Origins of The First World War and ramifications

[parsifal]

I think i have previously accepted that all the nations that went to war in 1914 share a measure of the guilt. If not that has to be admitted./ however, as to who was responsible, or mostly responsible, I think I have made it very clear who is to blame for the outbreak of the war. I take a strictly legailistic view in that regard, because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse. Who fired the first shots, who undertook the first invasions? In point of fact the actual events that immediately precursored the war are not all laying blame at Germany....other nations were quick to pull the trigger as well, but germnany was at the centre of the maelstrom, and had the ability to either cause the war or avoid it. She cose war, though other nations were only slightly less gleeful to getting into the war.

Versailles was an unsatisfactory treaty, there is no doubt. It could have been a weak treaty in the hope that it might appease the german public into not trtying their hand at war again, although I seriously doubt that would be successful, or it could have been a much more severe treaty in the hope of terrorizing the German people into never trying on an aggressive war again, but I doubt that would work either, unless Germany was shown in absolute terms that they had been utterly defeated. Instead, we got this half hearted affair, that was trying to be all things and finished up being nothing. Because of its obvious weakness, but implied malevolence, it gave its enemies all the ammunition they needed to paint a lie about how badly Germany had been treated, and robbed of her rightful victories etc etc.... none of this was true.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse."
While this is often true, Parsifal, the opposite is also often true .... judgements made on legal and legal presidents positions are also open to abuse. One just has to look at the role of the United Nations for confirmation of that.

Nonetheless, you are right about Perishing and the "surrender" of Germany.

When a nation (or individual) is reduced to absolute powerlessness as a result of self-inflicted actions it is important that the "settlement" leave no doubt about the causes of the misfortunes. Versailles was the precursor of the kind of social-global engineering decisions that we see today from the UN. (Create Poland, create Czechoslovakia).

Germany was the aggressor - and multiple blows across the snout (as ever many as it took) until Germany said loud and clear to the whole world "UNCLE". (Uncle is this case stands for unconditional surrender). The Allies were remiss in not holding out for this. But - Professor Woodrow Wilson would never have been comfortable with that position -- besides -- there were too many German-American voters to permit that position to be tenable. But - hindsight being 20:20 - Hitler should never have been given the emotional and political underpinnings of the Nazis state - and that's what Versailles gave him - as well as pissing off a bunch of other Europeans like the Hungarians.

Why have Germany and Japan become the stable, democratic powerhouses that they have become since 1945?? NOT BY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS on the part of the Allied planners and politicians in 1945. Versailles was DRIVEN by French desire for revenge - although they were beaten again and again - fair and square (from Waterloo to Sudan). By that token, Japan should be America's sworn enemy - not her biggest customer.

MM

 

[mikewint]

The problem with the Treaty of Versailles is both that it was too harsh and to lienient at the same time. Unconditional surrender backs everyone into a corner. The Allies had plenty of teeth built into the Treaty but chose not to enforce the conditions of the Treaty. France could easily has occupied the Sudatenland but chose to ignore event is Germany. Again, I do not mean to wander off topic but the Japanese surrender document as outlined in the Potsdam meeting set the correct tone:
On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943, Japan was to be reduced to her pre-1894 territory and stripped of her pre-war empire including Korea and Taiwan, as well as all her recent conquests.
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
On the other hand, the declaration stated that:
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, ... The Japanese Government shall remove all obstacles to the revival and strengthening of democratic tendencies among the Japanese people. Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established."
"Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, ... Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted."
"The occupying forces of the Allies shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished and there has been established in accordance with the freely expressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and responsible government.
Contrary to popular belief, the only use of the term "unconditional surrender" came at the end of the declaration:
"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Contrary to what had been intended at its conception, the Declaration made no mention of the emperor at all. Allied intentions on issues of utmost importance to the Japanese, including whether Hirohito was to be regarded as one of those who had "misled the people of Japan" or even a war criminal, or alternatively, whether the emperor might become part of a "peacefully inclined and responsible government" were thus left unstated.
The "prompt and utter destruction" clause has been interpreted as a veiled warning about American possession of the atomic bomb (which had been tested successfully on the first day of the conference).

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The problem with the Treaty of Versailles is both that it was too harsh and to lienient at the same time."

I agree, Mike. Such settlements are de-stabilizing because the "words" don't match the "deeds" and suggest that the documents don't really "mean" what they say.

Cheers,

MM

 

[parsifal]

They must be putting something in the water, because I agree with that summation as well

I think that in the first instance, it was a mistake to let Germany off the hook with a conditional peace. That was mistake number one. mistake number two was having accepted a conditional peace, the allies then tried to make the traty as nasty as they could, which only bred resentment when mistake number 3 is taken into account.

Mistake number 3 is having produced a treaty intended to monster the Germans , the Allies failed to protect or uphold their treaty. this gave its opponents an easy road to a significant moral victory. I can think of hardly a worse outcome.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... something in the water"

Agreed. Let's have another drink .

MM

 

[imalko]

When a nation (or individual) is reduced to absolute powerlessness as a result of self-inflicted actions it is important that the "settlement" leave no doubt about the causes of the misfortunes. Versailles was the precursor of the kind of social-global engineering decisions that we see today from the UN. (Create Poland, create Czechoslovakia).

I've noticed this line of thinking in several your earlier posts Michael. If I misunderstood then I apologize. But, it seem to me that you deprecate the creation Polish and Czechoslovak states by the Versailles treaty (Not to "piss" the Hungarians!?"). Didn't these nations have the same right for self determination and independence as Germans and Italians did in second half of 19th century. Care to elaborate?

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... I've noticed this line of thinking in several your earlier posts Michael. If I misunderstood then I apologize. But, it seem to me that you deprecate the creation Polish and Czechoslovak states by the Versailles treaty (Not to "piss" the Hungarians!?"). Didn't these nations have the same right for self determination and independence as Germans and Italians did in second half of 19th century. Care to elaborate?"

Thank you for asking, Igor. In truth there was powerful lobbying at Versailles for the creation of those two countries. Both were blessed with fine statesmen who expressed the desire for nationhood passionately and effectively. But surely Czechoslovakia was always inherently what it became in the end - two hockey powers - the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic -- each wanting to shape its own course. And surely Poland was "created" from land previously held by the German alliance (Triple E) nations -- always a shaky start INMO.

To be clear Igor, my tone on this is NOT meant to deny either people: " ... the right for self determination and independence" but rather (as I implied by my UN references) my dislike for the manner in which the process was conducted by the Versailles signatories. Delusional. (Like the creation of nations in Africa, regardless of natural tribal- religious groupings)

There ultimately is only one true test of nationhood and that is the ability to survive and flourish. Poland has always been caught between east and west - drawn by Slavic tradition towards the east but at the same time drawn by culture (France) and Catholicism towards the west. When east and west clash - Poland is in the middle. (By the same standards and processes, the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian states were recognized - but in their cases each fought wars of independence and secured power themselves.)

Are you OK with my explanation, Igor. I do concede that I am a broken record on some topics but the only topic where I mean to be acerbic is on the topic of France. France gets cut way too much slack IMHO . If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920. And I do repeatedly beat this drum: nations that don't learn by their experiences (either from hubris or incompetence) keep repeating their mistakes. No country is without fault but the French take the cake for "restarts" at other's expense.

MM

 

[imalko]

Understood. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They must be putting something in the water, because I agree with that summation as well

I think that in the first instance, it was a mistake to let Germany off the hook with a conditional peace. That was mistake number one. mistake number two was having accepted a conditional peace, the allies then tried to make the traty as nasty as they could, which only bred resentment when mistake number 3 is taken into account.

Mistake number 3 is having produced a treaty intended to monster the Germans , the Allies failed to protect or uphold their treaty. this gave its opponents an easy road to a significant moral victory. I can think of hardly a worse outcome.

...and yes I agree as well.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Contrast Versailles (and subsequent actions and events) with the Marshall Plan (post 1945). America learned lessons from Versailles that other nations have still not learned or have been too poor to implement.

MM

 

[mikewint]

Hallelujah my brothers, we have reached a meeting of the minds. going to shut up now and enjoy our meeting of the minds. my thanks for a fantastic debate, highy enjoyable gentlemen, til next we duel

 

[Marcel]

Contrast Versailles (and subsequent actions and events) with the Marshall Plan (post 1945). America learned lessons from Versailles that other nations have still not learned or have been too poor to implement.

MM

That's indeed what I meant in earlier posts. Well said!

 

[michaelmaltby]

Thank you.

MM

 

[parsifal]

can someone say something controversial or which i cant agree with...all this agreement is putting me to sleep!!!!

 

[michaelmaltby]

OK Parsifal.

"... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."



MM

 

[buffnut453]

Just to pick up at some of the inferences made by Mike about the attitudes of Britain and France during the years prior to WWI, I think it's fair to say that they well represent the actions of status quo powers (ie countries who hold a dominant position and want things to stay just the way they are). Fast forward to WWII and the status quo powers were still Britain and France, with Germany and Japan as the aggressive revisionists. However, we can't lump all the Allies of WWII into the "status quo" bucket. Neither the USA nor the Soviet Union wanted the status quo as defined by the colonial European powers. Interestingly, now that the USA is the top dog it does, on occasion, adopt "status quo" measures and policies to defend/maintain its position and influence.

Sorry if this is a digression but I think it's at least partly relevant to the topic under discussion - the effect of structure -vs- agency in the definition of foreign policy. It's pretty much the same today as it's always been, we just use different forms of pressure and leverage now.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

I think i have previously accepted that all the nations that went to war in 1914 share a measure of the guilt. If not that has to be admitted./ however, as to who was responsible, or mostly responsible, I think I have made it very clear who is to blame for the outbreak of the war. I take a strictly legailistic view in that regard, because judgements made on the basis of moral position are just too open to abuse. Who fired the first shots, who undertook the first invasions? In point of fact the actual events that immediately precursored the war are not all laying blame at Germany....other nations were quick to pull the trigger as well, but germnany was at the centre of the maelstrom, and had the ability to either cause the war or avoid it. She cose war, though other nations were only slightly less gleeful to getting into the war.

Versailles was an unsatisfactory treaty, there is no doubt. It could have been a weak treaty in the hope that it might appease the german public into not trtying their hand at war again, although I seriously doubt that would be successful, or it could have been a much more severe treaty in the hope of terrorizing the German people into never trying on an aggressive war again, but I doubt that would work either, unless Germany was shown in absolute terms that they had been utterly defeated. Instead, we got this half hearted affair, that was trying to be all things and finished up being nothing. Because of its obvious weakness, but implied malevolence, it gave its enemies all the ammunition they needed to paint a lie about how badly Germany had been treated, and robbed of her rightful victories etc etc.... none of this was true.

Right, I've read the entire thread and found this post by parsifal to be perhaps the most objective and well thought post of it all. Could have ended there. As stupid as WW 1 was, it was inevitable. With most of the western nations having gone through their own industrial, technological, and scientific innovations at break neck speed, combined with a nationalistic and militaristic fervor not before seen, it was not a question of "if", but "when". I'm convinced that had it not been Gavrilo Princip's shot in Sarajevo, it would have been something else. The entire notion that one country holds more blame than another (others) is a bit moot, considering that at the same token, it is also pointless to blame the powder keg when it's fuse has already been primed and lit.

That said, I find the idea that Versailles being the focal point of having been the root of WW 2 to be a little absurd. While it may have provided the Nazis with inspriation as a point to direct their ire against, with the Locarno Act and later Kellog-Briand treaty, Versailles was made more or less toothless, in conjunction with ports of Versailles not being enforced. The fact of the matter is, by the time Hitler took power, Versailles was really no longer having any effect other than some kind of symbolic glue holding the Allies together. By the time Hitler had completely solidified his hold on Germany, Versailles, for all intents and purposes, was really nothing more than a propaganda point. Mind you, I would argue that had Clemenceau and Foche had their way, extreme as their idea may have been, there probably would have been no WW 2 either.

Even France, which had a clause inserted in the treaty that allowed for French occupation of the Rhineland should Germany ever attempt to remilitarize it, failed to act when the critical moment came in 1936.

As already discussed on a much older thread, The US and UK effectively tied France's hands on this issue. Mind you these are the days before anything like "pre-emptive strike" became a foreign policy.

The raw seeds of WW1 are in 1870 - the Franco Prussian War. Total French humiliation - The Emperor was captured. Revenge for France poisoned all relationships after that. The neighborhood had changed - France didn't.

MM

Please explain to me how it was France which did not change out of the remaining nations of Europe, other than the fact that France remained a representative Republic when the other nations were either monarchies, constitutional monarchies, or autocratic states. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Are you suggesting that France should have accepted the loss of Alsace and Lorraine regions? It's a complete dismissal of the fact that France has always viewed the natural border between France and Germany as the Rhine River, whereas the Germans always held the view that the border was the Voges region. You're using too much hindight with a personal bias to arrive at this conclusion.

"... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."

MM

Classic revisionism, and in complete contradiction of historical fact. Firsly, no one "bailed out" France. Secondly, just how on earth was France to become a "Benelux" nation with crippling postwar economic ruin and manpower (human) shortage after such a war boggles my mind, though I'm interested in your theory, if it exists. Your statement is at odds of the fact that the Marshall plans and Versailles were designed differently for the circumstances at hand. The Marshall Plan had much more to do with building a powerful economic wall to counter the threat of Communism after WW 2........with Versailles there was no such exterior ideological threat.


Gentlemen, everytime I read a discussion on what role exactly did the Versailles Treaty play in circumstances leading up to WW 2, I'm always amused, and even astounded by a certain ignorance in one crucial aspect of such conclusion. What is never discussed, is what compensation should have been owed to France/Allies by Germany/Austro-Hungarian empires? Mind you, people often forget that much of Eastern France, and also Belgium at the end of WW 1 looked like this:

When presented with a wasteland such as this, any immediate agricultural output is out of the question. With countless villages wiped of the face of the planet, just what kind of economy exactly is to be expected? Not to mention over 1.3 million of her men now buried in her soil, I'm curious to ask just how France is to recover without compensation. Just what exactly would have been considered a "fair" compensation package using common 1918 logic? France a "Benelux" nation in 1919? Blow-wine-out-my-nose-laughing!

 

[parsifal]

a sobering reality check VG, some good points I admit......

 

[parsifal]

OK Parsifal.

"... If France hadn't been bailed out by Britain in 1914 they would have reached some agreement with the Kaiser - adjusted themselves - and become the beginning of the Benelux economic union - by 1920."



MM

I think the consequences of a french defeat at the hands of the germans in WWI were far more dire than that. Germany would still have emerged from this war bruised and radicalised, with the Kaiser removed IMO and someone like Ludendorf in charge. Germany would settle for nothing less than total domination of Europe, and though Ludendorf was not a hitler, he was still a radical. Europe dominated by a radicalised Germany, with an undamaged fleet means that GB is also toast. With britain subverted and/or absorbed, you then have a radicalised, victorious germany able to overthrow the last bastions of Democracy in the New World and Oceania. Its the end of democracy and our basic freedoms and every bit as scary as a Soviet dominated Europe. Its definately not business as usual......a rather high price to ensuring the French get their "just desserts". And I happen to disagree that the French have any "Just Desserts" incidentally.