Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

**Sarmatian** · 02-24-2010, 18:08

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Then they had a treaty imposed on them at gunpoint.

Which is kinda what happens when you lose the war...

**Fisherking** · 02-24-2010, 18:18

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Which is kinda what happens when you lose the war...

No, that is not it.

If you decide to buy a house and you sign an earnest money agreement based on a cost you expect the agreement to go through.

If the terms are changed and they say we are keeping your money and you are liable for the balance, don’t you think you might get angry? Especially if you find out you can’t take it to court.

That just might be why they got a little upset and why the Neutrals were asking what ever happened to the 14 Points of Mr. Wilson.

**Pannonian** · 02-24-2010, 18:29

Originally Posted by Fisherking

No, that is not it.

If you decide to buy a house and you sign an earnest money agreement based on a cost you expect the agreement to go through.

If the terms are changed and they say we are keeping your money and you are liable for the balance, don’t you think you might get angry? Especially if you find out you can’t take it to court.

That just might be why they got a little upset and why the Neutrals were asking what ever happened to the 14 Points of Mr. Wilson.

If the terms were so extravagantly unfair, the Germans could have resumed war. After all, that's what happened to the Russians. Once again, why is there such outrage over Versailles, but none over Brest-Litovsk? The treaty with the Russians was signed after the Fourteen Points was laid out. What did the Allies do that the Germans did not?

**Prince Cobra** · 02-24-2010, 18:36

The treaties of Versailles and Brest Litovsk are on a different presumption, the way I see it. By Brest Litovsk Germany granted a freedom a potential satelite of Poland and Ukraine (national states). Germany was one national state, there is difference. Once again, I think Saint Germain treaty for Austria can be a better source for comparing.

**Pannonian** · 02-24-2010, 18:45

Originally Posted by Prince Cobra

The treaties of Versailles and Brest Litovsk are on a different presumption. By Brest Litovsk Germany granted a freedom a potential satelite of Poland and Ukraine (national states). Germany was one national state, there is difference. Once again, I think Saint Germain treaty for Austria can be a better source for comparing.

With Brest-Litovsk, the territories west of a certain line were to be disposed of as Germany and Austria-Hungary saw fit, with the rider "with the agreement of their people", which is effectively worthless. That's the Baltics, Poland, Belorus and Ukraine ceded by Russia, to be split up between Germany and Austria-Hungary. And people are arguing that Versailles was harsh and unfair on the Germans.

**Prince Cobra** · 02-24-2010, 19:59

Originally Posted by Pannonian

With Brest-Litovsk, the territories west of a certain line were to be disposed of as Germany and Austria-Hungary saw fit, with the rider "with the agreement of their people", which is effectively worthless. That's the Baltics, Poland, Belorus and Ukraine ceded by Russia, to be split up between Germany and Austria-Hungary. And people are arguing that Versailles was harsh and unfair on the Germans.

No, I am almost 100 per cent sure the Central Powers planned to restore the Polish Kingdom, though ruled under a German prince (German dynasties ruled Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, so nothing unusual here).

**Sarmatian** · 02-24-2010, 20:12

Originally Posted by Prince Cobra

The treaties of Versailles and Brest Litovsk are on a different presumption, the way I see it. By Brest Litovsk Germany granted a freedom a potential satelite of Poland and Ukraine (national states). Germany was one national state, there is difference. Once again, I think Saint Germain treaty for Austria can be a better source for comparing.

No. Those territores were forcefully taken from Russia, there were no plebiscites, nobody asked the population anything. Nobody asked Ukranians and Belorussians whether they want to live in Poland or Russia or want to have their own respective countries. It was simply a matter of the loser being forced to relinquish control of territory because the winner demanded it. There was no liberation there.

**Prince Cobra** · 02-24-2010, 18:32

Louis, Sarmatian... The most basic principles of war, perhaps. The most basic principle of diplomacy, no. The problem with winner/loser is that sometimes situation changes and enemies of a certain war are expected to work together. Then this could create certain problems. Making peace is an art that is often underestimated. In addition, too much pieces of the mosaic were absent. Where was Russia (the reason can be obvious but you should always have it in mind) and you have Germany taken out of the Great Powers list (in the very same League of Nations). It is not a random thing somebody (can't remeber his name) called Eastern Europe "no man's land". Btw, this perception (for the perception rule the politics, not facts) led to the treachery to Czechoslovakia in Munich. Anyway, my point was that Great Britain and France as single pillars of the Versailles put it on a sand foundation.