Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[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.

[Fisherking]

This is basically revisionist pap anyway. Didn’t anyone else notice that the author was the Great Granddaughter of Lloyd George? Is this supposed to add to her creditability? I don’t think so.

What else would you expect?

It is a bit like the decedents of Attila the Hun saying that he was a pussycat in person...

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

I do not blame Germany for the crisis of 1929. I do blame German nationalist agitation of the period for blaming Versailles for the economical woes in Germany that were caused by what was clearly an international crisis.


Equally as important, I blame Germany for using this crisis (as well as any other event) to undermine the peace and the Treaty of Versailles. From 1919 all the way to 1945, German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of revenge:

When in 1930 Heinrich Brüning became chancellor of Germany he told his friends in the unions that his chief aim was to liberate Germany from paying war reparations and foreign debt. He felt that if he diverted all Germany’s efforts into exports it would weaken the ability of America and the Allies to force Germany to pay her ious if she chose not to. The German unions therefore agreed to Brüning reducing wages, raising taxes and diverting all industrial activity into exports so as to bring pressure on the Western powers, not realizing to what extent this would mean misery, unemployment and a diminution of power for the workers. Brüning’s initiative was successful. Millions of people abroad were fooled into believing that Germany herself was really poor, not just her hapless citizens, even though Germany was the greatest exporter in the world, with a mountain of cash in the bank

This was bought hook, line and sinker by most people, both at home in Germany and abroad. Not until the archives were opened later, did it fully sink in to what extent Germany sacrificed her economic well-being between 1918-1933 to undermine Versailles.
Not Versailles, but deliberate German policy to sabotage the German economy was responsible for both the crisis in 1923, and for the extent of the misery the crisis of 1929 and subsequent years caused.

Both notions, that the hyperinflation of the 1920's, and the deflation of the 1930's, were caused by Germany itself in a deliberate bid to sabotage the German economy, to create widespread poverty to its people, in an attempt to gain domestic unrest and foreign sympathy, with the stated goal of discrediting and obstructing the peace, were considered extreme and Germanophobe back then. Nowadays, they are in little dispute anymore amongst economic historians.

[The Wizard]

Would you discount the influence of rampant protectionism in all major world economies, as a reaction to the 1929 crisis, in being a major influence on the scale and extent of the Great Depression, then? Would you say Germany is to blame more than anything else? Because AFAIK there is no doubt that the massive tariff hike and extensive protectionist measures in the two years following the Wall Street crash, in which the U.S. and major European economies tried to shield themselves from each other, killed off international trade and the hope for a swift recovery.

[Brenus]

“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.” 100 years before…
Compare with contemporary treaties e.g. Brest Litovsk and you will find it was quite lenient…

[Prince Cobra]

The Brest Litovsk treaty was more or less equal to the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, that legalised the partition of the Austrian Empire (i.e creation of national states since it was the nationalism that leads from the end of XIX century). In the same way, the Brest Litovsk treaty legalised the Polish Kingdom (that was planned to be created by the Central powers as well) and the Ukrainians that at that time also started to review their existence in the Russian Empire, as well as Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia.

I still think the comparison between the Vienna treaty and the Versailles treaty is possible despite the changes that occurred in a century.

[Prince Cobra]

In fact, a brief check shows that the reparations from Russia were 6 billion whilst those from Germany 226 billion. In addition the Saint-Germain treaty and the Treaty of Trianon were heavier since apart from the insanely large reparations they costed really much to the countries of Austria and Hungary (in territorial terms). Of course, one may say that Germany was eager to finish the war in the East, so it's hard to say how lenient the treaty would have been in case of German victory. But this does not justify the actions of the Entente, either.

[Fisherking]

It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.

If you hand someone a treaty in which they were denied any input and word things in such a way as to insult their nationhood you are not going to receive a positive reaction.

Whether you fault the treaty or the reaction to the treaty it makes no difference. It was still a disaster that ultimately lead to another war. Since it was billed at the time as ‘The War To End All War’ you can see what a colossal mess the allies made of the process.

I suppose they were doing them a favor by taking the German Colonies also?

The fact that Germany was willing to take such drastic measures, harming its own interest to escape the treaty only point up how much it was hated.

