I read an interesting essay on the Big Four and the Paris peace talks after WWI, and got to thinking about how things would have been different if Germany and their allies had not been forced into such a horrible settlement by threat of starvation via blockade. I knew that the reparations that German paid led to WWII, but was not aware of how unfairly they and the Ottoman Empire were treated. Wilson wanted to take it easy on them (Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ said ‘Either coddle or crush your enemy.’) but pressure from the French and Italians forced him to trick the Germans into a far worse deal than they thought they were getting.
A Europe that never underwent the massive restructuring that followed WWI would be a far different place, and Hitler probably never would have risen to power. Even minor differences in the settlement would have a huge impact - had Italy gotten more of what they had wanted from the settlement, the rise of Mussolini would probably have never happened, and Italy certainly would not have ended up allied with Germany later. And if America had never gotten involved in the war, Germany could have won, or at least reached a stalemate.
I think WWI is far more important historically than WWII - most of the nations involved in WWII were still intact afterwards - it did not have nearly the same effect on the political landscape as WWI.
I’ve heard very good arguments that there was really only one World War; what we consider World War II was really just a continuation of that conflict after a twenty-year Cold War.
I’m not sure that World War I changed the face of the 20th Century much more than World War II; the rise of anti-imperalism and of Communism can be directly traced back to roots in World War II. I suppose it depends upon what alternatives you posit for how World War I ended. A quick, decisive defeat of France by Germany in late 1914, and likely no (or at least a vastly postponed) Soviet Union, and no Hitler, but quite possibly a fascist ‘revanchement’ movement in France akin to the Nazi movement in Germany. A more favorable peace treaty to Germany in 1918 may not have stopped Hitler from his rise to power; dreams of German glory deferred and the effects of the Great Depression may have played into his hands as much as historical disgust for the Treaty of Versailles.
I heard the Great Depression came about, at least in part, because of the German depression that was caused by the unreasonable war reparations. You can’t totally destroy the economy of a major world power without depressing the global economy.
Actually, IIRC, by the time of the Great Depression, the German economy was in great shape. The war debt had been reshuffled and cut down several times to help keep Germany from falling apart (most notably with the Dawes plan of '24), and the hyperinflation mess had already been well dealt with.
What really caused the Great Depression was years of tariff wars, years of overproduction, and years of exuberant-bordering-on-hysterical investment in a stock market that was not only no longer tied to real goods, but wasn’t even tied to real money. German war debts were only, at best, a minor part of the matter.
Just double-checked on brittanica.com, and found that the Great Depression was caused, in some way by war debts, but not in the way you’d think; Germany and Britain’s economies both depended upon American investment, productions, and loans (for Britain, old war loans; for Germany, loans to help pay reparations). When the American economy hit the toilet in '29, the German and British economies were pulled down as well due to a lack of incoming funds from America.
So while war debts helped turn an American depression into a world-wide depression, German war debts and industry had nothing to do with the initial American depression.
I think WWII changed the political landscape FAR more than did WWI. Think about it - at the beginning of the war, Europe was dominant - The British Empire still existed, Germany was a large power… The U.S. military was ranked something like 13th in size, behind Romania.
At the end of the war, Europe was devastated, the U.S. was the predominant military force in the world, Britain was on its way to giving up all colonial power, Germany no longer existed as a military power, and the Soviet Union had risen up to be the second most powerful nation on Earth. It was a huge shift in the political landscape.
I think WWII changed the political landscape FAR more than did WWI. Think about it - at the beginning of the war, Europe was dominant - The British Empire still existed, Germany was a large power… The U.S. military was ranked something like 13th in size, behind Romania.
At the end of the war, Europe was devastated, the U.S. was the predominant military force in the world, Britain was on its way to giving up all colonial power, Germany no longer existed as a military power, and the Soviet Union had risen up to be the second most powerful nation on Earth. It was a huge shift in the political landscape.
Actually, Europe was torn to shreds during WWI, the monarchy systerm fell in Germany, Russia, Austria-which split with the dual kingdom of Austria-Hungary-Germany was torn up, everyone was bitter and NOTHING was solved.
While that may seem like a good thing, it’s not. By the time the debts were forgiven, they had become a large part of the worldwide economy.
And what caused it?
And what was it tied to?
I think that they had an very large indirect effect. All the money that was owed to France and Britain became new assets for them. France and Britain then used this as backing to pay their to the US. Now the US had a bunch of money, creating an economic boom, and fueling a rush to invest in the economy. This was funded,directly or indirectly, by German debts. When Germany defaulted on their debts, the world economy kept on going on its momentum at first, but eventually the worthlessness of money became apparent, and there was a worldwide crash.
The tariff war? American politicians looking to protect American jobs from the ‘threat’ of overseas competition, and being vainly provincial in not believing- or not caring- that reciprocal tariff raises by other countries would have a harsh effect on American business.
The overproduction? Inability to sell goods overseas due to outrageous tariffs, combined with a real depression that had gripped the lower class since the mid-20’s and cut at-home demand as well. A vicious cycle where businesses couldn’t sell their goods, let people go to cut costs, then found even less people available to buy goods because so many people were out of work.
Bordering-on-hysterical investment? A continuous regular rise in the stock market drew enough popular attention that regular people could invest; seeing this huge, untapped market available, investment firms did whatever it took to attract stock market investors, and in the end were allowing people to invest on 10% spec. As more and more investors jumped in, they drove stock prices up, which attracted more investors, who jumped in at 10% spec and drove prices up, which attracted more investors, etc., etc. By the day of the crash, stock prices were vastly inflated and there was little real money backing it up.
Spec and hype.
You’re confusing private monies with public monies. The war loans were loans made by the government, and when those moneys were repaid (and in most cases they weren’t- struggling to get Europe to repay some of the debts they owed America was a major diplomatic pastime in the '20’s) they were repaid to the government. The government did not invest that money in the economy; remember, we’re in the pre-Galbraith, laissez-faire '20’s.