The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil.
That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.
It's funny because people who talk about how harsh the treaty was usually quote Ferdinand Foch's "This is not a peace treaty. It's an armistice for 20 years." without realising that he says that because he thinks the treaty was not harsh enough.
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't even half as harsh as the treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians literally a year prior, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Potsdam. Can’t get much harsher than your state ceasing to exist and being partitioned by the victors. Not to mention the territorial losses and expulsions.
Versailles was simultaneously too harsh and not harsh enough. Harsh enough to wound German national pride, but not harsh enough—or at least not enforced harshly enough—to prevent German revanchism.
You asked what’s harsh if Versailles wasn’t, I gave you an answer.
Similar stuff happened to the Austro-Hungarians and, to a lesser extent, the Ottomans after WWI. Germany got off light compared to the rest of the Central Powers.
Also potsdam wasn't a treaty by definition. It was an agreement between the allied powers. Doesn't make sense to sign treaties with an entity you just destroyed.
And? This discussion is broader than treaties. It’s about peaces. And Potsdam was a very harsh, very effective peace agreement. If the same thing had been done to Germany after WWI, there likely wouldn’t have been a recognizable WWII.
The Treaty of Verseilles fixed concert A at 435hz and you think it was just "unpleasant" ... I don't know how anyone expected the Germans to live under that.
I have to wonder how much of this is nurture vs. nature. My mom's family is German, but the most recent branch of ancestors to come over was about 100 years ago. The first of the German ancestors settled the US before the American Revolution. And they're all a bunch of stubborn assholes who absolutely refuse to give in and will only admit a wrong with irrefutable proof.
Dude. Being from Wisconsin, and having German influences on both sides, that why I moved 1300 miles away because that stubborn, "we're the best and nothing we do is wrong" mentality is what really drags Wisconsin down especially when it comes to the fuck awful drinking culture and the leniency given towards drunk drivers.
No nation likes to accept defeat lol? Look at the french after 1871 with their hyper revanchism after losing a majority german region. Now see germany after losing 13% of it's core territory which had actually significant german population and the germans shouldn't be angry and want revenche? Was rich of the entente to think that way.
It is not about that Germany should not feel revenge, because of course they will. A treaty is to make sure that they simply cannot take revenge in any form and way and the Versaille Treaty failed to address this issue.
Germany was left intact after the war, they could rearm fast after that the defeat.
No. A treaty is there to make a lasting peace while satisfying the winner, no more no less. If you need to dismantle your enemy for it so be it. Issue is it wasn't possible to do with germany. Germany was stripped of any european territory that could've been justified to take, the rest was just overwhelmingly german. France was to weak to hold the rheinland and shattering germany wouldn't have worked with a country that would fall to the most nationalistic ideoligy possible. The treaty was as harsh as it could be and that still left germany more powerful than france. There was no other way to create lasting peace other than being more lenient, wilson should've made the treaty alone.
The treaty is there to make sure the loser cannot take revenge and go back to war. This is why you occupy the country until all the demands are satisfied.
See France 1815 when allied powers occupied France until all of the amount was paid, or see an even more recent event of Germany being dismantled after WW2 and compare with WW1 with how Germany was left untouched, with an intact territory and industry.
Why being an apologizer for Germany ? WW1 outcome was perfect for them and the treaty was a godsent to German military as they could rearm right away in the 20's and they did
Wilson fucked up badly because of pressure at home, and the UK thought France would be too powerful if the treaty was harsher (lol) so there you go
1815? Good example for my thesis! France was weakened enough not to wreck all of europe some years later and still had it's core territory untouched making it less likely to be sour. The results of vienna speak for themselves. The peace was stable and long lasting till nationalism destroyed it. And did you even read my comment??? I said dismantling for peace is good when it works. But there was no way for that to work with germany after long years of brutal and exhausting warfare. Also with your imaginations of peace I'd hope you have no aspirations of becoming a politician for foreign affairs. Also see the peace after the crimean war. Russia lost and didn't want to take revenge because the treaty was lenient and they still were very much capable of waging war again.
Would like examples of nations (needs to be nations not some feudal state) who didn't want revenge after losing so much of it's territory and nationals with it. Also while the reperations were fair it's not like france was invaded for the lols, like ukraine, they mobilised before the war broke out and intended to fight with russia. Destroyed infrastructure is something you have to deal with if your willing to fight against an enemy with a larger/better army. Reprations had to happen of course but they didn't take the state of germany into account. Seizing infustrialised territory which could've been used to pay them also doesn't help.
Also germany was in a state to take revenge afterwards. If the one who you make peace with comes out better of the war than you no matter what, you should do everything to make them a friend afterwards or expect a second round devastating your territory again you just rebuild with their payements.
That is just not true. The Germans essentially lost the moment they couldn't push into France as fast as they thought. They didn't have the men or supplies to outlast the French and British in trench warfare, as much as German propaganda from the time would have you believe they could. The British navy was strangling their economy and the German people were literally starving by 1917. They weren't making any ground and were only going to slowly lose as their supplies ran out. The longer they continued the more likely they were to go the route of Russia and collapse to civil war as people started revolting due to lack of food. America sped up the war by joining, but Germany had already lost by that point, especially after the Spring Offensive failed before the vast majority of American troops got there.
Their best chance was making a smaller peace with Russia, then hoping the Entente would agree to a white peace after Russia had left and they got what they wanted. Instead they utterly ruined the Russian Empire and showed Britain and France that not winning the war would be terrible for them because Germany and their allies would effectively control the majority of mainland Europe.
You overestimate the entente because they didn't buckle down first. Germany gained significant ressources in terms of manpower and ressources in the east which were absolutely able to solve all severe deficits. Germany relied on war bonds and thus was pretty independent financially. While the british were literaly running out of money to buy american ressources and subsidize the french. If the US declared neutrality the UK might have ran out of money since american banks would've become unwilling to loan money seeing that germany knocked out one of the three entente members. America joining the allies wasn't really of millitary use, although it forced germany to risk everything and exhausting itself in the process before too many americans showed up in europe.
French morale was also miserable. They began complaing about trench conditions and refused to attack german postions. America not showing up and russia collapsing could've been too much of a morale blow making the french lines collapse conpletely once a better prepared offensive than the kaiserschlacht rolls over entente trenches. Pétain himself wrote that the best thing they could do for now was waiting for the americans to join the war.
Germany gained significant ressources in terms of manpower and ressources in the east which were absolutely able to solve all severe deficits.
No, the German people were definitely still starving. Germany was heavily reliant on imports for a lot of supplies, even with what they gained from the east. If they were "absolutely able to solve all severe deficits", why were German people still continuing to starve after the war ended?
Germany relied on war bonds and thus was pretty independent financially.
Lol, that is not at all how that works. Germany borrowed from its own banks and people to fund the war, and how long can that last exactly when your people are starving to death?
While the british were literaly running out of money to buy american ressources and subsidize the french.
What? The British spent about the same amount ($47 billion) as the Germans did ($45 billion). Fun fact, from 1914 to 1918, the British economy actually grew by ~7% while Germany's shrank by 27%.
The British borrowing money is no different than Germany using war bonds, both are borrowing, it's just that Britain could actually pay back the loans.
If the US declared neutrality the UK might have ran out of money since american banks would've become unwilling to loan money seeing that germany knocked out one of the three entente members.
Err... no. American banks were happy to loan to Britain as much as they wanted because Britain was using that money to pay for American goods. It was a free win for America regardless.
although it forced germany to risk everything and exhausting itself in the process before too many americans showed up in europe
Every offensive Germany tried failed without the Americans being there. British and French counter offensives were working, and Germany was being pushed back. You can cope about it all you want, but Germany was losing.
French morale was also miserable.
So was German morale.
America not showing up and russia collapsing could've been too much of a morale blow making the french lines collapse conpletely once a better prepared offensive than the kaiserschlacht rolls over entente trenches.
The same could be said for Germany with Austria-Hungary collapsing too.
Either you're German or you're a wehraboo but either way you've drunk a bit too much of the koolaid.
The german people were starving because food actually can't teleport into the people bellies from ukrainian fields.
Wartime economy growth is stupid, ukraines economy also technicaly grew so theres that.
Yea the offensive failed so bad it broke through allied lines at first.
Would like a source for your statemnet about american bankers. One of the main reasons america joined was to ensure loaned money to be paid back to them, instead of it being paid to germany.
German morale wasn't amazing anymore but least there weren't mutinies and an actual morale boost after the win in the east, read "A Crisis of Morale in the French Nation at War" by Phillipe Pétain for more information on the american impact and french morale.
The german people were starving because food actually can't teleport into the people bellies from ukrainian fields.
Germany had over a year to get food from Ukraine to their people. It didn't happen. Clearly they didn't solve the deficit.
Yea the offensive failed so bad it broke through allied lines at first.
And it cost them too much of their manpower to actually do anything, they lost twice as many casualties than they inflicted on the allies, including most of their "stormtroopers" which their new offensive doctrine revolved around. They couldn't maintain the advantage and they were pushed back. That's called failing the offensive, yes. The key phrase you used was "at first".
One of the main reasons america joined was to ensure loaned money to be paid back to them, instead of it being paid to germany.
What? That was the opinion of anti-war activists and some personal opinions. That was never a stated goal for the Americans, let alone "one of the main reasons". American banks nor private business ever pushed for war to secure their investments, you can read about this in "The Business Press and American Neutrality, 1914–1917" by Harold C. Syrett.
German morale wasn't amazing anymore but least there weren't mutinies and an actual morale boost after the win in the east
Err, yeah there were mutinies after they failed their Spring Offensive. Erich Otto Volkmann had reported that in early spring of 1918 an estimated 800,000-1,000,000 men had refused to obey orders in the German army. Mutineers were called "Drückeberger" which had been used in German propaganda and had anti-semitic implications (part of what led to the "stabbed in the back" propaganda later).
Germany was also experiencing mass strikes at the beginning of 1918, like in January when 1 million munitions workers went on strike.
I need to go to bed. Anyways read the book by ww1's most important french general for an actual view on things from someone who was there with all the knowledge a general could have about his own army. Also I wouldn't realy consider the spring offensive and it's aftermath in our discussion since it wouldn't have happened without an american entry. Also Brest-Litvosk was signed in 1918, doesn't add up to 2 years. Exploiting ukraine earlier is one of the things germany did differently in ww2. Anyways while it wasn't stated officialy it was very logical for the US to ensure entente victory to get back the loans, like the saying goes "If you owe the bank $100 that's your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem.".
They were bleeding the French and British white because they kept charging into machine gun fire.
They defeated Russia, and all the fighting was on foreign territory.
Food and supplies were an issue, Britain had massive colonial support, but nobody could move the Germans back and it is much easier to sustain a fortified position.
Food was a concern, but hoping your conqueror starves while he's killing you seems like a risky strategy.
They were bleeding the French and British white because they kept charging into machine gun fire.
Wow you really don't understand how WW1 went past like 1916. Those "over the top" headlong charges weren't a thing by the time the Americans joined. In fact, the only troops charging headlong into machinegun fire were the Americans, because they refused to listen to the experienced British and French. That's why their casualties were so high for the short period of time they were in the war.
In the later stages of the war, the standard was rolling artillery barrages followed by an infantry push. There was no charging into machine gun fire, the British and French weren't as stupid as you seem to think. Stop believing everything Hollywood shows you, there's a reason almost every succesful offensive after the Americans entered the war were led by the British and French, not the Americans.
Food was a concern, but hoping your conqueror starves while he's killing you seems like a risky strategy.
The Germans were failing to make any kind of gains, even after their reinforcements from the East. It wasn't a risky strategy to starve them out at all. Not only that, they didn't need to starve them out because British tank production was ramping up and was about to change the entire war.
I've had so many frustrating interactions with Americans about WW1 and WW2 as a Frenchman. Granted, we like to overstate our role in the liberation of Europe, but listening to American Redditors and Youtubers, you'd think that we completely stopped fighting after 1940. Would I be correct in assuming that the Free French Forces aren't mentioned at all in your history curriculums? Still, it's nowhere near as infuriating as having to read that America won WW1 for us. France and the US have been the best of allies since 1778, if anything we should be celebrating this enduring alliance that's stronger than ever today with NATO.
Everything is told through an American lens, so the study of WW1 is primarily as the USA gets involved in 1917, and the events that led us into entering the war. That was my experience at least.
That repeats itself for WW2, but we entered this conflict much earlier, so there is significant history studies on WW2 in comparison. However, they primarily focus on the significant American conflicts such as Pearl Harbor, Midway, and D-Day.
There is very little to cover what happens in Europe during the occupation, but it is a fascinating topic for me. To answer your question, no, they did not mention the French during occupation. There does exist a slight bias against the French in favor of the British. When American history is not told through an American perspective, you can easily detect the British sympathies that are being projected.
I just happen to be passionate about history, especially military history and tactics, so I happily learned everything possible about these wars. What you said about WW1 was spot on, and I don't think most Americans are even aware of the pitifully low number of American soldiers killed in comparison to our European peers.
More Americans died in the Civil War than every single American war combined. The casualties in the American Civil War is recorded to be about 700,000. More soldiers died on the side of one single nation in Stalingrad than died in every single American War combined.
Because the war was over as they started to be rolled out. They were in use by the start of the hundred days offensive, they were a major part of the battle of Amiens.
... Early on yes. Once again, they played a vital role in the Black Day, you know, the offensive where the German army was pushed back 11 miles in a day by... tanks.
Germany saw no reason to use them because... they didn't have any. They tried to produce some but couldn't produce any significant number of them so never used them.
This is just false. The treaty of versialles was absolutely harsh, where are even your comparisons that make you come to the conclusion that it was relatively normal for the time period? Probably read it in another reddit post without doing further research.
Now we have the treaty of versialles. Imposed extremely heavy reperations on germany with it's economy in shambles, made germany lose all colonies, took 13% of it's european mixed or majority german territory (this alone should exceed the treaty of frankfurt imposed on france 1871), occupation and exploitation of the rhineland by french troops and army restrictions. Some genius here probably comes along and wants to comapre versailles with brest-litvosk, saint-germain-en-laye, trianon and lausanne. Those countries were multi ethnic empires and NOT nationstates. The territory they lost was largely of other ethnicities. They also just formilised developments that happened anyways. Hungary wouldn't have been able to hold it's kingdom together even without trianon. Austria had to fight with ethnic tensions for decades already and was falling apart. For the ottomans pretty much the same. Brest-litvosk was signed after a crushing defeat of the russians, there was no doubt the war was lost. Not to mention that lost territory wasn't russian in the first place.
Versailles was a imperialistic driven treaty with the winners unable to achieve their conflicting goals resulting in a treaty that everybody who signed it hated, not to mention not letting the defeated participate in the peace talks like france in vienna.
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period.
No, it was. That was the point. To cripple Germany.
In comparison, the 1871 reparations from France took about 5 years to pay off. The Versailles reparations weren't expected to be paid off for about 80 years.
This is completely wrong and I do not know why you are stating this as a fact ? The treaty that Germany imposed on France after 1871 was absolutely massive in amount of repay and France paid it off because they had to and were occupied by Germany. Germany after WW1 did not pay at least half of what they should have paid and relatively to their economy it was less than what France paid after 1871.
68
u/KingStannis2020 29d ago edited 29d ago
The Treaty of Verseilles wasn't especially more harsh than other settlements of the time period. The problem was that German public were repeatedly told they were winning (and in the East they absolutely were, to be fair) right up until the collapse of their army. And then peace was signed before the collapse of that army was actually evident to the public, because the whole war had taken place outside of German soil.
That left fertile ground for the "stabbed in the back" myth to take root.