Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Pannonian]

“I don't deny that Germany was defeated by November 1918, however there are many varying degrees of defeat, and Germany's was not a total one, nor do I think it would have been had the war continued.”
It was a total collapse!!!!
After the last July 1918 German offensive and its failure, Germany lost the gains done in 4 years in 3 months.
The heavily fortifided lines fall in the Anglo-French-Canadians-US troops on the East/West –for the Germans, their Allies were routing on the South, South East… Internal up-raising and revolt were brewing inside…
Contrary to the French in 1914-15, the Germans were not able to regroup and counter-offensive…
If the war would have continued, the blood shed would have been worst for Germany and the conditions of surrender harsher…

According to the old Tommies who were interviewed for posterity a few years ago before they died off, they were advancing several km a day (on average), advancing as far as they could before meeting resistance, then calling in the heavies, or doing the job themselves if they felt inclined. What surprised me was that they were happy with the war, and were disappointed when it ended. Unlike WW2, and unlike the Germans in both wars, the Allies had plenty of logistical and human resources, and the casualties they suffered during an advance were felt to be justified by the advances they made. The Allied soldiers were trained for a job, they did their job well, and they could see the tangible results of their work, so they were satisfied, and could have kept this up for longer if necessary.

[Louis VI the Fat]

They represent another voice in the debate that you have not mentioned (for which I do not blame you, I'd do it too if it were me).

Thus far, I have twice quoted them, and once went over them in my own words.

[King Henry V]

I think Sarmatian, Louis and Brenus heavily over-estimate the military capabilities of the Entente in 1918. Austria-Hungary might have been broken, but you speak as though the Allies had unlimited reserves of manpower. There would still have been an awful lot of territory to occupy before reaching the German border, too much for the Allies to achieve anyway considering their resources. Similarly I very much doubt that they would have been able to push very far into Germany without severe losses that would have had much of public opinion calling for peace.

[Centurion1]

Well being able to sue for peace and actually getting peace are two different hings. I assume we are saying that Germany didnt agree to versaille. Then the people of the entente didnt really have a "choice" if neither side was willing to yield right?

[TinCow]

“Blame the Germans all you want, but the fact remains that without the reparations and the French occupation of the Ruhr”
Funny enough, I do not remember hyper inflation starting in France during the German Occupation after 1871.

...

The condition of the defeat were worst for France in 1871 than for Germany in 1918.

On the first point, I do not see how that comparison is remotely relevant to the situation. Are you actually arguing that hyperinflation was not caused by the German government's reaction to war reparations and the occupation of the Ruhr?

On the second point, I believe that is one of the most inaccurate statements made in this thread.

A kind of TinCow then.
Educated in older conceptions of Versailles, accepting of the newer findings, but not quite mentally ready to accept the full staggering consequences of it.

I am very confused by your reaction. Are you actually saying that Versailles had NO impact whatsoever on causing WW2? If you re-read my first post, I very clearly stated that Versailles was only one of several factors that caused the war. I fully believe that had any of those other factors been different, that WW2 would never have happened even with Versailles. I feel like you are having some intense allergic reaction to the very concept of Versailles having any influence on anything.

Also, about the reparations and hyperinflation. The point is not who is to blame (at least, not mine). The point is the demand for reparations put the German government before a choice it could not fulfill, while the opposing side (France) was unwilling to budge. In other words, the Treaty was a failure (at least in the field of economic reparations) from the outset because it set unrealistic demands that fostered conflict and undermined its effectivity, damaging peace in the process and inflaming German public opinion needlessly through heavy-handed policies directly derived from the Treaty's clauses. It was this hostile international environment, which is partly to blame on Versailles, that led to economic stagnation throughout the Interbellum (and not just after '29) and also prepared the ground for the rise of radically right-wing movements like the Nazis.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You know, I don't understand what drives the current WW1 revisionism. A couple of years ago some academic was quated as saying something like, "most people now accept that the Germans in WW1 represented just as much of a threat to liberty and human rights as in in WW2".

What idocy is this, to make all Germans into monsters; and all their governments into Nazis?

