The Treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I. It ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, one of the events that triggered the start of the war. Although the armistice signed on November 11, 1918, ended the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The terms of articles 231-248 were to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. The result of these competing and sometimes incompatible goals among the victors was an agreement that nobody was satisfied with. Germany was not pacified, conciliated, or permanently weakened, which would prove to be a factor leading to later conflicts.
The Treaty Of Versailles was one of the treaties at the end of world war 1. It ended the state of war between Germany and the allied powers.
The treaty of Versailles was signed in order to ensure that Germany would never come to power. All clauses withing the treaty extremely harsh on Germany.
The allies instead of providing a peace settlement based on the 14 point plan as Germany had though instead made the treaty very humiliating with the aim of keeping the Germans down.
The key points of the treaty that contributed to the conditions in Germany that lead to the rise of National Socialism are;
1. The war guilt clause
2. Â£6,600mil to be paid in reparations
3. Disarmament, The Rhineland was demilitarized the size of the army was limited, the navy was only allowed a handful of pre dreadnoughts and minor ships, as well as no air force and no submarines
4. Anschluss was forbidden and 14% of its land lost as well as all of Germany's colonies.
The war guilt clause angered many Germans and fueled the fires of the "stab in the back" conspiracy's theory.
Reparations made Germany poor, because of this many tended towards far right or far left parties. Failure to pay resulted in the french invasion of the Rhur region in 1923 further increasing hate for the treaty and the french.
The reduction of Germany's armed forces was also key for several reasons
1. It was highly embarrassing especially to a country that had years earlier been the greatest land power in the world. And to a very militaristic/ nationalistic country.
2. The weakening of the army meant that it was unable to control the militaristic wings of the Nazi and Communist parties forcing Papen to cut a deal with Hitler.
Hitler used the pretext of reuniting Germany to get back land and to attract votes.
The harshness of Versailles also made many conservatives in Britain and France feel sorry for Germany combined with war weariness and the fear of communism lead to the policy of appeasement.
It was too hard on Germany in requiring money to be paid by Germany to the allies.
The Prime Minister at the time - Lloyd George. :)
the effect was that Germany had to take full responsability for the start of the war and had to pay each country from the other side a lot of money, and it said that Germany could not build an army, but when Hitler took over he did build an army and ignored the treaty.
People in Germany felt they had been treated unfairly.
It was not approved by the U.S. Congress.
The Treaty devastated Germany. It limited the army, squashed nationial pride and forced them to pay reparations that were outrageous and impossible to pay in the state Germany was in.
Clemenceau of France was in the treaty for revenge on Germany and for the money, he wanted too much.Lloyd george was worried about losing his connection of trading with Germany so he didnt want to be too harsh but he also wanted their empire, so he was on the verge of having acceptable terms.Woodrow Wilson wanted 1 thing, pece with Germany and he also thought it would be a good idea to help rebuild Germany so that it could prevent future wars. Woodrow Wilson was too kind.
France: France wanted (really) one thing, which was revenge. They really wanted to punish Germamy for the damage and destruction WW1 had caused. They had suffered badly, as most of the fighting had been on French soil. USA: The USA contradicted France, as they didn't really want to punish Germany that much. This means that neither one could achieve what they wanted, without upsetting the other. (If USA got their way, France would be angry because they'd think Germany had got off lightly).United Kingdom: Britain had a nice, comfortable Empire in 1918, and wanted to expand (so did France). However, USA wanted to give independence to all colonies. This is another unsatisfactory compromise, which could not please all of the "Big Three"All in all, the Treaty of the Versaille is a good compromisation from all of the aims. But those aims laid down it the first place, few were met, and not one leader walked away with everything he wished for from the Conference.
Georges Clemenceau wanted to punish Germany for causing the war and invading France.
The Treaty of Versailles ending world war I was the main reason that Adolph Hitler could rally so many Germans to what ended up being world war II.
The Entente and the US spoke with different voices in 1918-19. President Wilson talked about a peace without 'victors or vanquished', which implied concepts of fairness, but Britain and France (and their allies) imposed a conventional treaty with winners and losers. That is the key issue.AnswerIn 1918 when the war had ended the League of Nations was drawn up, but at the same time the "big three" were planning a way to get compensation for the war and make Germany a lesser threat to any of the European countries.In 1914 Germany had a big empire covering parts of Poland and France. In 1918 the big three had Germany in the palm of their hands, then decided to make Germany a lesser threat by cutting its army down to 100,000 men , making them pay ï¿½6,600 million in compensation. They then decided to weaken their economy but not in such a way that Germany could not buy goods from abroad. Another aspect of the treaty was taking away Germany's colonies. Germany only had itself to worry about now.
Besides the points mentioned above, Germany had also lost more than 2 million men in the war, and was also suffering from poverty, etc., as her economy had been severely crippled, if not destroyed, by the war. Forced to give up ALL her colonies, disarmament and extreme reparations had only increased the impact on Germany and her citizens. To a certain extent all these were not very fair to Germany.
The colonies were a source of national pride for most German citizens. Besides, Germany saw the TOV as merely another excuse by the victors to annex her overseas territory - they were originally for the newly set up League of Nations to rule but were given to the Allied nations to govern due to the League's lack of resources.
As for disarmament, the Rhineland that separates France from Germany became a demilitarized zone, meaning that no German soldiers were allowed in there. The army was limited to 100,000 men, very small for a nation Germany's size, and the German Navy was only allowed to keep six battleships. Besides all this, the German armed forces were not allowed to build or buy any armed vehicles, submarines, or military aircraft. What was unfair to Germany in this was that NONE of the other countries disarmed, or were forced to disarm, to the extent that Germany was.
Worst of all was the reparations Germany had to give the Allied countries (6,600 million British pounds). Such a staggering amount left her with no means whatsoever of staging a post-war economic recovery, and was notably many times the value of the damaged she had caused. Hence Germany believed that the reparations
were intentionally meant to cripple her and keep her weak.
All these had only intensified Germany's motivation for future revenge. Besides the fact that Germany was not even invited to the Paris Peace Conference to appeal the decision, Adolf Hitler in the 1930s had promised to tear up TOV if he was elected, and when he did, he properly kept to his promise. World War Two started as a result.
It should be therefore correct to conclude that the Treaty of Versailles was not fair in anyway to Germany.Hmmm...Based on historical precedent I would venture to say that yes, the treaty was reasonable. Throughout history it has been common practice for the victor to impose sanctions on the vanquished. The saying, "To the victor go the spoils" is particularly apropos. Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, the Vatican, Ferdinand of Spain, and many others have long practised this belief.
As to whether it "intensified Germany's motivation for future revenge," possibly, but that is not relevant in answering the question. Neither is Hitler's action upon election.
The treaty did not erase the German nation and split it up among the victors. It did not diminish its national identity, nor did it enslave the people of Germany. It did impose sanctions on a people governed by aggressive and opportunistic leaders.
Historically speaking, the Treaty of Versailles was reasonable.AnswerHistory and surrender terms are written by the victors, and the losers suffer. That is what happened with the Treaty of Versailles. In the treaty Germany lost the bulk of its military, was forced to pay massive reparations which are payments for damages done by war to the victors and had to pay the costs of the war for all victorious parties. Ouch. Germany also had to admit in writing that they were the sole cause of WWI which is not true. All in all the Treaty of Versailles was "just" in the eyes of the victors because they wished to punish Germany. However the harshness of the treaty was one of the key factors to Hilter's rise of power in the later decades. AnswerFrance and Britain never intended the treaty to be fair. Both wanted to weaken Germany. (The idea of a 'fair' treaty came from President Wilson).
The British and French politicians had to think of their own embittered electorates. Prime Minister Lloyd George had just won an election back home and in the course of the election campaign had made all kinds of 'wild and woolly' promises: he had promised to 'squeeze Germany till the pips squeak'; he'd promised to 'hang the Kaiser'; and also to 'create a land fit for heroes' (for the returning British soldiers).
It would be completely unrealistic to think of Clemenceau and Lloyd George as wise or unwise men operating in a political vacuum. A 'fair' peace treaty would have been political suicide. The one who wanted a 'fair' peace was President Wilson - and it caused him problems back home.
Having said that, the treaty had some serious flaws. That is something for another question, however.AnswerI would say the treaty was fair for a number of reasons. The foremost being the cause of the war and while the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is looked upon as being the cause there are many more significant factors. One of these factors was the arms race and to address this the military was restricted which is sensible to ensure Europe's security. Germany was the main aggressor in the war though Germany had already had a full plan for invasion of Belgium (a neutral nation) in 1906, eight years before the war. Germany did not attempt to avoid this conflict but was pushing for it and was just waiting for that one excuse to conquer Europe. Also they brought the U.S. into the war with the Zimmerman Telegram and allowed unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic; no ship was off limits for them even if it was civilian.
It would make sense that Germany would pay reparations considering the war was fought on Belgian and French soil for most of the war and Germany had deliberately destroyed coal mines in France and other targets which were unnecessary and uncalled for an attack. In addition to this, Germany had taken 6 billion marks from Russia in 1918 and 5 billion gold francs from France in 1871. Economic depression was not just the treaty's fault but that coupled with unwise choices and the crash of the stock exchange which affected the whole world.
As for land, all land that was taken from Germany was land that came from Germany's conquests which were turned into independent and sovereign nations.
