Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Brenus]

“Germany opened negotiations based upon the 14 points”: Again!!!! Germany opened negotiation hoping it would be based on the 14 points perhaps.
From where, if they did, did they get this? Especially after the rejection by Germany of US mediation in 1916.
On the quantity of Peace talks, not at one moment, Germany showed the will to give-up its war goals…
In Spring 1918, Germany refused the US conditions in The Hague.

Did at one moment Clemenceau or David Lloyd George or Vittorio Orlando, gave the hint these 14 Points were the base for Peace Talks?

“You can say that the Germans were stupid or that the Entente was duplicitous and both would be correct.”: The German had no choice, the Entente was not prepared to give to Germany any choice.
I still don’t see where the Entente was duplicitous as Wilson represented only at best, USA…

“You have a choice. You can condemn the German reaction, because they were actually not promised anything. Or you can say it was a stab in the back because the Germans were duped.”
Sorry, I don’t follow you there.
Fact: Germany and Allies were defeated.
Fact: When winner, Germany imposed Diktat and Occupation Troops on the looser.
Fact: All previous Peace Talks were rejected by Germany when not favorable to Germany. At no moment, Imperial Germany showed a hint of regret for the aggression.
Fact: Facing a military collapse, a succession of Allies surrenders, a mutiny in the fleet, famines and unrest in the society, the German Hight Command and the Junkers decided to pass the buck to somebody else.
Fact: The somebody else had nothing left to negotiate excepted to play the Red Containment Card.

Yes, the German hoped that they could avoid to face the consequences of the Kaiser’s choices to back-up Austrian’s Aggression against Serbia.
Yes, the Entente could have adopted Louis’ Plan and Germany wouldn’t had to face the consequences a lost war.
The stab in the back came from the Junkers and the Political-Militaro Elite which lead Germany in the WW1 and were defeated.
To get invaded countries (having this toll of casualties –1,600.000 young men dead, 5,000,000 injured for France alone) to be as lenient as the Treaty was and then complain about it, even now, is beyond me.
Yes, the German should have expected far worst than what happened. They should have expected what happened in 1945. Or what Germany imposed to France in 1870 (for no damage to German territory and far less casualties) or Russia. Or what Germany intended to impose if winner to the Entente…
The only “stab in the back” was in the German mind. This was for political motives played on German hurt pride.
It back fired badly.
So instead to recognise it, better to blame Versailles than the gloomy, dark, nauseous but entirely German post WW1 political blaming game.

“Or maybe the victims were the German People”: They were. But not of the Entente.

In France, some complained that Versailles was to lenient, that it will open the doors to the renewal of German Imperialism…
So books written at the Period are not the good bench marks.

The reality is:
Germany didn’t paid the compensation
Germany was not under permanent occupation.
Germany was not enslaved.

In fact, Versailles was not implemented…

[Beskar]

Versailles was implemented, just that Germany didn't want to accept it. It didn't even fully disarm. They hid their armies in Russia, in return, training the Russians, etc.

Only time the allies only made a case in enforcing Versailles was during the Franco-Belgium occuptation of the Ruhr, since Germany refused to pay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you'll find this has been the case ever since Knut the Cavemen waved his large club around and told Ugh-Ugh that no, he can not have the impala.

Or, just about every war is ended at gunpoint. Of course Germany had a surrender imposed on them at gunpoint. 'Pointing guns' at each other, sometimes even actually pulling the trigger and shooting at the other, is exactly what war is.
It is part of the bizarre Versailles lore that Germany was terribly injusticed simply by being subjected to the most basic principles of war.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

No, this is simply not true.

Germany's surrender was not based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. Consequently, Germany neither agreed to them, nor had any reason to expect them.

Incidentally, tentative peace offers based on the fourteen points were offered in early 1918, which Germany did not accept, because it still hoped to win the war.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

I am still curious - would these 21 points be at all aceptable as a Treaty, as conduct to make a workable peace?

Germany negotiated an armistice, then was forced to accept a treaty at gunpoint. That is stupid. Germany was losing the war, but she was not defeated, in order to be so she would need to be in rout; she was not. Retreat is not defeat, sueing for peace is not surrendur.

Germany was treated as though the Allies had marched through Berlin when they had not; this was stupid.

It is well known, and reported, that the Treaty was designed to impress upon the Germans that they had been deafeated, workable or not, it was designed to be humiliating.

[Pannonian]

Germany negotiated an armistice, then was forced to accept a treaty at gunpoint. That is stupid. Germany was losing the war, but she was not defeated, in order to be so she would need to be in rout; she was not. Retreat is not defeat, sueing for peace is not surrendur.

Germany was treated as though the Allies had marched through Berlin when they had not; this was stupid.

It is well known, and reported, that the Treaty was designed to impress upon the Germans that they had been deafeated, workable or not, it was designed to be humiliating.

The Germans had the option to resume arms if they didn't like the terms. That's what the Russians did, when they didn't like the terms Germany gave them. They got beaten even further back, and when they asked for terms again, they were given harsher ones that effectively ceded their most valuable lands. If the Germans didn't like the Versailles terms, they could have restarted the war. Since they didn't, it means the terms they got approximated to their military situation. When the Germans were in the ascendancy, they didn't hesitate to take advantage of Russian weakness to strip them of all they could hold. Why these complaints about taking advantage of Germany in turn, but a year after their party trick at Brest-Litovsk?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Germans had the option to resume arms if they didn't like the terms. That's what the Russians did, when they didn't like the terms Germany gave them. They got beaten even further back, and when they asked for terms again, they were given harsher ones that effectively ceded their most valuable lands. If the Germans didn't like the Versailles terms, they could have restarted the war. Since they didn't, it means the terms they got approximated to their military situation. When the Germans were in the ascendancy, they didn't hesitate to take advantage of Russian weakness to strip them of all they could hold. Why these complaints about taking advantage of Germany in turn, but a year after their party trick at Brest-Litovsk?

Change of Goverment? Or the reverse, that a Communist government was an inherrent threat to everyone and needed to be de-fanged.

[The Wizard]

Versailles was implemented, just that Germany didn't want to accept it. It didn't even fully disarm. They hid their armies in Russia, in return, training the Russians, etc.

Only time the allies only made a case in enforcing Versailles was during the Franco-Belgium occuptation of the Ruhr, since Germany refused to pay.

You make it seem like this was unexpectedly low coming from them, like a soccer mom outraged over the ref missing a foul by the other team while her kid's playing.

I mean, what did you really expect? Limit a country with an army that big to an army that small overnight and this becomes pretty predictable.

That's a thing I don't see in this debate, at least, not since page 5 or so. It really shouldn't be about if Versailles was "harsh" or "just", because these are subjective values which might mean very different things to you and me than they did to Helmut and Pierre in 1920.

My problem with the Treaty stems not primarily from what it did to Germany. You see, Germany didn't exist in a vacuum. No, my problem with Versailles is that this document basically inaugurated two decades of conflict and hostility in Europe that really made that time an armistice in what we regard as two distinct wars, but what was really one and the same. In setting unrealistic demands and creating a foreign policy (in the case of France and Belgium mainly) that was intrinsically hostile to Germany, that inflamed German public opinion, maintained and widened the yawning canyon between France and Germany (Europe's scarred and ugly pit fighters), and more or less forced Germany into a financial policy that remains a German national trauma to this day, it did damage that was nearly irreparable. In Locarno they basically had to sacrifice Central Europe to Germany in order to start the mending process.

My problem with Versailles, in short, is that it intrinsically formed a major bone of contention in Europe that was a major factor in not preventing WW2. Not the most important, probably (certainly by the '30s), but major nevertheless. It was only the beginning of a story of counterproductive foreign policies, maybe even only the prologue, but that doesn't make it any less so.

Its creators may not have been able to achieve anything better, true. That much I concede to Louis and his sources. But I refuse to believe they could not have seen the short-term results of what was in the Treaty.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, the Entente could have adopted Louis’ Plan

Seeing as how nobody is biting....the rub is, Germany was granted the Louis Plan.

