treaty of verseilles

[Shmeiker]

to Kitsune

It's easy to criticise, but muh more difficult to come up with something constructive. If you criticise so much Versailles Treaty for restricting German army, taking away some lands, taking away colonies and to some extend reparations. Well, could you propose some other treatment towards the country that lost the war? Because from what you wrote untill now it looks like you expect (and in fact demand) Allies to treat Germany during Versailles talks as if Germany was the winner of WWI, standing on the same level with Great Britain and France (but I suppose it is just an impression and you will be able to present some viable way of dealing with the looser, whom Germany was, after all).

There are some poematic expressions in this topic like Germany's crippeled wings, or even cut off wings. Well, please, do not forget Kitsune that after all this bloodshed of WWI there were many people in the winning camp who would expect and demand to cut off not wings, but head (if I can be equally poematic). Expecting from them to be "gracious" is in fact expecting too much from a human nature.

to Sid

In point 6, paragraph 2 I suppose you meant Austria-Hungary, and not Austria-Herzegovina.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Shmeiker,

Yes, I did mean Austria-Hungary.

Thanks,

Sid.

[Pirx]

When we are talking about Versaille Treaty we must remember that it was real end of XIX century, when real power of country was counted by number of colonies. Lloyd George, Clemenceau, or Kaiser had point of view typical to XIX century polititians. And that what was obvious and normal for them today looks sometimes strange, sometimes stupid. We are people from XXI century, and what happend in 1919/1920 today is impossible. But what is going today wasn't possible 100 years ago.
In 1914 people where delighted that war started.

[LANKIR]

The greater context here is one of economics and the pursuit of and protection of wealth. I asked my father once what started the first world war. My dad was german. He was a veteran of the second war and born outside the Reich. He said, "The English had an empire and the Germans wanted one too." It was that simple. War was a given. The arms race was a hugh economic burden upon the British. Their policy was to build two or three battleships for every German battleship built. The economic competition was not appreciated either. You can all forget about who was right or wrong. The first war wasn't about political ideology or territory. It was all about economic control and domination. What went wrong here was that neither side counted on a long and brutal trench war. No one won. The first war led to the second war and the second war almost led to a third. Hopefully, we have learned to buy our competitor's asset instead of invading his territory.

[The Panzer Oberst]

The "Treaty" laid the basis for the rise of Nationalism in Germany. The WWI Allies created the Nightmare that became WWII. Germany was no more totally responsible than any other IN-Breed Royal Household of Europe. Perhaps even less, as Germany was the last nation to actually issue mobilization orders to her military. Leave it to the Politicians, Lawyers and Do Gooders to create such a inflamatory document. To saddle a country such as Germany with a huge reparations debt was reckless and insane, much like pointing a gun at yourself.

[max painless]

Hi Kitsune,

Hitler wanted war, there is no doubt, but of the winnable, self-contained variety. However, I have seem nothing that states he wanted a world war. A world war is just what happened as a cumulative consequence of Hitler's actions. It was nobody's aim, not even his.
Sid.

Hitler waged war in a manner that was consistent with creating a world war. Whether or not he sat down and said "Gee golly, I'd love me a world war" is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he wanted war, and had a philosophy, that was correlative to a world war scenario. As you say, the world war was a consequence of his cumalitve actions. These cumulative actions, which kept going on until world war was acheived, just illustrate Hilters invevitable, whether sub-conscious or not, desires that would lead to world war. As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder then words". Hitler wanted to go all the way to the Urals. His master and slave philosphy, along with living space, was leading him to constantly fight. If you read what you said half the time, you'd find yourself disagreeing with yourself.

Sid you don't know what Hitlers aim was well enough to say that with his cumulative actions (Leaving Britian in the war while invading the USSR, and then declaring war on the USA, fighting the largest empire, the largest industrialized nation, and the largest nation) That he didn't want a world war. You simply are not in a position to say that. The evidence points to him either wanting it (in terms of the reality he was choosing to create), or not caring about it if were to occur. Hitler did not fear a world war enough to avoid it, that would be the true sign of not wanting it. If you study his actions he invited it.

[Rodger Herbst]

Hi Sid,
As i see it all the nations stumbled into WW1,it's hard to say were the most blame should lay.
But one thing i think the allies really screwed up was drawing all the boundry lines for the so called new nations they were creating.They didn't seem to take into consideration that all the peoples in these countries each had a axe to grind and didn't necessarly get along with each other.
The Brits found that out i think when carving up India.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Rodger,

I would agree that the ballance of responsibility for WWI is much less clearly defined than for WWII. Nevertheless, Germany encouraged the Austro-Hungarian military response against Serbia that saw the first outbreak of war and felt impelled to invade neutral Belgium shortly afterwards. On the grounds that it was the Central Powers that first chose the military option and first violated neutral territory, on ballance I would lay more responsibility at their door.

The genie of nationalism had already been out of the bottle for over a century and the multi-national empire received its fatal blow in WWI, even if it took until about 1994 to deliver the coup de grace.

The creation of the various successor states of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish Empires was pretty inevitable after WWI. Versailles and its related treaties were the first systematic attempt to manage this process.

By and large they were successful in identifying the core territories of each nation. The problem was that in many peripheral areas there was great population mixing and therefore great scope for conflict. Plebiscites were held in some areas but not in others, so there were many potential points of conflict left over. Only the "ethnic cleansing" before during and after WWII resolved most of them.

Versailles and its related treaties attempted to deal with a very explosive problem wth only partial success. Nevertheless, many of the borders they created remain substantially intact today, so they were not a complete failure.

Cheers,

Sid.

[M.H.]

Only the "ethnic cleansing" before during and after WWII resolved most of them.

So do you think it was a good thing?

Nevertheless, many of the borders they created remain substantially intact today, so they were not a complete failure.

What chance had/have concerned people to change one jota?
That doesn't make it right!

[sid guttridge]

Hi M.H.,

Personally, no, if it is forced.

But I wasn't making a value judgement on the issue. I was simply observing that ethnic cleansing has resolved a number of Versailles' left over issues. For instance, I very much doubt the issues of the Sudetenland, Danzig or the Polish Corridor are likely to be used as casi belli in the near future.

I have already mentioned that plebiscites were held in some areas but not in others. Therefore in some areas the local population's majority view was not canvassed. It should have been.

Cheers,

Sid.

[inges]

those germans thought it was really unfair and they had resources to change at all

[inges]

those germans thought it was really unfair and they had resources to change at all

[Pirx]

. Perhaps even less, as Germany was the last nation to actually issue mobilization orders to her military.

New discovery!

[Torquez]

Only the "ethnic cleansing" before during and after WWII resolved most of them.

The areas in question-particulary Prussia-were cleansed ethnicly by Germanic people(Teutonic Knights) earlier. Transfering Germans back to Germany was simply returning them to their home.

Versailles and its related treaties attempted to deal with a very explosive problem wth only partial success

This was seen, IIRC some American policy analysts even back then reckognised the danger of leaving colonial possessions of Germany intact such as Prussia and advocated returning German population to their place of origin.
Relocating Germans back to Germany was simply end of colonialism.

The "Treaty" laid the basis for the rise of Nationalism in Germany.

The basis of Nationalism in Germany were ideas of Lebensraum, belief in supriority over Slavic people, and desire to become a world superpower using resources of German controlled Central Europe.
What Germans got in return for their dreams, they can only blame themselfs.

[sid guttridge]

Hi Torquez,

Whatever the deep historical rights and wrongs, Versailles was only really concerned with addressing the issuesw of the here and now.

Cheers,

Sid.