germany was destructed. No war of attrition or full destruction was waged against Germany to force it into complete submission.

By contrast, after WWII Germany was divided, occupied, partly placed under a dictatorship, stripped of large chuncks of territory which had been Germanic for centuries. A relentless war was waged, peace overtures were ignored, until Germany would accept a complete defeat and subsequent harsh peace treaty.
Then Germany was plundered, required to pay reparations multiple times those after WWI, and even was Germany required to pay after all the reparations for WWI which were scrapped before 1933.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The biggest link between WW1 and WW2 isn't Versailles, but the fact that the war was concluded before Germany was invaded and its inevitable defeat made even clearer. Whatever the terms of the treaty, the likes of Hitler would still have found reason to resent the government for ending the war while Germany was still unbeaten in the field. Germany should have been beaten back past its borders, and its centres of government occupied, to impress on them the fact that they've been fairly and utterly beaten. The dolchstosslegende came about because the Germans were able to pretend that, because they were still on enemy territory, the German Army was victorious but for the treacherous collapse of the civilian government. The Allies did it right second time round, flattening Germany when they had the chance.

---

Hear hear!

In fact, Germany was treated so harshly during and after WWII (beaten to a pulp long after it had lost the war by 1943, nor receiving a favourable peace settlement this time round) to prevent a repeat of German 'Versailles' myths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The biggest link between WW1 and WW2 isn't Versailles, but the fact that the war was concluded before Germany was invaded and its inevitable defeat made even clearer. Whatever the terms of the treaty, the likes of Hitler would still have found reason to resent the government for ending the war while Germany was still unbeaten in the field. Germany should have been beaten back past its borders, and its centres of government occupied, to impress on them the fact that they've been fairly and utterly beaten. The dolchstosslegende came about because the Germans were able to pretend that, because they were still on enemy territory, the German Army was victorious but for the treacherous collapse of the civilian government. The Allies did it right second time round, flattening Germany when they had the chance.

---

That was a rather tall order. Even given that Germany was in the grip of a revolution. The Spanish Flue was already on the scene and it was more than 900 miles to Berlin.

Because of the revolution Germany was negotiating from a weak position. But the vast transfers of lands and the redrawing of borders was a formula for further war.

Dividing Germany into its older smaller states may have been a better solution so far as a German threat was concerned but leaving it as a crippled giant was a poor plan.

Post WWII was not much better. It resulted in the Cold War. Most of the eastern lands not given back to the Soviet Union just became puppet states with little or no self determination. The wisest thing they did was the resettlement of ethnic populations.

When lands are taken nationalists tend to see it as theft. Mexicans still remember that Texas and California were theirs and had they the power I am sure they would try and take them. It took the Irish 800 years to gain nationhood. When you divide a nation you have to replace its loyalties not just grab its lands, or you are only delaying the conflict.

The breakup of the Soviet Union into regional powers is a bit more stable. It gives the people a new loyalty and patriotism, though there are still those who would like to see the Union reunited.

If you are going to dismantle a state you need to give the people a new identity, if not then they will want their land back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

That was a rather tall order. Even given that Germany was in the grip of a revolution. The Spanish Flue was already on the scene and it was more than 900 miles to Berlin.

---

On the upside, there was no war fatigue among the soldiers in the field. The then survivors of WW1 were interviewed a few years back, to get their stories while they were still around, and they were all disappointed the war ended just as they were getting going. Germany may have been on the verge of collapse, but the Allies could keep it up for a few years yet.

Ho hum...

More on the subject of 'the notions of serious modern scholarship replacing crude notions based on German myths'.

I was just browsing the entry history on Wikipedia about the reviled 'War Guild Clause'. Until recently, it was commonly taken for granted by the public at large that the Treaty of Versailles sought to place all the blame for WWI on Germany.

Slowly, the insights of modern scholarship that this is not the case, at any rate a far too simplistic point of view, are trickling down. It is very interesting to read Wiki's entry history:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki, full entry, 2005

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was the “Guilt Clause”, in which Germany was forced to take complete responsibility for the war or face renewed warfare. This simply served to anger the Germans and ensure that they would seek revenge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=10721136

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was the “Guilt Clause” or the "War Guilt Clause", in which Germany was forced to take complete responsibility for starting World War I or face renewed warfare. This simply served to anger the Germans and ensure that they would seek revenge. Created as a result of much animosity between Germany and France as well as Germany and England. The United States did not play as active a role, mostly due to President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "peace without victory". It involved a number of provisions. The German Army was limited to no more than 100,000 men with limited firepower. The German Navy was limited to six warships, and a corresponding number of other specific ships. Germany was also not allowed to possess any submarines or aircraft. The fortifications thto pay only for civilian damages, and that when a conference was called in London in 1921 to determine how much Germany should pay, the Allies calculated on the basis of what Germany could pay, not on at Germany possessed in Heligoland were to be dissolved. The 30-mile wide demilitarized zone known as the "Rhineland" was created. The German rivers were to be nationalized and allow all ships to pass through. The former German emperor and other "offenders" were to be tried and convicted. Germany was to pay both civilian damage and occupation costs, which would total up to $33 billion that were to be paid over the following 30 years. In addition, all German merchant vessels over 1600 tons, half of the vessels between 800 and 1600 tons, and 25% of the German fishing fleet was to be seized. They were to build over 200,000 tons of shipping to be delivered to the victors for five years annually. Coal was to be shipped to France, Belgium, and Italy for ten years. Finally, Germany was required to consent the sale of its land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=26320549

---

Quote:

---

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) reads in full:
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies. Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) is commonly known as the “Guilt Clause” or the "War Guilt Clause", in which Germany was forced to take complete responsibility for starting World War I. The United Kingdom and France played the primary role in the article, while the United States did not play as active a role, mostly due to President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "peace without victory"[citation needed].
Article 231 is the first article in Part VIII, "Reparations", and serves as a justification for the obligations put upon Germany in the remainder (Articles 233 through 247) of Part VIII.
Apart from "Article 231", there is no title for this article in the treaty itself. The names "Guilt Clause” and "War Guilt Clause" were assigned in later commentaries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...oldid=85297448

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by current

Commonly known as the “Guilt Clause” or the "War Guilt Clause", Article 231 is the first article in Part VIII, "Reparations" of the Treaty of Versailles. Apart from "Article 231", there is no title for this article in the treaty itself. The names "Guilt Clause” and "War Guilt Clause" were assigned in later commentaries. The American historian Sally Marks argues that the clause says no such thing,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and all that the clause does say is “the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies” [1].

Article 231
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

The article, in which Germany was assigned the responsibility for damages caused by World War I, serves as a justification for the obligations put upon Germany in the remainder (Articles 233 through 247) of Part VIII.
The United Kingdom and France played the primary role in the inclusion and writing of the article, while the United States played a lesser role, mostly due to President Woodrow Wilson's principle of "peace without victory"[2].
The claim that Article 231 implies “war guilt” was the work of various German politicians and apologists who misinterpreted Article 231 as saying that as a way of gaining international sympathy[3].
Moreover, Marks points out that the next article, Article 232 of the Versailles treaty limits German responsibility their needs[3].

By blaming only Germany for causing the war, Article 231 has been cited as one of the causes that led to the rise of national socialism in Germany[4]. At least one historian, Margaret MacMillan, has outlined that this long held notion is fundamentally erroneous

---

I predict that, apart from the still commonly held notions about the 'War Guilt clause', many other widespread ideas about 'Versailles' will come to be understood as fundamentally erroneous, as more insights of modern scholarschip take hold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

On the upside, there was no war fatigue among the soldiers in the field. The then survivors of WW1 were interviewed a few years back, to get their stories while they were still around, and they were all disappointed the war ended just as they were getting going. Germany may have been on the verge of collapse, but the Allies could keep it up for a few years yet.

---

We could've kept it up forever. (If the Americans could be persuaded)

Germany by contrast, by November 1918 was driven out of France, faced communist uprisings at home, saw its emperor flee, was out of ammo, food and supplies, faced mass starvation over the coming winter, and was completely disintegrating.

At this point, the German military, which had taken over the German state, returned power to civilians - that they might take the blame. Prussian military for ya - arrogant and merciless in victory, docile and cowardly in defeat.

Ho hum the twice a decade row over WW1 it would not matter one wit if Versaillse or the previous treaty of Frankfurt happened at all.
Every single event in major political event in twentieth century Europe can be traced to a question on the position of Germany in Europe.
Since Germany was bound to try to shift the balance in its favour eventually the treaty was and is irrelevant the mistake was by the Allies in not realising that early enough.

“France was upset over 6% of her lands being taken and loosing a bunch of German speaking citizens.” Not German, Germanic. Alsatian is not German… And Alsatian speak French, by the way. Most of them still speak Alsatian as well…
“Had it all been dictated by plebiscite it may have been different but it was not.” In 1871?

“Germany was still unbeaten in the field”: German was beaten on all the front line, from Belguim to the Swiss borders.
The fact that against the opinion of general as per say Pershing, the war was ended before the Allies in pursuit crossed the boders on the heel of a reteating German Army was indeed a mistake.

This mistake was not repeated in 1945, thanks to the US demand of unconditional surrender…

“On the upside, there was no war fatigue among the soldiers in the field.” Right…

One can argue the point of that article (231). How ever it may have been meant it assigns guilt to Germany. It was the first thing the Germans said after viewing the thing.