Yes, my 21 points plan sounds like silly mockery, like a preposterous plan that reverses victor and vanquished, but these 21 points below is the Versailles Treaty, re-paraphrased.

Perception and reality, and all that.


Peace without Victory, Louis' 21 Points:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Preamble

1 The French original of this Treaty is the only authoritative one. English, German and other translations to be without legal consequence.


2 Germany requests, and the allies confirm, that Germany shall retain its place as Europe’s largest power.

Reconstruction Costs

1 – There shall be no demands of reparations.


2- Germany does not have to pay costs of any kind for the allied military expenditures, or any costs of the war effort.


3 - There shall be only financial claims for reconstructing civil damages


3a- An exception shall be made for the UK. Britain, having sustained no direct civil damges, but facing large pension and disability costs as a result of the war, shall receive a large share of the costs for reconstruction meant for France and Belgium


4 – The costs for reconstruction shall take into account civil damages on all sides, on both sides of the border, including Germany


5 – These reconstruction costs, for both sides of the border, shall be split between the allies and Germany.


6 – These costs must be limited to a small sum


7 – These costs must not be based on actual damage, but on what any of the parties can pay, so as not to obstruct economic recovery. We must look forward, not backward

8 – To prop up Germany, these reconstruction costs shall be divided thus: allies to pay 95%, Germany to pay 5%


9 – To help Germany pay for reconstruction costs, it shall receive aid amounting to 150% of what it will pay towards reconstruction of war damages. That is, for every DM Germany pays, it will receive 1.5DM.

War Guild

7 – There shall be no War Guilt clause, only a legal-technical framework setting and limiting legal liability for reconstruction costs.

Colonial Possessions

8 – Only foreign possesions that have been colonised in the three decades before WWI shall be taken away from Germany.


9 – No foreign possessions with meaningful German settlement shall be taken


10 – The entire amount of German nationals affected by territorial transfer must be limited to no more than 20.000, worldwide.

Territorial Changes

10 – German territorial integrity shall be respected. There shall be no split up of Germany.


12 – Annexetion of German territory to the victorious states must be based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points, in particular points six to fourteen


13 – In the west, transfer of territory must be striclty limited those territories which have been annexed by Germany since 1864. Traditional German lands must remain unaffected


14 – These territorial transfers must be in accordance with the wishes of the population affected.


15 - An exception to article 13 and 14 shall be made for Belgium. Belgium, whose neutrality was violated and suffered severly, shall be compensated territorially. This compensation will be limited to the two tiny rural villages of Eupen and Malmedy.


16 – In the east, with few exceptions, annexations must be limited to territories of overwhelming and traditional Polish majority

To Make and Retain the Peace

17 – The provisions in this treaty bear a temporary, comditional character. In due time, Germany shall be relieved of its obligations


18 – A United Nations shall be established. This institution shall deal with any disputes arising from this treaty in a peaceful manner.


19 This UN shall be empowered to deal with future conflicts. Reason and the rule of law, not the might of the victors of WWI, shall govern international relations.


20 – This United Nations shall be based in Geneva, Switzerland, and not in the territory of any of the victorious states


21 – Germany shall be made a full member of this UN no later than seven years after this treaty, to ensure Germany’s interests as a restored Great Power will be looked after.

[Beskar]

Seeing as how nobody is biting....the rub is, Germany was granted the Louis Plan.
Yes, my 21 points plan sounds like silly mockery, like a preposterous plan that reverses victor and vanquished, but these 21 points below is the Versailles Treaty, re-paraphrased.
Perception and reality, and all that.
Peace without Victory, Louis' 21 Points:

If you are correct. I am walking out of this topic, because to be Frankish, anyone who is arguing saying how harsh Versallias is, really needs to get a reality check.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If you are correct. I am walking out of this topic, because to be Frankish, anyone who is arguing saying how harsh Versallias is, really needs to get a reality check.

To be fair, these 21 points are the conclusions of modern scholars (See first post in thread), and a slight mix of the treaty itself mixed with its implementation. But one will find many articles in almost the same format in the actual treaty, paraphrased and shortened by me.

These points are the actual points that caused so much 'humiliation' and 'eternal slavery'. For example, 20.000 was indeed the total number of Germans affected by colonial transfers. Germany did end up receiving 150% in loans of what it paid in reparations. Etcetera.
I have replaced 'reparations' - that maligned term - with 'reconstruction costs'. Because that was what they were, what they were intended to be. Which s now more clear. The 'League of Nations', instituted by the Versailles Treaty, I gave the name of 'United Nations' - because that name has not received the same bad press, but left the actual fact that Germany was already allowed entry in 1926 intact.

And so on and so forth.

[Beskar]

To be fair, these 21 points are the conclusions of modern scholars (See first post in thread), and a slight mix of the treaty itself mixed with its implememtation.

But yes, these points are the actual points that caused so much 'humiliation' and 'eternal slavery'. For example, 20.000 was indeed the total number of Germans affected by colonial transfers, Germany ended up receiving 150% in loans of what it paid in reparations, etcetera.

Ah, so it is the actual result of the treaty and not the treaty itself. That is understandable. But the conclusions are quite disturbing as in, what really occured.

[TinCow]

No, my problem with Versailles is that this document basically inaugurated two decades of conflict and hostility in Europe that really made that time an armistice in what we regard as two distinct wars, but what was really one and the same.

I agree, I personally consider WWI and WWII to be one conflicted divided by a long truce. It's worth noting that the period between WWI and WWII was 21 years long. The second truce of the Hundred Years war lasted 26 years (1389-1415). So, if that's considered one conflict, it's entirely reasonable to call WWI and WWII the same war.

[Centurion1]

I agree, I personally consider WWI and WWII to be one conflicted divided by a long truce. It's worth noting that the period between WWI and WWII was 21 years long. The second truce of the Hundred Years war lasted 26 years (1389-1415). So, if that's considered one conflict, it's entirely reasonable to call WWI and WWII the same war.

Yep good point and it just grew and mutated into something even uglier by the second round.

[Beskar]

I would argue they are different and not just a case of the "Empire Strikes back" as there are some very different models in place. Hypothetically, if there wasn't the Great Depression, Hitler would have never got into power in the first place and be the marginal loony fringe party, as it was always the case during the 1920's.

The Hundred Years war was basically the same two powers fighting each-other with the same types and form of governance.

[Centurion1]

I would argue they are different and not just a case of the "Empire Strikes back" as there are some very different models in place. Hypothetically, if there wasn't the Great Depression, Hitler would have never got into power in the first place and be the marginal loony fringe party, as it was always the case during the 1920's.

The Hundred Years war was basically the same two powers fighting each-other with the same types and form of governance.

I would also argue as what you said is all true one of the major reasons that hitler seized power was because of a lack of national pride which he instilled and a resentment because of Versailles. It could even be argued that Hitler was a product of the trenches.

[Pannonian]

I would also argue as what you said is all true one of the major reasons that hitler seized power was because of a lack of national pride which he instilled and a resentment because of Versailles. It could even be argued that Hitler was a product of the trenches.

How many times does this need to be repeated. It wasn't Versailles itself that caused the resentment. It was what Versailles represented, which was the defeat of the German Army. They didn't accept this because the Army was still on foreign soil when hostilities ended. For Versailles not to be resented by the Germans, it would have had to recognise Germany as a victor. Once Versailles recognised Germany as the defeated, the dolchstosslegende was already taking form. For any sane peace treaty to have worked, the young Germans, ie. those who would be making policy in a generation's time, needed to be convinced that they weren't in fact the victors. The only real failing of Versailles was that the war ended before German soldiers were dying in their thousands in Germany.

[Centurion1]

How many times does this need to be repeated. It wasn't Versailles itself that caused the resentment. It was what Versailles represented, which was the defeat of the German Army. They didn't accept this because the Army was still on foreign soil when hostilities ended. For Versailles not to be resented by the Germans, it would have had to recognise Germany as a victor. Once Versailles recognised Germany as the defeated, the dolchstosslegende was already taking form. For any sane peace treaty to have worked, the young Germans, ie. those who would be making policy in a generation's time, needed to be convinced that they weren't in fact the victors. The only real failing of Versailles was that the war ended before German soldiers were dying in their thousands in Germany.

And more deaths would really have decreased the resentment level. Versailles was harsh and unnecessarily so because everyone wanted their chunk of the Germans. Versailles was most definetly used as increased feul for german resentment leading up to WW2 that is pretty obvious

[Pannonian]

And more deaths would really have decreased the resentment level. Versailles was harsh and unnecessarily so because everyone wanted their chunk of the Germans. Versailles was most definetly used as increased feul for german resentment leading up to WW2 that is pretty obvious

Do you know what the dolchstosslegende is? Look it up before you next post on this.

[TinCow]

The Hundred Years war was basically the same two powers fighting each-other with the same types and form of governance.

I disagree with this. The situation in 1337 was vastly different from the situation in 1360, which was vastly different from the situation in 1389, which was vastly different from the situation in 1422, which was vastly different from the situation in 1453. In addition, while the conflicts between England and France were constant, there were numerous other nations that came into and left the war at various points in time, including Scotland, Portugal, Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Brittany, Flanders, Provence, Naples, and the Holy Roman Empire. Halfway through the war, the Western Schism occurred and fueled a whole new round of warfare for entirely different reasons. In addition, there were essentially separate wars between England and Castile, Castile and Aragon, Castile and Portugal, France and Flanders, France and Brittany, and England and Scotland. Add in full-fledged Civil Wars in England, Castile, France (multiple times), Brittany, and Flanders, and finally add in peasant revolutions in England, France, Flanders, and Castile.

It is simply not true that the Hundred Years War was just England v. France the entire time over the same issue. If anything, it was far more complex and far less static than WWI and WWII. I think a proper comparison of WWI and WWII to the Hundred Years War would require that the Cold War be added into the same war with WWI and WWII, including the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and every minor military action fueled by the US and Soviet conflicts.

[Husar]

I am not sure Auschwitz and 9-11 are comparable to states waging war. You are getting uncomfortably close to reasoning that took hold 25 years after Versailles. That Auschwitz was merely justified revenge, a tit-for-tat, doing unto 'them' what they did to us. Then again, I said it before: it is not merely rhetoric to say that Versailles lore caused sixty million deaths.
This is part of the Versailles lore that no serious scholarship can overcome: Germany as the persecuted victim A state that simply loses a war - as states so often do, is not the same as inflicting terrible injustice upon it, never mind mass murder.

I simply don't like blanket statements like "Losers can't be choosers." It's rather comparable to "Jews are bad."* so there you go.
WW1 was probably started because the Kaiser told Austria "We're with you whatever you do."
Of course the Versailles treaty was a valve for french revenge for 1871, while 1871 was the noble fight for german unification against the evil French who tried to prevent it. That Versailles was not really bad for us was certainly not because of french modesty.

Now that the Germans at the time found it unfair is hardly surprising, I'm sure the French found 1871 unfair as well, Bismarck's whole aim for the years afterwards was to try and prevent France from doing what Germany did after WW1, start another war to get revenge. Now obviously the allies were less successful than Bismarck.

* Note: Author is intending this as an exemplar and NOT expressing an opinion. ALL posters should use care in doing so in order to convey their point without accidentally casting aspersions. Please argue with care. --SF

[PanzerJaeger]

WW1 was probably started because the Kaiser told Austria "We're with you whatever you do."

The Kaiser did not want war and did the most of any of the world leaders to avoid it, unlike French leaders who were fueled by Revanchism - an extreme over reaction to the loss of the war they started and lost in 1871.

[Strike For The South]

re·vanche
n. 1. The act of retaliating; revenge.
2. A usually political policy, as of a nation or an ethnic group, intended to regain lost territory or standing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

re·vanche
n. 1. The act of retaliating; revenge.
2. A usually political policy, as of a nation or an ethnic group, intended to regain lost territory or standing.

What's up with the new definition trend? Are you aiming to be the definition version of the statistics person CountArach? If so, keep in mind one of my nicknames is 'walking dictionary' IRL...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Alsace and Lorraine were not taken into German control as a result of some plebescite. They were not returned to French control by one either. Caesers dictum about the winners getting to do pretty much what they want held true then, and now. This isn't a particularly cheery aspect of human interaction in conflict, but it has a long history.


Germany, after three years of war and the horror that was Verdun, took advantage of Russia's internal weakness and problems and won in the East, imposing the Treaty of Brest Litovsk to try and secure resources without frittering away troops. The British attempted to counter this unilateral treaty by intervening in North Russia to engender a collapse of the Bolshevik forces and a return of the pro-war Whites. The Treaty of Brest Litovsk was grossly one-sided. Russia's internal troubles, however, were so great that the Bolsheviks felt compelled to accept them in order to maintain their hold on the rest of Russia.

Despite finally hitting on the correct tactics to break the deadlock on the Western Front, Germany lacked the deep reserves it once had. Even with the reduced troop requirements in the East, they had too few troops to make it work. Their offensive worked very well at first, but eventally stalled. Ludendorff ran the numbers and realized that Germany could no longer attack, would be progressively more and more out-numbered while on the defense, and would not get enough resources out of Poland, Belorussia, and the Ukraine fast enough to compensate for the massive shortages they had begun to face. Rather than continuing to a full conclusion involving the invasion of Germany and the smashing of its cities, he called it quits. This was communicated to the Kaiser as early as August of 1918.

The Versailles Treaty was signed by a Germany that had gone through two revolutions, two changes of government, and the abdication of the Kaiser between October 28th 1918 and June 1st 1919. As had the Bolsheviks at Brest Litovsk, they had gotten to a point where they HAD TO sign any treaty to end the threat of foreign invasion.

Apparently the "stab in the back" Ludendorff so trumpeted was largely a fabrication. There was a "peace now" opposition, but they never really had any say in things until the government broke down after the armistice. The naval revolt was a bit parallel to the one in Russia, but really only got triggered when the sailors thought their officers would order them to attack Jellicoe and company in large-scale viking funeral effort. They didn't like that. However, this hardly counts as a "stab in the back" by the home front -- this was a naval mutiny. Ludendorff claimed he wanted to renew the war in October of 1918, but the government had already changed and was moving towards armistice and refused....the same government that Ludendorff himself had engendered so as to have the civilians rather than the military do the surrendering. He was lining them up to scapegoat them with the Armistice from the get-go as near as I can figure it. The "stab in the back" was compelling politics, but about as substantive as basing an entire campaign on hope and change.

[Beskar]

I simply don't like blanket statements like "Losers can't be choosers." It's rather comparable to "Jews are bad." so there you go.

No it isn't. It is comparable to beggars cannot be choosers, as in, they got nothing and cannot get anything, so when they are given something to eat, they take it. They can't really turn it down and ask for Marks and Spencers. Germany was in no position to get better terms, and it would have ended up in a far worse situation, with far harsher terms if it rejected, so if they wanted a lenient peace treaty, which Louis has kindly pointed out in his 21 points, they would have to accept it, or face worse.

In comparison to the example you gave, Jews aren't bad, therefore it is not comparable in the slightest as your example is fundamentally flawed, unless you are again, trying to make a statement which would warrant warning/infraction points. So I would highly recommend at least attempting to try using other examples.

[Husar]

The Kaiser did not want war and did the most of any of the world leaders to avoid it, unlike French leaders who were fueled by Revanchism - an extreme over reaction to the loss of the war they started and lost in 1871.

Are you kidding? He didn't want a two-front war all that much but he had been trying to surpass the british fleet for years, gave the Austrians that blanket support I mentioned and didn't care about any alliances other than with Austria for reasons I cannot understand, he wanted Germany to have "a place under the sun", started aggressive politics, insulted several leaders of other countries and happily participated in gunboat diplomacy. Had he not wanted a war or aggression, he would have kept Bismarck instead of throwing him out.

No it isn't. It is comparable to beggars cannot be choosers, as in, they got nothing and cannot get anything, so when they are given something to eat, they take it. They can't really turn it down and ask for Marks and Spencers. Germany was in no position to get better terms, and it would have ended up in a far worse situation, with far harsher terms if it rejected, so if they wanted a lenient peace treaty, which Louis has kindly pointed out in his 21 points, they would have to accept it, or face worse.

In comparison to the example you gave, Jews aren't bad, therefore it is not comparable in the slightest as your example is fundamentally flawed, unless you are again, trying to make a statement which would warrant warning/infraction points. So I would highly recommend at least attempting to try using other examples.

So you're perfectly fine with the way the SS ended the Warsaw uprising because the Jews lost the fight and losers can't be choosers? The jews also lost the elections to Hitler(not like there was a jewish party but they could have voted and campaigned for someone else) so they had it all coming as losers can't be choosers, yanno, I can go on and justify anything with that little sentence.
And you also think that there are beggars in the streets is perfectly fine?
Of course "Losers can't be choosers" is a reality, as I said before, but using the sentence to justify anything is opening Pandora's box, the guys in Gitmo also lost a fistfight to some CIA agents, so guess we shouldn't complain about them being there "Losers can't be choosers" after all...

[Pannonian]

So you're perfectly fine with the way the SS ended the Warsaw uprising because the Jews lost the fight and losers can't be choosers? The jews also lost the elections to Hitler(not like there was a jewish party but they could have voted and campaigned for someone else) so they had it all coming as losers can't be choosers, yanno, I can go on and justify anything with that little sentence.
And you also think that there are beggars in the streets is perfectly fine?
Of course "Losers can't be choosers" is a reality, as I said before, but using the sentence to justify anything is opening Pandora's box, the guys in Gitmo also lost a fistfight to some CIA agents, so guess we shouldn't complain about them being there "Losers can't be choosers" after all...

To the victor the spoils has been a fact of war forever. If you want to throw ethics into the question, have a look at a treaty imposed by Germany but a year before. Going by the standards set by the Germans themselves in the very recent past, there was absolutely nothing unfair about the Versailles treaty.

[Beskar]

So you're perfectly fine with the way the SS ended the Warsaw uprising because the Jews lost the fight and losers can't be choosers? The jews also lost the elections to Hitler(not like there was a jewish party but they could have voted and campaigned for someone else) so they had it all coming as losers can't be choosers, yanno, I can go on and justify anything with that little sentence.
And you also think that there are beggars in the streets is perfectly fine?

Do you hate people from a Jewish background or something? You keep making comments like "Jews are bad", the holocaust, Jewish people getting beaten by the SS, Jews fault Hitler was elected, etc.

While I am not from a Jewish background myself, I am getting disturbed. You either renamed yourself Godwin or a relic from Germany's past.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you hate people from a Jewish background or something? You keep making comments like "Jews are bad", the holocaust, Jewish people getting beaten by the SS, Jews fault Hitler was elected, etc.

While I am not from a Jewish background myself, I am getting disturbed. You either renamed yourself Godwin or a relic from Germany's past.

No, he's making the point that, "losers can't be chooses" can be used to justify every atrocity.

[Centurion1]

Do you know what the dolchstosslegende is? Look it up before you next post on this.

Actually i do know what it is as it was used in a editorial i read recently in the times. The Germans blamed the left for losing the war. Hitler was an economic socialist on paper. dolchstosslegende was used to foster resentment against people like jews and communists.

The germans were pissy because they lost the war had an economic collapse and disliked the terms of Versailles it is as simple as that.

[Beskar]

No, he's making the point that, "losers can't be chooses" can be used to justify every atrocity.

Though it wasn't justifying anything, it was the reality of the situation, the German's lost, Then they got a very lenient treaty anyway, so Versailles wasn't an atrocity in the fiirst place.