NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanted to know what some of you guys opinions are on the peace treaty that concluded WW1, was it obcessively harsh on germany? were the french justified in wanting a totally crippled Germany. But more importantly, who do you think of the 'Big Three' (Woodraw Wilson, Georges Clemenceau & Lloyd George) opinions and goals should have been implimented into the treaty? I know it's probably been done before but i wouldn't mind to hear some opinions of this. :)

Don't remember/know enough about it but it certainly went wrong.

I think it was excessively harsh on Germany. She wasn't really to blame for the war - at least, not as much as she was. The reparations she was forced to pay was a joke, and how people failed to see that at some point she would be looking for revenge is beyond me. Maybe they did see it, and just ignored it.

Anyway, I haven't done that much research into it. I'm basing all this on what I was taught at school.

I think you can call a treaty which caused massive famine and suffering unjust, right? Heck, if that treaty would have come true the Germans would even be paying TODAY for a war they didn´t really start.

It´s a pity that Wilsons´s proposals where rebutted by the European allies. Mind you, the Versailles Treaty was one of the reasons why Hitler had it so damn easy to get people to do and to believe what he wanted them to do and to believe.

She wasn't really to blame for the war - at least, not as much as she was. The reparations she was forced to pay was a joke, and how people failed to see that at some point she would be looking for revenge is beyond me.

Interesting tid-bit: The later Weimar republic government actually tried to fullfill the reparations payments - just to prove how impossible it is to fullfill them.

On the other hand, they later succeeded in re-negotiating the treaty for better and more fair conditions.

Interesting tid-bit: The later Weimar republic government actually tried to fullfill the reparations payments - just to prove how impossible it is to fullfill them.

On the other hand, they later succeeded in re-negotiating the treaty for better and more fair conditions.

From what I remember, they bankrupted themselves trying - hyper-inflation and all that? Then, when they started to get back on their feet, the Wall Street Crash hit.

yer so the french just walked into the ruhr and stole the raw materials from the germans.

From what I remember, they bankrupted themselves trying - hyper-inflation and all that? Then, when they started to get back on their feet, the Wall Street Crash hit.

Sort of. Like kicking a guy who´s already on the ground. :(

Heck, if that treaty would have come true the Germans would even be paying TODAY for a war they didn´t really start.

And our survey says: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/hopmad.gif

The reparation were due to stop in 1988 under the original agreements.

The "treaty" was unfair and way too harsh. It paved the way for WW2 - that's what you get if you try to destroy the largest nation in Europe (population-wise), Turkey and Russia not counted :p

And our survey says: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/hopmad.gif

The reparation were due to stop in 1988 under the original agreements.

My bad.

Versailles was a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau (probably spelt wrong). Wilson wanted to re-integrate and rehabilitate Germany whilst Clemenueau wanted to secure France by eliminating germanys military threat.

The effects of Clemenceau:
Germany isolated internationnal
army of 100,000 volunteers, no planes tanks etc
rhineland demilitarised
Saarland + colonies ceded to France/ League of Nations

Wilson: Deals with international politics
League of Nations
25 point plan
Self determination for Eastern Europe

A pure compromise Versailles could never acheive anything but anger Germany with its harshness upon Germany and apparent leiniancy on other Nations ie Austria-Hungury

The Treaty was grounded in the blatantly unfair old principle of "vae victis", and put all the blame for the war squarely on the shoulders of the vanquished. There was nothing fair about it.

The Versailles treaty was brutally unfair. It was based solely on the desire for revenge against Germany after the war and put a ridiculous and extortionary (it was a massive sum of marks paid in gold which Germany didn't have). They knew it would result in economic damage but did it anyway. It was the brutality of this settlement that set the stage for rather than averted the rise of the Nazis, the Second World war, and the Holocaust.

Would you then agree that WW2 was inevitable and that Germany cannot be blamed for WW2 due to the events preceeding it?

It was unfair and it paved the way. True.
But the world is unfair, Germany lost a war that it was forced into by really really stupid foreign policy, and the loser is rarely treated in a fair way.
It paved the way, but Germany chose to take that way. It is true that the Versaille treaty created an atmosphere in Germany that made it easy for Hitler to rise, but the atmosphere alone didn't cause the 3rd Reich.

It was unfair and it paved the way. True.
But the world is unfair, Germany lost a war that it was forced into by really really stupid foreign policy, and the loser is rarely treated in a fair way.
It paved the way, but Germany chose to take that way. It is true that the Versaille treaty created an atmosphere in Germany that made it easy for Hitler to rise, but the atmosphere alone didn't cause the 3rd Reich.
Yes, it was exactly the atmosphere back then, which ended the Weimar Republic and gave birth to the radical National Socialists. Nothing else.

There was poverty, rampant unemployment, hate against those who produced the Versailles Treaty and those who benefited most from Germany's misery. There's simply no other reason for WW2 other than the Versailles Treaty and the arrogance of the politicians who made it, to think that a large nation could be destroyed just like that or that Germany could be cut out of it's central position in Europe and made an impotent lapdog for France and Britain.

Ein Deutscher']Yes, it was exactly the atmosphere back then, which ended the Weimar Republic and gave birth to the radical National Socialists. Nothing else.

There was poverty, rampant unemployment, hate against those who produced the Versailles Treaty and those who benefited most from Germany's misery. There's simply no other reason for WW2 other than the Versailles Treaty and the arrogance of the politicians who made it, to think that a large nation could be destroyed just like that or that Germany could be cut out of it's central position in Europe and made an impotent lapdog for France and Britain.

So you think Hitler would never have made it that far if the Versaille treaty had been less oppressive?

Henry Kissinger said in his "Diplomacy" that whenever Europe had strong Germany, it always had unstable Europe. I do not wish to blame anyone.
As a Serb I have experienced much of the usual CNN-labelling, (depending on who are "the bad boys on agenda" in particular week)

However, I think that history and Germany should be more carefully examined. Of course, objectively and without bias.
I do not know how much you know about geo-politics, but people in Balkans widely regard foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, as one of the most responsible people for break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991.

I do not know how much you know about geo-politics, but people in Balkans widely regard foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, as one of the most responsible people for break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991.

Fill me in on that - what exactly did he do?
The general impression in Central Europe is that the break-up of Yugislavia was an event waiting to happen ever since tito's death

I could make the argument that, "all's fair in love and war," and "victors get to spell out the terms of victory." However, my reading of the war was that Germany was a relucatant participant and the fault really should have been put at the feet of Austria-Hungary.

If it were up to me, Germany would have gotten a treaty that made Versailles look like a walk in the park after World War II. That kind of treaty would have been thrust upon Austria-Hungary after World War I if I had my druthers.

It was VERY unjust. Not surprising, considering it was made by racists (Georges Clemenceau once said, "There are 20 million Germans too many." If that's not an endorsement of genocide, I don't know what is).

So you think Hitler would never have made it that far if the Versaille treaty had been less oppressive?
That is correct. Hitler rose to power as did the NSDAP due to the general sentiment at the time, that things needed change and that Germany needed to free itself from the oppression after the war. Add the unhappiness that came when mass unemployment and hyper inflation came, and you get the perfect mix for a nationalist movement and a dictator who uses the opportunity and takes power. The claim that Germany needed "lebensraum" in the East or that Germany needs to defend itself from the Bolshewiks, was false. Instead, Germany wanted to remove France from it's land and get back what it had lost and rid itself of the treaty that crippled it's economy and people.

Ein Deutscher']That is correct. Hitler rose to power as did the NSDAP due to the general sentiment at the time, that things needed change and that Germany needed to free itself from the oppression after the war. Add the unhappiness that came when mass unemployment and hyper inflation came, and you get the perfect mix for a nationalist movement and a dictator who uses the opportunity and takes power. The claim that Germany needed "lebensraum" in the East or that Germany needs to defend itself from the Bolshewiks, was false. Instead, Germany wanted to remove France from it's land and get back what it had lost and rid itself of the treaty that crippled it's economy and people.

You don't take into account that a large number of Germans felt very uneasy with democracy and felt that any sort of leader would be better than the daily chaos in the Weimar parliament. One of the reasons Hitler was welcomed with open arms by so many was that after all it is a lot easier to follow one authoritative figure then to have to make up your own opinion and defend that.
It's true that the economic circumstances did a lot for the NSPAD (and every other extreme party at the time), but I think you cannot underestimate the feeling of general insecurity in a people as yet completely unfamiliar with the downsides of democracy

I could make the argument that, "all's fair in love and war," and "victors get to spell out the terms of victory." However, my reading of the war was that Germany was a relucatant participant and the fault really should have been put at the feet of Austria-Hungary.


Germany spread the war from an isolated Balkan's event, to a Europe/World wide war. The gave Austria the 'blank check' so they could threaten Russia, and then they invaded France and Belgium. They were far from 'reluctant participants'.

It's true that the economic circumstances did a lot for the NSPAD (and every other extreme party at the time), but I think you cannot underestimate the feeling of general insecurity in a people as yet completely unfamiliar with the downsides of democracy

Plus the fear of the rising Communist party.

Germany spread the war from an isolated Balkan's event, to a Europe/World wide war. The gave Austria the 'blank check' so they could threaten Russia, and then they invaded France and Belgium. They were far from 'reluctant participants'.

Actually, they had given Austria this "blank check" long before the events on the Balkan unfolded. As for the war in the rest of europe, Germany had managed to put itself in a complete outsider situation together with Austria, thanks to careful and considerate foreign policy by a complete dickhead, then also known as Willhelm II. This outside position combined with several other treaties and agreements on who will assist whom against who or what in case of attack/threat, Germany was bound by treaty to attack those countries.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending these actions... but before WW I the general feeling in Europe was that it was time for another war, every single country was hoping to gain by that. It didn't really need that much to light the fuse...

Plus the fear of the rising Communist party.

In the more conservative parts of society. True. The NSDAP and the Communist Party were equally strong for a long time in Germany... might be interesting to know what made the NSDAP come out stonger in the end?

It was a bit unjust, but remember, they kind of deserved it. And nothing can excuse WW II.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending these actions... but before WW I the general feeling in Europe was that it was time for another war, every single country was hoping to gain by that. It didn't really need that much to light the fuse...

No doubt, seeing as the war in Europe before WW1, was the Franco-Prussian war, which saw the birth of Germany after 6 weeks of fighting. Germany, among most of Europe, saw a war as an easy way to gain land and influence.

You don't take into account that a large number of Germans felt very uneasy with democracy and felt that any sort of leader would be better than the daily chaos in the Weimar parliament. One of the reasons Hitler was welcomed with open arms by so many was that after all it is a lot easier to follow one authoritative figure then to have to make up your own opinion and defend that.
It's true that the economic circumstances did a lot for the NSPAD (and every other extreme party at the time), but I think you cannot underestimate the feeling of general insecurity in a people as yet completely unfamiliar with the downsides of democracy
Hitler was not welcomed with open arms at all. In fact, he didn't even get a majority as far as I remember. He took power by eliminating all opponents and by granting himself absolute power after the burning of the Reichstag. This does not qualify as "welcomed with open arms". Though he did have a few benefits in the form of drastically reducing unemployment by gearing up for war and by building the Autobahnen (German word for highways).

Furthermore culture did see a drastic increase however it was a mono-culture then with the absolute removal of anything non-German from the daily lives of the people or the burning of books from non-German authors. Sports was largely celebrated as the primary means to keep a healthy body and the Nazis generally had a liking to the muscular form of a healthy human body which was further cemented by the Rassengesetze (race laws). The Nazis built some pretty impressive buildings, which were used to glorify their rule. Berlin was meant to become the world capital called "Germania" and their architecture (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=7miqqorg1essf?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Nazi+architecture&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc04a) was inspired by the ancient Romans.

All of this are quite positive elements of the Nazi regime, however the whole thing also had it's downsides which eventually culminated in the holocaust. Especially the racist views overshadowed the good parts of the dictatorship so much that I cannot support that something like this happens again - even if it would not result in all out war. Hitler and his regime got more things done than we get done today in the democracy, where everyone gets to talk and add their two cents. However a dictatorship inevitably ends up in abuse of power and great tragedy for some people, whereas a democracy tries to work out compromises for everyone.

I don't know if the people back then wanted a dictator like Hitler or if they wanted change at any price. I think the latter is more probable since nobody would want to be ruled by a megalomaniac and murderous dictator like Hitler.

Actually, they had given Austria this "blank check" long before the events on the Balkan unfolded. As for the war in the rest of europe, Germany had managed to put itself in a complete outsider situation together with Austria, thanks to careful and considerate foreign policy by a complete dickhead, then also known as Willhelm II. This outside position combined with several other treaties and agreements on who will assist whom against who or what in case of attack/threat, Germany was bound by treaty to attack those countries.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending these actions... but before WW I the general feeling in Europe was that it was time for another war, every single country was hoping to gain by that. It didn't really need that much to light the fuse...


Wrong, they decided to support their longstanding allie 100% only after the assasination. Also the traties never bound them to attack anyone, only to defend themselves and Austria-Hungary in case of attack.

It is immpossible to place blame on one single nation for this war, although some nations like Belgium were free from blame by their simple neutrality. all of the major combattants except the US were highly at fault in the war, the reason fault was placed on Germany was that they were the first to move out and the biggest threat of the loosing nations.

It was the treaty of Versailles that partly inspired Hitler to get involved in German politics. Enough said.

Regards,
Morden

Wrong, they decided to support their longstanding allie 100% only after the assasination. Also the traties never bound them to attack anyone, only to defend themselves and Austria-Hungary in case of attack.

It is immpossible to place blame on one single nation for this war, although some nations like Belgium were free from blame by their simple neutrality. all of the major combattants except the US were highly at fault in the war, the reason fault was placed on Germany was that they were the first to move out and the biggest threat of the loosing nations.

I must disagree with this last paragraph. Britain tried their best to preserve peace in Europe during that period, and were only brought into it because they were committed to protecting the neutrality of Belgium.

It was the treaty of Versailles that partly inspired Hitler to get involved in German politics. Enough said.

Regards,
Morden

No not enough said. What about the surrendor in World War One whilst he was injured, or his work as a spy infiltrating parties like the DPW.

I must disagree with this last paragraph. Britain tried their best to preserve peace in Europe during that period, and were only brought into it because they were committed to protecting the neutrality of Belgium.
Churchill wanted to see Germany destroyed long before world war 2.

the main problem with the treaty is that while Germany was partially responsible, it was Austria-Hungary's Balkan problem that sparked the war, and since Austria-Hungary was broken up, they had no one left to blame but the Germans :/

If you look at it more closely, you'll see that all the weapons that were denied Germany by the treaty, namely tanks, aircraft, and submarines, all played an extremely decisive role for Germany in WW2. It may seem like a no-brainer, but the armored warfare that Germany introduced, is mainly due to the fact that they were forced to start over in their production and usage of tanks, whereas the Allies of WW1 were still using tactics from that war when WW2 begain, and some nations still had some of the early tanks in use as well (Renault FT-17 mainly)

Hitlers NSDAP was the largest single party in the reichstag but didn't have a 50% majority, he used all sorts of tricks to get the majority.
Reichstag Fire; in my opinion almost definately started by the Nazis and led to Hindenberg (the president) giveing Hitler emergency powers First step ban the communists (blamed for the fire). Strike deals with other partys so only one party voted against him giving him more than 75% of the reichstag and allowing him change the constitution to ban the oppositio through a policy of Gleichshaltung.

I just wanted to know what some of you guys opinions are on the peace treaty that concluded WW1, was it obcessively harsh on germany? were the french justified in wanting a totally crippled Germany. But more importantly, who do you think of the 'Big Three' (Woodraw Wilson, Georges Clemenceau & Lloyd George) opinions and goals should have been implimented into the treaty? I know it's probably been done before but i wouldn't mind to hear some opinions of this. :)

Of course the Treaty was to harsh. I actually read the main points of it and all it did was totally piss of the German people and place unreasonable demands that led to the breading ground for fanatics.

Cognative Superios Also the traties never bound them to attack anyone, only to defend themselves and Austria-Hungary in case of attack.


Austria-Hungary regarded the assassination of its hier to the throne and Serbia's refusals regarding the investigations into the assassination as an attack on its sovergeinity. Sure, it was a far fetched reason, but asking Germany for support in the ensuing mitlitary actions it was a legal interpretation of the treaty.

You don't take into account that a large number of Germans felt very uneasy with democracy and felt that any sort of leader would be better than the daily chaos in the Weimar parliament. One of the reasons Hitler was welcomed with open arms by so many was that after all it is a lot easier to follow one authoritative figure then to have to make up your own opinion and defend that.
It's true that the economic circumstances did a lot for the NSPAD (and every other extreme party at the time), but I think you cannot underestimate the feeling of general insecurity in a people as yet completely unfamiliar with the downsides of democracy
Of course, had the Weimar Republic been given a chance to govern without interference by the terms of the treaty it very well might have been successful and therefore people might have gained trust in democracy. Instead it was cut off at the knees before it could get started thereby making the german population highly skeptical of democracy and more comfortable wth dictatorship.

I just wanted to know what some of you guys opinions are on the peace treaty that concluded WW1, was it obcessively harsh on germany? were the french justified in wanting a totally crippled Germany. But more importantly, who do you think of the 'Big Three' (Woodraw Wilson, Georges Clemenceau & Lloyd George) opinions and goals should have been implimented into the treaty? I know it's probably been done before but i wouldn't mind to hear some opinions of this. :)

Too harsh. Mainly vengeful and they were wondering why the germans went to ww2. Also the war guilt, that is probably the fourth worst one (after the territory, reparations, disarmarmant) since they didnt start the war, only defended their ally. :mad: I AM MAD

Wrong, they decided to support their longstanding allie 100% only after the assasination. Also the traties never bound them to attack anyone, only to defend themselves and Austria-Hungary in case of attack.

It is immpossible to place blame on one single nation for this war, although some nations like Belgium were free from blame by their simple neutrality. all of the major combattants except the US were highly at fault in the war, the reason fault was placed on Germany was that they were the first to move out and the biggest threat of the loosing nations.

US was at fault, they were trading weapons with the allies although this is illegal according to the laws of neutrality.

Serbia is to blame. They started the war by killing Francis and not even allowing austrians to examine the case. Is it to hard to allow people to look into a murder case?

US was at fault, they were trading weapons with the allies although this is illegal according to the laws of neutrality.

Well, Europe and America could be blame for every armed conflict on the planet in the last 200 years, according to this.

Serbia is to blame. They started the war by killing Francis and not even allowing austrians to examine the case. Is it to hard to allow people to look into a murder case?

I think, the problem here was that neither side wanted to cooperate. Austria wanted to blame an entire nation for the death of the Archduke, they regarded it a state affair and were more or lass openly accusing Serbian authorities of being incapable of carrying out that investigation.
Serbia on the other hand showed just as much arrogance in denying Austria the right to take part in the investigation, simply to demonstrate their indepence from the Austrian empire.

Ein Deutscher']Churchill wanted to see Germany destroyed long before world war 2.

So? He wasn't in charge during WWI. Therefore you can't argue that Britain as a country was at fault.

Well, Europe and America could be blame for every armed conflict on the planet in the last 200 years, according to this.

Huh?

He didn't say they were to blame for it, he said they were at fault. And if in "every armed conflict...in the last 200 years", Europe and the US were neutral and traded weapons then yes, they are at fault. But not to blame.

ok so the treaty was a little harsh, it crippled the German economy, gave way to Weimar(which wrote the best constitution ever seen, so good it was to democratic to work!) Republic, whos fall let ppl like Heitler gain power.

Think of how different the world would be if it the treaty was never imposed????
I'd have loved to have seen the Germans faces when they were given the war reparations bill!!!!

US was at fault, they were trading weapons with the allies although this is illegal according to the laws of neutrality.

There are no "laws of neutrality." Countries are sovereign and can do whatever they want.

There are no "laws of neutrality." Countries are sovereign and can do whatever they want.


May be they mean international law?? Yes countries are sovereign as long as they recieve recognition from 'major' countries. The laws of neutrality possibly mean that no country can go to war with another unless the offending country is doing something that will undermine global peace and security or something to that effect

May be they mean international law?? Yes countries are sovereign as long as they recieve recognition from 'major' countries.
Having sovereignty means you don't obey a higher authority. Countries therefore do not need to obey so-called "international laws" which are not really laws but unenforceable suggestions. Also, a country doesn't have to be recognized by anyone to be sovereign; as long as it controls its own internal affairs without outside legal interference, it would generally be considered sovereign.
The laws of neutrality possibly mean that no country can go to war with another unless the offending country is doing something that will undermine global peace and security or something to that effect
A neutral country simply tries to avoid getting involved in wars between two other nations. There are no laws that regulate how a country goes about maintaining its neutrality.

Having sovereignty means you don't obey a higher authority. .

Not always...expalin the EU, EU law is higher than national law with the exception of education and healthcare

Not always...expalin the EU, EU law is higher than national law with the exception of education and healthcare
Individual European nations have the sovereign right to join the EU and willingly obey its laws, and each nation also has the right to leave at any time. Although once a country joins, it would be bad faith and bad diplomacy to leave and abandon everyone else. In the future though, the European nations may lose their sovereignty if the EU has effective anti-secession laws.

Germany spread the war from an isolated Balkan's event, to a Europe/World wide war. The gave Austria the 'blank check' so they could threaten Russia, and then they invaded France and Belgium. They were far from 'reluctant participants'.

No, no, no. They gave the blank cheque to threaten Serbia.