After the Armistice the German army withdrew the allies continued the blockade resulting in the further deaths of another 750,000 civilians from starvation. They were told they could import food at a later point, provided they used their own ships and paid for it themselves. The fact that it was a new Government with no assets was immaterial to them. Germany was refused a lone for the food by the United States.

There was no German input to the treaty and it was repudiated by all. However, there was really no choice. Germany has no means to resist by that point so they were forced to sign. Of course they blamed the politicians, and the Socialists, Communists, & Jews bore the brunt of the blame.

If you don't think it was punitive then you have your eyes closed.

I suppose that if you think it was fair and reasonable then it would have been equally fair and reasonable for the British to have received those parts of France they once held after the defeat of Napoleon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I suppose that if you think it was fair and reasonable then it would have been equally fair and reasonable for the British to have received those parts of France they once held after the defeat of Napoleon...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Versailles treaty

Article 231
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

---

I don't know...I don't think that calling this a "war guilt" clause is a misrepresentation. Yes, so it was mainly a pretext for imposing war reparations. But it doesn't make sense to impose war reparations without claiming that the loser is responsible...or you'd have to come out and explicitly say that they're the spoils of victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The biggest link between WW1 and WW2 isn't Versailles, but the fact that the war was concluded before Germany was invaded and its inevitable defeat made even clearer. Whatever the terms of the treaty, the likes of Hitler would still have found reason to resent the government for ending the war while Germany was still unbeaten in the field. Germany should have been beaten back past its borders, and its centres of government occupied, to impress on them the fact that they've been fairly and utterly beaten. The dolchstosslegende came about because the Germans were able to pretend that, because they were still on enemy territory, the German Army was victorious but for the treacherous collapse of the civilian government. The Allies did it right second time round, flattening Germany when they had the chance.

---

Very true...
On a different note, I'm a little surprised that nobody in Russia post-1990 has blamed their loss in WW1 on the Bolshewiks. Something very similar to the dolchstochlegende actually happened there: the provisional government under Kerensky wanted to continue fighting in order to sue for a more beneficial treaty; the Bolshewiks then proceeded to grab power in order to accept the German's rather humiliating terms. Of course, the Bolshewiks then ruled the country for over 80 years afterwards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Russia didn't need America jumping into Europe like it did. If anything, America jumping into Europe benefited American interests more in stopping an USSR advance into the West than it did than defeating Hitler. America's fight in WW2 was against the dregs of German armed forces with the Russian's fighting the vast majority. If America didn't make the big last minute assualt into Europe, then a Greater Proportion of Europe would have been under USSR control. The USSR was winning, it suffered some bloodly setbacks, but once they were in that gear, the Germans lost.

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

---

America was simultaniously fighting a war in the Pacific.

And something else: it's obvious that the Soviets did most of the ground fighting against the Germans, and the lend-lease program was probably only slightly helpful (as Sarmation has repeatedly pointed out on this forum). But the western allies had to fight and resupply from off shore. The Soviets wouldn't have been able to pull a logistal stunt like Operation Overlord. Furthermore I think that strategic bombing in WW2 (not specifically Dresden or city bombing, but also infrastructure) has been extremely undervalued afterwards.

Saying that the Soviets brought the Germans down single handedly or that the Brits and Americans only did a last-minute landgrab is a gross misrepresentation.

“Saying that the Soviets brought the Germans down single handedly or that the Brits and Americans only did a last-minute land grab is a gross misrepresentation.” Agree, with some comments;
War was forced on USA… The choice of Germany first was made by Roosevelt by in December 1941, the German were experimenting their first defeat in Russia…

This saying is a kind of answer about the lonely Germany against the rest of the World. Germany had Allies, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Romania, Croatia, and a lot of suppletives troops as the Vlasov Army, some Cossacks, Foreign SS troops, auxiliaries etc, and of course some Collaborationist States, as France or Norway…

Both claim (we alone won against Germany, and Germany alone against the Rest) are baseless and only born thanks to the Cold War…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I don't know...I don't think that calling this a "war guilt" clause is a misrepresentation. Yes, so it was mainly a pretext for imposing war reparations. But it doesn't make sense to impose war reparations without claiming that the loser is responsible...or you'd have to come out and explicitly say that they're the spoils of victory.

---

I knew you'd be interested in this contentious article. :jumping:
To further understand this article, one should look at:

- The place of the article in the Treaty.
If it is an article that seeks to place guilt for the war on Germany, then it is oddly misplaced. It appears only as article number 231, in the chapter 'reparations'. Not as an overarching article near the beginning of the Treaty that seeks to establish a moral or political framework for the entire treaty. Telling is that the preceding chapter deals with German war crimes. This chapter does not have a 'war guilt clause'. If there would've been an intention to place a political or moral blame for the war on Germany, a 'war guilt clause' would surely have been more appropriately inserted here, or even nearer the beginning of the Treaty.

- The origin of the article.
During negotiations, reparations were already decided upon. This article was an afterthought. It is not the product of statesmen, never mind of hardliners. Nor even of the repicients of the reparations, Britain and France. Article 231 is the product of two American representatives on the Reparation Commission, a courtly Southern gentleman and a lawyer, Davis and Dulles. With article 231 and the accompanying and inseparable article 232, they sought to create the legal liability and justification for reparations, and the protection of Germany against unwarranted claims.


The political reasons for the articles 231 and 232 seem to have been to appease British and French hardliners, by stating that Germany is liable for all war damages, while simultaneously protecting Germany by affirming that Germany neither can nor should be expected to actually pay these damages. It is, and was meant to be, an artful work of pragmatism and compromise by the Americans, who thought (with Wilson, and me too) they had produced two clever articles.


'Blaming Germany' had nothing to do with it all, even if the text of the article - especially when lifted out of context - would seem to indicate such.

Reparations

PART VIII
SECTION I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 231

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Article 232

The Allied and Associated Governments recognise that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present Treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.

[Etc.]

The amount of reparations had yet to be established when these articles were written. The remainder of Part VIII, article 233 and beyond, deal with this.
ARTICLE 233.
The amount of the above damage for which compensation is to be made by Germany shall be determined by an Inter-Allied Commission, [etc]


I shall repeat the modern finding that Germany ended up making a net profit from reparations. Which means that the victor - France, plus a little bit the US - paid for all the destruction the loser - Germany - caused on the victor. Talk about 'history being written by the loser', since Germany has cried bloody murder so hard and intermittently that the public image is one of French plunder of Germany after 1918.

Germany making a net profit out of reparations ...? Tell that to the people who suffered through the 1929 crisis, which was an (unintended) consequence of the capital flows set up under the auspices of Versailles reparations (German reparations to France -> France uses these to pay its debt with the U.S. -> U.S. loans Germany money to pay its reparations (Dawes plan) -> rinse and repeat)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

'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]

---

---

The change is relatively minor, actually, seeing as the only thing removed is French revanchism as a major driving force behind the Treaty. What remains is still the core of the analysis, namely that France wished to recoup all its (vast) losses on Germany.

The case here, the historical appraisal of Versailles, is very simply, really. It's basically an argument between realism and liberalism. France and (something that the old Wiki version omitted) the UK took a realist stance on peace, demanding reparations and harsh terms of peace. The USA under the famous liberal Wilson took the liberal line, operating according to Wilson's Fourteen Points and wishing to be lenient towards the British while also agreeing that France should get Alsace-Lorraine back and Belgium's sovereignty restored.

Realism won, and liberalism lost, in Germany's case. Wilson did get the League of Nations, freedom for the Central and Eastern European nations, and obviously agreed with France getting Alsace-Lorraine back. Yet no more than that. What followed was twenty years of hostility, instability and enmity in the international field, and a treatment of Germany which fostered hostility and hatred in German public opinion, aimed at the Allies. I think it's very obvious that this proved to be a gold mine for Nazi propaganda.

Liberals have always held that this policy proved disastrously counterproductive and made the Interbellum into nothing more than a twenty-year armistice of what was essentially one and the same conflict, but what has gone down in history as the two World Wars. I am sorely tempted to agree with them.

Meneldil's argument basically underwrites this view, you see. Prussia did the same to France in 1871 as the Entente later did to Germany. Look at the reaction in France and amongst the French people. See how counterproductive the policy ultimately proved, especially once Bismarck's moderating influence was removed from German foreign policy.

Now, the blame does not rest solely on French shoulders, according to this view. Lloyd George was just as eager to punish Germany for its ambitions as Clemenceau was (ambitions not very dissimilar to any other nation's at the time, but that's beside the point). Secondly, Versailles ultimately was only a factor in the rise of the Nazis, not the driving force. That is also not part of historical consensus as I have been taught. Versailles as a treaty was, like Locarno, basically dead by 1935. Despite this, it was still a major factor in preparing the way for the radical right in Germany. Just like the immense dissatisfaction with the spoils of war in Italy paved the way for the fascist coup d'état in Italy.

Of course, the realism vs. liberalism debate is (very) old and has largely been abandoned amongst most scholars of international relations today, and for good reason. Still, I find the liberal argument more convincing than the realist one, considering realism has only policy failures to show for it.

Now, I don't, as of now, have any literature of my own to support my view, while Louis has two sources (well... summaries of sources, to be precise). I find it slightly disappointing, though, that the OP mentions historians with another opinion yet does not show any arguments from the other side. This is incomplete, in my opinion, and misrepresents it as a one-sided debate. I also found it disappointing that the arguments made in the two books cited in the OP were not shown in synopses. Sure I can accept eminent historians argued against the negative view of Versailles. But it's kind of hard when all I have is a summary's word for it. I'd rather see some arguments.

Of coure, I accept that I might be wrong, mostly because of the aforementioned lack of sources. However, this is what I have been taught by my professors, and to be honest, I don't take their opinion lightly.

The treaty was a fair one and overall Germany had nothing to complain about compare that treaty to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk look at that treaty and tell me that Versailles was unfair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Blackadder

The treaty was a fair one and overall Germany had nothing to complain about compare that treaty to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk look at that treaty and tell me that Versailles was unfair

---

Hah, good one. I have not thought of this, even if I should have, being a Russian myself.

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:

---

Long live the Central Powers! Long live the Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria!

Joking aside, the treaty was harsh indeed compared with say, the Vienna treaty of 1815.

The military clauses, the reparations, the way the treaty was concluded...

The military clauses: the destruction of all the military force of Germany was an extremely severe clause. On the top of this, it hits a traditional value of the Prussian society: the army. There could have been slight restrictions in the first years but what the victorors did was insane.

The reparations. Indeed, if we sum up, Germany paid little (bu the original sum was huuuge). The treatment was really harsh in the beginning (the occupation of parts of Germany by the French in the 20s, for example) which led to a full collapse of the German economy. WHen Germany started to recover, the crisis of 1929 hit the state. Then the country sank and something had to be done. The reparations were (finally!) gradually obliterated and Germany received aid (that amounts more than the paid reparations; in fact, this is a good example why the reparations are ineffective). However, the fruits of this aid to one of the pillars of the European economy were exploited by the wrong person (Hitler) because the other Europeans started to care about Germany when it was too late.

Perhaps slicing Eastern Prussia was also unnecessary cruel, they could have granted an economic access of Poland to the Baltic seas.

The Peace Conference. If we compare the Veinna treaty of 1815 and the Versailles: France was active on the conference whilst the delegations of Germany was denied any role in the treaties. They simply have to sign the treaty that put Germany on their knees.


I won't comment the cases of the treaties with Hungary and the Ottoman Empire that were also extremely harsh (Hungary lost about 2/3 of its territory, the Ottomans about 80 per cent; the reason why Turkey is nowadays big is in the denial of Mustafa Kemal Pasha to recognise the treaty).

Quote:

---

The hyperinflation was created by the German government itself to undermine Versailles. The crisis of 1929 and subsequent years were an international event. This crisis struck Germany harder because of German deflation, again as a result of Germany's efforts to obstruct Versailles.

What was once thought extreme and Germanophobe, is now no longer disputed by serious economic historians: both the inflation of the early 1920's and the deflation of the early 1930's - both with devasting consequences for the German economy - were not the result of Versailles, but of deliberate German sabotage.

---

In the 20's the reason lied in the occupation of part of the German territory by France. I've always had the feeling the deflation in the 30's was due to the fact that the German economy was one of the most industrialised in the world and it's logical that we will have a heavy deflation there as a result of the World Crisis felt everywhere. I only agree with the fact that reparations were not working and were no factor aside from psycholical one (but this really matters and if you add it to the military restructions and to the exclusion from the Great Powers club, this matters, this really matters).But you should not blame the Germans for the crisis in Germany, it was a world process that severaly hit the most developed countries, Louis.

This is basically revisionist pap anyway. Didn’t anyone else notice that the author was the Great Granddaughter of Lloyd George? Is this supposed to add to her creditability? I don’t think so.:inquisitive:

What else would you expect?

It is a bit like the decedents of Attila the Hun saying that he was a pussycat in person...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Cobra

In the 20's the reason lied in the occupation of part of the German territory by France. I've always had the feeling the deflation in the 30's was due to the fact that the German economy was one of the most industrialised in the world and it's logical that we will have a heavy deflation there as a result of the World Crisis felt everywhere. I only agree with the fact that reparations were not working and were no factor aside from psycholical one (but this really matters and if you add it to the military restructions and to the exclusion from the Great Powers club, this matters, this really matters).But you should not blame the Germans for the crisis in Germany, it was a world process that severaly hit the most developed countries, Louis.

---

I do not blame Germany for the crisis of 1929. I do blame German nationalist agitation of the period for blaming Versailles for the economical woes in Germany that were caused by what was clearly an international crisis.


Equally as important, I blame Germany for using this crisis (as well as any other event) to undermine the peace and the Treaty of Versailles. From 1919 all the way to 1945, German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of revenge:

When in 1930 Heinrich Brüning became chancellor of Germany he told his friends in the unions that his chief aim was to liberate Germany from paying war reparations and foreign debt. He felt that if he diverted all Germany’s efforts into exports it would weaken the ability of America and the Allies to force Germany to pay her ious if she chose not to. The German unions therefore agreed to Brüning reducing wages, raising taxes and diverting all industrial activity into exports so as to bring pressure on the Western powers, not realizing to what extent this would mean misery, unemployment and a diminution of power for the workers. Brüning’s initiative was successful. Millions of people abroad were fooled into believing that Germany herself was really poor, not just her hapless citizens, even though Germany was the greatest exporter in the world, with a mountain of cash in the bank

This was bought hook, line and sinker by most people, both at home in Germany and abroad. Not until the archives were opened later, did it fully sink in to what extent Germany sacrificed her economic well-being between 1918-1933 to undermine Versailles.
Not Versailles, but deliberate German policy to sabotage the German economy was responsible for both the crisis in 1923, and for the extent of the misery the crisis of 1929 and subsequent years caused.

Both notions, that the hyperinflation of the 1920's, and the deflation of the 1930's, were caused by Germany itself in a deliberate bid to sabotage the German economy, to create widespread poverty to its people, in an attempt to gain domestic unrest and foreign sympathy, with the stated goal of discrediting and obstructing the peace, were considered extreme and Germanophobe back then. Nowadays, they are in little dispute anymore amongst economic historians.

Would you discount the influence of rampant protectionism in all major world economies, as a reaction to the 1929 crisis, in being a major influence on the scale and extent of the Great Depression, then? Would you say Germany is to blame more than anything else? Because AFAIK there is no doubt that the massive tariff hike and extensive protectionist measures in the two years following the Wall Street crash, in which the U.S. and major European economies tried to shield themselves from each other, killed off international trade and the hope for a swift recovery.

“The Peace Conference. If we compare the Veinna treaty of 1815 and the Versailles: France was active on the conference whilst the delegations of Germany was denied any role in the treaties.” 100 years before…
Compare with contemporary treaties e.g. Brest Litovsk and you will find it was quite lenient…

The Brest Litovsk treaty was more or less equal to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, that legalised the partition of the Austrian Empire (i.e creation of national states since it was the nationalism that leads from the end of XIX century). In the same way, the Brest Litovsk treaty legalised the Polish Kingdom (that was planned to be created by the Central powers as well) and the Ukrainians that at that time also started to review their existence in the Russian Empire, as well as Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

I still think the comparison between the Vienna treaty and the Versailles treaty is possible despite the changes that occurred in a century.

In fact, a brief check shows that the reparations from Russia were 6 billion whilst those from Germany 226 billion. In addition the Saint-Germain treaty and the Treaty of Trianon were heavier since apart from the insanely large reparations they costed really much to the countries of Austria and Hungary (in territorial terms). Of course, one may say that Germany was eager to finish the war in the East, so it's hard to say how lenient the treaty would have been in case of German victory. But this does not justify the actions of the Entente, either.

It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.

If you hand someone a treaty in which they were denied any input and word things in such a way as to insult their nationhood you are not going to receive a positive reaction.

Whether you fault the treaty or the reaction to the treaty it makes no difference. It was still a disaster that ultimately lead to another war. Since it was billed at the time as ‘The War To End All War’ you can see what a colossal mess the allies made of the process.

I suppose they were doing them a favor by taking the German Colonies also?

The fact that Germany was willing to take such drastic measures, harming its own interest to escape the treaty only point up how much it was hated.

This argument is the equivalent of having a bandit’s daughter trying to convince his victims that the bandit let them off easy.

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

---

Which story? Could you make your point more clear? What is the role of the Nazi in making the story?

P.S. I think I must agree with Fisherking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

---

So we are expected to drop everything. Forget what history shows as a result, and except the views of the British Prime Minister’s great granddaughter because that is the real story?

I think you should read your own signature...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prince Cobra

In fact, a brief check shows that the reparations from Russia were 6 billion whilst those from Germany 226 billion.

---

And how much of that 226 billion was ever collected, or intended to be collected? *

Keynes, for very unrelated reasons, quite soon after the treaty started the whole 'Crippling reparations!!' craze. No serious historian believes Keynes was right anymore. Unfortunately, once a point of view becomes dominat, it is near impossible to overcome it.

Part of the problem is, that Versailles had two consequences which are difficult to disentangle from the assesment of its merits:
- The Versailles system failed in its foremost goal: to preserve the peace. (as an aside - because the paricipants refused to uphold the treaty, not because the treaty itself was unworkable)
- Versailles, whatever its nature, was perceived to be harsh and unjust. This perception, ungrounded or not, is real.

