Summary HIST 410N Week 2 Discussion 2: Nationalism and the Treaty of Versailles

HIST 410N Week 2 Discussion 2: Nationalism and the Treaty of Versailles Nationalism and the Treaty of Versailles (graded) What were reasons that led to the ultimate failure of the Treaty of Versailles? What were the challenges facing the newly-formed League of Nations, and why was it so difficult to form a lasting agreement that would prevent another war? Elaborate. Responses Response The Treaty of Versailles What were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that brought an end to WW1? Who negotiated those terms and why were these the terms that were approved? Was the Treaty of Versailles doomed from the start? RE: The Treaty of Versailles The severe terms of the Treaty of Versailles effectively handicapped the Central Powers. The Treaty rid them of almost their entire military, made them give up large sections of their empires, then put Germany into great death. These terms were mainly negotiated by the Western Powers, especially France and were made to make sure Germany could ever become a threat in the near future. The taste of blood had frightened the major world powers. The Treaty of Versailles was never really a treaty, as essentially it was simply a sentence given to the losers by the winners of the war. “The German delegation was horrified because it imposed harsh reparations that Germany could not fulfill.” (CCN, 2016). The Allied leaders by punishing Germany so cruelly, were condemning an already hurt people to decades of poverty. By doing this, they effectively turned Germany against the rest of Europe, making another war inevitable. References CCN, 2016 Chamberlain School of Nursing (CSN), (2016): Lesson 2: Postwar Europe and the Russian Revolution RE: The Treaty of Versailles Since at least 3 wars had been started by Germany in the last 40 or so years in Europe prior to the signing of Versailles one might argue that the terms of the treaty were about trying to make it so Germany could not wage war again. If this was the goal, were the terms of the treaty enough or not? Why? RE: The Treaty of Versailles I feel as if this was the true goal of the Treaty of Versailles, then the terms were misdirected. I think that in order to lower the risk of a country waging war, one shouldn't attempt to lower its economic prosperity but rather increase its economic interdependence. Such as, encouraging the companies of neighboring countries to set up shop there, by buying goods and services from that country, and by lowering social and cultural boundaries between the neighboring countries. I believe by doing this, you effectively make it detrimental to their economy and their society to wage war on the other countries. As the saying goes "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer". RE: The Treaty of Versailles Lakisha Williams 5/12/2016 11:20:47 AM Hello Marguerite. I completely agree that the terms of the treaty were misguided. With its intent to prevent Germany from waging war, I feel the way they went about it just further instigated them. I don't feel that it was wise to take a troublemaking nation such as Germany, who will fight at the drop of a hat, and further alienate them and in a way, attempt to oppress them and keep them from being prosperous. I think it was taunting in a way; like bragging that they were the victors. I agree that during that time, the victorious allies should have made a friend out of Germany, maintain close business relationships with them, and keep a watchful eye on them. Thank you, Lakisha RE: The Treaty of Versailles One might argue that the Allies had little historical reason to trust Germany or its rulers so making it stronger in any form or fashion might be seen as simply making it more possible for them to win the next war. Hmmm... RE: The Treaty of Versailles The terms were to basically help bankrupt Germany. First land was taken from Germany and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Czech, and Poland. Their military was reduced, they were not to have any tanks, submarines or an Air Force. There was an DMZ set up by the treaty. They lost a lot of industrial territory and were not allowed to unite with Austria so that would mean they would not be able to make up for lost income. Then came the War Guilt Cause. This caused the biggest uproar by Germany. They had to admit full responsibility for starting the war and all the damage caused by the First World War. They had to pay reparations for any damage done with most of the money going towards France and Belgium. Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey had their own treaties to sign as well. Turkey's being considered the harshest (Treaty of Sevres). The last part of the Treaty was that the League of Nations needed to be set up in order to help keep world peace. Most of the treaty was kept though they found ways around some of it. They decreased their military force but kept many in reserve. They really had no choice. They were not able to fight this as they had no resources to fight it. RE: The Treaty of Versailles Brooke- Such a great and informative post. Germany was really not given a chance to survive from the beginning when they were striped of everything. Also having the French's need or want to punish Germany for the wars. Despite President Wilsons want to prevent future wars with his League of Nations creation, it was not put out where every country had a equal opportunity. Taking away Germany's land, military, and ability to industrialize was the beginning of their end. "The German delegation was horrified because it imposed harsh reparations that Germany could not fulfill. It's economy was nearly bankrupt, and morale was low (CCN, 2015)." With all the domination and greed that happened between the wars, the failure of the Treaty of Versailles was inevitable. Thanks- Melissa DeVry University (2016). HIST-410 Week 2: Postwar Europe and the Russian RE: The Treaty of Versailles We tend to only look at the German side here. Is it fair to do that without considering the other perspectives? Do we run the risk of giving Germany too much of an excuse for the rise of Hitler? RE: The Treaty of Versailles Jeffrey Lasalle 5/14/2016 5:27:02 PM Professor Jones and Classmates: The authors of our textbook seem to depict Germany as pseudo- victims of the Paris Peace Treaty. Per Brower and Sanders (2014), "France... gazed with vindictiveness and fear across the border at a Germany that had invaded them twice within a generation" (p. 67). "The leaders of the other Allied powers had a view of a peace based on power politics, not national self- determination..." (Brower & Sanders, 2014, p. 67). My classmate Brooke has elucidated Germany's losses due to the Treaty of Versailles. The sacrifices were significant. I do not think that it is unexpected that Germany retaliated so fervently after the Paris Peace Treaty. Despite the loss of ego, the tremendous losses of the Treaty must have caused national upset, embarrassment, and anger. A strong reaction was to be expected. References Brower, D. & Sanders, T. (2014). The world in the twentieth century (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. RE: The Treaty of Versailles Professor Jones 5/15/2016 8:20:57 AM One might argue the biggest mistake the Allies did was impose a peace on a country that was not thoroughly defeated. The US would arguably not make that mistake in WW2. Hmmm.. RE: The Treaty of Versailles Emily Mahoney 5/10/2016 6:24:06 PM Modified:5/10/2016 6:25 PM The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were negotiated by leaders of the Allies being: David Lloyd George from Britain, the president of United States Woodrow Wilson and the leader of France, Georges Clemenceau. While Lloyd George was more concerned for the spread of communism in Germany, and did not want the German public to be so destitute as to be tempted to fall into communism, he maintained a public view point of revenge towards Germany. Politically this is how the citizens of Britain felt in regards to Germany and to maintain his position in the government he acted with the will of his people in the negotiation of the treaty. Germany must pay. Clemenceau, as well as the French public, felt that "Germany should be brought to it's knees so that she could never start a war again" (historylearningsite, 2016). Woodrow Wilson wanted Germany to be punished, but in a method which would lead to European reconciliation. It was his desire to form the League of Nations, so that all countries are "bound together by a moral commitment to peace and collective action regardless of their immediate interests, to protect all Independent States against aggression"(Brower, 2014). The terms of the treaty forced Germany to relinquish lands to other European countries. Their army was no longer allowed an air force, submarines, tanks, or more than six navel ships and was reduced to 100,000 men. Financially, Germany was to repay $35 billion to France, Belgium, and Great Britain. In addition, Germany also had to take responsibility in full for starting WWI, which is why she was responsible for reparations for the damages incurred. It took two years to force Germany to sign the treaty of Versailles. I believe that this treaty was doomed from the start, because it had an unstable foundation. Woodrow Wilson did not have the support of Senators for the entire treaty and did not become part of the League of Nations he had desired to create. The very method by which this American president wanted to protect the world was something that he could not become a part of due to the attitude of isolationism by the U.S. at this time. Brower, D. (2014) The World in the Twentieth Century. Seventh edn. Hoboken, New Jersey: Pearson Education