Homework help!! - Treaty of Versailles

#1
Reasons why the treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh enough*.

In your own time, go!





*Suitable for a 15 year old to debate please!
 
#4
It allowed rearmament, it created the Pocket Battleship category and the development of U Boats. It was designed to cripple Germany. It was too harsh, it punished a people for the crimes of their leaders and ultimately led to WW11.
 
#6
LLoyd George should have stipulated that a certain L/Cpl Schickelgruber was handed over for safe keeping. :wink:
 
#7
Sure they were, the later boats were developments.The point is that it was a weapons system that was allowed to be developed. WW11 U Boats were much better than WW1 boats.
 
#8
It failed to show a clear mandate for the reintegration of Germany into European affairs as a "player", thus as stated punishing the people for the follies of their Kaiser and the politicians. Compare this to the way Japan was treated after WW2.
Much stricter controls on import exports would have gone some way to prevent the re arming process,

Simplified from a long ago precis at uni...
 
#10
Roger that, Everyday is a school day so this thread should prove to be interesting, Probably mentioned already but the ToV was hugely unpopular allowing Hitler to gain popular support.
 
#11
bloody keyboard gone yahooooooooooo
 
#12
We have to look at it as if we don't know WW2 is going to happen though, as if we are at the table arguing the points back and forth. If you wanted a harsher punishment, what would you have in the treaty?
 
#13
Manstein as a Col on the General Staff (banned but renamed the Troop Office) was finding ways to circumvent the treaty in the early thirties.
 
#15
Expropriation of all industry, no German companies allowed. Total disbandment of all armed forces including police. occupying forces are the police. Hows that for starters?
 
#17
Mk2 is feeling much happier about this, thank you! :)

Carry on the debate though, it's really interesting! Unfortunately, history wasn't my thing and I know next to nothing about the subject.
 
#19
We have to look at it as if we don't know WW2 is going to happen though, as if we are at the table arguing the points back and forth. If you wanted a harsher punishment, what would you have in the treaty?
If she's obliged to argue for a harsher treaty, she's a bit stuck. She'll need to argue the case for destroying Prussian militarism and deconstructing the German state, which was less than 50 years old.

She could look at contemporary geopolitical theory such as MacKinder's heartland and say the treaty should have destroyed the German aspiration in that regard.


She could look at the Morgenthau Plan post WW2 for ideas, which was replaced by the more enlightened Marshall Plan.

But the general modern analysis is that the reparations imposed in the ToV lead directly to the hyper-inflation of Weimar and the rise of the Nazi party. It was an old-school imperial settlement overtaken by events such as the Russian revolution and the Bolshevik coup.
 
#20
It's not that the sanctions were not harsh enough, rather they weren't enforced well enough.

Anyway I personally think that the sanctions were too harsh in the first place, the Germans had a viable reason to be angry and it seemed Wilson was the only one who saw this coming, however the sanctions were passed anyway as Clemenceau was arrogant dick. The sanctions were utterly barbaric, it would of taken Germany until 1983 to pay off the debt, but the fact is they couldn't because they didn't have anyway to make moneys as their colonies had been taken and so had the Mines in the West, this would lead to the hyper inflation thus a complete break down of Germany; letting the Communists in which was against all of the big three's will.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top