Combine this with a third problem, namely that fairly soon the German view of Versailles became dominant, and it is clear why later historical reassesments of Versailles - most far more positive, cetainly far more subtle - find it difficult to take hold.

The loser has written history.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* The figure of 226 billionj is highly misleading. Only fifty billion was ever meant to be paid. Of this, only twenty billion was ever requested to be paid. This twenty billion was paid not by Germany, but by the US:

Quote:

---

Marks calculates that between 1921 and 1931, Germany paid a total of 20 billion marks in reparations, most of which came from American loans that the Germans repudiated in 1932. In this way, the Germans largely escaped paying for World War I, and instead shifted the costs onto American investors.

The American historian Gerhard Weinberg commented about the way the Germans used reparations to avoid paying the costs of World War I that "The shifting of the burden of reparations from her shoulders to those of her enemies served to accentuate this disparity" in the economic strength of the Allies, which struggled to pay their heavy World War I debts and the other costs of the war and Germany, which paid neither reparations nor its World War I debts

---

That's right. The above are the conclusions of modern historians: Germany barely paid any reparations or war debts. What little it did pay, it borrowed from the US. Then it defaulted on these loans. Thus making a nice profit.

Britain, France and the US payed Germany's costs of WWI. Plus their own debts and costs in the case of the UK. Plus the costs of the damage WWI inflicted on their homelands in the case of France and Belgium.

That's what you get for a lenient peace treaty, and for trying to incorporate Germany peacefully within the circle of industrial democracies.

Louis again, is unfortunately right. Also, Versailles was not responsible for World War 2 in anycase, during the high-times of the German economy, the National Socialists enjoyed a share of less than 3%. It was actually the great depression that ended up causing a situation where the National Socialists got any real support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

So we are expected to drop everything. Forget what history shows as a result, and except the views of the British Prime Minister’s great granddaughter because that is the real story?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firsherking

This is basically revisionist pap anyway. Didn’t anyone else notice that the author was the Great Granddaughter of Lloyd George? Is this supposed to add to her creditability? I don’t think so.:inquisitive:

What else would you expect?

It is a bit like the decedents of Attila the Hun saying that he was a pussycat in person...

---

Sorry, but I am not sure one can write off with the stroke of a pen the very highly acclaimed work of a leading expert in her field, who was named professor of history at Oxford based on the merits of this study, simply because of some conspiracist thought about her ancestry.
MacMillan is the current warden of St Anthony's College in Oxford. Academic posts in the field of international relations and history don't come much more prestigious than that.
Today's brightest minds in the history of international relations are scholed in an understanding of the Treaty that I've broadly outlined here. :smug:

The other link in my first post is about a conference of the world's leading historians on the subject - British, American, German, others. Plus on the subsequent collection of articles by these leading experts by Cambridge University press.

Again, I am merely presenting commonly held views of serious modern scholars. I am not presenting fringe opinion.


What's funny, is that the very scholars of this period, of this Treaty, ask themselves the same question that has been brought uphere: how come there persists such a huge difference between crude popular notions of 'Versailles', and modern academic assesment? Why is the view of the Treaty so resistant against any change from its original negative reception, a reception based on notions that mostly do not hold up against modern scholarly scrutiny?

Quote:

---

The Treaty of Versailles has had a bad press. From the time that it was signed and John Maynard Keynes penned his all-too-well-known polemic, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) until a recent book by that aging realpolitiker, Henry Kissinger, commentators have had little good to say about the Treaty. ‘We came to Paris confident that the new order was about to be established’, Harold Nicolson wrote in Peacemaking, 1919, ‘we left it convinced that the new order had merely fouled the old’. 1
Scholarly opinion, if one can use such a collective term, though divided, has moved in a different direction. A massive compilation of contributions from almost all the leading historians of the Versailles settlement opens with the observation that scholars ‘tend to view the treaty as the best compromise that the negotiators could have reached in the existing circumstances’ and ends with a question. Why has the original indictment of the Treaty seen off almost every attempt at revision and not just in the popular view? 2
If what has emerged from recent multi-archival research is ‘a much more nuanced portrait of statesmen and diplomats striving, with a remarkable degree of flexibility, pragmatism and moderation to promote their nation's vital interests as they interpreted them’, why do even our more learned statesmen continue to repeat the shibboleths of the past?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Would you discount the influence of rampant protectionism in all major world economies, as a reaction to the 1929 crisis, in being a major influence on the scale and extent of the Great Depression, then? Would you say Germany is to blame more than anything else? Because AFAIK there is no doubt that the massive tariff hike and extensive protectionist measures in the two years following the Wall Street crash, in which the U.S. and major European economies tried to shield themselves from each other, killed off international trade and the hope for a swift recovery.

---

No. Neither do I give cause to assume I do. Nor is the rehash of basic highschool knowledge of the depression, however correct in itself, very relevant.
I also do not deny that Berlin is the capital of Germany and that they drink beer in Oktober.

I blame German nationalist agitation of the period for blaming Versailles for the economical woes in Germany that were caused by what was clearly an international crisis.

Equally as important, I blame Germany for using this crisis (as well as any other event) to undermine the peace and the Treaty of Versailles. From 1919 German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of undermining Versailles.
Not only were the reparations not the cause of any economic hardship for Germany. What's more, this very hardship was the result of deliberate acts by the German governments to bolster its foreign policy goal of undermining Versailles.
In the case of the crisis after 1929, the deliberate policy of the German government created runaway deflation and mass unemployment, deepening the impact of the criris on Germany. This the government did in a deliberate attempt to undermine the treaty. (See Sally Marks, "The Myths of Reparations")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Now, I don't, as of now, have any literature of my own to support my view, while Louis has two sources (well... summaries of sources, to be precise).

---

Then I suggest you find yourself some literature to support your view, or read some of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

From 1919 all the way to 1945, German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of revenge:

---

Pff, from 1789 all the way up to 1940 France played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing european stability for it's goal of european hegemony.

Lewis, the premise that it was moderate does not real encompass a realistic view. No matter who the scholars are.

Blaming German Nationalism is the easy way out.

The facts are that it was a dictate, a judgment without appeal.

In not allowing the Germans to negotiate it was predestined to failure.

Germany had not offered unconditional surrender when they negotiated an armistices.

Had the German delegation been seated and negotiated such a treaty then the blame would go to them, however it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination to call this fair and moderate.

Any nation forced to partition their homeland and allow foreign occupation of some of its provinces and be restricted to such an extent in forming a military is not going to see it as fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Lewis, the premise that it was moderate does not real encompass a realistic view. No matter who the scholars are.

Blaming German Nationalism is the easy way out.

The facts are that it was a dictate, a judgment without appeal.

In not allowing the Germans to negotiate it was predestined to failure.

Germany had not offered unconditional surrender when they negotiated an armistices.

Had the German delegation been seated and negotiated such a treaty then the blame would go to them, however it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination to call this fair and moderate.

Any nation forced to partition their homeland and allow foreign occupation of some of its provinces and be restricted to such an extent in forming a military is not going to see it as fair.

---

Call it unfair for Austria-Hungary then, but hardly for Germany. Here's a map of Germany pre- and post-Versailles. Other than returning Alsace-Lorraine to France, which hardly counts as losing territory, they lose a chunk of land in Prussia, mainly to provide sea access for Poland. Then compare with what Germany forced on Russia in Brest-Litovsk. The two treaties were overseen by the same generation of German statesmen, perhaps even the same statesmen. One dictated by Germany, the other dictated to Germany, one year apart. The only possible argument for Versailles being less fair is tha fact that the German army was still on enemy soil when the ceasefire was agreed. Hence the dolchstosslegende, and why the Allies should have beaten the Germans back into their homeland, and rubbed in the reality of their defeat.

The german emperor actually called for restraint, and the Austro-Hungarian government waited for two weeks, don't think they really wanted war. It's normal generals make plans, prusian generals had a tradition of making one every year, as did Conrad of the Austria-Hungarian monarchy. It doesn't say all that much.

I am pretty familiar with the subject, now this is all cool conspiracy stuff, especially the black hand, but also the Serbian government, and the Russian government, are being a little bit closer then they want to admit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

[...]

---

First off, I was merely asking you a question, not trying to make a point, when I asked you about your view on Germany's role in the Great Depression. Just to get that out of the way. As an aside, the fact that protectionism played a large role in worsening the crisis into a depression is hardly "basic high school" knowledge.

Second, in my first post in this thread, I commented on how I wished that some of the arguments the authors you cite were actually named in this thread. You can try and browbeat us all you like with the eminency and respect of these scholars, which are fine and all, but without arguments, you won't convince many people. All we know now is that they oppose the traditional view of Versailles. We don't know any of their reasons to do so, however, which makes it kind of difficult to accept your conclusions.

Furthermore, I also noted how no (current, not old) opposing views (if there are any, mind) were mentioned in the OP. You cite two sources yet don't put them in the context of an academic debate (you do say they are "influential", but without elaborating). Not that this isn't understandable, since it obviously adds to the strength of the point you're trying to make, but it kinda looks bad to me when I get the impression that this MacMillan woman is just about the only person saying what she does. Revisionism is fun and all, but when it doesn't get any agreement from anyone else it quickly becomes suspect.

Of course, if I'm wrong about the above musings, please tell me so. It's not that I can't accept your views, it's just that right now I still have a hard time believing them. For the above reasons.