Treaty of Versailles

[Andy]

Was the Treaty of Versailles too lenient on Germany? Many British and French politicians at the time thought it was, do you believe they were right in the end? Considering that another war was fought twenty years later and France was taken over.

[Gwynn Compton]

Perhaps it was too harsh and that helped fuel German desire for revenge?

Gwynn

[James McBride]

All in all, the treaty was not too bad. I think that forcing Germany to cede some of their coal mines to France, and a small percentage of the coal that was produced in Germany for ten years, or in that range, was a bit harsh. The Allies faced some economic problems, but they made it more difficult in Germany by taking so much coal. The reparations were not too bad. Not even taking into account the actual amount paid, the reparations were no worse than the standard paid by the loser in previous wars. The big problem was that after making a big huff, Britain and the U.S. were unwilling to enforce the treaty, and France was unwilling to enforce the treaty without U.S. or British support. So the treaty was not too harsh or lenient, just not enforced.

Sorry I don't have any numbers. If you want particulars, I will find them, but I am just trying to get the point across.

James

[Beowulf]

Clemenceau was an arrogant and petty bastard. He actually said "there are 20 million Germans too many!" What would he have had? Genocide? France was not dismembered and brutally punished at the end of the Napoleonic wars as Germany was at the end of WWI. After which treaty was major war avoided longer, Vienna or Versailles? I rest my case.

[Anthony EJW]

Clemenceau was an arrogant and petty bastard. He actually said "there are 20 million Germans too many!" What would he have had? Genocide?

Talk about taking something out of context!

Clemenceau was laminating that there were too many Germans for France alone to enforce Versailles, and would need allies to help her.

France was not dismembered and brutally punished at the end of the Napoleonic wars as Germany was at the end of WWI. After which treaty was major war avoided longer, Vienna or Versailles? I rest my case.

By all accounts Germany was not dismembered nor brutally punished at the end of WW1. Their territorial integrity was kept intact, and she was not stripped of her heavy industry or her ability to aspire to Great Power status.

By contrast, at the end of WW2 Germany was flattened and dismembered between the victorious allied powers. After which of these was a major war avoided?

[Gwynn Compton]

I've often heard that Germany would have still been paying the original reparations up until the late 1980s or early 90s had there been no WW2, anyone got the maths on this to confirm it?

Gwynn

[Karl da Kraut]

Since we’re discussing the Treaty of Versailles, I’m glad to provide a few of the provisions of that treaty as well of the Paris Peace Conference as basis for further discussion:

- Germany has to cede 1/7 of her territory: Alsace-Lorraine to France; Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium; Northern Schleswig to Denmark; Posen, Pomerellen, the eastern part of Upper Silesia, parts of Central Silesia and Eastern Prussia to Poland; Memel to Lithunia; Danzig declared a Free City , the Saarland a protectorate of the League of Nations. Losses of resources include 50% of the iron ores, 25% of coal deposits, 17% of the wheat- and 15% of the potatoe harvest. Eastern Prussia is seperated from the rest of Germany.
- All German colonies have to be ceded.
- Occupation of the left bank of the Rhine by Allied forces for 15 years.
- Demilitarization of a land strip east of the Rhine.
- Among else, 90% of the mercantile marine, almost all modern (railway) engines, and 50% of dairy cattle have to be turned over to the Allies.
- 60% of the coal output, and 25% of the chemical and pharma production have to be turned over for 10 years
- Army limited to 100.000 men, navy to 15.000. No military aircraft, chemical weapons, tanks and submarines allowed.
- Police force limited to 60.000 men.
- Unification with Austria prohibited.
- Emperor Wilhelm II. to be tried as a war criminal.
- “war guilt-§”: Germany bears the sole responsibility for the outbreak WWI.

The exact amount of additional reparations wasn’t fixed by the Treaty of Versailles, but on the Paris Peace Conference: 226 bio. Goldmark in installments for 42 years + 12% of the annual value of exports for 42 years. In Versailles it was only assurded that Germany would have to pay whatever sum the Allies would demand. Russia was not part of that agreement, but the Treaty granted her the right to put forward separate demands on Germany.
[/code][/list][/list]

[viriato]

Further to the post of Karl da Kraut.

Germany also lost the Hultschin region in Upper Silesia to Czechoslovakia.

All the German patents were confiscated and most economic interests German nationals had in foreign countries were also confiscated.

[Beowulf]

By all accounts Germany was not dismembered nor brutally punished at the end of WW1. Their territorial integrity was kept intact, and she was not stripped of her heavy industry or her ability to aspire to Great Power status.

By all accounts? What did you do, take veracity lessons from Napoleon the pig? Do you really have such little respect for the knowledge of others on this forum that you think such a boldfaced lie will just be accepted as fact? I find your assertion deeply insulting. More than 70,000 sq km of land was stripped from Germany by the victorious allies, including the rich industrial areas of Alsace-Lorraine and eastern Silesia, the provinces of Posen and West Prussia, and a few other areas. All Germany's colonial possessions were confiscated by Britain and France as well. By comparison, only the lands Napoleon conquered were stripped from France by the Congress of Vienna. France retained all the land area it possessed at the time of the revolution, including the Germanic-speaking areas of Alsace-Lorraine and Flanders which had been stolen from Germany by Louis XIV.

As far as economics are concerned, the terms of the 1919 treaty were utterly crippling economically and militarily. Without the repudiation of Versailles, Germany could never have approached great power status as she did after 1936.

By contrast, at the end of WW2 Germany was flattened and dismembered between the victorious allied powers. After which of these was a major war avoided?

If Austria, Prussia, Britain, and Russia had burned every French city to the ground, killed half its young men, and occupied it heavily for the next 60 years, you would probably have heard nothing from France either in that time. They did not do that. They installed new leadership, but left France intact. I suppose you could argue that the Franco-Prussian war would not have happened without a strong France, but that happened 55 years after the Congress of Vienna, and at any rate does not justify killing a nation. If France had been broken by truncation and severe war debt in 1815 as Germany was in 1919, it might have lashed back in the same way. My point was not to avoid war by murdering a nation, as happened after WW2, but by not degrading and humiliating that nation beyond forbearance in the first place, as was done by the Treaty of Versailles. It worked in 1815; it could have worked in 1919.

[Anthony EJW]

By all accounts? What did you do, take veracity lessons from Napoleon the pig? Do you really have such little respect for the knowledge of others on this forum that you think such a boldfaced lie will just be accepted as fact? I find your assertion deeply insulting.

Really, so you resort to personal insult. Normally I would take it as the last bastion of the broken arguement, but in this case we're only a few posts in.

I guess it hasn't occured to you that I think that Germany was punished, but not brutally so by the standards of the time?

More than 70,000 sq km of land was stripped from Germany by the victorious allies, including the rich industrial areas of Alsace-Lorraine and eastern Silesia, the provinces of Posen and West Prussia, and a few other areas. All Germany's colonial possessions were confiscated by Britain and France as well. By comparison, only the lands Napoleon conquered were stripped from France by the Congress of Vienna. France retained all the land area it possessed at the time of the revolution, including the Germanic-speaking areas of Alsace-Lorraine and Flanders which had been stolen from Germany by Louis XIV.

Some of the territory taken from Germany was revenge orientated, but treaty of Versaillies attempted to make some attempt to draw up borders on ethnic bondries for newly emerging coutnries, though the security concerns of the newly emerging countries often took priority. In some cases Germany got to hold onto territory after plebistates were held.

In many cases it wasn't fair, but then the Germans had considered exactally the same thing acceptable at Brest Litovsk; and by all standards it could have been a lot worse for Germany. Clemanceau wanted the Rhur region annexed to France. If things like that had happened, then I would have considered Versailles brutal.

As far as the "stealing" of Alscace Lorainewith the Germans in 1870, the French at the time considered that they were "recovering" Lorraine - taken from their "influence" in the 14th century, and annexed by the Habsbourgs in the 16th century. Annexations were considered the usual ways of doing things in Europe during those times, and the French weren't the only ones doing so. Prussia took what were core Polish lands grabbed during partitions (except for the part of Upper Silesia). Great-Poland with Poznan was a craddle of Polish state for instance.

As far as economics are concerned, the terms of the 1919 treaty were utterly crippling economically and militarily. Without the repudiation of Versailles, Germany could never have approached great power status as she did after 1936.

Germany ended paying in total reperations due to Versailles a sum similiar to what they had demanded off the French after the Franco-Prussian War. Versailles, was crippling militarily, but Germany was not stripped of the economical muscle to correct this.

If Germany had been really brutally punished, why were they able to fight a world war, again, a mere twenty years later?

If Austria, Prussia, Britain, and Russia had burned every French city to the ground, killed half its young men, and occupied it heavily for the next 60 years, you would probably have heard nothing from France either in that time. They did not do that. They installed new leadership, but left France intact. I suppose you could argue that the Franco-Prussian war would not have happened without a strong France, but that happened 55 years after the Congress of Vienna, and at any rate does not justify killing a nation. If France had been broken by truncation and severe war debt in 1815 as Germany was in 1919, it might have lashed back in the same way. My point was not to avoid war by murdering a nation, as happened after WW2, but by not degrading and humiliating that nation beyond forbearance in the first place, as was done by the Treaty of Versailles. It worked in 1815; it could have worked in 1919.

I largely agree. However, such a settlement was not politically possible after WW1- too many people had died and many in Europe wanted to see Germany unable to wage a world war again and to pay for the damages that had been done because, not totally unjustifiably, they saw WW1 as a war that had been forced upon them by Germany. Versailles was in many ways a slap in the face to Germany, but I would not call it brutal.

[viriato]

Anthony EJW wrote:

Some of the territory taken from Germany was revenge orientated...

Only some? 8)

...but treaty of Versaillies attempted to make some attempt to draw up borders on ethnic bondries for newly emerging coutnries...

Yes but when in doubt Germany lost heavier then the others. And the Germans were a majority in the total territories taken. Alsace-Lorraine is a good example for the Germans were 87%, not even a slight majority but an overwhelming one.

...though the security concerns of the newly emerging countries often took priority.

Translated: when the free option of peoples would have most likely given a territory to Germany, enter the "security concern of the newly emerging countries".

In many cases it wasn't fair, but then the Germans had considered exactally the same thing acceptable at Brest Litovsk.

And the same (entirely unfounded) excuse , "remember Brest-Litovsk"... What people "fail to notice" is that in Brest-Litovsk Russia only lost her colonial territories hardly populated by Russians (at most they were 5% of the population) and even those colonial territories were only a part of them all. Most of them as the North Caucasus, the Middle Volga, the North, Central Asia, Siberia and the Far East were untouched.

However, such a settlement was not politically possible after WW1...

Of course, because if it happened it would have precluded the fulfilling aims of the Entent and her allies and thus reduce their war of conquest to nothing.





[/quote]

[Anthony EJW]

Only some? 8)

Yes. 8)

Yes but when in doubt Germany lost heavier then the others. And the Germans were a majority in the total territories taken. Alsace-Lorraine is a good example for the Germans were 87%, not even a slight majority but an overwhelming one.

87%? Is this figure based on the number of people who spoke German?

I had thought that, generally, the people of Alscance Loraine generally wanted (want?) to be Alsacians.

In 1871, the Germans didn't ask the Alsacians how they felt about becoming part of Germany - rather they allowed the inhabitants to choose betweenbecoming Germans or abandoning their possessions and emigrating to France.Predictably, only about 12% of the population chose exile. The French were just as fair in 1918 - classifying the population among 4 categories, with those deemed too German classified as undesirable and sent over the Rhine. OTOH, at least free elections were held and the autonomous party did have a representation. It was a minority, of which an even tinier minority wanted to be part of Germany AFAIK.

Translated: when the free option of peoples would have most likely given a territory to Germany, enter the "security concern of the newly emerging countries".

Which would explain why the Danes got back only Northern Schleswig after a plebistate, and not all of it, which Germany had annexed from them in the 1860s(?). I take it is also why the Allies also reduced the originally planned size of the "Polish Corridor" to try and keep down the number of ethnic Germans left in Polish territory. And made Danzig a "Free city" (certainly one of Versailles failed concepts ) rather than being given to Poland outright. And also why the Clemanceau was denied his request to annex the Ruhr.

And the same (entirely unfounded) excuse , "remember Brest-Litovsk"... What people "fail to notice" is that in Brest-Litovsk Russia only lost her colonial territories hardly populated by Russians (at most they were 5% of the population) and even those colonial territories were only a part of them all. Most of them as the North Caucasus, the Middle Volga, the North, Central Asia, Siberia and the Far East were untouched.

What is your figure for percentage of Germans who had originally been in Germany septerated by Versailles?

Of course, because if it happened it would have precluded the fulfilling aims of the Entent and her allies and thus reduce their war of conquest to nothing.

The Germans were hardly innocent victims in the Allied "war of conquest". Doing things like declearing war on France and Russia and invading Belgium did contribute to the state of hositilities 1914-1918.

[Brig]

NO! It was way too harsh, which, when combined with France's march into Germany, fueled the hatred of it, which is what Fascism fueled off of partially, and thus it aided in raising the NSDAP, which in turn allowed for Germany to start WWII!

[ChristopherPerrien]

Without a doubt the treaty caused the rise of Nazi Germany. It is a shame that president Wilson became an invalid and susequently died, he would have been able to provide some moderation to the fanatical ideas the British and the French high commands, aka governments,created and enforced with this "peace" treaty.

I would have given American peace ideas a much better chance and I think America should have pressed for them harder. As it stood we " the
United States" had to go in and save the British and the the French from
the Germans "AGAIN!!!!!!" twenty years later.

[Beowulf]

The Germans were hardly innocent victims in the Allied "war of conquest". Doing things like declearing war on France and Russia and invading Belgium did contribute to the state of hositilities 1914-1918.

When everyone hates you and gangs up on you like that, your only hope is to get in the first punch. That was the idea.