Treaty of Versailles and World War 2?
- Thread starter free115
- Start date
tenthring
Banned
The French invaded and occupied Germany in the Ruhr during the 20s. Rather then scaring the Germans it just made them more angry. And it was a part of why the hyperinflation happened (without which maybe no Hitler).
How much harsher do you want it to be without actually marching into Berlin in 1918?
RavenMM
Banned
It was too harsh, it just made beaten young Germans into angry Germans looking for revenge.
Faeelin
Banned
Why was it harsh?
Germany intentinoally exploited the occupied French and Belgian territory for years, engaging in numerous human rights violations. As it retreated, it intentionally destroyed French industrial assets.
In the east, it was forced to give up territory that was Polish.
Man, how awful.
Germany intentinoally exploited the occupied French and Belgian territory for years, engaging in numerous human rights violations. As it retreated, it intentionally destroyed French industrial assets.
In the east, it was forced to give up territory that was Polish.
Man, how awful.
RousseauX
Donor
It was simultaneously too harsh to cripple Germany , not harsh enough to appease it, and probably could have worked if the allies actually tried to enforce it.So its generally agreed that the Treaty of Versailles contributed to WWII, but how exactly did the Treaty set the stage for eventual rematch? Also do any of you know any reading focusing on this topic?
Thanks
The hyperinflation had nothing to do with the treaty, it was the German Governments method to avoid paying reparations which was successful in that regard ( and of course for WW2 Germany was rewarded by abolishing the debt of 16 Billion US$ that was not paid in the 30´s)
Marching on Berlin isn't necessary. The Allies just had to show the Germans they really defeated them on the field and that they didn't lose because someone "stabbed them in the back". I think Versailles was more humiliating than harsh. I agree that the reparations were riduculous though.
Please tell me how Danzig was polish
A perfect ethnic border would have looked like some particularly horrific fractal. For such a supposedly evil treaty the Polish-German border was actually rather fair. It even left a similar number of Poles in Germany as Germans in Poland. Of course this metric is not in itself meaningful, but it can often give a general idea.
With Danzig there were several options. One was to make a few hundred thousand Germans live in a free city instead of the Germany they were pining for. Another was to highly inconvenience tens of millions of Poles. Germany showed in the 1920s that it was perfectly willing to resort to economic warfare. If it had retained Danzig, Poland would have had no means of resisting economic abuse.
Agreed, a parade in Berlin would have served that purpose, so the politicians could just paid the reperations asap. Even if the where in no correlation to the war damage done by German troops. Certainly a hard task for a politican, but not imposible.
But Versailles was a bad "treaty" because many clauses where just there to humiliate Germany. Ad to the isolation Germany had to undergo as a virtually pariah nation, its no surprise that every German believed it was that infamous "treaty" that was at fault.
Versailles served more as a good rallying point for everything that went wrong in Germany, than it was really at fault.
Regarding the realtionship with Versailles and ww2,...mew... blame the Great Depression and the stupid German government approach before and during the crisis and you know who really is at fault for the rise of the Nazis.
Otherwise we had the Third Reich born in 1919 not in 1933. People seem to forget that there was a democracy in Germany before the Third Reich and after the Kaiserreich. This republic didnt came out of nothing and lived with the "treaty" for more than a decade.
Undoing the partitioning of Poland required the adjacent countries to give up territory populated by Poles. However, to make the whole Polish corridor part of a sovereign Poland was unfair to the Germans. The solution would have been to allow the corridor to remain part of Germany with a special treaty for trade and access to the port city of Gdansk.
BlondieBC
Banned
The treaty was both too harsh and too soft. It was too soft to cripple Germany but too harsh for the Germans to easily accept. Once Russia collapses, France has a horrible dilemma. France is too weak to keep Germany down alone, and too many died in France for a soft peace. And France needs not only to keep Germany down, but to have enough troops to keep Soviet leaders from wanting to expand once the revolution has stabilized.
The UK is an unreliable land ally in peace. The USA is even worse. Italy feels cheated in the colonial area and the Balkans.
The UK is an unreliable land ally in peace. The USA is even worse. Italy feels cheated in the colonial area and the Balkans.
Faeelin
Banned
Please tell me how Danzig was polish
Danzig should have been given to Germany. Of course it would have been by the 1930s if Hitler had wanted it; the Western Allies would have happily sold Poland down the river.
But a free city? It's annoying and problematic, and I understand the conflict, but a landlocked Poland would be a German puppet at best.
Why was it unfair to Germany? The population of most of the Corridor was Polish, or pro-Polish.
Please tell me how Danzig was polish
It wasn't. It was independant. And also, the germans accepted that before the Versailles Treaty.
Wilson Fourteen points said:
The Polish Corridor was indisputably Polish. Danzig was the only realistic sea port for a recreated Poland as anyone looking at a map would see. When the Germans accepted the armistice based on the fourteen point, Danzig was a given. They were lucky that Danzig wasn't made part of Poland proper.
Tyr Anazasi
Banned
Danzig was German and the Corridore was German. Also the Czechs were living very well with a free harbour in Hamburg as their harbour. A direct access was never needed.
Anyway, one has to see that any harsher treaty was not possible. If the French insisted in that without support of the other Allies they would have had to carry on the war alone. And I guess the troops would have mutineed very soon. It would be an ugly affair though. And the French politicians knew it. Also enforcing Versailles was also not possible, as every power except the French recognized it has too harsh. And one had to fulfill the own duties as well. Which was not done (disarmament).
Versailles caused ww2, disregarding of a certain Austrian corporal.
Anyway, one has to see that any harsher treaty was not possible. If the French insisted in that without support of the other Allies they would have had to carry on the war alone. And I guess the troops would have mutineed very soon. It would be an ugly affair though. And the French politicians knew it. Also enforcing Versailles was also not possible, as every power except the French recognized it has too harsh. And one had to fulfill the own duties as well. Which was not done (disarmament).
Versailles caused ww2, disregarding of a certain Austrian corporal.
It wasn't a treaty, it was a dictate; that's the main fault. - There were negotiations - between the victors, about who gets which part of the spoils. But opposite the Germans (same goes for the other former CPs) it was a blunt and humilating dictate.
As Matthias Erzberger, the most vociferous proponent of signing in Germany, put it: what can you do when you're bound and gagged and someone holds a pistol to your head? - That signifies the German attitude; nobody - absolutely nobody - ever had the intention to heed this dictate. All German politicians of the Weimar period were determined to get rid of this humilation; other than forced by gun point none of them would conform to its terms.
A treaty could have been as harsh, or even harsher, had it been negotiated. Then, the Germans might have been inclined to honour their signature.
Brest-Litovsk is often cited as having been harsher than Versailles. But BL was the result of negotiations. The CPs and the Bolsheviks were meeting on equal terms. That the Bolsheviks preferred not to negotiate but to send radio messages and to wait for the proletarian revolution in Germany to start, was not the fault of the CPs.
As General Hoffmann put it: the Russians could have got far more than they got in the end - had they cared to seriously talk with us.
As Matthias Erzberger, the most vociferous proponent of signing in Germany, put it: what can you do when you're bound and gagged and someone holds a pistol to your head? - That signifies the German attitude; nobody - absolutely nobody - ever had the intention to heed this dictate. All German politicians of the Weimar period were determined to get rid of this humilation; other than forced by gun point none of them would conform to its terms.
A treaty could have been as harsh, or even harsher, had it been negotiated. Then, the Germans might have been inclined to honour their signature.
Brest-Litovsk is often cited as having been harsher than Versailles. But BL was the result of negotiations. The CPs and the Bolsheviks were meeting on equal terms. That the Bolsheviks preferred not to negotiate but to send radio messages and to wait for the proletarian revolution in Germany to start, was not the fault of the CPs.
As General Hoffmann put it: the Russians could have got far more than they got in the end - had they cared to seriously talk with us.
Last edited:
Like hell it was ! The majority of the population of the Corridor was Polish.
No negociations were needed, as the treaty followed the 14 points of Wilson which the Germans already accepted. And the 14 points of Wilson were pretty clear. The only point that could have been negociated was reparations, but the germans never intended to pay them anyway, as they never recognized that they lost the war. And nothing in the treaty was more humiliating than the 1871 trety ending the Franco-Prussian war.