Inspired by my discussion in this thread here.I am rather surprised by some of the responses,so I want to get a broader view on the subject.
Which WWI peace treaty was harsher?Versailles or Brest-Litovsk?
- Thread starter Avrorrange
- Start date
Versailles was a slap on the wrist compared to Brest Litovsk. The idea of its harshness being the real culprit for the second world war is unfiltered Nazi horseshit of the highest order.
I have see this question numerous times and what always comes to my mind is this:
The German Empire was basically a nation state (>90% German) the Russian empire was not (~50% Russian [excluding Belarusians and Ukrainians]).
In this sense (National self-determination post ww1) I think you should not compare Versailles and Brest-Litovsk, but should instead compare Brest-Litovsk with Saint-Germain, Trianon and Sevres (later Lausanne).
When looking at those 4 (B-L, S-G, Trianon and Sevres & Lausanne) I always found it interesting that they pretty much describe the modern day borders of the affected nations.
I don’t find Versailles overly harsh, just mismanaged and badly implemented.
The German Empire was basically a nation state (>90% German) the Russian empire was not (~50% Russian [excluding Belarusians and Ukrainians]).
In this sense (National self-determination post ww1) I think you should not compare Versailles and Brest-Litovsk, but should instead compare Brest-Litovsk with Saint-Germain, Trianon and Sevres (later Lausanne).
When looking at those 4 (B-L, S-G, Trianon and Sevres & Lausanne) I always found it interesting that they pretty much describe the modern day borders of the affected nations.
I don’t find Versailles overly harsh, just mismanaged and badly implemented.
Brest-Litovsk undoubtedly. To the victor go the spoils of war and seldom are the defeated pleased.
I am confident that had the Germans won WWI they would acted in accordance with their national interests (as they should have) and imposed a treaty on France that would have secured their long term future, as Brest-Litovsk would have done in the East. Versailles ticked none of those boxes.
I am confident that had the Germans won WWI they would acted in accordance with their national interests (as they should have) and imposed a treaty on France that would have secured their long term future, as Brest-Litovsk would have done in the East. Versailles ticked none of those boxes.
Last edited:
In my opinion,Trianon,Sevres,Brest-Litovsk and Saint-Germain were much harsher compared to Versailles.In raw terms,Russia,Austria,Hungary and Turkey lost much more than the Germans.Austria,Hungary and Turkey were basically brought down to being third rate powers after the war while Russia/USSR in the end actually had to break what they signed and retook Armenia,Georgia,Ukraine and Belarus.
Last edited:
tenthring
Banned
Brest-Litovsk was a treaty between a victorious Great Power and an utterly defeated power with no ability to resist and about to engage in Civil War. Or perhaps more accurately, it was an agreement with a group that never existed before claiming it controlled Russia.
Versailles was a treaty between Great Powers. Germany was beaten, but it was still on foreign territory and was retreating in good enough order that the Entente was fighting for every mile. Casualty totals for the 100 days show what kind of a price would be payed if the Entente choose to push onto Berlin and prolong the war another year. In negotiations you pay for what you want. The Entente didn't want those casualties so it got less then Germany got from Russia.
Versailles was a treaty between Great Powers. Germany was beaten, but it was still on foreign territory and was retreating in good enough order that the Entente was fighting for every mile. Casualty totals for the 100 days show what kind of a price would be payed if the Entente choose to push onto Berlin and prolong the war another year. In negotiations you pay for what you want. The Entente didn't want those casualties so it got less then Germany got from Russia.
I don't know much about Brest-Litovsk, but the feeling was preatty much "You"re still a Great Power, only smaller"
Versailles was "You're a colony now" and that why I think it's harsher
Versailles was "You're a colony now" and that why I think it's harsher
I generally agree, but then how do you value the harshness of a treaty?
For example is disallowing Austria to become a part of Germany harsher than taking away Finland from Russia?
Culturally? Yes; Population Wise? Yes; Territorially? No; and so on...
I don’t think that B-L and Versailles can be just simply compared by the size (or the share) of the lost territory but each area would have to be valued (Population Wise, Culturally, Economically, …).
In the end whether Versailles or B-L are harsher I think just comes down to what you value more.
I'm not sure how having to pay a large indemnity that's spread over decades as well as promising to disarm is equivalent to becoming a colony.
I determine harshness as the amount of stuff lost by the power and the effects of the terms on the country's strength in the aftermath.I don't find prohibition of Austria from become a part of Russia could even be classified as 'harsh'. Both German and Austria hasn't lost anything they owned before as a result of this clause.
Last edited:
Well I would define it differently but there opinions just differ i guess.
Interwar Austria would heavily disagree with you. Modern day Austria not at all
What promise did they break?
Another thing is a large reparation is probably more preferable than Brest-Litovsk considering B-L didn't just get rid of the ethnic minorities,they took away most of the industry and coal mines.I think a more equivalent Brest-Litovsk without losing more German territories would be to sign over the rights to 90% of German industry and coal mines to allied ownership or simply just deindustrialize Germany like the Morgenthau Plan.Although,like others have mentioned,if Germany didn't decide to sign an armistice in 1918 when they are still fighting on allied soil,chances are that they will have a Brest-Litovsk style peace treaty where they lose a whole bunch of land with German majority or otherwise to the allies.In additional to otl cessations,Silesia and perhaps East Prussia will most likely be given to Poland,Bavaria would be given independence while France will most likely get some slices of Germany,probably Saarland at the minimum.The Germans were able to avoid losing more land than they did because they were in a better condition than the Russians.
As for reparation,I thought the Soviets were forced to agree to pay 6 billion gold marks when the country is in civil war and having lost some much territory,population,industry and coal mines already?
Last edited:
One thing not mentioned yet, B-L was a Treaty were both sides NEGOTIATED, so had some say over the outcome. Versailles was not! It was a dictat. So yes harsher.
So basically if the court sentences you to twenty years in imprison,it's harsh. Meanwhile, if the court negotiated with another individual and gave them two options,get imprisoned or executed,it's actually being lenient?!
I can never understand what the Austrian has done that they deserved to be dismemebered in this way, the hungarians as well, of coz.
Brest-Litovsk was harsher by far. I'm honestly surprised it would even occur to ask the question.
{edit} Looking at the link provided as the inspiration for this discussion, coming from a well-known Imperial Japan apologist I'm not at all surprised to see something like this. Ah, alright then.
Russia was supposed to pay high reparations to Imperial Germany, and only got out of this because Imperial Germany was overthrown by its people. The reparations Germany had to pay to the Entente were theoretically very high, even higher, but in practice they paid far less than the amount they were alleged; it was just an Entente gesture to look tough without actually being tough. The Entente even cancelled reparations once the German economy was in very poor shape, which Imperial Germany didn't do even when Russia's standard of living in 1917-1918 was far poorer than Germany's in the Great Depression. Because the Entente gave Germany loans which Germany then cancelled, the effect was a net capital transfer in real terms into Germany from the victorious powers.
In comparison, Versailles took a few peripheral territories away from the German Empire (Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish corridor, part of Silesia, part of Schleswig-Holstein…) while leaving the overwhelming majority of the pre-war German Empire's territory, population, natural resources and industry still under German control, and forbade Germany from annexing more land (namely Austria). Brest-Litovsk took a vast proportion of the Russian Empire's population, agricultural land and natural resources, including plenty of its most fertile agricultural region, the black earth region. The Russian Empire lost a third of its population, a third of its railways, a third of its agricultural land (disproportionately including the more developed and more fertile parts), 54% of its industrial undertakings, 73% of its iron and 89% of its coal. To compare that to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Posen et cetera and suggest that the latter is harsh by comparison is ludicrous; the latter is incredibly lenient by comparison.
