Did the Treaty of Versailles make WWII inevitable?

[Violet_Crumble]

If anyone's interested in the period between the wars, what do you think? I have to write a paper on this and so far I'm pretty convinced it didn't. Germany actually lost less territory than most of the other nations that supported it in the war, and the economic hardship that Germany suffered and which played a big part in the rise of the Nazis would have happened anyway with the worldwide depression. Plus, Germany's leaders told quite a few porkies to the German people about the terms of the Treaty to get them all fired up and feeling very hard done by, so even if the terms had been more reasonable, they still would have felt like victims. Anyway, if anyone knows of any good books on this that I can use, I'd really appreciate being steered in the right direction...

Cheers...

Violet...

[rogerashton]

1. Check this book:

"The Economic Consequences of the Peace," by John Maynard Keynes. Inveitable or not, it was predicable -- Keynes predicted it.

[On the Road]

2. One Interesting Source on the Treaty of Versailles

is Sigmund Freud's biography of Woodrow Wilson, which he co-wrote with a former US Asst. Secy of State who resigned over Wilson's handling of the treaty. Wilson was concerned that France and England not impose unduly harsh conditions on the Central powers, but was outmanuevered and failed. Freud (who was an Austrian and had an ax to grind) actually believed Wilson had a nervous breakdown at Versailles.

Another factor that made average Germans feel aggrieved is that in the economic crash after the war, many people lost their home which were then bought up by rich speculators. A communist leader would have used this to stir up class hatred of the capitalists. But since Hitler was anti-communist and many of the speculators were Jewish, he focused his supporters' hatred on the Jews.

Good luck with the paper. I don't have any sources -- I just know a couple of bits and pieces. You're probably correct that WWII was not inevitable. It might help as you discuss the reasons to outline an alternative set of policies that would have allowed Germany to prosper without war.

[WoodrowFan]

5. Freud's Book

Freud may not have actually had anything to do with the book other than loaning his name to it. Bullitt was about as reliable a source on Wilson as that FBI Agent who wrote his book "Full Access" (or whatever) is on Clinton or almost anything published by Coulter. Bullitt was a hater, period. No historian, even those who don't like Wilson, take his book seriously.

IMHO the treaty only made WWII inevitable because the German RW used it to do so. Germany got screwed over, but by far less than they screwed over France in 1871 and Russia in the short lived Brest-Litovsk Treaty, somehting the German's ignored. German reperations were actually less than what they forced France to pay after the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. I think the Allies biggest mistake was in trying to punish Germany as a whole, instead of laying the blame where it deserved to be, on the Kaiser and his political allies. Make the German RW responsible for the war alone and they would not have been able to ride resentment back into power. Making ALL the German people responsible just made the German population allies with the German RW....


BTW, I am a professional hsitorian whose speciality is this period. If you email me (use the little email link by my nick) I'll be happy to refer you to some good works on the subject.....

[LSatyl]

3. Hell Yes

Even worse, a better name for WWII would have been WWI - the return of the allies (Just as Gulf war II is an extension of Gulf War I). It is impossible to understand WWII without understanding WWI, the Franch-German war of 1870 and some other minor wars. Possibly the Napoleonic era is the true starying point for WWII.

IMHO the full truth will never be fully known, as the victors always write the history. But there are strong signals that the Germans were bullied into both WWI and WWII by the British, the French and to a lesser extent the Russians.

One thing is sure. Just as today's economic situation in the Middle-East gives rise to terrorism, the economic situation in Germany in the thirties created the breeding grounds upon which the Nazi's florished.

[HawkerHurricane]

4. Yes

The provisions of the treaty of Versaille and the way they were enforced in the 1920's would have put someone in power who promised revenge.

The lack of enforcement in the 1930's insured that the war would happen.

[sabbat hunter]

6. WWII

IMO, here is what caused WWII.

1) the large reparations that germany had to pay after WWI was one of the key factors in the rise of Nazism.
as a result of those reparations, the weimer republic printed money like it was going out of style. inflation was rampant. this helped the nazi cause who said they would make germany strong again and end the reparations.

2)failure of president wilson to get his 14 points included in the treaty of versaille.
3) failure of the US to ratify the treaty and making a seperate peace
4) failue of the US to enter the league of nation. without the newly powerful US in it, the league was greatly weakened.

5) the creation of the polish corridor. although this was meant to weaken germany, it ended up being a rallying point.

so in a way WWII was caused in part as a result of the aftermath of WWI. but there were other factors.

1) appeasement. the war may have been prevented if the allied powers from WWI stood up to hitler and didnt let him get away with annexing czechoslovakia, and austria. if britain and france had said no and threatened war against germany if he continued, hitler and germany at the time were not strong enough to resist and much bloodshed could have been avoided.
2)imperialism. japan wanted to expand its empire, as did italy. they ran into existing empires (britain and france) who controlled areas that italy and japan wanted.

hope this helps

peace
david
:hippie:

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Thanks everyone...

I'm going to hit the books this weekend and start on this paper. And Hippie. Thanks for mentioning appeasement because I think that was another factor that was important. Also while England and France were allies during the war, there were tensions between them afterwards and while France tried to force Germany to stick to the peace settlement, Britain would interpret it in the most lenient way possible. Britain didn't want any European vacuum left by a totally dismembered Germany to be filled by France...

Thanks again for the help...

Cheers...

Violet...

[Aidoneus]

8. I don't know about how much weight it had

obviously it had effect as propaganda--"proof" to Germans of some "foreign conspiracy" just as much as the paranoid ravings about Jews & Communists "proved" some "internal conspiracy"--, but I would say that the centuries-old pan-Germanist ideology and the general expansionist nature of European imperialism had more to do with it.

WWI had ended with the stalemate of most of the European imperialisms without completely destroying them all as an ideology, thus these arrogant tendencies were just left to simmer and wait for the next opportunity to expand outward. That the Germans were more prepared for this than the rest is obvious, but I think that had to do with some of fascisms admirers in the West hoped that this force would only be directed at the communists. :shrug:

[theboss]

9. I can't remember the title

There is actually a recent book that interested me about WWI. Basically, it hypothesizes that Germany was actually the "good guys" in WWI. I don't know if I agree with that completely but we do tend to view Germany through the prism of WWII, which obviously clouds everything.

The principle is basically that England had an empire, France had an empire, the Dutch had an empire, the Hungarians had an empire, Russia had an empire, and Germany wanted an empire. So when it set up to get one, the other powers flipped out. And when Germany ultimately surrendered, the terms of surrender were so punitive (especially for a military that was more "wore out" than "defeated") that a desire for revenge was inevitable.

Again, I don't think I agree with this theory completely, but it is worth noting the hypocrisy of Britain and France decrying German expansion at a time when they controlled much of the world.

[Fixated]

10. ....

Germany WAS the "good guy" of WWI. While they attacked first, it was really so they had the advantage in the war (Russia was still mobilizing its army, a sign that they were going to invade, so German leaders thought that they could take out France quickly and then move their forces into Russia. It didn't work out, as the Western Front in France became a big problem). Germany would have won the war had Bismarck never been fired. His Realpolitik was brilliant, and Wilhelm (was it Wilhelm?) lost the alliance with Russia, which led to Russia's alliance with France, the military build-up, the war, Versailles, WWII...

[Postman]

11. Book- "Trading With The Enemy"

author- Charles Higham.

*American capitalists invested heavily in Nazi Germany (Henry Ford, John Rockefeller)
*Corporations love fascism (nonexistant or weak labor unions)
*A fascist Germany acted as a buffer against communism which American capitalists feared spreading to this continent.
*After Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on the US first. Had Hitler not done that, Roosevelt would have been in a pickle as to what to do about fascist Germany.
*You have to remember that Roosevelt was seen by the right-wing corporate types in this country as a threat to their ideology. In fact a coup was plotted by the right-wing to overthrow Roosevelt in the early 1930's....see a book titled "The Plot To Seize The White House"

more references.....The Nation Magazine, Jan 24, 2000 edition - Ford and the Fuhrer

[Jackie97]

12. That treaty was definitely trouble.

It was the world's way of putting all of the blame and consequences onto Germany, and it was too much for them to handle financially and socially. If Wilson from the U.S. had been successful in his "fourteen points", which included making Germany a part of the League of Nations, then this may have eased the blow. He didn't have all of the power though, so this didn't happen. Hell, when Germany didn't pay certain reparations, they got invaded by Belgium, France, and Britain. They couldn't defend themselves because they had been forced to reduce their army size. Furthermore, Germany was not even asked to Versailles to begin with. I don't know if all of that made WWII inevitable though. Lots of things brought that on. Before I go on, I want to say that I think that the United States was a far more humane country than the European ones were; especially since they didn't to be a part of their war to begin with. What happened to the U.S. since then? Okay, that's a different topic.

I hope I'm not too late. I don't have much anyway. I don't have a particular book in mind.

Here's one link.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/modern/versaill/versahtm.htm#q1

Go to the part where it asks what Germany thought of the treaty. It has a few interesting details that some people don't know (Such as the fact that the Germans thought that they were the ones who were struck to begin with when they were not, and therefore didn't think think that they should pay).

From the Columbia Encylopedia.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ve/VersaillTr.html

"The outstanding figures in the negotiations leading to the treaty were Woodrow Wilson for the United States, Georges Clemenceau for France, David Lloyd George for England, and Vittorio Emanuele Orlando for Italy—the so-called Big Four. Germany, as the defeated power, was not included in the consultation. Among the chief causes of Allied dissension was Wilson’s refusal to recognize the secret agreements reached by the Allies in the course of the war; Italy’s refusal to forgo the territorial gains promised (1915) by the secret Treaty of London; and French insistence on the harsh treatment of Germany. Wilson’s Fourteen Points were, to a large extent, sacrificed, but his main objectives, the creation of states based on the principle of national self-determination and the formation of the League of Nations, were embodied in the treaty. However, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, and the United States merely declared the war with Germany at an end in 1921."

And here's a good one in my opinion.

http://www.johndclare.net/peace_treaties8.htm

If I were you, I probably would say that Versailles made the war inevitable. The truth is that the rest of Europe got off on a bullying kick. That's just my opinion though.

[LoneStarLiberal]

13. Four Contemporary Citations I Recommend

Ecksteins (1990). "Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age." Reprint. Anchor Books.

Modris Ecksteins' (certainly not a name that is forgettable!) cultural and social history is more of a set-up to World War I, but it is one of the defining pieces of this approach to history that you will ever read. This will frame the environment of Versailles in a way that most other books will miss.

Ferguson (2000). "The Pity of War: Explaining World War I." Basic Books.

While this is most pre-dating your topic, Ferguson is a masterful writer and historian. His bibliography and last couple of chapters should provide you with interesting material.

Fussell (2000). "The Great War and Modern Memory." Reprint. Oxford University Press.

Paul Fussell's context of the Great War's literature is a valuable grounding that can help get you into the mindset of the participants at Versailles.

Macmillan and Holbrooke (2002). "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed The World." Random House.

This one is both recent and very topical to your research. Very well-done, but if nothing else the bibliography should give you many interesting leads.

[happyslug]

14. other factors.

FIRST FACTOR:

One of the factors often forgotten is that world trade peaked in 1913 and did not return to that level till the early 1950s. Thus you may be putting the horse before the cart, i.e. the Treaty did not make WWII inevitable, the fact that WWI was fought in the first place made WWII inevitable.

Thus what caused WWI? The more I study the period of insanity prior to WWI the more I lean to the Communist interpretation of the period. I have NOT found a better reasons for what was happening during the pre-WWI era. I have not fully embraced the Communist interpretation, but how else can you explain the insane actions of the leaders of the European powers prior to WWI? You may want to avoid this subject in your paper (for it is NOT popular).

The Communist view of what Caused WWI which was that the international Markets were closed up and profits were in decline and that the Capitalist leaders had to go to War to keep up profits. The only way to increase profits was to steal from your neighbors and that meant war between the Capitalist powers.

I do not subscribe to the theory but in many ways it described the "Insanity" of the pre-WWI period i.e. why did Germany build a navy? A Navy with short range battleships (i.e. could go to England without refueling but not to Germany's Colonies without refueling). All this did was made the British insecure. It gain Germany nothing. Why did the British insist on its navy being as large as the next two navies when it had Good Relations with the US (The Third Largest Navy) and France (the Fourth largest navy) and if Britain played its cards right with the Second Largest navy (Germany)? Why did Britain NOT try to stop the movement to war?

France had build up its Army prior to WWI, and wanted a re-match with Germany. The question is why? To regain Alsace-Lorraine (A GERMAN Speaking area of Europe)? To protect the Serbs from Austria Dominance? Why? Austria was the weakest power in Europe (with the possible exception of Turkey). During WWI the Austrians could not defeat the Serbs (It took German intervention and even than the Serbs held their own). Military supplies would have suffice, why go to war over Serbia?

An aside, I once read a Spoof of Geography written in the inner war years and it pointed out the Cause of WWI was Pigs, the Serbs only export of worth was pigs, but the nearest port is Trieste near the Italian Border. Thus the Serbs went to war to gain a port to export pigs. The only problem when Yugoslavia was formed, Trieste was given to Italy... It was one of the better reason I have heard for the cause of WWI.

Italy's double dealing i.e. allied with Austria and Germany prior to WWI than turning against Austria in 1915 over a SLAVIC dominated part of the Alps? Also why did Austria want to keep it?

Do not worry the US is not out of this insanity by much, but we were more interested in South America and Asia than Europe. Thus our build up of military might was more a threat to Japan than any European Power in the WWI Period. One of the reason for the Raise of Japanese Right wing was to "prepare" Japan for its upcoming war with the USA.

SECOND FACTOR:

Now the above explains WWI but WWII could also have been avoid except for the great fear of Communism that existed from 1900 to the 1950s. This fear lead to McCarthyism in the US and the raise of the Nazis in Germany. Furthermore this fear of Communism affected HOW the allies where going to enforce the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty on Germany.

At the end of WWI the Allies wanted Germany to weak to fight another war, but strong enough to put down any Communist Revolution (Thus the Allies tolerance of the FreiKorps, whose existence were illegal under the Treaty, but needed to put down the Communist Revolt).

Thus from the start you had a conflict within the Allies as to Germany. The Allies wanted Germany to be strong i.e. to defeat the Communists but also had to be weak (so not to invade France). While this was what the Allies wanted, it was NOT want the German Army wanted nor the desire of the German political leadership. Thus from day one Germany was double dealing, for example while the rest of Europe was isolating the USSR, the Germans were sending troops to train in the USSR.

Second you had Russia. It had turned Communist (Germany also almost went Communist in the 1919-1921 Period). The Western Powers wanted the Communist defeated but dare not use their own troops. Discord within the Allied Troops that were sent to Russia was huge, even to the extent of Mutinies and active co-operation between some of the troops and the Communist (against the wished of the Troops officers. This discord was the main reason the Allies pulled out of Russia during the Russian Civil War).

Now Poland was going to be the front line against the Communist, but no one thought the Poles could do the job alone. Thus Germany was seen as a way to balance the power of the Communists. The inner-war anti-Communist movement is often underestimated in the raise of Hitler. Anti-Communism was more of a factor in the raise of Hitler than the Treaty of Versailles. Germany and Hitler was going to defeat the Communists. Many groups supported Hitler for his Anti-Communism (including the Pope). Thus Anti-Communism was more important to the raise of Hitler than the Treaty of Versailles.