Treaty of Versailles - Modern Reappraisal

[Husar]

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.

Well, that may well be right, but then the Germans getting worked up over it and electing Hitler was not anything special either, the French were still angry about 1871 in 1914, that's 43 years later, so why does this whole topic reek of "the Germans were whiners for not liking Versailles"? So were the french for not liking the Versailles of 1871 because obviously both treaties were the same level of harshness, how does that make us special? The French would have gladly fallen into out backs had we only invaded Russia and not them in 1914. They were very fortunate that our leaders were apparently quite a bit more idiotic when it came to diplomacy than theirs.

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

Exactly, I didn't think it was that hard to understand.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

With all due respect, you've got some reading to do. Wilhelm II indeed wanted a German empire comparable to those of the British and French, but he most certainly did not want it through a European war. Engaging in militarism and challenging the British fleet were about projecting power, not provoking war. Also, Bismarck was dismissed over social policy. It had nothing to do with a shift in foreign policy.

Wiki offers a concise summary...

It is difficult to argue that Wilhelm actively sought to unleash the First World War. Though he had ambitions for the German Empire to be a world power, it was never Wilhelm's intention to conjure a large-scale conflict to achieve such ends. As soon as his better judgment dictated that a world war was imminent, he made strenuous efforts to preserve the peace—such as The Willy-Nicky Correspondence mentioned earlier, and his optimistic interpretation of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum that Austro-Hungarian troops should go no further than Belgrade, thus limiting the conflict. But by then it was far too late, for the eager military officials of Germany and the German Foreign Office were successful in persuading him to sign the mobilisation order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan that envisioned the occupation of Paris within 40 days.

Now, I am no fan of Wilhelm. He was a weak, immature, and poor leader. However, it is important to point out his efforts to stop the war, as it draws an important distinction between WW1 and the Franco-Prussian war - that the French initiated. It also highlights how eager the French were to engage in WW1, knowing that they had trapped Germany.

[Brenus]

“So were the French for not liking the Versailles of 1871 because obviously both treaties were the same level of harshness, how does that make us special?” It doesn’t. The only German “specialty” in this is only the German blame a Treaty for their own mistake following the treaty…

“The French would have gladly fallen into out backs had we only invaded Russia and not them in 1914.” Except to do this would have just respect a Defensive Treaty signed by France and Russia…
And, er, Germany invaded France in 1914. And Belgium. So, the only one to blame is the German Government.

“They were very fortunate that our leaders were apparently quite a bit more idiotic when it came to diplomacy than theirs”: In this matter, I think the French leaders were quite smart.
The Kaiser and the Junkers’ arrogance played in the French hands…

“he most certainly did not want it through a European war” He certainly did not… He was a little shock probably when France and UK, respecting signed defensive Treaties, said they will respected them. So he decided to declare war on France, to attack Belgium (as it was part of the plan!!!) and was surprise by UK reaction…
But at any moment the Kaiser was willing to go to war…

“It also highlights how eager the French were to engage in WW1”: Certainly they were… But, important but, they didn’t start it.
The Prussian was eager to start the 1870 war as well, as you probably know, as a tool of unification for Germany… It make Napoleon III stupid, not Bismark.
The fact that the Germans, knowing the French were decided to take back what was stolen few years ago, intention the French never hind, make the Germans even more stupid…

“that they had trapped Germany”: Germany trapped itself. Nobody obliged the Kaiser to back-up Austria on an offensive war.
The problem with the Kaiser and his optimistic view on the Austrian Ultimatum is it was absolutely baseless.
Serbia did accept almost every thing but Austria, with Germany blessing, wanted a war. They got it, lost it.
And didn’t stop to whine about it… How was it possible the French peasants were able to defeat the mighty German Army? It can only be possible because a fifth column (I know, too early…). The German were betrayed by, er, not completely German (Communist, Jews, Francs Masons, Homosexual, etc). That was the only rational reason.
All was ready to crush the French, the attack on a neutral country, the machine guns, artillery, mobilization, declaration of war, offensive, attack on Paris, we do this, they do this, parade in Paris, and all this good plan just failed. Hold one, can’t be.
It has to be something else. A back stab, that is it. The German Army never lost the Hindenburg Line, never lost at Verdun, in Champagne, at Ypres. It was a stab in the back by filthy politicians…

[PanzerJaeger]

Germany trapped itself.

This, I will agree with. Failing to renew the Reinsurance Treaty was perhaps Wilhelm's most damaging mistake.

[Kralizec]

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.

Hmmm. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I recall this episode is that Kerensky's interim government wanted to continue the war because it wasn't prepared to accept Germany's terms. The Bolshewiks then executed a well-coordinated coup d'etat and immediately accepted Germany's terms, so that they had their hands free to consolidate power...

[The Wizard]

AFAIK that is true, but the Bolsheviks left the negotiations due to what they viewed as excessive demands, following up with a failed policy of "no peace, no war" while huge tracts of lands fell into German hands before accepting even worse terms than offered at first. Which makes it pretty logical that Brest-Litovsk was so harsh, because the initial armistice was essentially repudiated by Russia's Bolshevik government giving Germany every right and opportunity (according to then-prevalent views) to simply march on and put Russia at an even bigger disadvantage. The blame for its extensive demands on Russia then, does not lie solely with Germany at all.

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.

Perhaps it wasn't Versailles itself that caused the resentment, but it was Versailles itself that caused the conflict. Which is part of why it was a bad peace treaty.

[Husar]

With all due respect, you've got some reading to do. Wilhelm II indeed wanted a German empire comparable to those of the British and French, but he most certainly did not want it through a European war. Engaging in militarism and challenging the British fleet were about projecting power, not provoking war. Also, Bismarck was dismissed over social policy. It had nothing to do with a shift in foreign policy.

So why was no effort made to renew all those treaties Bismarck had made with other countries then? Maybe he didn't want this two-front large-scale european war, but he certainly worked hard to get there even if he didn't know that himself.
Bismarck's foreign policy was based around isolating France to prevent them from taking revenge, this wasn't continued at all, IIRC the only treaty renewed was the one with Austria as that probably suited his pipe dream of a germano-prussian power block or whatever.
I'm not going to defend Bismarck's internal policies as I'm not a fan of them, but his foreign policy was working quite well and it's disconuity (someone would have had to continue it after Bismarck's death anyway) was probably a major factor leading to WW1.
As Brenus says, it was Germany's own fault that it was trapped, but once trapped the only options to attacking France were either a defensive war in the west which would have risked France taking the industrial centers there or just giving up.

It doesn’t. The only German “specialty” in this is only the German blame a Treaty for their own mistake following the treaty…

That's not entirely correct, because in this thread the French are blaming a treaty for making a mistake that lead to a german mistake that they blame on the french mistake. I'm not going to accept that the unification of Germany was a mistake.

[Brenus]

“In this thread the French are blaming a treaty for making a mistake that lead to a German mistake that they blame on the French mistake.”
Err, no. The French, in this thread, remind the Germans that the 1870 Peace Treaty was not a model of Balance and Justice, and was harsher in some aspects than Versailles.
1870 Prussian War led to political unrest in France, Regime change and a plan was openly designed to hamper France to rise again from it.
As you mentioned, Bismarck’s policy was to isolate France and to prevent the revenge, as he knew the Treaty of Frankfurt he imposed to France had the seeds of a new war.
Then France went to built a new Colonial Empire to have access to coal, iron and raw material Iin order to regain the lost territories.

So, the complain about the allege harshness of Versailles (and more I read about it, more I am convince it was made up to avoid to pay the bills) are not really accurate.

Now, the perception of it, which I am now more and more convince it was built by Germany Political/Financial/Military Elites, was in fact more important.
When they succeeded to impose it to the German People mind (to explain and justify the mutinies, the unrests and the crack down on them), they find themselves out-maneuvered by an extreme-right nationalist movement they thought they could control, and made a deadly mistake.

“I'm not going to accept that the unification of Germany was a mistake.” No, it was not. The mistake was to do it in Versailles.
I perhaps make a mistake, but I think this is the only exemplar of a unification ceremony done after a victorious war on a foreign soil.
I do understand however the attraction of the Palace of Versailles. However, the Hegemonic Imperialist Political Message sent in doing this was perfectly understood by others European Countries…

[Husar]

Well, you see, Bismarck said when you beat an enemy you have two choices, you either make sure he can still look into a mirror afterwards or you make sure he won't rise again, he used the second tactic in 1871 and it worked until his successors completely neglected it. the treaty of Versailles was somewhere in between, first it was a "don't let them rise again", then it wasn't really enforced all that much, the german perception wouldn't have mattered had you not let Hitler and others circumvent it left and right.
Maybe 1871 was a bit harsher but in that case you should have learned from it that the loser would hate the guts of the winner for the next at least 43 years.

[Fisherking]

All this new look at the treaty has done is try to blame the Germans again.

The treaty was a failure for several reasons. Picking one and blaming the Germans dose not make it successful.

It didn’t keep Germany from rising again. It left the French feeling as though Germany got off too easy. It left the British feeling guilty and it allowed the US to slip back into isolationism.

It didn’t make Europe more stable. It didn’t make anyone happy with the outcome. Even Italy, who benefited the most was unhappy.

It cost a lot of lives and treasure but left Europe in a worse position than it started from.

Pointing fingers only causes old arguments to surface. I would say that the new look is not better than the old one.

[Beskar]

It is not really a new look. Since many people already thought it anyway. It is more a challenge to mainstream "look at us poor Germans, we got so harsh The Frence, British and USA were the evil, especially as we won the war!" when it really isn't the case.

As Louis made with his 21 points. Germany got a very good deal out of it. What did Belguim get out of being invaded? Two random rural villages? I bet they will pleased with that.

What Germany paid, they got in return plus 50% more. Where is the hardship?

Only worse part was losing some territory in the East, which was used to liberate nations which once existed. So ultimately, it wasn't all "that bad" as those people there seemed happy enough with that arrangement.

[Pannonian]

All this new look at the treaty has done is try to blame the Germans again.

The treaty was a failure for several reasons. Picking one and blaming the Germans dose not make it successful.

It didn’t keep Germany from rising again. It left the French feeling as though Germany got off too easy. It left the British feeling guilty and it allowed the US to slip back into isolationism.

It didn’t make Europe more stable. It didn’t make anyone happy with the outcome. Even Italy, who benefited the most was unhappy.

It cost a lot of lives and treasure but left Europe in a worse position than it started from.

Pointing fingers only causes old arguments to surface. I would say that the new look is not better than the old one.

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough. There's a standard mythology on WW1 that goes from war poets to the interwar period. The more I read about the war, the more I feel the standard line teaches the wrong conclusions, or at least overly simplistic conclusions. Here's another myth from the period: the British Army consisted of lions led by donkeys.

[KukriKhan]

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough. There's a standard mythology on WW1 that goes from war poets to the interwar period. The more I read about the war, the more I feel the standard line teaches the wrong conclusions, or at least overly simplistic conclusions. Here's another myth from the period: the British Army consisted of lions led by donkeys.

I must say, it's been an eye-opener for me too. I've appreciated the irony (given the old stereotypes) of 2010 Germany being an economic powerhouse, and a military fieldmouse. When we roll things back to about the 1860's, today's reality makes more sense.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my view

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.

[Furunculus]

Going through this thread has changed my opinion. At school, I was taught the line that Versailles was overly harsh, and the unfair terms led to the revanchism of Germany. Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough. There's a standard mythology on WW1 that goes from war poets to the interwar period. The more I read about the war, the more I feel the standard line teaches the wrong conclusions, or at least overly simplistic conclusions. Here's another myth from the period: the British Army consisted of lions led by donkeys.

agreed, one of the most interesting threads in backroom for some time, my thanks to the OP and other sundry wise heads.

[Beskar]

Actually looking at the details has revised my view, and I'm now of the opinion that Versailles was nowhere near harsh enough.

Being honest, in hindsight, perhaps the French position to dissolve Germany into smaller states would have been better, as Hitler would have been out of the limelight. There would have been no holocaust, or any other of the atrocities brought upon the world by the Germans.

It is a very dangerous position to hold. Especially, hypothetically you got into a time-machine and did this, the world would be a vastly different place and the results of which we do not know.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Being honest, in hindsight, perhaps the French position to dissolve Germany into smaller states would have been better

What should've been done, quickly descends into 'what-if' scenarios, so I'll refrain from that.

The French position was not to dissolve Germany. To reduce German preponderance, yes. A hegemonic power could not be tolerated. But wild plans to dissolve Germany were not serious diplomatic suggestions. France had long conciled itself to the existence of a united Germany. A Germany that would always be structurally larger than France. What Clemenceau sought, was security in light of this accepted fact.

The French policy had two pillars: an alliance with the US and the UK, and co-operation with Germany.
French posturising was a means to get the Anglo powers to accept France's position: that as a victor it could not be expected to accept the goal of Versailles to restore Germany as Europe's greatest power without guarantees of security. Either Germany is diminished*, or France's security is guaranteed by alliance. Thus the Anglo powers agreed to a guarantee of alliance. (Hence the strong US presence in Europe in 1940, making good on this essential element of the Versailles system and thereby preventing in the first place any renewed German aggression.
No, wait...)
The other pillar was co-operation with Germany to offset the reliance on the Anglo alliance, in which France would always be the junior partner, her interests easily brushed aside. France needed Germany, economically and politically.


French policy has been remarkably consistent ever since 1918.
The above impulses still govern French foreign policy issues, with the difference that after 1945 the Americans could be persuaded. French logic of the state is usually quite rational. Many American analysts overlook these fundamental impulses of French foreign policy, to this day, creating the impression of French erraticism.



*Unfortunately, this created the impression that France was a hardliner, implacably hostile to Germany, unforgiven in peace. Not so, of course, as the above shows. Even so, it didn't help in the atmosphere of disillusionenment that quickly took hold in 1919. French stupidity, arrogance, lingering wartime calls for ever more reduction of Germany (including in Clemenceau's head) didn't help either. The US nearly wholly withdrew from the Versailles system. The British could never fully make up their mind either way. This left France as the power to see to the fulfillment of the Treaty.
Germany from the get go tried to undermine the system, leaving France no choice but to intervene on behalf of the system. At each step, re-inforcing the perception that France was implacably set against reconcilliation. Thereby further allienating the US, and to a lesser extent, the UK.

[Brenus]

"apparently that of Brenus" Yeap. As every pupils in France I was told that Versailles was harsh and "punished" Germany for starting a war. We were told that after 1870 and French it was revenchism but after 1918 and German it was valid claim and unjust humiliation.
Until Louis' intervention, it was still in my mind.
I never really questioned Brest-Litosvk, nor really saw Frankfurt Treaty for what they were.

I do accept Louis' analyze about the bouts et aboutissements, the reasons why this explanation was convenient in a Post WW2 and Cold War.
But it perhaps time to be adult and to face the reality which is History now.

[Husar]

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.

Germany didn't just overreact with Hitler, it's not like he promised to kill all the jews and try to conquer the world and got elected because of that. I've never seen it as an exceptional period either, merely as a follow up of the previous periods. Racism, imperialism etc. weren't even Hitler's inventions, he just built them upon existing notions and the apathy of large parts of the population which still exists today ("oh, look, a girl kicks another girl in the head, let's not get involved, someone might sue us" only back then it was "the SS might kill/question us"). That doesn't say a lot about the treaty of Versailles though, except the part where the French and British didn't enforce the treaty until Hitler had a few more than those 100.000 allowed soldiers.

@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.

Well, it was Beskar who posted that, your fault is just being french and posting it here, should have PMed it to PJ or EMFM and have them open the thread. but what was this choice? Pay or don't pay or do you mean the choice between accepting that treaty that would make us slaves of the French or going on and getting annexed?

About evil Germany, it's my pipe dream that if I ever get robbed in another country I'll just have to mention I'm german and the criminals will run away in horror.

[The Wizard]

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'.

Just to clarify my position, I don't think it was too harsh (or too lenient), I don't know about that. I think it was counterproductive and damaging to Europe's international climate. You need two to dance, so it's more or less another subject.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unfortunately, this created the impression that France was a hardliner, implacably hostile to Germany, unforgiven in peace. Not so, of course, as the above shows. Even so, it didn't help in the atmosphere of disillusionenment that quickly took hold in 1919. French stupidity, arrogance, lingering wartime calls for ever more reduction of Germany (including in Clemenceau's head) didn't help either. The US nearly wholly withdrew from the Versailles system. The British could never fully make up their mind either way. This left France as the power to see to the fulfillment of the Treaty.
Germany from the get go tried to undermine the system, leaving France no choice but to intervene on behalf of the system. At each step, re-inforcing the perception that France was implacably set against reconcilliation. Thereby further allienating the US, and to a lesser extent, the UK.

Imposition of an un-negotiated treaty after what was NOT an unconditional surrender will do that. Germany did not agree to anything to the treaty, she was merely made to sign.

How this point still escapes you, Loius, I don't know.

[Brenus]

“Pay or don't pay or do you mean the choice between accepting that treaty that would make us slaves of the French or going on and getting annexed”:
That was the choice offered by the German t France in 1870. France got occupied and paid for the cost of the occupying forces, and paid the “war reparations” for having started the war.
Germany after 1918 didn’t pay and wasn’t “enslave” and voted for Hitler.
France had no choice in 1870 or Germany in 1918. The protests from the French in 1870 were ignored, and the French had to accept the humiliation.

“Germany didn't just overreact with Hitler, it's not like he promised to kill all the jews and try to conquer the world and got elected because of that. I've never seen it as an exceptional period either, merely as a follow up of the previous periods.”
Unfortunately you are right. Hitler anti-Semitism was not exceptional and was considered as normal.
He in fact capitalised on Weimar successes in not paying the debts, in creating the Reichswehr (and freikorps) and the system which allowed to train Officers and NCO in USSR, the training of the Tanks Tactics with the Red Army starting in 1920, the cracking down of the Spartakist movement.

The development of new planes, tanks and various materials thanks to the treaty of Rappallo which clearly show that the non-nazi Germany had no intention to respect Versailles, in the letter or in the soul.
Links showing this appeared early in 1920, but the Allies were decided to ignore them as proofs pf good will towards Germany. Junkers linked with Tupolev and air forces training were established (Lipstek Base).
By 1929 the German instructor staff had developed a cadre of fighter experts and a fighter tactics manual that were the equal of any major air force's.
Same story with tanks development… In 1925, the Reichswehr's weapons office contracted the engineering firms of Daimler, Rheinmetall, and Krupp to build prototype heavy tanks.
Some of Germany's most able panzer commanders, including General. Wilhelm von Thoma, Walter Nehring, and Georg-Hans Reinhardt, first learned about tanks at Kazan.
It was at Kazan in 1930 that Heinz Guderian saw his first larger-scale armoured manoeuvres.

[URL="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Devil's bargain"]

So, you right. Hitler wasn’t the one who built it all.
Hitler could never have rearmed the nation so quickly without the testing programs in Russia.

[Fisherking]

Several times I have heard Versailles compared to the harshness of the Frankfort Treaty.

I guess I must be missing something. Frankfort gave Germany Alsace-Lorraine, a favorable trade agreement with France and reparations amounting to 5 billion francs.

When the Armistice was signed the siege of Paris was lifted at once and food was shipped in, including German supplied food, by the way.

Alsace-Lorraine were deemed necessary to the union of the German States. No one wanted to border France for some reason. It was not done to cripple France but to bring about Germany. (not that that is good or bad on its own)

Still it was harsh for France who lost 20% of its industrial might. They fumed over it for 40 years. But it was negotiated wasn’t it?

The German Treaty with Russia was much harsher. It took a lot of land and created quite a few new states. But it too was negotiated.

Versailles forced the Germans to repudiate that treaty and every other treaty back to 1843.

The Armistice rather than surrendering a couple of forts involved the surrender of the navy, the air force, artillery, machineguns, and merchant shipping. That and 5000 locomotives and 150,000 rail cars. That isn’t all of course there was much more.

In exchange the Allied forces left the blockade in place starving to death and estimated 750,000 people.

Then of course we get to the reasonable and moderate terms of the treaty.

Now the new look examines the reparations. They don’t find them exorbitant, in fact they find them most reasonable.

To me the reparations were just adding insult to injury anyway. It was the giving up of 5 provinces and parts of others. Turning over the Saar to France and the following plebiscite. The surrender of all colonies. The creation of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of refugees. The destabilization of the greater part of Europe when it was recovering from war.

