Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology.
Are you sure about that? It's not like Hitler ever tried to sue for peace...Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology.
Originally Posted by Husar:
Are you sure about that? It's not like Hitler ever tried to sue for peace...
Fair point.Are you sure about that? It's not like Hitler ever tried to sue for peace...
However, one can wonder what would've become of Germany's tentative peace overtures if the allies had not snubbed them because of their policy of unconditional surrender.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Fair point.
However, one can wonder what would've become of Germany's tentative peace overtures if the allies had not snubbed them because of their policy of unconditional surrender.
So what you're telling me is, fear the Germans even when bearing gifts?Fair point.
However, one can wonder what would've become of Germany's tentative peace overtures if the allies had not snubbed them because of their policy of unconditional surrender.
Fear mass delusion, hysteria and nationalist agitation.
And, fair is fair, fear British and French stupidity and arrogance.
Always go back to the sources for historicla truth, never accept conventional wisdom.
Don't let victors be played against each other by the vanquished.
And, fair is fair, fear British and French stupidity and arrogance.
Always go back to the sources for historicla truth, never accept conventional wisdom.
Don't let victors be played against each other by the vanquished.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Fear mass delusion, hysteria and nationalist agitation.
And, fair is fair, fear British and French stupidity and arrogance.
Always go back to the sources for historicla truth, never accept conventional wisdom.
Don't let victors be played against each other by the vanquished.
And you made these concepts B-E-A-U-tifual. Fear mass delusion, hysteria and nationalist agitation.
And, fair is fair, fear British and French stupidity and arrogance.
Always go back to the sources for historicla truth, never accept conventional wisdom.
Don't let victors be played against each other by the vanquished.
Good show old boy
@ Louis IV the Fat
Okay, I am wrong and you are the Authority. So, could you enlighten me on a few points?
What were the effects of the continuing blockade of Germany after the Armistice?
What were the treaty conditions regarding the Saarland? (it is handled in more than one section of the treaty)
What was Wilson’s point about the handling of German Colonies, and what actually happened?
As regards plebiscite, there were other regions where they were also mandated. Despite the people voting to remain part of Germany, the regions were transferred to Poland. Why do you think that was?
This whole discussion has left the impression that I am very pro German, which is not actually the case.
It just seems to me they were made the whipping boy for everyone’s mistakes. Why did they deserve the treatment?
Okay, I am wrong and you are the Authority. So, could you enlighten me on a few points?
What were the effects of the continuing blockade of Germany after the Armistice?
What were the treaty conditions regarding the Saarland? (it is handled in more than one section of the treaty)
What was Wilson’s point about the handling of German Colonies, and what actually happened?
As regards plebiscite, there were other regions where they were also mandated. Despite the people voting to remain part of Germany, the regions were transferred to Poland. Why do you think that was?
This whole discussion has left the impression that I am very pro German, which is not actually the case.
It just seems to me they were made the whipping boy for everyone’s mistakes. Why did they deserve the treatment?
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
It doesn't escape me. I think it is fundamentally erroneous.
All countries that lose a war are 'forced at gunpoint to an agreement they don't agree with'. It's the very definition of losing a war.
If Germany wanted a negotiated peace, it should've opted for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This did not come about. Instead, Germany was defeated, and acknowledged defeat. This defeat was formalised in a peace treaty.
And a great and idealistic peace treaty at that, far more lenient than any treaty Germany ever gave any country it defeated, and far more lenient than Germany expected.
Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology.
The excesses of the treaty, particularly the humiliating and absurd military reductions help to explain the German attitude. That the Allies would dein to inflict that alone would offend the Prussian mindset. You have said it yourself, France sought to weaken Germany for her own benefit. I'm sure you recognise the irony of France fearing a hegemonic Germany.It doesn't escape me. I think it is fundamentally erroneous.
All countries that lose a war are 'forced at gunpoint to an agreement they don't agree with'. It's the very definition of losing a war.
