The shame nations of WWII.

[Vanguard]

Economic Consequence of the Peace......John Maynard Keynes? he strongly disagrees with the Versailles treaty, part of which he witnessed (it lasted over a year IIRC)

Keynes is an intelligent observer with first hand knowledge. His opinions on the armistice are interesting and well worth reading. Unfortunately they are also wrong, as he himself admitted later. He completely misunderstood the effects of transfers on trade and seems to have seriously overestimated the disruptive effects of the peace on the German economy.

Oh, so we shouldn't care if things don't work the way they're supposed to...?
Well, that's an interesting point of view, but hardly productive...

What do you mean "supposed to"? Supposed to for whom? Germany? Why should Germany get breaks that it was unwilling to give to anyone else?

And why should French and Belgian taxpayers have to foot the bill for the destruction caused by a German attempt to conquer France? That's what the war on in the West was, after all. It is well documented that the entire Germany strategy was to conquer France quickly, then deal with Russia. If they had defeated France, German state papers show that peace would include occupation of Paris and the French coast, heavy reparations, requisition and forced demobilization as well as the incorporation of Belgium as an economic vassal to Germany.

It is true that Germany undertook negotiations based on the Fourteen Points. But if Germany had really wanted a peace based on the Fourteen Points then she could have easily negotiated one in 1917 or early 1918. Instead, however, the German government elected to roll the dice in one more chance to conquer France and impose a victor's peace.

Germany only decided to negotiate an armistice when her forces were in open retreat. And when the Allies presented an Armistice that did not guarantee the full implementation of the Fourteen points, Germany initially balked and declined to accept the armistice. So she certainly could have fought on, without any "unfair" impediment to her fighting strength, if she had wanted to.

And, in fact, a signifigant faction was in favor of this, including the Kaiser. It was only when the Allies continued to advance and revolution threatened at home that Ludendorff cracked and decided that the Armistice had to be accepted. He thought defeat was inevitable and resolved to make the best deal he could with the Allies so he could stamp out the Red Menace at home and abroad.

But as it happened the Allies weren't in a mood to give Germany a good deal. And they were under no obligation to do so. Just because Ludendorff wanted to make the best deal he could while still in possesion of French territory, that doesn't mean he was entitled to get it. Why, when it comes down to it, should the Allies regard German occupation of Allied territory as a reason to be more lenient?

So the question of whether Germany was treaty unfairly is pretty clear. She wasn't. She just complained that she was, loudly. German media policy in the first part of the twentieth century can pretty much be summarized as, "The bigger the lie, the more likely someone is to believe it."

And the Ruhr was always basically under the rule of the French. The Ruhr's production went straight to the French, and when it didn't meet expectations, the French sent the army in... then the German workers refused to work.

This is simply not true. France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr only in 1923, after Germany stopped reparations. They evacuated in early 1925 when Weimar realised that it wasn't saving any money by not paying reparations when the Ruhr was not producing anything. So they negotiated a new reparations deal, which included: a huge loan, which they accepted; a two year moratorium on reparations, which they took; and a new series of reparations payments, which they eventually stopped paying. And this time France let them get away with it. Oh boo hoo. Poor, poor, picked on Germany!

BS! They had already given up all their arms to the Allies. There was NO WAY they could have rejected the Armistace then.

Well, there is a difference between the Armistice and the Versailles Peace Treaty. As I point out above, the Germans still had their military intact when they accepted the Armistice------ and the Armistice makes no solid guarantees.

A. Everyone knew Belgium would be invaded. The Germans didn't exactly make that a great secret. The Brits warned Germany about it. Why would the Brits do that unless they knew the Germans would try it.

If this was the case then why did the German prime mister make a point of stating that Germany would not invade Belgium just before she did? Of course many people did think Germany would invade Belgium, but that doesn't mak e it legal. Germany was a party to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, a treaty which she did not renounce prior to the war.

B. Attacking the shipping was done because the British blockade had strangled the German countryside. They were desperate to make the Brits feel the same as the Germans did, and almost succeeded. Just because they only had U-boats instead of a great surface navy does not matter.

I understand what they wanted, and why they did it. But again, that doesn't make it legal.

C. The Allies would have bombed undefended cities if they had the chance. Look at Dresden in WW2.

No they wouldn't have.

D. Most of the 'atrocities' by the Germans was simply British propaganda, which the Americans ate right up after the Brits purposely cut the Trans-Atlantic cable to cut off Germany's contacts with the Americans.

The British did sensationalise some of the German crimes. But there were still plenty of actual, easily confirmable German war crimes, many of which were confirmed by the Germans themselves. There is absolutely no question that the Germans killed numerous Belgian civilians in reprisal for sniping by the Belgian army. The Germans claimed that the snipers were not in uniform and were therefore franc-tireurs. But this was false. And killing civilians in reprisal was not lawful in any event.

prohibiting a German navy & restricting the German army to a miniscule force (two provisions that were unprecedented in any peace

Okay, let me get this straight. You believe that Germany could not afford to pay reparations. Yet you also believe that the restrictions on the size of the German military were grossly unfair. Okay then, if Germany could not afford reparations, then how could she have afforded to build a large army and navy? Check-mate, I think.

--------------------------------------

Anyone who thinks that Versailles was a bad treaty must think that some more lenient treaty would have resulted in a better result. Okay, then, let's hear what sort of treaty you think would have been better.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is simply not true. France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr only in 1923, after Germany stopped reparations.

You aren't listening. From 1918 to 1923, the Ruhr was under the basic control of the French. They did not occupy the land, but all production from the Ruhr went straight to France as part of reperations, when reperations were not able to be paid out, then overt military action was taken.

Well, there is a difference between the Armistice and the Versailles Peace Treaty. As I point out above, the Germans still had their military intact when they accepted the Armistice------ and the Armistice makes no solid guarantees.

As you admitted they accepted the Armistice under the impression they would get the 14 points, an impression the allies did not refute at the time.

If this was the case then why did the German prime mister make a point of stating that Germany would not invade Belgium just before she did? Of course many people did think Germany would invade Belgium, but that doesn't mak e it legal. Germany was a party to a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, a treaty which she did not renounce prior to the war.

A. Germany doesn't have a prime minister.

B. It's war talk. There were plenty of things that were 'not legal' in WW1. Gas was not legal, but both sides used it. War was illegal (under the Kellog-Briand Pact), but that did not stop anyone from declaring war. The British blockade was illegal as well, by stopping American ships (a neutral country at the time) from trading with Germany.

Talking about legal is a cheap way out.

No they wouldn't have.

So Dresden never happened? The allies never used gas? Bull****, they never would have attacked undefended cities. If they ever got to Germany, they undoubtably would have.

The British did sensationalise some of the German crimes. But there were still plenty of actual, easily confirmable German war crimes, many of which were confirmed by the Germans themselves. There is absolutely no question that the Germans killed numerous Belgian civilians in reprisal for sniping by the Belgian army. The Germans claimed that these snipers were not in uniform and were therefore franc-tireurs. But this was false. And not lawful in any event.

Killing snipers has never been illegal ever.

Okay, let me get this straight. You believe that Germany could not afford to pay reparations. Yet you also believe that the restrictions on the size of the German military were grossly unfair. Okay then, if Germany could not afford reparations, then how could she have afforded to build a large army and navy?

You miss the point entirely. They had to dismantle their war machine. Had to scrap warships and the tanks they had. They had to close plants that made munitions because of the restrictions. These cost money, you know?

Furthermore, military spending has the side effect of jump starting the economy. It was no mistake that when Hitler began building up the war machine, Germany was pulled from recession. Btw, same thing happened when FDR did the same in the US.

Anyone who thinks that Versailles was a bad treaty must think that some more lenient treaty would have resulted in a better result. Okay, then, let's hear what sort of treaty you think would have been better.

A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

[Myrddin]

If a more generous settlement at Versailles would have been likely to prevent WWII, why did the allies go for Unconditional Surrender in WWII?

They wanted to get the point across that if you started a war, you were risking everything and would not be able to call a halt before you were completely defeated, as Germany managed to in WWI

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

Versaille didn't bring Franco to Spain or Mussolini to Italy. By the time Hitler came to power wasn't it just the memory of Versaille that still haunted Germany, rather than the conditions themselves?

You doubtless know more than I about the political/economic condition of 1920s/30s Germany, but I would think Hitler would have been a very real possibility even if Germany had a good result at Versaille.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason the Allies went for Unconditional Surrender in WW2, because the Soviets wanted pure revenge. In WW2, Hitler didn't even sue for peace once.

Look what seperating Germany did. I'd rather have a Weimar, peaceful Germany whole, than a seperated Germany, where the East is still economically retarded.

[Myrddin]

It was not just the Soviets who wanted unconditional surrender and revenge

Look at the transcripts of the Allied conferences in Tehran, Yalta etc - the Germans escaped lightly, compared to some of the plans being put foward by the US

[Imran Siddiqui]

Obviously they weren't too serious about those plans, because West Germany was treated like Germany should have after WW1. It was given its freedom.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Myrddin
If a more generous settlement at Versailles would have been likely to prevent WWII, why did the allies go for Unconditional Surrender in WWII?

They wanted to get the point across that if you started a war, you were risking everything and would not be able to call a halt before you were completely defeated, as Germany managed to in WWI

I don't know if this is the point or not. I think FDR saw just how screwed up the German conditional surrender/Versailles treaty was and how it led to WWII. He did not want to repeat that mistake - no more conditional surrenders.

[Myrddin]

Unconditional surrender means you accept whatever the victors want to give you - put your leaders on trial for starting the war, imposition of a new political system, occupation etc

If Versailles was too harsh, as some are arguing, and so led to WWII, why did the Allies leaders in WWII press for harsher measures. In my opinion German criticism of Versailles was an excuse, not a reason, for the rise of Hitler.

The post WWII re-birth of West Germany had more to do with the cold war (blockade of Berlin etc) than any re-appraisal of Versailles

[Imran Siddiqui]

In my opinion German criticism of Versailles was an excuse, not a reason, for the rise of Hitler.

Which is why Hitler rose to popularity by waiving the Versailles Treaty and saying he was going to reverse every part of it .

Those saying that Versailles had nothing to do with Hitler's rise are engaging in a revisionism that is ludicrous.

[Myrddin]

My original point was that it was not the terms of Versailles that were the problem, but the German perception that it was unfair - as they did not really feel that they had lost the war

It would have been better for the Allies to continue the war and march through Geramny but understandably by 1918 everyone wanted the war over as soon as possible, exceot perhaps the Americans

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Myrddin
The post WWII re-birth of West Germany had more to do with the cold war (blockade of Berlin etc) than any re-appraisal of Versailles

...and perhaps the Marshall Plan.

[Ned]

Well, a major difference between WWI and WWII was the continued occupation of Germany by the US and USSR. Even if some dejected veteran would have wanted to rally Germany for one last shot at restoring her lost empire, the presence of Allied armies would have prevented that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What if a dejected veteran wanted to rally Germany after the Western allies left West Germany? They could have if they wanted. Fact is we treated them very good. The Soviets went the other way. They treated them horribly, but that meant they had to stay there until the end of occupation.

[Vanguard]

A treaty that wasn't as humiliating (forcing scrapping of military), and lower reperations. Weimer ALMOST made it. But the ending of the Dawes Plan crushed Weimar under oppresive reperations. Lesser reperations and less humilating provisions would have probably forestalled a Hitler. And a treaty that does that is infinetly better than Versailles.

It could have happened this way I suppose.

But it seems just as likely that a harsher treaty would have had pretty much the same chance of preventing the rise of Hitler as a more lenient one. So why not complain about Germans preventing such a treaty?

Versaille didn't bring Franco to Spain or Mussolini to Italy. By the time Hitler came to power wasn't it just the memory of Versaille that still haunted Germany, rather than the conditions themselves

Good point.