Did the Allies of WWI pave the way for WWII?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

So, if versailles contributed to WWII, was there a better way of ending WWI

Adler, please dont respond

Not only do you want to tell me what to do, whether I like it or not...

...now you are going to bait me?

Please do respond.

 

[parsifal]

Respond if you like. I just read the deleted post, where you made it plain about how you feel about me. I just wanted to make it clear im not responding to your comments

whats wrong with asking what was better than Versailles

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Respond if you like. I just read the deleted post, where you made it plain about how you feel about me. I just wanted to make it clear im not responding to your comments

whats wrong with asking what was better than Versailles

I edited that post too, because it was rather harsh and believe it or not I still have respect for you.

Nothing is wrong with the question. Where did I say it was?

Oh wait, I was instructed not to respond. Since you are telling me what to do, whether I like it or not...

 

[parsifal]

so we are clear, im not trying to tell you what to do and i am not wanting anymore conflict.


Please feel free to respond, or not, to the question posted, or anythng else that you want to discuss.

I understand that you are upset, and that im on thin ice, and that you dont agree with me. I understand you dont like me. i understand i offended you and I understand you believe I am here to cause trouble.

i understand, but i want to get this debate back on track if at all possible.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

so we are clear, im not trying to tell you what to do and i am not wanting anymore conflict.


Please feel free to respond, or not, to the question posted, or anythng else that you want to discuss.

I understand that you are upset, and that im on thin ice, and that you dont agree with me. I understand you dont like me. i understand i offended you and I understand you believe I am here to cause trouble.

i understand, but i want to get this debate back on track if at all possible.

PM sent...

 

[parsifal]

so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII

 

[planb]

surprised this thread is still open

 

[VBF-13]

so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII

Maybe the Treaty didn't make the conditions, but neither did it help alleviate them. Germany was left crushed, humiliated, and to pull itself out of the hole. What better way to get to where it needed to be in a hurry than by letting some dictator come in and take charge? People tend to forget how that "Man of the Year" in Time Magazine came in and turned that country around. They tend to forget how he instilled pride, gave the citizens work, put food on their tables, and even gave them the time for leisure activity. Given the cruel and callous way he went about it, that's imminently understandable.

 

[Marcel]

I think I have dejavu, have discussed this before, I think

so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII

My opinion:

I think the Western Allies clearly showed after WWII how it was done.

If you want peace, you need to take away the cause of war. So you help you former opponent building his economy, you make sure he becomes a good trading partner and you guarantee his safety while his army is in tatters.

Harsh measurements in a peace treaty is, as someone said: "like keep on kicking your opponent when he's already down". It keeps the anger alive and is a certain way to a next war.

As you see, my opinion is strongly the opposite of what you suggest, but then again, I'm more a pigeon than a hawk, if you understand my figure of speech

Versailles was stupid and non-constructive. In no way did it anything to prevent the rise of extremism, on the contrary, it helped them. There was no help to Germany like after WWII. How did they ever expect Germany to stay a nice democracy? Hatred between Germany and the rest of Europe was not just enhanced or at least not lessened by the words of the treaty. So yes, Versailles was a major cause of WWII, if only by being such a complete and utter failure.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"...Versailles was stupid and non-constructive. In no way did it anything to prevent the rise of extremism, on the contrary, it helped them. There was no help to Germany like after WWII. How did they ever expect Germany to stay a nice democracy? Hatred between Germany and the rest of Europe was not just enhanced or at least not lessened by the words of the treaty. So yes, Versailles was a major cause of WWII, if only by being such a complete and utter failure..."

I agree with much of your post, Marcel, but this entire thread has p***y-footed around a major distinction between WW1 and WW2 and that is, that the "peace" of 1945 only came to Germany and Japan after their complete and utter destruction. It was possible for some (any) in Germany in 1918 to believe that their country and people had not been utterly defeated on the battlefield (as opposed to the Peace Table, for example. In 1945 the outcome of the war was obvious to anyone living in Germany, Japan (and elsewhere).

Reconstruction was possible (Marshal Plan) and Christian charity, too (Berlin Airlift) because the destruction was so absolute and the march of Communism so relentless and encompassing.

War serves to teach lessons ... whether "Touch me and you'll regret it" or "I'm stronger than you and don't forget it". If a nation loses a war and doesn't learn the correct lesson from their loss .... resentment and delusion are born ... and seeds are sewn for the next conflict. France after the F-P War a perfect example.

In the 1904-05 Russo-Japan War - the Japanese won the war handily (at great cost) but felt they lost at the Peace Table in Portsmouth, NH. It left a very bitter taste that regurgitated over time.

 

[parsifal]

so to answer the original question; "did the allies of WWI pave the way for WWII". and specifically how much of a role did versailles play. In answer to the first part, thre is near unanaimous agreement, the allies of WWI did contribute to WWII, and, the treaty of versailles was also a causal factor for the road to the second war.

What is at issue, and seems to sharply divide this place, is whether versailles contributed to further war, by reason of it being too harsh, or just too "nasty". or, whether Germany in 1918 was allowed, by the incomplete nature of its defeat....its ability to sit at a negotiating table i think, to harbour feelings of wrong doing, of betrayal, and all the rest of that creed, and threby sow the seeds of discontent, that by the rise of Hitler allowed or paved the way to war. There may even be some who believe the return to battle by the germans was completely justified...not the subsequent event, the massacres and the like, but the decision or intent to go back to war.

My position on this is pretty clear, but as the foregoing discussion shows, it is one very open to dispute, and even within my own mind I have some lingering fears and doubt. My two bobs worth is that germany in 1914 decided to throw the war dice, and rolled badly. They did not win. Culpability for starting the war has nothing to do with it, all the nations of 1914 that went to war did so willingly, and presumably with some idea of the risk that they may lose. They (the germans) suffered a defeat, and internally were being torn to pieces. versailles comes along. as a treaty compared to its contemporaies, Versailles was relatively benign, but it had deliberate "revenge clauses", clauses that did not have any real teeth, or at least, not enough to really hurt the Germans and remove their war making potential, but clauses designed to humiliate the germans which in the end only increased their focus on war as a solution.

To avoid the 2nd conflict, the allies needed to either lose the war, broker some kind of lenient peace (but what that would entail escapes me), or go in harder and secure an unconditional surrender. From there they needed to follow a program similar to the post world war II occupation and reconstruction progrmans...a period of intense economic and social rebuilding, designed to remove the latent militarism in German society, with a vibrant and critical economy and social structure to match. The allies proabably needed to occupy Germany for at least a decade to make a difference, and possibly even longer. There should have been no nasty occupation, rather an assertion of total authority in germany but with a clear intent and focus on resonstruction and restructuring rather than subjugation of its people. The German people needed to be given hope for a better outcome and eventual freedom, rather than be removed of all hope. The problem with this plan though is not that it wouldnt work, the experiences of post WWII show that it can, its that it would require a lot of resources that in 1918 might not have been available. Britain was nearly bankrupt, as i think most of Europe was as well. Not sure that the US commanded the world economy to the same extent that they did in 1945, but certainly they had not suffered as much as other countries. Japan was virtually unscathed so might have contributed, but that might have been politically unnacceptable. What might have been possible was at best a sort of hybrid of what happened in the Soviet zone in 1945, and the rest of Germany post 1945....a sort of impoverished, but liberal 2nd order economy, that in some ways might be more dangerous than what actually transpired....

 

[Njaco]

Maybe the Treaty didn't make the conditions, but neither did it help alleviate them. Germany was left crushed, humiliated, and to pull itself out of the hole. What better way to get to where it needed to be in a hurry than by letting some dictator come in and take charge? People tend to forget how that "Man of the Year" in Time Magazine came in and turned that country around. They tend to forget how he instilled pride, gave the citizens work, put food on their tables, and even gave them the time for leisure activity. Given the cruel and callous way he went about it, that's imminently understandable.

I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.

and the people believed.

At least that is my opinion based on what little I know of Germany in those times.

 

[DonL]

I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.

And the people believed.

You are forgetting the Ruhr occupation/Ruhr fight. The Ruhr fight was the last nail to the german inflation, it was also the try from France to occupy the whole Rheinland. This was very alive of every german citizien. They know they were helpless without the UK and the USA against France and Polen. That is next to the great depression a very important trigger point!

 

[Njaco]

Like I said, I'm not an expert about those times. I was not aware that the Ruhr occupation was a touchy subject - similar to Danzig? I guess all these factors were problematic but how much really was a sore point and how much did Hitler incite?

 

[DonL]

Danzig was a very minor problem, forced from the Nazi's but a problem.
The Ruhr occupation and the try from France to make the occupation permanent was an whole other issue to the german citizen.
The singlesided war guilt, the humiliation, the helpless military situation under the treaty of versailles, the Ruhr occupation, were all factors to rise revenge, proud and hate!
And not democracy, appreciation and peace.

 

[VBF-13]

I'm not an expert on this subject but there may be some things I believe that have myth become reality. If I remember my history right, Germany actually was getting better by the late 1920s - things weren't so dire as they were right after the war ended. BUT then came 1929 and the Depression was felt all across the globe even into Germany. And that is what Hitler seized upon. With everything collapsing, it was easy to feed on the hatred of Versailles and build a mythical hero to come to the rescue - the NDSAP and Hitler.

and the people believed.

At least that is my opinion based on what little I know of Germany in those times.

I think that's a pretty good synopsis. Add to it that this was a very sophisticated propaganda machine that took advantage of every opportunity and left very little to chance, and there you have it, I think, in a nut.

 

[silence]

For Germany losing the Ruhr, imagine the effect on the US economy of suddenly losing the industrial power of Silicon Valley and the LA basin in the middle of an economic recovery - or maybe all of California.

 

[swampyankee]

so, to repeat the question, if not versailles, then what peace was needed to avoid WWII

1) Germany needed to be occupied.

2) Wilhelm, personally, needed to sign the surrender documents.

3) von Ludendorf Co had to publicly announce that the German Army was defeated in the field. Make them go on a speaking tour to every city in Germany with a population of more than 15,000.

 

[DonL]

Which Army could do this with which effort of money and blood?
Also there is the possiility of civilian resistance, with civil underground war, similar to Belgium.
Germany of 1918 is much larger then Germany of 1945 without a Red Army, also the KuK Army existed with german national people.

 

[meatloaf109]

so to answer the original question; "did the allies of WWI pave the way for WWII". and specifically how much of a role did versailles play. In answer to the first part, thre is near unanaimous agreement, the allies of WWI did contribute to WWII, and, the treaty of versailles was also a causal factor for the road to the second war.

What is at issue, and seems to sharply divide this place, is whether versailles contributed to further war, by reason of it being too harsh, or just too "nasty". or, whether Germany in 1918 was allowed, by the incomplete nature of its defeat....its ability to sit at a negotiating table i think, to harbour feelings of wrong doing, of betrayal, and all the rest of that creed, and threby sow the seeds of discontent, that by the rise of Hitler allowed or paved the way to war. There may even be some who believe the return to battle by the germans was completely justified...not the subsequent event, the massacres and the like, but the decision or intent to go back to war.

My position on this is pretty clear, but as the foregoing discussion shows, it is one very open to dispute, and even within my own mind I have some lingering fears and doubt. My two bobs worth is that germany in 1914 decided to throw the war dice, and rolled badly. They did not win. Culpability for starting the war has nothing to do with it, all the nations of 1914 that went to war did so willingly, and presumably with some idea of the risk that they may lose. They (the germans) suffered a defeat, and internally were being torn to pieces. versailles comes along. as a treaty compared to its contemporaies, Versailles was relatively benign, but it had deliberate "revenge clauses", clauses that did not have any real teeth, or at least, not enough to really hurt the Germans and remove their war making potential, but clauses designed to humiliate the germans which in the end only increased their focus on war as a solution.

To avoid the 2nd conflict, the allies needed to either lose the war, broker some kind of lenient peace (but what that would entail escapes me), or go in harder and secure an unconditional surrender. From there they needed to follow a program similar to the post world war II occupation and reconstruction progrmans...a period of intense economic and social rebuilding, designed to remove the latent militarism in German society, with a vibrant and critical economy and social structure to match. The allies proabably needed to occupy Germany for at least a decade to make a difference, and possibly even longer. There should have been no nasty occupation, rather an assertion of total authority in germany but with a clear intent and focus on resonstruction and restructuring rather than subjugation of its people. The German people needed to be given hope for a better outcome and eventual freedom, rather than be removed of all hope. The problem with this plan though is not that it wouldnt work, the experiences of post WWII show that it can, its that it would require a lot of resources that in 1918 might not have been available. Britain was nearly bankrupt, as i think most of Europe was as well. Not sure that the US commanded the world economy to the same extent that they did in 1945, but certainly they had not suffered as much as other countries. Japan was virtually unscathed so might have contributed, but that might have been politically unnacceptable. What might have been possible was at best a sort of hybrid of what happened in the Soviet zone in 1945, and the rest of Germany post 1945....a sort of impoverished, but liberal 2nd order economy, that in some ways might be more dangerous than what actually transpired....

Bravo!