Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Aemilius Paulus]

Lol. If america hadnt flooded the market with our war goods you all would have fallen. and russia could not have won that war all on their own

Yeah, cause facts are simply gushing from from that assertion... Where did you pick that up, in your World History textbook - the one which covers all of history starting Neolithic in ~500-800 fully-illustrated pages?


Read Glantz before posting on the Eastern Front. No-one in the West really cared much about representing the Soviet WWII experience accurately, save for a handful of scholars, Glantz being without a doubt the leading one, and he still retain his position as the expert on the Eastern Front. They say victors write the history, but for the most part, it was the German experience which shaped the Western understanding of the Great Patriotic War. I daresay the Cold War and the natural temptation to dismiss the enemy as incompetents or cowards was very much present as well, whether subtle or not so.

Whatever it is, your posts did not strike me as particularly indicative of knowledge on this field. Nothing above the average American teenage-young adult netizen level of comprehension of this subject. It is not that simple. I could spew such unfounded assertions as well. Here is one - about eight or nine out of ten German soldiers died on the Eastern Front. And this one is actually rather true, especially if you take the eight out of ten figure, which is actually quite accurate.

[Centurion1]

hld tht thought im in no conditin to argue........ and glantz nt only authority.

[Aemilius Paulus]

and glantz nt only authority.

Ha, that only shows you are not interested in the Eastern Front history. Let me put it this way - Turtledove is often called the king/master of alternate history. Glantz is the master of the Eastern Front. He is the foremost living scholar on this topic, and anyone already dead is too old of a source to trust anyhow, since 1:too much was de-classified/opened to the Western public after Cold War and 2:Cold War was not receptive to basically - a)any research in USSR regarding such a sensitive field or b)the tendencies of Western authors to present unbiased accounts of USSR.

Oh, and I have not heard of any other authors of his calibre, on this topic, who have already died.

[Centurion1]

srlsy cn we discuss ths later ima nt going put up much fight right nw.

but as for glantz, i read him one of the top american military historians blah blah blah, you wanna know bout slav he knows it, etc., wht about stephen ambrose. yeah not best example but im reallyyyyyyy not in it right now.


look russia was a huge force in ww2. but it woulda been much harder alone if nt impossible.

[Beskar]

look russia was a huge force in ww2. but it woulda been much harder alone if nt impossible.

Russia didn't need America jumping into Europe like it did. If anything, America jumping into Europe benefited American interests more in stopping an USSR advance into the West than it did than defeating Hitler. America's fight in WW2 was against the dregs of German armed forces with the Russian's fighting the vast majority. If America didn't make the big last minute assualt into Europe, then a Greater Proportion of Europe would have been under USSR control. The USSR was winning, it suffered some bloodly setbacks, but once they were in that gear, the Germans lost.

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

[Centurion1]

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory.

dnt take advantage of my conditin. tht was ww1. in ww2 our war materiels really were a key part. though maybe our actul war fightin wasn't really "neccassary:

[PanzerJaeger]

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

Downplaying America's contributions to such an extent is just as bad...

[Husar]

Well, Bismarck already said the when you beat an enemy you either make sure they can't rise again or treat them so they can still look into a mirror afterwards. Versailles was an attempt at the former but it wasn't enforced so it ended up somewhere in between. Everybody is aware of the results, case closed, Bismarck won. (oh and we sunk our fleet at scapa flow, nanana!)

WW1 was partly the result of a similar story, the new Kaiser disregarded all the treaties Bismarck established to keep the french(who had previously proven their evil imperialistic tendencies over and over again) down and in the end we had to fight WW1 with only Austria on our side, not to forget that we had to fight WW1 in the first place because that ******** of a Kaiser was only concerned about his own gloria and making every german boy look like a sailor...

[Kralizec]

Article 231
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

I don't know...I don't think that calling this a "war guilt" clause is a misrepresentation. Yes, so it was mainly a pretext for imposing war reparations. But it doesn't make sense to impose war reparations without claiming that the loser is responsible...or you'd have to come out and explicitly say that they're the spoils of victory.

The biggest link between WW1 and WW2 isn't Versailles, but the fact that the war was concluded before Germany was invaded and its inevitable defeat made even clearer. Whatever the terms of the treaty, the likes of Hitler would still have found reason to resent the government for ending the war while Germany was still unbeaten in the field. Germany should have been beaten back past its borders, and its centres of government occupied, to impress on them the fact that they've been fairly and utterly beaten. The dolchstosslegende came about because the Germans were able to pretend that, because they were still on enemy territory, the German Army was victorious but for the treacherous collapse of the civilian government. The Allies did it right second time round, flattening Germany when they had the chance.

Very true...
On a different note, I'm a little surprised that nobody in Russia post-1990 has blamed their loss in WW1 on the Bolshewiks. Something very similar to the dolchstochlegende actually happened there: the provisional government under Kerensky wanted to continue fighting in order to sue for a more beneficial treaty; the Bolshewiks then proceeded to grab power in order to accept the German's rather humiliating terms. Of course, the Bolshewiks then ruled the country for over 80 years afterwards...

Russia didn't need America jumping into Europe like it did. If anything, America jumping into Europe benefited American interests more in stopping an USSR advance into the West than it did than defeating Hitler. America's fight in WW2 was against the dregs of German armed forces with the Russian's fighting the vast majority. If America didn't make the big last minute assualt into Europe, then a Greater Proportion of Europe would have been under USSR control. The USSR was winning, it suffered some bloodly setbacks, but once they were in that gear, the Germans lost.

Though, Centurion1 is probably in that breed of American History books where America were the saviours of the 2nd World War, opposed to actually jumping in last second and taking all the glory. (Same with WW1, funnily enough)

America was simultaniously fighting a war in the Pacific.

And something else: it's obvious that the Soviets did most of the ground fighting against the Germans, and the lend-lease program was probably only slightly helpful (as Sarmation has repeatedly pointed out on this forum). But the western allies had to fight and resupply from off shore. The Soviets wouldn't have been able to pull a logistal stunt like Operation Overlord. Furthermore I think that strategic bombing in WW2 (not specifically Dresden or city bombing, but also infrastructure) has been extremely undervalued afterwards.

Saying that the Soviets brought the Germans down single handedly or that the Brits and Americans only did a last-minute landgrab is a gross misrepresentation.

[Brenus]

“Saying that the Soviets brought the Germans down single handedly or that the Brits and Americans only did a last-minute land grab is a gross misrepresentation.” Agree, with some comments;
War was forced on USA… The choice of Germany first was made by Roosevelt by in December 1941, the German were experimenting their first defeat in Russia…

This saying is a kind of answer about the lonely Germany against the rest of the World. Germany had Allies, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Romania, Croatia, and a lot of suppletives troops as the Vlasov Army, some Cossacks, Foreign SS troops, auxiliaries etc, and of course some Collaborationist States, as France or Norway…

Both claim (we alone won against Germany, and Germany alone against the Rest) are baseless and only born thanks to the Cold War…

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't know...I don't think that calling this a "war guilt" clause is a misrepresentation. Yes, so it was mainly a pretext for imposing war reparations. But it doesn't make sense to impose war reparations without claiming that the loser is responsible...or you'd have to come out and explicitly say that they're the spoils of victory.

I knew you'd be interested in this contentious article.
To further understand this article, one should look at:

- The place of the article in the Treaty.
If it is an article that seeks to place guilt for the war on Germany, then it is oddly misplaced. It appears only as article number 231, in the chapter 'reparations'. Not as an overarching article near the beginning of the Treaty that seeks to establish a moral or political framework for the entire treaty. Telling is that the preceding chapter deals with German war crimes. This chapter does not have a 'war guilt clause'. If there would've been an intention to place a political or moral blame for the war on Germany, a 'war guilt clause' would surely have been more appropriately inserted here, or even nearer the beginning of the Treaty.

- The origin of the article.
During negotiations, reparations were already decided upon. This article was an afterthought. It is not the product of statesmen, never mind of hardliners. Nor even of the repicients of the reparations, Britain and France. Article 231 is the product of two American representatives on the Reparation Commission, a courtly Southern gentleman and a lawyer, Davis and Dulles. With article 231 and the accompanying and inseparable article 232, they sought to create the legal liability and justification for reparations, and the protection of Germany against unwarranted claims.


The political reasons for the articles 231 and 232 seem to have been to appease British and French hardliners, by stating that Germany is liable for all war damages, while simultaneously protecting Germany by affirming that Germany neither can nor should be expected to actually pay these damages. It is, and was meant to be, an artful work of pragmatism and compromise by the Americans, who thought (with Wilson, and me too) they had produced two clever articles.


'Blaming Germany' had nothing to do with it all, even if the text of the article - especially when lifted out of context - would seem to indicate such.

Reparations

PART VIII
SECTION I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 231

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

Article 232

The Allied and Associated Governments recognise that the resources of Germany are not adequate, after taking into account permanent diminutions of such resources which will result from other provisions of the present Treaty, to make complete reparation for all such loss and damage.

[Etc.]

The amount of reparations had yet to be established when these articles were written. The remainder of Part VIII, article 233 and beyond, deal with this.
ARTICLE 233.
The amount of the above damage for which compensation is to be made by Germany shall be determined by an Inter-Allied Commission, [etc]


I shall repeat the modern finding that Germany ended up making a net profit from reparations. Which means that the victor - France, plus a little bit the US - paid for all the destruction the loser - Germany - caused on the victor. Talk about 'history being written by the loser', since Germany has cried bloody murder so hard and intermittently that the public image is one of French plunder of Germany after 1918.

