A better world if Germany and Central Powers won WWI?

[pchalk]

Speculation on the fate of colonial peoples is still further afield, but I will say this. Germany already had a reputation for greater ruthlessness among peoples in its African territories, like Ruanda and Urundi, in comparison with the French and the British. Could we realistically hope for that tendency to not gain freer rein, had Germany expanded in Africa at France's expense? I think not.

wasnt this Belgium?

[Bleda]

Well the Treaty of Versailles was a horrible document that unjustly sought the humiliation and destruction of Germany and the Central powers. However, one cannot assume that if the ball had been in the German court, they would have treated the Entente any differently.

[Erebus Pasha]

wasnt this Belgium?

Yes Belgium had a bad reputation for their treatment of the natives in the Congo, but the Germans virtually wiped out the Herero in South West Africa (now Namibia) in the first decade of the 20th century.

Well the Treaty of Versailles was a horrible document that unjustly sought the humiliation and destruction of Germany and the Central powers. However, one cannot assume that if the ball had been in the German court, they would have treated the Entente any differently.

I agree, and I think people also forget the harsh treatment meted out to the Turks, who lost nearly all of their empire, and if certain allies would've had their way, a part of Anatolia too. Whilst Ottoman rule in the holy land wasn't anything to boast about prior to the war with Arab nationalism on the rise, the removal of the Turks from Palestine only sparked a three way tug of war between the British, the Arabs and the Jews. We should also not forget the problems in eastern Anatolia between the Turks, the Armenians and the Kurds.

[DeMolay]

Well the Treaty of Versailles was a horrible document that unjustly sought the humiliation and destruction of Germany and the Central powers.

IMO , this is just not true Bleda

A harsh treaty it was as it blamed solely Germany for the war , but it did not want to achieve what you say .

From the French side , it did want reparations to be made , our country had been ruined and much of northern france completely destroyed and ravaged , this is where a big part of our industry was . France for instance was not the one who wanted the "danzig corridor" part .

What Versailles wanted to achieve mainly is to get the losers to pay compensations and make sure that there won't be war for the next decades (hence the will to prevent Germany to build armies ) , but as we know it failed miserably .

[Bleda]

I agree, and I think people also forget the harsh treatment meted out to the Turks, who lost nearly all of their empire, and if certain allies would've had their way, a part of Anatolia too. Whilst Ottoman rule in the holy land wasn't anything to boast about prior to the war with Arab nationalism on the rise, the removal of the Turks from Palestine only sparked a three way tug of war between the British, the Arabs and the Jews. We should also not forget the problems in eastern Anatolia between the Turks, the Armenians and the Kurds.

Well also remember that the nationalist Ataturk government sought to shed the former Ottoman territories that it felt had no place in the new nation-state of Turkey. They're seeming shared interest in dismantling the Ottoman Empire is probably what let them walk away with Istanbul, which many of the Western nations wanted for themselves, or at least back into Greek hands.

The Treaty was just an all around punishment treaty. It sought no true compensation, just penalization to the losers. But yes, Turkey was indeed treated harshly. Off the top of my head I can account for the British, who felt the sting of Gallipoli and the Russians who were eager to suppress a long time rival, in the process gaining hegemony over the Black Sea regions.

The first line of the Treaty of Versailles should have read: Woe to the Vanquished.

[DeMolay]

I'm pretty confident that seeing that the war was lost , Hitler would have gladly accepted a kind of "Versailles treaty" in 1945 , instead of his country invaded , cities bombed/burnt to ashes and sovereignity totally lost .

Germany 15 years after the Great War was still in better shape than France , demographically and economically it had recovered from WWI better . Versailles was harsh in two ways : it condemned Germans as sole responsible of the war which was indeed not fair , and created the "Danzig corridor" that cut Germany in two (which was not pushed by France ) . These are the main isssues of Versailles in term of "humiliation" . But as victors , the least the allies could ask was money really ... and the Germans didn't even pay what was asked tbh ..

[pchalk]

Yes Belgium had a bad reputation for their treatment of the natives in the Congo, but the Germans virtually wiped out the Herero in South West Africa (now Namibia) in the first decade of the 20th century.

interesting. i didnt know that. not really surprised tho the post i commented on mentioned rwanda (part of Congo I believe) so thats y i mentioned Belgium

[Romano-Dacis]

I never understood people who say "Versailles caused World War 2"; that is only surface analysis, since the loser of any war would have been angered regardless.
1) A weaker treaty of Versailles would have only resulted in a stronger Germany when it resurged. Do not forget that many Germans wanted a war again not to undo what was done at Versailles, but to undo the humiliation of losing a war which they (thought) were winning. Hitler and his ilk gained such popularity by playing on the "stab-in-the-back" idea. Germany would have started another war simply because it was the strongest military power in 1914 and it had lost in 1918, even though even by mid-1917 it looked like Germany would win. Organizations like the Freikorps were started by such disillusioned soldiers, who believed they were still "fighting the war" at home.

2) The end of World War 2 was comparatively much harsher on Germany... and yet Germany has not resurrected itself as an aggressive imperial state. If anything, this goes to show what Machiavelli knew hundreds of years ago: if you defeat an enemy you should destroy him outright, lest you risk them coming back in force. France and Britain and the US should be blamed for not finishing the job in the case of Germany. Compare the Treaty of St. Germain, Sevres, and Trianon, with that of Versailles. Austria, Hungary, and Turkey never became a major threat on the European stage again. When some of the defeated tried to resist this decline they were quickly mopped up by their neighbors, Hungary under Bela Kun being a key example. The Entente took a big risk by letting Germany get off so easily, and it cost tens of millions of men to deal with the consequences of their mistake.

3) Germany would not have been any kinder to the Entente. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Treaty of Bucharest proves this quite clearly.

I think the world would have been a better place if the Entente had been harsher towards Germany. It's very likely that millions more would still be alive today. Maybe Germany today would be fragmented back into Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and other small states, but I would have preferred that to having to fight the bloodiest war in human history.

[hellheaven1987]

I think the world would have been a better place if the Entente had been harsher towards Germany. It's very likely that millions more would still be alive today. Maybe Germany today would be fragmented back into Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and other small states, but I would have preferred that to having to fight the bloodiest war in human history.

Well, personally I think the treaty is harsh enough. The problem was British did not want to follow the treaty strictly, and voluteerly abandoned part of treaty so Germany could build up military again to counter Soviet.

Besides, a fragmented Germany did not really guarantee WWII would not happen, although it might more possible become a World War between Communist and West (not to mention Romania would not see action if there was no WWII. Oh wait, you guys ran away from Stalingrad )...

[Romano-Dacis]

Well, personally I think the treaty is harsh enough. The problem was British did not want to follow the treaty strictly, and voluteerly abandoned part of treaty so Germany could build up military again to counter Soviet.


Besides, a fragmented Germany did not really guarantee WWII would not happen, although it might more possible become a World War between Communist and West

Well that's the big idea behind people who advocate for a "Long War" interpretation. There could be no peace so long as totalitarian and democratic countries existed in Europe. In the end democratic states won. The question is if the Soviets would ever have tried invading Poland had they not had someone else on the other side invading at the same time.

(not to mention Romania would not see action if there was no WWII. Oh wait, you guys ran away from Stalingrad )...

Oh wait China got pwned by Japan pretty early in the war learn to fight lol.

[bushbush]

I think the world would have been a better place if the Entente had been harsher towards Germany. It's very likely that millions more would still be alive today. Maybe Germany today would be fragmented back into Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and other small states, but I would have preferred that to having to fight the bloodiest war in human history.

I dont know man. Nazi got in power because germany fell into chaos and its new government was ineffective with all the demands (even a small invasion) by neighboring countries. It also made little sense to destroy Germany completely because of its economic importance. In fact, i think if the entente was nicer ot germany and had a bit more long-term strategic concerns (instead of short-sightness of sqeezing as much $ as they can), they could have avoided ww2.

Oh wait China got pwned by Japan pretty early in the war learn to fight lol.

at least they were fighting for their independence (after many years of civil war the country was bound to be militarily weak and disorganized) instead of fighting as a nazi dog and puppet .

[hellheaven1987]

Well that's the big idea behind people who advocate for a "Long War" interpretation. There could be no peace so long as totalitarian and democratic countries existed in Europe. In the end democratic states won.

Yes, but we also have to consider that when British started abandoning part of treaty, Germany was Weimar Republic not Nazi Germany.

The question is if the Soviets would ever have tried invading Poland had they not had someone else on the other side invading at the same time.

Not sure, although I doubt Poland would remain democrate if they were enveloped by two red powers on both sides.

We can sure that France would not let Germany turned red, and if that happened France might jump on Germany soon or later.

Oh wait China got pwned by Japan pretty early in the war learn to fight lol.

What that picture did not say was China warrior escaped from battlefield before Japan samurai deal the fatal blow. Then China warrior, without weapons, decided to stalk Japan samurai until Captain America gave China warrior tommy gun.

I dont know man. Nazi got in power because germany fell into chaos and its new government was ineffective with all the demands (even a small invasion) by neighboring countries. It also made little sense to destroy Germany completely because of its economic importance. In fact, i think if the entente was nicer ot germany and had a bit more long-term strategic concerns (instead of short-sightness of sqeezing as much $ as they can), they could have avoided ww2.

Mmmm, not really. Weimar was in great shape before Great Depression, and British started to reduce war repayment since 1926. Lastly, Germany's recovering fee largely came from US, so US was the one which benifited most.

Great Depression is the true reason why Nazi came to power. Italy's method to avoid Great Depression really encouraged the spread of Facism (probably the greatest contribution Mussolini ever made to Facist movement).

[bushbush]

Mmmm, not really. Weimar was in great shape before Great Depression, and British started to reduce war repayment since 1926. Lastly, Germany's recovering fee largely came from US, so US was the one which benifited most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr

I dont know my friend. This led to the hyperinflation which GREATLY discredited the Weimar regime.

[bushbush]

Great Depression is the true reason why Nazi came to power. Italy's method to avoid Great Depression really encouraged the spread of Facism (probably the greatest contribution Mussolini ever made to Facist movement).

ok, how about compare the role of the world after ww1 and ww2.

ww1: trying to squeeze as much out of germany as possible, disregard of german's post-war reconstruction.
ww2: helping germany to rebuild economically and socially.

If the entente did what the world did for germany after ww2 (especially US with Marshall Plan instead of going back to isolationism), i believe ww2 could have been avoided.

[hellheaven1987]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr

I dont know my friend. This led to the hyperinflation which GREATLY discredited the Weimar regime.

Yes, but we also cannot forget time did not jump from 1922 immediately to 1931. Weimar had its Golden Age, and a good one.

ok, how about compare the role of the world after ww1 and ww2.

ww1: trying to squeeze as much out of germany as possible, disregard of german's post-war reconstruction.
ww2: helping germany to rebuild economically and socially.

If the entente did what the world did for germany after ww2 (especially US with Marshall Plan instead of going back to isolationism), i believe ww2 could have been avoided.

One thing - US. Unfortunately US pulled itself out after WWI, so no fund for anyone to rebuild. If US did that again after WWII we would see same post-WWI Europe again.

I don't want to praise US though.

[bushbush]

Yes, but we also cannot forget time did not jump from 1922 immediately to 1931. Weimar had its Golden Age, and a good one.

well i think great depression certainly destroyed the weimar republic after that. But if the world helped germany to build socially and economically right after ww2, perhaps the republic could have built up more credibility to survive the depression.

[hellheaven1987]

well i think great depression certainly destroyed the weimar republic after that. But if the world helped germany to build socially and economically right after ww2, perhaps the republic could have built up more credibility to survive the depression.

WWII??

Anyway, we have to know that both British and French were nearly bankrupted after WWI, so they definately had no extract resource to help Germany. Hence, Weimar could only rely on US, which adopted isolationism. Still, Germany recovered from 1925~1930 because of US loan, hence it was the Golden Age for Weimar. However, overdepended on US only means Germany was hitted by Great Depression extremely harder than other countries, when US pulled out its fund due to the economical depression. Think about it, if US was in depression again in 1950s, do you think US government would provide aid to Europe??

Personally, I can only say Weimar Republic was unlucky - who knows there was Great Depression?? Too bad for Weimar, especially consider it was the most democrate system in Europe at its time.

[bushbush]

WWII??

oops i meant after ww1.

Anyway, we have to know that both British and French were nearly bankrupted after WWI, so they definately had no extract resource to help Germany. Hence, Weimar could only rely on US, which adopted isolationism.

indeed, i thought that was fatal. But French was especially not helpful. Their invasion was very destructive for german economy and for weimar's credibility in the long run.

Still, Germany recovered from 1925~1930 because of US loan, hence it was the Golden Age for Weimar. However, overdepended on US only means Germany was hitted by Great Depression extremely harder than other countries, when US pulled out its fund due to the economical depression. Think about it, if US was in depression again in 1950s, do you think US government would provide aid to Europe??

actually if US did marshall plan after ww1, most likely there woldn't a depression. Germany and europe overall would recover economically and provided the overseas market. Instead europe stagnated (britian and france especially) and US adopted protectionism soon.

Personally, I can only say Weimar Republic was unlucky - who knows there was Great Depression?? Too bad for Weimar, especially consider it was the most democrate system in Europe at its time.

well i felt it was not inevitable their fall.

[conon394]

actually if US did marshall plan after ww1, most likely there woldn't a depression. Germany and europe overall would recover economically and provided the overseas market. Instead europe stagnated (britian and france especially) and US adopted protectionism soon.

But a post WW1 Marshall plan is fantastically unrealistic. Economically, diplomatically, and politically (both internal and external) the US was simply not in a position where even a profoundly great leader (say an amalgamation of Washington, Themistocles, Keynes and Disraeli and Jefferson) could consider such a policy let alone acutely bring it to fruition.

[bushbush]

But a post WW1 Marshall plan is fantastically unrealistic. Economically, diplomatically, and politically (both internal and external) the US was simply not in a position where even a profoundly great leader (say an amalgamation of Washington, Themistocles, Keynes and Disraeli and Jefferson) could consider such a policy let alone acutely bring it to fruition.

true, people didn't really have the lessons of ww1 to learn back then.