History buffs: how much, if any, did the treaty of Versailles contribute to WWII?

Great Debates
1

I often hear that the treaty of Versailles was one of the main causes of WWII: had it not been so “harsh” against Germany, their economy wouldn’t have done so badly and the Nazis would not have come to power in a wave of anger.

For those of you who have studied this topic, how true is this narrative?

Would Hitler have risen to power no matter what the treaty contained? Was his ideology “we are Germans, we are superior, and we must rule the world” or was it “we are suffering under a terrible set of rules imposed by the treaty of Versailles and so we must wage war to free ourselves of the burden”?

If it’s the former, then can one say that WWII would have happened no matter what the treaty contained?

Also, on a related note: Italy and Japan did not have anything like the treaty of Versailles against them, and yet fascism still arose in Italy, and both countries still entered WWII against the whole world.

If fascism and an attempt at world domination can happen in Italy, and a superior-race-that-must-dominate attitude and an attempt at world domination can happen in Japan, all around the same time as these things were happening in Germany, and without anything like the treaty of Versailles against Italy or Japan, why couldn’t these have happened in Germany as well even if that treaty was never in place?

As a lay person, I find the near unanimous “understanding” that the treaty of Versailles was one of the main causes which led to WWII to be somewhat overselling the link between the treaty and its harsh conditions on Germany, and the rise of the Nazis and their attempt at world domination. They may have opportunistically used it to rile the crowds, but in its absence they would have used other techniques/reasons, just like Italy and Japan did.

But, I’m not a history buff or a history professional, so I’d like to see what dopers who are familiar with this era of history have to say.

2

The treaty managed to humiliate and proud and resourceful nation while not being harsh enough to avoid a German resurgence.

In WW2 they dispensed with a treaty until 1990.

3

What attempt on world domination?

4

There’s a lot more to it than Versailles. More than I can write below, but here goes:

Germany went for broke with Operation Michael, and Ludendorff didn’t have a plan b in the form of prepared defenses to fall back on. IMHO, this is where the Germans lost the war: by being the weakest bargaining position.

The general will of the Germans was to get out, and Wilson’s 14 points sounded pretty good. They walked away from the war expecting that would be that, a no-fault divorce from the war, but then Lloyd George and Clemenceau ignored Wilson and made it clear that this was their victory on their terms.

As is often pointed out: the terms of Versailles weren’t as harsh on the Germans has the Germans had imposed on France in 1870. They didn’t ruin the German economy. Everyone’s economy was in terrible shape in 1919 (even the US had a post-war recession, which, among other things, ruined Harry S Truman’s dreams of being a haberdasher)

The Nazis were small potatoes despite anything Hitler ranted about the injustice of Versailles. Over twenty other parties polled higher than them. What put the Nazis on the map was the Great Depression. Now Germany really was poor, and afraid of Communist takeover. This is why ordinary Germans and Germany’s elites suddenly supported the Nazis.

And all in all, Hitler made more political hay out of the “knife in the back” myth than the terms of Versailles.

5

Well, it certainly didn’t help. Economically, it crushed Germany under heavy reparation payments. It caused them to make territorial concessions as well that hurt them economically as well as politically. It was a double whammy to the German people, and certainly fostered a hell of a lot of anger and resentment. Coupled with the depression that hit the world it was pretty much the death knell of their republic and helped substantially in bringing the Nazis to power.

I don’t think Hitler would have risen to power without the chain of circumstances that made him look favorable to the German people, and part of that was definitely the treaty and the harsh conditions the allies put on Germany for the war. It certainly sowed the seeds for WWI v2.0 and for the rise of Hitler and his merry band.

But they arose in Italy for different reasons (also, it arose there first in Italy…Germany actually looked to Italy initially for fascism). Japan is a whole 'nother kettle of sushi of course. But Germany tied them all together into an alliance…by themselves Italy and Japan couldn’t have sparked a world war on their own. Japan might have still gone to war with the US and the other European powers in Asia, but it would have been very different if they had (and they probably wouldn’t have, even though the embargo was hurting them).

6

I don’t agree 100%. The German military was required to be reduced in size to very small manpower levels. A 100,000 man Army? That’s five or six division sized units, compared to the 90 (or so) divisions the German’s started the war with on the Western Front alone.

Nitpick: The Great Depression was in 1930-1933, right? The Nazi’s were bigger than “small potatoes” by that time.

The Nazi’s made their biggest gains in the popular vote (and membership rolls), IIRC, starting from 1925 and on. It’s the German economic collapse of the mid twenties that radicalized some of the people in Germany. Not the Great Depression.

7

The German right-wing parties - well, mostly the German National People’s Party (DNVP), who were the main right-wing party before the Nazis got popular - managed to arrange a referendum in 1929 that would formally renounce the Treaty of Versailles and refuse to make any more reparations. The campaign was not taken all that seriously and the referendum got nowhere near passing (the debacle actually wound up damaging the DNVP). At the Lausanne Conference of 1932 the Allies pretty much conceded that they weren’t going to get any more money out of Germany, so the reparations clause of the Treaty was already dead and buried by the time the Nazis came to power. You could say the psychological damage had already been done by the time of these events, but from reading contemporary accounts from the time it just doesn’t seem like Versailles was a hot-button topic any more.

8

Wrong.

9

Thank you for the link.

So… 1929-1935 (for Germany, using the unemployment numbers as figures).

Damn. Nazi Party - Wikipedia

Crap. I apologize. My economic/popularity-election nitpick is in error. :slight_smile:

10

The Germans had believed that the peace conference would be a “well we’re all good fellows together so let’s call it quits” thing and believed that they had been treated shabbily. The indemnities imposed on them were, regardless of moral justice, unrepayable in any sort of realistic economic cycle, and they ended up borrowing money from the US in order to pay the British and the French, who then turned round and sent that money to America to service their own loans. The terms imposed on Greece recently are equally unpayable (though I can’t see Greece marching on Moscow)

11

The extremely well-written and well-researched book *Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World *by Margaret Macmillan, in its closing chapter, examines some of the myths that have crept into popular thinking regarding the Treaty of Versailles.

For example, the alleged injustice of Germany having to pay reparations is supposedly based on the fact that all of the guilt for the war was heaped on Germany, and that France and Britain were not required to pay. This ignores the fact that French and British troops had not really penetrated on German soil before the war ended. The Germans, on the other hand, had inflicted unbelievable property damage on north-western France and Belgium for four years. Much of this damage was purely vindictive rather than military, and included dynamiting of churches and historical monuments, burning of farms, etc. What reparations would France have paid Germany, since their troops had never set foot there?

Indeed, Margaret Macmillan points out that when the German delegation was summoned to Versailles in 1919, the French were so livid that they made a point of routing their train through the most badly ravaged parts of France, so the Germans could see what their troops had done.

Macmillan also comments on the supposed injustice of the land corridor that gave Poland access to the sea, splitting off East Prussia from the rest of Germany. She points out that a similar situation exists with the United States being separated from its northernmost state, Alaska, by Canada’s west coast, and yet the US has able to tolerate this “injustice” just fine for well over 100 years.

While there is no denying that the Versailles treaty was vindictive, much of its perceived injustice is really due to German self-pity and refusal to admit they had lost the war.

12

I have to add here that IMHO it was indeed how Germany virtually avoided any damage and that the war took place elsewhere that it allowed demagogues in Germany to look for other reasons on why they lost the war.

13

I have to add that though Germany didn’t take any direct damage from rampaging French and English armies, the economic damage from the war was immense. Their entire economy had collapsed. In addition, a lot of the territorial provisions in the treaty were clearly punitive and caused even more economic havoc down the line. I’m sure the allies (except the US who didn’t want any part of this cluster fuck) felt they were totally justified in heaping everything on Germany, it still caused yet another European sparked world war down the line that caused even MORE death and destruction and was, frankly, stupid and unnecessary. The allies were never going to squeeze all that blood out of the turnip, and trying to do so basically set the stage for the next war.

14

World domination isn’t what Italy or Japan were after, and neither really entered WW2 against the whole world. While Hitler always admired Mussolini, Mussolini wasn’t always so hot about Hitler or the Nazis. From 1933-35 he was openly hostile towards Hitler and only moved towards Hitler’s camp after world reaction to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

When Italy entered WW2 it did so very opportunistically at a moment when Germany seemed to have effectively won the war; the British had been driven from the continent and France was on the verge of surrender. The only enemy left would be Britain and the Commonwealth, and it seemed likely that they would come to some sort of terms. As Mussolini put it “I only need a few thousand dead so that I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought”.

Japan was looking to dominate its corner of the world, not world domination. It had been at war with China since 1937, two years before Germany invaded Poland and remained uninvolved in WW2 outside of its war with China until Dec 7 1941 when it attacked the US, Britain and the Dutch East Indies. It did so in order to secure a source of oil from the Dutch East Indies in order to be able to continue its war in China. Japan was entirely dependant upon imports for oil, and back in 1941 the US was both the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil. Japan’s war with China had soured US-Japanese relations which continued to deteriorate to the point that the US placed increasingly harsh embargoes on Japan, first of scrap metal and finally on oil, and convinced the Dutch to join the oil embargo. Japan’s only options were a) quit China and have the embargo lifted, a humiliation no nation would willingly choose much less the ultranationalist running Japan, b) do nothing in which case its economy would come to a grinding halt once the oil reserves were used up, or c) take a source of oil by force, which meant the Dutch East Indies as it was the only source of oil it could hope to take by force.

15

It’s my opinion that the treaty more or less guaranteed WWII.

16

Very erudite and well-written.:slight_smile:

17

Apparently it needs to be pointed out over and over again. The Germans imposed an enormous war indemnity on France that was intended to be economically crippling. The French responded by making a huge effort that repaid the indemnity so they could rebuild their country - not focus on destroying their neighbors.

It is also instructive to read about Operation Alberich.
As a result of WWI, a sizable chunk of France was left in ruins and its natural resources plundered. It doesn’t seem all that vengeful to insist that Germany compensate France for the destruction.

The real problem leading up to WWII was not the Treaty of Versailles, but the militaristic and vengeful mindset of many Germans.

18

Was it truly north-western France? (I don’t know enough about the paths taken by Les Boches to be sure if that’s a typo or not).

19

Also, there was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that ended Russia’s participation in World War I and signed in 1918 with extremely harsh conditions. Some excerpts from Wikipedia:

[ul]
[li] “The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator.”[/li][li]“This loss equated to one third of the Russian population, 25 per cent of their territory, around a third of the country’s arable land, three-quarters of its coal and iron, a third of its factories (totalling 54 per cent of the nation’s industrial capacity), and a quarter of its railroads”[/li][li]“Furthermore, he claimed, it [Treay of Versailles] was “hardly a slap on the wrist” when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russia in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia’s population (albeit of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia’s industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia’s coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion Marks”[/li][/ul]

So, it’s not like the Germans were strangers to peace treaties with very harsh conditions on the losers.

20

Versailles aint to blame.

Firstly, what else could the peacemakers do? They had to: curtail german power ; compensate france and belgium ; create something out of the ruins of the austri-hungarian empire. If the treaty had been less harsh, wed be debating why the stupid allies handed germany the continental domination theyd fought so hard to stop.

Secondly Hitler was a fluke of history - and his rise was tragically restistable and unlikely.