WW1: Treatment Of Germany At Versailles

Out of curiosity, how deep was the damage the Germans deliberately did to the industrial and mining lands of Walloons and Lorraine? It seems that they should be given a bit of consideration, especially as it is likely they would have been kept up and running incase of German victory, instead of sabotaging them when they heard about peace coming up.

As for the United States in the League of Nations, it is likely enough if Wilson wasn't pig headed enough to refuse to let Congress keep their constitutional right to be the only ones who can declare war. The League certainly didn't back up the smaller members with their armies so it would have been unlikely they could be pushed if they were in anyways. Might have ended up with all of Anatolia being occupied by the US though.
 
You know after WW2 the Allies were REALLY hard on Germany. They divided her, 100% blamed her for the war, put their leaders on trial for war crimes and either executed them or put them in prison. Changed their educational system and kept their military in Germany forever. That worked out pretty good. Maybe they should have been that type of hard after WW1.

The difference between WWI and WWII was that Germans and Austrians felt (and still feel) that WWI was fought for just causes. While after WWII the Germans and Austrians felt that they (we) were to blame for atrocities - and not just single persons but more or less the whole of them (us). So there was a sense of "NEVER AGAIN" - its simply impossible to demand "revance" for WWII as it was entirely logical to demand revance for WWI. (Still there are some fools who think that all was well back then)...
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Out of curiosity, how deep was the damage the Germans deliberately did to the industrial and mining lands of Walloons and Lorraine? It seems that they should be given a bit of consideration, especially as it is likely they would have been kept up and running incase of German victory, instead of sabotaging them when they heard about peace coming up.

I understand the point, but it is really applying a standard to Germany different from the Entente. For example, Russia destroyed 2 million buildings in the Congress of Poland. Destroyed the crops it could. It may no provision to feed the Poles, its own citizens. Russia did the same for the parts of East Prussia it took as it retreated. The Entente did plenty of atrocities in Africa when viewed from the perspective of the natives. It is only the racism of the day that prevents this from being a major issue back then. Italy never had the chance to burn enemy lands. France never had the chance outside of A-L which was "French soil". I am pretty sure the French or British would have destroyed German mines instead of allowing them to be recaptured, if possible. We can go to the Boer war to find the UK literally salting the earth and destroying civilian assets of non-combatants. And this is against whites.

The internally consistent logical reason for Germany to pay reparations is that this is what normally happened to losers back then. For actual damages done, or less. Wars don't generate profits for the winners.
 
The difference between WWI and WWII was that Germans and Austrians felt (and still feel) that WWI was fought for just causes. While after WWII the Germans and Austrians felt that they (we) were to blame for atrocities - and not just single persons but more or less the whole of them (us). So there was a sense of "NEVER AGAIN" - its simply impossible to demand "revance" for WWII as it was entirely logical to demand revance for WWI. (Still there are some fools who think that all was well back then)...

I am Dutch and I too consider WW1 to have been fought over just causes, for both sides and I do try to look at the war with fresh and unbiased eyes.
 
Top