Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 395

Thread: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

  1. #31

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post

    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

  2. #32
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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.

  3. #33
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion1 View Post
    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)
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  4. #34
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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:

  5. #35
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Centurion1 View Post
    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?

  6. #36
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    wisdm teeth painkiller, no ima nt drnk.

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

    geez.

  7. #37
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Thumbs up Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Alright, rest well, Centurion

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

  8. #38
    Member Centurion1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wherever my blade takes me or to school, it sorta depends
    Posts
    6,007

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

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

  9. #39

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post

    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...

  10. #40
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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...


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  11. #41
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    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.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  12. #42
    is not a senior Member Meneldil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    France
    Posts
    3,074

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Meneldil; 02-19-2010 at 12:20.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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...


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  14. #44
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    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.

  15. #45
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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: 
    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”
    [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.


    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  16. #46
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  17. #47
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  18. #48
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    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.

  19. #49
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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: 

    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
    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.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  20. #50
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 02-19-2010 at 20:19.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  21. #51
    Senior Member Senior Member gaelic cowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    mayo
    Posts
    4,833

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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.
    They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
    a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.

    Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy

  22. #52
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    “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…
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  23. #53
    Senior Member Senior Member Fisherking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East of Augusta Vindelicorum
    Posts
    5,575

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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...


    Education: that which reveals to the wise,
    and conceals from the stupid,
    the vast limits of their knowledge.
    Mark Twain

  24. #54
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Fisherking View Post
    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.

  25. #55
    Sovereign Oppressor Member TIE Fighter Shooter Champion, Turkey Shoot Champion, Juggler Champion Kralizec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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 View Post
    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.

  26. #56
    Senior Member Senior Member Brenus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Wokingham
    Posts
    3,523

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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…
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.

    "I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
    "You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
    "Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
    Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"

  27. #57
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Kralizec View Post
    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.
    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.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  28. #58
    Tovenaar Senior Member The Wizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,348

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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 View Post
    '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:

    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:

    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.
    Last edited by The Wizard; 02-20-2010 at 01:11.
    "It ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."

    Eric B. & Rakim, I Know You Got Soul

  29. #59
    Bastion of Sanity Member Captain Blackadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,390

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    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


    Coming Soon to a Gameroom Near You

  30. #60
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Default Re: Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Blackadder View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO