Yes, that treaty was a major part of WW2.
If you consider the treaty punishment for what Germany did during WWI? Absolutely. Germany was hardly worse than France, Britain, Russia, etc. But the treaty of Versaille wasn't made as punishment for Germany, it was made for revenge, greed and trying to knock out Germany permenantly. They failed at the last part and the result was WWII.I've heard here and there that the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany too excessively for its role in World War I. I was wondering, was actually that the case? Was Germany's punishment too harsh? Was it not harsh enough?
Well the treaty combined with the fact that the allies never actually took one step into Germany proper. I think it might have been a different matter if Entente troops had marched into Cologne before the treaty was signed, that would have led to 'the stab in the back' being a conspiracy theory rather than a legitimate (to those unfamiliar with the situation) view.Yes, that treaty was a major part of WW2.
Well the treaty combined with the fact that the allies never actually took one step into Germany proper. I think it might have been a different matter if Entente troops had marched into Cologne before the treaty was signed, that would have led to 'the stab in the back' being a conspiracy theory rather than a legitimate (to those unfamiliar with the situation) view.
Absolutely. The Germans should never have annexed Alsace-Lorraine. if they hadn't it would probably have lead to an less toxic relation between France and Germany and thus a better twentieth century.Was the treaty of Frankfurt too harsh as well?
Given the context of the post, evidently MattII meant that the Entente should have invaded Germany itself before actually signing an armistice. Which is, of course, a bad idea. Germany asked for the armistice - what should the Entente have said? "Sure, but first, we'll kill thousands more of your soldiers and loot the Rhineland so it doesn't seem like your army was 'stabbed in the back'!"?
Given the context of the post, evidently MattII meant that the Entente should have invaded Germany itself before actually signing an armistice. Which is, of course, a bad idea. Germany asked for the armistice - what should the Entente have said? "Sure, but first, we'll kill thousands more of your soldiers and loot the Rhineland so it doesn't seem like your army was 'stabbed in the back'!"?