Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 14:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Don71 » 16 May 2018 13:55

South wrote:Good morning Don,

Ref: "all families, social classes and political classes";
"95-100% of all German citizen[s]

Re: "need of propaganda";
"or that the German citizen didn't really understand the Versailles Treaty or...";

I accept your broad theme.

Yet, LJADW's point cannot be erased away. The environment and situation was dynamic, large and cloudy.

It was the Weimar's trade-unionists that ended the Kapp-Luttwitz attempted overthrow of the Weimar Republic in 1920. This event caused the Weimar Republic to relocate to Dresden and then Stuttgart. Thus, I believe it fair and accurate to say "all" was not that smooth when referring to the above quotes.

Now add the April 1922 Rapallo Treaty......with emphasis on the later secret spin-offs dealing with the new Soviet government......and the post-war German factions can become visible.

The German environment and situation was a mess - and so was the rest of the non-German environment. Ljadw holds a valid position.

Let me close this early morning rambling by mentioning President Wilson and his administration was a component of this mess and France relying on German reparations to balance the French budget added to this "mess".


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA


Hello South,
neither you nor ljadw have any point here. The Kapp-Luttwitz coup was directed against the democratic government of the Weimar Republic and wanted to abolish democracy in Germany. In contrast, the trade-unionists have resisted, but did not take part in the Treaty of Versailles, just because the putschists justified their actions with parts of the Versailles Treaty. The goal of the trade-unionists was to prevent the anti-democratic coup that was more important to them at that moment than demonstrating solidarity with the putschists' arguments against the Versailles Treaty.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4626
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018 14:07

Gorque wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
Don71 wrote:The reality was that 80 Million Germans were totaly in agreement with their political class, that this was a diktat peace from the Entente, the german word was Versailler Diktat, which accused only Germany for the outbrake of the war to the whole world.


The French had felt much the same about the Treaty of Frankfurt, was that any less a diktat though this time imposed by Germany? Not being happy with the result of a war you lost is the most common outcome, how was Versailles any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty where one side had been defeated?


Hi Terry:

From a reading of the Treaty of Frankfurt, I see no war guilt clause.

http://gander.chez.com/traite-de-francfort.htm


Which would rather make it worse, as if France wasnt guilty, what justified the Germans annexing French territory and imposing a huge indemnity designed to cripple France for decades - unlike the reparations imposed at Versailles which at least had their basis in the costs of the war. However, I never said the Treaty of Frankfurt had a guilt clause only that it was no different to Versailles in how it treated the loser in a war, and that the Germans had no problem with that treaty, or indeed Brest-Litovsk which was even more punitive than Versailles!

MarkN
Member
Posts: 1115
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby MarkN » 16 May 2018 14:16

Gorque wrote: From a reading of the Treaty of Frankfurt, I see no war guilt clause.
http://gander.chez.com/traite-de-francfort.htm

That Treaty is evidence of the evolution of the 'civilised' at that point in time.

In 1871, the Prussians did not require a signed peace of paper stating French responsibility/guilt to sooth their consciences before looting, sacking, pillaging and annexing - they just got on with it.

In 1918, the British, French and Americans needed a signed bit of paper admitting responsibility/guilt before they exacted their toll.

In 1945, a signed bit of paper was not enough for the British, French and Americans, they now needed public show trials of numerous individuals being found personally responsible for all manner of offences.

There is an evolution to how the victor manages to sooth his conscience before profitting from his victory.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 14:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Don71 » 16 May 2018 15:04

Terry Duncan wrote:
Don71 wrote:The reality was that 80 Million Germans were totaly in agreement with their political class, that this was a diktat peace from the Entente, the german word was Versailler Diktat, which accused only Germany for the outbrake of the war to the whole world.


The French had felt much the same about the Treaty of Frankfurt, was that any less a diktat though this time imposed by Germany? Not being happy with the result of a war you lost is the most common outcome, how was Versailles any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty where one side had been defeated?


Hello Terry,
You have already written in many of your posts that the Peace of Frankfurt and the Brest Brest-Litovsk were similar or identical to the Treaty of Versailles. You justify that by the fact that the respective populations felt that as a similar dictation or punishment.
But this comparison is rather ridiculous to crazy, if you look at the objective facts, the amount of reparations and look at the actual goal of the reparations.