The process was not limited to Germany. And Russia didn’t receive its lands back it had surrendered to Germany. It isn’t that the former Austrian or Ottoman territories were better off. But this is about how fair and reasonable Versailles was.

I don’t think that addressing a part of the mess sheds any light on the problems. It was divisive at the time and hasn’t gotten a lot better with time.

The Americans were disgusted and disillusioned with the process and withdrew into isolationism. The other parties didn’t have that option.

It is not that it was a French mistake, or a British, or American. It was the blending of those interests that led to a mess and they got pretty much what they deserved twenty years down the line.

It wasn’t something anyone was happy with. Wouldn’t that normally be an indicator that there was something wrong with it?

[Pannonian]

So how does Versailles compare with its contemporary, Brest-Litovsk? One was imposed by the Germans, the other was imposed on the Germans. Which was harsher?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The German Treaty with Russia was much harsher. It took a lot of land and created quite a few new states. But it too was negotiated.

Versailles forced the Germans to repudiate that treaty and every other treaty back to 1843.

Then of course we get to the reasonable and moderate terms of the treaty.

Now the new look examines the reparations. They don’t find them exorbitant, in fact they find them most reasonable.

To me the reparations were just adding insult to injury anyway. It was the giving up of 5 provinces and parts of others. The surrender of all colonies. The creation of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of refugees. The destabilization of the greater part of Europe when it was recovering from war.

The process was not limited to Germany. And Russia didn’t receive its lands back it had surrendered to Germany. It isn’t that the former Austrian or Ottoman territories were better off. But this is about how fair and reasonable Versailles was.

B...but Fisherking, you yourself argued at great length that the Fourteen Points ought to have been the basis for peace.

Well, what you describe above IS the Fourteen Points.

The reparations, the stripping of colonies, the territorial concessions, the dismemberment of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, the military reduction, the return of Alsace-Lorraine. These ARE the Fourteen Points.

In exchange the Allied forces left the blockade in place starving to death an estimated 750,000 people.

Not true.

Turning over the Saar to France

Not true either.

The Saarland, despite its complicated modern history as in-between land between France and Germany, was granted a plebiscite. The population decided to stay with Germany. This was respected.
See? That's how enlightened Versailles was: it introduced national self-determination. This principle still governs our international law.

It wasn’t something anyone was happy with. Wouldn’t that normally be an indicator that there was something wrong with it?

One could argue that this is telling of Versailles being a skillful compromise, the best possible under the circumstances. Nobody got it their way. Everybody had to take the interests of others into account.
Perhaps the rest of society ought to have shown this maturity too, and accept that no country can have it his way, all the way, all of the time.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Imposition of an un-negotiated treaty after what was NOT an unconditional surrender will do that. Germany did not agree to anything to the treaty, she was merely made to sign.

How this point still escapes you, Loius, I don't know.

It doesn't escape me. I think it is fundamentally erroneous.

All countries that lose a war are 'forced at gunpoint to an agreement they don't agree with'. It's the very definition of losing a war.

If Germany wanted a negotiated peace, it should've opted for a ceasefire, followed by negotiations. This did not come about. Instead, Germany was defeated, and acknowledged defeat. This defeat was formalised in a peace treaty.
And a great and idealistic peace treaty at that, far more lenient than any treaty Germany ever gave any country it defeated, and far more lenient than Germany expected.

Luckily, or tragically, the allies learned their lesson from Germany's myths, deceitful behaviour, and unwillingness to accept defeat. Next time, they would accept nothing less than the destruction of Germany and an unconditional surrender, to prevent the same nonsense and mythology from taking hold. It did cost a million German lives though. Such is the price of Versailles mythology.

[Louis VI the Fat]

???

not supposed to be here.

[Pannonian]

One could argue that this is telling of Versailles being a skillful compromise, the best possible under the circumstances. Nobody got it their way. Everybody had to take the interests of others into account.
Perhaps the rest of society ought to have shown this maturity too, and accept that no country can have it his way, all the way, all of the time.

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms. Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms. Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.

Duh. The fighting didn't take place in France so we were not defeated.

So British lies and a duplicitous act.

[PanzerJaeger]

The Germans would probably not have been satisfied with anything less than Sintra-type terms. Beaten in war, but granted all the spoils of victory.

This thread gets more and more... interesting... each day.