The Treaty of Versailles

[SolomonW]

In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles" the
ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those afterwards
blew it.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[Stephen Graham]

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles" the
ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those afterwards
blew it.

"Blew it" isn't the right term for what happened. The words of a treaty
are never sufficient in and of themselves to cause problems. It will
always be the choices made by states and groups that will determine
whether or not peace will continue.

For instance, while the zones established by Treaty of Sevres were
always going to be unpopular with the Turkish population, Greek actions
around Smyrna played a significant role in igniting the Greco-Turkish War.

[sctvguy1]

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles"
the ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those
afterwards blew it.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by sctvguy1

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles"
the ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those
afterwards blew it.

That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by sctvguy1

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles"
the ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those
afterwards blew it.

That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

Well, the so-called "war guilt" could have been omitted or at least
toned down.

It really didn't do anything substantive for the Allies and proved to be
a metaphorical burr under the German saddle for years.

And, as numerous historians have opined, it was inaccurate to assign
-all- the blame for WW1 to Germany. Certainly Germany was a major player
in causing the start of the war but the Allies hands were not completely
clean in this regard.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by Stephen Graham
OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

Well, the so-called "war guilt" could have been omitted or at least toned
down. It really didn't do anything substantive for the Allies and proved
to be a metaphorical burr under the German saddle for years.

Margaret Macmillan has documented how and why that clause
was written (and the German delegation obliged to sign it) --
because the principals (Lloyd George, Poincare and Wilson)
added personal disagreements and reactions to the divergence
in their national interests (cf. especially war debt: the only point
on which they were unanimous was that Germany should pay.
There was no time consider what might happen if Germany was
unable to pay.)

And, as numerous historians have opined, it was inaccurate to assign -all-
the blame for WW1 to Germany. Certainly Germany was a major player in
causing the start of the war but the Allies hands were not completely
clean in this regard.

The Treaty of Versailles concerned only Germany (and not the other
Central Powers.) It is a very modern fallacy to suppose that one
party's formal acceptance of guilt also means all other parties are
100% innocent. No participant at Versailles believed this -- only
ordinary people anxious to forget the war and get on with their lives
(which hints at why this fallacy is nowadays so common.)

The real problem was that the treaty was harsh, but the willingness to
enforce it was weak at the beginning and soon non-existent.

Yes indeed.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Don Phillipson

Post by Stephen Graham
OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

-snip -

Post by Don Phillipson

And, as numerous historians have opined, it was inaccurate to assign -all-
the blame for WW1 to Germany. Certainly Germany was a major player in
causing the start of the war but the Allies hands were not completely
clean in this regard.

The Treaty of Versailles concerned only Germany (and not the other
Central Powers.) It is a very modern fallacy to suppose that one
party's formal acceptance of guilt also means all other parties are
100% innocent. No participant at Versailles believed this -- only
ordinary people anxious to forget the war and get on with their lives
(which hints at why this fallacy is nowadays so common.)

But of course, Article 231 provided that Germany was responsible for
-all- the damage and labeled Germany as the aggressor.

"Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for
causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated
Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of
the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

I don't see that the Western Allies gained a great deal by inserting
this clause beyond, perhaps, a degree of psychological satisfaction.
Omitting the 'war guilt' article would not change any of the operative
provision and would have avoided at least some of the resentment of the
German populace towards the Versailles Treaty and the Western Allies.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Stephen Graham
OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

But of course, Article 231 provided that Germany was responsible for
-all- the damage and labeled Germany as the aggressor.
"Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for
causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated
Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of
the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
I don't see that the Western Allies gained a great deal by inserting
this clause beyond, perhaps, a degree of psychological satisfaction.
Omitting the 'war guilt' article would not change any of the operative
provision and would have avoided at least some of the resentment of the
German populace towards the Versailles Treaty and the Western Allies.

At the same time, what real harm did the clause do to Germany?

What should have replaced it?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Stephen Graham
OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

But of course, Article 231 provided that Germany was responsible for
-all- the damage and labeled Germany as the aggressor.
"Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for
causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated
Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of
the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
I don't see that the Western Allies gained a great deal by inserting
this clause beyond, perhaps, a degree of psychological satisfaction.
Omitting the 'war guilt' article would not change any of the operative
provision and would have avoided at least some of the resentment of the
German populace towards the Versailles Treaty and the Western Allies.

At the same time, what real harm did the clause do to Germany?
What should have replaced it?

I will say the loss of territory hurt, but that's what happens when you lose
a war. Certainly, it's hard to form Poland without at least some land
from Germany.

Mike

[Dave Smith]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Stephen Graham
What should have replaced it?

I will say the loss of territory hurt, but that's what happens when you lose
a war. Certainly, it's hard to form Poland without at least some land
from Germany.

Indeed, loss of territory is a consequence of war, especially when the
one who started the conflict in on the losing end of it. German lost
Alsace and Lorraine to France, so it was back in the hands of the nation
who had possessed them before the Franco-Prussian War just a few decades
earlier. It also lost territory to the east when the treaty established
boundaries and countries based mainly on the nationalist interests of
the people, though there were significant German populations within
those territories. The reunification of the German people was one of
Hitler's aims, and it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring
countries.

[Don Phillipson]

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia, two big chunks of Poland but not the rest)
because their populations were (under current theory) "Aryan." (And
non-Aryans were expelled, at least from the Polish provinces annexed.)

It is a bitter irony that Pres. Wilson was partly responsible, so far as
his 14 points promoted race-based states. Before WW1 nobody
thought it was unacceptably peculiar that Greece should be ruled by a
German king or people who spoke Polish or Flemish simply
must have a Polish or Flemish ruler.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them ...

Germany annexed the whole of Austria.

Post by Don Phillipson
(e.g. Alsace-Lorraine, Bohemia but not Slovakia, two
big chunks of Poland but not the rest) because their
populations were (under current theory) "Aryan."

Germany also annexed Klaipeda/Memel from Lithuania,
before the war. After the 1941 conquest of Yugoslavia,
Germany annexed part of Slovenia as "Lower Styria" (it
had been part of the former Austrian duchy).

Post by Don Phillipson
Before WW1 nobody thought it was unacceptably
peculiar that Greece should be ruled by a German
king or people who spoke Polish or Flemish simply
must have a Polish or Flemish ruler.

I would disagree; there was a lot of ethnic nationalism
before WW I. The whole issue of Bosnia was driven by it;
so were Italian revanchism, and the Balkan wars.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them ...

Germany annexed the whole of Austria.

I suspect that wasn't unpopular, though. Without getting too far afield,
it wasn't until relatively recently that the Austrian and German-speaking
Swiss were considered "non-German".

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Don Phillipson
Before WW1 nobody thought it was unacceptably
peculiar that Greece should be ruled by a German
king or people who spoke Polish or Flemish simply
must have a Polish or Flemish ruler.

I would disagree; there was a lot of ethnic nationalism
before WW I. The whole issue of Bosnia was driven by it;
so were Italian revanchism, and the Balkan wars.

But they were all ruled by a relatively in-bred royal family. As an aside
WRT Greece, the current Greek flag retains its colors because the (brief)
king at the time was originally Bavarian, and those are Bavaria's historic
colors.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Without getting too far afield, it wasn't until
relatively recently that the Austrian and
German-speaking Swiss were considered "non-German".

Until 1871, Germany was more of a geographical
expression rather than a nation-state. The "Holy
Roman Empire" was also known as the "German-Roman
Empire"; it had both an Emperor and a "King of
the Germans". Of course the HRE also included a
lot of territory that no one thought of as "Germany",
such as northern Italy, Slovenia, and Belgium.
As Switzerland and the Netherlands developed into
sovereign states, they both became separate from
the HRE.

Austria was part of both the HRE and "Germany".
When the HRE was abolished in 1806 or so, Napoleon
did not create a new structure for all Germany,
but Austria remained part of Germany. It should
be noted that von Metternich, Austria's leading
statesman in the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic
period, was born in the Rhineland to Rhenish
parents (though his father was an Austrian diplomat).

In 1815, the HRE was replaced with the German
Confederation. Austria was part of the GC until
1866. (As were Bohemia and Moravia, incidentally;
but _not_ East Prussia!)

Even after the formation of Germany as nation-
state in 1871, Austrians still considered themselves
Germans. In 1897, Dr. Lecher, Diet member from Brunn,
made a 12-hour-speech to block consideration of the
_Ausgleich_, which was witnessed by Mark Twain.
According to Twain, Lecher concluded his speech with
"The Germans of Austria will neither surrender nor die!"

And Austrians still consider themselves "German"
in the ethnic sense. Not many years ago, I visited
Capri with a group. We were guided by a local
woman. She was from Austria and had married an
Italian.

We joked about what she would drink when she got
home at the end of the day, and she said "I'm a
good German, I drink a nice blonde beer."

("Blonde" as an adjective is sometimes applied to
beer; I've seen "blonde ale" for sale, for instance.)

[Dave Smith]

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia,

Did they not annex Austria?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia,

Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state. And
Hitler himself was, let's face it, Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German
nationalist.

Mike

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state. And
Hitler himself was, let's face it, Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German
nationalist.

Hmmmm. I seem to remember a certain Georgian who bacame quite a
Russian nationalist. That fellow was succeeded by a Ukrainian who did
likewise.

[Michele]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia,

Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state.

But not in the 1930s, and at the time it was a "neighboring country" -
which Germany annexed as a whole.

Besides, if we go by the standard of what were states once upon a time,
then Bohemia was a separate state from Slovakia in the past, so it is
another country annexed as a whole, by that standard.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Michele

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia,

Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state.

But not in the 1930s, and at the time it was a "neighboring country" -
which Germany annexed as a whole.

But the German nation, perhaps more than any other, still saw any German-
speaking people as German.

And again, I don't believe the Anschluss was especially unpopular in
Austria at first. It might have remained popular, had the Anschluss-force
not been, you know, Nazis.

Mike

[Michele]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Michele

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Don Phillipson

. . . The reunification of the German people was one of Hitler's aims, and
it was one of his excuses for annexing neighbouring countries.

We can be more specific than this, since Nazi Germany annexed
no "neighbouring countries" but only parts of them (e.g. Alsace-Lorraine,
Bohemia but not Slovakia,

Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state.

But not in the 1930s, and at the time it was a "neighboring country" -
which Germany annexed as a whole.

But the German nation, perhaps more than any other, still saw any German-
speaking people as German.

Sure.

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
And again, I don't believe the Anschluss was especially unpopular in
Austria at first. It might have remained popular, had the Anschluss-force
not been, you know, Nazis.

We don't know really. There was no independent, free and reliable
gauging of public opinion.

But in any case, my point was that for all practical purposes, Austria
was an independent neighboring country, so the claim that Germany only
annexed parts of neighbors, which is what I was responding to, is not
correct.

[Dave Smith]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state. And
Hitler himself was, let's face it, Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German
nationalist.

Perhaps some people thought that it was just another German state but
the Austrians didn't. It would be veering too far from the group's
mandate to discuss the Holy Roman Empire and German confederation, but
the Austria preferred its dual monarchy with Hungary over joining
Germany. Since Germany had been increasing in size and militarism, the
Treaty of Versailles was aimed at breaking it up, preventing it from
uniting into a force that they might not be able to control. France did
not want German troops along its borders, to the Rhineland was not to be
militarized. The treaty established countries and borders somewhat in
accordance with cultural demographics. There were significant German
populations within some of those countries.

Bringing those Germans back into the fold was part of the agenda for
Hitler in his desire to build a new and more powerful Germany. He
tested the resolve of the Allies, violating the treaty a bit at a time,
militarizing the Rhine, annexing Austria, then the Sudetenland, followed
by the rest of Czechoslovakia and he got away with it. He signed
agreements, apparently just buying time and having no intention of
honouring them.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another German state. And
Hitler himself was, let's face it, Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German
nationalist.

Perhaps some people thought that it was just another German state but
the Austrians didn't.

Deleted most of the older historic stuff; but at the time of the
absorbtion, I've seen figures from 60-80% of Austrians were in favor
of the Anschluss.

Mike

[Dave Smith]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Perhaps some people thought that it was just another German state but
the Austrians didn't.

Deleted most of the older historic stuff; but at the time of the
absorbtion, I've seen figures from 60-80% of Austrians were in favor
of the Anschluss.

I don't doubt the numbers. My sister in law was born in Vienna and was a
young girl at the time. She acknowledges that Hitler was their hero.
While she is not at all anti Semitic, she does seem to embrace elements
of the national socialist policies. Never the less, treaties barred
Germany from expanding and Austria from giving up its independence.

[Mario]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another
German state. And Hitler himself was, let's face it,
Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German nationalist.

Perhaps some people thought that it was just another German
state but the Austrians didn't.

Deleted most of the older historic stuff; but at the time of
the absorbtion, I've seen figures from 60-80% of Austrians
were in favor of the Anschluss.

I suppose the remaining X% were Jews, Communists, Socialists,
Slovenians, Czechs, etc.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Mario

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Dave Smith
Did they not annex Austria?

There were times when Austria was considered just another
German state. And Hitler himself was, let's face it,
Austrian by birth, and a fanatic German nationalist.

Perhaps some people thought that it was just another German
state but the Austrians didn't.

Deleted most of the older historic stuff; but at the time of
the absorbtion, I've seen figures from 60-80% of Austrians
were in favor of the Anschluss.

I suppose the remaining X% were Jews, Communists, Socialists,
Slovenians, Czechs, etc.

No idea; but a year or so later, the people weren't as enthused, and more
than half opposed it. Again, nazis aren't nazis because they make friends.

Mike

[Roman W]

On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 14:10:21 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson
It is a bitter irony that Pres. Wilson was partly responsible, so far as
his 14 points promoted race-based states. Before WW1 nobody
thought it was unacceptably peculiar that Greece should be ruled by a
German king or people who spoke Polish or Flemish simply
must have a Polish or Flemish ruler.

The point was not that the Polish people must have a Polish ruler,
but that they rule themselves.

RW

[Al Montestruc]

It should have been ommitted and replaced with nothing.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill Shatzer
I don't see that the Western Allies gained a great deal by inserting
this clause beyond, perhaps, a degree of psychological satisfaction.
Omitting the 'war guilt' article would not change any of the operative
provision and would have avoided at least some of the resentment of the
German populace towards the Versailles Treaty and the Western Allies.

I totally fail to see how modifying clause 231 to remove German guilt
for the actions of the other Central Powers would mollify German
resentment.

A strict reading of the clause would say Germany was responsible for
Gallipoli or the various battles on the Isonzo.

I don't recall Hitler or any other Weimar politician railing against
the Versailles treaty for that reason. The resentment concernign the
treaty was that it existed at all and that they considered it a
'diktat' which it largely was.

As I've also said numerous times in this newsgroup and in
soc.history.what-if Versailles was relatively modest compared to other
treaties of the 1815-1914 era - consider the treaties that ended the
Crimean War, Franco-Prussian War, varioius treaties involving Japan
and China, the 1905 treaty betwen Russia and Japan, and most of all
Brest-Litovsk - by comparison to those treaties Versailles was by no
means the harshest.

[Don Phillipson]

Post by The Horny Goat
I don't recall Hitler or any other Weimar politician railing against
the Versailles treaty for that reason. The resentment concernign the
treaty was that it existed at all and that they considered it a
'diktat' which it largely was.

This true explanation omits the domestic political implications.
If the German army had been "never defeated in the field" (as
postwar propaganda argued) then defeat in WW1 must have
been caused by someone else, viz. German Bolshevists and
cowards at home. This idea had a lot to do with the growing
size of the Nazi vote in the late 1920s.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Bill Shatzer
"Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for
causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated
Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of
the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

I would hope so. Germany cooked up a scheme to invade France and, after
their planned quick victory, to turn on Russia in support of
Austria-Hungary's desire for land and influence in the Balkans. It was
all in the hopes of expanding their territory and influence. They were
the nation that was looking to disrupt the balance of power that existed
in Europe at the time.

[Mario]

Post by Dave Smith

Post by Bill Shatzer
"Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her
allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the
Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have
been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them
by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

I would hope so. Germany cooked up a scheme to invade France
and, after their planned quick victory, to turn on Russia in
support of Austria-Hungary's desire for land and influence in
the Balkans. It was all in the hopes of expanding their
territory and influence. They were the nation that was
looking to disrupt the balance of power that existed in
Europe at the time.

Balance of power is related to power.
Power changed with time so also balance did.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Mario

Post by Dave Smith
It was all in the hopes of expanding their
territory and influence. They were the nation that was
looking to disrupt the balance of power that existed in
Europe at the time.

Balance of power is related to power.
Power changed with time so also balance did.

True enough. Empires have come and gone. The fact remains that there
was a balance of power between the major players. Germany was an up and
comer. There were Germanic people across Europe and the country had only
recently been unified and was looking for a piece of the action and had
been a threat to its neighbours. In this case, Germany allied itself
with Austria-Hungary in it's quest to expand its sphere of influence
in the Balkans. It was Germany that handed an ultimatum to France that
it renounce its treaty obligation to help Russia and then invaded
through neutral Belgium when it refused to do so. Their plan to knock
France out of the conflict and then turn on Russia was the outbreak of
hostilities that brought the other countries into a state of war.

[Don Phillipson]

. . . Germany cooked up a scheme to invade France and, after their
planned quick victory, to turn on Russia in support of Austria-Hungary's
desire for land and influence in the Balkans.

Margaret Macmillan's book The War that Ended Peace: the Road
to 1914 (2013) shows:
1. German army staff planning committed the army to a
two-front war independently of current diplomatic conditions
(ultimatums etc.) and there were no alternatives (i.e. the
generals did not prepare any other type of plan and were
unwilling to abandon their big plan for a two-front war.)
2. MM finds no evidence that Germany wanted to support
the Austrians' territorial ambitions. (There is plenty of
evidence the KK regime did not want to expand its holdings,
but to prevent its disintegration between Czechs, Ruthenians,
Hungarians, Romanians etc.) Austria's desire was for
prestige and stability, not more acreage.

These two points combine to tell us how the assassination of
the Austrian heir on tour in the Balkans could prompt Germany
to invade neutral Belgium. A practical aspect of #1 was that
the German General Staff never let the Foreign Office know
its only war plan included invasion of a neutral state that
Germany had agreed by treaty to protect. This was the way
the Wilhelmine empire was (dis)organized.

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 18:15:35 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson
The Treaty of Versailles concerned only Germany (and not the other
Central Powers.) It is a very modern fallacy to suppose that one
party's formal acceptance of guilt also means all other parties are
100% innocent. No participant at Versailles believed this -- only
ordinary people anxious to forget the war and get on with their lives
(which hints at why this fallacy is nowadays so common.)

This newsgroup tends to be sloppy in distinguishing "the Treaty of
Versailles" which was with Germany and "The Versailles System" or "The
Versailles conference" which includes the treaties with each of the
Central Powers e.g. Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and the two
treaties with Ottomans / Turkey.

In this newsgroup "Versailles" tends to get used to describe the
latter whereas technically I'm pretty sure all of us know the Treaty
of Versailles was only with Germany.

(Though I would argue that if you're going to include Sevres - the
second Turkish treaty - you may as well include Brest-Litovsk....)

[Dave Smith]

Post by Don Phillipson
the only point
on which they were unanimous was that Germany should pay.
There was no time consider what might happen if Germany was
unable to pay.)

Of course they expected the Germans to pay. While some people may
consider the demand for retribution after starting a war that had cost
so much resulted in so many deaths and injuries, it was no harsher than
the terms that the Germans had forced on France at the end of the Franco
Prussian War. Nor was it harsher than the terms that were forced in
Russia when it opted out of the war, which was another treaty the
Germans did not honour.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by sctvguy1
That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

Well, the so-called "war guilt" could have been omitted or at least
toned down.

The problem is that German politicians were already (i.e. long before
the treaty of Versailles was signed) telling Germans and the German
military that they had not been defeated - and the obvious follow-up
to that is the 'stab in the back' theory.

It wasn't just right-wing politicians saying that either - as early as
December 1918 Ebert reviewed the troops in Berlin and said that.

Post by Bill Shatzer
It really didn't do anything substantive for the Allies and proved to be
a metaphorical burr under the German saddle for years.

I would argue that pronouncements like Ebert's and others were
instrumental in making the Allies want the war guilt clause - besides
if there's no assignment of guilt how do you enforce reparations?

If you think the reparations were unjust, bear in mind that
Brest-Litovsk was about the only major European peace treaty since
Vienna 1815 that did not involve reparations though B-L did of course
involve large transfers of lands.

Post by Bill Shatzer
And, as numerous historians have opined, it was inaccurate to assign
-all- the blame for WW1 to Germany. Certainly Germany was a major player
in causing the start of the war but the Allies hands were not completely
clean in this regard.

I would argue that Russia was the only Allied power that can
reasonably be assigned any portion of blame.

France was presented an ultimatum requiring allowing German occupation
of their core border defences, Britain had a treaty (an old treaty to
be sure but a treaty) guaranteeing Belgium - Berlin knew all about the
treaty of course but incorrectly thought Britain wouldn't stick to it.

How refusing to dismantle your defences or abandon a treaty creates
'war guilt' is beyond me.

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by The Horny Goat
The problem is that German politicians were already (i.e. long before
the treaty of Versailles was signed) telling Germans and the German
military that they had not been defeated - and the obvious follow-up
to that is the 'stab in the back' theory.
It wasn't just right-wing politicians saying that either - as early as
December 1918 Ebert reviewed the troops in Berlin and said that.

ISTM that one ought to distinguish between

* Ebert's boilerplate gesture of respect to the troops.

* Hindenburg and Ludendorff's flat lie that the army was
still holding its ground when the new government
surrendered.

* Hitler's complete fantasy about conspiracies to undermine
army morale and cut off supplies.

I think you could find rhetoric similar to Ebert's
in many defeated countries.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Bill Shatzer
It really didn't do anything substantive for the Allies and proved to be
a metaphorical burr under the German saddle for years.
And, as numerous historians have opined, it was inaccurate to assign
-all- the blame for WW1 to Germany. Certainly Germany was a major player
in causing the start of the war but the Allies hands were not completely
clean in this regard.

The Allies had good reason to be concerned about the militarism of the
expanding Germany. There was a balance of power that Germany was
threatening. The Allies may have been factors in German aspirations,
but you really have to look at the actions that led to the war breaking
out.

The Ottoman Empire was falling about and Russia and Austria-Hungary were
bother interested. Austria-Hungary was prepared to take on Russia if it
had to, but there was the problem of its mutual defense pact with
France. They enlisted Germany's help. Germany tried to force France to
renounce its treaty obligation to Russia and France refused. Germany
devised a plan based on the idea that it would take Russia months to
mobilize its military. They figured they could sweep into France for a
quick victory and knock them out of the fight and then turn on Russia.

This is a case where Germany intended to invade two neighbouring
countries. That sure looks like outright aggression to me. Then they
compounded the audacity of that plan by attacking France through neutral
Belgium. That left England in the position of having to honour its
treaty obligation to protect Belgium, something German didn't really
expect them to do.


I find it difficult to try to blame anyone but the Germans for the
outbreak of war in 1914.

[Stephen Graham]

Moderator Note: Extensive discussion of the causes and start of the
First World War are off-topic for this group. Please stick to the treaty
and later events.

[Dave Smith]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by sctvguy1
That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

There were a lot of different countries that were involved in the
drafting of that treaty. I find it a little strange that the US, having
come into the war so late, had so much influence in the terms of the
treaty, and then it ended up not ratifying it.

[Michele]

Il 17/04/2015 7.16, Dave Smith ha scritto:
I find it a little strange that the US, having

Post by Dave Smith
come into the war so late, had so much influence in the terms of the
treaty,

It's the economy.


and then it ended up not ratifying it.
It's the Senate.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Dave Smith
I find it a little strange that the US, having

Post by Dave Smith
come into the war so late, had so much influence in the terms of the
treaty,

It's the economy.
and then it ended up not ratifying it.
It's the Senate.

This particular provision of the US Constitution has been a thorn in
the side of many countries that would make a treaty with the United
States. On several occasions treaties have been negotiated with
foreign powers, the Senate then demanding either additional
concessions favorable to the United States or rejecting it altogether.

Many US negotiators have used this clause to gain concessions from
foreign powers most recently in various trade agreements the US has
entered into.

This is not news.

[Mario]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:41:45 -0400, Michele

Post by Dave Smith
I find it a little strange that the US, having

Post by Dave Smith
come into the war so late, had so much influence in the
terms of the treaty,

It's the economy.
and then it ended up not ratifying it.
It's the Senate.

This particular provision of the US Constitution has been a
thorn in the side of many countries that would make a treaty
with the United States. On several occasions treaties have
been negotiated with foreign powers, the Senate then
demanding either additional concessions favorable to the
United States or rejecting it altogether.
Many US negotiators have used this clause to gain concessions
from foreign powers most recently in various trade agreements
the US has entered into.
This is not news.

Add Supreme Court, it too has a voice.

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by sctvguy1

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles"
the ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those
afterwards blew it.

That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

OK. Name a specific provision that should have been changed, how it
should have been written, and why that would be acceptable to all parties.

Seemingly forgotten is that Germany actually recovered from the worst effects
of the treaty, and by about 1928 was one of the stronger economies in
Europe. The collapse of the US economy in 1929 was far worse than the
Treaty for the German economy and the future of the republic.

Mike

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Seemingly forgotten is that Germany actually recovered from the worst effects
of the treaty, and by about 1928 was one of the stronger economies in
Europe. The collapse of the US economy in 1929 was far worse than the
Treaty for the German economy and the future of the republic.

Indeed.

Hitler preached Versailles revision, the
dolchstosslegende, anti-Semitism, anti-
Communism, and militarism for several
years, and drew about 5% of the vote.

I think it's clear that if none of these
sentiments (or all of them together) was
enough to get Germans to vote for the NSDAP,
they weren't enough to get Germans to go
to war either.

When the Depression hit home the Nazi
vote shot up to 20% and 35%, and Hitler
gained power. It was the economic crisis
and not revanchism. Once Hitler was in
the saddle, he rode Germany into war;
but they would not go there without him.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 12:42:20 -0400, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
Seemingly forgotten is that Germany actually recovered from the worst effects
of the treaty, and by about 1928 was one of the stronger economies in
Europe. The collapse of the US economy in 1929 was far worse than the
Treaty for the German economy and the future of the republic.

When the Depression hit home the Nazi
vote shot up to 20% and 35%, and Hitler
gained power. It was the economic crisis
and not revanchism. Once Hitler was in
the saddle, he rode Germany into war;
but they would not go there without him.

As several soc.history.what-if scenarios have shown (notably the DBTL
timeline) a post-WW1 eliminating Hitler and the NSDAP does not in and
of itself mean peace in Europe through the 1940s.

I agree it was the Great Depression that made Hitler's war policies
possible - and has been pointed out by others in this newsgroup
1914-1919 notwithstanding Germany was doing quite well by European
standards as late as 1928.

One wonders how Stresemann could have handled things had he survived
to the 1950s (and remember he was younger than Adenaeur so it's not as
silly a suggestoin as it sounds). As it was Hitler had no single
strong opponent in the 1930-33 era with the results that we know.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by sctvguy1

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles"
the ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those
afterwards blew it.

That treaty, and the Trianon with Austria-Hungary, were just about
guaranteed to foster another war in the future.

Strictly speaking Trianon was with Hungary, St-Germain (and there were
2 or 3 Treaties of St-Germain so be sure you're talking about the 1919
treaty) was with Austria.

The main difference between them is that Trianon did not have a clause
forbidding Anschluss with Germany.

[GFH]

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles" the
ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those afterwards
blew it.

IMHO, the problem was that the western powers
abandoned Wilson's 14 Points on which the
armistice was based. Fault is in the eye of
the beholder, but the decisions made during
the post-war period continue to cause problems
today. Consider the decision that Kurdistan
was not convenient. "Kurdistan" was divided
among Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Russia.

The main aim, to reduce the importance of
Germany, did not work out as planned,as
WWII proved, as does Germany's dominance
in Europe.

Personally, I place most of the blame on
Wilson.

GFH

[Michele]

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles" the
ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those afterwards
blew it.

Those who blame the treaties at the end of WWI for WWII usually claim
that the treaties were "too harsh".
Naturally, if they were right, then 20 years or so after WWII we should
have had WWIII, because the unconditional surrender of Germany at the
end of that was just a little tad harsher than Versailles.

The real problem was that the treaty was harsh, but the willingness to
enforce it was weak at the beginning and soon non-existent. So on the
one hand the losers had unpalatable conditions placed on them, and on
the other hand they saw little danger, if any, in circumventing them
(which the Germans did from day one, they certainly did not wait a
Hitler for that) and later flouting them openly.

After WWII, by way of comparison, they knew very well that if they dared
try that sort of stuff once more, they'd be stomped into the ground
again, no reprieves. And that worked like a charm.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michele
The real problem was that the treaty was harsh, but the willingness to
enforce it was weak at the beginning and soon non-existent. So on the
one hand the losers had unpalatable conditions placed on them, and on
the other hand they saw little danger, if any, in circumventing them
(which the Germans did from day one, they certainly did not wait a
Hitler for that) and later flouting them openly.
After WWII, by way of comparison, they knew very well that if they dared
try that sort of stuff once more, they'd be stomped into the ground
again, no reprieves. And that worked like a charm.

In fairness it's a tad more difficult to circumvent a peace treaty
when foreign troops are occupying most everything of importance in
your country as was the case after 1945.

Seems to me that West Germany had no particular difficulty negotiating
treaties after 1945: NATO, the Coal / Steel Community, the Treaty of
Rome etc.

[Michele]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michele
The real problem was that the treaty was harsh, but the willingness to
enforce it was weak at the beginning and soon non-existent. So on the
one hand the losers had unpalatable conditions placed on them, and on
the other hand they saw little danger, if any, in circumventing them
(which the Germans did from day one, they certainly did not wait a
Hitler for that) and later flouting them openly.
After WWII, by way of comparison, they knew very well that if they dared
try that sort of stuff once more, they'd be stomped into the ground
again, no reprieves. And that worked like a charm.

In fairness it's a tad more difficult to circumvent a peace treaty
when foreign troops are occupying most everything of importance in
your country as was the case after 1945.

Indeed. Occupation troops everywhere fall both under "willingness to
enforce" and "a tad harsher".

Post by The Horny Goat
Seems to me that West Germany had no particular difficulty negotiating
treaties after 1945: NATO, the Coal / Steel Community, the Treaty of
Rome etc.

Naturally. The Germans did not try a military rematch, which is what the
Versailles Treaty tried and failed to achieve, so that's why I say the
post-1945 arrangements worked. Given that they worked, why not
negotiating more and other treaties. And note the difference anyway:
after 1945, Germany, indeed, _negotiated_ other treaties - and stuck to
their parts of the deals. After 1918, they secretly or openly violated them.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michele
Naturally. The Germans did not try a military rematch, which is what the
Versailles Treaty tried and failed to achieve, so that's why I say the
post-1945 arrangements worked. Given that they worked, why not
after 1945, Germany, indeed, _negotiated_ other treaties - and stuck to
their parts of the deals. After 1918, they secretly or openly violated them.

Actually both Weimar and Hitler did a pretty good job of keeping the
Treaties AFTER Versailles up to Munich...of course we all know how
THAT worked out!

[Dave Smith]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michele
their parts of the deals. After 1918, they secretly or openly violated them.

Actually both Weimar and Hitler did a pretty good job of keeping the
Treaties AFTER Versailles up to Munich...of course we all know how
THAT worked out!

If they had been doing a good job of keeping up the up to the Munich
Agreement there would have been no need for the later. Germany had
militarized the Rhineland. It had annexed Austria and then took the
Sudetenland, followed shortly after by the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Since there was no resolve to get involved in another war there was
appeasement.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:31:54 -0400, Dave Smith

Post by Dave Smith

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michele
their parts of the deals. After 1918, they secretly or openly violated them.

Actually both Weimar and Hitler did a pretty good job of keeping the
Treaties AFTER Versailles up to Munich...of course we all know how
THAT worked out!

If they had been doing a good job of keeping up the up to the Munich
Agreement there would have been no need for the later. Germany had
militarized the Rhineland. It had annexed Austria and then took the
Sudetenland, followed shortly after by the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Since there was no resolve to get involved in another war there was
appeasement.

Well the point of course is that appeasement has to stop somewhere.

As for Munich - "Peace in/for our time" is a key phrase from a well
known prayer from the Book of Common Prayer which virtually every
English person who heard Chamberlain would know and recognize.

Post by Dave Smith
From speaking to my grandparents it seems fairly clear that the

occupation of Prague was the event that made most non-Americans in the
English-speaking world believe war with Germany was inevitable at some
point in the next 12-24 months.

[Michele]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michele
Naturally. The Germans did not try a military rematch, which is what the
Versailles Treaty tried and failed to achieve, so that's why I say the
post-1945 arrangements worked. Given that they worked, why not
after 1945, Germany, indeed, _negotiated_ other treaties - and stuck to
their parts of the deals. After 1918, they secretly or openly violated them.

Actually both Weimar and Hitler did a pretty good job of keeping the
Treaties AFTER Versailles up to Munich...of course we all know how
THAT worked out!

So, we agree Hitler and the preceding German governments violated,
either secretly or blatantly Versailles. Fine.

Then let's talk about other international commitments. Germany was a
signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928). It violated it starting in
1936, in Spain.

In that same year, Germany, which as mentioned was intervening in Spain,
also sat on the so-called "non-intervention committee" for Spain.

The Bismarck class was designed in violation of some naval agreement, I
might look up which one.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Michele
Then let's talk about other international commitments. Germany was a
signatory of the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928). It violated it starting in
1936, in Spain.
In that same year, Germany, which as mentioned was intervening in Spain,
also sat on the so-called "non-intervention committee" for Spain.

Setting a wonderful precedent for various UN Human Rights Tribunals
eh? (Meaning sketchy regimes chairing the tribunal)

Post by Michele
The Bismarck class was designed in violation of some naval agreement, I
might look up which one.

Am not sure how merely designing a treaty-violating ship would violate
the agreement as opposed to actually building it. Most countries have
unimplemented designs past and present.

[Michele]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Michele
The Bismarck class was designed in violation of some naval agreement, I
might look up which one.

Am not sure how merely designing a treaty-violating ship would violate
the agreement as opposed to actually building it. Most countries have
unimplemented designs past and present.

I did not think it would be necessary to mention the fact that the
Bismarck was indeed built.

[Kenneth Young]

Post by Michele
The Bismarck class was designed in violation of some naval
agreement, I might look up which one.

The Anglo-German Naval treaty which imposed the same qualative limits on
Germany as the 2nd London treaty did on the RN. Though by the time
Bismark launched the RN had invoked the escalator clause in the London
Treaty.

[Dave Smith]

Post by SolomonW
In retrospect was series of treaties we call "The Treaty of Versailles" the
ultimate problem long-term peace or was it a case that those afterwards
blew it.

It certainly isn't a simple situation. There were a large number of
countries involved in it. Some of them had been involved in four years
of war that saw millions of casualties and massive damage to their land.
Some had switched sides and some came into the fight late. Some of the
terms seemed a little harsh, but they were no harsher than the terms
forced on France by Germany a couple decades earlier.

It might be argued that they US had an disproportionate amount influence
on the terms of the treaty. Wilson got his 14 points and the League of
Nations. Then the US ended up not ratifying the treaty.

After Hitler and the Nazis came to power they started flexing their
muscles and testing the resolve of the Allies to enforce the treaty, and
there wasn't much of that. France and Great Britain had lost a larger
portion of an entire generation. France had lost almost a million and a
half men killed and many more seriously maimed. The British and it's
Commonwealth countries had close to a million combat deaths. Then there
was the financial cost of the war, and the Great Depression.

When Hitler started breaking the terms of the treaty there was no real
will to go to war again. They realized that they could not count on the
support of the US, who had not even ratified the treaty. Hitler got
bolder and bolder. Then there was the mutual non aggression pact
between Germany and the Soviet Union that seems to have given Hitler the
impression that he could get away with taking Hitler.

Dave Smith

[David Wilma]

At the beginning of the 20th Century Germany was on the
rise economically and politically to compete with France and
Great Britain. Russia was in the rise too.
At the time, the only way to reconcile such
controversies seemed to be war and this wasn't resolved until
1945. Unless the Entente somehow dismantled Germany
as was done in 1945, the matter would not be settled. I see
1945 as the endgame rather than 1919.

[s***@yahoo.com]

What, no mention of the western intent to kill German babies after the war?