This indeed is my evolution of thought, and apparantly that of Brenus and several other as well.
Until not that long ago, I was of the same mind as TinCow, Wizard, many others. 'Harsh treaty, unfair, caused resentment, this resentment went wrong in 1933, however Germany overeacted with Htiler etc'. There is a clear attraction to this history. It reconciles Germany with its neighbours, it allows for self-criticism both outside and within Germany, it leaves Hitler as an exceptional period.
One can then build on this history by attractively contrasting it with post-WWII, which then looks as concilliatory, 'the way it should be done', and this time we all lived happily ever after.
Unfortunately, there is one slight problem with this history. As the world's greatest philosopher of WWI - Edmund Blackadder - put it so succinctly: it is bollocks.
It simply does not confirm to the facts, does not hold up to close scrutiny of the sources, and moreover it is based on several fundamentally erroneous notions. Unfortunately the assesment of the Treaty that arises from a closer look has the curse of being of later date. It finds itself difficult to replace existing notions, many of which existed even before the Treaty was signed. First impressions are always exceedingly difficult to overcome, no matter the extent to which they contradict more subtle later understanding. Sober analysis has been overshouted from the get go.
History, however, has the advantage of time. The immediate bad press of Versailles and the politicised sentiments surrounding the tragic subsequent events will slowly reside, leaving the field to a more sober and factual analysis of its real merits and shortcomings.
@Husar - 'beggars can't be chosers' is not my verdict of Versailles. On the contrary, the reverse is. Beggars were given a choice here, and a respectable one at that.
As for you getting nervous about 'look at evil Germany', especially for you: Sarko admits French 'mistakes' in Rwandan genocide of 1994.
Bookmarks