Ok i have put in this post to discuss if the treaty of verseilles was fair or not,
And how much did it contribute to ww2.
treaty of verseilles
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
-
DeBaer
- Contributor
- Posts: 365
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:11 am
- Location: Westphalia, Germany
- Contact:
Guess this has been discussed a lot. I'd try a forum search.
Anyway, considering what Germany could have done to France 1871 and what it actually did, Versailles was quite unfair. It probably was a (officially) try to regain a "balance of power" although with much bias towards the Entente. It contrubited to WWII by making the German people upset as they thought of it as a kind of unfair reprisal and it offered Hitler a possibilty to be a hero to the Germans by restoring "honor" in negating this treaty.
Anyway, considering what Germany could have done to France 1871 and what it actually did, Versailles was quite unfair. It probably was a (officially) try to regain a "balance of power" although with much bias towards the Entente. It contrubited to WWII by making the German people upset as they thought of it as a kind of unfair reprisal and it offered Hitler a possibilty to be a hero to the Germans by restoring "honor" in negating this treaty.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Sven
-
terras licet et undas obstruat at caelum certe patet
Sven
-
terras licet et undas obstruat at caelum certe patet
Let me make it clear with a comparison:
The US has lost a fictive WW1 like war and must give in territory demands from other powers: Texas becomes an independent state, Hawai under the supervision of the UN, California and Nevada to Mexico, Alaska and some nothern states to Canda. What would the ordinary US citizen think? Now transfer that to the German people after Versaille.
The US has lost a fictive WW1 like war and must give in territory demands from other powers: Texas becomes an independent state, Hawai under the supervision of the UN, California and Nevada to Mexico, Alaska and some nothern states to Canda. What would the ordinary US citizen think? Now transfer that to the German people after Versaille.
....not to forget the case of given the "Allein Schuld"...to be found the lonely culprit and alone guilty for the whole mess. Even if you had NOT sparked the fire! 
Even after nearly a whole century I can so understand the feelings of humiliation, knewing to be treated highly unfairly, hate for the smug victors, the growing wish for revenge...the blood boiling!
Even after nearly a whole century I can so understand the feelings of humiliation, knewing to be treated highly unfairly, hate for the smug victors, the growing wish for revenge...the blood boiling!
Hi,
Sure the French over-reacted, and wanted Germany emasculated, but can you really blame them all that much? A traditionally old enemy invades your country, and really kinda makes a bit of a mess (With Allied help), all other factors aside, you can understand why the French were pissed.
I agree completely that the treaty was a huge factor into starting World War 2, but what should have we done? Told the Germans not to do it again, that we wouldnt punish them this time? There needed to be a punishment, or who would have really won?
Germany itself suffered very little damage, whereas NE France was destroyed. Germany did make the choice to invade France...I know they didnt shoot Franz, I know the world started to gang up on them due to their alliance with Austro-Hungary, but it didnt make it right.
Dexx, Territorially, I think you are way off - I dont know the exact figures, but if you compared land mass to land lost, I think it would be more like the US losing WA to Canada, and part of TX to the Mexicans.
I think there's sometimes an attitude of 'If you weren't so harsh at Versailles, we wouldnt have had to do what we did'. This is wrong - Germany was handed a reasonably fair punishment IMO, even with the French baying for their blood. Britain and France paid the same price in a generation lost, international debt, and political unrest.
Germany never really 100% lost the ground war + territorial losses + civil unrest at home + millions of disafected young men (IE - Ex Soldiers)= problems in anyones book. You cant blame the Versailles Treaty for these problems, you can sure as hell use it as a scapegoat though.
(I know the territorial loss and de-mobbed soldiers is directly because of the treaty, but really - If you are beaten in a war, do you expect to keep the lands you conquered, and a large, powerful army?)
PS - I think Noobie brought this subject up because PaulJ (I think), recently suggested we discuss it - Looks to be an interesting one too.
Cheers,
Sure the French over-reacted, and wanted Germany emasculated, but can you really blame them all that much? A traditionally old enemy invades your country, and really kinda makes a bit of a mess (With Allied help), all other factors aside, you can understand why the French were pissed.
I agree completely that the treaty was a huge factor into starting World War 2, but what should have we done? Told the Germans not to do it again, that we wouldnt punish them this time? There needed to be a punishment, or who would have really won?
Germany itself suffered very little damage, whereas NE France was destroyed. Germany did make the choice to invade France...I know they didnt shoot Franz, I know the world started to gang up on them due to their alliance with Austro-Hungary, but it didnt make it right.
Dexx, Territorially, I think you are way off - I dont know the exact figures, but if you compared land mass to land lost, I think it would be more like the US losing WA to Canada, and part of TX to the Mexicans.
I think there's sometimes an attitude of 'If you weren't so harsh at Versailles, we wouldnt have had to do what we did'. This is wrong - Germany was handed a reasonably fair punishment IMO, even with the French baying for their blood. Britain and France paid the same price in a generation lost, international debt, and political unrest.
Germany never really 100% lost the ground war + territorial losses + civil unrest at home + millions of disafected young men (IE - Ex Soldiers)= problems in anyones book. You cant blame the Versailles Treaty for these problems, you can sure as hell use it as a scapegoat though.
(I know the territorial loss and de-mobbed soldiers is directly because of the treaty, but really - If you are beaten in a war, do you expect to keep the lands you conquered, and a large, powerful army?)
PS - I think Noobie brought this subject up because PaulJ (I think), recently suggested we discuss it - Looks to be an interesting one too.
Cheers,
Jock
That may be YOUR opinion Jock, but it surely isn't the same of the people who lived through it and also not of a lot of germans even today.....The Versailles Treaty is just a scapegoat.
It is still a hot theme...just a scapegoat? Much to easy!
You make it sound as if big bad Germany had it coming for a long time. Do you know how often french troops invaded german territory, how often french troops used Germany as their playground?
My goodness, Prussia had to fight France to found Germany!
What about Napoleon? French were occupiers in Germany! And they were a major player in WWI again (and would have been toast if not for their allies!)
And now the poooooor victims???
Think about it again...
The germans felt hotly that the french didn't deserve the treaty, neither militarily nor historically!
PS: Something like that again after WWII...what do you think would have happened in the last 60 years?
Hi MH,
Sorry, I slightly changed the line you quoted
I know France and Germany have a none too friendly history, but I wasnt discussing 1871, or 1805...I was discussing 1918.
I dont think 'the big bad germans' had it coming, hell, I tend to side with them more often than not. The simple fact is, we all took part in a big new type of war, one that scared and shocked everyone. And the sad fact is MH, if you are the agressor, in any situation, you will be seen in a worse light.
Something had to be done, everyone agreed/agree's that - Throw in a whole bunch of countries all with different opinions, political viewpoints, heck, their own interests at heart, and Im not surprised we are still debating it 80 years on.
To those who disagree - I know its pointless, but lay out your own "Treaty of Versailles" - Explain what you would do, and what you would hope to achieve with your policies.
Cheers,
Sorry, I slightly changed the line you quoted
I know France and Germany have a none too friendly history, but I wasnt discussing 1871, or 1805...I was discussing 1918.
I dont think 'the big bad germans' had it coming, hell, I tend to side with them more often than not. The simple fact is, we all took part in a big new type of war, one that scared and shocked everyone. And the sad fact is MH, if you are the agressor, in any situation, you will be seen in a worse light.
Something had to be done, everyone agreed/agree's that - Throw in a whole bunch of countries all with different opinions, political viewpoints, heck, their own interests at heart, and Im not surprised we are still debating it 80 years on.
To those who disagree - I know its pointless, but lay out your own "Treaty of Versailles" - Explain what you would do, and what you would hope to achieve with your policies.
Cheers,
Jock
A Versailles style treaty after WWII? The loss of all your armed forces, loss of territories conquered, industry destroyed?
That happened - IMO, Germany was in a worse mess on 08/05/45 than 11/11/18. What makes this situation a bit different is the threat of communism...This time France and the UK needed a strong Germany.
I'm sure you guys still feel annoyed at what happened - Scotland's Act of Union in 1707 still pisses me off - But there was Political/National issues involved there too. It's all just one big game, and luckily after WWII, Germany was an important player. Wheras after WWI, they couldnt give a damn, because you just weren't that important to the 'World Stage'.
Cheers,
That happened - IMO, Germany was in a worse mess on 08/05/45 than 11/11/18. What makes this situation a bit different is the threat of communism...This time France and the UK needed a strong Germany.
I'm sure you guys still feel annoyed at what happened - Scotland's Act of Union in 1707 still pisses me off - But there was Political/National issues involved there too. It's all just one big game, and luckily after WWII, Germany was an important player. Wheras after WWI, they couldnt give a damn, because you just weren't that important to the 'World Stage'.
Cheers,
Jock
You do that again and I tell you to the board police!:DJock wrote:Hi MH,
Sorry, I slightly changed the line you quoted
That's an important point, especially here in Europe. Alliances/Enemies tend to have a past....things are deeply interwoven. You err if you dismiss those experiences between the people out of hand...Jock wrote:I know France and Germany have a none too friendly history, but I wasnt discussing 1871, or 1805...I was discussing 1918.
Jock wrote:To those who disagree - I know its pointless, but lay out your own "Treaty of Versailles" - Explain what you would do, and what you would hope to achieve with your policies.
One thing is for sure:
The Treaty of Versailles is often called upon to describe the dangers of arrogant, shortsighted and revengeful handling of diplomatic matters.
Whereas the handling of Germany after WWII (especially the Marshall plan) is often seen as the example to the contrary...just my IMHO of course!
(There were voices who called for another Versailler treaty...ore even worse...but they didn't come through or Europe wouldn't be what it is today!)
Hi M.H.,
Actually, the quote is my intelectual property, so I'm going to report you to the board police for mis-quoting me!
History does affect Europe in a way like no other, I agree...We have a well documented history going back over 2000 years, and like you say, this history is interwoven into politics, friendships, wars, trade agreements and daily life.
Hell, just watch 'The Eurovision Song Contest', and you'll see how deeply interwoven it is...
Cheers,
Actually, the quote is my intelectual property, so I'm going to report you to the board police for mis-quoting me!
History does affect Europe in a way like no other, I agree...We have a well documented history going back over 2000 years, and like you say, this history is interwoven into politics, friendships, wars, trade agreements and daily life.
Hell, just watch 'The Eurovision Song Contest', and you'll see how deeply interwoven it is...
Cheers,
Jock
PS - Totally agree with your last point - Just goes to show it matters what side of the chess board you are on - The Bundeswehr was starting to be a pretty formidable force by 1948, Whereas I wouldnt say the same about the Reichswehr in 1921.
Papa Joe Stalin wasnt knocking on Europe's door in 1921 though!
Cheers,
Papa Joe Stalin wasnt knocking on Europe's door in 1921 though!
Cheers,
Jock
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
Ok sorry havn't been able to reply as my computer was down, but any way germany was allied to austro-hungry, when there leader gets shot austro-hungry declares war on serbia as there rebels did it (as far as we know).
Know Germany, Russia and France all jump in, with Russia being with the French, so Germany relises it has one choice, lay down there arms or attack one then attack the other, they knew they could not attack both at the same time, so they decided on a quick finish to french troops then attack russia, but there plan falted, they just ran out of troops and as such were unable to attack paris, from what i can see the only crime in ww1 Germany did was to invade nuteral Belguim, which ended up dragging britain into the war, so really ww1 started becouse of serbian rebels.
please correct if im wrong.
Know Germany, Russia and France all jump in, with Russia being with the French, so Germany relises it has one choice, lay down there arms or attack one then attack the other, they knew they could not attack both at the same time, so they decided on a quick finish to french troops then attack russia, but there plan falted, they just ran out of troops and as such were unable to attack paris, from what i can see the only crime in ww1 Germany did was to invade nuteral Belguim, which ended up dragging britain into the war, so really ww1 started becouse of serbian rebels.
please correct if im wrong.
Hi Von Noobie,
Your facts are correct. Franz gets shot, Austro-Hungary declares war on Serbia. Bound by treaty with Serbia, Russia declares war on Austro-Hungary. Bound by treaty with Austro-Hungary, Germany declares war on Russia. Bound by treaty with Russia, France declares war on Germany. Then Germany invades Belgium, who the UK are treaty bound to protect.
Like dominoes going down, I always think. The Schlieffen plan required France to be knocked out before Russia, so Germany invade Belgium/France. Invading Belgium was needed for the right hook into France, but it still doesnt mean the Germans had to do it.
I said earlier that the agressor is usually seen in a worse light, and this is especially so if you lose the war. On the Western Front, which was the main theatre of the war, Germany invaded two countries, one of them neutral, and caused immense damage. Its not an ideal defence, is it?
Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what your viewpoint on the whole affair is, Noobie, so I'd be interested to hear that.
Cheers,
Your facts are correct. Franz gets shot, Austro-Hungary declares war on Serbia. Bound by treaty with Serbia, Russia declares war on Austro-Hungary. Bound by treaty with Austro-Hungary, Germany declares war on Russia. Bound by treaty with Russia, France declares war on Germany. Then Germany invades Belgium, who the UK are treaty bound to protect.
Like dominoes going down, I always think. The Schlieffen plan required France to be knocked out before Russia, so Germany invade Belgium/France. Invading Belgium was needed for the right hook into France, but it still doesnt mean the Germans had to do it.
I said earlier that the agressor is usually seen in a worse light, and this is especially so if you lose the war. On the Western Front, which was the main theatre of the war, Germany invaded two countries, one of them neutral, and caused immense damage. Its not an ideal defence, is it?
Anyway, I'm not sure exactly what your viewpoint on the whole affair is, Noobie, so I'd be interested to hear that.
Cheers,
Jock