Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The treaty was so horrific and terrible we are still seeing some severe after effects all these years later. It most definitely was a direct cause of the rise of Hitler and nationalist regimes all over Europe. It very arbitrarily redrew they map of Europe without any kind of logic or reason what so ever. The treaty almost doubled the area of Romania with territory taken from Hungary. Romania could not manage or govern the amount of land they had before the treaty and after???? It was nothing but a cluster fluck. The war ended with an armistice, the allies then pounced on Germany and drove the country right into the ground which created some very bad results. The reparations that Germany had to pay to France nearly ruined and bankrupted France's domestic industry and destroyed the middle class in Germany. Hitler's favorite tale was the "Stab in the back" theory, to a large extent it was true and Germans believed it totally because of the way the country was raped by the allies. For once the USA was on the correct side and opposed the treaty. This treaty destroyed president Wilson and everything he believed in was thrown on the garbage heap. Today's troubles in the middle east can be traced right to this horrendous treaty. Again, borders were drawn without any other consideration other than colonial aspirations, exploitation of other people's resources, balances of power and national prestige. The treaty did absolutely NOTHING to address the issues that lead to the war in the first place thus guaranteeing that another conflict would be fought over these very same issues. Some of the other conflicts that still are ongoing as a result of the treaty are the problems in the Balkans, Caucasus, Georgia and most of North Africa. It most likely was the worst treaty in the history of the world.
It was a terrible, revenge-laden and idealistically stupid treaty that absolutely paved the way to the rise of political extremism in Germany and World War II - and stands as the strongest evidence in recent times that the French should leave diplomacy to the British.
Oddly enough, it was beneficial to the Germans in many ways (more from a geoploitical than economic aspect, to be certain), and the whole farce of the treaty was that is was dictated by countries that clearly did not have the ability or willpower to enforce it.
For those condemning the treatment Germany received, just what sort of terms do you think the Germans would have imposed on England and France had they won the war?
And Germany did lose the war, they didn't sort of lose the war or just have time run out of them, their economy was completely wrecked, the navy mutinied, the government was overthrown. The Germans exhausted their war making resources and were unable to continue. Why do you think they agreed to accept the harsh terms of the Treaty if they had not been completely defeated?
The treaty obviously worked out poorly but I don't have a lot of sympathy for Germany. They were largely responsible for starting the war.
If they'd won the war rather than losing, they'd have treated the vanquished much more harshly. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that they imposed on the Soviet Union was much harsher than the Versailles Treaty.
For those condemning the treatment Germany received, just what sort of terms do you think the Germans would have imposed on England and France had they won the war?
And Germany did lose the war, they didn't sort of lose the war or just have time run out of them, their economy was completely wrecked, the navy mutinied, the government was overthrown. The Germans exhausted their war making resources and were unable to continue. Why do you think they agreed to accept the harsh terms of the Treaty if they had not been completely defeated?
This. In hindsight, it is easy to blame Versailles and the war reparations for the rise of the Nazis, and it makes for a great "told you so" story (with an added benefit, to some: everything can be blamed on the French). Of course, it could be predicted that German nationalists of all shapes and forms would use Versailles to discredit the Weimar Republic, but in 1919 it was unclear that hyperinflation and the Great Depression would end up giving those nationalists the power that they ended up having.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow
The treaty was so horrific and terrible we are still seeing some severe after effects all these years later. It most definitely was a direct cause of the rise of Hitler and nationalist regimes all over Europe. It very arbitrarily redrew they map of Europe without any kind of logic or reason what so ever. (...) The treaty did absolutely NOTHING to address the issues that lead to the war in the first place thus guaranteeing that another conflict would be fought over these very same issues. Some of the other conflicts that still are ongoing as a result of the treaty are the problems in the Balkans, Caucasus, Georgia and most of North Africa. It most likely was the worst treaty in the history of the world.
Technically, Versailles cannot be blamed for the Balkans, Caucasus or North Africa -- it was a treaty between Germany and the Allied Powers, you're probably thinking of the other treaties that followed the Paris Peace Conference. Anyway, I disagree with your assessment, I think it is too extreme. There was definitely logic in Wilson's Fourteen Points although political considerations definitely caused the negotiations and final treaty to stray far away (and sometimes comically) from them. To assess the Conference you would need to tackle what would have happened with Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire if Saint-Germain, Trianon, etc had not been signed, i.e. what's the alternative to those postwar redrawn borders that we know.
You cite the Balkans as an example (I assume you're including Bosnia, Romania and Croatia in that mix?) but that region had a long history of territorial disputes; the causes of the implosion of Yugoslavia, a state that de facto already existed when the Paris Conference began, IMO are much more firmly rooted in the Ottoman Empire than they are in Trianon. The Central Powers (except maybe Germany?) promoted the diversification (dilution) of ethnic and national identities to prevent their empires from blowing up, but that became an accident waiting to happen with the rise of nationalism in the early-to-mid 19th century. How could that accident be prevented? I only see two ways: (a) the advent of an idea stronger than nationalism (communism? in hindsight, what's the lesser of two evils here?), or (b) "peaceful" disintegration of the Empires into national units, implying major population movements and/or ethnic cleansing (i.e. what ended up happening). Quite frankly I don't see how (a) could be put into a treaty, but regarding (b) I guess you could say the post-Paris treaties could have promoted ethnic cleansing more explicitly (i.e. like the Treaty of Lausanne)? I don't like that thought.
As for the reparations, I honestly don't know enough information and details to have solid opinions in regards to whether or not they were too high for Germany to pay.
The reparations were punitive and unfair, but I think the impact was more symbolic. In any case, the debt was negotiated down and eventually ignored. The western front was fought mainly in France and Belgium, Belgium in particular was badly damaged by occupation, so the idea of some reparations wasn't entirely unreasonable.The "German war guilt" clause was counterproductive and probably undeserved.
I think the US should have demanded a European war guilt clause, all signing European powers were responsible.
Quote:
As for Germany's territorial losses after World War I, I actually think that this part was relatively fair. After all, most of the territories which Germany lost shortly after World War I did not have an ethnic German majority. Of course, it might have been unfair not to let Germany annex Austria shortly after World War I.
Germany has left with its important territory, and all the new states to the east were weak, or in Russia's case, rather preoccupied.
I listened to this interview the other day. The book is getting high reviews.
Defying liberal democracy, Adolf Hitler transformed Germany into an authoritarian state advocating sovereignty of nations, advancement of labor, preservation of the white race, and commerce based on exchange of wares to replace the international gold standard. Becoming chancellor in 1933, he tackled his country's bankruptcy, massive unemployment, Communist subversion and foreign domination. His social economic programs and diplomacy restored German prosperity and independence in three years, despite opposition from Western democratic leaders. Penetrating the shroud of vilification draping this controversial figure, our study draws on nearly 200 published German sources, many from the National Socialist era, plus documents from British, U.S. and Soviet archives, to describe not just what Hitler did, but why. It also reveals democracy's genuine war aims, a taboo subject for historians, in the ensuing world war against Germany. Challenging the status quo version of the period, here is the book for the student of history who senses that something is missing and seeks answers.
1. The reparations were punitive and unfair, but I think the impact was more symbolic.
2. In any case, the debt was negotiated down and eventually ignored.
3. The western front was fought mainly in France and Belgium, Belgium in particular was badly damaged by occupation, so the idea of some reparations wasn't entirely unreasonable.
4. The "German war guilt" clause was counterproductive and probably undeserved.
5. I think the US should have demanded a European war guilt clause, all signing European powers were responsible.
6. Germany has left with its important territory, and all the new states to the east were weak, or in Russia's case, rather preoccupied.
1. Possibly.
2. Yes, though to be fair, wasn't (West) Germany forced to resume paying it after World War II (something which it apparently only finished doing in late 2010)?
3. Parts of northern France were also severely damaged by World War I and/or by occupation.
4. Agreed, though to be fair, as far as I know, some prominent German government officials (Moltke the Younger, Bethmann-Hollweg (sp?), et cetera) actually did want war to break out in 1914.
5. LOL!; Maybe.
6. I think that you mean "Germany was left with its ..."
Also, while this point of yours is valid, keep in mind that this would have still occurred had Germany kept all of its Brest-Litovsk gains. Thus, to attribute this outcome specifically to the Entente-written post-World War I peace treaties is inaccurate.
Also, while this point of yours is valid, keep in mind that this would have still occurred had Germany kept all of its Brest-Litovsk gains. Thus, to attribute this outcome specifically to the Entente-written post-World War I peace treaties is inaccurate.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, obviously the Brest-Litovsk treaty would be nullified when Germany lost the war, I doubt even the Germans expected that that wouldn't happen. Though in a way, part of it was kept: a lot of the territorial losses imposed on Russia in the treaty became independent states.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, obviously the Brest-Litovsk treaty would be nullified when Germany lost the war, I doubt even the Germans expected that that wouldn't happen. Though in a way, part of it was kept: a lot of the territorial losses imposed on Russia in the treaty became independent states.
What I meant was that even had Germany won World War I (or won WWI in the East, with a stalemale and a status quo ante bellum in the West), Germany would have still had many small and weak countries near it, as well as a distracted Russia (which, for Germany, would have been an improvement over its situation before World War I).
Thus, you can't completely credit the Entente-written post-WWI peace treaties for the fact that such a situation occurred.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
