Treaty of Versailles not as harsh re: Germany, WWII butterflied away

[Mulder]

IMHO a fair treaty would have been something along these lines:

-Reparations limited to the damages caused by Germany to Belgium + France

-Cession of Alsace-Lorraine to France and Malmedy (but not Eupen or St. Vith) to Belgium

-Plebiscite between Germany and Luxemburg in the (tiny) areas lost by Luxemburg to Prussia in 1815 (if France and Belgium get something, why shouldn't Luxemburg, they were invaded as well)

-Plebiscites in Memel, Posen, West Prussia, Upper Silesia, Mazuria, which Germany would probably win except the Posen one

-Free access for Poland to the ports of Memel, Königsberg, Danzig and Stettin if Poland does not win the West Prussia plebiscite (Czechoslovakia got something similar in OTL regarding Stettin and Hamburg). Extraterritorial road and railroad to East Prussia if Germany loses the West Prussia plebiscite.

-Nothing regarding North Schleswig since Denmark was neutral and deserves no spoils for a war they did not take part in

-Loss of German colonies

-No war guilt clause

-Not keeping Austria from uniting with Germany if the population of Austria (including the Sudetenland) so desires. This would also have the side effect of strengthening the Centre Party and weakening the Junkers later on.

-Demilitarization of the Rhineland limited to the time Germany has to pay the reparations (this would serve as an incentive to Germany to pay them a.s.a.p.)

-Saar stays a regular part of Germany, just gets occupied until France has its mines back running

-German army and navy are allowed to have 3/4 the strength of Italy, which was the weakest Entente power as far as I know. This should be sufficient not having to fear the likes of Poland. Additionally Germany is allowed to posess an air force and tanks.

-Germany is prohibited to have any diplomatic relations with the Red Russian government before the first Entente power has

 

[Dr. Waterhouse]

I agree with this analysis, by and large. What I might point out though is that one of the reasons for those economic problems was the reparations payments being made to the Allies, and the consequences of the Allied occupations when those reparations weren't paid.

Now, this goes to an interesting and very trenchant issue in international law. Unless I'm mistaken (and the early twentieth century is not my focus), the rule of Versailles reparations was that Germany broke it and thus Germany bought it. And hence we can say as an abstract matter it's fair. But if the reparations regime triggered all that resentment and despair, then sometimes fairness in the application of international law might not be enough.

The Communists--with their call for a peace without annexations or indemnities--may have had at least this right.

Interesting ideas, but I'm a bit dubious. I speak with particular reference to Germany, about which I have more knowledge than Poland. The German government kept up good relations with the Soviets well before Hitler: they were both outcasts and they both had something to offer each other. Realpolitik trumped ideology just as much, if less spectacularly, than it would in 1939. The German army, that bastion of 19th century thinking, was in active cahoots with the Soviets, testing illegal tanks in the Ukraine or something similar, and I remember reading a memorandum somewhere about re-partitioning Poland along the 1914 borders.

If we assume a Germany in which knee-jerk revulsion of communism is enough to catapult Hitler to power, then such pragmatic co-operation becomes unthinkable.

What doomed Germany democracy was not communism, nor was it Versailles. It was the economic desperation of Germany itself. A "white" Russia would not, by itself, save Germany, although I imagine there would be considerable enough butterflies to change things and, hopefully, keep the Nazis miles from power.

 

[Wozza]

The usual collection of apologia for the deeply unpleasant phenomenon that was Imperial Germany.

A lighter Treaty would simply have fuelled fantasies about not really losing the war.

 

[Mulder]

The usual collection of apologia for the deeply unpleasant phenomenon that was Imperial Germany.

A lighter Treaty would simply have fuelled fantasies about not really losing the war.

The usual opinion that Imperial Germany was in any way better or worse than Imperial Britain or Revanchist France (not to speak of Czarist Russia)

 

[Wozza]

The usual opinion that Imperial Germany was in any way better or worse than Imperial Britain or Revanchist France (not to speak of Czarist Russia)

It was worse than Britain or France. It was militaristic, authoritarian, aggressive and ultimately a breeding ground for anti-semitism. The proof of the pudding is in Alsace-Lorraine, the people there hated being part of their own country (in ethnic-linguistic terms) and wanted to be part of France.

