NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently in one of my classes we went very deep into WWI. We carefully studied the Treaty of Verailles and Wilson's 14 points. I had always thought that Britain, France and the US all wanted harsh punishments for Germany, mainly France and Britain. I was somewhat shocked to find out that it was Clemenceau who wanted a harsh peace, Wilson wanted a nurtured peace, and the leader of Britain was pretty much a mediator between the two. I no longer blame Germany for WWII, while I knew that the Treaty of Versailles was a cause, I did not realise how much of a role it played in WWII. Germany was blamed for the war, this, in my opinion, is an outrage, a Serb killed the Archduke of the Austrio-HUngarian Empire, Austria invaded Serbia, Russia went to war with Austria, Germany supported their ally Austria and declared war on Russia, knowing France would help their ally Russia, Germany took the first step to end the war quickly and invaded Belgium and shortly after that France. Austria or Serbia should have been held responsible, not Germany.

Another thing I don't understand, why would anybody sign a treaty that nobody liked? Germany did not like it because they were left with the debt and responsibility for the war. France did think it was harsh enough on Germany, Russia did not get any land back that was lost to germany during the war, the US did not want any involvement in European affairs so they signed a seperate treaty with Germany, and Italy and Japan did not get as much territory as they had hoped for. So why would they agree to this?

It's called compromise.

Germany wasn't responsible for WWI, however, in regards to WWII, Hitler could have merely refused to payback the Treaty of Versailles debt. Europe would of appeased Germany just as much had the Nazis refused to pay up as they did when they were demanding land from everyone else.

Soooooooooooooo.... France forced Hitler to decide that he was the leader of a master race who had a divine destiny to rule the world for 1000 years.....


Yes, that treaty was a huge contributer to the political climate that brought the Nazi's to power. However there is a rather large diference between causing a climate and creating a reason for enmity with the actual planning and execution of a war of that magnitude.

-Z-

Didn't your class go over the concept of entangling alliances? The arch-duke was just the flash point.

Many consider the treaty of versailles as a debacle. You can't take a people and give them no future. That is what gets you guys like Hitler or in todays world Terrorists.

"Another thing I don't understand, why would anybody sign a treaty that nobody liked? Germany did not like it because they were left with the debt and responsibility for the war."

They had not choice. They were bloodied bad. A couple of generations were lost.

"France did think it was harsh enough on Germany, Russia did not get any land back that was lost to germany during the war, the US did not want any involvement in European affairs so they signed a seperate treaty with Germany, and Italy and Japan did not get as much territory as they had hoped for. So why would they agree to this?"

Take a look at the war dead. It was an ugly war. Hell I think it was the Battle of the marne or was it yrpres where the Brits lost over 100000 men in 3 days! :shock:

They wanted it done!

I have often wondered what would have happened if the U.S. did not become involved in WWI. Chances are that there would not have been a Hitler or a Stalin.

I have always felt this to be one of America's biggest international errors.

True that France was very harsh with the conditions and expections and limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, but then again, they WERE invaded by the Germans and then a bunch of other people came in and waltz around their countryside and wrecked. They did in a way sow the seeds for Hitler's inevitable rise. He played off the frustrations of the German people and their hatred for their situation pave dthe way for his madness.

Europe would of appeased Germany just as much had the Nazis refused to pay up as they did when they were demanding land from everyone else.

Also if Hitler hadnt had an expansionist policy then there also would have been no war - ill bet the Allies would have let him kill all the Jews he liked as long as he didnt move any forces over the borders.

I think WWI is probably Austria-Hungary's fault more than anyone else's. If they hadn't spent a month making sure that Germany would back them, and had just invaded, its doubtful that Russia would have intervened-after all, Serbia was responsible for the death of the Arch-Duke. The Kaiser and the Tsar did their best to stay OUT of the war-and they suffered the worst from it.

Also, I'm quite shocked that the Treaty of Versailles is going "very deep" into WWI. We did it, and our course certainly wasn't "deep". Of course (not to make an incorrect generalization) but I suppose WWI wasn't as big for the USA (I assume you're American, apologies if you're not) as it was for Britain and France...

My apologies for the length of this post. However, I feel that many of the posts thus far, have either been misleading, missed the point of certain actions, or been outright wrong or exaggerated certain points. I'm afraid I can't go into decent detail about a number of my points, or even cover the wide range of reasons why the Weimar Republic was undermined, since doing so would take me the better part of the day. Furthermore, oh my GOD this is a big can of worms opened. A brief summary would simply be that trying to blame a single factor for the rise of a regime like the Nazis is fraught with difficulties and that nothing short of a rather large book could adequately cover this sort of thing. I've not even touched upon the weaknesses inherent in the Weimar government itself, like proportional representation, the contitution itself, Article 48 and its strengths and weaknesses.

But anyway.

During the war Germany had set a precedent for highly damaging treaties exacted upon threat of war via the Brest-Litovsk treaty, reaping territories from a Russia that had undergone a bloody Communist revolution. Obviously, then, it would be difficult for the German public to subsequently criticise the treaty based on its unfairness.
However, Germany's exclusion from the decision making process of the Treaty (resulting in its widespread denouncement as a "Diktat",) and her subsequent banning from joining the League of Nations, caused many Germans to believe that they were diplomatically weak and isolated as a result of the Treaty. This is not even particularly true in the short term, as the Treaty of Rapollo showed when Russia and Germany cancelled all war-debt between the two countries. The break up of the Austro-Hungarian and Turkish Empires meant that, especially in the East, Germany was surrounded by smaller, weaker states and this meant that - in spite of the treaty - it was left it in a position to completely dominate Eastern Europe. Stresemann's government was later able to make many advances in diplomatic relations, although his acceptance of reparations - albeit at a less burdensome rate - still drew criticism from many Germans, who felt nothing but a complete anullment was in order. Then, in 1926, Germany were allowed into the League of Nations - which itself drew criticism because the League of Nations was seen as the enforcer of the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar government had very little way to appease the hardliners in Germany, no matter how good its international standing was.
The inability of Germany to maintain reparations, in conjunction with the policy of passive resistance, Erfullungspolitik, and excessive borrowing/money printing in response to a growing budget deficit since 1919 was exacerbated by the invasion of France and Belgium into the Ruhr in 1923. The subsidisation of so many workers in a policy of passive resistance meant that hyperinflation was almost inevitable.
The policy of increasing borrowing and printing more money was not the only one that could have been taken, however: by cutting government expenditure and raising taxes the crisis may still have been averted. In context, however, Erfullungspolitik may still have been sensible: it would emphasise the inability of Germany to pay reparations at their current rates, raising taxes would have been domestically unpopular, and it would also cancel the debt that the German government owed many of its more patriotic citizens for war bonds.
Though obviously the effects were terrible, particularly on the working and most of the middle class (this is a gross generalisation; some people gained considerably, but I don't think that's here or there for this debate,) they were also short term. Once Stresemann's government was brought to power, his Finance Minister Hans Luther and the industrialist Hjalmar Schacht (among others,) quickly managed to stabilise the economic situation in Germany and by the mid 1920s the country was in a state of relative economic boom, albeit an unstable one - thus the economic damage could not have been as burdensome as occasionally made out. Which ties into the next point.
The Dawes Plan emphasised the growing international sympathy with Germany that the hyperinflation crisis had provoked, with several countries (lead by the American banker, Charles Dawes,) deciding to stretch out reparation payments, make it more difficult for further sanctions, etc. France drew considerable international criticism, and thus all countries were forced into a slightly more conciliatory position with Germany - something played upon by Gustav Stresemann to especially good effect through the Locarno Treaties, whilst managing to keep Germany's Eastern borders ambiguous whilst appeasing the French and British by letting go of territories it had little to no claim of anyway, such as Alsaice-Lorraine, and his managing to get Germany as a permanant member of the League of Nations also meant that Germany was formally acknowledged as a world power. There were undercurrents of trouble, however - industrial disputes were becoming more frequent, paramilitary violence continued and so on and so forth.
In the 1920s Germany did go through relative economic improvement - although this was a veneer for much deeper undercurrents of possibly instability. The Dawes Plan had, at the same time as further stabilising the economy, also made Germany's economy extremely dependent on America. Which explains why Germany was so badly affected by the Wall Street Crash and subsequent Great Depression, which led to the electoral support of extremist parties such as the Communists and NSDAP. Long story short on Hitler: Nazis got a lot of votes, a quick succession of chancellors rose and fell (Muller, Von Papan, Schleicher,) and the industrial and nationalist elite (amongst others - ol' Hjalmar Schacht was one of Hitler's supporters at the time, as was General von Blomberg,) decided to try and make a grab for an authoritarian government. Failing to do so on their own, they decide to nab a popular nationalist group and control it in order to install their own government at a later date. Von Papen, in retaliation for Schleicher helping to get him dismissed, convinced a very, very reluctant President Hindenburg to make Hitler Chancellor (there's some great votes by Von Papen, something along the lines of "we've got him!" and "we'll push him so far into the corner that he'll squeak".) Since there were only three Nazis in the Reichstag, (Frink, Goring, and Hitler himself,) and since President Hindenburg could dismiss Hitler at any point, Von Papen believed that Hitler could be controlled - big whoopsy.

Hitler never managed a majority government, and electoral support for the NSDAP was faltering at this point - Hitler was on the point of suicide, party turnover was incredibly high, and finances running dry. Thus if Hitler had not been appointed Chancellor at this point it is unlikely the Nazis would ever have come to power. It should also be pointed out that the right-wing had much support in the judiciary system, police, civil service and army; right wing assassinators outstripped the left by almost a hundred, yet percentange (and actual number) of those punished was ludicrousy disproportionate. The Ebert-Groner pact meant that the Weimar had very little means at its disposal to stop a right wing uprising, as the Kapp Putsch demonstrated. Sorry I can't go into more detail, I'm ridiculously fatigued. But yes: blaming the Treaty of Versailles alone ignores a huge wealth of problems within the system of the Weimar Republic - democracy itself was loathed and many wished for a return to the Kaiser or at least an authoritarian government.

Why the Treaty was loathed:

It is not necessarily fact but belief that dictates the way a person, and a population, feel. Since it was popularly believed by the German public (aswell as the British, and PMs such as Baldwin and Chamberlain, and by the mid 1920s left-wing Frenchmen and politicians, such as Briand,) that the Treaty was economically crippling and unfair, the Weimar government drew criticism for signing it. The Treaty was seen as humiliating, particularly as the Germans were consulted only 21 days before the Treaty was to be signed, that only two minor alterations made on their behest, and that its ideas, including the secession of land, were not made in the spirit of Wilson's 14 points or the Armistice, particularly the idea of self determination. It was widely believed that the reduction in the size of Germany's military power meant she would not be able to defend herself, and the fruits of war and victory promised constantly by the Kaiser during WW1 were never to transpire, something that hit many patriotic Germans hard. It was also believed to be humiliating because Eastern Prussia was now Polish, a blow to many Germans who saw the Poles as a genetically inferior people, (there's a cool German term for them meaning "lice people" which I really must look up,) reparations were believed to be crippling, and war guilt handed over to the Germans when many Germans believed themselves to be fighting a defensive war against Russian aggression. The danger with the Treaty was not in its actual harshness, therefore, but in its psychological impact on the German people. The belief in the harshness of the Treaty seemed to support the myth of the "Stab in the Back" and this fostered anti-Weimar sentiment; that the Weimar government had little choice but to sign the Treaty was immaterial to many Germans who blamed democracy regardless.
The treatment of Germany could have been much harsher, particularly as Clemenceau ultimately wanted to cripple Germany economically and permanantely secure the border between the two countries. However, France was not successful on either count. And that's the simple fact of the matter.

Oh, GOD my head hurts. And it should be pointed out that the point of British appeasement of Germany was never to stop war; Chamberlain never stopped believing that Hitler was gearing for war, hence the four year rearmament plans of 1936 in Germany, France and Britain. Appeasement was a policy crafted to buy time in order to rearm.

weeee

Freance peance

Is Germany responsible for the Cold War because Russia emerged as a super power after WW2?

World War II was started because of the Germans, they invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany because they had a truce with Poland, If Poland would ever be attacked, France and Britain would come to there aid. The war was not started by France, you brain moron. They are one of them, they were not the cause, it was to defend Poland.

World War II was started because of the Germans, they invaded Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany because they had a truce with Poland, If Poland would ever be attacked, France and Britain would come to there aid. The war was not started by France, you brain moron. They are one of them, they were not the cause, it was to defend Poland.

You completely missed the point. The thought was that France pushed for an overly harsh Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and allowed a dictator like Adolf Hitler to take power.

The wheel weaves as the wheel wills; and sometimes things just happen. Whats to say Hitler wouldnt have come to power anyway, regardless of whether or not the treaty was harsh, or even whether Germany had lost the war. Second guessing history is never that smart.

Hitler fought in WW1, maybe that was enough to get him into wanting revenge.

What the hell are you talking about?

Of course if Germany hadn't been in such a terrible economic situation at that time, Hitler probably would have never come to power! Of course the Treaty of Versailles was unfair as hell! However, France was also ravaged by war. It wasn't purely their fault that a terrible drought of poverty was created in Germany that degenerated into a cesspool of hatred that was a breeding ground for a madman like Hitler to come to power and murder millions of people!
You could just as easily blame Britain for their naval blockade, forcing German civilians to clothe their babies in newspapers and fight over scraps of bread, forcing them to pay literally tens of millions of Deutschmarks for just enough to eat for one person!
Or Woodrow Wilson, for being such a wimp at the Treaty, and not being aggressive enough to enforce his ideas!

I mean, I hate the French as much as the next man, but this is craziness!
Just kidding--I don't really hate the French, they're all right.

What the hell are you talking about?

Of course if Germany hadn't been in such a terrible economic situation at that time, Hitler probably would have never come to power! Of course the Treaty of Versailles was unfair as hell! However, France was also ravaged by war. It wasn't purely their fault that a terrible drought of poverty was created in Germany that degenerated into a cesspool of hatred that was a breeding ground for a madman like Hitler to come to power and murder millions of people!
You could just as easily blame Britain for their naval blockade, forcing German civilians to clothe their babies in newspapers and fight over scraps of bread, forcing them to pay literally tens of millions of Deutschmarks for just enough to eat for one person!
Or Woodrow Wilson, for being such a wimp at the Treaty, and not being aggressive enough to enforce his ideas!

I mean, I hate the French as much as the next man, but this is craziness!
Just kidding--I don't really hate the French, they're all right.

I have often wondered what would have happened if the U.S. did not become involved in WWI. Chances are that there would not have been a Hitler or a Stalin.

I have always felt this to be one of America's biggest international errors.

OOOOkay.

So the US is responcible for Hitler and Stalin?

You completely missed the point. The thought was that France pushed for an overly harsh Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and allowed a dictator like Adolf Hitler to take power.

Thank god, someone else realised what I was saying! That is exactly my point, the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to pay $33 billion in 30 years, that is impossible for a country with an economy like Germany's they may have even had trouble paying that before the war, so add in rampant inflation, high unemployment, and a country full of resentment towards France and Britain and you can understand why the Germans were so upset. How would you feel if you were blamed for a war in which the heir to the throne in your allies country was assassinated, they went to war with the people responsible, you helped them when another country declared war to them, and because you so thouroghly whipped the other countired army you were blamed for a war you did not start. (remember, Russia wasn't exactly thought of real highly at the end of WWI, they had bailed on France and Britain and the Germans almost captured Paris because of it.) I can understand why France would want such a harch peace but shouldn't their own experiences (i.e. Napolean) have told them that did not work? I liked the PM from Britain's response when asked how he though the Paris peace conference went: "Well, it was like have Jesus Christ (Woodrow Wilson) sitting to my left and Napolean (Georges Clemenceau) on my right." This was because Wilson wanted a Idealistic peace and Clemenceau as we all know wanted a Harsh peace. Much to France's regret Clemenceau won that argument. I wish Wilson and Clemenceau would have lived through WWII, it would have been interesting to see their responses when France was so easily defeated by the Germans, who were using the same tactics and battle plan as they had in WWI, Wilson would just sit their with a "I told you so grin" and Clemenceau would be fuming, but Clemenceau might have stood up to Germany when they moved tanks and troops in the Rhine in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles which he had worked so hard on to make sure Germany would always be weak.

Woodrow Wilson, for being such a wimp at the Treaty, and not being aggressive enough to enforce his ideas!

The US no longer wanted anything to do with European Affairs, we said FUCK YOU! to France, signed a seperate treaty with Germany, and tried to stay out of european affairs for the next 23 years until Japan went on a power trip and brougt us into WWII. Was Wilson right? Who knows, all we do know is that Clemenceau was definetly wrong.

Hitler was a good thing, because as the video game Red Alert shows, no Hitler meant that Stalin would have invaded and tried to nuke Paris unless Tanya could infiltrate the base and stop the launch!

That is, until the Allies are cornered in Portugal, at which point they use chrono technology to warp back in time. :wink:

Yeah, I never did beat that game, I always played multiplayer.

France didn't agree to invade Iraq. That is why France is responsible for WW2.

You completely missed the point. The thought was that France pushed for an overly harsh Treaty of Versailles, which crippled Germany and allowed a dictator like Adolf Hitler to take power.

Thank god, someone else realised what I was saying! That is exactly my point, the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to pay $33 billion in 30 years, that is impossible for a country with an economy like Germany's

Perhaps. In any case, the Dawes and Young plan lessened the problems considerably, indicating that none of the countries involved in the Treaty's inception were still willing to crush Germany by the mid-20s and beyond (as does their inceptance into the League of Nations in 1926.)
In point of fact the Dawes Plan established that reparations would be suspended if paying them would have destabilised the German currency. Regardless, reparations were ended in 1932, before Hitler came to power. The fact that the hyperinflation crisis was stabilised by the mid-1920s - and Germany was in a state of economic boom - shows that the economic problems caused by the Treaty weren't as considerable as you seem to be hinting at, especially since the Weimar government under Cuno was deliberately helping the problems along to show the inviability of the Treaty's demands. As I stated in my earlier post, the problems caused by the Treaty were considerable - but most were psychological and many were due to misconceptions and myths.

they may have even had trouble paying that before the war.

Source?

so add in rampant inflation, high unemployment, and a country full of resentment towards France and Britain and you can understand why the Germans were so upset. How would you feel if you were blamed for a war in which the heir to the throne in your allies country was assassinated,

It should be pointed out that the Germans had been itching for an excuse to start a war since the formation of the German Empire, and the latter stages of the war were deliberate attempts on the part of the Ludendorff/Hindenburg military dictatorship to annex as many terroritories as they could, as the Brest-Litvosk treaty - and the length of the war - showed. Many in the Reichstag questioned the military's motives in continuing the war, after a state of almost-absolute Burgfrieden, and in the April of 1917 they voted to stop the war - an action ignored by the military dictatorship and Kaiser. Though it is true that many Germans thought it a defensive war and fell prey to the "Stab in the Back" myth, particularly the youths who forgot or were not born in time to experience the effects of the British Naval blockade.

Furthermore your argument is circular, you've just argued that the "Germans were so upset" because the Germans were so upset with "France and Britain". And the resentment towards Britain was never too considerable, Clemenceau, the League of Nations, and the Weimar regime tended to be the scape goats of the anti-Versailles lot. The stuff about inflation and unemployment is true, though the fact that the problem with inflation had started [edit- I meant pre-WW1] is often ignored, and was ignored by many Germans.

I can understand why France would want such a harch peace but shouldn't their own experiences (i.e. Napolean) have told them that did not work?

Actually had Clemenceau succeeded there would have been a new, extremely powerful French Empire and several new states where Germany used to lie. Of course, Lloyd George couldn't have that.

I liked the PM from Britain's response when asked how he though the Paris peace conference went: "Well, it was like have Jesus Christ (Woodrow Wilson) sitting to my left and Napolean (Georges Clemenceau) on my right."

That's an interesting quotation. Where'd you get it from, may I ask?

This was because Wilson wanted a Idealistic peace and Clemenceau as we all know wanted a Harsh peace. Much to France's regret Clemenceau won that argument.

Believe me, no he didn't. The fact that Germany was allowed to become so dominant in the East, that the Germans retained much of their country as a single state, and that France's borders were not completely secure is evidence of the fact that Clemenceau failed in all of his main objectives. As someone (I think it was even you,) has correctly said, no one person or nation managed to get what they wanted out of the Treaty.

Clemenceau might have stood up to Germany when they moved tanks and troops in the Rhine.

I doubt this very much, France was still experiencing the effects of the Great Depression, due to the nature of France's banking (well, lack of it,) and the almost-impossibility of France coming off the Gold Standard.

Treaties are signs of "peace," but not peace itself. People sign them like they have false hopes in something good happening because of a piece of paper. It's motivation, a placebo, nothing else.

The only way France is responsible for WW2 is because they surrendered as quickly as they did...c'mon, they could have at least put up a fight!

But seriously, that Treaty of Versailles was idiocy at its worst. Forcing Germany to pay insane amounts of reparations is what led to the conditions that old Adolf rode into power. Nice going, Frenchies!

The only way France is responsible for WW2 is because they surrendered as quickly as they did...c'mon, they could have at least put up a fight!

Do you even know what you are talking about? France did put up a fight, for six weeks they resisted the Germans, the problem was that they put their troops in the wrong place AGAIN! In WWI Germany went through Belgium and into France, so the French decided to build the Maginot Line on the border with Germany, that way Germany would all but have to go through Belgium again. So why was it a surprise in WWII when Germany once again sent troops through Belgium and into France? That is why they had to surrender, their Army was already destroyed and their defenses were never used, well, not till the Allies were pushing the Germans back, then the Germans used the Maginot line against the Allies. So yes, the French did fight back, they were just ill-prepared and ill-equipped to fight the Germans, who were actually using the Schlieffen Plan, which is what Germany used in WWI. It is kind of funny when you think about it, in WWI Germany was able to defeat Russia, but not France, in WWII they were able to defeat France but not Russia, just to think what might have happened if they started another war, maybe they would have gotten France and Russia the third time.

The quote was from my World History book, I thought it was pretty funny so I threw it in there.

Recently in one of my classes we went very deep into WWI. We carefully studied the Treaty of Verailles and Wilson's 14 points. I had always thought that Britain, France and the US all wanted harsh punishments for Germany, mainly France and Britain. I was somewhat shocked to find out that it was Clemenceau who wanted a harsh peace, Wilson wanted a nurtured peace, and the leader of Britain was pretty much a mediator between the two. I no longer blame Germany for WWII, while I knew that the Treaty of Versailles was a cause, I did not realise how much of a role it played in WWII. Germany was blamed for the war, this, in my opinion, is an outrage, a Serb killed the Archduke of the Austrio-HUngarian Empire, Austria invaded Serbia, Russia went to war with Austria, Germany supported their ally Austria and declared war on Russia, knowing France would help their ally Russia, Germany took the first step to end the war quickly and invaded Belgium and shortly after that France. Austria or Serbia should have been held responsible, not Germany.

Another thing I don't understand, why would anybody sign a treaty that nobody liked? Germany did not like it because they were left with the debt and responsibility for the war. France did think it was harsh enough on Germany, Russia did not get any land back that was lost to germany during the war, the US did not want any involvement in European affairs so they signed a seperate treaty with Germany, and Italy and Japan did not get as much territory as they had hoped for. So why would they agree to this?
In a way, the Third Republic of France did force its own destruction at Versailles. The military reparations were fine, but the economic ones were harsh. If they left it intact, then Germany wouldn't ever bounce from a communist state, to a republic unable to agree to anything, to a fascists dictator state.
Then again, the US also played a role, in a way. Whatever international group we aren't apart of, it becomes obselete and impotent. The US, therefore, needed to join the League of Nations, to help give weight to demands on Germany. However, I could see the fears of the senators that it meant a loss of US sovereignty. That's why the UN was so like among senators ratifying the treaty, as the US was a pernament member of the Security Concil.

Soooooooooooooo.... France forced Hitler to decide that he was the leader of a master race who had a divine destiny to rule the world for 1000 years.....


Yes, that treaty was a huge contributer to the political climate that brought the Nazi's to power. However there is a rather large diference between causing a climate and creating a reason for enmity with the actual planning and execution of a war of that magnitude.

-Z-
Very good point. How does this compare to the US creating a climate and creating a reason for enmity in the middle east that allowed Ossama Bin-Laden to form his organization? Is the US any less responsible for creating the conditions that lead to the growth of Al-Qaeda than Versailles was for creating an environment that lead to the rise of Hitler?

It looks like prolonging the war in Iraq will only increase the level of hate and terrorism directed at the US.

I think that the reasons that History books make such a big deal out of the Treaty of Versailles are twofold. First of all it shows what happens when a treaty is too harsh, which is obviously a very important lesson to learn. The other reason is that it shows that the Allies were as much to blame as the Axis powers for the outbreak of WWII. Each nation made a terrible error of judgement.

France imposed the harsh terms, and then tried to enforce them.
Britain appeased Hitler and basically let him arm Germany to the teeth.
USA had a policy of isolationism which seriously hurt the League of Nations, and then the US economy led to the Great Depression (perhaps not a fair criticism, but the economists of the time should have seen the crash happening and put something in place to stop it.)
Italy was a very useful ally for much of the 20's (Stresa Front and all that) but was ultimately fascist (though this finally worked to the Allies' advantage when they invaded in 1941, as Italy was the "soft underbelly of the Axis".)
Japan took control of some German territories in the Far East and didn't attack Russia again (as they had done in 1905), but when it came to the 30's they were fired the first shots of WWII when they invaded Manchuria in 1931.
Poor Russia, who bore the worst of both wars and then lost most of her industry etc in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk then pursued self-sufficiency, as well as letting Stalin come to power, who, like Hitler, decided to arm his nation to its teeth.
The rest of the Allies then decided not to ally with Russia, despite Russia's continued diplomatic requests.

When all of these mistakes came together they created space for tyrants like Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Stalin and Hirohito (okay, that may seem a bit circular to say that Mussolini's actions in 1922 led to the opportunity for Mussolini to come to power, but I meant the actions as a whole. Italy wasn't particularly pleased with the outcome of WWI and wanted to take more of Austria-Hungary's former Empire, and the weakening of Eastern European states lead to support for Mussolini, for example.)

In my opinion, the trouble with looking at History this way is that the emphasis goes too far. I remember studying this period of History well (fascinating, and the bits about Weimar Germany were great too) and the teacher set some homework or test (I forget which) about how appeasement contributed towards WWII, and quite a few people in the class blamed the British government and Chamberlain, whilst absolving Hitler of any blame whatsoever. The teacher had concentrated on the mistakes of Britain so much that she forgot to mention that it was wrong for Hitler to demand parts of Czechoslovakia in the first place!

Anyway, the Treaty of Versailles was really important, but that was just one mistake that lead the world from WWI to WWII.

Purly Euclid: Germany was never Communist, though they were very close in 1918.

Kahtstein: You're excellent! Your summary of inter-war politics was fantastic revision and I loved reading it!

Aidan

Edit: Durn typos!

To all of you who say the US policy of isolation is also to blame, hear this.

When Britain and France were unable to pay back the US for loans, they tried to take the money from Germany. Germany did not have the money, so they turned to the US. The US gave Germany $10 million, not a loan but just gave them the money. Germany then gave the money to France and Britain who in turn gave the money to the US to repay loans, so the US gave itself $10 million to cool down relations between France, Britain and Germany.

Don't forget about our little gift to the Brits of 50 Destroyers to help fight the German u-boats.

Lend-Lease, we gave equipment to Russia and Britain to help defeat Germany, granted those were to be returned or repaid but at least we did not demand the money up front.

Attacking Germany first instead of Japan. Most Americans wanted to attack Japan before Germany following their attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR though realised that Germany was the greatest threat to Britain and so we pulled their asses out of the fire first. Then we took out Japan.

Notice how things were different after WWII than WWI, we did not take any shit from France and we did things the right way, much to our regret, not we have all these shitty Japanese cars all over the streets, and Germany, while no longer a major military power does have a rather prospurous economy.

Don't forget about our little gift to the Brits of 50 Destroyers to help fight the German u-boats.
In return for lease of bases for a century. So now we are going to have US bases on our territory, whether we like it or not, until 2040. Great. Really charitable. :roll: