Treaty of Versailles and World War 2?

tenthring

Banned
We seem to have gotten quite far from the original purpose of the thread.

Regardless of how harsh Versailles — and I'm on the side that it wasn't actually that harsh — it isn't accurate to draw a straight line from Versailles to WWII. I'm aware that's the popular history, but there are several problems with it.

For one, no treaty was going to undo the tensions released by the war. Whoever was truly to blame, the Germans did not perceive themselves to be at blame, and thus anything short of status quo antebellum would have been deemed unfair, particularly as mainstream German opinion coming out of the war imagined giving up only parts of Posen and compensating them with the Sudetenland and Austria. Needless to say that was simply not on the table.

That their armies collapsed suddenly meant that the Germans took the loss as a surprise and a humiliation. No treaty was going to undo that. And the massive economic dislocations, the rise in political extremism (which predated the Armistice), all would have put major pressures on German democracy anyway.

Even so, a second war was hardly inevitable. Most of the German Right and the Wehrmacht did not anticipate launching a new war even against Poland until several decades later, at which point even the Polish border may well have been settled. Historians of the time period have pointed out that the bulk of the German public greeted the outbreak of war in 1939 with ambivalence and even apprehension. There was no great enthusiasm for it. The German public may have desired rearming and the revisions of Versailles, but that stopped short of demands for a second war.

And indeed, from the perspective of the late 1920s - when Germany had made a nearly full rapprochement with France and the UK, when Germany was undergoing an economic boom and was in the League of Nations - a second war seemed very unlikely.

Hitler's rise moreover had an enormous amount to do with the Depression and the deflationary policies of Heinrich Bruning, as well as the maneuvering of other German rightist politicians. In other words, a lot of luck.

Further, even after Hitler took power, a second war would have been avoided if any of the major powers had proven willing to enforce the Treaty of Versailles. Had France and Britain acted to counter the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Hitler would have been ousted. Had they drawn a line during the Sudeten Crisis, Hitler would likely have been ousted (albeit after a short war).

So, even with Versailles, absent the Depression: no WWII. Hell, absent the collapse of Credit Anstalt in 1931 (hence the Depression not turning into the Depression), no WWII. Or even with the Depression, a few different actions in early 1933 and a Kurt Schleicher dictatorship or second Von Papen ministry - again, likely no WWII. Or had the Allies been willing to enforce the Treaty - no WWII.

Agree with many points, but what exactly do we mean by "enforce the Versailles treaty". In my mind that means invading and occupying Germany. This already proved a dumb move in the Ruhr. Is there really going to be support for it a whole 10-15 years later? It's easy to say now knowing what Hitler did, but at the time I think most people didn't think invading Germany was the answer to the problem of the Nazi's. Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1938, nobody bought he was going to be as bad as he was. No politician is going to sell people on invading Germany.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Agree with many points, but what exactly do we mean by "enforce the Versailles treaty". In my mind that means invading and occupying Germany. This already proved a dumb move in the Ruhr. Is there really going to be support for it a whole 10-15 years later? It's easy to say now knowing what Hitler did, but at the time I think most people didn't think invading Germany was the answer to the problem of the Nazi's. Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1938, nobody bought he was going to be as bad as he was. No politician is going to sell people on invading Germany.
Invading Germany in 1936 and clamp down on the re-militarization of the rhineland was exactly what should have being done regardless of its popularity.

What was needed was a better class of politicians than the ones that the UK and France got historically in the 30s.
 
The Morgenthau plan in PRE-WWII borders doesn't mean genocide,

Uhm.....the Morgenthau-plan meant that there would only be enough food for 60% of the population. That means 40% of Germans would be forcibly starved to death. If that's not genocide, such doesn't exist.
And trying to whitewash it isn't cool.
 
Agree with many points, but what exactly do we mean by "enforce the Versailles treaty". In my mind that means invading and occupying Germany. This already proved a dumb move in the Ruhr. Is there really going to be support for it a whole 10-15 years later? It's easy to say now knowing what Hitler did, but at the time I think most people didn't think invading Germany was the answer to the problem of the Nazi's. Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" in 1938, nobody bought he was going to be as bad as he was. No politician is going to sell people on invading Germany.

What do you mean? Germany should have been left unpunished in spite of not respecting the Locarno treaty it had signed? And this was no "diktat" like Versailles, but fully on its own free will !
 
I would disagree. The Versailles Treaty set up the conditions that not only allowed, but effectively assured that Germany would wind up utterly hostile toward the Entente nations. The decision to end the war based on Versailles rather than drive through to full victory ensured that the hostility in Germany would, sooner than later, find expression in a reactionary government. The decisions made during the treaty discussions, namely those that pushed disparate peoples together for no sensible long term reason and created islands that were Germany in the midst of Poland provided the pivot point to get popular support of "making things right".
[\QUOTE]

But then, how do you explain the "rapprochement" between France and Germany and the Briand-Stresemann agreements in the second half of the twenties? SlideAway's describes much better the causal chain, I believe. The revision of the ToV didn't play a big role at all in Hitler's election victories, as has been analyzed recently again by a number of German historians, the Depression did.

But I agree with your point that not driving through to Berlin (or at least to Cologne...) was probably a mistake in hindsight.
 

Garrison

Donor
I would disagree. The Versailles Treaty set up the conditions that not only allowed, but effectively assured that Germany would wind up utterly hostile toward the Entente nations. The decision to end the war based on Versailles rather than drive through to full victory ensured that the hostility in Germany would, sooner than later, find expression in a reactionary government. The decisions made during the treaty discussions, namely those that pushed disparate peoples together for no sensible long term reason and created islands that were Germany in the midst of Poland provided the pivot point to get popular support of "making things right".

BTW: Never worry about taking on any of the Mods, or Ian for that matter, for a regular post. We are not immune to being savaged. :D

Oh good. ;) My problem with Versailles as a primary trigger for WWII is certainly by the 30's it was clear the British had no enthusiasm for enforcing it and the French couldn't/wouldn't act alone. The reoccupation of the Rhineland was pretty much the last nail in the coffin. I personally think the economic crash that led to the Great Depression played a much bigger role in that it created the conditions for an extremist like Hitler to come to power. No crash and Weimar can probably lumber along indefinitely.

ETA: But yes as posted earlier not going to Berlin was a mistake; at the very least they could have insisted on a 'victory parade' as part of the terms of the Armistice.
 

tenthring

Banned
Invading Germany in 1936 and clamp down on the re-militarization of the rhineland was exactly what should have being done regardless of its popularity.

What was needed was a better class of politicians than the ones that the UK and France got historically in the 30s.

I don't think any politicians could have justified that decision, and even if they did I think it would have had massive butterflies (guerilla war in Germany, people for generations believing the Nazi's were right about their enemies).

If such a politician did exist, could have gotten power, and could have followed through with it...I'm not sure I would have wanted them in power. Likely they would have been that countries own version of Hitler.

1) Countries are going to have militaries roughly in line with their economic power.

2) Countries are going to believe they have full sovereignty over their own territory.

These are given long run facts about how all major countries work. You can't keep a country from having a reasonably sized military or stationing troops wherever they damn well please in their borders. Nobody is going to put up with that indefinitely.

To justify that you would need a crystal ball showing how everything would turn out. Since none existed you can't judge people with 20/20 hindsight.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I don't think any politicians could have justified that decision, and even if they did I think it would have had massive butterflies (guerilla war in Germany, people for generations believing the Nazi's were right about their enemies).
Why would there be a guirella war in Germany?

All the French had to do was kick the Heer out of the Rhineland, and then leave, Hitler wouldn't have the political capital to try that again.


If such a politician did exist, could have gotten power, and could have followed through with it...I'm not sure I would have wanted them in power. Likely they would have been that countries own version of Hitler.
hahaha yeah sorry no

These are given long run facts about how all major countries work. You can't keep a country from having a reasonably sized military or stationing troops wherever they damn well please in their borders. Nobody is going to put up with that indefinitely.
Yes you can, I know this because that's exactly what happened after 1945
 

tenthring

Banned
Why would there be a guirella war in Germany?

All the French had to do was kick the Heer out of the Rhineland, and then leave, Hitler wouldn't have the political capital to try that again.


hahaha yeah sorry no

Yes you can, I know this because that's exactly what happened after 1945

So they are going to invade and occupy the Rhineland. You don't think the Germans are going to resist?
 

RousseauX

Donor
So they are going to invade and occupy the Rhineland. You don't think the Germans are going to resist?
If they try, they would be quickly and decisively defeated because the Heer was not ready for an armed conflict in 1936. The German generals themselves thought so and said as much to Hitler.

Then the French simply march out, the views of the Heer generals and everyone else are vindicated. Hitler is discredited and loses political capital for his next round of brinkmanship.
 
So they are going to invade and occupy the Rhineland. You don't think the Germans are going to resist?
IIRC German Army had orders to withdraw in case of French intervention. Then, as RousseauX said, the French can withdraw without involving themselves in occupation.
 
If such a politician did exist, could have gotten power, and could have followed through with it...I'm not sure I would have wanted them in power. Likely they would have been that countries own version of Hitler.

Actually, the Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland did propose the French to take military actions to enforce Locarno. For some reason, I really cannot fathom him as somebody you wouldn't want in power...
 
Well no, actually there is in fact a war guilt clause.

Treaty of Versailles, Part VIII. Reparation, General Provisions:

Article 231.

'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.'

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/partviii.asp

The idea that this declared Germany "responsible" for WWI is a myth propagated in the 1920s and 30s. What it actually says is that Germany will accept payment for the damages its allies did to other states during the war as well as what it did. As Turkey and Austria had no way to pay sizeable reparations this is a logical demand. Nowhere does it say that Germany is guilty for or started the war; the most it can reasonably be construed as saying is that Germany should pay for everything as the strongest remaining belligerent. It even concludes by saying that Germany "and her allies" were aggressors; not Germany in particular.

All the Article amounted to was legal fine print, not any kind of condemnation. But the German government and especially the right, looking for any scapegoats they could find, gladly touted it as yet another "unfair" section of the treaty.
 
I have to say that military restriction clauses did nothing but piss germany off and radicalize the citizenry for absolutely no reason

France got the border the Rhine; the Rhine is an EXCELLENT defensive obstacle to shield France in any future conflict (as was shown since the Germans didn't even attempt a frontal assault over it)... making Germany demilitarize their own national territory was purely antagonistic without really providing any additional security measures (since Germany would not remain a diplomatic pariah for ever France would not have support to keep this measure in place)


Restricting Germany's army was extremely short sighted. An even moderately skilled observer would see that Germany was going head long into an economic crises due to their losing the war.... they would not be able to afford a huge standing army. If the entente had instead made the clause, Germany shall reduce their army to a level no greater than 1914 strengths it would have saved a lot of bad blood. Germany's standing army in 1914 was about 500k men, the eimar government couldn't possibly afford such a large standing army and would have fielded far far less (probably no more than 10 divisions 250-350k men max)... and having the army be small because the Germany government CHOSE for it to be small for reasons of economy as opposed to being restricted by the allies would have made the political course of the country more reasonable


Ditto the high seas fleet; Germany was bankrupt; they would never be able to afford such a huge standing fleet again; and many of their ships were super obsolete;if they were left alone; Germany would have scrapped most of the fleet for $ within 12 months
 
The idea that this declared Germany "responsible" for WWI is a myth propagated in the 1920s and 30s. What it actually says is that Germany will accept payment for the damages its allies did to other states during the war as well as what it did. As Turkey and Austria had no way to pay sizeable reparations this is a logical demand. Nowhere does it say that Germany is guilty for or started the war; the most it can reasonably be construed as saying is that Germany should pay for everything as the strongest remaining belligerent. It even concludes by saying that Germany "and her allies" were aggressors; not Germany in particular.

All the Article amounted to was legal fine print, not any kind of condemnation. But the German government and especially the right, looking for any scapegoats they could find, gladly touted it as yet another "unfair" section of the treaty.

Fully right. Note that it appears only in part VIIII of the treaty, preciesly on reparations. If it had really been a "war guilt" clause, it would have been in the preamble or one of the very first articles.
 
I didnt expect the thread to be derailed so much... But over all majority seems to agree that Versailles was a major cause for WW2.
 
I have to say that military restriction clauses did nothing but piss germany off and radicalize the citizenry for absolutely no reason

France got the border the Rhine; the Rhine is an EXCELLENT defensive obstacle to shield France in any future conflict (as was shown since the Germans didn't even attempt a frontal assault over it)... making Germany demilitarize their own national territory was purely antagonistic without really providing any additional security measures (since Germany would not remain a diplomatic pariah for ever France would not have support to keep this measure in place)


Restricting Germany's army was extremely short sighted. An even moderately skilled observer would see that Germany was going head long into an economic crises due to their losing the war.... they would not be able to afford a huge standing army. If the entente had instead made the clause, Germany shall reduce their army to a level no greater than 1914 strengths it would have saved a lot of bad blood. Germany's standing army in 1914 was about 500k men, the eimar government couldn't possibly afford such a large standing army and would have fielded far far less (probably no more than 10 divisions 250-350k men max)... and having the army be small because the Germany government CHOSE for it to be small for reasons of economy as opposed to being restricted by the allies would have made the political course of the country more reasonable


Ditto the high seas fleet; Germany was bankrupt; they would never be able to afford such a huge standing fleet again; and many of their ships were super obsolete;if they were left alone; Germany would have scrapped most of the fleet for $ within 12 months

Well, you know, France (and Belgium) learnt in 1914 that the Germans could go around the Rhine...

As to Germany being economically crippled in the first few years after the war, maybe, but the French could not expect this to last that long. After all, their own recovery in the 1870's was simply stunning.
 

tenthring

Banned
IIRC German Army had orders to withdraw in case of French intervention. Then, as RousseauX said, the French can withdraw without involving themselves in occupation.

The French withdraw and this has no implications? The Germans don't just try again next year? The German people don't become hostile to France and rally around Hitler?
 
Top