Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Beskar]

I always seen it as moderate. I believe it was EMFM (or Husar? One of the German posters anyway) were saying about 'Crippling Reperations' which totalled in real-terms to 2% GDP during that time-period, so only little skim off the cream.

The worst part of the treaty, was that the German government purposely signed the armistice before the allies over-ran Berlin, so the perception of the Germans at the time were "Why are we surrendering? They not laid a foot in Germany yet!". Perhaps allowing the allies to overrun Germany would change perception.

Also, France's idea of obliterating Germany always gets forgotten.

[Husar]

Also, France's idea of obliterating Germany always gets forgotten.

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening.

[HoreTore]

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening.

Yes.... You need a strong leader, Husar!! Someone who can speak the truth about the jews who betrayed your country!

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure the government would have signed that.

Now everybody is supposed to buy into this revisionist, anti-german re-writing of the thing that crippled our country and turned us into slaves of the french though, sickening.

Are we still talking about the Treaty of Versailles, or are you talking about the Treaties of Rome?

[PanzerJaeger]

The treaty and its restrictions are readily available online. I encourage anyone who hasn't read it to do so, and then come to their own judgment as to whether it was fair to impose it on a nation that was not responsible for the war, and made far more effort than the victors to end it. Further, would you and your nation accept such a treaty or support its overturning? I know that America wouldn't put up with it.

[Pannonian]

The treaty and its restrictions are readily available online. I encourage anyone who hasn't read it to do so, and then come to their own judgment as to whether it was fair to impose it on a nation that was not responsible for the war, and made far more effort than the victors to end it. Further, would you and your nation accept such a treaty or support its overturning? I know that America wouldn't put up with it.

From the British POV, you were indeed responsible for the war. If you hadn't invaded neutral Belgium, we wouldn't have entered the war.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Full text of the treaty: http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

Other documents: http://people.virginia.edu/~sas4u/versailles.htm

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thanks Loius.

The military reductions were the most idiotic, aside from excluding Germany from the League; which was moronic.

[Kralizec]

I don't know enough about the actual terms to judge if they were harsh or not. There are, however, plenty of economists who disagree with the notion that the reparations were an impossible burden.

But more generally, treating Germany as a pariah state was wrong and counterproductive.

[spmetla]

I've always thought it an overly harsh Peace Treaty, the Germans had done well throughout most of the war and still had a fair amount of holdings in France at the time. While they were bound to lose the war they were given much harsher terms than necessary. Nullifying the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk put Eastern and Central Europe at the mercy of the Bolsheviks which was thankfully stopped by the Poles. Taking away ALL of Germany's colonial possessions was ridiculous, especially seeing as not all of them had been captured by the Allies (German East Africa). Limiting the size of the army to 100k was again harsh because it meant a great power in Europe was at the mercy of it's two larger neighbors which in the case of the Russian Civil war made it ineffective and practically defenseless if say Poland had lost to the USSR and the Bolsheviks had continued pressing West. The 20s were a turbulent time in Europe and limiting a great power in such a way was unnecessary and destabilizing. The reparations were in order though, Germany's trying to flout it by devaluing their own currency to pay it off was just stupid and it bit them back.

Taking some colonies would be understandable, taking back Alsace-Lorraine would be natural too, as well as demilitarizing the Rhineland and making Germany pay reparations but demands that were made were far in excess of this and it is not surprising that it lead to the rise of a ultra nationalist such as Hitler.

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.

While it is true that the losers in a war will have to bite the bullet and give in to terms, the terms given to Germany were extremely harsh and this attempt to try and say that it was a moderate kind treaty is wrong. Just because They didn't give the Rhineland to France or split Germany into the various duchies and kingdoms that it was prior to Franco Prussian war does not mean it was moderate in the slightest.

[Pannonian]

I've always thought it an overly harsh Peace Treaty, the Germans had done well throughout most of the war and still had a fair amount of holdings in France at the time. While they were bound to lose the war they were given much harsher terms than necessary. Nullifying the Treaty of Brest-Livtosk put Eastern and Central Europe at the mercy of the Bolsheviks which was thankfully stopped by the Poles. Taking away ALL of Germany's colonial possessions was ridiculous, especially seeing as not all of them had been captured by the Allies (German East Africa).

I'd have been happy if the Germans were allowed to keep those overseas possessions we hadn't yet captured, but we continued the war and kept any bits of Germany we managed to take. What say you to the British port of Kiel? Sounds good to me.

[Beskar]

I just thought of something, it just had to be said.

The Treaty was obviously not harsh enough, as you see in the next blockbuster, German Empire Strikes Back. If the treaty was all that harsh, Germany wouldn't have been able to take France out, govern the majority of Europe, and require an Alliance of British, Americans and Russians to defeat. (Though arguably, America and Britain wasn't needed as Russia would have eventually won.)

[spmetla]

I just thought of something, it just had to be said.

The Treaty was obviously not harsh enough, as you see in the next blockbuster, German Empire Strikes Back. If the treaty was all that harsh, Germany wouldn't have been able to take France out, govern the majority of Europe, and require an Alliance of British, Americans and Russians to defeat. (Though arguably, America and Britain wasn't needed as Russia would have eventually won.)

That would have more to do with the failure of France and Britain to enforce the treaty. Germany occupied the Rhineland and began rearming and nothing happened, if France had sent troops to counter the German reoccupation of the Rhineland the world would be a vastly different place.

[Meneldil]

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).

[Fisherking]

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...

[Pannonian]

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.