This argument is the equivalent of having a bandit’s daughter trying to convince his victims that the bandit let them off easy.

[Brenus]

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

[Prince Cobra]

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

Which story? Could you make your point more clear? What is the role of the Nazi in making the story?

P.S. I think I must agree with Fisherking.

[Fisherking]

“It is foolish of any serious historian to view this from only the winning side’s perspective.” Actually all the point is that the loosers point was only heard and according to what I read from Louis, blaming the French for something wich existed only on their imagination…
And this story was not made up by the Nazi, but by the German Society…

So we are expected to drop everything. Forget what history shows as a result, and except the views of the British Prime Minister’s great granddaughter because that is the real story?

I think you should read your own signature...

[Louis VI the Fat]

In fact, a brief check shows that the reparations from Russia were 6 billion whilst those from Germany 226 billion.

And how much of that 226 billion was ever collected, or intended to be collected? *

Keynes, for very unrelated reasons, quite soon after the treaty started the whole 'Crippling reparations!!' craze. No serious historian believes Keynes was right anymore. Unfortunately, once a point of view becomes dominat, it is near impossible to overcome it.

Part of the problem is, that Versailles had two consequences which are difficult to disentangle from the assesment of its merits:
- The Versailles system failed in its foremost goal: to preserve the peace. (as an aside - because the paricipants refused to uphold the treaty, not because the treaty itself was unworkable)
- Versailles, whatever its nature, was perceived to be harsh and unjust. This perception, ungrounded or not, is real.

Combine this with a third problem, namely that fairly soon the German view of Versailles became dominant, and it is clear why later historical reassesments of Versailles - most far more positive, cetainly far more subtle - find it difficult to take hold.

The loser has written history.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

* The figure of 226 billionj is highly misleading. Only fifty billion was ever meant to be paid. Of this, only twenty billion was ever requested to be paid. This twenty billion was paid not by Germany, but by the US:

Marks calculates that between 1921 and 1931, Germany paid a total of 20 billion marks in reparations, most of which came from American loans that the Germans repudiated in 1932. In this way, the Germans largely escaped paying for World War I, and instead shifted the costs onto American investors.

The American historian Gerhard Weinberg commented about the way the Germans used reparations to avoid paying the costs of World War I that "The shifting of the burden of reparations from her shoulders to those of her enemies served to accentuate this disparity" in the economic strength of the Allies, which struggled to pay their heavy World War I debts and the other costs of the war and Germany, which paid neither reparations nor its World War I debts

That's right. The above are the conclusions of modern historians: Germany barely paid any reparations or war debts. What little it did pay, it borrowed from the US. Then it defaulted on these loans. Thus making a nice profit.

Britain, France and the US payed Germany's costs of WWI. Plus their own debts and costs in the case of the UK. Plus the costs of the damage WWI inflicted on their homelands in the case of France and Belgium.

That's what you get for a lenient peace treaty, and for trying to incorporate Germany peacefully within the circle of industrial democracies.

[Beskar]

Louis again, is unfortunately right. Also, Versailles was not responsible for World War 2 in anycase, during the high-times of the German economy, the National Socialists enjoyed a share of less than 3%. It was actually the great depression that ended up causing a situation where the National Socialists got any real support.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So we are expected to drop everything. Forget what history shows as a result, and except the views of the British Prime Minister’s great granddaughter because that is the real story?

This is basically revisionist pap anyway. Didn’t anyone else notice that the author was the Great Granddaughter of Lloyd George? Is this supposed to add to her creditability? I don’t think so.

What else would you expect?

It is a bit like the decedents of Attila the Hun saying that he was a pussycat in person...

Sorry, but I am not sure one can write off with the stroke of a pen the very highly acclaimed work of a leading expert in her field, who was named professor of history at Oxford based on the merits of this study, simply because of some conspiracist thought about her ancestry.
MacMillan is the current warden of St Anthony's College in Oxford. Academic posts in the field of international relations and history don't come much more prestigious than that.
Today's brightest minds in the history of international relations are scholed in an understanding of the Treaty that I've broadly outlined here.

The other link in my first post is about a conference of the world's leading historians on the subject - British, American, German, others. Plus on the subsequent collection of articles by these leading experts by Cambridge University press.

Again, I am merely presenting commonly held views of serious modern scholars. I am not presenting fringe opinion.


What's funny, is that the very scholars of this period, of this Treaty, ask themselves the same question that has been brought uphere: how come there persists such a huge difference between crude popular notions of 'Versailles', and modern academic assesment? Why is the view of the Treaty so resistant against any change from its original negative reception, a reception based on notions that mostly do not hold up against modern scholarly scrutiny?

The Treaty of Versailles has had a bad press. From the time that it was signed and John Maynard Keynes penned his all-too-well-known polemic, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) until a recent book by that aging realpolitiker, Henry Kissinger, commentators have had little good to say about the Treaty. ‘We came to Paris confident that the new order was about to be established’, Harold Nicolson wrote in Peacemaking, 1919, ‘we left it convinced that the new order had merely fouled the old’. 1
Scholarly opinion, if one can use such a collective term, though divided, has moved in a different direction. A massive compilation of contributions from almost all the leading historians of the Versailles settlement opens with the observation that scholars ‘tend to view the treaty as the best compromise that the negotiators could have reached in the existing circumstances’ and ends with a question. Why has the original indictment of the Treaty seen off almost every attempt at revision and not just in the popular view? 2
If what has emerged from recent multi-archival research is ‘a much more nuanced portrait of statesmen and diplomats striving, with a remarkable degree of flexibility, pragmatism and moderation to promote their nation's vital interests as they interpreted them’, why do even our more learned statesmen continue to repeat the shibboleths of the past?

Would you discount the influence of rampant protectionism in all major world economies, as a reaction to the 1929 crisis, in being a major influence on the scale and extent of the Great Depression, then? Would you say Germany is to blame more than anything else? Because AFAIK there is no doubt that the massive tariff hike and extensive protectionist measures in the two years following the Wall Street crash, in which the U.S. and major European economies tried to shield themselves from each other, killed off international trade and the hope for a swift recovery.

No. Neither do I give cause to assume I do. Nor is the rehash of basic highschool knowledge of the depression, however correct in itself, very relevant.
I also do not deny that Berlin is the capital of Germany and that they drink beer in Oktober.

I blame German nationalist agitation of the period for blaming Versailles for the economical woes in Germany that were caused by what was clearly an international crisis.

Equally as important, I blame Germany for using this crisis (as well as any other event) to undermine the peace and the Treaty of Versailles. From 1919 German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of undermining Versailles.
Not only were the reparations not the cause of any economic hardship for Germany. What's more, this very hardship was the result of deliberate acts by the German governments to bolster its foreign policy goal of undermining Versailles.
In the case of the crisis after 1929, the deliberate policy of the German government created runaway deflation and mass unemployment, deepening the impact of the criris on Germany. This the government did in a deliberate attempt to undermine the treaty. (See Sally Marks, "The Myths of Reparations")

Now, I don't, as of now, have any literature of my own to support my view, while Louis has two sources (well... summaries of sources, to be precise).

Then I suggest you find yourself some literature to support your view, or read some of mine.

[Husar]

From 1919 all the way to 1945, German nationalism played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing German stability for its goal of revenge:

Pff, from 1789 all the way up to 1940 France played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing european stability for it's goal of european hegemony.

[Fisherking]

Lewis, the premise that it was moderate does not real encompass a realistic view. No matter who the scholars are.

Blaming German Nationalism is the easy way out.

The facts are that it was a dictate, a judgment without appeal.

In not allowing the Germans to negotiate it was predestined to failure.

Germany had not offered unconditional surrender when they negotiated an armistices.

Had the German delegation been seated and negotiated such a treaty then the blame would go to them, however it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination to call this fair and moderate.

Any nation forced to partition their homeland and allow foreign occupation of some of its provinces and be restricted to such an extent in forming a military is not going to see it as fair.

[Pannonian]

Lewis, the premise that it was moderate does not real encompass a realistic view. No matter who the scholars are.

Blaming German Nationalism is the easy way out.

The facts are that it was a dictate, a judgment without appeal.

In not allowing the Germans to negotiate it was predestined to failure.

Germany had not offered unconditional surrender when they negotiated an armistices.

Had the German delegation been seated and negotiated such a treaty then the blame would go to them, however it is a fantastic stretch of the imagination to call this fair and moderate.

Any nation forced to partition their homeland and allow foreign occupation of some of its provinces and be restricted to such an extent in forming a military is not going to see it as fair.

Call it unfair for Austria-Hungary then, but hardly for Germany. Here's a map of Germany pre- and post-Versailles. Other than returning Alsace-Lorraine to France, which hardly counts as losing territory, they lose a chunk of land in Prussia, mainly to provide sea access for Poland. Then compare with what Germany forced on Russia in Brest-Litovsk. The two treaties were overseen by the same generation of German statesmen, perhaps even the same statesmen. One dictated by Germany, the other dictated to Germany, one year apart. The only possible argument for Versailles being less fair is tha fact that the German army was still on enemy soil when the ceasefire was agreed. Hence the dolchstosslegende, and why the Allies should have beaten the Germans back into their homeland, and rubbed in the reality of their defeat.

[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.

[The Wizard]

[...]

First off, I was merely asking you a question, not trying to make a point, when I asked you about your view on Germany's role in the Great Depression. Just to get that out of the way. As an aside, the fact that protectionism played a large role in worsening the crisis into a depression is hardly "basic high school" knowledge.

Second, in my first post in this thread, I commented on how I wished that some of the arguments the authors you cite were actually named in this thread. You can try and browbeat us all you like with the eminency and respect of these scholars, which are fine and all, but without arguments, you won't convince many people. All we know now is that they oppose the traditional view of Versailles. We don't know any of their reasons to do so, however, which makes it kind of difficult to accept your conclusions.

Furthermore, I also noted how no (current, not old) opposing views (if there are any, mind) were mentioned in the OP. You cite two sources yet don't put them in the context of an academic debate (you do say they are "influential", but without elaborating). Not that this isn't understandable, since it obviously adds to the strength of the point you're trying to make, but it kinda looks bad to me when I get the impression that this MacMillan woman is just about the only person saying what she does. Revisionism is fun and all, but when it doesn't get any agreement from anyone else it quickly becomes suspect.

Of course, if I'm wrong about the above musings, please tell me so. It's not that I can't accept your views, it's just that right now I still have a hard time believing them. For the above reasons.

[Fragony]

Are you really interested

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Call it unfair for Austria-Hungary then, but hardly for Germany. Here's a map of Germany pre- and post-Versailles. Other than returning Alsace-Lorraine to France, which hardly counts as losing territory, they lose a chunk of land in Prussia, mainly to provide sea access for Poland. Then compare with what Germany forced on Russia in Brest-Litovsk. The two treaties were overseen by the same generation of German statesmen, perhaps even the same statesmen. One dictated by Germany, the other dictated to Germany, one year apart. The only possible argument for Versailles being less fair is tha fact that the German army was still on enemy soil when the ceasefire was agreed. Hence the dolchstosslegende, and why the Allies should have beaten the Germans back into their homeland, and rubbed in the reality of their defeat.

And what happened in Russia? The rise of 70 years of Communism.

[Fisherking]

Germany was required to abrogate treaties dating to 1843, surrender all colonies, give up provinces in the east in addition to the north and west. Give up mineral rights to France, submit to the military occupation of its most industrialized region in the Ruhr and for the most part hand the Saar over to the French to administer.

It was shot sighted. It strongly favored the two reaming powers. It was vengeful.

But don’t take my word for it. Read it! Surly you don’t need scholars and lawyers to reach your own conclusions.

Imagine for a moment that you are on the receiving end of that document and try to think how you would feel if you were forced into signing it.

It is easy to see why the Germans felt as they did and that is why the loosing side got their point across as excepted history up to this point.

[spmetla]

Call it unfair for Austria-Hungary then, but hardly for Germany. Here's a map of Germany pre- and post-Versailles. Other than returning Alsace-Lorraine to France, which hardly counts as losing territory, they lose a chunk of land in Prussia, mainly to provide sea access for Poland. Then compare with what Germany forced on Russia in Brest-Litovsk. The two treaties were overseen by the same generation of German statesmen, perhaps even the same statesmen. One dictated by Germany, the other dictated to Germany, one year apart. The only possible argument for Versailles being less fair is tha fact that the German army was still on enemy soil when the ceasefire was agreed. Hence the dolchstosslegende, and why the Allies should have beaten the Germans back into their homeland, and rubbed in the reality of their defeat.

Just because Germany wasn't completely broken up into small little states does not mean that it did not have large territorial losses. It's overseas colonies were large and important, in Germany's eyes colonies gave it it's place under the sun. Once again, just because it wasn't the most unfair does make make it moderate or fair, as pointed out earlier the Germans agreed to an armistice and then were left out of the creation of a peace treaty, if the Germans had submitted to unconditional surrender as the Axis powers did in WWII it would not be the same but because they were in a position of weakness they had sign the peace treaty.

[KukriKhan]

Pff, from 1789 all the way up to 1940 France played the perfidious, dangerous game of sacrificing european stability for it's goal of european hegemony.

From the outside looking in, one could make a case that Europeans, since the Golden Bull of 1356, have sought some way to

1. prevent the slaughter of its inhabitants, and

2. prevent rule by a dictator

by thinking up rules and Conventions and Treaties and other agreements. All of which "worked" for awhile, only to be tossed eventually in the name of some emergency, or tribal need for revenge for oppression. Versailles (and the League of Nations) was merely the early 20th Century version of that effort.

[Pannonian]

Just because Germany wasn't completely broken up into small little states does not mean that it did not have large territorial losses. It's overseas colonies were large and important, in Germany's eyes colonies gave it it's place under the sun. Once again, just because it wasn't the most unfair does make make it moderate or fair, as pointed out earlier the Germans agreed to an armistice and then were left out of the creation of a peace treaty, if the Germans had submitted to unconditional surrender as the Axis powers did in WWII it would not be the same but because they were in a position of weakness they had sign the peace treaty.

I don't really find this to be a persuasive argument for harshness considering that Britain, as a victorious power, and the victorious power which had been continuously actively fighting for the longest, lost most of our overseas territories after WW2, and the trading base that was the basis of our power. Germany were in no shape to significantly continue resistance by the time the armistice was agreed, and the subsequent treaty reflected their lack of power, just as Brest-Litovsk reflected Russia's lack of power to resist anything Germany might wish to impose on them. Such is war. The later rise of the Nazis was due to two factors. Firstly, the worldwide depression, whose cause had little to do with Versailles. Secondly, the myth that the German Army hadn't been beaten, but was sold out by the civilian government. This second point would have been argued whatever the terms of the treaty, simply because the Allies treated the Germans as the defeated (which they were), while the Germans deluded themselves that they hadn't been beaten.

From all the accounts I've read, the Germans in WW2 had a similar attitude, and if peace had been concluded while they were still in Belgium and Poland, they would have kept a grudge against the Allies, and looked to avenge their so-called defeat in the next war. This arrogance was only knocked out of them by taking the fight into Germany, and showing them they were indisputably the losers of the war.

[Fisherking]

There is also the matter of the Allies treating Germany as though it were still the old Imperial state and not a new Republic.

Had they actually negotiated with the freely elected government the likelihood of future conflict could possibly have been avoided.

Had France been treated this way after the fall of Napoleon there would have been several of the older states reformed from what is today French territory.

The study is correct in it assessment of the German reaction. They were treated the same as the old Imperial Germans.

It makes not difference whether the so call war guilt clause was written by two Americans, or the French, or even by a Martian Council of Elders it was a trigger phrase and any fool can see that.

The guilt for the failure should be sheared out among the Allied Governments, and not least to the United States who should have, better than the European Powers, seen what this would mean to the people of the new Republic of Germany.

In American History it is taught that had Wilson succeeded in placing the US in the League of Nations there would never have been a Second World War, which is patently farcical with the role they played in the treaty.

The handling after the Second World War was little better. It ended Germany as a threat but brought us the Cold War and only the dread of Nuclear Annihilation kept us from a third.

[King Henry V]

Oh goodie, I do enjoy talking about Versailles.