This is not to say that Germany's allies were off the hook. The Austria-Hungary Empire was broken up, lost land and was not allowed to join together again and the Ottoman Empire lost its conquered lands in the Middle East as well.
Overall, Germany incited WWI and escalated it into a conflict much bigger than it should have been and the punishments were justified because they addressed Germany's role and actions in the war and it saved them from having their capital and country destroyed when the allies started to bear down on Germany (the allies never reached Berlin) and in fact even General Ludendorff of Germany wanted a "peace at any price."
Also, there is a difference between 'right' and 'fair' because the TOV role in the rise of Hitler and WWII is an argument of whether it was 'right' to punish Germany, not if it was 'fair'.
As a result of the Treaty, nine nations were created or restored: Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These nations were allowed self-determination. Many Germans felt that they were not allowed this.
The question of fairness is irrelevant. Woe to the vanquished! In war the spoils go to the victors.
Well, it was unfair in the sense that Germany, as one of the losers, had to give up territory and money. But it was not particularly harsh by the standards of history. Germany had imposed harsh terms on France in 1871 and on Russia in 1918, making them accept peace terms that were as "unfair" or worse.
This is far too broad of a question to be answered in a single reply. Please break it down into components, and ask each individually; you should also specify if you are interested in the impacts on the world as a whole, or specific impacts on one country (or a specific region).
Also, you might rephrase the question to use the word "effects" rather than "impact" - there are quite a number of good answers under those questions.
It held them accountable for waging the war, required that they admit guilt for starting the war, required them to pay war reparations, give up some territory, and disarm. Some believed that they were sold out by their politicians and generals, and should have continued fighting.
There is an old saying, "The French fight for glory, the British fight for land, and the Americans fight for souviners." There is truth in that saying. President Woodrow Wilson told the American people that: WE fight (in WW I) for a higher cause, not for land or glory, but for peace -- a war to end wars forever! He sumarized that thinking in what he called the "Fourteen Points." What he did, that few, if any have done, was to ask, What is the cause of wars? Then he proceeded to remove the causes. Part of the thinking that was involved was to end "The Great War" with no winners and no losers. This was such a good deal that Germany based its surrender on the thinking that the "Fourteen Points" would be the basis of the peace treaty. Wilson did not send representives to the meeting at Versailles, but personally went to the meeting himself. We Americans are isolated from the rest of the world, and often do not understand the thinking of others. We think our ways are so logical that surely everyone will join in our thinking. (This is often a mistake as the war in Iraq has shown.) Wilson failed to realize that the leaders of England (Lloyd George) and France (George Clemaceau) felt that they could not justify the deaths of so many of their people in the war, UNLESS they gained something. The idea of a war ending without any winners was NOT part of their thinking. They view Wilson as an idealist (which he was) and not one that thought in terms of the "real world." So the short answer to your question is: We got involved for the same reason as the Europeans -- to gain something -- Something for the whole world, something for many generations to come -- PEACE! Sadly Wilson was not listened to, with the result, as one French General said as he left Versailles at the end of the Peace Treaty. "Another war will start in 20 years." He was exactly right. World War II started in 1939, 20 years after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Hope I didn't get carried away, John
Some would argue that it wasn't the direct cause, while others would say it was one of the most important factors. The restrictions imposed by the Versailles treaty created a social and economic depression in Germany, with widespread disillusionment among its people. These are the conditions in which radical and extremist ideas take root and become popular.
The population was looking for (indeed desperate for) a change, and unfortunately it happened to be the Nazis and Adolf Hitler that promised it. The prospect of change and reform was what they wanted to hear. When the Nazis started building new weapons in secret in the mid-thirties, they put Germany's workforce back to work. Suddenly there were jobs and apparent prosperity, and the German people could see a brighter future. This all helped sell the belief that the Nazis and their policies were righteous and that Hilter was a great leader. The rest is history. Did Versailles cause the next war? Absolutely.
The late entry of the USA into the war tipped the scales. What would likely have ended with a stalemate on the western front, instead turned into a major defeat for Germany.
Germany, arguably the most civilized nation on earth up to that point, was forced to surrender land, people, money, patents, armaments, and honor. One of the worst items in the treaty was forcing Germany to accept full responsibility for the war, which was ridiculous. The Serbs triggered the entire affair by their involvement (right up to top government officials) in the assassination of foreign leaders. This terrorist nation needed to be crushed and its government overturned. Instead Russia raced to aid them by mobilizing, thus setting off mobilization and conflict over the entire region.
The treaty, not withstanding the lie noted above, left Germany too weak to properly defend herself. Thus nations like Poland invaded and tried to steal German lands, beyond those already granted by the treaty. Such matters as this forced the Germans to look for a strong man, a dictator, a revival of militarism. The result was Hitler and another major war.
In hindsight, World War II was almost inevitable given the terms of the Versailles treaty. The terms of the treaty made another war almost inevitable.
Several terms were horribly short-sighted in retrospect. First, the forced signature required of Germany, placing full blame for the war on her shoulders -patently ridiculous as all historians know. Second, the silly border drawing by the great imperial/colonial powers France and Britain - creating false nations such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others. Third, the realignment of borders that left large German minorities under the rule of other ethnic groups. Fourth, the attempted total destruction of German military power which meant that opportunistic, expansionist countries like Poland would be able to take advantage of their weak neighbor.
Of course, there are also the vast land grabs by France and Britain as they took over various colonies of Germany, plus split up the Middle East for themselves (creating problems with which we are still dealing today).
the leage of nations
Well one he went in to the Rhineland when he wasn't allowed to. Also, he build his military there when he wasn't supposed to remilitarize. Sorry i don't know the other 2 but i think there is only 2 ways that he went against it!
Establish the League of Nations.
He rebuilt the German military.
The Allies loved it but Germany hated it. It is a classic case of to the victor belongs the spoil. Versailles was loved mostly by France. Being close to Germany with Germany disarmed, was like a pit of fangless snakes guarding the coal scuttle of Europe. Since most of the fighting was done on French soil and the horrors of trench warfare (corpses being eaten by huge rats, etc) was still in their minds, they proceeded to get even with Germany anyway. While it is true that Germany started the war, the unrealistic war reparations demanded of her caused grief in the German soul. Germany is a land poor in natural resources and what they do have is not enough for them. The French were angry about not enough coal coming their way when Germans were freezing in their homes! America realized that a strong democratic Germany would be a better friend in the future and wanted an easing of the Treaty of Versailles, but France would not have it. They wanted their pound of flesh at any cost. Even when German industry did rebuild the drag on it by reparations kept it in foment. The seeds of discontent were sown, The water of greed applied and the growth of Nazism sprang up. Hitler used the Treaty of Versailles as a battle cry for a new Germany and got a lot of milage out of it. After 10 years he slithered into the Chancellory and begain the darkest days of German history. There is a lot to be gained from magnanimous victory. The United States is the only country in history to beat other people on the battleground from wars they started and to give them a hand up to rebuild. If the Treaty of Versailles had been realistic maybe democracy could have taken root and the horrors of WW2 avoided. I concur with the previous speaker :-) The US wanted to ease the treaty, but France were reluctant. Of course the US understood that an economic stronger Germany would be a great trade partner as well. Still, France just wanted to have their part of victory. Nevertheless, with Hindenburg (former General) elected president at a certain point, Germany always stayed the same Prussia army like nation it was. At the point Hitler decided to get his army into the Rhineland (the demilitarized zone) in 1933, France were to yellow to interfere and (I think) for sure prevent WWII, as Hitler was not ready a that time for whatever opposition. I must agree, most of the fundements for WWII were in the Treaty of Versailles.
The Potsdam Declaration demanded unconditional surrender by Japan and Germany. They did sign unconditional surrenders and allowed the allied forces to occupy those two nations but there was no treaty like the treaty of Versailles in World War 1.
There were many smaller treaties that were not world wide treaties during the war. There are too many to list here so I have provided a link for you to continue your research on treaties in World War 2. Pay attention to the non-aggression pacts. See below
== == Germany and Japan had to surrender unconditionally. This ended the fighting and provided the basis for an interim settlement. The Allies also issued declarations in 1947 to the effect that they were no longer at war. There was a peace treaty between the U.S. and Japan in 1951. In the case of Germany, the Cold War division of the country between West and East made a conventional peace treaty impossible. In 1990, however, there was something akin to a peace treaty in order to regularize Germany's position before re-unification and to tie up various 'loose ends'.
In 1936 Germany occupied and remilitarised the Rhineland, in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles.
Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Central Powers nations, were denied representation at Versailles.
Depends...What treaty are you talking about?
Why is TikTok getting banned in the US?
Asked By Amie Smitham
What is 8 divided by 2(2 plus 2)?
Asked By Wiki User
Why Ghirth is called jat in Himachal?
Asked By Wiki User
What is 308 rounded to the nearest 10?
Asked By Wiki User
The citation was never given the officer wrote and signed you never signed any ticketNO this happened in AZ in 1994 accident talked with officer 14 years later suppended lic.?
Asked By Wiki User
Where can you find a picture of a Time magazine front cover page from June 1919 to do with the Treaty of Versailles?
Asked By Wiki User
Why were some of the people afraid of the Treaty of Versailles' influence over American foreign policy?
Asked By Wiki User
What was one result of the US senate refusal to approve the Treaty of Versailles?
Asked By Wiki User
Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.