Causes of WW2 - the Versailles Treaty

Yes it is surprising, this was one of the reasons that the germans laid down their arms in 1918, they were promised a peace based around Wilsons 14 points, 1 of which was self determination.

Hitler was to use this fact in his expansoinsist policy of the 1930s 'the right of self determination of the german people'

 

[/quote]

Yes, but when WW2 started in 1939 german self determination was achieved.Austria and the Sudets were part of the Reich, there was only Danzig left, which for Hitler was nothing but an "excuse" for starting the war, not the actual reason as we all know.

As I already said, the Versailles treaty did indeed favour Hitler's rise to power(altough there were numerous other reasons), but could not possibly be a direct cause of WW2 because in 1939 it had ceased to exist.
And properly applied it would have made WW2 impossible.

 

Germany were trying to find a way out in Autumn 1918, they even tried to negotiate with Wilson independantly of the other allies! Germany had been defeated and If Germany thought it would be treated as anything other than a defeated enemy by the allies they were incredibly naive.

 

If Germany had been offered a peace treaty along the lines of Wilson's 14 points and without reparations payments, then who knows, maybe Germany would have been turned off the whole war thing anyway because of the death and devastation it caused even within Germany, and there would have been no emotional reason for them to return to arms. Several factors came together after WW1 that eventually created right in the middle of Europe a nation ready for WW2; one was the Versailles treaty and its results, the other was Ludendorff and Hindenburg exploiting it to fool the German people with the Dolchstoss-myth.

Among the results of the treaty was the fact that the first, Social Democratic government of the Weimar Republic had no choice but to sign the treaty and thus made the German people almost collectively lose faith in the government and in democracy in general.

One might argue that the terms of the treaty weren't directly responsible for WW2 because none of them were still in effect by 1939; however these same terms created a situation in which a war-monger and genocidal maniac could come to power in one of the industrial greats of the world, and a situation in which this character could play on the hopes and fears of the German people to plunge Europe into another war. Meanwhile WW1 also created an extreme form of pacifism in the other European leaders, which was exactly what was needed to make worse what was already bad. And thus WW1 in the end caused WW2, though the links aren't nearly as direct as some may argue.

 

I am happy that my little provocation and Castelot´s response has sparked off this heated and interesting, and necessary, debate !


Why was the Treaty so harsh on Germany? Because the war propaganda during WW1 made the populations of France and Britain to hate Germany, which forced the politicians to express this hatred in the terms of the Treaty.
The French particularly wanted to be Machiavellian by permanently crippling German economy with reparations and reducing it´s territory and cutting it´s army to nothing.

But, the public opinion forgets quickly and during the 20 ys of peace nobody could or wanted to mobilize it (and thereby – the politicians) to execute the terms to the point. Again – an example of how stupid the democratic form of governmant can be. Very short-sighted.
Besides, the British needed Germany as a balance agains France, so Machiavelli had to be tempered both during Versailles and after.

In 1945 the politicians resolved to be 100% Machiavellian despite the short-sightedness of the peoples´ by creating faits accomplits much more radical and irreversible:
a prolonged occupation, changing the German elites, dividing the country and than, tying it to NATO and EF/Warsaw Pact..
Btw, the American bases (in effect – a remnant of the original occupation force is still there!).

Right, lots of provisions of the Treaty weren´t fulfilled, but succeeded brilliantly in creating a permanent desire in Germany for revenge. The victors forgot much quicker the whole thing than the defeated and humiliated, precisely the way Machiavelli warned.

Why no pro-French voices mention the economic situation in Germany after WW1?
The country was ruined, bancrupt.
Starvation was widespread, which led to attempts to start communist revolutions. How realistic was it to demand those astronomical reparations?
And, being unable to convincingly put the entire blame on Germany, the Great “Statesmen” decided to do it just because Germany could not say “NO!”.

Being unable to enforce the Treaty to the point in decennia and later, it was a mistake to make a big neighbor permanently resentful and ever waiting for a chance to revenge. But who could affordto be magnanimous those days?

It may sound not a little unpleasant in French ears, but wasn´t the fact that the hostilities were going on on French soil due to German effective mobilization and organization of attack from the very start?
Otherwise, the French would mobilize and attack anyway.
Isn´t it hypocritical to accuse Germans BECAUSE they just happened to be more effective and better organized? I am just asking.
Guilty of being efficient? A new kind of war crime???

And why did France not try to enforce payments to all affected countries? I don´t think that the Polish territories suffered less than the French, as the Eastern front was on Polish soil all the time (but the press was not there to photograph and describe the horrors).
So, let´s stop talking about holy principles.

Invoking the Brest-Litovsk as precedent sounds also not a little ridiculous.
The bolshevik gangsters would have signed anything to get the Germans off their backs, while their “revolution” was on a verge of collapse. Besides, Lenin had some obligations vs. Germans, who transported the bandit to Russia and largely financed his “revolution”(beside the guys form Wall-Street) and might have wanted something for the service.

What about the propaganda about German atrocities in Belgium?
The British Govt. officially apologized to Germany for the lies after the War.
The French one didn´t.

As to Foch citate about “cease fire for 20 years”: I don´t know the context of it, but it can be understood both ways. Didn´t he anticipate the next war BECAUSE he was wise and understood how the Germans would feel about the whole disgrace and for how long?

I won´t repeat the other excellent arguments on both sides. I will only congratulate all of you because of the fine debate.

 

But Castelot is definitely right in that the policy adopted in case of war by the German government before WW1 involved a quick knock-out of France even if that country had nothing to do with the case in point (which was the case in 1914). Thus, Germany carries the blame of taking alliance wars to the extreme by thinking of allies as the same country. This is where you can blame the Germans.

 

with the grand alliances as they stood in 1914 germany had no option but to implement a premptive strike against france, once the ball was set in motion it couldnt be stopped.

It was a huge gamble that failed but so easily could have succeeded!

personally i wouldnt hold germany responsible for what happened afterwards neither side was prepared for stalemate and neither side would accept the fact that the balance of power on the western front was so even.

each side cut off their nose to spite their face and continued the slaughter without prospect of victory that is the real crime of ww1.

 

Yes.

But could they risk not to do it?
The traties have been there and Germany, as any civilized country those days, had to assume that they would be honored, which meant their defeat with 100% certainty. Or what?

 

I agree this one is great fun

 

Dear Charley,
Frace did not want to shoulder the bill. And Germany couldn´t. Germany was poorer than any of the others. And shaken to the roots by revolts and attempts of communist revolution. Not a good payer.

Unprovoked agression? Do you really think Germans were idiots? They just assumed that France would fulfill its obligations vs. Russia.

Brest-Litovsk.
I told you and others: They were dealing with a bunch of bandits they had been funding themselves. I don´t think anyone in Germany was serious about the treaty. They wanted the revolution to happen as far from their own borders as possible. And rightly so. And maybe use some of Ukraine´s resources so that Germans wouldn´t starve. And, as you certainly know, Germany was starving by that time.

German atrocities.
I surrender. I just don´t have facts at hand. You may be right, I will not deny. Ocupation is never nice. Just look at Iraq. I must read about it. But, instinctively, I have difficulty believing that Germans in WW1. were just mindless beasts in occupied France and Belgium. Remember that Allied propaganda was particularly nasty towards Germans to boost own morale.

 

France was as poor as Germany in 1918, but unlike Germany it was not responsible for what had happened.
And as Germany had much more economical potential than France it was likely that it would recover sooner.
Of course France did not want to shoulder the bill, there was absolutely no reason it should have done so, or do you see any??
Asking reparations from the defeated power is something absolutely natural in any peace treaty.

During the july crisis 1914, the german ambassador in Paris informed it's governement that he saw a real chance that in a war between Germany and Russia, France might stay neutral.
From berlin he got the response that Germany would be inclined to accept french neutrality but under the conditions that France delivered to Germany the fortresses and towns of Verdun, Epinal and Toul(as well as others) as guarantees.Other condition was that no french troops did cross a line of 50 km away from the german border.
That was as we all see just another way to tell France that Germany would not accept their neutrality but wanted to make war against it.
Germany simply was not willing to take the risk of a long war in the east with an undefeated France in it's rear.
Basically Germany's problem in that fatefull summer of 1914 was that their governement had allowed the military to take control of the country's foreign policy.
Maybe we should start a thread about the reasons for WW1?



Also I think if you look closely at Brest Litowsk, you will see that already in 1918, many in Germany had the same ideas about Lebensraum in the east than in 1941.
If you really consider that Versailles was any harsher than Brest-Litowsk, than I suggest you reread both treaties. :-?

[/quote]


Absolutely no serious historian doubts those atrocities.
Of course, they were often exagerated by allied propaganda, but the facts of burned villages, the using of civilians as human shields, executing women and children....are well documentated and absolutely accurate.

 

As I´d said: I can´t discuss the atrocities. I am not competent.

Brest-Litovsk:
Germany was already imploding by then. I don´t think vague ideas of Lebensraum were high on the agenda then. Morover – the farther the plague of communism off Europe the better for all. Who can even compare a “treaty” with wild thugs with a serious international Treaty of Versailles? Castelot, please…

Of course, the potential to rebuild was there. On both sides. But the reparations would make rebuilding imposible. Reparations must be realistic in order to be payable. It was realism that was lacking then. Which subsequent events proved.

The German conditions, you cited were extreme and everybody involved must have known – unacceptable. But what choice did Germany have? Sit and wait to be slaughtered from both sides?
I don´t know if France was going to fulfill it´s obligations. Only archives can tell.
Whatever, the Germans must have been prepared to defend themselves against France, because France was legally bound to fulfill their obligations. And the only option to defend themselves with a chance of success was to attack first and fast. That was the horrible logic of the day.
Are you trying to say that France would certainly abandon their ally? And that the Germans should have relied on some rumors form Paris? It would be bad statesmanship and too great a risk.
Attacking first on the assumption that France would fulfill their legal obligations must not be considered a proof that Germany alone was to blame for the War. Or what?
Btw. when did France decided to mobilize?

Castelot, I assure you of my sympathy. The only thing I am trying to is to be objective. I am not “with Germany”, G-d forbid, I just want the truth out.

 

Germany had the choice not to start the war with Russia in the first place, then they wouldn't have had to care about what France would do.
I do understand Germany's strategical dilemma, but no, that's not an excuse.
In the whole crisis of july 1914 Germany was the only one of the great powers (expect Austria perhaps)that made no effort for moderation.
Russia even once postphoned it's mobilisation, it is proven that France throughout the crisis made efforts to moderate Russia, as well as England did.
But Germany made the contrary, it made pressure on Austria to eliminate Serbia once and for all, without caring what Russia might do.

It is also proven that the german general staff welcomed the war, as they tought that after all it was inevitable and that it was bether to fight it before Russia would become too powerfull.

No, surely France would have honored it's defence treaty with Russia.
But it wouldn't have had to do so, had Germany not agressed Russia.
What I was trying to say was that even if France had choosen to remain neutral, Germany would have invaded it anyway, as they tought it was too risky to have an unbeaten France on their rear while they were figthing in Russia.
By adopting the schlieffen plan as it's manual for foreign policy, Germany didn't leave it's diplomats any liberty of action anymore.

1 August 1914, 4.45 pm.

I try so too.
And believe me,as a member of german-french friendship association I don't have hard feelings for Germany for what happened long before I was born.

 

Dear, Castelot,
I´ll try to say what I think, having considered your good arguments. Excuse me, if it´s going to be long, but the subject is as it is.

1. Austria was guilty of attacking Serbia, a sovereign state, knowing that they could count on Germany. Still, Serbia was not blameless because of its unfriendly attitude towards Austria (I don´t mean the answer to the Ultimatum but the previous record). Serbia was defiant because it knew, Russia would back her. So, in a way, these two may be blamed for the start of the whole tragedy. And Russia, too, has to bear a blame for making a local conflict an all-European potential disaster.
At this poin, everybody could still afford to use diplomacy only. And both Austria and Russia had a lot to loose.

2. I do not agree with your argument, that you understand “Germany's strategical dilemma, but no, that's not an excuse.” Such a strategic dilemma may be, and was by many, considered a valid excuse.
Centrals had 120 mln people, Coalition – 238 mln. Centrals would have to fight on two fronts and face a 100% sure blockade. Their only chance was speed.

3. I do not agree that Germany didn´t try to contain the conflict (even if GHQ welcomed the war, as you say – WELCOMING A WAR by generals does not constitute guilt of their state or even their own!).
Russia mobilized partially against Austria on 29., knowing that Austria had treaty with Germany. Therfore – on July 30. – also against Germany. I don´t know when Russia had time to call back their mobilization, as you say.
Germany did try to prevent a general war by its ultimatum to Russia to recall mobilization. No response led to Germany declaring war on Russia on 1. Aug.
German govt. did ask France, what France would do. The answer was indirect but couldn´t be misunderstood – France would help Russia. Both countries declared mobilisation ON THE SAME DAY. Only on 3. August did Germany declare war on France.

4. It was Russia that attacked Germany and Austria first, not the other way round.

5. There was no precedent in history of reparations of that magnitude, so crippling and so unrealisticly demanded. Two important books: Keyne´s and Jacques Bainville´s correctly foretold the consequences of such a peace. Just like Foch said: “20 ys of cease-fire”.

You know, Castelot, we can certainly keep finding many important facets of the beginning and proofs and contra-proofs.
Even serious historians now are not in agreement about the blame.
I think, the main difference between us lies in this:

You stress the aggressive attitude of German GHQ but downplay their legal obligations and downplay their difficult position in 1914. You also downplay the psychologic effect of Versailles on the German population and disregard the really hopeless situation inside Germany in 1918-19.

I do recognize that the Germans raped Belgium, I do understand that the war was devastating for France, particularly the northern part.
I do understand that a more conciliatory atttude of Germany may have pevented the tragedy.
But I am also trying to get inside a German decision-maker (and a German citizen´s ) head and see how it looked like from their point of view.
Germany had to be prepared for the worst and take the necessary measures, i.e. use the speed. G. had also to fulfill the obligations.

After the war one should have been more considerate and understand that harsh measures would only awaken revenge.
And that the magnitude of the reparations made them impossible to be honored, but only created resentment.
Shortly: I think it is a very great achievement, and a wise one, not to exagerrate and not to be too revengefull and greedy when you have a chance.
Whoever was more to blame – only moderation could have prevented the fury in Germany after Versailles.
At the same time – I do understand that such a moderation was apparently politically impossible. How could even the brightest politicians cool down the emotions they had themselves been forced to awaken during the War? They apparently couldn´t.
That is the focus point of the tragedy: If you involve very hot emotions of your population, you cannot afford to be a cool real-politician afterwards.

I am still of the opinion that WW2 was an almost unavoidable consequence of WW1 and Versailles. And, maybe, it´s pointless to talk about who was to blame. It just happened the way it did.

Nobody could contain a newly created great power of Germany without dismembering it and turning into slave after 1945.

 

Well, Austria was absolutely not willing to use diploamacy in it's conflict with Austria, and Germany encouraged it in doing so.
I cannot see anything funamentally wrong in Russia trying to avoid a war between Austria and Serbia.

I do not agree.
Not many of Germany's leaders expectted Britain to join it's ennemies.(Britain was not formally allied to Russia and France).
Without Britain joining France and Russia, Germany would not have had to fear a long war.
Economically at that time, the German/Austrian combination was much more powerfull than the French/Russian combination.
The german fleet as well was much more powerfull than the combined flets of Russia and France.
German leaders knew this, so why the need for running amok like they did?
It was the german decision to invade Belgium and eliminate France that brought Britain in the war.

I'll have to reread a book on the subject before continuing here, but I'll get back to it.

I don't think so.Russia mobilised before Germany but that is not yet an agression.
Russians could still argue that their mobilisation was meant to impress Austria not to go too far with Serbia.

[

Yes, probably.
Tough, most actual historians tend to give Germany the blame for the war.
A good book about the subject has recently appeared.
It's from american historian David Fromkin and is called "Europe's last summer", his conclusion is that from mid july 1914 onwards the german general staff deliberately used it's big influence on politics in Germany, to get the war they had hoped for, since several years.

.


I mostly agree with that.
Four years of figthing, millions of dead, a ruined country are bad prerequisites for having pity for a defeated ennemy.
Maybe in an utopic perfect world it could possibly have been otherwise.

 

And now we could continue our discussion "by proxies": who is the most actual historian, in order to find out, who of us "is right".

For my part, I surrender. Not because I´ve run out of arguments but because the real problem is, in my opinion in other place: Whoever was "more to blame" there was always the question:
We will have to live together after THAT, somehow.
Nobody was apparently thinking of it during WW!. Few showed signs of understanding the fact afterwards.
The psychological effect of Versailles on Germany (not to speak of the economic one) was profound. At least, profound enough to bear the rabid, paranoiac Schickelgruber - the Versailles-buster, to power.

I hope, you´ll not deny that it was his and the Germans´ hate for Versailles and made him an attractive in the eyes of the electorate. Half of his dull "mein kampf" is about, what to do about Versailles.

Why it was not possible to be realistic and think in decennia and not just to the next election - in other words - why the victorious politicians, apart from their own antipathies, failed to see far and clear: this is what democracy is (also) about. Your voters are not visionary politicians but individuals of average intelligence and imagination, and limited knowledge of history (and of Machiavelli).

Castelot, let´s just agree in the most important (to Hell with details):

Either Germany should be stripped of any possibility of recovering and becoming a threat (like in 1945) or one should have been more sensitive to the German emotions, when concocting Versailles. The half-measures and the very quickly disappearing resolve to execute the provisions of Versailles were an important factor in bringing WW2.

Do you agree?

 

Yes, I do agree with that.

 

Probably the big psychological impact of Versailles was not the terms of the agreement (relatively only as harsh as those Germany imposed on France after the Franco-Prussian War, and payable in kind over the next 70 years - given Germany's economic base & population, not potentially crippling), but the fact that it existed.

Think about it. Germany was a new country, only really united within the last 150 years. In that time, it had gone from strength to strength, and had never lost an armed conflict. In fact, it had humiliatingly walloped France, the country held to be the greatest military might in the world, in the Franco-Prussian War. To go from that kind of 'high' to fighting a long war of attrition, and being the country that gave way first (partly due to technological advances by the enemy, partly due to the blockade, partly due to America entering the war) is not going to sit well.
Especially as the general public knew nothing of how desperate the military situation was at the end. As far as they knew the armistace was simply an agreement to stop the war of attrition as it as going nowhere.

Inflicting a harsh defeat on a previously undefeated country is always gonna annoy them.

 

prussia defeated france in 1871 not germany. Germany came into existence in jan 1871 after the victory over france.

i dont think the terms on france were as bad as those on germany, 5 billion francs and the loss of alsace lorraine against 269 billion marks and the loss of lands to poland france belgium denmark and lithuania. loss of all colonies. Demilitrisation of the rhine and the virtual dismatlement of the armed forces.

you could argue that alsace lorraine had been german for centuries prior to the mid 18th century and the population was 80% ethnic german, so they only took back what has been german before in 1871.

you could argue also the french had been utterly defeated in 1871 where as the germans although on the road to collapse hadnt been routed by november 1918.

you have got 2 look at both sides of the coin, as rightly pionted out the german people were probably unaware of the true position they faced and thus probably felt harshly treated by the allies after world war 1, making it much easier for ppl like hitler to use the versailles treaty as a tool of hatred and resentment.

If it had been fair would someone like hitler ever have come to power... i personally very much doubt it.

 

On the other side – even a “fair” treaty would probably have been badly received in Germany, I think.
(but I do agree with cheeky that one cannot compare the conditions).

Does anybody in this Forum have any idea, how a fair treaty of Versailles would have been like?
Please, try to think of a set of fair conditions. It could be interesting.

(quite apart from, that it was apparently politically suicidal in the victorious countries to be fair towards the helpless enemies)