Treaty of Versailles

[Patches]

No the German government signed without addressing the German people, it's not hard to see why an entire country feels like they got stabbed in the back by their government for signing a treaty that wrecked their country while they thought they were winning the war.

That, even if true (and it is a very big if), has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the signing. Either the German government was legitimated (that is, had the right) to sign or it wasn't, and whether the German people considered that they were winning the war at the time or not does not change the question.

While the signing was legitimate, the Germans were hardly in a position (having lost the war) to negotiate terms that would have been more favorable to them and to the German people. This resulted in creating and exacerbating harsh conditions (economic, nationalistic, etc) that helped give Hitler and the Nazi movement the opportunity they needed in order to take power. The Versailles Treaty was not the sole cause of Nazi success but it was certainly a major factor in it.

[lukeo]

Ever heard of Gdynia/Gdingen?

Gdynia in 1920 was a summer resort village with a small marina for fishing boats and tiniest yachts. The only port that Poland received was the one in Puck, which was capable of handling only fishing trawlers. For all intents and purposes, Poland was a landlocked country until it acquired a true seaport.

As far as I know, during 1920s and early 1930s, Poland probed a possibility of giving away Danzig on face-saving terms once the seaport of Gdynia was finished (i.e. around 1946). Danzig would be exchanged for some pro-Polish border towns and some token economic and cultural concession within Danzig itself. At that time Germany was disinterested in normalization with Poland because it was counting on outright collapse of the Polish state.

Is that why the German military was still in France when they signed? Not to mention that everyone was completely exhausted by the war?

By the time of armistice, the German army was utterly beaten, if not collapsing. Generals, like Pershing wanted to push into Germany and give the Germans a beating on their own soil in order to show the population that their country has indeed lost. However, the Allied politician wanted peace as soon as possible and agreed to an armistice.

[ML59]

About the wisdom and fairness of the Treaty of Versailles I strongly suggest the reading of John Maynard Keynes' "The consequeces of peace", published in 1919. It's amazing how clearly Keyens (economic expert of the British delegation) saw, already during the negotiation, the consequencies of the Allies blindness. He correctly predicted that the amount of war damage imposed to Germany was completely unrealisitc and beyond German financial capabilities and it could only bring Germany to economic collapse and hyperinflation. Very interesting book, indeed!

[ChrisDR68]

About the wisdom and fairness of the Treaty of Versailles I strongly suggest the reading of John Maynard Keynes' "The consequeces of peace", published in 1919. It's amazing how clearly Keyens (economic expert of the British delegation) saw, already during the negotiation, the consequencies of the Allies blindness. He correctly predicted that the amount of war damage imposed to Germany was completely unrealisitc and beyond German financial capabilities and it could only bring Germany to economic collapse and hyperinflation. Very interesting book, indeed!

Maybe but you can certainly understand the bitterness and thirst for vengeance felt in France at the time.

Don't forget Germany attacked France not the other way around. Virtually for the entirety of the war the fighting took place on French soil doing terrible damage to French towns, countryside and industrial areas. On the other hand Germany in terms of physical war damage was almost completely untouched.

On the question of reparations it would probably have been a better idea to use a formula of say 1% of German GDP to be paid to the victor powers (mainly France and Belgium) over a period of 50 years rather than working out an exact figure as in the otl. I've read accounts that the hyperinflation was deliberately engineered by the German government in 1922 and 1923 in order to reduce the value of that reparation amount in real terms.

Not sure if that is what happened but mathematically it would make sense from their point of view. Very damaging for those Germans (mainly the middle class) who had savings in German banks though.

[ML59]

By the time of armistice, the German army was utterly beaten, if not collapsing. Generals, like Pershing wanted to push into Germany and give the Germans a beating on their own soil in order to show the population that their country has indeed lost. However, the Allied politician wanted peace as soon as possible and agreed to an armistice.

It was beaten, indeed, but not yet utterly collapsing, even if signs of it were already apparent. It's highly probable that a drive into Germany could have caused several hundred thousands of additional casualties, a very grim prospect for any Entente politician.

[JAG13]

About the wisdom and fairness of the Treaty of Versailles I strongly suggest the reading of John Maynard Keynes' "The consequeces of peace", published in 1919. It's amazing how clearly Keyens (economic expert of the British delegation) saw, already during the negotiation, the consequencies of the Allies blindness. He correctly predicted that the amount of war damage imposed to Germany was completely unrealisitc and beyond German financial capabilities and it could only bring Germany to economic collapse and hyperinflation. Very interesting book, indeed!

Maybe but you can certainly understand the bitterness and thirst for vengeance felt in France at the time.

Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, the territories had not been part of France for more than a hundred years, so that rage was manufactured and mostly embarrassment for the way things went in 1870.

Don't forget Germany attacked France not the other way around. Virtually for the entirety of the war the fighting took place on French soil doing terrible damage to French towns, countryside and industrial areas. On the other hand Germany in terms of physical war damage was almost completely untouched.

Germany asked France if they would remain neutral, they said no, hence they would be part of the war, therefore, war.

France mobilized first and invaded Germany first, they were kicked out and the war then took place in France.

[SpicyJuan]

Gdynia in 1920 was a summer resort village with a small marina for fishing boats and tiniest yachts. The only port that Poland received was the one in Puck, which was capable of handling only fishing trawlers. For all intents and purposes, Poland was a landlocked country until it acquired a true seaport.

