[SARCASM]A minor oversight on my part, but who would remember the French Revolution and Napoleon anyway?[/SARCASM] Yeah, I was thinking of the UK and Russia when I wrote that.
Rarely have I seen an OP whose conclusion I could so readily agree with, while disagreeing so strongly with the evidence used in support of it.**
As was pointed out, Austria-Hungary badly wanted to crush Serbia, which had agreed to virtually all the demands placed on it but was not willing to completely give up its sovereignty. **
The moral choice was secondary to the cumulative effect of continued German attacks on U.S. shipping (and the threat of more with unrestricted sub warfare) as well as the revelation of the German plot to embroil us in war with Mexico (Germany was offering Mexico U.S. territory in the Southwest in exchange for her help).**
I’ve always wondered why this theory gets so much currency. It completely ignores Germany’s crucial role in starting the war, its devastating occupation of France and its war crimes. It also begs the question of why France, which suffered a significant loss of territory (Alsace-Lorraine) and a crushing monetary indemnity imposed by Germany (Prussia) after the war of 1870, somehow avoided becoming a militaristic machine bent on world conquest (as Germany did beginning in the '30s). Versailles doesn’t explain WWII. It’s an excuse, not a justification.
I took on this argument in the “Worst Presidents” thread before I noticed this seperate thread. I’m repeating myself on some of these subjects, but I figured it’s best not to hijack the other one.
While I agree that this is true, that does not in any way lead to the conclusion “therefore the United States should have gotten involved”. By that logic, we should have sent a division of Marines to help France and Prussia with the 1848 uprisings.
To some extent, this has been torn apart by other posters. Let me throw in some other extents- Russia was never a democracy, even when “Kerensky took over”- the Duma which elected Kerensky was less representative than any other pseudo-parliamentary body in Europe, and no elections were held after the Tsar abdicated and Kerensky assumed power.
And you say “not a single autocracy existed in Western Europe”- well, that depends upon how you define ‘Western’. I mean, if you include Hungary, Romania, or Bulgaria, then you’re including governments more autocratic than Kaiser’s Germany, which means you’re contradicting yourself. Or, of course, you could not include those countries, or Russia, and merely be talking about Germany, in which case talking about “Western Europe” is disingenious.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
The war was not at a stalemate. The Central Powers were slowly winning. A final offensive by the German army- reinforced by troops from the Eastern front, which by 1918 was won by the Central Powers- pushed nearly as far as Paris. Had it not been for the combination of fresh American troops and the surge in French and British morale that fresh troops provided, the Germans may well have won, or at least pushed into a strong enough position to demand an armistice.
I will state again- we did not need to be involved in World War I. We took a small pretext- German U-boats acting in the North Atlantic, and German intriguing in Mexico- and used it as a pre-text for Wilson’s desire to reshape the lands of Europe in his philosophical designs. Wilson’s high-handedness and obnoxiousness (“God only gave us 10 commandments, but Wilson has 14.” - Lloyd George), combined with an attachment to philosophical ideals at the expense of realities, doomed Versailles to failure.
Oh, and a duh for me- saying not a single autocratic government existed in Western Europe mean either classifying King Emmanuel or Mussolini’s reign in Italy as ‘democratic’. I of all people should have remembered that.
Huh?
An excuse is a justificationand Versailles does not excuse/justify WWII, it just explains it.
All Germans felt the same way about Versailles–they were pissed. This was the bedrock of Hitler’s support. Not all Germans agreed with his radical policies and the war, but at the end of the day, the collective desire to restore their national pride lost at Versailles. Even in 1945 Germans were still reminding each other of Versailles to spur on the war effort.
An aside:
Take a minute to compare Germany after WWI with the South after the Civil War. The number of parallels is striking.
That should read:
‘the collective desire to restore their national pride lost at Versailles won out’
No. The suffrage was universal at least since the fall of the second empire in 1870, and, IIRC, since the 1848 revolution (it seems to me it was briefly suspended in 1850 or so). Except for women and subjects in the colonial empire, that is.
In case I was insufficiently clear:
What I was questioning was the idea that the Versailles Treaty terms were so unjustifiably onerous on the part of the Allies toward Germany, that they invited a seething desire for revenge by Germans. I think this is a highly questionable conclusion (as previously discussed). That certain unscrupulous or deluded Germans (including those who promulgated the “stabbed-in-the-back” fantasy to explain Germany’s defeat) seized on Versailles to promote their fascist and militaristic dreams is unquestioned.
Hitler didnt want to overturn Versailles.
He wanted world domination, and overturning Versailles was merely a step along the way.
I don’t know, I think he was pretty passionate about overturning Versailles.
OK, I’m back to defend myself after writing an important English paper. I didn’t bail, and my responses will be forthcoming.
[defending myself on many fronts]
Germany didn’t have a real democracy
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4973/
As per “everyone was repressive to some degree,” if Germany had won it’d be a win for monarchy, not democracy. All the Central Powers were monarchies, on the Allied side Britain and France were democracies, and if there hadn’t been such a repressive treaty of Versailles Germany’s Weimar Republic could’ve lasted and Italy could’ve made more steps toward democracy.
The Zimmermann Telegram is of dubious origin. It could’ve been anything from a British fabrication to a deliberate provocation to enter the war. It’d be a good question for Unca Cecil.
This is a nifty theory except for one minor detail: Zimmermann (the German Foreign Minister who proposed the Mexican alliance in return for Mexico’s getting back the Southwest territories it lost to the U.S.) admitted authorship of the telegram at a news conference. Straight from the horse’s mouth, as it were.
Not to mention that Kaiser Willy was crazy enough to actually think he could accomplish something like that…(as long as he didn’t have to do it himself-just threaten…)
This argument doesn’t stand. While Germany and Austro-Hungary were hardly modern democracies, they were much better than, say, Romania, and they were starting to move more and more towards one.The war had a really bad effect on these emerging democracies, and essentially crippled any chance for a real democratic development. The successors of the Monarchy were all more or less autocratic states (with the exception of Czechoslovakia, which wasn’t much better than the old Monarchy, anyway), some much worse. Western Europe might have had it lucky, but Central Europe was completely crippled.
Add to this the economic disintegration, massive poverty, a humiliating and unjust peace treaty (with the express intention to ruin the region, so a coming war would result in another German defeat), and you have a hell of a just American intervention! Thanks! :mad:
There are no what-if questions, but an American nonintervention (or, God forbid, one on the Central side) would have resulted in a better Europe for everyone. With these results, WW2 and all of its horrors were INEVITABLE .
Melan, Hitlers rise to power was absolutely NOT inevitable.
And I dont know here you got the “express intention to ruin the region” from.
And Captain Amazing, Hitler in public would rant about Versailles. But in private, he had nothing but contempt for those who “merely” wanted to overturn Versailles.
And I want to see Osama bin Laden captured, but I have a problem with people who think merely capturing Osama bin Laden will stop terrorism.
I agree, Hitler had goals other than overturning Versailles. However, I think he was actually opposed to the treaty, as were most Germans.
Big Kahuna Burger:
From http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/facts/facts_about/02_02.html
In other words, as I said- about the same as the British monarchy of eighty or so years previous.
We’re not arguing that Germany was a democracy; that’s your own straw man. We’re arguing that Germany’s government was not the repressive autocracy you claim it to be, and certainly in relations to some of the Allied Powers (Russia, Italy), it wasn’t.
By that token, the French-Prussian War of 1870- where the monarchy of Prussia fought the Republic of France- was a win for monarchy, and we should have intervened on the side of France.
Italy was on the Allied side, the one that won. How was the Versailles treaty so repressive towards the victors that it threw Italy into fascism?
Nicky: the inevitable bit is just In My Humble Opinion, so you are right - it belongs elsewhere.
But the Versailles Treaties were all about ruining the region (a.k.a. Central Europe), and Clemenceau had a big role in this - Wilson’s greatest fault being his inability or unwillingness to oppose him (esp. when each and every decision made in Versailles were blatantly against the spirit of his 14 point). The most important reasons:
-agriculture: although not modern by any means, the Austro-Hungarian agriculture (esp. the mill industry) was treathening the French, also bigtime agrarian producers.
-the German economy was ruined, most of their industry came under French rule or was incorporated into France.
-instead of the Monarchy, the new face of Central Europe consisted of small nation states that really hated each other, with new multiethnic conglomerates, like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania. Some of these new states were strongly pro-France, others were more pro-German, but they were mortal enemies - they didn’t trust each other, they passed protectionist measure upon protectionsit measure. The result was much worse than what was before.
-The Cordon Sanitaire. Diplomats believed in something that was later called the “Domino Theory” - that communism spreads and a lot of buffer-states could halt it’s progress - an unified and communist Monarchy and a strong Germany would have been extremely dangerous if it suddenly became red (let’s not forget what just happened in Russia, Hungary, some German cities, etc…). Of course, ultimately this fragmentation meant that there was no way these countries could unite against Hitler - but that is another fun, fun, fun story! Ain’t history just beautiful?
Of course Hitler and the top Nazi idealogues had more on their agenda than just overturning Versailles, but emphasizing this issue was the principle factor is gaining support from their minions and the German people in their bid for power.
Whether the Treaty’s provsions were justified while the Germans’ perceptions of it were distorted is another matter. You might compare them to the Palestinians.