Neither the Frankfurt Peace nor the Peace of Brest-Litovsk had an article 231 which imposed on a warring party the sole moral responsibility for the war.

At the Peace of Frankfurt, reparations of 5 billion francs were demanded, which equates to 1450 tons of gold, and this should put a brake on France's economic development over the next few years.
In addition, Elsas Lorraine was annexed, which was partly German-speaking.

The Brest Brest-Litovsk peace treaty required 6 billion gold marks as compensation, which was equivalent to 2100 tons of gold. No areas were annexed.
All the territorial cessions of the UdSSR were separate peoples (Finland, the Baltic, Poland, Byelorussia and the Ukraine), which themselves were annexed by the Russians in the last hundred years. You can find the confirmation yourself if you take a look at the map today.

The Treaty of Versailles demanded immediately 20 billion gold marks, equivalent to 7,000 tonnes of gold plus 90% of the German merchant fleet, which provided the basis for German exports.
In June 1920, at the Boulogne Conference, the Allies demanded 269 billion gold marks in 42 annual installments, the equivalent of 94150 tons of gold.
On January 29, 1921, the Allies in Paris again demanded 269 billion gold marks in 42 annual installments, of which 226 billion as immovable principal, and Germany had to give 12% of the value of its annual exports. On April 27, 1921 followed the London payment plan. The Reichstag rejected these demands and the Allies occupied, after they had rejected in London a proposal of Germany of 50 billion gold marks, on 8 March Ruhrort, Duisburg and Dusseldorf.
It came to a serious government crisis, which culminated on 4 May in the resignation of the government Fehrenbach. Fehrenbach had rejected the London payment plan as unacceptable and cleared the way for a successor government to sign the agreement.

On May 5, 1921, David Lloyd George handed over to the German Ambassador in London the new demands of the Allies. Germany should agree to repay and interest a total of 132 billion gold marks.

Dawes Plan
Although the amount of claims was not lowered - the 132 billion gold marks remained - but no more payment terms were determined and the annual payments that Germany had to pay, were reduced: first had to be paid 1 billion, 2.5 later Billions a year.

Young-Plan
In 1929, the duration of the reparations payments in the Young Plan was set at 59 (ie until 1988). Overall, Germany should pay 112 billion gold marks to 1988 according to this plan

In two autumn 1931 reports, the Layton Report and the Beneduce Report, Germany's insolvency following the end of the Hoover moratorium was certified by international financial experts. These reports were the basis for the Lausanne conference in the summer of 1932, which abolished the German reparations obligations against a final payment of three billion gold marks (in foreign currency).

According to German sources, Germany paid a total of 67.7 billion gold marks reparations in the form of gold marks, foreign exchange, coal and capital goods (industrial plants, locomotives, zeppelins, ships, etc.), the equivalent of 23695 tonnes of Gold
Eberhard Kolb: Der Frieden von Versailles. Beck, München 2005

The Versaille Treaty and his reparation demands had clearly the goal to destroy the german economic base for more then a hundred years, with the demand of 269 billion gold marks or later 132/112 billion gold marks.
In addition, Germany was also forced to cede predominantly German-speaking areas through the Treaty of Versailles!

Comparing the Treaty of Versailles and its demands on Germany to the peace of Frankfurt or the peace treaty of Brest-Litosk lacks any foundation when confronted with the facts
Last edited by Don71 on 16 May 2018 15:21, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 14:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Don71 » 16 May 2018 15:06

Terry Duncan wrote:
Gorque wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
Don71 wrote:The reality was that 80 Million Germans were totaly in agreement with their political class, that this was a diktat peace from the Entente, the german word was Versailler Diktat, which accused only Germany for the outbrake of the war to the whole world.


The French had felt much the same about the Treaty of Frankfurt, was that any less a diktat though this time imposed by Germany? Not being happy with the result of a war you lost is the most common outcome, how was Versailles any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty where one side had been defeated?


Hi Terry:

From a reading of the Treaty of Frankfurt, I see no war guilt clause.

http://gander.chez.com/traite-de-francfort.htm


Which would rather make it worse, as if France wasnt guilty, what justified the Germans annexing French territory and imposing a huge indemnity designed to cripple France for decades - unlike the reparations imposed at Versailles which at least had their basis in the costs of the war. However, I never said the Treaty of Frankfurt had a guilt clause only that it was no different to Versailles in how it treated the loser in a war, and that the Germans had no problem with that treaty, or indeed Brest-Litovsk which was even more punitive than Versailles!