A couple of points I should like to make:

Firstly, I think some posters over-estimate the Allies capabilities in November 1918. Though it is true the German army was in full retreat, morale was not completely broken, hence the incomprehension on the part of many soldiers concerning Germany's effective surrender. Furthermore, to project the snapshot of the last stage of the war over a hypothetical continuation is grossly erroneous. Remember, the German army was steaming towards Paris until the Battle of the Marne. In effect, had the war continued in 1918, the Allies would still have had to fought through the Ardennes and the hilly terrain north of Lorraine, ideal for defence and useless for tanks. I also highly doubt the political will of America and much of Great Britain to continue a war which had clearly become offensive rather than defensive. War exhaustion was high amongst all the nations, though now Germany would have had the fillip of defending the Heimat against foreign invaders.
I need to only point to the Greco-Turkish war to show how even ill-equipped and trained troops with enough resolve can decisively an invader.

Secondly, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was quite different to Versailles. Though German territorial gains were huge, it was a negotiated settlement: the Bolsheviks wanted a truce at any price in order to eliminate their opponents in the civil war. They were under no illusion that the treaty was a lasting peace; it was merely a stop-gap until the inevitable world revolution had made it null and void.

[spmetla]

I don't really find this to be a persuasive argument for harshness considering that Britain, as a victorious power, and the victorious power which had been continuously actively fighting for the longest, lost most of our overseas territories after WW2, and the trading base that was the basis of our power. Germany were in no shape to significantly continue resistance by the time the armistice was agreed, and the subsequent treaty reflected their lack of power, just as Brest-Litovsk reflected Russia's lack of power to resist anything Germany might wish to impose on them. Such is war. The later rise of the Nazis was due to two factors. Firstly, the worldwide depression, whose cause had little to do with Versailles. Secondly, the myth that the German Army hadn't been beaten, but was sold out by the civilian government. This second point would have been argued whatever the terms of the treaty, simply because the Allies treated the Germans as the defeated (which they were), while the Germans deluded themselves that they hadn't been beaten.

From all the accounts I've read, the Germans in WW2 had a similar attitude, and if peace had been concluded while they were still in Belgium and Poland, they would have kept a grudge against the Allies, and looked to avenge their so-called defeat in the next war. This arrogance was only knocked out of them by taking the fight into Germany, and showing them they were indisputably the losers of the war.

But Britain didn't have to lose it's colonies it simply gave up most of them due to the various independence movements and its war exhaustion. If Britian or France or really any of the colonial powers had wanted to maintain their colonies they could have at the cost of another colonial war. This is not comparable to stripping Germany of its colonies, Britain gave up its empire due to cost, public opinion, and war exhaustion, not because it had to.

I don't despute that Germany would have lost WW1 after 1918 but it would have been at the cost of many more allied lives, the armistice was welcomed by both sides as an end to the fighting but don't imagine that there was no will left to fight in Germany. I'd rather not do "what ifs" but I think it wouldn't be too hard to accept that the german military extablishment would not have agreed to an armistice if they knew what the terms of Versailles would have been.

A respectable peace treaty that didn't try to turn a great power into a weak one would probably have been more effective for peace than Versailles. The Nazies were able to make use of the stab in the back myth because Germany was treated so harshly after the armistice and the German populace obviously thought they were given an undeservedly bad deal.

As for the German attitude in WW2, I think that many Germans probably accepted that the war was lost by the end of 1943, with it's tremendous defeats by the USSR as well as the vast increase in bombing from the Allied powers. The various German memoirs I've read seem to show rather a surprise that they weren't able to conclude a peace with Britain after the fall of France and would have liked to conclude a peace with the western powers if it allowed them to concentrate their effort against the soviets. The assassination attempt against hitler (I refer to the one in 1944) was an attempt to bring about a German government with which the allies would have been satisfied to conclude peace with.
The rise of the German idea of military superiority seems to only have occured during and after the Franco-Prussian war. By all accounts the Germans expected the French to invade Germany in that war which it didn't due primarily to the inefficiecy within the French mobilization system which gave the German nations a numerical superiority which detered the French invasion of Germany and allowed a German invasion of France. Only after the German victory in 1871 did they seem to think that the military solution would always result favorabley to them. Once again I think that a peace treaty that didn't seek to punish Germany so harshly would have allowed Germans to accept that they were defeated instead of being led to believe that their state of affairs was a result of a stab in the back.

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the monastery?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Also, shouldn't this thread be in the monastery?

These topics heat up too much and get locked, so Louis posted it here, where there are less restrictions