The shame nations of WWII.

[Vanguard]

But Vanguard, what was the Polish Corridor but German territory given to Poland by Versailles?

Some of the Corridor had more German speakers than Polish. And, indeed, I am actually prepared to admit that dividing Germany in two was probably a bad idea from the standpoint of future peace.

But there were Poles throughout the corridor and on the coast. If Poland was to become a state, which was a reasonable, though dangerous, aspiration, then it is not clear that Germany deserved the land more than Poland. Just because the Prussians were able to prevent a Polish state from forming in the 19th Century, that doesn't mean they get to do it forever.

So taking Alsace and Lorraine was the same as taking back Alsace and Lorraine, taking a vast chunk of land from Eastern Germany, prohibiting a German navy & restricting the German army to a miniscule force (two provisions that were unprecedented in any peace), and last, but not least, massive reperations.

What do you mean "taking Alsace and Lorraine"? For the most part, both provinces have been owned by France since the 1470's. They were mostly French speaking in 1871, when they were stolen by Germany in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. All France did in 1919 was steal them back.

The newly created German Empire also imposed reparations on France proportionately far heavier than those levied by the Allies on Germany in 1919. Reparations that France actually paid, unlike the Germans, who destroyed their own currency rather than pay for the damage they caused in WW1.

Looking at the Russian peace, again just a minor land transfer, nothing else.

A minor land transfer? The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

Well, if that's what you think then why do you have a problem with Versailles? Surely if you think that Russia having to transfer all of Poland and half of Belarus into the German Empire, surrender almost of its material and supplies, allow unlimited requisition and pay a huge reparation is fair, then Versailles is nothing.

In the summer of 1914 everyone wanted war. The Germans were the first to act, as they had to do, gievn tehir strategic situation, but I hardly see any evidence that France or Russia or England or anyone else did squat to try to really avert it.

Austria certainly wanted war----but only with Serbia. France wanted revenge for 1870, but was not really eager for war with the German army. Britain and Russia definitely did not want to fight, except in defense of their allies.

Germany was the only nation that drove the Balkan crisis into a Great Power War. The German war plans called for a lightning strike in France, to conquer her within weeks. Germany was prepared to risk starting an all-out war in order to gain the chance of quick victory.

As a strategy it is not bad. But it is a strategy that leaves her with the responsibility for starting the war. If she had won, then she could have shirked that responsibility, even profited by it. But the responsibility is still hers. Just because the victors had to impose acceptance of war guilt on Germany by force, that does not, by itself, mean that Germany wasn't guilty.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Reparations that France actually paid, unlike the Germans, who destroyed their own currency rather than pay for the damage they caused in WW1.

Oh those evil Germans . There economy was going into the shitter, but they should have paid!

Surely if you think that Russia having to transfer all of Poland and half of Belarus into the German Empire, surrender almost of its material and supplies, allow unlimited requistion and pay a huge reparation is fair, then Versailles is nothing.

German troops were everywhere that was transfered to Germany by Russia. And I don't recall the Germans telling the Russians what size of army they could have in the future, which is the main harsh provision.

Austria certainly wanted war----but only with Serbia. France wanted revenge for 1870, but was not really eager for war with the German army. Britain and Russia definitely did not want to fight, except in defense of their allies.

That's ridiculous! Russia WANTED a continental war. They pushed Serbia to reject the Austrian terms, when they were leaning to accept them! They wanted a war to push the Austrians over and gain a few more satellite states, as the reigning Father of the Slavs. They realized that they would have to fight Germany for it, but knew the France could keep them occupied.

France wanted to knock the Germans down. In the Moroccan crises they indicated that they were not loath to knock the Germans back down a peg. They were prepared to fight.

Britain saw the rising power of Germany's navy as a major threat and would have liked nothing better than a war to solve that threat while Britain was still more power on the seas.

Germany wasn't the only one that wanted a Great Power War, FAR from it. In fact it was Russia that gambled the most and wished for the GP war the most.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Vanguard

You are assuming that the Versailles treaty caused WW2. But it didn't. Germany had renounced all the Versailles terms well before 1939, and no war broke out.

I am well aware of this. I also never said that the Versailles treaty actually caused WWII. Those were your words, not mine.