[Aemilius Paulus]

but as for glantz, i read him one of the top american military historians blah blah blah, you wanna know bout slav he knows it, etc., wht about stephen ambrose. yeah not best example but im reallyyyyyyy not in it right now.

Yeah, you may want to put off the debate, because I am sorry to say you are making well, a... I do not want to say it, but I will say that mention of Ambrose could not have been more irrelevant. For one, he is not an Eastern Front historian. Second, he is not even a valid WWII historian in this discussion. I mean, I his books are a mix of personal experiences of soldiers, anecdotes, highly specialised books, some tactics, but very little overall strategy, the in-depth, large-scale analytical works of Glantz or similar historians. Sometimes, I would even say Ambrose is more of a populariser of WWII history. Yes, I have read most/much of his works on WWII - namely D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, Americans at War, The Victors: Eisenhower and his Boys, and Band of Brothers.




Just a question, are you typing from a computer? You must be on something else or really busy, huh?

[Centurion1]

wisdm teeth painkiller, no ima nt drnk.

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

geez.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Alright, rest well, Centurion

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, you may want to put off the debate, because I am sorry to say you are making well, a... I do not want to say it, but I will say that mention of Ambrose could not have been more irrelevant. For one, he is not an Eastern Front historian. Second, he is not even a valid WWII historian in this discussion. I mean, I his books are a mix of personal experiences of soldiers, anecdotes, highly specialised books, some tactics, but very little overall strategy, the in-depth, large-scale analytical works of Glantz or similar historians. Sometimes, I would even say Ambrose is more of a populariser of WWII history. Yes, I have read most/much of his works on WWII - namely D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, Americans at War, The Victors: Eisenhower and his Boys, and Band of Brothers.

Just a question, are you typing from a computer? You must be on something else or really busy, huh?

Ambrose has now been totally discredited, as well. His books have been shown to be a mix of populism, bad history and outright lies. His opinion of Monty is an excellent example of this.

[Captain Blackadder]

The treaty was a fair one and overall Germany had nothing to complain about compare that treaty to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk look at that treaty and tell me that Versailles was unfair

[Aemilius Paulus]

The treaty was a fair one and overall Germany had nothing to complain about compare that treaty to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk look at that treaty and tell me that Versailles was unfair

Hah, good one. I have not thought of this, even if I should have, being a Russian myself.

[Prince Cobra]

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.

Long live the Central Powers! Long live the Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria!

Joking aside, the treaty was harsh indeed compared with say, the Vienna treaty of 1815.

The military clauses, the reparations, the way the treaty was concluded...

The military clauses: the destruction of all the military force of Germany was an extremely severe clause. On the top of this, it hits a traditional value of the Prussian society: the army. There could have been slight restrictions in the first years but what the victorors did was insane.

The reparations. Indeed, if we sum up, Germany paid little (bu the original sum was huuuge). The treatment was really harsh in the beginning (the occupation of parts of Germany by the French in the 20s, for example) which led to a full collapse of the German economy. WHen Germany started to recover, the crisis of 1929 hit the state. Then the country sank and something had to be done. The reparations were (finally!) gradually obliterated and Germany received aid (that amounts more than the paid reparations; in fact, this is a good example why the reparations are ineffective). However, the fruits of this aid to one of the pillars of the European economy were exploited by the wrong person (Hitler) because the other Europeans started to care about Germany when it was too late.

Perhaps slicing Eastern Prussia was also unnecessary cruel, they could have granted an economic access of Poland to the Baltic seas.

The Peace Conference. If we compare the Veinna treaty of 1815 and the Versailles: France was active on the conference whilst the delegations of Germany was denied any role in the treaties. They simply have to sign the treaty that put Germany on their knees.


I won't comment the cases of the treaties with Hungary and the Ottoman Empire that were also extremely harsh (Hungary lost about 2/3 of its territory, the Ottomans about 80 per cent; the reason why Turkey is nowadays big is in the denial of Mustafa Kemal Pasha to recognise the treaty).

[Prince Cobra]

The hyperinflation was created by the German government itself to undermine Versailles. The crisis of 1929 and subsequent years were an international event. This crisis struck Germany harder because of German deflation, again as a result of Germany's efforts to obstruct Versailles.

What was once thought extreme and Germanophobe, is now no longer disputed by serious economic historians: both the inflation of the early 1920's and the deflation of the early 1930's - both with devasting consequences for the German economy - were not the result of Versailles, but of deliberate German sabotage.

In the 20's the reason lied in the occupation of part of the German territory by France. I've always had the feeling the deflation in the 30's was due to the fact that the German economy was one of the most industrialised in the world and it's logical that we will have a heavy deflation there as a result of the World Crisis felt everywhere. I only agree with the fact that reparations were not working and were no factor aside from psycholical one (but this really matters and if you add it to the military restructions and to the exclusion from the Great Powers club, this matters, this really matters).But you should not blame the Germans for the crisis in Germany, it was a world process that severaly hit the most developed countries, Louis.

[Meneldil]

Meneldil's argument basically underwrites this view, you see. Prussia did the same to France in 1871 as the Entente later did to Germany. Look at the reaction in France and amongst the French people. See how counterproductive the policy ultimately proved, especially once Bismarck's moderating influence was removed from German foreign policy.

Now, the blame does not rest solely on French shoulders, according to this view. Lloyd George was just as eager to punish Germany for its ambitions as Clemenceau was (ambitions not very dissimilar to any other nation's at the time, but that's beside the point). Secondly, Versailles ultimately was only a factor in the rise of the Nazis, not the driving force. That is also not part of historical consensus as I have been taught. Versailles as a treaty was, like Locarno, basically dead by 1935. Despite this, it was still a major factor in preparing the way for the radical right in Germany. Just like the immense dissatisfaction with the spoils of war in Italy paved the way for the fascist coup d'état in Italy.

Not entirely. Just as it was the case for Germany, France bitterness and will for "la revanche" wasn't really based upon the terms of the treaty. By 1890, France was back in the top 3 of European superpowers, the economy was going fine (despite being less industrialized than in Germany or UK), etc. etc. I think in 1870 most Alsacians barely spoke French, and a large part of them agreed to be annexed by Germany. Yet, people were still ressentful about the war of 1870, still thought Germany had to pay.

Except for the unfair commercial clauses that France was still submitted to, the effects of 1873 were pretty much nonexistant by 1900. Fact is, it was an era of rampant nationalism, a time when nation building was heavily based on sending young men to war against a supposed eternal rival, and imposing your will on the international scene.

While it is true that the defeat of 1870 caused a deep impact in the french national mythos (and also gave birth to the whole "Jews betrayed us" and "collectivist are going to destroy or country conspiracy theories, as the punishment of the Paris Commune and the whole Dreyfus Affair underlined), it was mostly because France still considered herself and her 'people's army' to be the top military power of the world, and got her ass beaten to oblivion by what was she considered to be the underdog of Europe, in a few weeks. Not because of the terms of the treaty.

[Furunculus]

great thread people, very insightful.

my reading of Dreadnought causes me to side with Louis et-al, given that Versailles was no harsher than the treaty imposed on France at the end of the previous Franco-German war some few decades earlier.

[Fragony]

The german emperor actually called for restraint, and the Austro-Hungarian government waited for two weeks, don't think they really wanted war. It's normal generals make plans, prusian generals had a tradition of making one every year, as did Conrad of the Austria-Hungarian monarchy. It doesn't say all that much.

I am pretty familiar with the subject, now this is all cool conspiracy stuff, especially the black hand, but also the Serbian government, and the Russian government, are being a little bit closer then they want to admit.

[KrooK]

For Poland it was very good treaty. Due to it we regained lands stolen into 1776, 1793 and 1793 and gained some parts of Silesia.
For Germans it was something bad - they lied that they lost something that has always been their.
But they were living on polish soil and it was right that stolen territory must be polish again.
Anyway similar situation appeared after war - Germans forget that they started war and they claimed themselves victims.

[PanzerJaeger]

But they were living on polish soil and it was right that stolen territory must be polish again.

Not true.

Germans forget that they started war and they claimed themselves victims.

Not true.

[Strike For The South]

For Poland it was very good treaty. Due to it we regained lands stolen into 1776, 1793 and 1793 and gained some parts of Silesia.
For Germans it was something bad - they lied that they lost something that has always been their.
But they were living on polish soil and it was right that stolen territory must be polish again.
Anyway similar situation appeared after war - Germans forget that they started war and they claimed themselves victims.

POLSKA

[The Lurker Below]

glad this was selected to be shared here. very interesting discussion.

[Centurion1]

WE got a poland patriot on our hands boys and a very ardent one at that.

this should be interesting.

[PanzerJaeger]

Read Glantz before posting on the Eastern Front. No-one in the West really cared much about representing the Soviet WWII experience accurately, save for a handful of scholars, Glantz being without a doubt the leading one, and he still retain his position as the expert on the Eastern Front. They say victors write the history, but for the most part, it was the German experience which shaped the Western understanding of the Great Patriotic War. I daresay the Cold War and the natural temptation to dismiss the enemy as incompetents or cowards was very much present, whether subtle or not so.

I completely agree with your assertion that the Eastern Front is very much misrepresented in popular culture, when it is brought up at all, and that Glantz is an excellent source. However, as Glantz himself points out in many of his books, Russian post-war propaganda was certainly not innocent in the distortion of facts.


Sorry Louis