-Mothman_ OP t1_ja3ij3e wrote
Reply to comment by P045K in Treaty of Versailles being ‘too harsh’ by -Mothman_
Many other treaties of Paris such as the treaty of Trianon and Saint Germain on Hungary and Austria were considerable harsher in comparison, their empire was dismantled and repetitions as well as demilitarisation were agreed. The money Germany was paying for the treaty of Versailles was helped by the Dawes plan where America helped Germany with its debts. This allowed Germany recover its economy in the late 1920’s, an era called the ‘golden era’ for the Weimar Republic after its turbulent early days of hyper inflation and political upheaval.
MrYuek t1_ja3u1a2 wrote
You’re also neglecting the “War Guilt Clause” - it’s easier to see how this would’ve enraged Germany when you consider the fact that it wasn’t “just Germany” that caused World War I. All the great powers were tied up in nationalism, militarism, imperialism, etc etc.
WWII - different story. 100% Germany’s fault. But, WWI - I don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest the blame should have been laid squarely on Germany. And, a lot of Germans felt this way in the years after the war (perhaps justifiably so).
IlluminatiRex t1_ja3v1cm wrote
> You’re also neglecting the “War Guilt Clause”
A misrepresentation of what it says. It was establishing the legal framework for a treaty with Germany (so yeah it's going to mention Germany), nor does it "solely blame" Germany. It in fact says "Germany and her Allies" while the other treaties with the Central Powers use the same language except with nations swapped around, for instance "Austria and her Allies" or "Hungary and her Allies".
LateInTheAfternoon t1_ja3wv0p wrote
How the myth of the War Guilt Clause has been able to stay alive for so long is a mystery. It is so easily debunked and you only need to look at the formulation of three paragraphs of the three treaties to see for yourself that the argument has no merit.
calijnaar t1_ja46onl wrote
What exactly do you consider the "myth of the War Guilt Clause"?
Are you saying that the War Guilt Clause did not have an effect on German politics? If so, I'd say that is wrong. It led to the resignatiuon of the cabinet, because they were unwilling to sign the treaty with that clause in it - and I think it's important to note, that (regardless of whether Germany was actually solely or mostly responsible for the war or not) the idea of adding such a clause to a peace treaty was an innovation (caused by the immense suffering in World War I compared to prior conflicts), And it most certainly had an effect on German public opinion, especially given Clemenceau's reply to the objections of the German delegation.
The War Guilt Clause certainly isn't the root cause of the rise of nazism. But it's also not really a building block for a future peaceful Europe
LateInTheAfternoon t1_ja48bq6 wrote
>What exactly do you consider the "myth of the War Guilt Clause"?
I consider it to be the myth that the allies solely blamed Germany for the war.
The innovation was that the allies put all the blame on the central powers which said central powers understandably might have issues with. Now, if the argument concerning the War Guilt Clause brought up in this discussion had stuck to the "the central powers were blamed for the war" interpretation all would be fine and I wouldn't complain but instead this was said:
>the “War Guilt Clause” - it’s easier to see how this would’ve enraged Germany when you consider the fact that it wasn’t “just Germany” that caused World War I.
calijnaar t1_ja4exl8 wrote
Yes, this is obviously incorrect, the other central powers were blamed as well. And there was certainly enough blame to go around. However, it's not really surprising that this was contentitious (mainly for the central powers, for obvious reasons), because while it is certainly true that Austria-Hungary backed by Germany (or instigated by Germany, depending on interpretations) very much provoked the outbreak of war, it is also true that the Allied powers seemed far from opposed to the idea of fighting a war against the central powers (at least until the full horror of a large scale modern war became apparent).
And while it is technically true that the allies did not solely blame Germany in the peace treaties but included Germany's allies as well, the Allied reply to the German delegation in 1919 certainly seems to put the blame almost eclusively on Germany
Doctor_Impossible_ t1_ja4w579 wrote
>it is also true that the Allied powers seemed far from opposed to the idea of fighting a war against the central powers
So the Allied powers wanted to fight rather than just immediately surrender when invaded?
r-reading-my-comment t1_ja3j4tl wrote
The successor states of the Austrian-Hungarian empire joined the Axis, why are you acting like they were peachy with the terms?
-Mothman_ OP t1_ja3ldwy wrote
Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938. Meanwhile Hungary too needed to rely on fascist Germany and Italy for trade after it too was hit hard by the depression, true it also joined the axis also due to the peace treaties but other nations such as Turkey did not join the axis also after having its empire dismantled.
LateInTheAfternoon t1_ja3mkzw wrote
Why would they harbor resentment to treaties that gave them independence? Specifically, since you seem so confident, what in these treaties did they take issue with? What consequences did they suffer due to these treaties that made them hold a grudge for decades until joining the axis was deemed the natural thing to do?
PlebasRorken t1_ja47kx9 wrote
You should probably look at how much of Hungary was carved off.
LateInTheAfternoon t1_ja49h4y wrote
Austria-Hungary was a double monarchy and Hungary enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy. I'm thinking of the states that truly gained independence.
PlebasRorken t1_ja5gyow wrote
Fair enough.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments