Treaty_of_Versailles questions.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Regarding breaches of international law one wonders what might be said about Armenians who supported a Russian invasion, killed/drove off the Turkish and Kurdish population in and around Van, and fled the Turkish counter-offensive only to discover that their Russian allies couldn't feed their own armies in the region let alone unexpected refugees in great number.

Agreed. The some Armenians also ignored international law and committed war crimes. And the Ottomans are not responsible for the deaths of some share of the Armenians.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by benben

And 50,000 Belgian civilians also died from starvation under German occupation, with one-tenth of Germany's population at the time. Run your numbers...

This is an UK crime due the the UK breaking the rules relating to food imports. The Germans were responsible for feeding the population, if the UK followed the rules. But since it was impossible to bring in the need food due to the blockade, German is relieved of moral responsibility for these deaths. They are a stain on the soul of the British Empire.

The numbers also look a little high.

I will concede that the Kaiser didn't expect war to break out that summer. But the German government did nothing to restrain A-H with the "blank check", on the contrary. Contrast this with the extreme pressure the French and the British exerted on the Serbians to accept almost fully the A-H ultimatum.

And this might me a convincing argument, IF the Russians had started mobilizing after the A-H rejection. But they started mobilizing BEFORE it was even sent.

Germany deserves criticism for not restraining A-H.

France and to a lesser extent the UK deserve the same for Russia. Serbian intelligence had been committing before and with the assassinations of the ArchDuke clear acts of war.

Germany was trapped by its own paranoia and engulfed the whole Continent in war as a consequence, and I find it disturbing that some people still seem to deem it justified one hundred years after the facts.

Technically true, but incomplete.

All major European powers were trapped by an alliance system, and they failed to realize that any of a series of small crisis going back to the Boer Wars could have triggered WW1. All powers did too much brinksmanship, too much looking for an edge in a crisis, and not enough trying to build a workable peace structure. WW1 is the story of militaristic powers who started a war that none could win.

[Michele]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Not necessarily. In 1945 the Allies completely defeated Japan and a US-imposed constitution forced Japan to give up the right to maintain military forces except for the minimal sort needed for self-defense. True, because of Cold War pressure, the US eventually permittied and assisted Japan in expanding its Self-Defense Forces to become a credible military and Japan could also count on US occupying forces to protect the country for outside aggression. Japanese militarism was eliminated yet the nation prospered and survived.

Obviously, we might add. But thanks for the further example.

To some extent this also applied to the post 1949 Federal Republic - although in this case the west saw an advantage in having a robust German military on their side.

It applied to a large extent. You can have a robust military and avoid militarism at the same time. That implies, among other things, generals who don't think they are superior to civilians as a matter of course, and who don't think they are entitled to meddle with civil political life, for the superior good of the nation (as defined by themselves of course).

German militarism was not dead in 1918, unfortunately, and we have famous evidence about that: they thought it proper to infiltrate political parties with their own military intelligence agents (rings a bell?). That alone is damning.

But it was thankfully largely killed, once and for all, in 1945, which in my humble opinion shows that it could have been put down in 1918 too, or at the latest by 1922. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by benben

Yeah, Brest-Litovsk is a pretty good indication of what a peace treaty would have looked like in the West if Germany had won. And what Germany was willing to offer Belgium in case of separate peace gives some pretty good indications as well.

It is a weak model because the UK had not been defeated and its Navy ruled the seas. Central Power Armies were days from conquering the Russian capital. Much different negotiating environment. The earlier offer of the Germans reject by the Russians was a better indication.

for the UK, maybe, but for France or Belgium ?

Sure the Germans could impose what they wanted on France and Belgium but only at the cost of fighting the UK indefinitely. Internally, Germany had severe political issues. Unless you do an early CP win, Germany will have to negotiate with the UK which lightens the harshness against France and Belgium.

I am not saying the Germans want to be "fairer" with France, but they are too weak to impose the ToV type terms.

Again, conditions that Germany would have made to Belgium in case of separate peace (and I'm not talking about outright German victory here) are known. And I haven't seen any German source stating that this would be a maximalistic program that would have to be scaled back to respect the UK. The ability of German diplomacy to read the concerns of their enemies and identify the concessions that could make a real difference was pretty minimal, IMHO.

See above. It is not what they wanted, it what they would be able to do.

Speculation... All available sources and German behavior during the war point to the contrary. And again, Germany did not undergo any destruction on its territory in the West as a result of invasion. On what basis would have they asked for reparations. This also forgets the level of "occupation indemnity" that Germany levied on Belgium and Northern France (close to 25% of pre-war GDP in Belgium, as of 1915 !) and the outrageous plundering of industrial and other assets.

We are on an AH board. Of course we speculate. Any POD or ATL requires speculation. If you believe the information available is too weak to do analysis, then why are you posting on this thread? I understand that you may disagree with my analysis, but to simply state that I speculate as a rebuttal is quite useless.

As to why the UK will try to save France. Easy, to lessen German domination of Europe which was one of the major goals of the UK during the war. The question is not will the UK try to help France, but "How successful will the UK be at helping France?"

Also, It is possible that Germany would remove everything that can be shipped and destroying the rest combine with limited reparations. You are creating a false choice here. Plundering and reparations in a treaty don't always come in a pair. You can do neither, both, one or the other.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by benben

"Scrap of Paper" all over again ? It's not because morality and interest happened to go hand-in-hand this time around that the entry of the UK in the war to defend Belgium was not justified.

I was discussing why the UK entered the war, not the public justification. The UK often breaks major treaties, so it was not the fact the treaty existed. It was the British strategic interests in a neutral Belgium.

The format of the UK cabinet discussions show this to be true. If it had been merely a breach of the treaty, the PM would have simply went to the King with information that Germany had invaded Belgium, and the King would have signed the war orders. The fact the UK discussed if to intervene shows it was not a simple issue of the treaty being violated.

Even if the Germans had found a loophole in the Treaty, the UK still likely goes to war. Even if German avoid Belgium, the UK may go to war.

You forget A-H in your list ! And equating UK and Germany is ludicrous, totally ignores the invasion of Belgium.

Yes, I did leave out AH which should be tied with France.

This is outrageous. Belgium had no repsonsibilty whatsoever in WW1. Trying to justify its invasion by what happened in Congo (when it was not yet under Belgian jurisdiction, mind you) is the most egregious leap of logic I have ever seen on this forum, and demonstrates clearly what your biases are. With such reasoning, we could impose ToV² because of the Herero genocide...

The list is breaches of international laws and norms, not who started the war. The UK is fully responsible for every civilian who died due to an illegal blockade. The UK killed many more civilians in with its illegal blockade than Germany and AH did combined with all their breeches combined.

The numbers vary by source, but the UK war crime total in WW1 is between 250K and 750K civilian dead. To put this in perspective, Germany did 6K in Belgium. The Ottomans are blamed for 600K to 1,500K.

The crimes committed by one party to not morally justify the crimes of a second. There are no innocents in this war among the Great Powers.

[Clandango]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I'm trying to recall how much of Greece was to be annexed by France or the UK in the event of an Entente victory...

None. Why would they?

[Zmflavius]

You mean that those operations threatened Germany's very survival? That the French and Poles in 1923 were bent on annexing all of Germany?

Originally Posted by Michele

So survival was not threatened. Thank you for taking that back.

Clearly, Germany was not militarist, because the extent of their war goals was Briey-Longwy and disarmament of enemies.

Oh, wait.

A country that can't protect its most vital industrial region is the same as a country which no longer exists as an independent state. This was the primary intended goal of the allies in disarmament, and to say that they were trying to breed peace and mutual understanding from such an arrangement, where they refused to disarm even in the slightest is completely ludicrous.

Originally Posted by benben

Nobody dreamt of vassalizing Germany, was just too big to manage. The only aim was to neutralize Germany, and ensure it would not be strong enough again to invade its neighbours. Not a totally crazy French concern given what they had been going through...

Considering how France within four years had invaded Germany to ensure its tribute arrived on time, I would say differently.

Occupation of the Rhur was to enforce payment of reparations, and not an invasion. And if war reparations were high, that's also because of the amazing level of destructions the German army caused in Northern France and Belgium. Have you ever read descriptions or looked at pictures of the liberated territories ? Even during the retreat in 1918, the German army was destroying anything it could.

Considering how the reparations payments were several times the combined GDP of the recipient countries, I have difficulty imagining that the damage is equivalent to the payments. Well, it might have been if the Germans had managed to invade all of France and then burn down everything within.

Of course, justify Germany's crimes by saying other people would have done it anyway if they had had the opportunity. This is really lame... Just to remind other readers, there were plans drawn by the French military considering a French invasion of Belgium in 1908, but they were shelved at the time by the French political leadership because they could see the immorality of it and how this would completely back-fire against France. During the 1914 summer crisis, France deliberately implemented a 10km demilitarized zone along the French-Belgian border (OK, except for the forts) and gave all assurance they would not invade. In fact, the key difference between France and Germany in 1914 was that the French army was clearly subordinated to political power, whereas the opposite had become true in Germany.

This is an example of the primary failing of Germany, which, I will admit, to an extent, is one of the German Empire's biggest failings, and which did result in the biggest (and I should emphasize, one of the only ones of significance) war crime committed by Germany, namely the invasion of Belgium. However, the political rein in France was not some enlightened choir of angels, but rather diplomats who weren't completely incompetent, as was the case in Germany. To give an example, the Zimmerman telegram, in light of the very real fear that America would join the war, is similar to many Entente efforts to convince neutral countries to sign up, was quite reasonable, except for the appalling lack of knowledge of geopolitics or secure communications.

And 50,000 Belgian civilians also died from starvation under German occupation, with one-tenth of Germany's population at the time. Run your numbers...

Which is unsurprising, given the general food shortage of the continent. It is worth noting that I scaled down the numbers a bit. Germany, for example, has numbers ranging from 400,000 to 600,000 for starved to death, but this includes those who died from all causes, influenza included. Which is, admittedly, still a higher proportion, but not unsurprisingly so, given that Belgium was an occupied power and frankly, the similarly high and worse numbers of deaths in the other Central Powers, also due to war and its consequences, don't speak well of the Allies.

I will concede that the Kaiser didn't expect war to break out that summer. But the German government did nothing to restrain A-H with the "blank check", on the contrary. Contrast this with the extreme pressure the French and the British exerted on the Serbians to accept almost fully the A-H ultimatum.

However, once Russia declared its intention to back Serbia, this all went straight out the window.

Germany is lending money, not giving it.

Nevertheless, the Entente was not loaning money to Germany, but rather taking it, which as you've pointed out, is distinct from loaning it.

Sorry, I didn't make my point clear. What I meant is that the budget effort demanded from Greece is actually higher as a share of GDP than the ToV reparations.

I don't really have the numbers here, so I can't say for certain. In any case, I would say this isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

Show me your numbers... And don't forget that in 1870-71, destruction was actually on French territory, not on German territory !

Of which there was comparatively much less (and it's worth mentioning that the allies mentioned in the ToV that they wouldn't extract enough to cover military costs, because with the ToV reparations, they could at least imagine that there was enough coal, steel, and money, etc. to cover all the alleged civilian damages.

And anyways, numbers: Reparations for Germany in 1920 were equivalent to 132 billion marks, to be paid in installments of 2 billion a year. Reparations for France in 1871 were five billion francs, to be paid in installments of 1 billion a year (and, it's worth noting, installments paid ahead of time.

I've primarily made use of this handy inflation calculator to calculate inflation. Because it only does dollars, I calculated the Versailles amount as the rough equivalent of 32 billion dollars at the exchange rates common at the time. The same value of money in 1870 was listed as roughly 24 billion dollars, which however it converts to Francs, is still far greater.

Maybe, but it represented a much bigger part of French industrial production.

Nevertheless, as the primary annexation reason was strategic depth and Alsatian Pan-Germanism, the economic reason is irrelevant (and the large reparations of ToV more than offset this).

See my previous point on vassalization.

Likewise, my above point.

Again, I've acknowledged that this was not a high point in the history of Belgium, but it was at least not a violent affair (and the ration cards were what you say, a rumour...). This said, it was a very limited territorial adjustment, that could find some justification in terms of providing strategic depth for the defence of Liège. And much much less than what Germany was planning to impose on Belgium in case of victory (or even a negotiated peace).

I'll give you that point.

Bollocks, look at timing of the various DoWs...

July 28 - A-H DOWs Serbia
July 29 - Russia orders full mobilization (against Germany and A-H)
August 1 - Germany DOWs Russia (2 full days after Russia mobilized against her) and mobilizes.
August 1 - France orders mobilization
August 2 - Germany occupies Luxembourg and demands passage from Belgium (this war, I'll grant, was started by Germany, and was the only war to be clearly started by her)
August 4 - Germany invades Belgium following refusal of her ultimatum
August 7 - France commences invasion of Germany. They are repulsed within 2 weeks.

Oh yeah ? What is your counter-estimate ?

Presumably something similar to the GDP of Belgium and Northwestern France at most. Do you have figures for that?

That's historical facts, sorry if it doesn't fit your own bias. I will grant you that there was a lot of clumsiness and miscalculation as compared to mischief in Germany's attitude, and that A-H's responsibility is in some ways even worse.

That's a contradiction, clumsiness and miscalculation (and as I mentioned above) and sometimes outright non-aggression (though I will admit that a significant amount of egging on was involved by all parties) are very distinct from "I want, gimme," aggression which characterized, say, WWII. I won't speak to A-H, as they firstly, committed very real war crimes in Serbia, a distinction which Germany lacks (though I'll admit that they did abet their allies' war crimes in the sense that they were willing to look the other way to preserve the alliance), and secondly, did really start the war.

Your source ?

Aside from the Franco-Russian alliance which binded France to war anyways?

What were French demands in 1914 ?

I've cited the Rhineland in recent posts, but I'll admit that I haven't found the source where I read it initially.

Germany was trapped by its own paranoia and engulfed the whole Continent in war as a consequence, and I find it disturbing that some people still seem to deem it justified one hundred years after the facts.

Which is different from outright aggression. And I wouldn't call it paranoia, given that in war-time, allies call upon allies, which, if they're major states, is bad for the states they're fighting against, and France and Russia were allies, and very strong ones at that (Poincare was actually in Russia at the time assuring the Tsar that they were allied). I find it more unusual that justification or even suggesting that the Germans weren't mustache-twirling villains is disturbing, like I confessed I ate babies or something. Or that the Germans did eat babies and it was okay.

Originally Posted by benben

Yeah, Brest-Litovsk is a pretty good indication of what a peace treaty would have looked like in the West if Germany had won. And what Germany was willing to offer Belgium in case of separate peace gives some pretty good indications as well.

I think BlondieBC's point was that Brest-Litovsk represented the "maximum and unlimited diktat," and that likewise, the maximum and unlimited diktat for France would have been something very harsh, and I would go so far as to say harsher than Brest-Litovsk. In practice, as France was not on the verge of a civil war and total collapse of all authority, the German demands in the west were likely to be much less.

for the UK, maybe, but for France or Belgium ?

Belgium I'll grant you, France, really not so much, given that they at least clearly wanted to gain Alsace-Lorraine, rather than simply defending themselves, as so many have implied.

Again, conditions that Germany would have made to Belgium in case of separate peace (and I'm not talking about outright German victory here) are known. And I haven't seen any German source stating that this would be a maximalistic program that would have to be scaled back to respect the UK. The ability of German diplomacy to read the concerns of their enemies and identify the concessions that could make a real difference was pretty minimal, IMHO.

The Entente made no effort to scale back any treaty to respect Germany (and went out of their way to behave childishly during the treaty signing). Scaling back terms did not and would not have occurred because of mutual respect, but because realities, which even the ineffectual German diplomatic corps would realize. For example, Britain will get a white peace, because there really is no way to harm them on their island. Likewise, how Belgium is treated depends on convenience on the part of both powers, not just what Germany wants. What Germany would like is its maximum war goal. In practice, it would have had to settle for a compromise to get Britain to come to the table, even if they already got France to do so.

Speculation... All available sources and German behavior during the war point to the contrary. And again, Germany did not undergo any destruction on its territory in the West as a result of invasion. On what basis would have they asked for reparations. This also forgets the level of "occupation indemnity" that Germany levied on Belgium and Northern France (close to 25% of pre-war GDP in Belgium, as of 1915 !) and the outrageous plundering of industrial and other assets.

Most of which would never have come close to equaling the Versailles reparations, which were greater even than the GDP of allof France and Belgium.

Originally Posted by benben

"Scrap of Paper" all over again ? It's not because morality and interest happened to go hand-in-hand this time around that the entry of the UK in the war to defend Belgium was not justified.

It certainly played a role. Before Germany invaded Belgium, the cabinet was divided on whether to intervene, largely since a German victory would have been greatly against Britain's interests and largely due to difficulty in justifying the war to the British people. Germany, and I'll admit, they were not justified in doing so, by invading Belgium, solved that problem.

You forget A-H in your list ! And equating UK and Germany is ludicrous, totally ignores the invasion of Belgium.

Put them between UK and Russia. They committed similar war crimes on Serbia as Russia did to their own people, but they still committed war crimes.

Also, I would say that the UK, being responsible for the deaths of a half million civilians, hardly has clean hands.

This is outrageous. Belgium had no repsonsibilty whatsoever in WW1. Trying to justify its invasion by what happened in Congo (when it was not yet under Belgian jurisdiction, mind you) is the most egregious leap of logic I have ever seen on this forum, and demonstrates clearly what your biases are. With such reasoning, we could impose ToV² because of the Herero genocide...

I think his point is that Belgium wasn't some baby that was stepped on by a sneering gestapo man...rather, a normal person which was stepped on by a soldier.

Originally Posted by Gannt the chartist

I think the basic point about Versailles is that for some considerable time - Arguably since the Great Elector certainly since Frederick and the Silesian wars and most definitely since 1866 Prussia/Germany had sought to achieve its policy goals in Europe by launching aggressive wars against its nieghbours.Versailles was a failed attempt to prevent that.

And Germany/Prussia was unique in this respect? That's a very narrow-lensed way of looking at history. One of the justifications for taking Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 was that France had done this in the 17th century, and that France had been doing similar things during most of the 18th century and the early 19th century. Well, when they had a king smart enough to win such wars. The Great elector part is especially ludicrous, at the same time period, Germany had just spent the past thirty years being fought over in blatant wars of aggression by literally every single one of its neighbors. I think in another thread, it was mentioned that you could argue that after factoring in colonial wars, Germany fought the fewest wars of any European country. Though admittedly, they had a chance of equalling that number if they were geographically placed in a better spot.

If you want to complain about Versailles being harsh compare it to the peace treaty of 1945.

If you want to claim that Versailles was in any way justified, come back after Germany has committed a genocide and been complicit in the mass murder of something in the area of fifty million people. And despite this, I would argue that Versailles is, except for some losses in the East, only mildly lighter than the final settlement of WWII. Which frankly, is a damning indictment of the Entente of WWI.

Originally Posted by Michele

I think we can serenely acknowledge that this fine point is irrelevant and has no bearing on country survival. A country's survival is at stake when, say, it gets dismembered and turned into annexed bits, a protectorate and a satellite; or when it's directly and entirely annexed. Options that should ring a bell.

Well, you have that slice in the east which probably counts as dismembered, the level of reparations were intended to completely destroy the German ability to compete in any meaningful way, the military disaramament which were intended, if enforced, to reduce Germany to a satellite of France and a buffer state against the USSR, you have the Ottoman Turks, who lost not only their empire, but until they protested militarily, were going to lose large chunks of territory except for a very small slice in the north as satellites and protectorates of the Entente powers, and were in some areas, subject to outright genocide, and also Wilson's idea to ethnically cleanse most of northwest Turkey of Turks...

And neither France nor Russia (well maybe Belgium, but that's literally the one area Germany was actually guilty in, and which was totally offset by various Entente war crimes) would even in the most harsh peace have been completely dismembered or turned to annexed bits.

Seriously, what you described was essentially word for word the Entente policy towards Turkey (the parts of the Ottoman Empire that were mostly Turks). Except with more ethnic cleansing. And this was publicly acclaimed and accepted policy, not the wet dream of the ultra-nationalist minority.

We could, if this were relevant to the point being discussed.

Considering how it suggests that Germany was less aggressive than it is commonly made out to be, I'd say its very relevant.

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Yes, I did leave out AH which should be tied with France.

I would say that A-H should probably be somewhere between Russia and UK. They committed many war crimes in Serbia.

[Adler17]

Originally Posted by zoomar

Not necessarily. In 1945 the Allies completely defeated Japan and a US-imposed constitution forced Japan to give up the right to maintain military forces except for the minimal sort needed for self-defense. True, because of Cold War pressure, the US eventually permittied and assisted Japan in expanding its Self-Defense Forces to become a credible military and Japan could also count on US occupying forces to protect the country for outside aggression. Japanese militarism was eliminated yet the nation prospered and survived.

To some extent this also applied to the post 1949 Federal Republic - although in this case the west saw an advantage in having a robust German military on their side.

As I've said before, the real problem with Versailles was that many segments of German society did not realize they lost the war and that their nation's fate was truly in the Allies' hands. The nationalistic myth was that the military was undermined by unpatriotic homefront forces - Socialists and...dare we say it...Jews. Germany, and the world, would have been better if the 1918 Armistice fell thru, the Allied offensive continued, and the Allies were in a position to dictate peace terms in Berlin to a thoroughly defeated Germany. The vast majority of Germans - knowing how they were prepared to treat Russia after its collapse - would not be shocked or surprised by a harsh treaty that they were forced to sign. C'est la guerre as they say.

You are comparing apples with bananas: The problem was, that Germany was in danger to be invaded by enemy forces in 1919, Japan after 1945 not.

Adler

[Snake Featherston]

Versailles had a number of issues, the most grievous of which was the total neglect of the situation in Central and Eastern Europe in favor of that in Western Europe beyond vague handwaving generalities. This coupled with the initial weakness of Russia and Germany means that Poland's exploiting this creates the seed of at least *a* future conflict involving Russia, Germany, and Poland. Whether that conflict shows up in 1939-style form, OTOH, is not at all predictable.

[Adler17]

Originally Posted by Michele

I think we can serenely acknowledge that this fine point is irrelevant and has no bearing on country survival. A country's survival is at stake when, say, it gets dismembered and turned into annexed bits, a protectorate and a satellite; or when it's directly and entirely annexed. Options that should ring a bell.



We could, if this were relevant to the point being discussed.

But losing about 50% of the territory is still okay ... (Rhineland, East Germany)

Adler

[Adler17]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

I'm trying to recall how much of Greece was to be annexed by France or the UK in the event of an Entente victory...

Iran was.

Adler

[Michele]

Originally Posted by Zmflavius

Well, you have that slice in the east which probably counts as dismembered, the level of reparations were intended to completely destroy the German ability to compete in any meaningful way, the military disaramament which were intended, if enforced, to reduce Germany to a satellite of France and a buffer state against the USSR,

What I find funny is the way in which these claims morph.

We started with a claim that Germany needed strong armed forces for its survival. When asked whether the survival of Germany as a country was ever threatened, somebody mentioned Polish and French post-1918 operations. Which is funny in its own right.

When further asked whether these operations really had a chance, let alone the intention, of annexing all of Germany or of dismembering it, this even funnier notion of "dismemberment in parts" comes up.

Let's get this straight: after the dismemberment of what remained of Czechoslovakia, there was no more a Czechoslovakia on the map.

After the second Polish partition, there was not a Poland on the map.

After the Anschluss, there was not an Austria on the map.

That is dismemberment and that is the contrary of survival.

"Partial" dismemberment leaves a Germany on the map. Germany survives.

It should be easy to understand, really.

In fact, Germany survived in 1918 and survived in 1945, even, unlike the three examples mentioned above. That should be a guideline quite simple to comprehend.

you have the Ottoman Turks, ...

Long tu quoque defense. Not interested, thanks. The point was whether Germany's survival was at stake.
It wasn't.
Could we just friendly accept that it was an off-the-wall, wild-eyed claim and live with that? Thanks.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Adler17

At first, comparing Versailles and Brest-Litowsk is one of the biggest errors one can easily make. Brest-Litowsk was hard. Yes. But remember who was there to negotiate for Russia. Lenin. And he should be kept at bay as much as possible. The Czar was still offered in 1916 to get Poland back, if he made peace.

What did RUSSIA lose in Brest? Finland, Poland, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia. Look, what RUSSIAN territories were indeed lost. None. Indeed this treaty was giving many peoples the right of self determination.

Versailles was OTOH a dictate. It was not acceptable. And indeed it was broken by the Entente as well. The Versailles treaty did provide several clauses, in which the Entente powers were oblieged as well. So disarmament was to be started once Germany was disarmed. Indeed that never happened. In 1932 France severely fought against it. So why some here complain, that the Germans broke the treaty, if the Entente did the very same? Oh, and the right of self determination was hurt. No plebiscite in the Corridore, the Sudeten to the Czechs, Austria not to reunite with Germany... The other treaties with the other CP are the very same.

Oh, and there were invasions by Poles. And then the French and Belgish invasions. And the Germans could do nothing. Indeed the Cordon sanitaire of the French was more a reason of rearmament in Germany than any other thing. If it would not exist, there would be no need of such big forces. But as long as Poland, the Czechs and France (and later even the USSR!) were allied, and in a way, that even an offensive war would trigger a war of this coalition versus Germany, the breaking of the military clauses of Versailles was a neccessity for a surviving Germany, regardless, who the chancellor of Germany was called (unfortunately he was a mad Austrian in the 1930s and 40s.).

Versailles = WW2.

Oh, the German generals were asked in 1919, if they could continue the war. They said no. The Germans would not have signed Versailles, if it was harder. Then the French would have had to invade- and face an Afghanistan type war. Not nice. Also then the chances of Germany becoming communistic, which was the fear of everyone, would be very high.

Adler

P.S.: We all regard Versailles as a punishment. But many punishing clauses were officially not meant as such.

Oh, spare me the repetititon of German justification of their rearmament. Germany was so convinced of the necessity of containing the Soviet Union that it was spending the entire 1920s and early 1930s developing its Blitzkrieg simultaneously with aiding the USSR's development of Deep Operations, while signing away any indemnities with the USSR, and in fact being the Soviet Union's best European special buddies. The difference between 1991 and 1917 is so obvious that the comparison is ludicrous: in 1991 the nationalist movements in the Soviet Union freed themselves. 1917 would have been the first stage to a German attempt to impose a Bizarro Warsaw Pact.

Originally Posted by Adler17

Please keep in mind Germany was not able to defend herself. Also the French were, among the other states, the first, who broke the Versailles treaty, as they did not demilitarise.

Furthermore they had signed a treaty amendment with Stalin in 1936, in which both nations were willing to mutual assistance in case of war- regardless, who started it. That was a violation of Locarno.

Adler

This is all well and good, but Germany had already been violating Versailles from 1922 in alliance with the Soviet Union, so Germany still violated treaties first.

Originally Posted by Adler17

Catspoke, you miss several factors. The Germans DID try to revoke several clauses, but to nearly no avail. Secondly, the Germans signed only under protest. Doing so made it possible to revoke it later. Third, Eupen and Malmedy had no fair plebiscite, as the Belgians forced the population litterally at gunpoint to vote for Belgium. Third, the right of self determination is either valid for all- or does not exist at all. There should have been plebiscites in the Corridore, A-L, Sudetenland, Memelland, Austria and other places as well. This did not happen. Fourth, the Reichswehr was in no way able to defend Germany. When Poland invaded parts of Danzig in 1933 only the League of Nations could enforce the retreat of the Polish soldiers. If that happened in Germany, the Reichswehr was not able to counter this. It is ridiculous to assume Germany shall not have the right of self defense. Ironically all means to have much greater forces than Germany meant that Germany needed so strong forces to be able to defend against France and Poland at the same time. And when they got, they were so strong to beat both. If France and Poland had accepted to disarm, ww2 would have been delayed significantly, perhaps avoided. But none of them agreed to follow THEIR duty to disarm.

In Versailles the other powers were entitled to disarm. They did not do so. In contrast, they started to rearm again. In 1932-34 the Germans tried to make several attempts to make such an agreement. To no avail. The French were way too stubborn. And we have to see here: Germany was disarmed. The few planes and tanks can't really count. The Entente was not willing to comply to THEIR duties. So they broke the treaty first! And why should Germany then still be entitiled to follow a treaty, which the other side broke even more?

Adler

Perhaps because as per OTL when Germany did start rearming Germany proceeded to use its arms to inaugurate a barbaric war of extermination over a huge swathe of Europe? I mean the Soviets when they were rearming did not show a willingness to do more than use their army as an augment to diplomacy, they were never willing to risk general European wars. Germany did this twice and started a real war the second time that led to Germany fighting itself to its own destruction, including a Nazi pact with the USSR that included Germany 'containing' the Soviet Union by handing an entire country to the USSR.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Adler17

Michele, the German militarism was nothing special compared to the one in other countries. And to leave a country undefended means only they will at any possible point seek to change that. Remember France and Poland invaded Germany 1919-1923. So having strong forces was necessary to survive.

Adler

Meanwhile Germany was re-arming together with the Soviet Union, laying the foundation for the mechanized forces Hitler would use to turn as much of Europe as he could get his grubby mitts on into a grotesque parody of Dante's Inferno as per the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922. Perhaps Allied suspicion of Germany was not unwarranted, while perhaps also the Nazis provided an ironic counterpoint to the claim that a German-Russian alliance was necessarily impossible given without Russia Germany will never re-arm on anything akin to an OTL scale.

Hitler did not begin rearming or violating treaties against rearming. The Weimar Republic did. Stalin did not begin Soviet ties with Germany for the purposes of Soviet expansion, the Triumvirate of 1922 did.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Adler17

You are comparing apples with bananas: The problem was, that Germany was in danger to be invaded by enemy forces in 1919, Japan after 1945 not.

Adler

Had Germany been invaded and occupied entirely by the allies after WW1 and demilitarized, Germany also wouldn't be in danger of invasion either. German interests that didn't conflict with the intent of the occupying forces would be protected by occupying allied armies. What I am saying is that it would have been better if Germany was conquered, totally occupied, with is government and constitution reconstituted under Allied control. The Japanese knew their military lost the war. Too many Germans in 1919 did not know this.

[Adler17]

Who has the right to alter the constitution of another country? And the interests of the Entente powers were different. France did want to dismember Germany. And they invaded Germany as well. There was simply no security for Germany, especially if you see the interests of France and Poland.

Adler

[Gannt the chartist]

Germany/Prussia is unique in that it does this after what is supposed to be a general European settlement after Vienna. The only other country I can think of in Europe launching a general war of agression is in the A/H Sardinian war in the 1850’s.

Quoting the wars of Louis XIV is more than a little misleading as twice (Peace of Ryswick and Peace of Westphalia) the French evacuated Lorraine it gets transferred to the failed franco Polish Candidate in the war of polish succession with the Lorraine Dukes getting Tuscany in return, it devolves to the Kings of France on the death the polish guy and Is agreed to by all parties in exchange largely for French support for the Pragmatic sanction.

Alsace is however bought by the French in 1648.

You are probably right about Germany and its components fighting fewer wars, but its irrelevant in this context. In 1866, 1871, 1914 Germany had launched major wars on little to no provocation except that it believed it could gain by so doing. The latest of those had resulted in an unprecedented casualty rate and the cause was a deliberate attempt by Germany to impose its will by force. That makes Germany just fuckin dangerous. The fact that other people used to do it as well is irrelevant.

Personally I would not claim Versailles was justified for the good and sufficient reason that it failed to stop Germany behaving like a medieval duchy. It took another world war, the destruction of most of Germany, its unconditional surrender, occupation for a decade by the victorious powers, purging of the body politic and their writing of a new constitutional settlement and imposing it, as well as much treasure from the US to do that.

In context though Versailles was not a bad effort.

Oh and as to the British Blockade - you do realise that blockading food is only made illegal in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and only then in the context of foodstuff for children, nursing mothers and for their exclusive use only. Prior to that its up to the Blockading power to determine the list and by both UK and US law (which are the only two juristictions that practically matter) its entirely legal.

If you have any other reasons why the UK blockade was Illegal lets hear them

[Zmflavius]

Originally Posted by Michele

What I find funny is the way in which these claims morph.

We started with a claim that Germany needed strong armed forces for its survival. When asked whether the survival of Germany as a country was ever threatened, somebody mentioned Polish and French post-1918 operations. Which is funny in its own right.

No we don't. We start with a claim that Germany needed strong armed forces for defense, following which you insisted that Germany only needs armed forces to prevent being totally annexed (which you also seem to be claiming is the only metric by which a country's security can be measured. I'd say survival, but you're the only one in this thread who's claimed that the argument presented is German survival). If you want to use your definition, France and Russia were never under any threat whatsoever from Germany or any other state, because they were never under any danger of total conquest.

When further asked whether these operations really had a chance, let alone the intention, of annexing all of Germany or of dismembering it, this even funnier notion of "dismemberment in parts" comes up.

Let's get this straight: after the dismemberment of what remained of Czechoslovakia, there was no more a Czechoslovakia on the map.

After the second Polish partition, there was not a Poland on the map.

After the Anschluss, there was not an Austria on the map.

That is dismemberment and that is the contrary of survival.

"Partial" dismemberment leaves a Germany on the map. Germany survives.

It should be easy to understand, really.

In fact, Germany survived in 1918 and survived in 1945, even, unlike the three examples mentioned above. That should be a guideline quite simple to comprehend.

What exactly is your point? Because France had no interest in conquering Germany up to the Neman, Germany was never in any danger? Or do you seriously believe that the German war goals in WWI were to create an empire whose actual borders stretched from the Pyrenees to the Urals? That's literally what it sounds like you're saying. Or does this notion that a country is treated unfairly only apply to Germany? It is unlikely that Germany would have annexed a larger part of France than the northern half of Meurthe-et-Moselle; I was not aware that doing so would result in the annexation of all of continental France.

Long tu quoque defense. Not interested, thanks. The point was whether Germany's survival was at stake.
It wasn't.
Could we just friendly accept that it was an off-the-wall, wild-eyed claim and live with that? Thanks.

Well, you said that carving up large parts of a country, turning significant portions into protectorates and satellites ought to ring a bell, and it did, your policy was word for word the policy towards the Ottoman Empire. To reject it suggests that it should not have rung any bells at all.

Let me requote the post for your benefit:

Originally Posted by Adler17

Michele, the German militarism was nothing special compared to the one in other countries. And to leave a country undefended means only they will at any possible point seek to change that. Remember France and Poland invaded Germany 1919-1923. So having strong forces was necessary to survive.

Adler

From the bolded portion, you've extrapolated Adler's claim to "France tried to annex all of Germany up to the Neman." This, frankly, is sophistry at its worst. Having strong forces is necessary to ensure that a country can't walk in and occupy your primary industrial region, is that better?

Originally Posted by Gannt the chartist

Germany/Prussia is unique in that it does this after what is supposed to be a general European settlement after Vienna. The only other country I can think of in Europe launching a general war of agression is in the A/H Sardinian war in the 1850’s.

The implication in your post is that Germany is guilty because it fought European wars, instead of wars in non-European countries, which are ok. Leaving aside that the primary goal of Vienna was to ensure the dominance of conservatism, the Vienna settlement did not in any way prevent Great Powers from waging wars of even more blatant aggression, and frequently, in non-European lands, which upset the balance of power as much as war waged in Europe. To say that Germany is guilty because it fought wars against civilized European countries instead of savages in non-European countries is Eurocentric.

And leaving aside the fact that something in the area of forty wars were waged in Europe by Europeans against each other in the 19th century. Though admittedly, a lot of them were waged (by all powers) against rebellions.

Quoting the wars of Louis XIV is more than a little misleading as twice (Peace of Ryswick and Peace of Westphalia) the French evacuated Lorraine it gets transferred to the failed franco Polish Candidate in the war of polish succession with the Lorraine Dukes getting Tuscany in return, it devolves to the Kings of France on the death the polish guy and Is agreed to by all parties in exchange largely for French support for the Pragmatic sanction.

Alsace is however bought by the French in 1648.

My primary point was that the characterization of Europe as a superhero comic where France is trying to restrain a generic supervillain Germany from running roughshod over Europe and annexing every one of its neighbors like a game of EU III is inaccurate in the extreme. And I am given to understand that Alsace's history in this regard is somewhat more complicated; and involved a combination of seizure, sale, and conquest, at the very least, for the whole of Alsace.

You are probably right about Germany and its components fighting fewer wars, but its irrelevant in this context. In 1866, 1871, 1914 Germany had launched major wars on little to no provocation except that it believed it could gain by so doing. The latest of those had resulted in an unprecedented casualty rate and the cause was a deliberate attempt by Germany to impose its will by force. That makes Germany just fuckin dangerous. The fact that other people used to do it as well is irrelevant.

It is most certainly relevant, unless you are implying that it only matters when Germany does it; Especially since even in the 20th century, other countries did it without fail, except without the high casualty rate (and I've already made my arguments about the extent to which Germany can be blamed for the war). Well, I have for 1914, in 1866, the war was a little more complicated than the typical Victoria 2 route of simply declaring war on Austria to Assert Hegemony. Namely, it was a war both sides wanted to finally decide European primacy. Likewise, technically France launched the Franco-Prussian War, which it is worth noting, with about as much responsibility as Germany had for launching WWI.

Personally I would not claim Versailles was justified for the good and sufficient reason that it failed to stop Germany behaving like a medieval duchy. It took another world war, the destruction of most of Germany, its unconditional surrender, occupation for a decade by the victorious powers, purging of the body politic and their writing of a new constitutional settlement and imposing it, as well as much treasure from the US to do that

In context though Versailles was not a bad effort.

Again, my main issue is the extremely arrogant perception that Early Modern European history can be summed up as a superhero comic where the fantastic three retrain Germany.

Oh and as to the British Blockade - you do realise that blockading food is only made illegal in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and only then in the context of foodstuff for children, nursing mothers and for their exclusive use only. Prior to that its up to the Blockading power to determine the list and by both UK and US law (which are the only two juristictions that practically matter) its entirely legal.

If you have any other reasons why the UK blockade was Illegal lets hear them

Do we need a better one than the five hundred thousand corpses which resulted? The Paris declaration technically covers any goods which are not contraband of war, which in this case, includes food and fertilizer. In any case, any military action which results in the deaths of five hundred thousand civilians goes against the spirit of the laws of war.

[zoomar]

Originally Posted by Adler17

Who has the right to alter the constitution of another country? And the interests of the Entente powers were different. France did want to dismember Germany. And they invaded Germany as well. There was simply no security for Germany, especially if you see the interests of France and Poland.

Adler

Obviously, the victor has the right to alter the constitution of another country. Are you implying somehow that Germany had not lost WW1? In the situation I describe, France can't invade Germany any more than it already has.

Agreed, the interests of the Allies were not all the same. Perhaps France did want to permantly dismember Germany, perhaps not. Frankly, even if this was the French desire, it is unlikely that the US and UK would let them do this. As for Poland, it was not an allied state. Once its border with Germany was established by treaty, Allied occupying forces would protect the border from further Polish demands.

[stevep]

[QUOTE=BlondieBC;6317914]This is an UK crime due the the UK breaking the rules relating to food imports. The Germans were responsible for feeding the population, if the UK followed the rules. But since it was impossible to bring in the need food due to the blockade, German is relieved of moral responsibility for these deaths. They are a stain on the soul of the British Empire.

The numbers also look a little high.[QUOTE]

Actually the problem for Germany was that it decided fighting the war was more important than feeding its people. People starved in Germany and occupied areas largely because Germany stripped its agriculture of men, horses and fertiliser to put into the war effort. This wasn't because they were at war and needed it, it was because they mis-judged the allocation of resources.

And this might me a convincing argument, IF the Russians had started mobilizing after the A-H rejection. But they started mobilizing BEFORE it was even sent.

There is a difference between mobilizing and going to war, except for Germany because of the mess its war plan got itself into.

Steve