Treaty of Versailles

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 �6,600 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.

Answer

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.

NoteThis question was originally in the section on WW2

With the Marshall Plan implemented after WW 2, the U.S. did more to help Germany recover after the war than any victor has ever helped a defeated foe in the history of humankind. Respectfully, you may have confused The Treaty of Versailles, concluding WW 1, with all of this. Rightly or wrongly, The Treary of Versailles was punitive towards Germany.

Richard V. Horrell WW 2 Connections.com

I cannot believe this question. Unlike the current situation in Iraq the allies made detailed plans of exactly how they were going to run Germany after they had liberated it. There are lots of books on this subject but in short the idea was to take the nazi ut of nazi Germany and to encourage all the good things that Germans could be proud of in their past such as culture and a belief in decent human values. So everyone in Germany had to fill out a big form stating what they had done during the nazi period. There were huge list of people who were to be arrested and investigated such as SS and party people and people who had run camps and prisons. If the answers on your form proved that you were not a nazi or only went alongwith the whole thing you would not be locked up. Depending on the answer you could lose your job or go to jail or be hung. Sadly we now know that lots of really bad people got away. Read a boo kby Tom Bower "THE PAPERCLIP CONSPIRACY or a book called "RATLINES",I forget the author. Look at Werner Von Braun who later headed NASA. Some big Nazis got away because they were useful to the allies in the cold war KLAUS BARBIE for example,but the Russians did the same,they took people they found useful.

But in general the re-making of Germany was a success. With the help of American money and British food Germans were taught to be democrats again. (bread in Britain was not rationed during the war but was rationed in the late 1940s in order to stop Germans from starving. Does this make me proud to be British? Yes, it does. Are the Germans grateful - don't think so) Britain and America helped write the Germany constitution. People who say that the allies did not help Germany after the war should do more research or else stop reading neo nazi propaganda. Mnay people would argue that we did not punish the Germans enough,but it is a difficult question. Ask former east Germans how the soviets treated them and then tell me the allies were too harsh on the west Germans

In the early stages Allied policy towards Germany had many contradictions. What Richard V. Horrell writes is true but/and I'd like to add:

1. A total of about 11.7 million Germans were expelled from the more easterly parts of Germany, which were given to Poland (and the Soviet Union), also from Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and various other parts of Eastern Europe. Many perished in the process.

2. After WW2 Germany did in fact have to pay reparations to some of the Allies. It's not something that is talked about much. It's true that the British government prevented starvation in its zone of Germany, but as late as February 1949 the British authorities were still dismantling factories in the Ruhr - and this was happening just a few months before the first general election in West Germany. It took a blazing row in the House of Commons to put an end to such absurdities.

3. West Germans were pleasantly surprised and very grateful for the Berlin Airlift. At first they expected the Western Allies to do a deal with Stalin and swap West Berlin for Thuringia ... Many German historians single out the Berlin Airlift (along with Marshall Aid) as one of the key things that pulled West Germany round to identification with the West.

4. West Germany benefitted enormously from the introduction of the new currency in 1948. This really did rely entirely on American support initially. Then West Germany, along with the rest of Western Europe, did very well out of the prolonged post-WW2 boom. It was this, more than anything else, that enabled the West German economy to absorb the expellees referred to in 1. - and the large number of refugees from East Germany.

5. From 1951 onwards West Germany was a founder memeber of the early forerunners of the European Union. This had the great advantage of providing an enlarged market and stimulating trade.

6. East Germany didn't enjoy any of these benefits. In the longer run, it was the East Germans who ended up suffering.

Overall, however, I agree with Richard Horrell's comments.

The answer to that question is complicated and multifaceted.

In the U.S. in the years 1944 - 1948 the "Writers' War Board" and the "Society for the Prevention of World War III" performed an initially very sucessful campaign to bring U.S. public opinion over to the side that the German people deserved punishment.

Meanwhile in the U.S. government the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr. worked succesfully to sell his plan to ensure that Germany could never again pose a threat to the U.S. How to accomplish this? Easy; by ensuring that Germany did not have the industry required to wage war, i.e. by removing a large part of the German economy, effectively "pastoralizing" the country.

General Eisenhower, in command of the U.S. occupation zone supported this policy, in 1945 famously stating "...I say let Germany find out what it means to start a war."

The only problem was, Germany was the industrial center of Europe, and all the Western European countries were and are economically interdependent on each other. By shutting down Germany, the traditional supplier of coal and heavy machinery, the economy of the rest of western Europe started following Germany down the drain, to the delight of the communists.

Former U.S. president Herbert Hoover wrote in March 1947 in one of his reports from Germany:

"There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."

Meanwhile press-pictures of starving German children were starting to change U.S. public opinion.

So, in the summer of 1947 the U.S. occupation directive JCS 1067 was rescinded. It had, quote: directed the U.S. commander to take "no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany" (Look up the article "Pas de Pagaille!" in the time magazine online edition)

Germany eventually revovered and was rebuilt, but the dismantling of West German factories that the U.S. had set in motion was not ended until 1951. And yes, West Germany was a beneficiary of the Marshall plan, but a minor one, it only received a fraction of what countries such as France and the UK received. Also; the combined Marshall plan aid to Germany over the years was dwarfed by what the Allies each year took from West Germany as payments for "occupation costs", not to mention the value of the factory equipment dismantled or the ship-yards blown-up after the war.

Some of the previous answers perplex me. As to Britain it is true that there was rationing, but part of the answer to that was that the war and postwar attempts to hold on to the "Brittish Empire" and to counter communism in places such as Greeze had bancrupted them. The Jewish humanitarian Victor Gollancz through his campaign "save Europe now" in December 1946 ended the British prohibition on sending food aid to Germany.

As to Denazification and the illusion that the U.S. and UK created democracy in Germany I recommend you do a Google for: "Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany?" and you will find a very intresting article.