[Pannonian]

I think Sarmatian, Louis and Brenus heavily over-estimate the military capabilities of the Entente in 1918. Austria-Hungary might have been broken, but you speak as though the Allies had unlimited reserves of manpower. There would still have been an awful lot of territory to occupy before reaching the German border, too much for the Allies to achieve anyway considering their resources. Similarly I very much doubt that they would have been able to push very far into Germany without severe losses that would have had much of public opinion calling for peace.

That's a modern day perspective. The Allies had already sustained heavy casualties without calling off the war, and with the advances of 1918, which would have been even more marked with the maturation of the original 1919 plans and the continued starvation of Germany, the soldiers were happy that they were tangibly winning and moving. Forget the war poets, who were unrepresentative of the majority of soldiers, and read the accounts of the campaigns of 1918. The Allies were plentifully equipped with whatever equipment and supplies they felt were needed, they were conversant in the language of combined arms, and they still had plenty of manpower in reserve (remember there were no commitments in the far east, so both Britain and France could concentrate the resources of their empires on the western front).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a modern day perspective. The Allies had already sustained heavy casualties without calling off the war, and with the advances of 1918, which would have been even more marked with the maturation of the original 1919 plans and the continued starvation of Germany, the soldiers were happy that they were tangibly winning and moving. Forget the war poets, who were unrepresentative of the majority of soldiers, and read the accounts of the campaigns of 1918. The Allies were plentifully equipped with whatever equipment and supplies they felt were needed, they were conversant in the language of combined arms, and they still had plenty of manpower in reserve (remember there were no commitments in the far east, so both Britain and France could concentrate the resources of their empires on the western front).

None of which reflects the bottom line, which is what was really beginning to worry Paris and London.

[Centurion1]

As they say PVC the winners write the history books. WW1 was one of the last wars in which there were not really defined lines of "good or evil". which are of course very subjective terms to hold. Not to say that the residents weren't filled with propaganda hating on everything about the enemy. Like sauerkraut=the devil and pastries=evil. (well not really but propaganda gets pretty ridiculous). The English and French had to rewrite history so as to favor them and therefore excuse the massive loss of life they just incurred upon their respective people. In essence they created a bogeyman.

I am not sure how you can say Versaille was not a cause for WW2. To be sure it was not the single defining cause but it most definitely had an impact. The German people were most certainly not favored in the treaty which led to resentment which at the very least allowed a man like Adolf Hitler to come to power with his promises. The Treaty was very unfair and in my mind ironically was very similar to a typical congressional budget bill in the US. When Wilson came over on his triumphant entrance to bring world peace he left after making revision after revision and simply making everyone associated with the Treaty angry.

and then the French and English as well as America's somewhat immature fascination with isolationism resulted in a reluctance to call Hitler on any of his bluffs caused many more problems after imposing such harsh repatriations and territorial grabs.

Which to some extent is understandable after the meat grinder that was WW1

[Brenus]

“On the second point, I believe that is one of the most inaccurate statements made in this thread.” Really? You mean France still had Armies to oppose to the Germans in 1870? Paris wasn’t starve to death and didn’t surrender? The German Troops didn’t Parade in Paris? Didn’t occupying the Country untill full payment was done?
The conditions of the Peace Treaty imposed by Germany, the lost of territory, the War Reperations, the Civil War, Regime Change, all these were better than the condition imposed to Germany in 1918?
Think twice.

[Brenus]

"the Allies had unlimited reserves of manpower": They had. That is what the USA entrance in the war meant. A endless reinforcement...

[Husar]

Anyone else noticed how it's mostly the french arguing for this, the americans mostly against it and the british are split?
I'm against it, too, of course, can't let the frenchies get away with this.

So basically the french paid all their unfair reparations and we were clever enough to evade our very fair reparations and that is why we're the bad guys and deserved to be punished? Maybe it was dumb not to punish us then because when Hitler stopped paying anything, France and Britain did nothing, waiting for Hitler to build up his army, is that our fault as well now?
Maybe the Allies should have tried winning hearts and minds after WW1.
Ignoring that, it seems like you frenchies are still angry because of 1871, and if you still are today then sure as heck the treaty of Versailles was your revenge for 1871, you even wanted the war to get your revenge, when Germany inquired what France would do in the case of a war between Germany and Russia, France more or less indicated that it would attack, no, not Russia... it's why there was the triple entente in the first place.
And let's not forget the whole situation only arose because Germany tried to be more like France and Britain but the two had already enslaved most of the world so the conflict was carried out here in Europe.
It's a bit like that new brutal mafia clan challenging the old familias, you're lying to yourself when you think the old powers were somehow gentle, tame and more adorable.(except in 'Carlito's way' but that does not apply here)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am very confused by your reaction. Are you actually saying that Versailles had NO impact whatsoever on causing WW2? If you re-read my first post, I very clearly stated that Versailles was only one of several factors that caused the war. I fully believe that had any of those other factors been different, that WW2 would never have happened even with Versailles. I feel like you are having some intense allergic reaction to the very concept of Versailles having any influence on anything.

I was enticing you into debate.

My point of view is perhaps best, and most briefly, summed up with:

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.

That is the crucial bit.
Of course Versailles was central to the events in the 20's and 30's. But...Versailles was workable. It was not conciliatory, but it wasn't harsh either. It didn't work out because people perceived the treaty to be punitive and unworkable.

What idocy is this, to make all Germans into monsters; and all their governments into Nazis?

Who says any such thing?

As they say PVC the winners write the history books.

The English and French had to rewrite history so as to favor them

Strangely, the Germans have written history. The view of German nationalist agitation has become dominant.
Most of their points are factually incorrect, or fundamentally erroneous.

Anyone else noticed how it's mostly the french arguing for this, the americans mostly against it and the british are split?

Yes, I knew this would be the impression. I have therefore taken specific and explicit care in avoiding naming French historians*. My sources are German, Canadian and American.

*who, incidentally, usually have a more negative view of Versailles than German, British or American historians. For an excellent read though, try Georges-Henri Soutou. He shows remarkable continuity between French policy after WWI and WWII. France after 1918 sought accomodation with Germany, co-operation. French policy was mostly realistic and rational, aimed at accomodating Germany and striving towards fixing Germany's place as the peaceful, largest power in Europe.

[TinCow]

“On the second point, I believe that is one of the most inaccurate statements made in this thread.” Really? You mean France still had Armies to oppose to the Germans in 1870? Paris wasn’t starve to death and didn’t surrender? The German Troops didn’t Parade in Paris? Didn’t occupying the Country untill full payment was done?
The conditions of the Peace Treaty imposed by Germany, the lost of territory, the War Reperations, the Civil War, Regime Change, all these were better than the condition imposed to Germany in 1918?
Think twice.

If you'd like to debate this, start a second thread. Any response I make will derail this thread.

That is the crucial bit.
Of course Versailles was central to the events in the 20's and 30's. But...Versailles was workable. It was not conciliatory, but it wasn't harsh either. It didn't work out because people perceived the treaty to be punitive and unworkable.

I strongly agree that perception was the single strongest factor in Versailles' contribution to WW2. That isn't just German perception though, it was also strongly British as well. Appeasement as a policy was founded in the idea that Germany had a right to regain what had been stripped from her. Even many French, Americans, etc. perceived Versailles as too harsh as well.

Beyond perception, I do believe Versailles did have a real impact that was significant enough to be contributory, while at the same time nowhere near as significant as was proclaimed by the various German nationalists groups in the interwar period. I think the point at which we draw the line on this impact is where you and I are disagreeing. I believe that Weimar was significantly undermined by German economic weakness in the 20s and early 30s, and Versailles contributed a moderate amount to that economic weakness. I do agree with you that had other events unfolded differently, Weimar could have met the terms of Versailles without falling to Nazism. That in itself is proof that Versailles was 'workable' as you like to say. Yes, I agree that Versailles could have been followed to the letter without a second war, if other factors had been different.

As for your terms 'harsh' and 'punitive'... harsh feels like a moral judgment which I am not trying to make. Versailles certainly wasn't 'easy,' but it feels like most perceptions of its severity are rather amorphous and based on emotion rather than actual balancing of the impact. As for punitive, Versailles was certainly punitive. Versailles punished Germany for losing WWI. Therefore, by definition, it was punitive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who says any such thing?

Such things have been said in the popular press these last few years. Germany has no heroes from either War, to hear it told in Britian. As far as the German historiographical reaction; don't ignore the German crisis of confidence, and the crisis of their history, that has lead to such idiocy as retiring the Iron Cross as a medal for valour and has left the German army demoralised and reluctant to do any actual fighting.

[Fisherking]

The modern claim is that the guilt clause wasn't a guilt clause at all simply because it was crafted by two Americans.

Yet this was seen as outrageous from the very first reading of the treaty.

There are many more onerous parts that don't seem to have been addressed here.

Additionally, the fact that it is not the Kiser's Government that is forced to make these concessions but a new German Republic seems of little importance to those who drew up the thing.

We have also seen what Dutch and Neutral sentiments were to the treaty from the outset, and most likely those opinions were not the second hand opinions voiced by the Germans, but rather from their own reading of the document.

The German reaction was plainly foreseeable and if not it was certainly plane from their first reading. To pretend that the Allies were being moderate is a fantasy, even if they tried to convince themselves of it.

The fact that Germany may have sabotaged its self to avoid payment is not very surprising either. They were forced to view the French and British as enemies from the very inception of their government.

Germany behaved much as a fox caught in a trap, chewing off its foot to escape.

It fostered German Nationalism and galvanized it in a way to recoup its injured pride.

Despite the founding of the League of Nations a reading of the treaty makes those who drafted it look like small and petty men with base motives.

Placing a new “spin” on it is like dressing a donkey in a tuxedo.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Such things have been said in the popular press these last few years. Germany has no heroes from either War, to hear it told in Britian. As far as the German historiographical reaction; don't ignore the German crisis of confidence, and the crisis of their history, that has lead to such idiocy as retiring the Iron Cross as a medal for valour and has left the German army demoralised and reluctant to do any actual fighting.

One of the tragedies is that I am a Germanophile. I grew up on Arte, speak German and have a great love for its culture. I can recite Schiller backwards and draw all of Cologne's romanesque churches with my eyes closed.

I have no moral qualms about Germany in 1914-1918. I do resent Germany's unwillingness to accept defeat, certainly in light of what this eventually led to.
The nazis I consider a disaster. They were just too much, they went a level beyond anything seen before in modern Europe. Uncouth, unsophisticated. Nowhere near as fascinating as they are sometimes thought to be. Banal. An excersize in pointlessness and futility.

Germany is a culture nation. It is also Prussian militarism.
If only German liberalism could've united Germany in 1848, instead of Prussia! Even so, I have little resentment against the period 1866-1918.
1918-1945, on the other hand, was an exersice in lunacy.


Of course, the very reason of the contention, is: what was behind 1918-1945: legitimate injustice, or perceived injustice? This is the question. This will decide a person's anger, at either the treaty or at German nationalist agitation, either of which is consequently held to no small degree responsible for WWII.
Me, I grew up naive about the period: 'Poor Germany, so hardly done by. Even if I regret the extent of German aggression in WWII, obviously Germany received a bad deal. Versailles was too stern. Etc.'

But the more I've learned, the more I've read, the clearer it has become that Versailles was not at all harsh, never mind tried to punish or destroy Germany. On the contrary. It was, certainly taking realistic limits into account, a lenient, workable treaty. The policy was to incorporate Germany peacefully as Europe's biggest power, within a peaceful Europe.

The modern claim is that the guilt clause wasn't a guilt clause at all simply because it was crafted by two Americans.

No. Nobody would make such a ridiculous claim.

[Husar]

Strangely, the Germans have written history. The view of German nationalist agitation has become dominant.

Well, looks like the nation of poets beat the brutish gauls there.

My sources are German, [...]

[French authors] who, incidentally, usually have a more negative view of Versailles than German, [...]

Well, look, all this proves is that Fragony was right all along and the modern liberal hippie commie left like to apologize for everything, cane themselves and generally feel like their own people are the worst anyway.

One of the tragedies is that I am a Germanophile. I grew up on Arte, speak German, [...]

Ist das so?

[Sarmatian]

I think were at impasse because of our definition of "harsh". As I've already said, arguably all peace treaties are harsh on the losers, but the general conception of the Versailles Treaty is that 1) it was incredible harsh and restricting, unlike any other 2) that it caused hyper-inflation and 3) that it was responsible for bringing Nazi party to power.

1) Comparing it to treaties of the same era show this to be false. Peace treaty of 1871, Brest-Litovsk, WW2... show that it wasn't harsher than any of those treaties.

2) German economy was heavily hit by the war and hyper inflation was deliberately caused by the German government. Reparations strained the economy even more, surely but they weren't sole reason for hyper inflation or even the most important reason.

3) Arguably this might be considered true, but I would choose different wording - it wasn't Versailles treaty that was responsible but German perception of the Versailles treaty. They didn't believe they had been defeated and they had felt humiliated.

All this nonsense how Versailles treaty crippled German economy was proven false when just 20 years later (including four years of the Great Depression) Germany emerged as the principal economic and industrial power of Europe once again, with the strongest or second strongest army after Soviet Union (it's a matter of debate I would rather avoid at the moment). If it was so harsh, so crippling, so restricting how is it possible that only 2 decades after Germany had not just recovered, but regained its position of the dominant power in Europe in every way...

[TinCow]

Of course, the very reason of the contention, is: what was behind 1918-1945: legitimate injustice, or perceived injustice? This is the question. This will decide a person's anger, at either the treaty or at German nationalist agitation, either of which is consequently held to no small degree responsible for WWII.
Me, I grew up naive about the period: 'Poor Germany, so hardly done by. Even if I regret the extent of German aggression in WWII, obviously Germany received a bad deal. Versailles was too stern. Etc.'

But the more I've learned, the more I've read, the clearer it has become that Versailles was not at all harsh, never mind tried to punish or destroy Germany. On the contrary. It was, certainly taking realistic limits into account, a lenient, workable treaty. The policy was to incorporate Germany peacefully as Europe's biggest power, within a peaceful Europe.

I think one of the greatest tragedies with the continuing emphasis on whether Versailles was the cause of WW2 is that it ignores other major factors which need a lot more public attention: (1) American isolationism and (2) Communism.

IMHO, the US has as much blame for starting WW2 as Germany, France, and Britain. The US was the only nation that emerged unscathed from WWI. It's refusal to join the League of Nations and its total disengagement from European diplomacy removed the only option for a neutral (at the time) arbitrator in European politics. Had the US remained actively engaged in Europe after 1918, I believe war with Germany could have been avoided.

At the same time, the growth of Communism itself propelled the Nazis to power. There were very strong pro-German movements in Britain and France in the 1930s, even after 1933, which specifically saw Germany in general (and Hitler in specific) as bulwarks against the USSR. In the 1920s, Communism was growing very, very quickly in much of Europe. It was a realistic possibility that Germany, France, and Spain could have gone communist at various points in time. Without the Communist threat in Russia, I believe that Britain and France would have taken a far harder line with Germany from 1933-1939. In addition, without the Communist agitation in Germany, the Nazis themselves would have gained far less support and would not likely have earned the Chancellorship in 1933. Without control of the Reichstag, the Nazis would have been just another strong right wing political party as are present in so many nations even today.

I also believe that war itself was inevitable due to Communism. The conflict between Communism and Capitalism was going to occur even if Weimar had never fallen and Hitler remained nothing more than a forgotten painter. Remove the German WW2, and you instead replace it with a Soviet WW2, but that's another topic.

[Fisherking]

Lewis, that was one of the things that struck me when reading the paper. Perhaps I got it wrong some how but it was there assertion.



With the rest please bare with me.

The revolutionary government took power on November 9 and the Armistice was signed on November 11th taking Germany out of the war.

I think that the German People were proud of that. They were forming a new republic and putting an end to a very nasty war. They didn't feel defeated, the Kiser was defeated. I think they may have felt a little surprised that the Allies didn't share in their joy and kept up the blockade.

On the other hand France, Britain, et. all expected contrition and they didn't see near enough. Not that it would have made much difference in the treaty terms, but this made them unhappy.

Not allowing Germany to negotiate was not a slap just to the German Government but to the German People.

Had the Allies recognized this and negotiated in good faith they may well have gotten reparations, most of what was in the treaty, and a friendly State in Central Europe. In handling it in the way they did they continued the enmity of the war and the resentment and hostility that followed.

That was the mistake.

