Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

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:

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

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Beskar]

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Beskar]

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?

[HoreTore]

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...

[ShadesWolf]

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

[sulla1982ad]

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

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

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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

[Pannonian]

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.

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

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

[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). 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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Meneldil]

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).

[cegorach]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

[Prince Cobra]

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

It must be because of Napoleon!

[Sarmatian]

It must be because of Napoleon!

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

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

Poland

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

Britain tried that once. Nearly cost Wellesley his career, as the British back home were aghast at the terms granted to the defeated French

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

[Brenus]

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

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

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

[Brenus]

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

[cegorach]

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

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

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


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






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