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.
mise eire
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 25 Nov 2017, 05:57
Location: United States

Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#1

Post by mise eire » 07 Apr 2018, 20:02

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was dubbed the War Guilt Clause:
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
All of my teachers (and other sources) have said it established that Germany was responsible for instigating World War I, and that Germany was responsible for all of the death and destruction. Essentially, they affirm the idea that it was placing the war guilt on Germany. However, I came across this academic journal which is quite contradictory.
Article 231 [of the Treaty of Versailles], created a legal basis for reparations, and limited German liability… it underwent editing, some of which diluted the latter goal, but the Allies never considered it a war guilt clause. In Article 231, Allied concern was purely financial, and there is no mention of war guilt, unilateral or otherwise. Germany, however, expected such a clause and so seized on Article 231, misinterpreting and mistranslating it and thereby linking reparations to 'war guilt'. Then and thereafter, [Germany] fulminated about 'unilateral war guilt' to great effect at home and abroad.
I'm so confused. Which interpretation of Article 231 is correct?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#2

Post by MarkN » 07 Apr 2018, 20:20

Read the words yourself.

Make up your own mind what it means.

Stop listening to what other people tell you what their opinion is.

Simple really. :wink:


User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#3

Post by Terry Duncan » 08 Apr 2018, 00:06

All of the treaties ending WWI contain similar 'sole guilt' clauses, yet it is only the Versailles treaty that is remembered for it and cited regularly today, even though the other nations also resented their 'sole guilt' too.

For example, for Hungary (a successor state rather than the one that began the war) the following was included in the Treaty of Triannon;

ARTICLE 161.
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Hungary accepts the responsibility of Hungary and her allies for causing the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Austria-Hungary and her allies.


https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Part_V_-_VIII

The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye for Austria also says the same thing, though at this time I am unable to find its wording sadly.

In answer to your question, both interpretations are correct. The Allies had not intended to impose what came to be Article 231 until the matter of paying for the war came to be discussed, and as the US demanded full payment and was unwilling to waive the debts of others, it was decided that the losers must be made to pay which in turn was only possible if they were declared to be solely to blame. Article 231 thus came about, and in turn was resented by the Germans who had for the most part considered they were fighting a war forced upon them rather than they being the ones forcing war on other nations in general.

The actual sums involved stemmed from an actual humane aspect, they tried to arrive at a figure to compensate for allowing the wounded to be catered for (false limbs etc) and to compensate for the dead husbands and fathers. Paying for a lost war was hardly new, in 1871 the Germans had made France pay a scaled up per capita version of what Napoleon had inflicted on Prussia in 1806, so really Versailles offered nothing new in that respect. What made the difference was the German General Staff refusing to accept they had lost the war, promoting the 'stab in the back' myth, and then claiming an unfair treaty had been forced upon an innocent and undefeated nation, the result of which became very poisonous.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#4

Post by South » 08 Apr 2018, 04:54

Good morning Mise Eire,

Welcome to AHF.

Your confusion should end if you also read Articles 232 to 244.

Article 232's paragraph 1 clearly states: "The Allies and Associated Governments, however require, and Germany undertakes, that she make compensation for all damages caused to civilians under seven main categories: - ... "

Follow Mark's guidance and read the original source and then decide what it means.


~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#5

Post by ljadw » 14 May 2018, 19:32

Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things : there was no Guilt Clause .

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#6

Post by Terry Duncan » 15 May 2018, 10:45

ljadw wrote:Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things : there was no Guilt Clause .
Given Article 231 has been known as 'the war guilt clause' since the time of the treaty, I really dont see the point in quibbling about it, especially since the Germans has a specific Kriegsschuldfrage department - I am far from an expert in German, knowing little more than a few basic phrases, but doesnt that translate as 'war guilt' department?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#7

Post by ljadw » 15 May 2018, 12:19

Article 231 did not mention guilt.
The Kriegsschuldfrage department proves only that after the war the German propaganda told the German people that the Allies declared the German people guilty, what was not correct .

Foster Dulles, who was involved in the drafting of the article said later that the article was wrongly interpreted (by the Germans ) and helped Hitler to take power .
And ,if Dulles said it, we may believe him, because he was a moralist wallowing in things as good and wrong .
The reason for the article was to have a legal foundation to force Germany to pay dommages .
The foundation was wrong : the best reason to force Germany to pay reparations was that Germany lost : vae victis . This would have been easier accepted by the Germans .
The US involvement had not good results .

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#8

Post by Terry Duncan » 15 May 2018, 14:36

I never said that the article mentioned guilt, only that it is commonly known as the 'war guilt clause', though the term is almost always the one people see used on TV and in papers, so I think you are expecting a bit too much. Guilt and responsibility can be interchangable in some circumstances too, not to mention that responsibility is also contentious in this context.

The US involvement in the entire ending of the war can best be described as unfortunate even if it were well-intentioned for the most part.

DavidFrankenberg
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 11 May 2016, 02:09
Location: Earth

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#9

Post by DavidFrankenberg » 15 May 2018, 22:15

mise eire wrote:Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles was dubbed the War Guilt Clause:
The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.
I can tell you what i understand : 1- Germany is responsible of the war, 2- consequently, she will have to pay. They mentionned "her allies" without even naming them... it means that they clearly thought Germany alone was the responsible.

But, what do you understand ?

User avatar
Don71
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Jan 2011, 15:43

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#10

Post by Don71 » 16 May 2018, 02:48

ljadw wrote:Article 231 did not mention guilt.
The Kriegsschuldfrage department proves only that after the war the German propaganda told the German people that the Allies declared the German people guilty, what was not correct .

Foster Dulles, who was involved in the drafting of the article said later that the article was wrongly interpreted (by the Germans ) and helped Hitler to take power .
And ,if Dulles said it, we may believe him, because he was a moralist wallowing in things as good and wrong .
The reason for the article was to have a legal foundation to force Germany to pay dommages .
The foundation was wrong : the best reason to force Germany to pay reparations was that Germany lost : vae victis . This would have been easier accepted by the Germans .
The US involvement had not good results .
Please can you describe or specify what do you mean with German propaganda realating to the Weimarer Republik, which was a constitutional democracy with a free press?
Please explain or give examples, which independent reportings about the Versaile Treaty in Weimar Germany were repressed, censored or controlled by the Weimar government?
Also please name one major or perhaps better any political, cultural or social current or groupe of Weimar Germany which was in agreement with the Versaille Treaty or the Article 231 of the Versaille Treaty?
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. Not a single "propaganda" was necessary that 95-100% of all German citizen at 1919 and the following years, were convinced that Germany was made to the scapegoat from the Entente and the Versaille Treaty wasn't accepted also from 95-100% of all German citizen.
There wasnt any need of propaganda, this was the opinion through all families, social classes and political classes.
Rarely have the Germans been so united in a political or perhaps better in a morality question, crosswise the whole country.

You are telling myths about any german "propaganda" at Weimar Germany with wrong infomations, or that the German citizen didn't realy understand the Versaille Treaty or the Article 231of the Versaille Treaty and the intention of the Entente with both of them!

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#11

Post by South » 16 May 2018, 09:35

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

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#12

Post by Terry Duncan » 16 May 2018, 09:40

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?

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#13

Post by MarkN » 16 May 2018, 11:49

Hello Terry Duncan,

Unfortunately we have another case of ljadw posting nonsense to suit his/her own ahistorical paradigms.

During our previous discussion, you warned me to be wary of "language" issues between posters. Translation is one of the devices that ljadw regularly and deliberately uses to distort historical reality. A few days ago in another thread, ljadw claims that niederzuwerfen = crush = eliminate. The first part (niederzuwerfen = crush) is the translation used by the Nuremburg prosecutors and is solid. The second part (crush = eliminate) is all of ljadw's own making. His/her version of history needs niederzuwerfen to mean eliminate, so he/she makes up his/her own translating and language meaning rules.
Terry Duncan wrote:
ljadw wrote:Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things : there was no Guilt Clause .
Given Article 231 has been known as 'the war guilt clause' since the time of the treaty, I really dont see the point in quibbling about it, especially since the Germans has a specific Kriegsschuldfrage department - I am far from an expert in German, knowing little more than a few basic phrases, but doesnt that translate as 'war guilt' department?
And here we go again.

The "guilt clause" does not include the word guilt. On that basis alone, the argument rests that the "guilt clause" is not a "guilt clause". However, it is a rather simplistic and naive argument to make. But it seems to be the argument that ljadw is using.

Moreover, the way he presents "Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things" is just plain wrong. It's making up his/her own language rules again.

The word guilt has in common useage two distinct meanings. One is related to (bad) feeling, the other to responsibility of action. Consider these two sentences:
1) She remembered with a pang of guilt that she hadn't called her mother. (guilt as a feeling)
2) The prosecution's task in a case is to establish a person's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. (guilt as in responsibility)
In the first sentence, guilt has nothing to do with responsibility. In the second, the prosecution has no interest in the person's feelings only their responsibility over alleged actions.

Article 231 is considered the "guilt clause" because it directs responsibility towards Germany and its allies.

What the original poster seems to been quite unable to grasp is that what his/her teachers told him/her about it being a "guilt clause" is a separate point to what the academic was trying to put across. The two are not contradictory.

ljadw's latter efforts are little more than trolling.

The only point of discussion as far as I can see from this issue is why many authors describe Germans seeing themselves as being held solely responsible when the words clearly state "Germany and her allies". As in all wars, the victors claim the spoils and punish the vanquished. All of the vanquished were equally tarnished. All of the victors claimed the moral high ground and seized the vanquished's treasure.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2625
Joined: 12 Jan 2015, 14:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#14

Post by MarkN » 16 May 2018, 12:13

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.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Germany and the War Guilt Clause

#15

Post by Gorque » 16 May 2018, 14:29

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

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”