If Germany wanted a negotiated peace, it should've opted for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This did not come about. Instead, Germany was defeated, and acknowledged defeat. This defeat was formalised in a peace treaty.
And a great and idealistic peace treaty at that, far more lenient than any treaty Germany ever gave any country it defeated, and far more lenient than Germany expected.
Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology.
The problem with your comparison to the Franco-Prussian war is obvious and I am surprised no one has picked you up on it. The Prussians defeated the the French army in France, captured the Emperor and besieged Paris. ?Under the circumstances the goverment surrendered, ceding the forts around Paris in the process and effectively giving the Germans the city.
The armastice was signed at Versailles and food imediately began to flow into the city.
By constrast, Germany's army was intact in 1918 (though no longer really effrective) and her territory was unvioated. Germany was not deated in the same manner as France had been, and as such the treaty terms were inapropriate.
This does not make Versailles harsh as a treaty, but it's imposition on Germany was an intenational affront.
Originally Posted by 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.
I certainly agree with that. Decades of writing managed to turn it almost upside down.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.
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.
Originally Posted by cegorach:
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.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.
Originally Posted by cegorach:
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. Poland
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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. Britain tried that once. Nearly cost Wellesley his career, as the British back home were aghast at the terms granted to the defeated French
Is it simple coincidence that when the word "French" is used, the word "defeated" always finds its way to the same sentence?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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!Is it simple coincidence that when the word "French" is used, the word "defeated" always finds its way to the same sentence?
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.
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.
"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...
Originally Posted by Prince Cobra:
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...It must be because of Napoleon!
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.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Relax, mate, it's just a good natured jab at my French friends here. Long Live French-Serbian Alliance (tm) - kicking German butt since 1914...
Anyway, sorry to derail one of the finest discussion I've participated in since I've joined the .org.
I just don't see how people can scream murder when they talk about Versailles but completely ignore Brest-Litovsk. No one looks for deeper meaning there, like whether the Russians would felt victimized by the west and seek to regain lost territories and lost pride (as did happen), did it bring stability and long-term peace (it didn't), did it leave Russia in a position to rebuild its economy (it didn't) and so on... It's pushed on the sidelines while Versailles where Germany was dealt such "harsh terms" (that would ruin its economy and leave it defenseless only to raise again as the top economic and military power 20 years later) is given the spotlight.
I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.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.
But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.
But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.
Germany indeed was forced to cancel its annexations in the East, and its overlordship of what remained.I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.
But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.
Versailles then granted independence from Russia to the Baltics, Poles, etc. Versailles, and the Fourteen Points, are therefore rightly admired for introducing self-determination into international law.
Are you in favour of the Soviet re-annexation of half of Eastern Europe after WWII, and the political dominance over what was left after WWII? This is what Germany sought to do with Brest-Litovsk. Are you in favour of having handed over half of Eastern Europe to the Bolshevists in 1919? Because that is what you are having a laugh about here.
This was halted by Versailles. Then Versailles was castigated because people believed the German nonsense (As they surprisingly do to this very day, including me until not all that long ago) that this was an insufferable humiliation of the Prussian right to dominate. All the laughter at silly Versailles ensured Germany was alowed to try again. It failed again, but the price this time was a Soviet annexation of the Baltics and half of Poland, and political overlordship of the remainder. Not until 1989 was the Versailles solution restored.
Edit: I myself may be wrong. Come to think of it, this happens quite a lot. France as a whole, when speaking ex cathedra in matters pertaining politics, art or philosophy, is infallible.
Whether it's Iraq, warnings over German revanchism after WWI, the excesses of casino capitalism, and everything else.
dp.
I think you are starting to believe your own propaganda.
Will you not admit that you just lambasted Versailles/ the Entente for not handing over Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland to Russia / the Bolshevists?
I think it my have been more of a question, along with quite a few others that weren’t answered.
.
.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.
But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.
That wasn't my point. I was merely implying that you should look at a bigger picture. Repudiated later or not, that treaty was enforced by Germany, leaving Entente little illussion what's gonna happen with them should Germany win the war. Germany refused any question of self-determination in territory ceded by Russia and would have claimed overlordship of the territories, minus those that would have been annexed outright. I thought that I brought out that while Germany had to repudiate the treaty, the other allies of the Entente didn’t bother returning the lands to Russia.
But Louis said I was wrong or something...and of course the French must be right.
After losing the war, they were dealt a less harsh treaty than they themselves imposed on a defeated enemy not so long ago and the whining about Germany being a victim started...
Being French is a good start in order to be right…
But, in this case, Louis showed and established facts. He gave evidences, figures, analyse.
When Versailles is compared with others treaties the anti-Versailles just don’t answer to the questions and argue about others circumstances or others times…
His opponents carried on denials, complain and proved nothing: It was not right, intolerable humiliation and other words…
So until his opponents prove the Treaty and its application really destroyed something else than Germany’s pride…
But, in this case, Louis showed and established facts. He gave evidences, figures, analyse.
When Versailles is compared with others treaties the anti-Versailles just don’t answer to the questions and argue about others circumstances or others times…
His opponents carried on denials, complain and proved nothing: It was not right, intolerable humiliation and other words…
So until his opponents prove the Treaty and its application really destroyed something else than Germany’s pride…
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
quite a few others that weren’t answered.
Sorry, I read all of those questions. Should've replied maybe. But I had a feeling we were running around in circles, kind of both hade made our points regarding the topics disputed, and I didn't want to repeat myself.quite a few others that weren’t answered.
I shall have to get back to them later. You've stated your case well, and it's been a pleasure debating this with you, so if you want answers, I shall happily oblige.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
That wasn't my point. I was merely implying that you should look at a bigger picture. Repudiated later or not, that treaty was enforced by Germany, leaving Entente little illussion what's gonna happen with them should Germany win the war. Germany refused any question of self-determination in territory ceded by Russia and would have claimed overlordship of the territories, minus those that would have been annexed outright.
After losing the war, they were dealt a less harsh treaty than they themselves imposed on a defeated enemy not so long ago and the whining about Germany being a victim started...
There is no doubt what the Kiser and the Junkers had in mind for the conquered territories.That wasn't my point. I was merely implying that you should look at a bigger picture. Repudiated later or not, that treaty was enforced by Germany, leaving Entente little illussion what's gonna happen with them should Germany win the war. Germany refused any question of self-determination in territory ceded by Russia and would have claimed overlordship of the territories, minus those that would have been annexed outright.
After losing the war, they were dealt a less harsh treaty than they themselves imposed on a defeated enemy not so long ago and the whining about Germany being a victim started...
They would at best have been puppet states.
As for the whining Germans, that they did but it was not them alone who found the treaty (if you can call it that) too much. There was no shortage of home grown decent.
The Entente had already succeeded in changing Germany’s form of government.
Treating (note root word for treaty, meaning negotiate) with that government, even with stringent terms, could have still resulted in a better understand between nations than dictating unequivocal terms.
The Germans could blame themselves or thrash around for someone else to blame.
The Allies have not one to blame but themselves.
It was a bad war fought for bad reasons with bad tactics and resulted in a bad peace. The Entente dictated that peace and deserve the lions share of the blame.
edit:That is kind of you Louis but this sums up my position and you can take it up from here. ;)
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
edit:That is kind of you Louis but this sums up my position and you can take it up from here. ;)
"The conditions in your army are terrible."edit:That is kind of you Louis but this sums up my position and you can take it up from here. ;)
"I'm sorry, but those are my conditions and you'll just have to accept them."
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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.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.
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.
I am quite sure the Central Powers planned to restore the Polish Kingdom as a puppet state with a German dynasty on the top.
Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D
Albert Einstain was really a woman. How's that?Well, this discussion is interesting, but it kind of runs into circles after 10 pages. Anyone feels like making an outlandish claim, so we can all get worked up again? :D
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO