"What if" and the Treaty of Versailles (due Thu., Jan. 29)

[CamiellaT]

I agree with the general responses that history would have been different if the Treaty of Versailles was different. The Treaty placed so much emphasis on Germany and it blamed Germany for more than they should have.

Also, it was very wrong to not have Germany present at the Treaty making process b/c if there was a representative at least present, it would not have been so hard to accept. If someone from Germany was there, it would be more of pact and not something that other countries have imposed on Germany.

Also, class yesterday made a great point that by taking away Germany's most money making ventures and then charging them for Allied occupation of the war, they further damaged Germany. It's really difficult to come up with the funds to pay reparations and the country shouldn't have been punished so severely for one crazy man's dictorship.

Inevitably, the people of Germany suffered and many of these people are innocent.

[xavito]

Of all of the flaws in the Treaty of Versailles, the one that stood out to me the most was the war guilt clause. This was the clause that basically blamed Germany for starting the entire World War I. It is often forgotten that World War I was caused not so much by Germany alone, but by all of the alliances that were made that led so many different countries to be dragged into the war. Had it not been for all those alliances, the war might not have involved the rest of the “world.” In spite of all of this, the Allies decided to blame Germany entirely, probably because it had done so much damage to them throughout the war. This unjust “war guilt” clause essentially stripped Germany of everything, emasculated it. This unfair punishment left the German people angry and humiliated.

If Germany had not surrendered, the outcome of the war might be different. The Allies likely would have occupied Germany at some point, ousting their government, and forcing their surrender. They might have installed a totally new government, or even divided up the nation into smaller, weaker ones. But who knows? If the war had ended differently, the treaty that ended it would likely have been different than the Treaty of Versailles. Germany might have been included in the drawing up of the peace treaty, and it might not have been humiliated and stripped down as it was through the Treaty of Versailles. If the Treaty of Versailles had been different, the world might have a completely different history. If the treaty did not blame Germany so much and emasculate it the way it did, the Germany might not have entered that period of turmoil, and the Nazi party might not have emerged the way it did. After all, how did the Nazi party gain power? The country was in turmoil, and the Nazis took advantage of that turmoil to gain power. The Treaty of Versailles contributed largely to that turmoil in Germany. The Treaty of Versailles posed many different risks to Europe and the world, since it was one of the main factors that led to the next great war: World War II.

[DADiiEH]

the Treaty of Versailles was definitely the factor that decided what would happen after the war. Germany was the 'center of attention' with this treaty, taking the blame for the war, even though Germany didn't have a representative present while making the treaty. I agree with xavito who sees this as a major problem. Alliances and special interests contributed to the tensions that lead up to the war. If the entire war was Germany's fault, then it shouldn't be called 'World War' but rather 'Germany's War'. All the countries involved should be held responsible.

I believe that the fact the Germany surrendered made them look 'guilty' in the eyes of everyone else. Germany surrendering was the bases and foundation of the blame that was put on them. If they had not surrendered, regardless if they won or loss, I think the treaty would have been completely different. Maybe putting the blame on anyone would not have been an issue and instead peace negotiations would have been the primary concern. The people affected, especially in Germany, may have had a better chance in recovering instead of turmoil. xavito makes an excellent point on how the Nazi party took advantage of the craziness in Germany after the war, which lead to their gain in power. JohnQSample also makes a good point in stating that the people of Germany were open to Nazi ideals because what they had before it was dissatisfying and not working. I also agree with JohnQSample in saying that the catastrophic loss of life was unimaginably difficult for all the countries involved, but I believe that peace should have been enough, because peace would prevent such am event from happening again. Instead people were vindictive and wanted revenge, or at least to put the blame on someone.

All in all, the treaty of Versailles was destruction in the form of writing for German people. It contributed to ruining their lives and without it, Germans would have had a better chance of survival and recovering. History would be rewritten if the Treaty of Versailles could be taken back.

[StaceyAllen]

I think the biggest mistake about the Treaty of Versailles was making Germany pay for all the war reparations. Yes Germany as a whole did a bad thing but was this punishment fair? How could it be fair when no one was representing Germany when the treaty was signed? Obviously, Germany was very poor after the war and in a lot of debt. They had lost the war and were humiliated by it. Having Germany responsible for paying billions of dollars and supplying livestock for other countries was too much. The country was already poor and if they are giving up their food supply to other countries and working with their money going out to other countries for war reparation then they will only become more miserable and angry.

The Treaty of Versailles left the Germans miserable, isolated and poor. No one liked them or trusted them. They needed some motivation and an uprising to gain their power back and that is when Hitler came in looking for someone to blame for their misery and downfall and unfortunately he pointed out the Germans.

I agree with alexithymia who pointed out that after World War 2 the Triple Axis was not ask to pay for all damages done to other countries. Instead, their countries were rebuilt. As hard as it can be to be the bigger person and not add fuel to the fire but water to burn it out, it shows that sometimes the best punishment is no [harsh and unjustified] punishments at all but just a little hand and reformation.

The only thing I agree on the Treaty of Versailles is that Germany had to give up some land. That was very reasonable, for the Germans could not be trusted after the stunt they had just pulled and I do not blame those countries that did not trust them. Especially since I wouldn’t trust them myself.

[Blue10]

What if...there had never been an assassination and thus World War 1 never happened? Would that mean that there would be no World War 2?

From what we saw in class, it was less about the tensions that arose during the fighting phase of the "Great War" and more about the completely unbalanced Treaty of Versailles that led to the rise of the Nazi party and ultimately the outbreak of WWII. So what if this treaty had been different? What if Germany had been invited, and was allowed to argue for its personal interests. Perhaps they would have had to share the war debt with their lovely allies the Austro-Hungarians, but chances are that they would have faced the same fate. France knows how to hold a grudge and when given this opportunity the country wasn't going to let Germany get off easily. They had to pay for humiliating France first...the fact that WWI erupted and that Germany surrendered simply gave France the chance to act on its wishes of revenge.

And what if Germany hadn't had to pay so much money? Then they wouldn't have bankrupted, but we have no proof that the Nazi party would have thus not come to power. After all, the losers in the war, Germany had to pay some cost and Hitler and his followers would have had a platform to stand upon simply because there was a treaty in existence that identified two sides: winners and losers.

I do agree with the majority of the previous posters-Germany most certainly should not have been the only power blamed for WWI and they should have been issued an invitation to the Treaty of Versailles so that they could defend themselves. However I disagree with CamiellaT who said that many German people were innocent...we must remember the other side of the war, the other innocent people who died because WWI happened. There are victims on both sides of the line and Germany's soldiers should be mourned, along with the noncombatants who may have died, but this does not fully erase their guilt. While the Treaty of Versailles represented nothing more than a French vendetta backed by powerful nations such as Britain and the US, we cannot forget the fact that Germany pushed for this war to happen. Not alone, obviously, but they took part in this 'Axis' and they were calling in charge of their actions. And thus I agree with StaceyAllen's comment about Germany having to make reparations in some way. Perhaps they owed money, perhaps land, perhaps a formal apology and acceptance that they are partially to blame.

Whatever the case may be, we can all agree on the fact that the Treaty of Versailles was gone about in the wrong way. Germany was humiliated, utterly defeated in its economic prospects and pretty much isolated. Hitler was an opportunist, and he seized his chance. He came to power when Germany was so low that the only way to go was up. And France should take responsibility for wanting such humiliation and degradation to occur. All in all, it is a scary thought, but it may have been better if the Treaty of Versailles never came to be.

[flyinpopsicles]

I think that the biggest issue with the treaty of Versailles was the blame clause, specifically blaming Germany for the war and, literally, making the country pay for it. The only thing that this clause was effective in doing was alienating the German people. With its inclusion in the document, it sowed a seed of hate in Germany of the countries that had defeated it. It more or less put in writing that the allies were not going to try and “kiss and make up” with Germany. However, this is a true case of a band-aid covering a bullet hole. You can stick a kid who’s in trouble in the corner, or you can explain to them why what they did was wrong. I think that if the allies had worked with Germany, a better relationship with the country could have been fostered. I feel that immediately after the war, Germany could have been very easily influenced by whoever was willing to take interest in them, and it would have behooved the allies to realize this.

[splee2]

If Germany had not surrendered then maybe the world would have been a better place. It might have had a brighter history, to say the least. If Germany had not surrendered than there, first off, would certainly have been more casualities on both sides of the war- not mention missing limbs and other permanent injuries. There would also have been much greater war debts on both both sides, as well as the possiblitity of an Axes victory. And if that had happened, there might have been mass encapturement and enslanement of the Allied powers closest to the Axes (i.e. Britain, France, Italy, etc). These countries would have under the submission of the tough German military regimes- and who knows what they would have done to the United States.
If the Treaty of Versailles was different then there definitely would have been much less hostilitity from Germany, which would build up over many long and hard years. Also, Germany would have had a better recovery from the war, instead of having years and years of terrible economic turmoil. The Treaty did nothing major but exercise the greed of the main winning powers on Germany, who wasn't even responsible for the whole war in the first place. This posed the risk of ruining relations everywhere with Germany, who was no small power.

[BARBIEH]

The issue is that one country cannot take the sole blame for a World War. The fact the treaty of Versailles puts all the blame on Germany put the country in a very venerable condition. Making Germany pay the allies restitution to the allies is sort of a way to "kick the them while they're down."

This probably made Germany regret surrendering and further more alienated the country from the rest of the world. If Germany didn’t surrender and weren’t blamed for the war then maybe they wouldn’t have felt the need to believe in someone who seemed like a “strong leader” such as Hitler. Hitler was probably appealing to the German people because they way he spoke and carried himself made him seem strong and maybe Germany felt as if Hitler had power they would be taken more seriously and couldn’t be pushed around by the allies. So maybe if the Treaty of Versailles actually sought for peace instead of pointing the finger, Germany wouldn’t have believed in Hitler. The country wouldn’t need his promise of jobs and have the strength to stand up to him when they seen her was doing wrong.

[splee2]

The United States and our allies did act as bystanders during the Armenian Genocide because we were warned many imes about the growing atrocities in the mIddle East, yet we did nothing. The special American envoy to Turkey, as well as various missionaries, specialists, and photographers who witnessed the murdering and exploitations of the people tried time and time again to point it out to the head authorities at the time- actual proof was even given for them to see. But the US was so focused on being neutral, so focused on internal affairs that we just stood by. It wasn't our problem so we were'nt concerned with it and that is precisely the definition of bystanding.
We could/should have advocated for the preservation of the Armenian population and pushed harder on Turkey to stop this madness. When an entire population is at risk of being destroyed, the U.S. and other nations could/should in fact take a stand and pressure the oppressive country to have compassion, on the grounds of risking international relations. It should be built into all human morales that people should be stirred to action at sights such as these- innocent lives are being lost. No matter what, no matter when, we should help because we always seem to regret doing nothing in the aftermath anyway. I would have advocated for the immediate removal of the oppressed population from their country at the first signs of genocide, and I would also have mandated the ceasing of all affairs with the reigning government. Simply watching is not accceptable.

[mesopotamia]

I 100% agree with Giovanna. Yes the German Government was cruel in doing what they did, but still, what they had to do in the end was not entirely fair. I feel that the Germans should have paid most of it but not as much as they had to. The Treaty of Versailles not only depleted but also dehumanized the Germans. It left the Germans in a ridiculous state, where they would take anyone that would offer it.

Maybe if the Germans were not so angry towards the rest of the world, World War 2 could have been avoided. They were punished so cruelly that they had resentment towards the world, so when the opportunity came to strike back, and someone came with great ideas, they jumped on it.