This statement is rediculous from the economical facts and political facts!

ljadw
Member
Posts: 8296
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby ljadw » 16 May 2018 15:24

All this is beside the point : there was no German war guilt, because war was not considered as a crime in Europe, only by American pastors as Wilson and Dulles,they were talking about guilt, good guys and bad guys ,as usual their moralism created problems, Europeans were more realistic : they knew that war is the continuation of politics by other means . This moralism did give the nationalists in Germany the occasion to tell the people : the Allies say that we are criminals, what the German population eagerly believed .

Germany had to pay reparations, not because it started the war (it did : Moltke said that he prepared and initiated the war ),but because it lost the war .If Germany had won,the others would have to pay billions . Vae victis: the world has always been runing like this and it is a good thing .When Napoleon defeated Prussia, Prussia had to pay the French expenses, when France was defeated, France had to pay .

But, if you start by saying that the losers are criminals,you create problems who otherwise would not exist .And we see the results today .
Dulles admitted (later of course ) that the US attitude was a mistake, but that did not prevent the new Wilson (FDR ) to repeat the same mistakes .
Politicians lie (otherwise they will not last ) but it is very dangerous if they believe their own lies and if they think that they have a mission and are God (as Wilson was labelled by Clemenceau )

MarkN
Member
Posts: 1115
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby MarkN » 16 May 2018 15:24

Hello Don71,

Don71 wrote: You have already written in many of your posts that the Peace of Frankfurt and the Brest Brest-Litovsk were similar or identical to the Treaty of Versailles. You justify that by the fact that the respective populations felt that as a similar dictation or punishment.
But this comparison is rather ridiculous to crazy, if you look at the objective facts, the amount of reparations and look at the actual goal of the reparations.

You start by disagreeing with Terry Duncan's poistion and then stating your own.

Don71 wrote:Neither the Frankfurt Peace nor the Peace of Brest-Litovsk had an article 231 which imposed on a warring party the sole moral responsibility for the war.

You first piece of evidence to support your position: the treaties were different because of the "guilt" clause.

Your second piece of evidence is a more detailed summary of the amounts being looted or extracted.

Both pieces of evidence show differences between the Treaties.

However, the war guilt clause has NOTHING to do with "the amount of reparations" or "the actual goal of the reparations". The war reparations demanded of Germany in 1918 and thereafter were not of that scale because of a piece of paper signed saying that "Germany and her allies" (not solely responsible as you wrote) accepted responsibility. The two are discrete. I suggest the scale of demands would have been the same without that clause.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 1115
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby MarkN » 16 May 2018 15:30

ljadw wrote:All this is beside the point : there was no German war guilt, because war was not considered as a crime in Europe, only by American pastors as Wilson and Dulles,they were talking about guilt, good guys and bad guys ,as usual their moralism created problems, Europeans were more realistic : they knew that war is the continuation of politics by other means . This moralism did give the nationalists in Germany the occasion to tell the people : the Allies say that we are criminals, what the German population eagerly believed .

Germany had to pay reparations, not because it started the war (it did : Moltke said that he prepared and initiated the war ),but because it lost the war .If Germany had won,the others would have to pay billions . Vae victis: the world has always been runing like this and it is a good thing .When Napoleon defeated Prussia, Prussia had to pay the French expenses, when France was defeated, France had to pay .

But, if you start by saying that the losers are criminals,you create problems who otherwise would not exist .And we see the results today .
Dulles admitted (later of course ) that the US attitude was a mistake, but that did not prevent the new Wilson (FDR ) to repeat the same mistakes .
Politicians lie (otherwise they will not last ) but it is very dangerous if they believe their own lies and if they think that they have a mission and are God (as Wilson was labelled by Clemenceau )

Here we go again....

Nonsense!

1st paragraph. Some bizarre philosophy so beloved by our gallic cousins.

2nd paragraph. Some decent logic and understanding undermined by a deliberate attempt to mislead.

3rd paragraph. A revision of history. Article 231 was NOT the root of the problems which lead to WW2 - followed by more of that gallic philosophy.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 738
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Gorque » 16 May 2018 15:55

Terry Duncan wrote:
Gorque wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
Don71 wrote:The reality was that 80 Million Germans were totaly in agreement with their political class, that this was a diktat peace from the Entente, the german word was Versailler Diktat, which accused only Germany for the outbrake of the war to the whole world.


The French had felt much the same about the Treaty of Frankfurt, was that any less a diktat though this time imposed by Germany? Not being happy with the result of a war you lost is the most common outcome, how was Versailles any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty where one side had been defeated?


Hi Terry:

From a reading of the Treaty of Frankfurt, I see no war guilt clause.

http://gander.chez.com/traite-de-francfort.htm


Which would rather make it worse, as if France wasnt guilty, what justified the Germans annexing French territory and imposing a huge indemnity designed to cripple France for decades - unlike the reparations imposed at Versailles which at least had their basis in the costs of the war. However, I never said the Treaty of Frankfurt had a guilt clause only that it was no different to Versailles in how it treated the loser in a war, and that the Germans had no problem with that treaty, or indeed Brest-Litovsk which was even more punitive than Versailles!


Hi Terry:

You had asked how "the Treaty of Versailles was any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty" and only I noted one of the differences between the Treaties of Versailles and Frankfurt, as the Treaty of Frankfurt had been previously mentioned as well as that this thread is centered on the "War Guilt Clause." I make no judgement nor offer any opinion as to whether either was just or not. :)

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4626
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018 17:56

Don71 wrote:Hello Terry,
You have already written in many of your posts that the Peace of Frankfurt and the Brest Brest-Litovsk were similar or identical to the Treaty of Versailles. You justify that by the fact that the respective populations felt that as a similar dictation or punishment.
But this comparison is rather ridiculous to crazy, if you look at the objective facts, the amount of reparations and look at the actual goal of the reparations.


So you are telling me that objectively the French and Russian peoples felt Frankfurt and Brest-Litovsk were fair? We do know the British and French governments decided that after seeing the treaty of Brest-Litovsk that they could do no worse if they fought on until totally defeated, so they clearly didnt find it fair at all. The treaties were imposed by a victor on the vanquished were they not? Why should Germany expect anything better than they themsleves were willing to inflict?

Don71 wrote:Neither the Frankfurt Peace nor the Peace of Brest-Litovsk had an article 231 which imposed on a warring party the sole moral responsibility for the war.


Article 231 specifies Germany and her allies, as clauses also specify in treaties with Austria and the Ottomans/Turkey (other than the named state they all specify X and her allies).

Don71 wrote:At the Peace of Frankfurt, reparations of 5 billion francs were demanded, which equates to 1450 tons of gold, and this should put a brake on France's economic development over the next few years.
In addition, Elsas Lorraine was annexed, which was partly German-speaking.


All dictated by Germany with no input from France counting towards the decision.

Don71 wrote:The Brest Brest-Litovsk peace treaty required 6 billion gold marks as compensation, which was equivalent to 2100 tons of gold. No areas were annexed.


About 1/3 of European Russia was stripped away to set up German puppet states, which included almost all of Russian industry.

Don71 wrote:All the territorial cessions of the UdSSR were separate peoples (Finland, the Baltic, Poland, Byelorussia and the Ukraine), which themselves were annexed by the Russians in the last hundred years. You can find the confirmation yourself if you take a look at the map today.


Poland is really hardly a good point to mention fro ma German perspective as they had been one of the three states to annex the entire Polish nation, not just Russia. Byelorussia had not existed as a state in modern times, and neither had Ukraine, so hardly annexed by the Russians since 1818, the Napoleonic Wars and Seven Years War had been fought with very little boundary changes in this respect other than the issue of the Polish state. What exists now does not make Brest-Litovsk any less vindictive, or remove the fact that each of these new states were very much German puppets with German forces still deployed there to ensure their people stayed in power.

We could also look at the settlement imposed upon Romania, yet another punitive treaty, and this time on a very backward state with minimal ability to pay anything by European standards, again, a treaty celebrated at the time in Germany.

Don71 wrote:The Treaty of Versailles demanded immediately 20 billion gold marks, equivalent to 7,000 tonnes of gold plus 90% of the German merchant fleet, which provided the basis for German exports.


From memory, prior to WWI most of German exports were carried in British merchant ships, with the German contribution coming second? Either way, Germany could still ship goods in merchant ships even if her own private merchant fleets had been lost, so trade was very much possible. As to the size of the war indemnity, maybe you would like to compare the total cost of WWI to the cost of the Franco-Prussian war, then consider which imposed a greater indemnity verses the costs involved for the victor? Then again maybe you wouldnt, as the 1870-71 war is considerably less costly than even a years participation in WWI for the Entente nations, and the indemnity was not designed to cripple Germany, unlike the indemnity imposed on France. So, what exactly is your point? That Germany should not be forced to pay to others what it expected others to pay to it? That settlements imposed on Germany are somehow unfair? Maybe Germany should have fought on, for the couple of weeks of ammo remaining maybe, and then seen what happened in 1919 to see if that was a better settlement?

Don71 wrote:In June 1920, at the Boulogne Conference, the Allies demanded 269 billion gold marks in 42 annual installments, the equivalent of 94150 tons of gold.
On January 29, 1921, the Allies in Paris again demanded 269 billion gold marks in 42 annual installments, of which 226 billion as immovable principal, and Germany had to give 12% of the value of its annual exports. On April 27, 1921 followed the London payment plan. The Reichstag rejected these demands and the Allies occupied, after they had rejected in London a proposal of Germany of 50 billion gold marks, on 8 March Ruhrort, Duisburg and Dusseldorf.
It came to a serious government crisis, which culminated on 4 May in the resignation of the government Fehrenbach. Fehrenbach had rejected the London payment plan as unacceptable and cleared the way for a successor government to sign the agreement.


Germany had the ability to pay if it had chosen to do so. Nobody said it would be popular, only that it was no less unfair than other settlements Germany had imposed. The indemnity imposed on France was designed specifically to cripple France, but was paid off by public subscription to a degree the Germans had not taken into account, maybe you can tell me why a victorious France should not seek to cripple Germany in the same way and leave it up to Germans how long it took to repay it and how they went about doing so? You are applying a double standard.

Don71 wrote:In addition, Germany was also forced to cede predominantly German-speaking areas through the Treaty of Versailles!


Russia was forced to cede mostly Russian speaking areas. France was forced to cede at least one mostly French speaking area. Your point is what? It is only fair when in favour of Germany?

Germany and her allies had lost the most expensive war in world history, much of the cost of which was always going to be charged to them under the circumstances, so Versailles is no different to all the other treaties imposed by the victors, and notably considerably more generous than in 1945 when the German state itself was deemed to have been dissolved! Nobody said a treaty has to be fair, Germany had always been happy to enforce her own unfair settlements, so how can you try to maintain Germany had any right to expect better treatment than she was prepared to hand out???

Comparing the Treaty of Versailles and its demands on Germany to the peace of Frankfurt or the peace treaty of Brest-Litosk lacks any foundation when confronted with the facts[/quote]

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4626
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018 18:02

Don71 wrote:This statement is rediculous from the economical facts and political facts!


I can only refer you to the ability of each state to pay the sums imposed as indemnities, Russia notably had most of its industry stripped away prior to having a large indemnity imposed upon it, something making it far harder to pay. You simply find in unacceptable that Germany should be made to pay what others want, you have no problem with the treaties the Germans imposed and even seek to justify them. That is the ridiculous position.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4626
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018 18:05

MarkN wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:... how was Versailles any different to pretty much any previous peace treaty where one side had been defeated?

In days of old, the victors in war just took what they wanted and punished the vanquished. In those days there was little, if any, attempt to 'civilise' ones actions.

As time progressed, 'civilised' countries decided they needed a legal mechanism to justify punishment and reparations - it was 'uncivilised' just to loot the spoils of war. Reparations could then be considered 'civilised' looting and pillaging. The Versailles Treaty is a single piece of evidence that indicates where in this progression 'civilised' countries had reached in their evolution. If the vanquished signs a piece of paper accepting responsibility for the war just concluded, we the 'civilised' can loot, pillage and plunder with a clear conscience.

What so many historians over the past century seem to have failed to grasp, is that Article 231 is not an attempt to write the history of responsibility (that paragraph of text does not explain how the war came to be), it is a mechanism to legally justify loot, pillage and plunder.


This is pretty close to correct, though now we simply avoid having official wars by calling them police actions or peacekeeping. The losers will always be made to pay, and WWI was no different. Some of the methods used at the end of WWII were far more reprehensible even if understandable in some respects given the conduct of that war in many ways, yet they seldom get questioned at all.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 14:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Don71 » 16 May 2018 18:34

If you can't see the differences between 1450, 2100 und 94150 tons of gold, from which Germany paid 23695 tonnes of Gold, I can't help you and I have no reason to discuss with you!


About 1/3 of European Russia was stripped away to set up German puppet states, which included almost all of Russian industry.


What a ridiculous assertion by the people who otherwise insist on the self-determination of peoples, Finnland, the Baltic and the Ukraine weren't russians, or is this a myth?
In the 19th century, a national movement began to develop on the territory of today's Ukraine. It rejected the tsarist government's preference for the triune Russian people of Greater Russians, Lesser Russians, and Byelorussians, and sought to form a "Ukrainian" nation and, ultimately, a nation-state. Important national thought leaders were the national poet Taras Shevchenko and the historians Mykola (Nikolay) Kostomarov and Mychajlo Hruschewskyj. In the second half of the 19th century, the Ukrainian national movement was suppressed by the authorities by banning schools and certain political printing works in Ukrainian (then known as the Little Russian dialect). Therefore, the focus of the national movement shifted to the Austrian Galicia, where the Ukrainians (Ruthenians) were recognized as a nationality in contrast to Russia. In competition with the "Ukrainian" identity stood a "Little Russian" identity, which was more oriented towards Russia.


Which minorities were suppressed by the German Empire or Germany at all during this time?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Host - WW1 section
Posts: 4626
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018 18:54

Don71 wrote:If you can't see the differences between 1450, 2100 und 94150 tons of gold, from which Germany paid 23695 tonnes of Gold, I can't help you and I have no reason to discuss with you!


About 1/3 of European Russia was stripped away to set up German puppet states, which included almost all of Russian industry.


What a ridiculous assertion by the people who otherwise insist on the self-determination of peoples, Finnland, the Baltic and the Ukraine weren't russians, or is this a myth?


Self-determination? Do you mistake me for Wilson? Nowhere have I said I thought that was even vaguely viable as a proposition even if it can be seen as a reasonable idea - though I am sure the Britain and France of 1919 can hardly be said to support it for obvious reasons. Are you disputing that the area taken from Russia was around 33% of European Russia or that it was the most industrialised part of Russia? Self-determination is a fine idea when it can be supported by military might, otherwise you end up with a patchwork of small defenceless states just waiting for the first predatory power to annex them, just as happened in the late 1930's - if anything a far greater cause of WWII than Versailles could have ever been.

Don71 wrote:Which minorities were suppressed by the German Empire or Germany at all during this time?


Poles for a start or do you wish to maintain they wanted their nation annexed by Austria, Prussia and Russia? Then of course we can look at the Zabern Affair to see another. I presume you dont want me to look outside of Europe? If we want to consider the Hapsburg Empire we can maybe quadruple the total of oppressed minorities, Germany was far from in favour of self-determination in that case, only in Russia where it suited them to set up puppet states.

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 30 Jan 2011 14:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

Postby Don71 » 16 May 2018 19:08

Most of the forced to cede areas from Empire Germany at the Versaille Treaty were in the name of Self-determination.

Whole Austria Ungary was forced to destroy itself after the war, in the name of Self-determination.

So it is a other Self-determination when it was dictaded by the Allies, then it was dictaded by Germay?

Poles for a start or do you wish to maintain they wanted their nation annexed by Austria, Prussia and Russia? Then of course we can look at the Zabern Affair to see another. I presume you dont want me to look outside of Europe? If we want to consider the Hapsburg Empire we can maybe quadruple the total of oppressed minorities, Germany was far from in favour of self-determination in that case, only in Russia where it suited them to set up puppet states.


The Hapsburg Empire isn't or wasn't Germany and what is with Irland or Scottland and I also don't want to look outside of Europe for France, GB and the USA hm?


Return to “First World War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]