Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Pannonian]

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.

In what way did Britain help start the war, except by being a Great Power whom Germany wished to surpass? Britain entered the war under a specific condition - the violation of Belgium's neutrality. Given how important Belgium is to the balance of power in Britain's vicinity, were we supposed to ignore Germany's invasion?

[The Wizard]

That was no more than a pretext, Britain was a part of the European alliance system as much as any other country was.

[Centurion1]

In what way did Britain help start the war, except by being a Great Power whom Germany wished to surpass? Britain entered the war under a specific condition - the violation of Belgium's neutrality. Given how important Belgium is to the balance of power in Britain's vicinity, were we supposed to ignore Germany's invasion?

Do you really believe that sort of thinly veiled bull. Britain entered the war because britian saw they could gain something. They did too as german influence in the colonies was diminished. well pretty much destroyed

[Pannonian]

Do you really believe that sort of thinly veiled bull. Britain entered the war because britian saw they could gain something. They did too as german influence in the colonies was diminished. well pretty much destroyed

Which German colonies did Britain covet? Also, please explain your dismissal of a balance of power policy in the Belgium-Holland area that goes back to Georgian times, arguably even Elizabethan times. England has demanded a neutral Belgium for centuries, long before Germany existed.

[Centurion1]

Which German colonies did Britain covet? Also, please explain your dismissal of a balance of power policy in the Belgium-Holland area that goes back to Georgian times, arguably even Elizabethan times. England has demanded a neutral Belgium for centuries, long before Germany existed.

not any specific colonies but i am sure in the far east and africa they enjoyed when Gemrany lost her colonies. And the balance of power is exactly why they entered. They didnt want either france or germany to become too powerful. Belgium most definitely was not the singular motivation between entering the war maybe for the common man but not for the higher ups.

[Pannonian]

not any specific colonies but i am sure in the far east and africa they enjoyed when Gemrany lost her colonies. And the balance of power is exactly why they entered. They didnt want either france or germany to become too powerful. Belgium most definitely was not the singular motivation between entering the war maybe for the common man but not for the higher ups.

The far east colonies were given to Japan. The main ones which Britain took over were those in Africa, which were the leftovers after Britain and France had already taken their pick. Show me some colonies which Britain could have conceivably gone to war for, rather than picked up after fighting German forces there.

Once England had accepted that France was no longer disputed territory, Belgium and Holland was the key to maintaining a balance of power on the continent. It's not an excuse, but a concrete reason for war. British forces fought against Napoleonic forces there, most notably at Waterloo, and before that, had fought against the Revolutionary French. Before that, we fought against the Spanish. That's centuries of English/British interventions in Belgium/Holland, not for direct benefits, but to maintain a smallish but neutral state there, somewhere where we can land, but also a barrier to any power wishing to dominate the mainland, and potentially threaten England. Why do you dismiss this historic policy, but point to some worthless colonies instead as our reason for war?

[Centurion1]

T

he far east colonies were given to Japan. The main ones which Britain took over were those in Africa, which were the leftovers after Britain and France had already taken their pick. Show me some colonies which Britain could have conceivably gone to war for, rather than picked up after fighting German forces there.

Once England had accepted that France was no longer disputed territory, Belgium and Holland was the key to maintaining a balance of power on the continent. It's not an excuse, but a concrete reason for war. British forces fought against Napoleonic forces there, most notably at Waterloo, and before that, had fought against the Revolutionary French. Before that, we fought against the Spanish. That's centuries of English/British interventions in Belgium/Holland, not for direct benefits, but to maintain a smallish but neutral state there, somewhere where we can land, but also a barrier to any power wishing to dominate the mainland, and potentially threaten England. Why do you dismiss this historic policy, but point to some worthless colonies instead as our reason for war?

Britians view since the beginning of the Imperialist movement has always been less Euro centralized than any other nation, which is why they were so successful. As to the colonies they simply wanted German influenced removed completely so as to have one less competitor in those regions.

Edit: your direct benefit was to not allow any one power not all the power in Europe and ground so close to your shores. It was not for the benefit of Belgium/Holland it was for the benefit of Britian. Which is just as selfish as any other nations reasons to go to war. They wanted to be number 1.

[Pannonian]

T

Britians view since the beginning of the Imperialist movement has always been less Euro centralized than any other nation, which is why they were so successful. As to the colonies they simply wanted German influenced removed completely so as to have one less competitor in those regions.

Edit: your direct benefit was to not allow any one power not all the power in Europe and ground so close to your shores. It was not for the benefit of Belgium/Holland it was for the benefit of Britian. Which is just as selfish as any other nations reasons to go to war. They wanted to be number 1.

Once again, why the heck would we care about the colonies Germany had? We already held all the strategically important points we could want, and then some. Both ends of the Mediterranean were controlled by us, plus strategic points in between. Plenty of coaling stations dotted around the oceans without ever needing to stop in German territories. We controlled all points of access into the Indian Ocean from the Atlantic and Pacific. Just about the only strategic point we could have coveted, and didn't already have, was the Panama canal, which was American. You generalise Britain's imperialism by saying it's less Euro-centric than other European countries, but then fail to grasp what that imperial vision was.

Also, you've failed to make a case for us helping to start the war, which was your original claim. We demanded that Belgium should have its neutrality respected. How the heck is this helping to start the war? If Germany wanted to get at France, they could have done so through Alsace-Lorraine.

[Prince Cobra]

JUst a remark. Great Britain would have entered the war with or without the invasion of Belgium. I doubt anybody will reject that. Indeed, I think that whilst the head of states have some responsibility, the whole military machine started to work. Perhaps, the mobilisation decision was what triggered the war. They Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia and perhaps even France had gone too far. All the government wanted the war (there was a hectic preparation for war during the past years), the Central Powers (unlike the Marrocan crisis in 1912 when the Kaiser stepped back) just made the first step being the strongest and the best prepared and the others gladly accepted it. Perhaps Russia was not happy to start the war because it had many internal problems.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Following the Tangier affair in 1905, England did begin -- haltingly and never full-heartedly -- to develop a plan for coordinated action with France operating on the basic premise that Germany would attept a large flanking attack through Belgium so as to avoid assaulting the heavily fortified zone between Verdun and the Swiss border. To the extent that this contributed to the "entangling alliances" that helped create conflict, England does bear some culpability. However, the UK did not jump in whole-heartedly and Belgium was critical to their decision.

The violation of Belgian neutrality was the real reason for war and it is possible that Grey could not have procured a Declaration of War without Germany's violation of that neutrality, despite the growing anti-German sentiment of the British populace and the efforts of Britain's G-1 team. Belgium became THE issue that would bring the British in fully as an ally of France. The need to insure that Germany was the one to make such a violation was so important to the French government that they ordered the French Army to back up 10km along the ENTIRE frontier so as to make certain that no accidental violation of Belgian or Lux neutrality was made by some patrol or some commander who got confused. This order was made DESPITE the fact that France's primary strategy was an attack immediately South of the Ardennes -- backing up is rarely the best means of building momentum.

[Husar]

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.

Now it all makes sense to me, after all France abandoned nobility in 1789.
Ok, ok, I'll stop.

The blackadder quote was very good, and I also wanted to add that this was partly a result of the interests of big business, it were the businessmen in germany who wanted all the colonies and the Kaiser used it to acquire more glory, more money, more army, the people loved him, some even wished him back many years later, after WW2 even.
From today's perspective I cannot understand this at all, to me he seems completely inept, apparently he improved the life of Germans and made them feel more important but the former as well as the latter came though silly, unnecessary and aggressive foreign politics, giving in to the demands of big business(acquiring colonies that is) and a hybris almost similar to his successor("Germany needs a place under the sun" etc.). Unlike Bismarck he gambled and he failed miserably, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.
I do however see that everybody else was just as eager to show how glorious they were, show me a great nation that actually tried to prevent a war, France even provocated Germany by hinting that they would fall into our backs in case we went to war with Russia, I know they had a treaty that they didn't have before Wilhelm II., drives me mad, I often wonder what might have happened had Wilhelm II. continued Bismarck's politics. Also keep in mind that Bismarck was a chancellor under Kaiser Wilhelm I. and got replaced under Wilhelm II., a point from which the Kaiser took more and more control apparently, leading me to believe that he was a power hungry fool...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Following the Tangier affair in 1905, England did begin -- haltingly and never full-heartedly -- to develop a plan for coordinated action with France operating on the basic premise that Germany would attept a large flanking attack through Belgium so as to avoid assaulting the heavily fortified zone between Verdun and the Swiss border. To the extent that this contributed to the "entangling alliances" that helped create conflict, England does bear some culpability. However, the UK did not jump in whole-heartedly and Belgium was critical to their decision.

The violation of Belgian neutrality was the real reason for war and it is possible that Grey could not have procured a Declaration of War without Germany's violation of that neutrality, despite the growing anti-German sentiment of the British populace and the efforts of Britain's G-1 team. Belgium became THE issue that would bring the British in fully as an ally of France. The need to insure that Germany was the one to make such a violation was so important to the French government that they ordered the French Army to back up 10km along the ENTIRE frontier so as to make certain that no accidental violation of Belgian or Lux neutrality was made by some patrol or some commander who got confused. This order was made DESPITE the fact that France's primary strategy was an attack immediately South of the Ardennes -- backing up is rarely the best means of building momentum.

Ah hem, "Britain" not "England" please. It may seem like a petty point of order, I know, but the Prime Minsiter who signed the treaties was Welsh after all.

[Beskar]

Ah hem, "Britain" not "England" please. It may seem like a petty point of order, I know, but the Prime Minsiter who signed the treaties was Welsh after all.

Think of the good side, PVC. We can blame Scotland for Gordon Brown.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Think of the good side, PVC. We can blame Scotland for Gordon Brown.

Of course, but we can do that anyway.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am struggling with the brutality and severity of the treaty now. Perhaps a noble treaty should’ve been made. I have given it some thought, and made a quick draft.

What do you guys think, would this be more acceptable:

Peace without Victory, Louis' 21 Points:

Preamble

1 The French original of this Treaty is the only authoritative one. English, German and other translations to be without legal consequence.


2 Germany requests, and the allies confirm, that Germany shall retain its place as Europe’s largest power.

Reconstruction Costs

1 – There shall be no demands of reparations.


2- Germany does not have to pay costs of any kind for the allied military expenditures, or any costs of the war effort.


3 - There shall be only financial claims for reconstructing civil damages


3a- An exception shall be made for the UK. Britain, having sustained no direct civil damges, but facing large pension and disability costs as a result of the war, shall receive a large share of the costs for reconstruction meant for France and Belgium


4 – The costs for reconstruction shall take into account civil damages on all sides, on both sides of the border, including Germany


5 – These reconstruction costs, for both sides of the border, shall be split between the allies and Germany.


6 – These costs must be limited to a small sum


7 – These costs must not be based on actual damage, but on what any of the parties can pay, so as not to obstruct economic recovery. We must look forward, not backward

8 – To prop up Germany, these reconstruction costs shall be divided thus: allies to pay 95%, Germany to pay 5%


9 – To help Germany pay for reconstruction costs, it shall receive aid amounting to 150% of what it will pay towards reconstruction of war damages. That is, for every DM Germany pays, it will receive 1.5DM.

War Guild

7 – There shall be no War Guilt clause, only a legal-technical framework setting and limiting legal liability for reconstruction costs.

Colonial Possessions

8 – Only foreign possesions that have been colonised in the three decades before WWI shall be taken away from Germany.


9 – No foreign possessions with meaningful German settlement shall be taken


10 – The entire amount of German nationals affected by territorial transfer must be limited to no more than 20.000, worldwide.

Territorial Changes

10 – German territorial integrity shall be respected. There shall be no split up of Germany.


12 – Annexetion of German territory to the victorious states must be based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points, in particular points six to fourteen


13 – In the west, transfer of territory must be striclty limited those territories which have been annexed by Germany since 1864. Traditional German lands must remain unaffected


14 – These territorial transfers must be in accordance with the wishes of the population affected.


15 - An exception to article 13 and 14 shall be made for Belgium. Belgium, whose neutrality was violated and suffered severly, shall be compensated territorially. This compensation will be limited to the two tiny rural villages of Eupen and Malmedy.


16 – In the east, with few exceptions, annexations must be limited to territories of overwhelming and traditional Polish majority

To Make and Retain the Peace

17 – The provisions in this treaty bear a temporary, comditional character. In due time, Germany shall be relieved of its obligations


18 – A United Nations shall be established. This institution shall deal with any disputes arising from this treaty in a peaceful manner.


19 This UN shall be empowered to deal with future conflicts. Reason and the rule of law, not the might of the victors of WWI, shall govern international relations.


20 – This United Nations shall be based in Geneva, Switzerland, and not in the territory of any of the victorious states


21 – Germany shall be made a full member of this UN no later than seven years after this treaty, to ensure Germany’s interests as a restored Great Power will be looked after.

[Beskar]

It is League of Nations, not United Nations. However, that treaty is a complete joke and even then, the German members might stil cry foul at it, even though it butters their bread for them.

[Pannonian]

It is League of Nations, not United Nations. However, that treaty is a complete joke and even then, the German members might stil cry foul at it, even though it butters their bread for them.

Louis's revised treaty is unfairly weighted against Germany. The text mentions France/French twice, Britain/British 3 times, and Germany/German no fewer than 21 times. I don't see why Germany should have to endure this unfair treaty, which the craven civilian government signed, even though the German Army was victorious in the field. The Army will not stand for this betrayal, and will avenge this wrong in the next war.

[Brenus]

Agree. What about the expenses of the German Army? Who will pay for the shoes? What about the PTSD (Post Trauma Sydrom Desorder) for having breach the Belguim Neutrality and the Guilt it imposed on the poor soldiers?

And what about the unfortunate war veterans like Mr Hitler who suffered of a wind change and was poisoneed by Gaz? Do the Unfair treaty speak about it?
Noooo... All is done for France and, just because the French were attacked and won, they got it all...

Justice has to be restored...

[Fisherking]

In fairness, the Armistice was based on Wilson’s 14 Points. Germany Agreed to them all.

They would also imply a negotiated settlement rather than a dictate.

Who would have thought that agreeing to them would have lead to a take it or leave it settlement stripping Germany of its colonies and the additional territorial concessions imposed by Versailles.

I would much rather hear how the Entente reconciled the one with the other.

[Beskar]

In fairness, the Armistice was based on Wilson’s 14 Points. Germany Agreed to them all.

They would also imply a negotiated settlement rather than a dictate.

Who would have thought that agreeing to them would have lead to a take it or leave it settlement stripping Germany of its colonies and the additional territorial concessions imposed by Versailles.

I would much rather hear how the Entente reconciled the one with the other.

It was a ploy to move in American troops, so the Germans had no other choice when it came to the signing, other than get anniliated if they didn't accept. The allies would say they tried to do peace, but the Germans wouldn't allow it, which gives them a better justification for a far harsher treaty once they been totalled.

"Argh! zee allies outswichzetted us!"

[Fisherking]

It was a ploy to move in American troops, so the Germans had no other choice when it came to the signing, other than get anniliated if they didn't accept. The allies would say they tried to do peace, but the Germans wouldn't allow it, which gives them a better justification for a far harsher treaty once they been totalled.

"Argh! zee allies outswichzetted us!"

Sure! That is certainly the best way to promote peace and understanding between nations.

I am sure most would see nothing wrong with such an agreement.

These stupid Germans should have been fawning all over us after receiving such a favorable agreement!


In all seriousness, how was this justified, and how was it that the Allied nations retained any international credibility.

Wasn’t it a breech of trust that should have been condemned by the international community at large?

[Beskar]

Wasn’t it a breech of trust that should have been condemned by the international community at large?

You forget, the Allies and Germany were the International Community... There was no one else... (Japan was on the Allies side, all the colonies under control of Britain, France, Belguim, etc...)

This is another problem, you are not going through the world due to the time-period. Now-a-days, Germany would be slapped on the wrist and told it is a naughty boy, back then, it was the ending of the period of when you defeat a nation, you annex it as part of your Empire.

There has been major advances in diplomacy and ideology since that time.

[Brenus]

"In fairness, the Armistice was based on Wilson’s 14 Points. Germany Agreed to them all." Who told you this? When did France and UK agree that any Peace Treaty should be based on Wilson's 14 Points? And why the US proposal should bind France and UK as when it was proposed, Germany didn't show any intention to start peace talk, but 6 months after, launched one of the biggest offensive of the war...

[Fisherking]

You forget, the Allies and Germany were the International Community... There was no one else... (Japan was on the Allies side, all the colonies under control of Britain, France, Belguim, etc...)

This is another problem, you are not going through the world due to the time-period. Now-a-days, Germany would be slapped on the wrist and told it is a naughty boy, back then, it was the ending of the period of when you defeat a nation, you annex it as part of your Empire.

There has been major advances in diplomacy and ideology since that time.

It may very well be so that it was a stab in the back as Germany said, but still, there has to be further justification for their actions, no matter how feeble.

International Diplomacy has to be based on trust otherwise there is no point. It can not be that the strong make the rules and the weak surrender to it.

[Fisherking]

"In fairness, the Armistice was based on Wilson’s 14 Points. Germany Agreed to them all." Who told you this? When did France and UK agree that any Peace Treaty should be based on Wilson's 14 Points? And why the US proposal should bind France and UK as when it was proposed, Germany didn't show any intention to start peace talk, but 6 months after, launched one of the biggest offensive of the war...

That was what the Germans were negotiation on when they signed the Armistice. Plus another three points Wilson tossed in at the end.

However, the Allies found they were unacceptable, after the fact.

The fact that the so called good guys were a pack of liars seems to have escaped everyone’s notice, with Woodrow Wilson being the biggest hypocrite of the lot, or so it would seem.

[Brenus]

"That was what the Germans were negotiation on when they signed the Armistice":
No. What was the Germans were negotiating was an Armistice as they lost on battle. They were asking to the winners the terms in order to save what can be, social order in Germany.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"That was what the Germans were negotiation on when they signed the Armistice":
No. What was the Germans were negotiating was an Armistice as they lost on battle. They were asking to the winners the terms in order to save what can be, social order in Germany.

Then they had a treaty imposed on them at gunpoint.

[Beskar]

Hey, losers can't be choosers.

(For some-reason, that came to mind.)

[Fisherking]

"That was what the Germans were negotiation on when they signed the Armistice":
No. What was the Germans were negotiating was an Armistice as they lost on battle. They were asking to the winners the terms in order to save what can be, social order in Germany.

Have you read on the negotiations for the Armistice?

It was not “Hay! We give up. What will you do to us?

It was a negotiated process.

It began on 5 October with a German telegram to Wilson. There were several more exchanges and on 23 October Wilson added three more points to the agreement.

As one of these points seemed to imply that the Kiser had to abdicate the Germans delayed and even considered further resistance.

Once the Kiser abdicated the way was clear and they signed the peace on November 11th.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Have you read on the negotiations for the Armistice?

It was not “Hay! We give up. What will you do to us?

It was a negotiated process.

It began on 5 October with a German telegram to Wilson. There were several more exchanges and on 23 October Wilson added three more points to the agreement.

As one of these points seemed to imply that the Kiser had to abdicate the Germans delayed and even considered further resistance.

Once the Kiser abdicated the way was clear and they signed the peace on November 11th.

Oh, yes, now let us consider that.

Was is wise, or remotely reasonable, for Wilson to demand the Kaisar's abdication, and was the Allied call for him to be tried as a War Criminal justified?