Versailles was not totally irrelevent to the rise of Hitler, but his election was certainly not the inevitable result of the treaty.

-And, once again, I never said it was. What I'm saying is that the Versailles treaty played a major part in making WWII possible, which is not the same as saying the treaty alone caused it.

My point is not to excuse anyone or to place the blame for WWII on the victors from WWI. I'm not saying Hitler wasn't bad. I'm just saying that the Versailles treaty - regardless of how justified it may or may not have been - actually did more harm than good.

[Tolls]

Strangelove:
You are confusing Lloyd George with the British Government. He may have been PM, but he was limited in his actions by the rest of his government and the feelings in the country. I believe his view was it was better to try and compromise with the cabinet rather than shatter the government while the treaty was being dealt with.

I really need to get a copy of that recent book on Versailles.

[Myrddin]

If you think the Versailles treaty was harsh and a cause of further wars, look at the ideas that the Allies had before the defeat of germany.

This included breaking it up into 4 or 5 countries, de-militarising it and removing its industrial base - turning it into basically a passive agricultural country.

To those in power at the time the problem was not that Versailles was too harsh but that it was too weak - the Germans did not believe that they had lost WWI

[Tolls]

"the Germans did not believe that they had lost WWI"

But that was nothing to do with Versailles. The rumours and conspiracy theories about being stabbed in the back by the jews and bolsheviks were doing the round long before Versailles.

[Myrddin]

The revolution in Russia nearly led to revolution in Germany -there were several short lived coups in German cities

However most Germans did not think they had militarily lost the war, as it ended before German territory had been invaded. This together with the lack of occupation and the victory over Russia allowed the Versailles treaty to be portrayed as unfair - how could it be fair when they hadn't really lost the war?

As a result the plans for post-WWII were much harsher and were aimed at the German people not just the Nazis - however the Cold War intervened.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Tolls
Strangelove:
You are confusing Lloyd George with the British Government. He may have been PM, but he was limited in his actions by the rest of his government and the feelings in the country. I believe his view was it was better to try and compromise with the cabinet rather than shatter the government while the treaty was being dealt with.

I really need to get a copy of that recent book on Versailles.

Have you read The Economic Consequences of Peace (1919) by John Maynard Keynes?

He refers to US president as naive halfwit
And he strongly disagrees with the Versailles treaty, part of which he witnessed (it lasted over a year IIRC).

[Vanguard]

Oh those evil Germans . There economy was going into the shitter, but they should have paid!

Yes, they should have paid. Why not? It isn't as if they couldn't afford it. Their payments amounted to less than they spent on their Navy before the war. And not only did they not have to build or maintain a Navy, they didn't have to support an Army either!

All Germany had to do was raise taxes a bit. That's what the French did in the 1870s to pay Germany. It didn't destroy their economy. So why should anyone think that lower relative reparations would actually be a burden on a nation with no military costs?

That's ridiculous! Russia WANTED a continental war. They pushed Serbia to reject the Austrian terms, when they were leaning to accept them! They wanted a war to push the Austrians over and gain a few more satellite states, as the reigning Father of the Slavs. They realized that they would have to fight Germany for it, but knew the France could keep them occupied.

So you are saying that the Tsar, whose military couldn't defeat the Japanese in a defensive war only nine years before and who nearly lost his throne in the ensuing revolution, whose military would take months to be in a position to attack Austria and who could not possibly prevent Serbia from being destroyed, wanted a Great Power war in the slight hope that Russia might marginally increase her standing in Central Europe? Well, none of the diplomatic histories of the War that I have read agrees with you.

I'm not saying that there wasn't a certain amount of Pan-Slavic belligerancy in Russia. There was. I'm not saying that Russia was not willing to go to war over Serbia. She did, when she could have avoided it.

But not avoiding a war is not the same thing as starting one. Russia's support of Serbia was not, contrary to what you suggest, a deliberate plot to start a war. It was a response to Austro-Hungary's demand for the unconditional submission of Serbia. Austria certainly had valid grievances against Serbia and was within her rights in demanding an end to Serbian supported terrorism in Austria territory. Other concessions would certainly have been reasonable as well.

But the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum demanded almost complete supervision of the Serbian state by Austro-Hungary. If it accepted the Austrian terms, Serbia would have been only a puppet state.

There was no particular reason for anyone except Austrians to think that Austria deserved such concessions. In fact, Russia's support of Serbia would not have included war, if Austria had only demanded reasonable concessions. But Austria, strongly encouraged by Germany, refused to mollify her demands. She even withdrew her unreasonable ultimatum, lest the Serbians actually accept it and remove her cause for war.

It was really the Kaiser's government who put the backbone into the Austrians to demand such tough terms. If there was going to be a war, Germany thought she needed to strike first. So if there was any chance of war, German strategy almost required her to make it a certainty.

I also never said that the Versailles treaty actually caused WWII. Those were your words, not mine.

Well okay. But then how can you say:

That may well be, but what purpose did it serve?

-And, if it served any purpose at all, was it worth another war that turned out even worse by far than the first one?

If it didn't cause WW2 then the purposes of the treaty are clear: It disarms Germany, preventing war and eliminating arms races; it provides reparations to the Allies, allowing them to rebuild areas destroyed in the war; it grants independence to nations that had formerly been parts of unrepresentitive empires. These are all worthwhile goals.

It might be a little unfair to impose such strictures on Germany alone. But Germany was perfectly willing to impose far greater demands whenever she was dictating the terms, including total disarmament on Serbia. So Germany cannot validly make a complaint about "unfairness". And nobody else should care.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you are saying that the Tsar, whose military couldn't defeat the Japanese in a defensive war only nine years before and who nearly lost his throne in the ensuing revolution, whose military would take months to be in a position to attack Austria and who could not possibly prevent Serbia from being destroyed, wanted a Great Power war in the slight hope that Russia might marginally increase her standing in Central Europe? Well, none of the diplomatic histories of the War that I have read agrees with you.

Much of the history I've read indicates the Russians wanted to fight a war with Austria in order to break it up. The tsar would count on the French to keep the Germans at bay.

And the Russian almost tasted victory on the Eastern front. If they had won at Tannenburg, the Russians would have been in a wonderful position in that front of the war.

Serbia was about to conceed to all the points. The Tsar then stepped in and said that Russia would back Serbia no matter what, even if there was war. That put the backbone in Serbia to stand up to Austria's demands.

Austria would have been happy with the terms it articulated.

And contrary to what you've been told, Germany would have avoided war at all costs if Britain made it clear it would join in on the side of the French. So if there was a chance of war and Britain would have joined France and Russia, Germany would not have wanted a war.

The fact of the matter is that France and Russia wanted war just as much as Germany did. The French Assembly was absolutely estatic about the war and declared war on Germany before the Germans declared war on them.

All Germany had to do was raise taxes a bit. That's what the French did in the 1870s to pay Germany. It didn't destroy their economy. So why should anyone think that lower relative reparations would actually be a burden on a nation with no military costs?

Did France have to leave its most productive region? Or did you forget that the Ruhr valley, where most of Germany's wealth arose from was basically under French rule.

[Ned]

Vetlegion, Thanks for posting that link. I have read the first five or six chapters. It does illustrate that President Wilson failed at Versailles because he was a dimwit compared to the others. Because of this, he was easily manuevered into compromises that he did not appreciate were completely inconsistent with the principles of the fourteen points.

Regardless, even if the terms of Versailles were not unjust when compared to other peace treaties before it, it was a breach of the Armistice. Keynes made this point very clearly. One could see how the average German could have felt wronged by what happened.

[Vanguard]

Well, you believe your sources, I'll believe mine. There is always, of course, some difference of opinion among the decision makers of a nation when a matter such as war and peace arises. So it is difficult to really assign specific motives to nations after the fact.

But it seems clear to me that Austria would not have been satisfied with anything less than the complete submission of Serbia. They were restrained in their demands only by the need to prevent war.

Which is, of course, why Russia threatened war if Austria did not offer easier terms to Serbia. They thought this sort of brinksmanship would work. And they were right. If Germany had not almost told the Austrians that war was better now than later, then they would have backed down.

Nobody on the Russian or French side expected or wanted war to arise from this crisis. Certainly France wanted to regain Alsace-Lorraine and Russia did want slavic autonomy in Central Europe. But there is absolutely no evidence to think that they were actually trying to bring about a great power war. Or that they opportunistically used this particular crisis for that purpose.

Did France have to leave its most productive region? Or did you forget that the Ruhr valley, where most of Germany's wealth arose from was basically under French rule.

Yes. Yes they did. In 1870 Alsace and Lorraine were one of France's most important industrial and coal producing regions. But Germany felt absolutely no compunction against annexing them from a defeated France.

And France only occupied the Ruhr after Germany stopped making reparations payments. And promptly withdrew when Germany promised to continue them. Which Germany lied about.

Regardless, even if the terms of Versailles were not unjust when compared to other pease treaties before it, it was a breach of the Armistice. Keynes made this point very clearly. One could see how the average German could have felt wronged by what happened.

The peace treaty did not really violate the Armistice itself, although it did violate the German understanding that peace would be concluded on the basis of the Fourteen Points.

This is a legitimate point. The Allies did undertake negotiations for the Armistice under the proviso that the Fourteen Points would be the basis of the peace, then insisted on an Armistice that contradicted them in some ways.

But Germany could always have rejected the Armistice once it became apparent that their understanding was mistaken. But by this time Ludendorff had decided that the revolutionary situation demanded immediate peace on any terms.

And while one can indeed see how the average German might have felt wronged by this perceived bad faith, one would then be obligated to see how average citizens of the Allies might have felt wronged by such items of German bad faith as attacking Belgium when she was sworn not to, or attacking shipping without warning when she had agreed not to, or bombing undefended cities when it was forbidden by treaty, or inflicting mass reprisals on civilians contrary to the laws of war.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Vanguard

If it didn't cause WW2 then the purposes of the treaty are clear: It disarms Germany, preventing war and eliminating arms races; it provides reparations to the Allies, allowing them to rebuild areas destroyed in the war; it grants independence to nations that had formerly been parts of unrepresentitive empires. These are all worthwhile goals.

Yes, but goals are one thing, and actual effect is something else. I'm not talking about whether it was fair or not. I'm suggesting that the treaty in its' nature was unfit to serve the purposes it was supposedly made for. If it helped pave the way for WWII, then the treaty did in effect not achieve any of its' goals.

It might be a little unfair to impose such strictures on Germany alone. But Germany was perfectly willing to impose far greater demands whenever she was dictating the terms, including total disarmament on Serbia. So Germany cannot validly make a complaint about "unfairness". And nobody else should care.

Oh, so we shouldn't care if things don't work the way they're supposed to...?
Well, that's an interesting point of view, but hardly productive...

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ned
But Vanguard, what was the Polish Corridor but German territory given to Poland by Versailles?

This "German" territory belonged to Germany only since
1772, and Gdañsk-Danzig only since 1792.
Gdañsk was majorly German, right - but that's why it was not under direct Polish rule. There was some German minority in Polish Pomerania - they were never a majority except for Bydgoszcz city and enviroments, though - and there was a big Polish minority in both upper Silesia (majority except for bigger cities), Mazury (the same), and eastern Pomerania.

Again I urge You, Ned, to stop using terms and viewv coined by Hitler's propaganda.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Germany had not almost told the Austrians that war was better now than later, then they would have backed down.

That's an interesting way to put it. Germany told Austria they would back them if Russia declared war on Austria. They merely acted as a good ally should. And Austria would not have backed down. Their Chief of Staff was pro war, even if Russia would have come in. In fact he was so pro-war that he ended up scaring Chancellor Bethman-Holweg. But alliances are alliances.

Yes. Yes they did. In 1870 Alsace and Lorraine were one of France's most important industrial and coal producing regions. But Germany felt absolutely no compunction against annexing them from a defeated France.

One of... France had many more industrial areas. The Ruhr was Germany's greatest industrial area. It was Germany's NorthEast US, basically. And the Ruhr was always basically under the rule of the French. The Ruhr's production went straight to the French, and when it didn't meet expectations, the French sent the army in... then the German workers refused to work.

But Germany could always have rejected the Armistice once it became apparent that their understanding was mistaken.

BS! They had already given up all their arms to the Allies. There was NO WAY they could have rejected the Armistace then.

