Treaty of Versailles

the very idea of a punitive treaty is retarded if your goal is to stop war.

>>3042651
This plus we like cheap champagne over here.

>>3042645
It was a case of being too in the middle. If they had just taken all their heavy industrial equipment, annexed everything west of the Rhine, broke up the German government and created a bunch of kingdoms and duchies in the Empires place, things like that, it may have crippled the Germans enough to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening.

In World Order Kissinger points out that the liberal internationalism it espoused undermined the balance of power that treaty should have strived to recreate.

It did the opposite of the Congress of Vienna, totally destroying the balance of power while trumpeting internationalist ideals that made explicit balance of power arrangements untenable.

>>3042683
>if we completely destroy the country then everyone will forget about the strong nationalist sentiment

Sounds like a recipe for disaster desu

>>3042651
The Entente was a joke, they rejected dozens of peace proposals from the axis because in their eyes they weren't getting enough shekels in exchange. Their goal was to win, not to stop the war.

>>3042645
Compared to Brest-Litovsk or Trianon it was rather soft.

>>3042715
>axis
>ww1

>>3042683
This.

If the allies had settled for status quo antebellum after the 1918 German revolution, no WW2.

If the allies had decided to just not stop their troops push eastward, and not accept anything other than unconditional surrender, no WW2.

Never do things in half measures.

>>3042715
>The Entente was a joke, they rejected dozens of peace proposals from the axis
>Entente
>Axis

Yeah it's like Dawes plan never even existed. Germany should've been balkanized after WW1.
>>3042715
>axis
>ww1
And this is the type of people that claims Versaiiles was harsh.

>>3042645

they posture and stance of those guys on the tables and sofas is just astounding

>>3042734
>>3042740
>>3042750
Everyone calls The Entente "The Allies" and nobody spergs out about that.

>>3042645
Weakening Germany would have meant opening the gates for Mother Russia. The world war would have happened anyways, because it was mainly about western Europe defending itself from Russia. In our timeline that "western Europe" was a totalitarian Nazi Regime, but that doesn't really matter because a free and democratic Europe would have face the same threat and the World War would have happened anyways, just maybe not as cruel.

>>3042762
Nope, it's just you who's the retard.

>>3042762
>Everyone
[citation needed].

>>3042762
It's always Triple Entente vs Central Powers in context of WW1. Stop making shit up.

>>3042762
That's because they were actually known as the Allied Powers in WWI. The Axis was a WWIIism

File: -Onward_to_Victory-,_World_War_I_Allied_propaganda_postcard.jpg (108KB, 540x340px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 540x340px

>>3042762

>>3042773
>Weakening Germany would have meant opening the gates for Mother Russia.

Akshually Nazi Germany did opened the gates for Mother Russia. In this timeline Soviet behaviour would deviate too far from historical since stronker Poland and no Rapallo.

it had the effect of providing fuel to resentment in the public, that's well accepted

>>3042645
No, they had it coming after the Franco-Prussian war. Start shit get hit.

File: ff.jpg (6KB, 237x213px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 237x213px

>>3042798
>Servia

>>3042715
>axis
>WWI
Learn some history, dumbass

File: 1469428262214.jpg (19KB, 480x405px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x405px

>>3042798
>Naval Jack for Russia
>Jap sun in centre

>>3042715
Autistic turbo nationalism doesn't mean anything if you don't have the equipment to build a first rate military or the proper unified leadership to use it properly.

>>3042808
dont forget first world war was also mainly about Russia wanting to extend its sphere of influence into the west. there is no timeline where they wouldnt try to do that. without Nazis western europe would have not tried to expand into the east, but they would still have to deal with Russia expanding west. prior to ww1 germany and austria-hungary werent expanding nowhere, they were fending off russia.

>>3042780
>>3042781
>>3042788

See >>3042796
>>3042798

>>3042808
This.
One of basic reasons for the normalization of relations between USSR and the West was exactly because of Nazis breaking treaties left and right in the 30s.

>USA forms diplomatic relations with USSR
>Italians form a pact with USSR
>France forms a pact of mutual cooperation with USSR
All because of Germany.

Had Germany stayed "nornal" USSR would've been treated as it was in the 20s, a rogue isolated pariah state.

>>3042849
>prior to ww1 germany and austria-hungary werent expanding nowhere, they were fending off russia.
Absolutely wrong.

>what is Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia
>what is German dickwaving in Morroco and Tangiers
>what is Germany building Baghdad railway
WW1 was triggered by Austria looking to expand east towards Serbia ffs.

>>3042849
>dont forget first world war was also mainly about Russia wanting to extend its sphere of influence into the west
So...the Great war was actually ended with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

>>3042853
So in other words the Red Alert timeline.

It wasn't harsh at all. Trianon was harsh.

They wanted revenge from day one of the end of the war, and this treaty was a victory for them.

>>3042871
that was all reactions to russia pushing westwards. dont forget western europe didnt mind ottoman empire it was the russians who wanted ottoman clay and supported the orthodox peoples in their uprising against ottoman rule.

>>3042875
well the french and the english feared the germany as much as they feared the russians. so in a timeline where germany is under control the role of primarily aggressor towards the west would go to russia. as it btw did after ww2, just that now the US as the sole nuclear power declared that western europe is under its protection and therefore untouchable for russia.

>>3042917
>as it btw did after ww2

Or after the Great War itself?

They didn't get their priorities straight. Their goal was to neutralize German while not pissing it off.

the new republic vastly reduces the power of central government in favor of regional sized governments (eg. bavaria, rhineland, lower saxony)

no loss of prewar territory besides Alsace and Lorraine, the Polish area will be granted its own autonomous region

occupation on paper only, French troops are allowed to move through Germany to put pressure on dissenting governments but law enforcement is left to regional governments

only small token reparations payments and an annual visit to French war memorials by leading German politicians (and vice versa)

the 30 year promise, after 30 years the treaty is void and the regions vote whether they want to restore power to a central government or secede, if the German Empire wants to stay together it must work to be nice to the Poles

>>3042954
>30 year promise
What is this 30 year promise? After 30 years all the limits on Germany including the ban on subs and airplanes go away?

>>3042954
>being soft to germans
That's exactly why we had ww2.
>Germany tanks the deutdchmark even more
>eyy Nice anglos pls help against mean treaty
>anglos do because temhey dont want to lose an entire country's market
>germans use This several times until they're better off thanks to loans etc than the french
>throw a fit when the french actually try to force the germans to pay reparations
>the rest is 6 years of war and dozens of millions of deaths
Hey, at least the germans didnt get too oppressed after ww1!

>>3042645
I think it being too harsh is an overstatement. I think that if they actually enforced it in the late 30s the war could have been prevented

File: 170515122325-01-macron-merkel-0515-exlarge-169[1].jpg (71KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 780x438px

In the words of French historian and member of 'l'Académie française',
>"The Versailles treaty was too harsh where it needed to be soft, and too soft where it needed to be harsh".

Germans were horrified by the many ways in which they thought the treaty slandered them, with many despising that it bequeathed the brunt of the blame for the war on them through the guilt clause. Adding to that was that they were sequestrated from the treaty negotiations, which was not something they found befitting of Germany's place in the world, and especially of their struggle, since they believed Entente victory was something that had been wrestled from them only by a stroke of luck.

However, Germany remained one of the strongest countries in Europe, whatever the treaty might've afflicted on them. A territory unharmed by war, wiped only of ethnic minorities and some German lands, and a strong government wielding power in Berlin, what was inherited by them from the war. The reparations owed to the Entente were daunting for the government to even process, but they were something the Allies could've not have gone without since the French population would've broken out in revolt were Germans not admnistered the same treatment Bismarck had conjured on them in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war when he inaugurated the trend of reparations. That said, the reparations shouldn't be exagerrated, and it should be telling that the German government thought it might be able to pay it back in haste... arguably too much haste since they threw away any worth their currency had by trying to quickly buy foreign currency (the Entente only accepted that the reparations be payed in Francs, pounds or dollars).

>>3043097
Germans even worsened things for themselves when they started down the path of trying to fight treaty conditions by opposing the French occupation of the Rhur, when they couldn't pay what was due of the yearly reparations, and supported German workers in their strike (and historians say that from that point on, the hyperinflation was inevitable).

People should've probably be reminded that things would've been a lot worse for Germany had Britain and the US not dulled the demands called for by the French. As much as we try to depict Germany as "the mone bullied loser" following WWI, they were actually shouldered in a lot of things by Britain. Britain, not having foreseen that Russia would collapse during the war, hadn't processed that a defeat of Germany might leave France as sole power in Europe, which had been their entire ambition for defeating Germany. A lot of the inter-war period is actually them working to build Germany into something that might challenge France again (campaigning for Germany to be brought into the LoN, Naval agreement pact for Germany to build ships, lenience at Munich, intolerance of France seeking out the USSR as a defensive ally).

Essentailly, Germany, who were not even that wounded by the war (biggest population in Europe, strong industrial regions still under them, reparations that were a burden but not a handicap either), were left insulted, but with means to do something about it, and were helped to their feet by the British and Americans too with the Dawes plan and British approval of a stonger Germany.

Of course, that individuals like Luddendorff and Hitler would dispel the myth that Germany had merely been stabbed in the back would have people cuddle up to the idea of revenge more easily. And the Wall street crash, which would bring Germany to even worse conditions than in 1919, would stir up wanting to blame Versailles for everything.

>>3042645

It wasn't harsh enough.

File: 13230-004-4616F700[1].jpg (15KB, 232x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 232x300px

>>3043102
tl;dr: I have no idea where I'm going with this anymore. this started off as a rant to blame the brits for WWII, but hopefully it looks and sounds a bit smarter on the whole

Also, forgot to write it out but the guy I'm quoting is Jacques Bainville.

>>3042645
Its remarkable how they can stand on top of sofa and table while still looking very civilised

Even many Germans considered Versailles fair. Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf how at the beginning of his careers in rallies and disputes where he made speaches against the Versailles treaties many attendants disagreening with him would chant "Brest-Litovsk". Funny how many sober Germans at that time.

>>3042750
>Germany should've been balkanized
By balkanizing two major world powers all you've done is open up the door for expansionists to try and break through central europe, and i can't imagine the soviets would be too displeased at having 25 different nations comparable to estonia, especially with a reluctant to intervene America.

>>3043073
Good thing you're just an armchair politician.

File: 1462750300658.jpg (88KB, 853x480px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 853x480px

>Oh Germany! hearing the speeches that ring from your house, one laughs;
>But whoever sees you, reaches for his knife.

>>3042715
"Dozens of peace proposals"?
Name one peace proposal Germany made before its military situation had become obviously hopeless that didn't demand something from the Entente.

File: guriev fig3 9 oct.png (14KB, 596x333px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 596x333px

>>3042853
>One of basic reasons for the normalization of relations between USSR and the West was exactly because of Nazis breaking treaties left and right in the 30s.

Actually it was the Great Depression that caused non-Communist countries to change their tune and open trade relations with the U.S.S.R. which lead to political relations, long before the Nazis started causing trouble.

This kept the U.S.S.R. from collapsing prior to WWII and allowed them to build a huge military, that they swore they wouldn't use to invade Europe....

>>3042750
>>3043252
I think a better term would be "re-balkanized" or made into a confederacy of different states.

as germany was pre-1870 (so within living memoryat the time )

>>3042736
the problem with doing this was that the allies had exhausted themselves (aside from the US) in the previous 4 years, and the french army was growing increasingly unstable and restless.

I don't think they had it in them to push eastward, maybe if they'd been smarter something like that could've happened in 1916 or early 1917 but not 1918,

>>3042645
It's not whether it's harsh or lenient. It's whether it's enforced or not.

>>3042687

Quick, how many times have the great powers gone to war with each other since the end of World War II?

File: 1495494792569.gif (2MB, 300x196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x196px

>>3042844
yeah man, there's no way a bunch of hate filled revenge obsessed guys with crappy equipment could ever stand up to a REAL military

>>3044150
do proxy wars not count?

Whether France like it or not, Germany was still destined to be the center of power in Europe, just because of it's unique geographical location. Naturally, their geopolitical limitations dictate them to secure or take surrounding countries into their partners or spheres of influence.

Meanwhile, Russia is the other way around. Russia succeeding their geopolitical ambitions would render European exceptionalism moot (and stronger Russian exceptionalism), as their interest is to form security and partners with countries all around "Eurasia".

>>3042822

The IJA flag does in fact have the rising sun centered. On the IJN flag, the sun is offset slightly to the left (or right, depending on what direction you're looking).

>>3042645
Not harsh enough, greater Prussia should have been completely dismantled, and all of the dutechland should have been divided

>>3042645

Of course it was stupid. Which is why Wilson attempted to at least ensure Germany could be policed through an international coalition, the Loge of Nations. Had he not had a stroke we would have joined it and given them teeth.

This didn't happen and the rest was history.

File: Guilt clause.png (85KB, 952x586px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 952x586px

>>3043097
there was no guilt clause.

File: treary of versailles.png (122KB, 933x900px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 933x900px

>>3042645
Treaty was a bit too soft, it should have followed other treaties were they were population exchanges like between greece and turkey. Something like moving germans out of east prussia to remove that exclave and maybe removing some poles in germany's eastern border to east Prussia.

File: poland ethics in 1931.jpg (76KB, 668x900px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 668x900px

>>3044508

>>3043889

Lmao what?

Great depression causing normalized relations with Russia because of trade?

The Soviets had a literal fucking famine in 31-33, the worst years of the depression.

German militarism is the direct cause of the French-Soviet alliance.

>>3042645
I've never understood the claims that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh. Lucky for history enthusiasts, unlucky for Europe: the Germans were aggressors in two World Wars. So if we want to see if the allegedly harsh Treaty of Versailles prevented lasting peace in Europe, we can compare it to the treatment towards Germany after WWII.
Was the treatment of Germany after WWII more effective in preventing future aggression? Yes it was.
Was the treatment of Germany after WWII harsher than the treatment after WWI?
Well Germany lost even more territory (ignoring colonies), was divided into four occupation zones for a decade, divided into two seperate countries for another four decades, the countries entire leadership was removed and the population was completely humiliated, so yes the treatment of Germany after WWII was harsher than after WWI.
Ignoring the feasibility of imposing similarly harsh conditions after WWI, we can see that the claims that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh is just pure bullshit.

>>3042645
>Germany lost little land and what it did lose was mostly ethnically Polish
>Germany's industry was basically untouched by the war while they ravaged France's; the treaty did not balance that out
>Germany entered the war with Europe's largest continental GDP, exited the war with the same and underwent great economic growth until the depression
>reparations were designed to look much worse than they really were; French/British specifically designed reparations that Germany was able to pay
>total bill that Germany had to pay was $12.5 billion; to appease their populations at home, the allies designed the treaty to look like Germany was paying $33 billion. The Germans were able to turn this around and make it look like they were forced to pay far more than they could afford.

The conditions Germany offered as a PEACE arrangement in 1916 were much more harsh than what they got from what was a fairly unambiguous defeat. And let's not even think about comparing this treaty to what they imposed on the Russian Empire after they won that war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm
Essentially, to make France pay for all of their personal debts and make them completely dependent on them, to cut out a few vassal states out Russia, pseudo-vassalize Belgium, and isolate the UK.