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.