I see this meme a lot. Could you back that up, both that the Saar occupation cause the economic ruin of Germany (if that is true someone will have to explain me something. Did the Nazis completely cease to pay war reparations, and if not how did the Nazis manage to build such a powerful state when the Weimar Republic apparently couldnt tie its shoes together) and that the French government did that just out of spite. Thanks.
Perhaps some history about the Saar region would be helpful?
It was highly industrialized and that industry plus the resources (such as coal) in the retion were awarded to France. That’s why it crippled Germany and impacted their efforts to pay the reparations.
Why didn’t it impact the Nazis as much?
Also, during this period Germany slowly stopped paying the huge reparations, and slowly Hitler et al started to take back some of the territories Germany had ceded (such as this one), and the allies allowed this to happen until Germany pushed too far and kicked off WWI, phase II.
-XT
Some history about the impact of German aggression in WWI on French industry:
“France suffered heavy damage in the war. In addition to losing more casualties relative to its population than any other great power, the industrial north-east of the country had been devastated by the war. The provinces overrun by Germany had produced 40% of the nation’s coal and 58% of its steel output.[90] Once it was clear that Germany was going to be defeated, Ludendorff had ordered the destruction of the mines in France and Belgium.[91] His goal was to cripple the industries of Germany’s main European rival.”
Germany’s penalty at Versailles is not attributable to random meanness on the part of the Allies. Its aggression and scorched-earth tactics in France earned it ample payback.
It isn’t really a case of sow the wind, reap the whirlwind…but sow the wind, reap a stiff breeze.
The delusion among Germans that they should be allowed to come out of the war relatively unscathed was a continuation of the delusions that prevented a peace treaty long before Versailles (the Germans thought they should be able to keep at least a portion of the territory they’d conquered in return for an armistice, the Allies wanted a complete withdrawal and payments for all the damage the Germans had caused).
Considering the harshness of [Treaty of Brest-Litovsk](Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) which the Germans imposed on the Soviet Union, it should’ve been expected.
This needs repeating about a thousand times. Everytime this subject comes up on this board the idea that the Treaty of Versailles was overly exploitative on the part of the British and French is broached, usually by Americans. Large swathes of northern France and the low countries were turned into what looked like the surface of the moon. 20,000 British soldiers died on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, with another 50,000 severely injured. In many cases, whole generations of males from villages and towns were wiped out fighting German aggression. And yes, before people quibble with the term “German aggression”, World War One was entirely the fault of the Germans. They’d been pushing for a world war since the start of the twentieth century to improve their position in Europe, saw what was happening in the Balkans and made sure they made the most of it. (I produced the cites in the last thread we had on this subject about uncovered secret memos by the Germans pushing for a war, and secret agreements from the very start of the twentieth century about initiating a world war. I can’t be bothered finding them again.)
Germany got what it deserved.
I guess it boils down to whether you place all the blame for WWI on Germany’s head or whether you can see it as a complex situation where everyone was basically to blame to one extent or another. The fact that much more of the fighting was done on French soil was responsible for the destruction in France…had it been fought in Germany then much the same would have happened there.
It’s not like even without the harsh reparation that Germany was going to get off scot free from the war. From your cite:
You are right the the Germans destroyed quite a bit in France deliberately, and certainly (since they lost) they were going to have to pay reparations for that alone, but Germany was on the verge of total systemic collapse at the end, and taking away those territories AND imposing huge reparations on them lead to conflict down the line.
To me, a better question to the OP was…what did the allies expect to happen? Did they think to crush Germany once and for all under the weight of their demands?
-XT
The occupation of the Saar hurt, but it was the occupation of the Ruhr that was devastating. Hyperinflation was already underway by 1923, and the increasing worthlessness of the mark and the inability of Germany to borrow was probably the main reason France began the occupation. The French were more than willing to take their payments in raw materials. But this was totally counterproductive, as hyperinflation skyrocketed and peaked in late 1923 (and I do mean skyrocketed; prices had inflated nearly 3,000x prewar prices, but once the Ruhr was occupied prices inflated by a factor of over 450 million(!) ).
Some British and French commentators tried to claim that the Germans cranked up the printing press to purposely debase their own currency. This claim was nonsense because the reparations payments had to be made in gold or foreign currency, not in marks. It was the loss of productive capacity (Zimbabwe’s plummeting agricultural productivity was the main driver of their hyperinflation), coupled with punishing reparations, that forced Germany’s hand.
Yes, and why was the fighting taking place in France? Because Germany invaded France when they had no such obligation under any standing treaty to do so. Further, they invaded France through the low countries, dragging them, and ultimately the British empire into the fray. German aggression and recklessness was entirely the cause of the destruction of French industry.
[QUOTE=Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party]
Yes, and why was the fighting taking place in France? Because Germany invaded France when they had no such obligation under any standing treaty to do so. Further, they invaded France through the low countries, dragging them, and ultimately the British empire into the fray. German aggression and recklessness was entirely the cause of the destruction of French industry.
[/QUOTE]
Russia was mobilizing (against the AH empire initially) and calling on France to mobilize as well. Seeing this happening (I don’t believe that Germany thought Russia WOULD mobilize, and initially they didn’t, but then decided to support Serbia after all), pre-war plans dictated that if Germany went to war with Russia that it would have to go to war with France as well, and have to fight them first and then turn on the Russians. So, they declared war on Russia and then 2 days later on France. Again, pre-war plans dictated how things progressed from there (Schlieffen Plan).
It was a total cluster fuck. Germany gave the famous ‘blank check’ to the AH in how they dealt with the problem (i.e. Germany would back the AH however they wanted to play things out). The Russians were mobilizing. They were calling on France to mobilize as well (though I haven’t seen much indication that the French actually WERE mobilizing…though no idea if the Germans knew this or not). The Germans pre-war plans stated clearly that a war with Russia would be a war with Russia and France by default, since France had mutual protection treaties with Russia. When Russia started mobilizing (in response to what AH was doing), this triggered the German response.
That response and implementation of their pre-war plans to invade through Belgium (which the Germans felt was the quickest way to take France out as a threat and so they could focus on Russia, who they saw as the greater threat…and they actually asked Belgium to allow their army to pass through peacefully, and expected Belgium to comply…which they refused) triggered a British response and brought them into the war (something the Kaiser definitely did NOT want and was not counting on).
Basically, though, all of the European powers had been building up to this war for decades and were primed for it. The French people initially cheered the war (as did the German people and even the folks in Britain). Everyone initially wanted this showdown, so it was only a matter of time before it was set off. Everyone thought they could win quickly and easily and carve up Europe the way they wanted, and gain power on the continent. Saying this was all Germany’s fault is to ignore all of the underlying tensions and motivations, all of the fuckups that happened and miscalculations by all sides or how the various alliances made events like a set of falling dominoes…inevitable once the first few started to fall.
The only really unforeseen aspect to WWI (besides the fact that the technology of the day pretty much precluded a quick and easy victory by anyone, and pretty much ensured a huge grinding slaughter that would take everyone down) was the US getting involved directly.
-XT
Amen. My only disagreement is that Germany got off light.
The peace it imposed on the Russians - The Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
25% of Russia’s population, 25% of its industry, and 90% of its coal mines.
Germany probably should have been broken up into its constituent states, with Prussia further divided.
Germany also expected to be at least included in the discussions the same way that vanquished France had been following the end of the Napoleonic Wars. At the Congress of Vienna France played a major role, despite being the clear cut aggressor. Germany initially expected the same. Instead they were essentially presented with a list of demands.
That’s interesting.
Austria and the Sudetenland, while ethnically German, had not been German territory - they were part of Austria-Hungary. So in 1918, Germany still thought it had a reasonable chance of gaining territory.
It appears then that German unhappiness over the settlement was caused by highly unrealistic expectations.
The Germans were thinking, “At least we took down the Tsar. Those f**king Russians will never bother us again.”
My point was that if Germany had been at the negotiating table, they probably would have reached about the same terms that were dictated to them. They got better terms than France got at Vienna.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Austria and the Sudetenland, while ethnically German, had not been German territory - they were part of Austria-Hungary. So in 1918, Germany still thought it had a reasonable chance of gaining territory.
[/QUOTE]
No, they called for plebiscites so that the people there could self determine what they wanted to do. That’s not the same thing at all.
-XT
Wouldn’t it be fairer to say “the Russian Empire” instead of “Russia”, as the territory stripped away was essentially Ukraine, Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states? It’s hard for me to feel too bad for them.
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then!
- Tom Lehrer
The way Paul Johnson told the story in Modern Times (from memory, I’ll look at it when I get home), the German people (as opposed to leaders) were shocked by the terms because they actually thought they were winning the war right up to the end. In the East, particularly, they seemed to have achieved total victory and total success, with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk expanding Germany’s territory – and now they had to give it all back! They also believed all the war-guilt was on the Allied side. They believed all this because the German Empire in 1914 was “the most militarized society in Europe,” and access to dissenting viewpoints was very limited. All of which made the stab-in-the-back legend that much easier for the people to swallow, later on.
Nations generally only call for plebiscites when they know they’ll win them. There were plebiscites in North Schleswig and the corridor.
Well it was hardly the Germans coming in as democratic liberators. I’m not asking you to feel sorry for the Russians. Just not to feel sorry for the Germans when at the end of a war they started, they were treated more mildly than they showed they would have treated the nations they attacked.