Tommy Doesn't Know What Day It Is

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bankrupting germany with reparations was one of the main things leading to WWII. They couldn't pay, so we lent them money which they payed to the british, who used it to pay back loans they owed us if I remember it right. I don't remember how it fell apart exactly or how it was tied to the great depression.

Germany wasn't bankrupted because of reparations. (Neither were France or Belgium, even though both payed the lion's share of reparations - some 95% to Germany's 5%)

Germany was perfectly capable of paying. And it could borrow all the money it needed. Contrary to lingering propaganda, Versailles didn't seek nor resulted in a crippled Germany. It wanted a viable, functioning Germany.

The runaway inflation of the early twenties was caused by German policians in a deliberate bid to undermine the Versailles system, not because it couldn't pay or had to pay so much.

After this policy of deliberate inflation was ended, Germany enjoyed enormous economical growth again. The very small sum Germany had to pay (could borrow) was no impediment to affluence and growth whatsoever.

Versailles nor the reparations were tied to the Great Depression. This was an international phenomenon.

Germany was not required to pay anything since before Hitler gained power, in 1932.

After Germany had started WWII, Germany was condemned to pay the reparations for WWI after all. They will finish paying in 2020.



Maniac - nope, everything in my post is quite correct. History, as they say, is a matter of interpretation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Maniac - nope, everything in my post is quite correct. History, as they say, is a matter of interpretation.

History is a matter of interpretation, yes, but when you're talking about the treaty when it is quite clearly readable and available it would be good to have it coalesce with what you are saying.

[Beskar]

Most of what Louis says at first glance seems right from my own studies of WWI. Will need to read all the thread to see where the main disagreement is though.

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

WWII was Germany's fault though, even though it could be argued that the 2nd war is a continuation of the first in many respects.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

Well, I was not really discussing the origins of WWI, but rather those of WWII.

As to the origin of WWI. The direct origins of WWI are so complex that they do not really arouse much passion or public sentiment. More for the lovers of high diplomacy. I would say Germany is most directly responsible. With the caveat that all belligerents take a large share of the responsibility - so much so that 'blaming' Germany as the most directly responsible loses much political significance and all moral meaning.

For a more ulterior context of the origins of WWI, Blackadder said it best: 'The British [and French] empire stretches across a third of the globe. Meanwhile, the German empire consists of a single sausage factory in Tanganyika'.
No moral highground for the Imperialist powers there.

Let's not just focus on the generals and governments. Public sentiment craved for war, jingoism and revanchism was rampant. Nationalism was at its peak. Art and literature glorified war, artists rushed to the trenches (see: Hitler). Industry embraced the thought of war. Freudians sexualized war as a pseudo-homosexual orgy, of young men embracing each other in physical struggle. War was aestethically appreciated, politically thought of as a fresh wind. To die for the fatherland was the highest a man could achieve in life. Even the nominally internationalist socialists fell for the trap.
Gah! It shouldn't have happened. It was so needless and fruitless!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Edit: There is a disagreement fault. I see it now, Germany isn't sole blame for World War 1 at all. I also remember the communications between the Tsar and the Kaiser to try to end the war last second and the generals basically turned around and said it was too late.

Yes, but it is his other assertions about the Treaty which I disagree with, which I believe Husar and myself provided an argument against using direct quotes from the Treaty itself.

[Fragony]

Origins of WW1 are complex indeed, I would rather lay the blame on the Russians because of their support of Balkan nationalism, they have had an eye on that searoutes the Ottomans were holding for quite some time, and correspondence between Serbian and Russian leaders indicate that WW1 was deliberately started.

[A Very Super Market]

While the blame for starting our WWI could probably be determined at some point, the groundwork was there for some time. Europe was a ticking time bomb, for no reason but old-fashioned diplomacy and delusions by all sides. In this regard we cannot tie the blame on any one faction, they all took part of the and ended up in an even bigger one.

[Pannonian]

Origins of WW1 are complex indeed, I would rather lay the blame on the Russians because of their support of Balkan nationalism, they have had an eye on that searoutes the Ottomans were holding for quite some time, and correspondence between Serbian and Russian leaders indicate that WW1 was deliberately started.

In order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

[miotas]

In order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

But there was one problem with the plan. It was bollocks.

[Fragony]

That way there could never be a war.

I don't think it was an accident, there has been extensive correspondence between Serbia and Russia mentioning the need for an incident in the Balkans since 1890, and the evidence that the Serbian government was actually behind the kill is kinda hard to refute. I think Russia used Serb nationalism as a crowbar to wreck the Austra-Hungarian monarchy, and yes provoke war. Problem with this, Russia wasn't ready for was their railroads were underdeveloped, but we are dealing with radicals and Paschtich is known to have said to the Russian ambassador that it was already too late.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Germany wasn't bankrupted because of reparations. (Neither were France or Belgium, even though both payed the lion's share of reparations - some 95% to Germany's 5%)

Well, I admit I know very little about it (high school history). I think the amount was such that germany couldn't pay it off till 1990 or something? We didn't try and make them pay reparations after WWII anyway. I think we had some act that pumped money in to revitalize the economy.

But yours is a perspective I hadn't heard before, interesting.

[Beskar]

Well, I admit I know very little about it (high school history). I think the amount was such that germany couldn't pay it off till 1990 or something? We didn't try and make them pay reparations after WWII anyway. I think we had some act that pumped money in to revitalize the economy.

But yours is a perspective I hadn't heard before, interesting.

I think German reparations were only 2% of the German GDP (or 2% of German income). Arguably, some say it is a lot, bearing in mind it does limit the potential of the economy (American loans resolved this, before the depression.) However, there is the argument that it is only 2%.