 

[Mulder]

The people of Alsace-Lorraine were treated worse than the rest since the Junkers mistrusted them. If they had been treated like Baden, the Palatinate or the Saar, the story would have been different.

 

[Dr. Waterhouse]

I for one am not writing an apologia for anything. I am writing about what I see as a structural problem in some aspects of international law and how I think the Versailles Treaty is a reflection of that. One can say that Germany started the punitive reparations game with its exactions against the French in 1871, one can say that it in fact caused the damage that it was now having to pay for, so much so that if this was an American tort case it would have had a damages award against it equal to what it was in fact adjudged to owe in 1921.

But if this penalty of hundreds of billions of marks has the effect of discrediting the parties in Germany that were arguing for peace because it makes them responsible in the public's eyes for everything unpleasant that has come with the peace, if this penalizes people for the actions of a government they may not have supported, then where does that leave us? The bottom line is that the rough justice of group blame and group punishment has unpleasant consequences and more often than not is ineffective in achieving its objectives. Indeed: that embargo of Cuba was just the ticket to rid the western hemisphere of Fidel Castro, wasn't it?

Europe would be a far better place if the Kaiser and the General Staff had been tried individually for murder, and the penalties imposed on the specific human actors responsible.

The usual collection of apologia for the deeply unpleasant phenomenon that was Imperial Germany.

A lighter Treaty would simply have fuelled fantasies about not really losing the war.

 

[dummnutzer]

It was worse than Britain or France. It was militaristic, authoritarian, aggressive and ultimately a breeding ground for anti-semitism.

The UK spend between 2 and 3 % of its GDP on defense pre-WW I, Germany about 1.5 %, certainly less than 2 %. So much about "militaristic" Germany.

"Authoritarian" Germany had a real one man one vote system, while Britain still disenfranchised 40 % of its male population after the Fourth Reform Act of 1884. Several nations adoted the German legal system as Germany was the leading Rechtsstaat of the period.

Count the wars started by both nations and tell me which nation was more "aggressive". Disraeli already advocated the destruction of the new German state in 1872 IIIRC.

During the Kaiserreich, there was a massive immigration of Eastern European Jews into Germany. Germany admittedly lacked Jewish generals, but I fail to recall any British admirals of Mosaic belief. It gets quite interesting if one looks at racism: A British court ruled ca. 1900 that Canada could disenfranchise a citizen because he was an ethnic Chinese. Nobody in Germany thought about disenfranchising Afro-Germans.

The proof of the pudding is in Alsace-Lorraine, the people there hated being part of their own country (in ethnic-linguistic terms) and wanted to be part of France.

There was no armed uprising in Alsace. Compare this with anglophone Ireland ...

 

[I Blame Communism]

It was worse than Britain or France. It was militaristic, authoritarian, aggressive and ultimately a breeding ground for anti-semitism. The proof of the pudding is in Alsace-Lorraine, the people there hated being part of their own country (in ethnic-linguistic terms) and wanted to be part of France.

This is ridiculous. While, if you phrased yourself in less blunt terms, I'd actually be on your side about Alsace, Ireland is a valid comparison there. What were Germany's acts of aggression in the entire imperial period? A lot of unpleasant actions in the Pacific and Africa (of which Britain and France were of course totally innocent ) and invading Belgium and Luxembourg for strategic reasons in a way that was totally unlike my own country's flagrant violation of Danish neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. This example stretches it by going back a hundred years, of course, but then I believe the French had a plan to cut through Belgium assuming the Germans didn't, so meh.

Militarism doesn't seem to have a precise definition. You'd be right to say the German army had inordinate influence on civil society.

Authoritarian, it depends on your definition, but one can't exactly state that Britain and France were happy shiny democracies in this period.

But what the hell is a "breeding ground for anti-semitism" anyway? A ridiculous Germanophobic cliche caused by people projecting a historical tragedy back in time? That's the only sane explanation I can think of. So there was anti-Semitism in Germany. Unfortunate, terrible, setting the foundations for etc etc etc, but it wasn't like the government hadn't anything to do with it. Bismarck did a lot of business with Jewish financiers, and of course poor old Rathenau had been a big man in Germany's war economy.

But of course it doesn't matter if the German government wasn't responsoble for this terrible blight, since the mere existence of it in the hearts of Germans damned there nation to just ruination, given that there was absolutely no anti-semitism in the hearts of people in other countries like France. Hah, I chuckle to imagine a country like France being torn and divided by an enormous scandal concerning institututional anti-semitism! What ASB! Hawhawhaw.

Oh, wait a minute...

 

[Wozza]

The UK spend between 2 and 3 % of its GDP on defense pre-WW I, Germany about 1.5 %, certainly less than 2 %. So much about "militaristic" Germany.

Unfortunately this isn't true, Germany spent more like 3-4%.

That's not even the point. Which is that a military caste, suffused to glory and battle hunger, dominated German society.

"Authoritarian" Germany had a real one man one vote system, while Britain still disenfranchised 40 % of its male population after the Fourth Reform Act of 1884. Several nations adoted the German legal system as Germany was the leading Rechtsstaat of the period..

Only the people the British voted for actually got to run the country. Germany's elected politicians did not. Once again your figure is not accurate. Also it was the 3rd Reform Act.

Once again this isn't even the main point. Germany proved a more socially divided society, less able to secure working class for the war, and, most important of all - its elites were less willing to. The vision of greater freedom, participation and democracy presented in Britain as a reward for mobilisation was not matched in Germany,

Why was this? Because it was ruled by a militarised, authoritarian caste.

Count the wars started by both nations and tell me which nation was more "aggressive". Disraeli already advocated the destruction of the new German state in 1872 IIIRC...

Prussia not at all aggressive unless you were Denmark, France, Austria...
Germany caused the First World War because it did not fancy being outmatched by Russia.

During the Kaiserreich, there was a massive immigration of Eastern European Jews into Germany. Germany admittedly lacked Jewish generals, but I fail to recall any British admirals of Mosaic belief. It gets quite interesting if one looks at racism: A British court ruled ca. 1900 that Canada could disenfranchise a citizen because he was an ethnic Chinese. Nobody in Germany thought about disenfranchising Afro-Germans.

Not really sure why any of this is relevant. But regarding racism Britain elected an ethnic Indian MP in 1892.

Unfortunately what actually happened in Germany was that as the war progressed exclusion of and discrimination towards Jews increased as the ruling caste gave in to the complaints of the ultra-nationalists. In contrast in Britain and France Jews became better incorporated into society.

And this is the real point about Imperial Germany, it became worse under the test of war, ever more nationalist ideas increased in popularity and their proponents increased in influence. The ruling elites became ever more inflexible and wedded to the status quo and unwilling to adapt.

There was no armed uprising in Alsace. Compare this with anglophone Ireland ...

Ireland was a different country. For this reason the comparison is limited.
Yet as it was 86 Irish nationalist MPs sat quite happily at Westminster. There was limited violence until after the war started.

 

[Wozza]

But what the hell is a "breeding ground for anti-semitism" anyway? A ridiculous Germanophobic cliche caused by people projecting a historical tragedy back in time? That's the only sane explanation I can think of. So there was anti-Semitism in Germany. Unfortunate, terrible, setting the foundations for etc etc etc, but it wasn't like the government hadn't anything to do with it. Bismarck did a lot of business with Jewish financiers, and of course poor old Rathenau had been a big man in Germany's war economy.

But of course it doesn't matter if the German government wasn't responsoble for this terrible blight, since the mere existence of it in the hearts of Germans damned there nation to just ruination, given that there was absolutely no anti-semitism in the hearts of people in other countries like France. Hah, I chuckle to imagine a country like France being torn and divided by an enormous scandal concerning institututional anti-semitism! What ASB! Hawhawhaw.

Oh, wait a minute...

I refer you to the answer above: anti-semitism grew in Germany during the war but declined in France. Ultra-nationalists successfully campaigned for restrictions against Jews and the authorities gave in. What does this tell you about the people who ran Germany? Their attitudes and proclivities.

This was an elite that scarcely 20 years later were happy to sign up to a plan that involved starving 100 million people to death. Do you think those attitudes came from nowhere? How do you think extremism becomes dominant? First it is tolerated, then it is appeased, then it flourishes. Your "anti-German" straw man can left to rot in the fields where it deserves.

 

[dummnutzer]

Unfortunately this isn't true, Germany spent more like 3-4%.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but I found different data. I would be very interested in your sources, if it does not create a problem

Getting hard data on this period is somewhat difficult as both sides used creative accounting. Any input is welcome.

Only the people the British voted for actually got to run the country. Germany's elected politicians did not. Once again your figure is not accurate. Also it was the 3rd Reform Act.

Yep, I was wrong, the Representation of the People Act of 1884 was the Third, not the Fourth Reform Act. MEA CVLPA. But I got the year right.

The figure of 40% of the male population being disenfranchised under said act seems to be correct. Wikipedia says so. ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Reform_Act

The British parliament admittedly had more power than the Reichstag, but the House of Lords - still powerful at the time - had no democratic legitimisation at all, while the House of Commons only represented 60% of Brits (not counting women, of course).

I prefer a democratic, but weak, body to some powerful body without a decent democratic basis. A synthesis of both system would have been great, of course.

Prussia not at all aggressive unless you were Denmark, France, Austria...

Peace-loving Britain simply had to fight the Chinese, the Russians, the Boers ...

Just look at the last 40 years before WWI; it is no coincidence that the BEF was so modern (webbing, rifle, some of its tactics) - it had lots of practice, unlike the "aggressive" Germans

Germany caused the First World War because it did not fancy being outmatched by Russia.

French revanchism, Russian Pan-Slavism and British fear of being marginalized by German economic and scientific leadership are OK, of course.

Yet as it was 86 Irish nationalist MPs sat quite happily at Westminster.

Francophile MPs from Alsace-Lorraine sat in the Reichstag. I fail to see your point.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Firstly, I must ask you to respond to every part of my posts as i do to yours, even in quick notes, otherwise it seems that you are ducking my arguments.

I refer you to the answer above: anti-semitism grew in Germany during the war but declined in France. Ultra-nationalists successfully campaigned for restrictions against Jews and the authorities gave in. What does this tell you about the people who ran Germany? Their attitudes and proclivities.

It certainly grew after the war (and thus by extension the Empire, and therefore beyond the immediate scope of this discussion), but I should like some information on government measures taken against Jews during the course of the war, as I have never heard of such.

This was an elite that scarcely 20 years later were happy to sign up to a plan that involved starving 100 million people to death. Do you think those attitudes came from nowhere? How do you think extremism becomes dominant? First it is tolerated, then it is appeased, then it flourishes. Your "anti-German" straw man can left to rot in the fields where it deserves.

Your comments on extremism are true and harrowing.

But irrelevant.

Because you give an exact chronology of events for the growth of these attitudes in terms of what the powers that be do about them. Tolerate-Appease-Accept.

What happened in Germany was Tolerate-Appease?(You have yet to produce your supposed anti-semitic wartime decrees)-Oppose as actively as such attitudes generally are opposed-Embrace. There was, in case you have forgotten, a republic. What you appear to be saying is that because the Imperial government tolerated institutional anti-semitism (and undoubtably it did in an undirected way, then appeased it (about which I am still dubious), it was allowed to flourish and bloom. You completely forget that for twenty years Jews were full citizens taking part in the national life in spite of some discrimination from some citizens, and that the Nazis then came to power. The most direct reason for this was Wall Street coming at the worst possible time. Sure, WW1 and Versailles "caused" it, in the same way that the unification of germany "caused" it and all subsequent German history. It was context. Backdrop. The past. So, the Nazis come to power for a reason with a tenuous connection to WW1 and the Kaiserreich, and they have raging anti-semitism in their ideology. This is historical causation. Twenty years is a while. If the actions of the Kaiserreich are to blame for the Holocaust in any meaningful sense, so is Martin Luther, or, come to that, Moses. Sure, it couldn't have happened without them. That doesn't make it there fault.

To clarify, I'm not trying to idealise the nastiness of Imperial Germany nor deny that in 1918 it was a nasty military dictatorship which might well have become proto-fascistic. I'm objecting to the idea that by being a "breeding ground for anti-semitism" it was responsible for all that came after. What it was was a country with a non anti-semitic government where anti-semitism was widespread and tolerated. I'm also not denying that France and Britain were better in this regard. The reason there was no German Dreyfuss affair was probably that in Germany framing a Jewish officer and sweeping him under the rug would hardly attract comment (and in Russia it would be because there were no Jewish officers, but that's besides the point).

All I'm saying is that in your list of bad things about Imperial Germany, you have put one which can only really amount to " some people in this country were anti-semitic", which is a ridiculous allegation to level at a government, as opposed to a person.

Now, on some other things you have said:

Your A-L comments have become nonsensical. Ireland is "a seperate country"? It wasn't in 1914! And if it "feels" or "wants" to be a seperate country (while remaining Anglophone), then why can't Germanophone Alsace feel French?

I actively labour to combat undue villainisation of British rule in Ireland, I would like to note, and I still find you apologism of our rule there and simultaneous demonisation of German rule in Alsace inexplicable.

Also, your "agression" position is getting untenable. Let's look at the wars you mention:

1864: Denmark signs a treaty which more-or-less annexes the German-majority province of Schleswig, kept outside Denmark-proper by binding treaty. The German Confederation acts collectively to prevent this. At the end of the war, the territories are placed under military occupation subject to a plebiscite in Schleswig which Austria and Prussia later conived to cancel but which would in any case almost certainly have found for Germany. Nothing else is done to Denmark. Agressive: not very.

1866: Austria declares war.

1871: France declares war.

Now obviously Bismarck's machinations were complex and Prussia was far, far from innocent of either war, but the fact is that the burden of proof rests with you. You must first show how a war declared against Prussia was in fact Prussian aggression before I am obliged to go into the deeper reasons why I believe that these wars do not demonstrate a mad hunger for war.

One other note, though: Bismarck worked to prevent war for the remainder of his tenure, thus detroying any continuity between Prussian "agression" before 1871 and German agression after 1900.

Speaking of which: Germany had a big hand in WW1. It could have prevented it easily. Then again, so could Austria or Russia. One can hardly claim that just because they wanted it, the German general staff were solely responsible for the war.

 

[Bry]

The British parliament admittedly had more power than the Reichstag, but the House of Lords - still powerful at the time - had no democratic legitimisation at all, while the House of Commons only represented 60% of Brits (not counting women, of course).

In fact by the time of the Great War the House of Lords had little constitutional power- and was able only to delay legislation for a maximum of three years, or a month where it came to financial matters (i.e. taxation). Admittedly that is not to say that it had no influence, but it has that today- and indeed has often been a check to the authoritarian leanings of elected governments.

 

[dummnutzer]

In fact by the time of the Great War the House of Lords had little constitutional power- and was able only to delay legislation for a maximum of three years, or a month where it came to financial matters (i.e. taxation).

The supremacy of the House of Commons was only established with the Parliament Act of 1911. Comparing the democratic (and legal) institutions in Germany and the UK between 1871 and 1911 gets surprising results IMHO.

If one concentrates on the latest developments prior to WW I, then one has to look at the growing power of the SPD, which was going to strengthen parliament and democratic structures in general ... unfortunately stopped by WW I.

 

[Terlot]

Several misconceptions are made in this thread.

A-Poles never wanted whole Upper Silesia, whole West Prussia. The areas were Poles were in majority were to be restored. Thus the only part of West Prussia was restored to Poland. Neither in Upper Silesia did Poles demand the whole region.

B-The plebiscite in Upper Silesia was never to determine the fate of the whole province. Local areas voted where they wanted to be and this was only to be advice to Allied committee.

C-The uprising in Silesia was not made to takeover the area but to determine the final line dividing Polish and German areas.

D-Germany after the uprising gained more Polish-voting areas then Poland German-voting areas.

E-The Kashubians were pro-Polish and anti-German, also they didn't constitute 1/3 of population in West Prussia. German statistics claimed the population as 1.641.936 with 437.916 Poles and 99.357 Kashubians

F-The position of Jews in Prussia was complex. Many were happy with Prussia and later pro-German. A more clear example of Prussian discrimination were the Poles.

G-Prussian militarism was not judged by number of wars, nor of military budget, but the role army played in culture, society and politics within Prussia.

H-To say Russian Empire was worse then Prussia is a stereotype. In fact Poles had better situation in RE then in Prussian state within German Empire.

I-The voting in GE was dominated by Prussia which kept its own set of laws and which gave enourmous power to junkers and landlords, and was far from democratic.


J-Germany didn't disenfranchise Africans true, but it had Herero Genocide. And it was trying to expell of citizens of its own who were of wrong ethnic background.




Finally couple of my words-the German state was young and what set it apart was for some reason, a very strong racism. While Russians viewed Poles as heretics and troublemakers, Germany treated them like lesser race. While Britain believed in supreriority of Europeans and themselfs over non-Europeans, German racism extended to Europeans as well thus it was wider.
Finally none of the Entente powers had such horrific plans as Germany during the war which envisioned enserfing the whole Central Europe, expelling its population from areas to be colonized by German colonists. The SPD wasn't a strong opponent of that plans.

I think what sets apart the German state is it enourmous complex towards others which manifests itself in inferiority symptom masked by claims of racial superiority. It seems a big part of German politics even if not all shared it of course. I think only the catastrophy of WW2 was sufficient to tone down the demands of German nationalism, although in some forms the feelings of superiority or belief in old propagand still exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Prussia#cite_note-5

 

[Bry]

The supremacy of the House of Commons was only established with the Parliament Act of 1911. Comparing the democratic (and legal) institutions in Germany and the UK between 1871 and 1911 gets surprising results IMHO.

If one concentrates on the latest developments prior to WW I, then one has to look at the growing power of the SPD, which was going to strengthen parliament and democratic structures in general ... unfortunately stopped by WW I.

To a certain extent the Parliament Act of 1911 merely codified what was already practice. For example, the Lords by tradition (a more powerful word in British politics than anywhere else) did not interfere in matters of taxation- a situation which contrasts sharply with the German system... The simple fact was that the Kaiser, at least until the years immediately prior to the Great War, had a central political role which included the sponsorship of the Chancellor himself in a practical as well as a merely formal sense.
Manhood suffrage (at age 25 plus, in reality not quite so generous as it sounds) in elections to an essentially very weak Parliament, by the standards of the United Kingdom, hardly overrides the blatant power of first the monarchy, and latterly the military.

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

In order for the Treaty of Versailles to become not so harsh is to remain the Saar region to Germany instead of being controlled by the League of Nations. Also, get rid of Hitler and Great Depression to butterflied away the World War II.

 

[Markus]

A few million Germans? The population of Danzig, the signnific but actually minority population of the eastern zones, and those Alsatians with a real German identity? That would never make one million.

According to wiki 2,1 million ended up in Polish West Prussia and Upper Silesia, 750,000 out of a million Germans west prussians were driven out/left/fled by 1926.

The Entente allowed Germany to have six battleships and the Germans tried to cram as much as they could into the mandated tonnage, creating the pocket BB. ALthough the ships actually went a little over tonnage, the Entente knew perfectly well in advance.

Sorry but this is dishonest to say the least. What the Entente called battleships in the ToV were 10,000 ton vessels. Please note that the first modern battleship HMS Dreadnought had a dispalcement of 18,000 tons, by the end of WW1 any decent BB was in the 35,000 ton range.

Of course, Germany never actually complied with the military terms of the Treaty of Versailles,...

Of course they did not. How could any responsible government accept utter defencelessness while surrounded by heavily armed unfriendly powers?

 

[Terlot]

According to wiki 2,1 million ended up in Polish West Prussia and Upper Silesia, 750,000 out of a million Germans west prussians were driven out/left/fled by 1926.

The articles on Wiki I read mention that a significent number of them weren't real inhabitants of those areas but former soldiers, officials and settlers moved there formerely by Germany and Prussia to Germanize the areas.