Q of the Week: Versailles?

[Leon]

Did the terms of the Treaty of Versailles make another war inevitable?

[lentulus]

IMHO. YMMV:

There were too many frustrated nationalist dreams, wild revolutionaries and bankrupt empires for the peace to be anything but a breathing space.  If Germany and Japan had not got the ball rolling, someone else would have.

I am sure we would have had WWIII by now if not for the bomb.

[Luddite]

Yes.

The punitive conditions imposed on Germany, which was actually not 'defeated' in 1918, maent there was a festering sore at the heart of Europe that continued the conflict.

In fact, i'm of ther opinion that history will see the late 19th/early 20th century as the '60 year war' or the 'war of German unification' or some such, since the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII are essentially three acts in the same conflict.

But yes, the Treaty of Versaille made WWII inevitable.

[Patrick R]

War reparations were commonplace.  Germany would have made important territorial demands if the Allies had thrown in the towel and France, Britain would have been asked to pay another round of reparations as per 1870.  People forget that the Germans made huge demands after the Russian surrender.

The German demands may not have been as extensive as Versailles, but the Germans had their eyes on major chunks of Africa etc, these demands were one of the reasons the Allies did not seek an end to the war through negotiations (that and the fact they may have lost a lot of men, they were still undefeated)

As the Great War ended the Entente Cordiale had been seriously strained and the French feared that they might have to fight another war with Germany alone and as far as industry and population numbers were concerned the Germans stood a good chance of winning.  So France did everything to make sure that Germany would never be able to pose a serious threat.

The German high command and the Kaiser understood that defeat was inevitable in 1918 and called an Armistice.  Many soldiers in the field did not feel the fight was over and still believed the battle could be won, or that the Allies could still be stopped and even forced to negotiate.  There was a very strong perception by many in Germany that after four years of hard struggle, the single retreat of 1918 could not caused by military weakness, but by betrayal, incompetence and a lack of the will to win.  After all they had nearly taken Paris a few months before.

The Allies perceived themselves as clear winners and reluctantly allowed France to dictate most of the terms of Versailles.

Versailles was caused by quite real French fears that Germany would be a perpetual antagonist with superior numbers and a bigger industrial base.  On the other hand Versailles became shorthand to blame all the ills and problems of post war Germany.  Something the nazi's were quite good at using in their propaganda.  Versailles was a convenient excuse for Germany to rearm and make major territorial claims.

The fact that the Germans were never really clearly defeated in WWI combined with the demands of Versailles were just too handy not to be politically exploited.  Hitler was more than willing to fight a major war to establish his Reich and even a more equitable Versailles would still have been good enough an excuse to justify another war.

[Leon]

So, was the perceived harshness of the Treaty the major factor, or was there so much ill-feeling that the war would have started regardless?  Also, how did the Wall St crash affect things?

[Patrick R]

So, was the perceived harshness of the Treaty the major factor, or was there so much ill-feeling that the war would have started regardless?  Also, how did the Wall St crash affect things?

Versailles was one of the factors, but not the only one.  A lot of people, even at the time felt that France should have talked with Germany, but nobody in France dared to make overtures to Germany in view of the defeat of 1870.  This is a time where nationalism was reaching its peak, hardly tempered by the losses of WWI.  It would take the horrors of WWII to shake those beliefs.

WWI had created a political landslide.  The old regimes had been swept aside and a clash of ideologies followed.  The rise of communism was seen as a serious threat by many and in Germany the veterans became a political force (as they did in Italy)  Revolution was averted and the Weimar Republic enjoyed a very brief period of prosperity in the 1920's, but below the surface the struggle continued.  The Crash of 29 left Germany reeling.  They had barely recovered from the war while the apparent success of dictatorships like Italy seemed the way forward for many in Germany.  When the nazi party was taken into a coalition with right wing parties it quickly dismantled democracy and established a very popular dictatorship that seemed able to restore Germany to her former glory.  The economic reforms made by the previous governments bore fruit just as the nazis came to power, further creating the illusion that Hitler was the new messiah.  Germany had been doing badly for almost two decades and people were ready to follow whoever promised them a way out of economic crisis, political instability and the general feeling of being the footstool of France and Britain.

To put the blame on the French alone plays right in the hand of nazi propaganda or anti-French sentiment.  They imposed a harsh treaty, but after nearly 6 million casualties, the French felt the Germans had to pay for all that blood.  To make peace with Germany on more equitable terms would have been unacceptable for the French public.  just as a military reaction against Germany was delayed for fears of sparking another war, which would have been political suicide.

Simply put, France and Germany lacked the political maturity to make peace and they seemed embarked on a cycle of wars, creating resentment that would lead to another war.  Instead of peace talks, France built the Maginot Line and prepared for the inevitable German revenge, but political divisions, complacency and the politics of appeasement would lead to the downfall of 1940.

[Leon]

Thanks for that Patrick, interesting stuff.  I've been watching the 'Complete History of WW2' on the History Channel, and it throws up lots of interesting questions like this.

[ronan]

(...)Germany, which was actually not 'defeated' in 1918, (...)

mmmh... this is a myth..
They were defeated, and tried to explain it wasn't true.

Versailles treaty wasn't the only thing. Remember there was a crisis (1929) who helped a lot.

[lentulus]

The Germans were not the only unhappy campers out of the whole exercise.  I recommend Margaret MacMillan's "Paris 1919" for all the dirty work.  There was no peace that could have made everyone happy.

[Luddite]

mmmh... this is a myth..
They were defeated, and tried to explain it wasn't true.

Really?  Based on what evidence?

WWI ended in an 'armistice' requested by the German state, to agree terms to cease hostilities.

The German military high command and indeed the German army was still and effective, fighting force, and while the entry of the US into the war will probably have tipped the balance, Germany was not defeated.

Indeed the US General Pershing was critical of the decision (as part of the Armistice agreement) to not force the German General Staff to 'admit defeat'.

So...well...its not a 'myth' i'm afraid.

With the German state sueing for peace under the Armistice, the Versaille Treaty subsequently imposed punitive conditions on Gemrna that stoked resentment, particularly among the military (who forstered a feeling that they'd been 'betrayed' by the political leaders in 1918) and led directly to the collective feeling of 'cassus belli' that Hitler was able to mobilise...

 

[Patrick R]

The Allied offensives of 1918 achieved far more than most of the offensives of the previous years, the German army had lost huge amounts of weapons left behind in the retreat.  A hundred thousand men had been taken prisoner in a single month.  The Stosstruppen picked as the best troops of the German army had been decimated in the final push to the Marne, while huge numbers of men suffered from the Spanish Flu, further reducing available manpower.  The German navy was bottled up in port and essentially useless, save for the Submarines.  Meanwhile the Allies showed no signs of slowing down as they had thousands of trucks to help them in their advance.  The German army still relied on carts.  Bulgaria surrendered and Austria-Hungary would probably surrender before the end of the year and was retreating before the Italians after Caporetto, while the Turks realized that they too were on the losing side.  The situation in Germany proper looked bleak as industrial production went down and the threat of Revolution grew each day.

The Allies didn't set foot into Germany and the German army had managed to retreat in good order.  To many soldiers who had not seen the complete picture it seemed like a setback, but not the catastrophe as the German High Command saw it.

It is quite possible the Allied offensive would stall, but plans were made to invade Germany and go all the way until final victory.  Any mistake from the Germans might have cost them hundreds of thousands of men and qualified as a major defeat.

The Allies may not have achieved a total victory, but compared to the previous 4 years the Germans had received an unprecedented defeat.  This is still a world closer to the campaigns of Napoleon than to the total war of 1939-1945 and by that definition Germany would seek terms, total victory and a march to Berlin followed by unconditional surrender would be for the next war.

[ronan]

Really?  Based on what evidence?

Ludendorff said it in august, and on august the 14th, the german HQ agreed " this war can't be won".
Ludendorff himself asked for peace on september 29th
(from Anne Duménil, historian. in "Les Chemins de la Mémoire n° 184" - juin 2008 ) and many other recent studies..

[Luddite]

Ludendorff said it in august, and on august the 14th, the german HQ agreed " this war can't be won".
Ludendorff himself asked for peace on september 29th
(from Anne Duménil, historian. in "Les Chemins de la Mémoire n° 184" - juin 2008 ) and many other recent studies..

Ah yes indeed, which is why the German High Command sued for peace through the Armistice.

'Not winning' is very different from being 'defeated'.

Its also the crux of the question; as to why the Treaty of Versailles inevitably led to WWII.  The German military, and large parts of the German 'Volk' felt that the war had been amicably, politically settled in the Armistice, and that Germany had not lost the war.

Which is why the punitive conditions imposed by the Allies at Versaille really meant that there was little chance of avoiding WWII.  Perhaps most crucially was the inclusion of Clause 231 (the infamous War Guilt Clause).  This was not only a national insult but it also established the legal premise that forced Germany to pay reparations.

After agreeing to the Armistice in November 1918, the Germans had been convinced that they would be consulted by the Allies on the contents of the Treaty.
This didn't happen and the Versailles Treaty was imposed. 
By this time the Germans were in no position to continue the war as its army had essentially been decommissioned so they were forced to accept the humiliating terms.

When the terms of the Treaty became public knowledge there was anger throughout Germany, among a people and ex-sevicemen who simply did not beleive they were beaten - and indeed prior to the Armistice, they weren't.

So you had a nation under punitive terms, that did not consider itself beaten, with an angry and resentful populace that blamed its government and the aliies for being  forced to pay reparations during one the greatest financial drepressions in modern history. 

This resentment caused political  instability and a feeling of injustice that opened the door for the political extremism that lead to WWII.