And while one can indeed see how the average German might have felt wronged by this perceived bad faith, one would then be obligated to see how average citizens of the Allies might have felt wronged by such items of German bad faith as attacking Belgium when she was sworn not to, or attacking shipping without warning when she had agreed not to, or bombing undefended cities when it was forbidden by treaty, or inflicting mass reprisals on civilians contrary to the laws of war.

A. Everyone knew Belgium would be invaded. The Germans didn't exactly make that a great secret. The Brits warned Germany about it. Why would the Brits do that unless they knew the Germans would try it.

B. Attacking the shipping was done because the British blockade had strangled the German countryside. They were desperate to make the Brits feel the same as the Germans did, and almost succeeded. Just because they only had U-boats instead of a great surface navy does not matter.

C. The Allies would have bombed undefended cities if they had the chance. Look at Dresden in WW2.

D. Most of the 'atrocities' by the Germans was simply British propaganda, which the Americans ate right up after the Brits purposely cut the Trans-Atlantic cable to cut off Germany's contacts with the Americans.

[Vanguard]

Economic Consequence of the Peace......John Maynard Keynes? he strongly disagrees with the Versailles treaty, part of which he witnessed (it lasted over a year IIRC)

Keynes is an intelligent observer with first hand knowledge. His opinions on the armistice are interesting and well worth reading. Unfortunately they are also wrong, as he himself admitted later. He completely misunderstood the effects of transfers on trade and seems to have seriously overestimated the disruptive effects of the peace on the German economy.

Oh, so we shouldn't care if things don't work the way they're supposed to...?
Well, that's an interesting point of view, but hardly productive...

What do you mean "supposed to"? Supposed to for whom? Germany? Why should Germany get breaks that it was unwilling to give to anyone else?

And why should French and Belgian taxpayers have to foot the bill for the destruction caused by a German attempt to conquer France? That's what the war on in the West was, after all. It is well documented that the entire Germany strategy was to conquer France quickly, then deal with Russia. If they had defeated France, German state papers show that peace would include occupation of Paris and the French coast, heavy reparations, requisition and forced demobilization as well as the incorporation of Belgium as an economic vassal to Germany.

It is true that Germany undertook negotiations based on the Fourteen Points. But if Germany had really wanted a peace based on the Fourteen Points then she could have easily negotiated one in 1917 or early 1918. Instead, however, the German government elected to roll the dice in one more chance to conquer France and impose a victor's peace.

Germany only decided to negotiate an armistice when her forces were in open retreat. And when the Allies presented an Armistice that did not guarantee the full implementation of the Fourteen points, Germany initially balked and declined to accept the armistice. So she certainly could have fought on, without any "unfair" impediment to her fighting strength, if she had wanted to.

And, in fact, a signifigant faction was in favor of this, including the Kaiser. It was only when the Allies continued to advance and revolution threatened at home that Ludendorff cracked and decided that the Armistice had to be accepted. He thought defeat was inevitable and resolved to make the best deal he could with the Allies so he could stamp out the Red Menace at home and abroad.

But as it happened the Allies weren't in a mood to give Germany a good deal. And they were under no obligation to do so. Just because Ludendorff wanted to make the best deal he could while still in possesion of French territory, that doesn't mean he was entitled to get it. Why, when it comes down to it, should the Allies regard German occupation of Allied territory as a reason to be more lenient?

So the question of whether Germany was treaty unfairly is pretty clear. She wasn't. She just complained that she was, loudly. German media policy in the first part of the twentieth century can pretty much be summarized as, "The bigger the lie, the more likely someone is to believe it."

And the Ruhr was always basically under the rule of the French. The Ruhr's production went straight to the French, and when it didn't meet expectations, the French sent the army in... then the German workers refused to work.

This is simply not true. France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr only in 1923, after Germany stopped reparations. They evacuated in early 1925 when Weimar realised that it wasn't saving any money by not paying reparations when the Ruhr was not producing anything. So they negotiated a new reparations deal, which included: a huge loan, which they accepted; a two year moratorium on reparations, which they took; and a new series of reparations payments, which they eventually stopped paying. And this time France let them get away with it. Oh boo hoo. Poor, poor, picked on Germany!

BS! They had already given up all their arms to the Allies. There was NO WAY they could have rejected the Armistace then.

Well, there is a difference between the Armistice and the Versailles Peace Treaty. As I point out above, the Germans still had their military intact when they accepted the Armistice------ and the Armistice makes no solid guarantees.

A. Everyone knew Belgium would be invaded. The Germans didn't exactly make that a great secret. The Brits warned Germany about it. Why would the Brits do that unless they knew the Germans would try it.

If this was the case then why did the German prime mister make a point of stating that Germany would not invade Belgium just before she did? Of course many people did think Germany would invade Belgium, but that doesn't mak e it legal. Germany was a party to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, a treaty which she did not renounce prior to the war.

B. Attacking the shipping was done because the British blockade had strangled the German countryside. They were desperate to make the Brits feel the same as the Germans did, and almost succeeded. Just because they only had U-boats instead of a great surface navy does not matter.

I understand what they wanted, and why they did it. But again, that doesn't make it legal.

C. The Allies would have bombed undefended cities if they had the chance. Look at Dresden in WW2.

No they wouldn't have.

D. Most of the 'atrocities' by the Germans was simply British propaganda, which the Americans ate right up after the Brits purposely cut the Trans-Atlantic cable to cut off Germany's contacts with the Americans.

The British did sensationalise some of the German crimes. But there were still plenty of actual, easily confirmable German war crimes, many of which were confirmed by the Germans themselves. There is absolutely no question that the Germans killed numerous Belgian civilians in reprisal for sniping by the Belgian army. The Germans claimed that the snipers were not in uniform and were therefore franc-tireurs. But this was false. And killing civilians in reprisal was not lawful in any event.

prohibiting a German navy & restricting the German army to a miniscule force (two provisions that were unprecedented in any peace

Okay, let me get this straight. You believe that Germany could not afford to pay reparations. Yet you also believe that the restrictions on the size of the German military were grossly unfair. Okay then, if Germany could not afford reparations, then how could she have afforded to build a large army and navy? Check-mate, I think.

--------------------------------------

Anyone who thinks that Versailles was a bad treaty must think that some more lenient treaty would have resulted in a better result. Okay, then, let's hear what sort of treaty you think would have been better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is simply not true. France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr only in 1923, after Germany stopped reparations.

You aren't listening. From 1918 to 1923, the Ruhr was under the basic control of the French. They did not occupy the land, but all production from the Ruhr went straight to France as part of reperations, when reperations were not able to be paid out, then overt military action was taken.

Well, there is a difference between the Armistice and the Versailles Peace Treaty. As I point out above, the Germans still had their military intact when they accepted the Armistice------ and the Armistice makes no solid guarantees.

As you admitted they accepted the Armistice under the impression they would get the 14 points, an impression the allies did not refute at the time.

If this was the case then why did the German prime mister make a point of stating that Germany would not invade Belgium just before she did? Of course many people did think Germany would invade Belgium, but that doesn't mak e it legal. Germany was a party to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, a treaty which she did not renounce prior to the war.

A. Germany doesn't have a prime minister.

B. It's war talk. There were plenty of things that were 'not legal' in WW1. Gas was not legal, but both sides used it. War was illegal (under the Kellog-Briand Pact), but that did not stop anyone from declaring war. The British blockade was illegal as well, by stopping American ships (a neutral country at the time) from trading with Germany.

Talking about legal is a cheap way out.

No they wouldn't have.

So Dresden never happened? The allies never used gas? Bullshit, they never would have attacked undefended cities. If they ever got to Germany, they undoubtably would have.

The British did sensationalise some of the German crimes. But there were still plenty of actual, easily confirmable German war crimes, many of which were confirmed by the Germans themselves. There is absolutely no question that the Germans killed numerous Belgian civilians in reprisal for sniping by the Belgian army. The Germans claimed that these snipers were not in uniform and were therefore franc-tireurs. But this was false. And not lawful in any event.

Killing snipers has never been illegal ever.

Okay, let me get this straight. You believe that Germany could not afford to pay reparations. Yet you also believe that the restrictions on the size of the German military were grossly unfair. Okay then, if Germany could not afford reparations, then how could she have afforded to build a large army and navy?

You miss the point entirely. They had to dismantle their war machine. Had to scrap warships and the tanks they had. They had to close plants that made munitions because of the restrictions. These cost money, you know?

Furthermore, military spending has the side effect of jump starting the economy. It was no mistake that when Hitler began building up the war machine, Germany was pulled from recession. Btw, same thing happened when FDR did the same in the US.

Anyone who thinks that Versailles was a bad treaty must think that some more lenient treaty would have resulted in a better result. Okay, then, let's hear what sort of treaty you think would have been better.

A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

[Myrddin]

If a more generous settlement at Versailles would have been likely to prevent WWII, why did the allies go for Unconditional Surrender in WWII?

They wanted to get the point across that if you started a war, you were risking everything and would not be able to call a halt before you were completely defeated, as Germany managed to in WWI

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

Versaille didn't bring Franco to Spain or Mussolini to Italy. By the time Hitler came to power wasn't it just the memory of Versaille that still haunted Germany, rather than the conditions themselves?

You doubtless know more than I about the political/economic condition of 1920s/30s Germany, but I would think Hitler would have been a very real possibility even if Germany had a good result at Versaille.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason the Allies went for Unconditional Surrender in WW2, because the Soviets wanted pure revenge. In WW2, Hitler didn't even sue for peace once.

Look what seperating Germany did. I'd rather have a Weimar, peaceful Germany whole, than a seperated Germany, where the East is still economically retarded.

[Myrddin]

It was not just the Soviets who wanted unconditional surrender and revenge

Look at the transcripts of the Allied conferences in Tehran, Yalta etc - the Germans escaped lightly, compared to some of the plans being put foward by the US

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously they weren't too serious about those plans, because West Germany was treated like Germany should have after WW1. It was given its freedom.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
If a more generous settlement at Versailles would have been likely to prevent WWII, why did the allies go for Unconditional Surrender in WWII?

They wanted to get the point across that if you started a war, you were risking everything and would not be able to call a halt before you were completely defeated, as Germany managed to in WWI

I don't know if this is the point or not. I think FDR saw just how screwed up the German conditional surrender/Versailles treaty was and how it led to WWII. He did not want to repeat that mistake - no more conditional surrenders.

[Myrddin]

Unconditional surrender means you accept whatever the victors want to give you - put your leaders on trial for starting the war, imposition of a new political system, occupation etc

If Versailles was too harsh, as some are arguing, and so led to WWII, why did the Allies leaders in WWII press for harsher measures. In my opinion German criticism of Versailles was an excuse, not a reason, for the rise of Hitler.

The post WWII re-birth of West Germany had more to do with the cold war (blockade of Berlin etc) than any re-appraisal of Versailles

[Imran Siddiqui]

In my opinion German criticism of Versailles was an excuse, not a reason, for the rise of Hitler.

Which is why Hitler rose to popularity by waiving the Versailles Treaty and saying he was going to reverse every part of it .

Those saying that Versailles had nothing to do with Hitler's rise are engaging in a revisionism that is ludicrous.

[Myrddin]

My original point was that it was not the terms of Versailles that were the problem, but the German perception that it was unfair - as they did not really feel that they had lost the war

It would have been better for the Allies to continue the war and march through Geramny but understandably by 1918 everyone wanted the war over as soon as possible, exceot perhaps the Americans

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Myrddin
The post WWII re-birth of West Germany had more to do with the cold war (blockade of Berlin etc) than any re-appraisal of Versailles

...and perhaps the Marshall Plan.

[Ned]

Well, a major difference between WWI and WWII was the continued occupation of Germany by the US and USSR. Even if some dejected veteran would have wanted to rally Germany for one last shot at restoring her lost empire, the presence of Allied armies would have prevented that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if a dejected veteran wanted to rally Germany after the Western allies left West Germany? They could have if they wanted. Fact is we treated them very good. The Soviets went the other way. They treated them horribly, but that meant they had to stay there until the end of occupation.

[Vanguard]

A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

It could have happened this way I suppose.

But it seems just as likely that a harsher treaty would have had pretty much the same chance of preventing the rise of Hitler as a more lenient one. So why not complain about Germans preventing such a treaty?

Versaille didn't bring Franco to Spain or Mussolini to Italy. By the time Hitler came to power wasn't it just the memory of Versaille that still haunted Germany, rather than the conditions themselves

Good point.