Cetun t1_ja4ou08 wrote
Reply to comment by AudeDeficere in Treaty of Versailles being ‘too harsh’ by -Mothman_
The better choice would have been to prop up the Weimar Republic. The government that entered WWI was gone and was replaced by a military government, which was replaced my a democratic socialist government that sued for peace. The Allies had a partner in Germany, the government that controlled Germany simultaneously threw out the military government so Germany could sue for peace and fought off a communist insurrection. How did the Allies reward this new government? By crushing it under the weight of the treaty of Versailles and later one sided agreements. They should have been propping up the Weimar government, they were team players, they were against the communists, fascists, monarchists, and old guard military supporters, all people the Allies didn't want to see in power. I would go on to say the Allies should have been subsidizing Germany's economy in the late 20s and early 30s so that fascists and communist extremists didn't gain power. A blind man could see what would happen if you take the absolute best government you can get after you defeat an enemy and then punish them for it.
Doctor_Impossible_ t1_ja4ypi0 wrote
>By crushing it under the weight of the treaty of Versailles
They didn't.
>I would go on to say the Allies should have been subsidizing Germany's economy in the late 20s and early 30s
They did. Germany received about 35 billion marks in loans, almost all of it from the US.
Cetun t1_ja59bhb wrote
>They didn't.
This isn't up for debate, factually the Weimar Republic failed.
>They did. Germany received about 35 billion marks in loans, almost all of it from the US.
I'm not sure if "here, you owe us even more later", counts as subsidies so much as life support. The problem was the original debt owed because of WWI, more loans would have kicked the can down the road but wouldn't have taken the struggling Weimar Republic into stability.
Recovery takes decades in the best of circumstances, original debts could have effects on the economy for decades. The Treaty of Versailles should have given everyone a clean slate and established a status quo in addition to demilitarizing all of Europe simultaneously. I realize that was unfeasible with France and Britain's colonial empires which required strong navies and armies and the threat of the Soviet Union, but that's even more of a reason to develop a common defense agreement rather than selecting "winners and losers" and then making the losers pay. We know the Treaty of Versailles was a failure, and arguing against that is arguing against history. A stronger Versailles treaty would only have accelerated Germany's road to extremism not tampered it.
jackbenny76 t1_ja555rs wrote
They did. Germany was massively in debt to the US- which had been subsidizing the German economy even after the Great Depression started- until Hitler did the Machtergriefung and then promptly repudiated all international debts. (Technically it's more complicated, but that's basically what happened.) Germany owed 19 billion RM in 1932, over 8 billion of them borrowed from the US since 1924.
You really need to read Adam Tooze's first and best book, Wages of Destruction, a very thorough history of the German economy 1920-1945. I'd also recommend The Deluge, which is basically The US side of that 1920s international finance story.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments