A Counter argument - 1919

[Sarge]

You read in most books relating to the aftermath of WW1 that the treaty of Versailes was so harsh that it led directly to WW2.

A counter to this is I believe that the treaty was indeed too lenient and led the Nazis to come to power userping the Democratic process that was still very much in the embryonic stage.

What should have happened in 1919 was for the Germans to know they had been beaten and have had their country forcibly occuppied by the Allies for at least 20 years. Together with this they would have been allowed no armed forces.


Any thoughs? Was Versailles to soft, or too hard.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Sarge

You read in most books relating to the aftermath of WW1 that the treaty of Versailes was so harsh that it led directly to WW2.

A counter to this is I believe that the treaty was indeed too lenient and led the Nazis to come to power userping the Democratic process that was still very much in the embryonic stage.

What should have happened in 1919 was for the Germans to know they had been beaten and have had their country forcibly occuppied by the Allies for at least 20 years. Together with this they would have been allowed no armed forces.


Any thoughs? Was Versailles to soft, or too hard.

It's an interesting argument, but...would this not have made the German people even more angry and feeling more shame and humiliation? Imagine being subject to foreign occupation for 20+ years.

Might this simply have put back the start of World War II by 15-20 years, and now the battle would be fought with nuclear weapons? And perhaps Germany would have acquired them first.

I don't know the answers to those hypotheticals, but I would rather like to think that had France enforced the treaty as written and acted against Germany when they re-militarized the Rhineland, and had not Britain and France again enforced the treaty rather than appease Hitler and let him gobble up Czechoslovakia things would certainly have been different. Remember, the troops entering the Rhineland had orders to retreat if the French reacted, but the French blinked and Hitler knew he had them.

[Sarge]

Yes, a good point, but after WW2 we occupied Germany for more than 20 years, gave them no armed forces until 1954 and MADE them trully democratic.

I guess we were too concerned with Empires and reparations in 1919 and not about the future of Europe.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Yes, a good point, but after WW2 we occupied Germany for more than 20 years, gave them no armed forces until 1954 and MADE them trully democratic.

I guess we were too concerned with Empires and reparations in 1919 and not about the future of Europe.

True. But Germany was also wholly demolished by the middle of 1945 and Germans were forced to face the horrors of what had happened under the Nazis both at home and in the occupied territories. They were spared a lot of that in 1919. I think they were ready for change and ready to make a break with their past in 1945. I don't necessarily think that was the case in 1919. This is not to say that things might not have been different had World War I's end been handled differently.

[Klaus]

I think Jim has got a point there. After the defeat of germany and Austria they knew that the Kaiser and the Führer didn't work. So they had to find some new way of politics. Turned out that democracy worked out just fine. At least for western germany and austria.

[Ingsoc]

Originally Posted by Jim O

True. But Germany was also wholly demolished by the middle of 1945 and Germans were forced to face the horrors of what had happened under the Nazis both at home and in the occupied territories. They were spared a lot of that in 1919. I think they were ready for change and ready to make a break with their past in 1945. I don't necessarily think that was the case in 1919. This is not to say that things might not have been different had World War I's end been handled differently.

I think you ignoring a very importand factor, in 1945 it was clear that the German armed forces has been defeated, while in post-WW1 Germany it's was a wide believe that the German army was never defeated at the battelfield, that infact Germany has been stabed in the back by it's inside (Jews and Communists) this legend of the stab in the back cause many German to despise democrasy and the Weimer republic that were identified with the defeat and the "crimes of novembers", obiviously if Germany has been occupied after WW1, the legend that the German army was never defeated wouldn't come into existing.

[Klaus]

@ingsoc: So you are trying to say, that this time they knew they were "realy" beaten? And that threre was no one else to play the scape goat for them.

[Jim O]

Originally Posted by Ingsoc

I think you ignoring a very importand factor, in 1945 it was clear that the German armed forces has been defeated, while in post-WW1 Germany it's was a wide believe that the German army was never defeated at the battelfield, that infact Germany has been stabed in the back by it's inside (Jews and Communists) this legend of the stab in the back cause many German to despise democrasy and the Weimer republic that were identified with the defeat and the "crimes of novembers", obiviously if Germany has been occupied after WW1, the legend that the German army was never defeated wouldn't come into existing.

I'm not ignoring that at all. At the end of World War II Germany had been bombed and beaten at home and all Germans witnessed the retreat, defeat, and destruction of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS on the ground and the command of the skies by Allied planes. The Russians, who had been beaten in the first war, had taken and demolished Berlin. This all had to have been significantly more demoralizing than at the end of World War I, where most of Germany was spared any of this and so the populace might still have felt they had not been beaten but rather "stabbed in the back". Remember, the front lines at the time of the armistice that ended the first war were still largely in France and Belgium.

ww1 23.jpg

[gao_yixing]

U.S. and Allies gave up some reparation from Germany because they wanted West Germany to recover as soon as possible.
But after World War I, British and French governments just wanted to get as much reparation as possible to make up their losses in the Great War regardless of the collaspsing Deutsch economy.
Maybe that's the difference.

[Ingsoc]

Originally Posted by gao_yixing

U.S. and Allies gave up some reparation from Germany because they wanted West Germany to recover as soon as possible.
But after World War I, British and French governments just wanted to get as much reparation as possible to make up their losses in the Great War regardless of the collaspsing Deutsch economy.
Maybe that's the difference.

Actually both sides of the iron curtain soften their approch to the Germanies because they needed them for the cold war.