I was watching a show the other night, on the Military Channel, about the First World War. It went into some detail about the Treaty of Versailles and its conditions. In my eyes, the demands levied on Germany (and the break-up of Austria-Hungary) were ridiculous and not properly thought out. In fact, I believe Pres. Wilson was even against most of the conditions set by the treaty. What say you? Do you agree with the conditions that were set Treaty of Versailles? Are there certain parts that stand out? Or, do you believe the treaty was fair? Not enough?

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

For those of us who didn't watch the show, you might want to summarize the aspects of the treaty that interest you.

That would take quite some time to type out. So, if you will permit me, I will offer you a link to a breakdown of the conditions. Wikiepida, oddly enough, has a pretty good write up about it. Link

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Aha! The most interesting thing about the versailles treaty is that hitler reversed 95 percent of it without a declaration of war from anyone. they ignored the debt, which they have never paid, hitler rearmed past its limits, he reoccupied the rhineland, he annexed the german part of the chezch, annexed austria, and no declaration of war from france or britian, or the ussr for that matter. so ya can't blame the treaty for ww2! you can blame a german impulse for expansion and unification that existed before hitler but defineately apexed under his watch!
the land that the treaty gave to poland was taken in the polish war, but that did incite an allied declaration of war from france and britain.

so, in conclusion, while the treaty was rediculously harsh on the germans, they simply ignored it. and got away with it.

The people of europe were traumatized by the war of choice waged by germany and by the viscious abuses of civilians and violations of the nuetrality of belgium and luxembourg that had characterized the german invasion of france. There was also great fear of the power of the relatively new german state which had fought 3 wars in 50 years. It's easy to look back and say the strictures of versailles played a part in hitler's rise and WWII but at the time it was a perfectly understandable - even reasonable - outcome. And of course there is no guarantee that german aggression would not have been repeated even if the terms of the treaty were more generous. The german drive to empire was a powerful force which likely would not have been denied no matter what other european nations did.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Thanks, I feel marginally better informed now.

From what little I know of WWI and from reading the wiki article on the treaty, I'd say the allies paid far too little attention to the attitude and culture of the German people. They had done rather well right up until the end of the war and the treaty didn't reflect this.

I would say that Germany had to be demilitarized after the war, and its government replaced. Perhaps some arrangements for financial reperations should have been made, but these should have been pushed into the long term. In the short term, if anything, the allies might have helped bolster the new German friendly government to ensure that it won the approval of the citizenry.
And, obviously, more effort should have been expended in keeping Germany from rebuilding its military. If the allies had acted when the build up first began I doubt a war would have been necessary to stop it.

Of course this is all hindsight from someone 80 years away who makes no claims of being well informed about this historical era....

Interesting thoughts, but some of your facts are not quite true. First, Germany did not start the war. The war began with Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Second, the First World War was the first war that the new German state fought in.

I would argue that, had the terms of the treaty not been so demeaning and damaging, Hitler would never have been able to exploit it to gain support from the German people. Thus he, most likely, would never have come to power.

Also, could you post some sources backing up your claim that German forces were vicious towards civilians? Everything that I have read points to them being quite honorable in their behavior towards civilians. But, at the same time, the Germans did have a different view of what war is when compared to their French and English foes.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

The germans made the choice to encourage the austrians in their bellicose relations with serbia and to push them towards war. They made the choice to expand the war exponentially by invading two neutral countries without warning.

Only the name of the german state was new. Unity of the former principalities under prussian leadership had been develping since the prusso/austrain war and was virtually complete by the time of the franco prussian war.

The atrocities were well documented at the time and are delineated in "Guns of August" among other books. In any case the truth of the allegations is less relevant than the fact that they were universally believed at the time.
You can argue about the hitler/versailles connection all you want to but german imperial dreams had been on the rise since the 1860s and there is nothing I am aware of which suggests those imperial ambitions would have been lessened by a better deal at versailles.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

the german declaration of war against serbia ignited the russian declaration, which brought about the french and british entry.

benjamin disraeli predicted a russo-german war in the 1880's following the german unification.

Some points to the "treaty" of versailles.

John Maynard Keynes called it the attempt to make Germany an white slavecolony.

French General Foch said:"This is no peace, this an 20 years armistice"


And remember: The first who broke the "treaty" had been the west allies.
The german demobilization should have been the first step to demobilize whole europe, but the western allies didnt mobilize. They behold their weapons and mobilize expensively in the following years.

The second breaking was the illegal (if you would call versailles law) occupation of german territory, by polonian, lithunian and czech troops in 1919-1921. Oberschlesien, Memelland and the Sudetenland had been occupied by easteuropean states, approved by the french and english.

The 3rd breaking was the illegal occupation of the Rhein-/Ruhrgebiet by french and belgian troops. Self the english crown court cleared out in 1924 that this occupation was a breaking of the "treaty".


This are only a few of the allied breakings of their own treaty. Hitler and the NSDAP profited by this breakings.

Friend of Frank's?

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

Those were key to Hitler justifying much of his early expansion. When the allied powers re-drew central Europe at the end of the war, they did so along ethnic lines. One ethnic group they ignored, however, were the Germans. There were many parts of the new conuntries (Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and much of western Poland) that had either been German or had been populated by Germans for centuries.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

I don't know if "ignored" is the right term. The "germans" of sudetenland and poland had never until the 2nd half of 19th century been regarded as allied with a unified germany. As descendants of a shifting alliance of principalities they had belonged to various national entities or confederations over the years and the neighbors of germany who had been so frequently invaded by the various germanic entities were frightened of that new german nation and wanted those areas as buffers. So it wasn't so much that the boundaries were drawn without regard to ethnicity as that they were drawn to protect germany's fearful neighbors. In retrospect it is obvious they were no protection. But again I have never read anything that suggests germany's imperial thirst would have been quenched by a better deal. While it's true hitler used provisions of the treaty as propaganda tools, it's also true he used antisemitism in the same way and the jews never did anything to germany. That suggests he would have used other issues if things like sudetenland and the failure of other european countries to demilitarize had not been available.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon

True, but those communities were still ethnically German. They shared a common culture and language with those German states that united to form Germany.

You are a bit off here. Those countries were formed because of the ethnic make-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Even before the war, the Empire was falling apart. The allies knew this, and realized that if they allowed the Empire to remain intact it would have been very unstable. I mean, hell, it was those ethnic tensions that led to the start of the war. And what fearful neighbors are you talking about?

They were no protection because they were never ment to be protection. Also, could you point out examples of Germany's imperial thirst?

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

Absolutely. I don't believe I said anything different.
Absolutely.The fearful neighbors I'm talking about are chzechoslovakia and poland and france.
I don't know why you would think that. Clearly a larger territory for germany's neighbors and less territory for germany meant gwermn troops whould have to travel further to reach the interrior of their neighbors. Examples of imperial thirst would be the Schleswig-Holstien war, the prusso/austrian war, the franco/prussian war, the african colonies, WWI and WWII.

Imperialist designs are no surpurise when you look at the circumstances. Europe had been dominated by France since late medeival times and France had always made sure to do everything possible to keep the germanic states seperate and relatively weak. And England, France, Portugal, Belgium and even italy had been colonizing every vulnerable part of the non-european globe that they could lay hands on for years. When Bismarck managed to consolidate all those germanic states it is only natural the newly formed nation would flex its muscles in the same way its neighbors had for centuries. After all France under napolean conquered and occupied virtually the same western european and russian territories that germany did under hitler. And war is always near the top of the stack of options for a despotic leader surrounded by the threats of democracy and socialism as hitler and the kaiser were.

__________________
A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the utmost extremes of injustice and oppression.
Edward Gibbon