[The Wizard]

French policy was most certainly not conciliatory towards Germany following 1918. France (and its little ally Belgium) took the hardest line when it came to Germany, Versailles and reparations, often clashing with Britain (and of course Germany) in the process. It is as I said: it's not just about perceptions. The Treaty of Versailles demanded things that could not be provided and therefore created conflict that would otherwise not have been there. When Briand partially reversed that policy with Locarno, things were looking up, till everything was messed up again by the Great Depression (which was made so bad partly due to the financial currents set up to pay the Versailles reparations, as well as the hostile international environment the Treaty fostered). Locarno and Versailles were basically dead by 1932, at the latest by '36.

However, TinCow in his latest post is very correct. The U.S. was arguably already the new hegemon in 1918, yet refused to take on the responsibilities that came with the role. This left the declining powers of Europe to squabble amongst themselves for twenty years until they ed up so hard even American isolationist opinion couldn't ignore the implications. And the same goes for the effect of the perception of a communist takeover, which was what drove many leaders to view the Soviet Union and the Comintern as a greater threat than Hitler and Mussolini, disastrously underestimating them until it was too late.

This doesn't take away the importance of Versailles, though. The perceptions it created, the policies it dictated and the unrealistic expectations it had were all important factors in undermining the Weimar Republic's integrity and creating an atmosphere of hostility that pervaded Europe throughout the Interbellum and led almost directly to WW2. Versailles may not be the most important factor, but it would be foolishness to discount it as one altogether.

Thus far, I have twice quoted them, and once went over them in my own words.

Perhaps, but you de-emphasized (they weren't bolded, only the reviewer disagreeing with them) their articles because they don't fit into the point you're trying to make

[Beskar]

Why are people blaming Britain? It was Britain that made sure the treay was as moderate as it was, with a few concessions to the French. Britain wanted to keep a strong Germany, France for example wanted to see Germany broken up into smaller states like the Habsburg Empire. Either way, when Germany wrote that blank cheque to the Habsburg Empire, it began the war. Russia declared war on the Habsburg Empire, Germany declared war on Russia and France (not the otherway round), Germany then declared war on Belguim, etc, which made Britain come in Belguims aid.

In short, Germany is very responsible for the war. Also, German reprerations were no where near the level that France had to spend, rebuilding half of its nation. Also, the amount of loans Germany recieved from the United States more and covered the cost of the reperations, so any problems were down to the German Government, and the Great Depression.

[The Wizard]

My personal opinion that the question of who to blame for WW1 is a question of propaganda, with Entente propaganda (the evil Huns did it!) facing off against Triple Alliance propaganda (we were attacked!).

As far as I'm concerned, this was a conflict a long time coming, and that any perceptive mind could have seen coming from far, far away (as Friedrich Engels did as early as 1878, as I recall). Every single major power on the European continent was ready to pull the trigger, and had been sharpening knives to settle some old grudges for decades. Everyone, consequently, is partially to blame. Though I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that it was the horrible Austro-Hungarian diplomacy in the month separating the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the ultimatum to Serbia, a month in which all sympathy for the Habsburgs in the world had drained away, which sealed the deal.

I'm going to derail this discussion horribly, aren't I? I couldn't help myself, though...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Perhaps, but you de-emphasized (they weren't bolded, only the reviewer disagreeing with them) their articles because they don't fit into the point you're trying to make

But then why would I have quoted the part in the first place, twice no less, if I wanted it de-emphasized?

I bold the most relevant part as a courtesy to the reader, who may not want to read the entire bit but does want to be able to quickly follow the conversation. I quote the entire bit for those more interested, that they can understand the larger context. I give links, for those who want to follow up on that, plus for those who want to check my sources.

The bit shows contuining historical debate, yes. disagreement. It also shows that Ferguson and in particular Feldman are an increasing minority, and that Ferguson's midway position is not without incongruities.

With the rest please bare with me.

I do hear you.

One could argue that the allies should have taken the moral high ground. Even disregarding modern morality ('we don't do that stuff anymore'), by the standards of their time it was possible to understand that industrial scale warfare was a dead end. That realpolitik, power politics, if those are the words, were a dead end.

One should be noble in victory, respectful to the loser. One wins some, one loses some. It could be the other way round next time, it has been the other way round in the past. Events could've unfolded differently.

And noble, no, this Versailles was not.

But noble is the exception, not the rule. One does not hold the absence of nobleness against someone, one admires it when it is present.



Even so, Versailles was full of idealism. It did not seek to supress Germany, never mind suck it dry or humiliate it. Versailles was not even a mixture of realpolitik and humilation. Versailles was a mixture of realpolitik and idealism.

Versailles was not harsh. It was perhaps not directly conciliatory either. However, where it was not conciliatory, it left open the possibility of concilliation. Germany was not crippled. Germany was left Europe's most powerful state. Many provisions were conditional in the first place, or could easily be revised at a later date.
Versailles was not meant as a system to keep Germany down forever. It was meant as a system that would eventually incorporate, once passions had settled down, Germany as a peaceful state, as the largest power in Europe, in a system that sought to overcome differences in a peaceful manner.

In the execution of this Versailles failed. Why? Because Germany cried bloody murder from the start, never reconcilling itself with defeat. Because the allies - who had too much, not too little, sympathy for Germany - bought into this from the start, because the allies lost track of what they set out to do and let Germany play them against each other. The atmosphere became one of overthrowing the peace system, rather than preserving the peace. With the powers trying to maintain the peace becoming the agressor in public opinion, and the power trying to destroy the peace the victim.
Twenty years of allied concilliatory efforts were only ever met with a reprisal of the entire war.

Germany did not want re-concilliation. Germany wanted not to undo the peace treaty. Germany wanted to undo the war itself.

[Louis VI the Fat]

My personal opinion that the question of who to blame for WW1 is a question of propaganda, with Entente propaganda (the evil Huns did it!) facing off against Triple Alliance propaganda (we were attacked!).

As far as I'm concerned, this was a conflict a long time coming, and that any perceptive mind could have seen coming from far, far away (as Friedrich Engels did as early as 1878, as I recall). Every single major power on the European continent was ready to pull the trigger, and had been sharpening knives to settle some old grudges for decades. Everyone, consequently, is partially to blame. Though I am sympathetic to the viewpoint that it was the horrible Austro-Hungarian diplomacy in the month separating the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the ultimatum to Serbia, a month in which all sympathy for the Habsburgs in the world had drained away, which sealed the deal.

I'm going to derail this discussion horribly, aren't I? I couldn't help myself, though...

No, these are good points. You've made several, even if I can't possibly respond to every point raised in this thread.

To me, blackadder said it best, and most succinctly:

Baldrick: 'Why are we at war?'
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.


Even if Germany is most directly responsible for the war - which I think it is - this loses much of its political relevance in light of the eagerness of the other powers, and its moral significance in light of the imperialism of all.

[TinCow]

To me, blackadder said it best, and most succinctly:

Baldrick: 'Why are we at war?'
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.

That reminds me of a letter A. A. Milne wrote in 1937:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A statesmanship which can still think of the final catastrophe of another European war in terms of key positions and strategical risks is a matter for tears, but the tears can only turn into hysterical laughter when we are told what the key position is. We imagine the German General Staff, on the eve of invading France through Belgium, reassuring the Kaiser by saying: “Don’t forget, Sire, that we hold the key position of Tanganyika.” We imagine Lord Haig, when warned of the danger of a German break-through in 1918 saying: “Ridiculous! Think of the strategical risks they would be taking; we hold Tanganyika now.” And no doubt the British Cabinet, during the darkest days of the submarine campaign, often unrolled its map of Africa and renewed its confidence with the thought that Tanganyika was still there…

It should still be possible for [the British] to understand how the British Empire appears to the “other fellow.” Not only do we own, as it were, property all over the world, but we insist that there shall be an “all-red route” to that property; and on no account must the all-red route be “threatened.” Luckily for the comparative peace of the world our trade is still borne in ships, and we are content with a selection of ports and islands along its waterways; but in 50 years’ time our “vital need” will be for all-red airways, and the Amery [referring to Leopold Amery whose original letter generated this response by Milne] of the future will contemplate with horror the restoration to Greece of the key position of Athens…

We who announced a little while ago that we would not risk “one single ship” for the greatest ideal of the age, the ideal of collective security, have since announced that we will fight “to the last man” in the defense of any “British interest.” Wherever the foreigner looks, he sees a British interest, wherever he moves, he is reminded that in one step he will be endangering a British interest. Barred from Australia, he enters China: the massacre of women and children begins: and our Ambassador voices the Cabinet’s indignation that on the sacred British Embassy “22 splinters of bombs” were allowed to fall. So peace-loving are we.

There would be more hope, then of what Lord Allen calls “an all-round peace settlement” if we began by realizing that to the rest of the world the British Empire is not a guarantee of peace but a guarantee of trouble; and will continue so to be until for our present motto, “What we have we hold,” we substitute the more gracious one, “Noblesse oblige.” It would also be an advantage if just occasionally we could discard that hypocrisy which, to the foreigner, is so infuriatingly characteristic of England. We announce complacently that we have done all we can for peace: we offered to disarm; we set the example… and so on. Just so might the great landowner offer to reduce the number of his man-traps if the starving villagers threw away their guns and stopped poaching the preserves which he had appropriated from the common land…

Above all, Sir, let us remember, when we talk of strategic risks and key positions, that the tragedy of the next world war will not lie in the result of it but in the happening of it. Compared with the war itself, victory or defeat will be a triviality. To endanger, in however small a degree, the chance of a peace settlement by an intransigent insistence on the key positions in the ensuing war would be criminal folly. To endanger it for a key position in the middle of Africa – O God! O Tanganyika! – there is nothing left to say.

A. A. Milne, The London Times, 21 October 1937, p. 10.

[spmetla]

No, these are good points. You've made several, even if I can't possibly respond to every point raised in this thread.

To me, blackadder said it best, and most succinctly:

Baldrick: 'Why are we at war?'
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.


Even if Germany is most directly responsible for the war - which I think it is - this loses much of its political relevance in light of the eagerness of the other powers, and its moral significance in light of the imperialism of all.

Excellent quote from an excellent show! I have to say the fine arguments put forth by most of you make me very jealous of your abilities to convey a point so well. So far this has been five pages of fine reading!

[Meneldil]

You know, I don't understand what drives the current WW1 revisionism. A couple of years ago some academic was quated as saying something like, "most people now accept that the Germans in WW1 represented just as much of a threat to liberty and human rights as in in WW2".

What idocy is this, to make all Germans into monsters; and all their governments into Nazis?

Well, my understanding is that yes, Germany was seen as an autoritarian and agressive country, even in 1914, while UK and France were respectively seen as the good old pal and the country of the human rights (TM). Which explains why volunteers flocked from the US way before the country joined the Allies. Now, comparing 1914 Germany to the IIIrd Reich and calling Germans nazis is obviously overkill, but I've always thought that France and the UK were seen as the good guys by other democratic countries.

@Husar: to answer your point, I don't think Versailles should have been harsher. I don't think countries should impose reparations treaties over their defeated foes, but I understand that it was a common practice back then, and that everybody would more or less have done the same.
As pointed out several times, Germany had France sign a harsh treaty (I wouldn't call it harsher than Versailles though), and intended to turn Russia into a 3rd word country by dismantling the Empire and taking away all of its industrial power. That's how things went back then.

My point is that no matter how harsh Versailles was/n't, should/n't have or could/n't have been, it would still have been a national trauma for Germany, a taint that had to be fixed somehow. From the moment it begged for an armistice to the rise of Hitler, the country developped this whole "jewish communists backstabbed us, we could still have won" conspiracy theory. Versailles is important because of how it was perceived, not because of the terms of the treaty.
Invading the country and showing the population that Germany was utterly and completely defeated could have prevented that, though that's merely a "what-if".

[Centurion1]

Strangely, the Germans have written history. The view of German nationalist agitation has become dominant.
Most of their points are factually incorrect, or fundamentally erroneous.

I blame All the nations of the entente as well as Germany and Austria-Hungary for WW1. I blame American Isolationism for helping the war last as long as it did. What i am saying is the British and French gloss over their help in starting the war. The GREAT war was caused by extreme nationalism, a web of conflicting alliances, old european politics mated with modern technology, and a convenient serbian with a gun.