One can call Versailles harsh, reasonably; but if one judges it by comparison with Brest-Litovsk it was very lenient. It could easily have been a lot nastier and more akin to the treaties the German Empire enforced on its defeated great power enemies; and if not for the moderating influence of the United States it probably would have been. If the Entente had taken away East Prussia, Bavaria and the whole of the Rhineland too, that might have been more in line with Brest-Litovsk.
As for the idea that Germany deserved better terms because it wasn't really defeated, that's nonsense. Germany had already lost the war when the armistice came; fighting on after that point would lead to nothing but disaster and even harsher terms. Most people understood that. Even the German Army understood that. Certain far-right groups in Germany refused to admit that Germany had clearly lost the war, but there's no way around the fact that they were, very simply, wrong.
…?
They lost a war. That's the way wars work. If you lose, you don't get off scot-free, you lose land and/or money; and if it were a very large war where the victors are exhausted, need money and are hungry for vengeance, you lose a lot of land and/or money. War isn't some sort of genteel game where it's considered rude to take things if you win; the entire point is to win and therefore be able to enforce your will over that of your opponent.
{edit} Also, damn it, I pressed the wrong button on the poll. Perils of doing these things in too much of a hurry!
{edit} Looking at the link provided as the inspiration for this discussion, coming from a well-known Imperial Japan apologist I'm not at all surprised to see something like this. Ah, alright then.
Russia was supposed to pay high reparations to Imperial Germany, and only got out of this because Imperial Germany was overthrown by its people. The reparations Germany had to pay to the Entente were theoretically very high, even higher, but in practice they paid far less than the amount they were alleged; it was just an Entente gesture to look tough without actually being tough. The Entente even cancelled reparations once the German economy was in very poor shape, which Imperial Germany didn't do even when Russia's standard of living in 1917-1918 was far poorer than Germany's in the Great Depression. Because the Entente gave Germany loans which Germany then cancelled, the effect was a net capital transfer in real terms into Germany from the victorious powers.
In comparison, Versailles took a few peripheral territories away from the German Empire (Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish corridor, part of Silesia, part of Schleswig-Holstein…) while leaving the overwhelming majority of the pre-war German Empire's territory, population, natural resources and industry still under German control, and forbade Germany from annexing more land (namely Austria). Brest-Litovsk took a vast proportion of the Russian Empire's population, agricultural land and natural resources, including plenty of its most fertile agricultural region, the black earth region. The Russian Empire lost a third of its population, a third of its railways, a third of its agricultural land (disproportionately including the more developed and more fertile parts), 54% of its industrial undertakings, 73% of its iron and 89% of its coal. To compare that to the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, Posen et cetera and suggest that the latter is harsh by comparison is ludicrous; the latter is incredibly lenient by comparison.
One can call Versailles harsh, reasonably; but if one judges it by comparison with Brest-Litovsk it was very lenient. It could easily have been a lot nastier and more akin to the treaties the German Empire enforced on its defeated great power enemies; and if not for the moderating influence of the United States it probably would have been. If the Entente had taken away East Prussia, Bavaria and the whole of the Rhineland too, that might have been more in line with Brest-Litovsk.
As for the idea that Germany deserved better terms because it wasn't really defeated, that's nonsense. Germany had already lost the war when the armistice came; fighting on after that point would lead to nothing but disaster and even harsher terms. Most people understood that. Even the German Army understood that. Certain far-right groups in Germany refused to admit that Germany had clearly lost the war, but there's no way around the fact that they were, very simply, wrong.
…?
They lost a war. That's the way wars work. If you lose, you don't get off scot-free, you lose land and/or money; and if it were a very large war where the victors are exhausted, need money and are hungry for vengeance, you lose a lot of land and/or money. War isn't some sort of genteel game where it's considered rude to take things if you win; the entire point is to win and therefore be able to enforce your will over that of your opponent.
{edit} Also, damn it, I pressed the wrong button on the poll. Perils of doing these things in too much of a hurry!
Last edited: