Was Germany punished too hard for WWI?

[kung Zog]

Well, that doesn't sound polemical. I'm sure the authors of such works don't have axes to grind.

I'm particularly interested by the statement about "lavish social subsidies". I can't help but wonder what someone from a country that provided much more poorly for her citizens at the time would consider "lavish". It almost sounds like blaming Germany for insisting on trying to take proper care of her citizens...

Still, I'll read those books, read the books by those who refute them, and try to figure out where the real truth lies. Thanks.

The polemical tone is caused by repeating the same statement since the late 60s. It's hard not to when common lies are standard "facts" in many works, for example the nature of the pensions.

 

[Tallil2long]

Too much idealism might be correct. However I don't think the demands were that self-righteously demanded as they were more or less directly related to damages caused by the German state just half a year before. After the war they were also quite cordial towards Germany agreeing on some revised payment plans.

Yes France, United Kingdoms and Belgium all did terrible things but that is not what the war or reparations was about. It was about the damages caused by Germans flooding French mines, burning fields and villages etcetera.

Yes, they were self-righteous. Burning fields in India or Congo starve people as effectively as burning fields in Belgium.

 

[kung Zog]

Yes, they were self-righteous. Burning fields in India or Congo starve people as effectively as burning fields in Belgium.

Yes but the war was not about the colonial empire...

and, for that matter their "self-righteousness" neither enhance nor decrease the validity of the claim "You destroyed my mine, donkey and telegraph line! Pay up!"

 

[Tallil2long]

The polemical tone is caused by repeating the same statement since the late 60s. It's hard not to when common lies are standard "facts" in many works, for example the nature of the pensions.

I'll just have to read the works cited, and any that purport to refute them, before I'm willing to assume the lies are all on one side.

 

[kung Zog]

I'll just have to read the works cited, and any that refute them, before I'm willing to assume the lies are all on one side.

I wish you good luck!

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The polemical tone is caused by repeating the same statement since the late 60s. It's hard not to when common lies are standard "facts" in many works, for example the nature of the pensions.

Eh, there has been a lot of historiography that was continued from the 1960s that was discarded later; the Fischer thesis for one.

 

[Tallil2long]

Yes but the war was not about the colonial empire...

and, for that matter their "self-righteousness" neither enhance or decrease the validity of the claim "You destroyed my mine, donkey and telegraph line! Pay up!"

Very true, and quite a convenient fig leaf for the modern apologists.
But when nations demand reparations from others for activities that they themselves routinely commit... Look, it's hypocrisy to say "You have to pay for your crimes of this week, but I'll never pay for mine of last year".

Still, this discussion is profit less to all. I'll just bow out of it and quit sidetracking this thread. Have a good evening,

 

[Tallil2long]

I wish you good luck!

I'll need it. I had just committed to researching Japanese history, too...
Groan.

 

[kung Zog]

Eh, there has been a lot of historiography that was continued from the 1960s that was discarded later; the Fischer thesis for one.

Of course. I find however this statement not discarded but rather ignored or ridiculed by its opponents.

 

[fasquardon]

Very true, and quite a convenient fig leaf for the modern apologists.
But when nations demand reparations from others for activities that they themselves routinely commit... Look, it's hypocrisy to say "You have to pay for your crimes of this week, but I'll never pay for mine of last year".

Germany was fully party to the hypocrisies of the time. Is it somehow better when Germany colonized Africa or imposed peace treaties on the countries that lost wars with them?

And, rather importantly, Versailles did not impose "punishment" on Germany for "crimes". To say otherwise is to set up a straw man.

Also, I would point out that France did pay all of the reparations that Germany imposed on it after 1870. Germany did not pay all of the reparations that were imposed on it after WW1. So the reality was closer to being the opposite of what you said.

I rather think the infrastructure damage was in France and Belgium because France and Russia (the Entente) had, over the several years prior to WW1, put Germany in a position where her only hope was to strike first if war occurred. Then Russia set off the powder keg in 1914 by mobilizing when she KNEW Germany would have to respond.

...

Germany was in no-wise forced to strike first. Nor was she forced to strike through Belgium. She chose both of those courses of action. Now, considering how badly the war damaged France, it is arguable that (for Germany) it was the best course of action, even considering she lost, so I have some sympathy for the German point of view. But I think the leaders of the great powers, every man of them, should not be let off the hook for WW1. They chose their road to hell. However understandable their choices, even one of those men choosing differently could have led to a very different outcome for the whole world.

fasquardon