Treaty of Versailles is less harsh on the Germans.

Olmeka

Banned
I remember that in the eastern regions elections were held. Some of the were in favour of staying with germany. But the Allies gave the territories regadles of the election to poland.
In East Prussia where the majority voted for Prussia, it was allowed to remain within it, a few villages where majority voted for Poland was given to Poland. In Upper Silesia the area was divided after the voting, with most of it remaining in Germany, and some areas where majority voted for Poland going there. Both had areas where the opposing side won majority, however Germany had considerable more as it managed to hold on most of the territory.
 
In most instances the seeds of one war is in the peace that ended the previous. The seeds for the Great War were sown in the 1871 Treaty of Frankfurt that ended the Franco-Prussian War. Aside from the War Guilt clause I don't see the treaty particularly harsh for the war that had occured.

Actually, it was unprecedented in its harshness by a Western Power against another Western Power. Now, if Germans were some sloven Slavs or some inscrutable Orientals, sure, but against a country considered part of the West?Also, 1871 did not predetermine anything. The French were perfectly, albeit reluctantly, willing to live with the losses, not withstanding their rhetoric. Don't confuse words with action; no French politician was willing to go to war over Alsace-Lorraine. The Great War occurred not because the devious, Machiavellian French politicians duped the British and the Russians into doing their dirty deed, but because France feared Germany. Revenche was furthest from their minds.Just as important was Russia's determination to step up to the German bullying, the desire on the part of the British Establishment to crush an upstart rival, and because the Germans let military calculations drive their policy, rather than letting diplomacy have a chance of working to localize the war.
 
No, the Allies learnt their lesson: If you're aiming to crush an enemy, you have to crush him completely.

Nowadays the Germans themselves enforce the pacifism et cetera the Allies inculcated them with.

It's debatable whether the Allies could have crushed the kaiserreich in WWI. With the US help, sure, but we did not give our aid unconditionally. The US, or in this case, Wilson, had the Allies by throat; it was peace with honor, or else, especially if the Germans accepted Wilson's 14 points unconditionally and sought to divide the Allies by asking the US to accept the German surrender and invoke the good office of the President to mediate the end of the war. In such case, neither Britain nor France could refuse.The central irony of the Great War was that the moment when a total victory was within reach of the Allies was the exact moment it was denied to them.
 
Woodrow Wilson at war with 125,000 American dead took a very different position than did Woodrow Wilson, dilettante peacemaker.
 

Olmeka

Banned
Now, if Germans were some sloven Slavs or some inscrutable Orientals
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, harsher to Russian Empire then Treaty of Versailles to German Empire.
 
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, harsher to Russian Empire then Treaty of Versailles to German Empire.

That is my point. This was 1918/9. Racism and social darwinism were alive and well. B-L was 'acceptable,' because Slavs didn't really count. Germany was the nation of Beethoven, Hegel, Kant, Goethe, an integral part of the West. I've read plenty of popular histories written during or after the War by the Brits that were plenty vitriolic towards the Germans, yet most of them still showed admiration toward German kultur/civilization. It typically went like, 'only if Bismarck hadn't imposed militarism, Prussianism, the junkertum on Germany, the land of Beethoven, Goethe, Kant would be all right today.' Etc.
 
Yes definitely. Yes, probably, No idea.

The problem with Versailles is not the Treaty, it is that no-one is willing to enforce it. A more lenient treaty will not change anything. It should have been harsher.


>.>
<.<

:mad:

Although I'm far from a booster of Nazism or Militarism in general, I disagree strongly with you. Germany had many, many legitamate beefs with the end of the War and Versailles.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm not an expert, even an "amateur expert", on WWI. My points are based on my general knowledge, so if I get a set of FACTS wrong, I welcome correction (not that I need to worry about it on the AH board...plenty of people have stepped up to the plate to make me look like I flunked 9th Grade History or something lol:p)]


First, the Guilt Clause. That's obvious.

Second, as somebody pointed out, the French wanted to "neuter Germany's power forever" I believe the phrasing was. First of all, *IF* France had won the war, once could see their attempts to impose their dominance as legitimate. But France didn't win the First World War anymore than they won the Second. I don't recall any French soldiers on German soil at any point in the war. Germany's loss was largely due to a population bone-weary of war and, especially, the U.S., who saved the Entente's ass in a lot of ways. I think that having a brutal, cruel and unfair peace imposed on you, largely by the shrill screaming of a country that hadn't beaten you, hadn't even come close to beating you, was going to create a lot of very justifiable resentment. There's no excuse for France's actions at Versailles. They're beyond the pail, even the Brits (who suffered extremely along with the French at German hands) saw that, both then, and much more later. The harshness of Versailles could be acceptable if the Kaiserreich had acted as Hitler did, in terms of waging aggressive, cruel war against everybody it saw, but that wasn't the case.

Third, the Occupation of Ruhr. That was an act of utter petty brutality by a nation that supposedly prided itself on it's tradition of culture.

Frankly, I'm suprised that a leader didn't come to power in Germany who sought an alliance with the USSR (the Weimar Republic already had good relations with the Soviets, from what I'm given to understand) and sought to pound the entire nation of France into dust for what it did after the war.

The Treaty of Versailles was, as someone else pointed out, unprecedented in its harshness. I don't want to come off as if I'm bashing France, but the French, to my best knowledge, were the driving force behind the harshness of the Treaty, although the British certainly acted no better.

At the end of the day, the Treaty of Versailles is now rightfully reviled, and I think a strong reason for that is: the British and especially the French used Versailles to try to emasculate a younger rival state in "victory" they didn't really win.

Oh: I'm an American of mixed-European ancestry, not a German or an Austrian or an American of German extraction. Just FYI.
 
Last edited:
That is my point. This was 1918/9. Racism and social darwinism were alive and well. B-L was 'acceptable,' because Slavs didn't really count. Germany was the nation of Beethoven, Hegel, Kant, Goethe, an integral part of the West. I've read plenty of popular histories written during or after the War by the Brits that were plenty vitriolic towards the Germans, yet most of them still showed admiration toward German kultur/civilization. It typically went like, 'only if Bismarck hadn't imposed militarism, Prussianism, the junkertum on Germany, the land of Beethoven, Goethe, Kant would be all right today.' Etc.

Of course, the reason the Brits were against Bismarck (who was a fantastic and temperate leader) and "Prussianism" is because it threatened to take away some of Britain's influence in Europe in the World
 
Top