Well good for them, the important part is that Poland had access to the sea, make Germany pay Poland for the construction of a major port as the Polish government did historically in exchange for Danzig, and you're golden.

[pugsville]

"Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, the territories had not been part of France for more than a hundred years"

1871-1918 around 40 years would be more accurate.

[ChrisDR68]

Don't forget Germany attacked France not the other way around. Virtually for the entirety of the war the fighting took place on French soil doing terrible damage to French towns, countryside and industrial areas. On the other hand Germany in terms of physical war damage was almost completely untouched.

Germany asked France if they would remain neutral, they said no, hence they would be part of the war, therefore, war.

France mobilized first and invaded Germany first, they were kicked out and the war then took place in France.

Going by memory Germany asked France to remain neutral and to give up all it's frontier forts on the French-German border. A demand that the Germans knew the French (quite rightly) would refuse.

From the Wikipedia entry the July Crisis:

A German ultimatum was delivered, this time to Belgium on August 2, requesting free passage for the German army on the way to France. King Albert of Belgium refused the German request to violate his country’s neutrality. On August 3, Germany declared war on France, and on Belgium on August 4.

Later on August 4, German Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg told the Reichstag that the German invasions of Belgium and Luxembourg were in violation of international law, but he argued that Germany was "in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Cris ... ons_of_war

If France did attack Germany first it was only because the Germans had already begun their invasions of Luxembourg and Belgium in accordance with the Schlieffen plan:

Armies under German generals Alexander von Kluck and Karl von Bülow attacked Belgium on 4 August 1914. Luxembourg had been occupied without opposition on 2 August. The first battle in Belgium was the Siege of Liège, which lasted from 5–16 August.

For their part, the French had five Armies deployed on their borders. The pre-war French offensive plan, Plan XVII, was intended to capture Alsace-Lorraine following the outbreak of hostilities. On 7 August the VII Corps attacked Alsace with its objectives being to capture Mulhouse and Colmar.

From the Wikipedia entry Western Front:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_F ... rld_War_I)

However you dress it up Germany started World War One in the west.

[JAG13]

"Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, the territories had not been part of France for more than a hundred years"

1871-1918 around 40 years would be more accurate.

My bad... should have read:

"Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, and the territories had been part of France for less than a hundred years"

One of Napoleon's goals where to attain "France's natural borders", that included the lands west of the Rhine, Alsace and Lorraine, which were German populated territories annexed in 1795, so all that rage for A&L was pretty much manufactured...

[JAG13]

Don't forget Germany attacked France not the other way around. Virtually for the entirety of the war the fighting took place on French soil doing terrible damage to French towns, countryside and industrial areas. On the other hand Germany in terms of physical war damage was almost completely untouched.

Germany asked France if they would remain neutral, they said no, hence they would be part of the war, therefore, war.

France mobilized first and invaded Germany first, they were kicked out and the war then took place in France.

Going by memory Germany asked France to remain neutral and to give up all it's frontier forts on the French-German border. A demand that the Germans knew the French (quite rightly) would refuse.

Yes, that was the ultimatum, which followed an exchange between Viviani and the German ambassador regarding French attitude in the imminent German-Russian war, after several French evasive answers Schoen asked: "Doesn't France have an alliance with Russia?"

Viviani said: "Exactly"

And that was it. The ultimatum was just the way to justify the war declaration, France had already made its position known and Germany acted accordingly.

However you dress it up Germany started World War One in the west.

If you declare you wont be neutral, you cant fault other people for believing you.

[pugsville]

"Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, and the territories had been part of France for less than a hundred years"

Err still wrong try 1766-1871 thats more than 100 years, and 1648 for other parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territori ... _of_France

[JAG13]

"Alsace and Lorraine had a German majority, and the territories had been part of France for less than a hundred years"

Err still wrong try 1766-1871 thats more than 100 years, and 1648 for other parts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territori ... _of_France

Oh, ok, slightly more than a 100 years then, still mostly German speaking, still manufactured rage, specially given the millions of French that were part of Belgium.

It was more about the humiliating war than the territory.

[ML59]

To judge past situations according to modern era ethnical and nationalist guidelines is quite misleading and not correct. For centuries people all over Europe was used to be governed by total alien and very distant authorities. Armies were largely professional mercenaries and all existing empires plus several kingdoms were, by nature, multiethnic, multilanguage and, sometimes, multireligion states. Very few Germans had a clear perception of being "German", mostly identified themselves with the closest neighborhood and felt themselves different from the same Germans that lived few miles away in a different state. Pangermanism became a force to reckoned with only in 19th century, a period of fast development of national sense and nationalism all over Europe.

[JAG13]

To judge past situations according to modern era ethnical and nationalist guidelines is quite misleading and not correct. For centuries people all over Europe was used to be governed by total alien and very distant authorities. Armies were largely professional mercenaries and all existing empires plus several kingdoms were, by nature, multiethnic, multilanguage and, sometimes, multireligion states. Very few Germans had a clear perception of being "German", mostly identified themselves with the closest neighborhood and felt themselves different from the same Germans that lived few miles away in a different state. Pangermanism became a force to reckoned with only in 19th century, a period of fast development of national sense and nationalism all over Europe.

Very true, and it is in the 19th century that Germany came into being and took German-speaking (mostly) A&L from France, maybe they took too much of it but the French seemed to be quite content with having several million French living in Belgium, a few tens of thousands shouldnt haven been that much of an issue unless you want to make it one.