Why did the Allies think it's a good idea to punish Germany after World War I with the Treaty?
Victors can be vindictive
>>912558
It would've been a pretty terrible idea to not punish Germany.
>>912568
What? Genuine question here. Keynes once said that Versailles terms would break the economy of Germany, and yes it did. The denbts were unpayable, until America lent them money.
>>912558
Why the Germans think it's a good idea to punish Russia after Worl War I with a Treaty?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
>>912558
Because it was
Not enforcing these sanctions was their true mistake
Hitler wasnt a magician, he couldnt have remilitarized Germany if France and Britain had done their job properly
>>912573
>until America lent them money.
and thus Germany got under capitalism's yoke. It's part 1 in a war of capitalism against the rest of the world. Current goal is Russia
>>912576
to be able to fight the other part of the war in the west. Give a desperate man a gun and he will rob somebody.
>>912580
People are oversimplifying as fuck. In France and Britain there was something called "the public". Governments who would treat Germany lightly after millions died would have lost elections or face riots. It's not like in 1918f you can think of states as black boxes.
>>912558
Because Germany (and Austria) caused WWI
they had no way of predicting the autism that would follow
>>912584
Yepp but compare Brest-Litowsk to Versailles. Germans (I am German) tend to forget how harsh Brest-Litowsk was while crying over Versailles.
>>912567
Not harsh as this. It's proved so effective that Germanboo can not wage another war for so many next decades.
>>912581
Hey, I hate the current financial system and the bankers too, but that doesn't mean capitalism itself is bad. It means finance capitalism is bad/problematic.
>>912581
Yeah cause the Reich was a communist prior to WWI and not the most developed capitalist country in Europe (depending on the stats chosen it might have been Britain).
>>912593
the difference is that Versailles ruined the People economically, WW2 didn't. Germany was helped back on its feet. That worked a lot better than dooming everybody.
Same shit in Iraq. Set everybody who worked for Saddam on the street without any perspective, voila IS. Should've helped them become functioning Society again after embargoing the shit outta them in the value of 500k dead children.
>>912608
>Versailles ruined the People economically,
It didnt, the Great Depression did
Are you this uneducated?
>>912596
capitalism itself is bad because private property is dehumanising
it throws in the garbage the average person's own control over their life and work
private property says to most people on earth "you aren't worthy of higher thought, the best use for you is to do whatever physical labour i want you to"
>>912608
This. The trick is not to let the defeated pay tribute like in the middle ages but to integrate him in your own economical realm to make it really expensive for him to wage another war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Same was true for Japan.
THE GERMANS DINDU NUFFIN
THEY WERE GOOD BOYS, THEY DON HARM NONE
>>912573
Keynes said a lot of things, such as half of Europe suffering economically as a sort of an economic domino effect of the treaty (in "Asiatic serfdom" I believe was the phrase?), which did not happen. Or coal and steel outputs dropping vastly, which did not happen - in fact, the opposite happened and they rose. Keynes gets parroted because he was opposed to the treaty (chiefly because he felt spurned by its architects), but people do not realize his predictions were all over the place and not prophetic at all.
Not only were the debts not unpayable, the reparations were entirely payable by Germany had it acted in good faith. Sally Marks in her Myths of Reparations deals with this exact topic. In fact, Germany tackled its (mostly self-inflicted, by the way) hyperinflation, and then experienced economic growth (for a time while genuinely paying reparations, in fact).
What is more, the treaty left Germany as the single most powerful economic entity on the continent, and it was in the victorious powers' interests to have it such - precisely because they wanted the reparations to be paid.
Then there is the fact that the treaty was less punitive than the one Prussia/Germany imposed upon France a couple of decades prior, as well as less punitive than the Brest-Litevsk treaty Germany imposed upon Russia. Let us also be reminded of the fact that the treaty was ultimately not really enforced in anything but a minority of its points or aims.
Last but not least, let us not forget that the treaty did not somehow make anything (such as WW2) inevitable or that it was somehow exceedingly harsh. Germany lost some of its territories, most of which were non-German majority, and was forced to pay reparations, of which they paid a minuscule amount. Look at what happened to Austria-Hungary (hint: it stopped existing altogether) or what happened to Germany after the second war (hint: it got occupied, torn into two, lost sovereignty for a long time and so on).
>>912621
For more reading apart from the Myths of Reparations, check The Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes, a rebuttal (a nice way of saying "BTFOing completely") of Keynes mostly misguided conclusions.
>>912614
You are wrong and you have never heard of the Kohlrübenwinter and I doubt you studied the history of WWI. The war was a colossal economic effort on all sided quite literally burning money and wasting lives. This is exactly why all the treaties (planned and executed ones) were fucking harsh.
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007429
>>912600
You make it Sound like cpitalism was directed against a single form of government. It isn't. C. wants to control, nay, own everything.
>>912616
No socialist advocates the abolition of private property as such. You are either trolling or stupid.
>>912628
not him but let's take a step back - you seriously using the turnip winter as an argument against the treaty of versailles?
as in, you are using an event from 1916/17 to argue against an event from 1919?
>>912632
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7NPuK_QhEk
The people singing this famous socialist song aren't socialists then I guess. I mean, it's not like socialists define socialism as worker control over production or anything like that. You've certainly read a lot of socialist books, it's not like Karl Marx once said "Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." or anything like that.
>>912621
>Not only were the debts not unpayable, the reparations were entirely payable by Germany had it acted in good faith
So what occupied Germany after WWII wasn't acting in "good faith". The last reparations were payed in 2010: http://www.rp-online.de/politik/deutschland/der-lange-schatten-von-versailles-aid-1.2296627
Also Mantoux was wrong and was BTFOd himself by Feinstein and others.
>a Frenchmen arguing reparations were just
>quelle surprise huh
>>912640
>how to spot an American
It's almost like you don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism.
>>912644
>how to spot an idiot swede who thinks social democracy is socialism
>>912648
Now you're wrong for the second time. Jesus man, go take a course in Political Theory or some shit if you expect to be taken seriously when you throw terms around.
>it's a "Germany dindu nuffin" episode
>>912650
>All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
>We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
>It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
>While the union makes us strong.
yep, nothing about private property there
>>912640
>Abolition of private property
That refers to "means of production".
>>912652
Give me your definition of socialism then. Are you one of those lolbertarian idiots who thinks the roman empire was socialist?
>>912642
Mantoux was by no means BTFO by Feinstein, Feinstein posited that the Germans would not want to pay reparations, not that they were unable to. Which is perhaps a valid point in and of itself but does not in any way "BTFO" the notion that Germany was able to pay the reparations.
>>912657
Means of production is private property. My bottle of orange juice is personal property.
>>912662
So what do you produce with your bottle of orange juice?
>>912654
No. It is about taking stuff away, specifically the "means of production". Private property as such it not debated in the song. And I agree mate it is quite obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. No socialist state has EVER abolished private property. Means of productions in the hands of the workers? Well that is another thing and you failing to understand this makes me sad. And I man not even advocating socialism/communism here,
>>912666
Nothing because it's personal property, not private property.
>>912662
>bottle of orange juice
>means of production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production
>>912667
No socialist state has ever abolished private property because socialist states were state capitalist. That song is about the IWW, who actually did want worker control over the means of production, i.e socialism.
>>912662
>Means of production is private property
No.
>For instance, "capitalism" is the name for the capitalist mode of production in which the means of production are owned privately by a small class (the bourgeoisie) who profits off the labour of the working class (the proletariat). Communism is a mode of production in which the means of production are not owned by anyone, but shared in common, without class based exploitation.
>>912669
that's why i said it was personal and not private property you fucking retard
>>912658
It is a theory in which the proletariat owns and regulates the means of production. It is the transition phase from Capitalism into Communism.
Communism is the supposed utopic end phase of history in which there is no state.
>>912673
the means of production are private property in capitalism, or are you trying to say that socialists want to abolish production?
>>912676
Marx didn't invent socialism. Mutualism is a type of socialism so hold this L.
>>912672
But they said they were socialist and never even aimed at abolishing private property and legally the means of productions were in the hand of the workers. You are literally making stuff up or confusing categories.
Point me to any proof that socialists want to abolish private property as such (i.e. not only means of production).
>>912673
How fucking hard can it be?
Socialism - private property (as such) = yes
Socialism - private property of means of production = big nono
>>912682
Not once did I mention Marx.
>>912683
DPRK legally is a democratic republic anon. I never said that they wanted to abolish private property in general because private property is the condition in which the means of production (land and factories) are held. Socialists want collective, not state ownership of the land and factories.
>>912672
>because socialist states were state capitalist.
Well, Lenin was accelerationist. He was right at the time that a mode of production like the Fordist was the most advanced that time. The thing is the Soviet Union was terribly lacking of educated engineers.
>>912685
You used Marx's definition as the be-all-and-end-all of what socialism is so hold this L. Go read about praxeology nerd.
>>912690
>capitalism itself is bad because private property is dehumanising
>I never said that they wanted to abolish private property
Also I said
>No socialist advocates the abolition of private property as such
You said
>The people singing this famous socialist song aren't socialists then
QED you are trolling or retarded
>>912694
It's a common definition found on google, wikipedia and numerous basic political theory books. Thanks for playing, though.
Make your own topic, lads, if you want to discuss Marxism.
>>912705
Let good discussion be organic!
>>912698
What you meant by private property and what I meant are different. Private property isn't personal property. I used your definition for that so it's a bit confusing to read. Socialism is literally the abolition of private property in favour of collective ownership of the means of production though.
>>912699
That's because it's Marx's definition and Marx is popular. You even conceded that it's not the only definition.
>>912712
I did, you just sperged out about definitions. I don't really care and it is irrelevant in my opinion. I gave a basic, commonly held definition.
>>912709
>Private property isn't personal property
I know
>Socialism is literally the abolition of private property in favour of collective ownership of the means of production though.
Never doubted it but private property is not the ownership for the means of production. Neither for Locke, Hobbes or Marx.
>>912715
I sperged out about definitions because if you don't sperg out about definitions you could be talking about fucking anything and nobody understands you.
>>912717
Private property entails private ownership of the means of production but it can mean other things too. Socialists are also against privately owned estates etc.
>>912718
I gave the most popular definition. If no one knows what I'm talking about (and I think you're the only one), I couldn't care less.
>>912725
If you don't care if what you're saying is being communicated then why say anything? I know it's cool and edgy to seem aloof now but you should at least be consistent about it.
>>912558
The "Allies" didn't think that. France did, because:
1. They have lost their strongest ally, Russia.
2. The US went back to isolationism, so the frogs couldn't count on them, either.
3. German territory was completely untouched by the war, while French industrial zones were ravaged.
The Treaty was a French attempt to secure itself as the dominant continental power against Germany and the communist threat.
>>912558
Because war is expensive. Vae Victis.
>>912730
You have problems, man. I gave the most commonly held and basic definition. Of course I could elaborate, but for the sake of brevity I didn't.
Relax.
>>912738
If you gave the most commonly held definition then you're acknowledging that there are other definitions. What's the point of arguing against my definition of socialism as collective ownership of the means of production then? My social life is empty so I just come here and shitpost.
>>912558
>Why did the Allies think it's a good idea to punish Germany after World War I with the Treaty?
Because Germans were cunts against France a few decade earlier in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war. Really, the treaty wasn't any worse than what Germany was willing to impose on other countries. In fact, it was a lot slacker.
>>912731
>2. The US went back to isolationism, so the frogs couldn't count on them, either.
The US were irrelevant back then
Britain was France's most valuable Allies
Also, the shitshow that was Versailles was caused by Britain wanting to prevent France from becoming too powerful
For this reason, Britain prevented France to go all the way and simply erase Germany from the map, thus giving birth to the half assed treaty
>>912731
Oh, so all allies that weren't french objected to the reparations and the war guilt clause and didn't receive any reparations from Germany? Nigga please, that was obviously the main reason France wanted that shit but the other allies all took their share.
Why do Germanboos think it's a good idea to start a world war without expecting any punishment for it?
>>912745
5 Billion goldfrancs in reparations , cry me a river.
>>912724
Mate I just realized I fucked up translating my (German) Marxist vocab into English (even though it is very similar). I concede that you are right.
>>912762
I'm sorry for being rude.
>>912756
For the same reason that they expect that their enemies will accept their Peace offers when the Germans want.
They were like Gamers before games were created.
>>912766
>debunked
That's funny
>>912759
I like how you forgot the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine.
>>912759
you can chalk that against the territorial losses of Germany in the Versailles treaty and compare the rest of the reparations to 5 Billion goldfrancs. Now which is lenient?
>>912780
>
you can chalk that against the territorial losses of Germany in the Versailles treaty and compare the rest of the reparations to 5 Billion goldfrancs. Now which is lenient?
wrong No, sorry
>>912759
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1918)
>Romania had to return Southern Dobruja (the Cadrilater) and to cede the southern part of Northern Dobruja (see the maps) to Bulgaria, while the rest of the province remained under the joint control of the Central Powers.
>Romania had to give Austria-Hungary control of the passes of the Carpathian Mountains (see the maps).
>Romania had to lease its oil wells to Germany for 90 years.
>The Central Powers recognized the Union of Bessarabia with Romania[1]
Sounds pretty harsh to me.
>>912787
Clearly the land losses of Germany in Verailles.
While the territories they got from France continued to have a majority support rejoining France most of the land Germany lost didn't have any Germany majority.
>>912797
If you really believe this there is no point continuing this part of discussion. You completely overlook the economical reparations including the loss of 2/3 all coal mines, Major industrial areas and so on. Fucking brainwashed Entente posters.
>>912804
And how much of this was placed in territories that wanted to stay in Germany but was forcefully given away?
And how much was placed in areas that did want to leave Germany and join or form another nation?
>>912816
I'm sure you can read. Please find the data on ECONOMICAL reparations yourself.
You argued the 1871 treaty was just as harsh as VErsailles, which is complete and utter bullshit.
Elsass-Lothringen and 5 Billion Goldfrancs
vs
Versailles
>but the poor people didnt even want to be german
seriously?
Please get a book and read up on the ridiculous reparation demands of Versailles. Germany paid until 2010.
>>912829
>Please get a book and read up on the ridiculous reparation demands of Versailles.
not him but do you mean books or works by people such as sally marks, detlev peukert, niall ferguson, max hantke, mark spoerer, max winkler, alan taylor, etc., which all mention in some way or another that the reparations were not "ridiculous" but rather outright payable?
>inb4 "all jews!"
>Germany paid until 2010.
not reparations, but rather loan repayments, which by the way were relatively minuscule and symbolic amounts (the reparations having been basically cancelled in 1932)
and perhaps if they had paid in the 20s and 30s, they wouldn't have had to resume payments a couple decades later
>>912852
Keep ignoring the point I made. And nice jab there, insinuating antisemitism.
>>912858
>Keep ignoring the point I made.
what point? you mean the incorrect assumptions about the severity of the treaty, or the incorrect statement about germany paying reparations until 2010?
i do not mean to be condescending but if you do not know much about the topic, you could start with something simple, such as wikipedia, which has a finely sourced article about this very subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#End_of_German_reparations
>>912863
We compared reparations 1871 against Versailles dude. You keep losing the current subtopic for your agenda.
>>912872
what agenda? what current subtopic? i attempted to correct your wrong impression of the treaty of versailles but you for some reason keep actively trying not to get educated on the matter
>>912873
Let's try again. Maybe we talked past each other. How was the Versailles treaty not harsh? It crippled Germany body and soul and laid the groundworks for the nazi regime
>>912558
Look up the septemberprogramm moron
>>912882
ah but that is not what you originally claimed when you said, i quote "Please get a book and read up on the ridiculous reparation demands of Versailles. Germany paid until 2010."
certainly the treaty was "harsh" in that the defeated side had to go through some act of contrition so to speak, such as russia when they were subjected to the treaty of brest-litevsk, but by that logic most treaties are "harsh", and incidentally, speaking of brest-litevsk, that was an even harsher treaty than the one from versailles
and to be perfectly honest i think a decent argument against the treaty itself being somehow instrumental in the rise of power of the nazi regime could be made, seeing as the nazis were nowhere near power when germany was at its worst economically in the postwar years - indeed their own attempt to take over failed laughably in 1923, close to the height of the troublesome times in germany -, seeing as the reparations were cancelled before hitler took over, seeing as it was the great depression which finally provided the catalyst to their rise to power, and seeing as the onus of their ideology was on the perceived threat of judeo-bolshevism but that is a different topic altogether
>this shit bait
>96 replies
>>912558
>Why did the Allies think it's a good idea to punish Germany after World War I with the Treaty?
Because French needed money to make quite large part of their country hospitable again. There are still restricted areas though.
>>912621
>Sally Marks
>Sally Marx
I knew those Jews are trying to destroy Germany even in retrospective.
>>912974
At last I truly see.
>>912558
french hateboner
>>912926
Also The Saar region was going to return to Germany in 1935 regardless of Hitler was in power or Not
So the only Long term effects of the treaty world be
1) The Rhine be Demilitarized making German Invasion of France impossible in the future
2) The Land that they lost to Poland
Despite that Germany was still going to be the Economic Power of Europe especially with The British Empire being Doomed from 1922 onwards.
>>912980
>RADICAL
>HOMOSEXUAL
>AGENDA
lel
>>913002
Wait what happened in 1922?
>>912980
Wow socialists are everything that's wrong with the world
>>913005
Germany stopped paying reparation, leading to consequences
>>913005
>Ireland and Egypt declwre independence
>Canada refuses to help againts the Turkish republic
>>912596
>an economic system based on inequality is not bad
>>913038
>Equality is inherently good even though not even Marx provides a proof it is
>>912662
Private Property is all things that you claim are yours.
>punish germany
They got off lighter than any other central power. Austria was completely rip apart, Hungary lost almost all their historic territory, and the ottomans were completely carved up by the Brits and French. Germany lost what little overseas colonies they had, Alsace Lorraine which was occupied French land anyway, and a tiny bit of Prussia. Compared to the ridiculous and humiliating treaty the Germans imposed on the Russians it was nothing. The war reps didnt destroy Germany's economy either btw. The Germans intentionally inflated their currency to get out of paying their war reps. Germany is a nation of crybabies.
>>915785
>>915785
>France declares war on Germany for no reason in 1871
>Not the first time they brought war into europe during the 19th century either
>Get their shit slapped so fucking hard during siege of paris they're perma-cucked in front of the world community
>Tiny bit of predominantly germanic land rightfully incoorporated into the Reich's soil
>OMG LE OCCUPIED FRENCH LAND :((
>GIEF BACK
>Frogfuckers still so bitter about it they indocitrinate their own children for decades to hate germans in school lessons and autistically refuse to change their uniform color vowing to get their revenge in the same uniforms they once got defeated in
And look where France is now! Such a multicultural vibrant diverse paradise right?
Boy oh boy, waging two world wars against your white brothers for the zionists sure did pay off for you, huh Jacqués? Pfft retard
>the Germans intentionally inflated their currency to get out of
DAT GERMANOPHOBIC TINFOILING LOL
Pfft ahaha you're so fucking delusional it hurts
Truly germanophobia is a mental illness that literally destroys lives
>>916383
>autistically refuse to change their uniform color vowing to get their revenge in the same uniforms they once got defeated in
why do you lie on the internet?
the army was already set to adopt the horizon blue uniform before the war, but the outbreak of hostilities slowed the replacement process down
>>916390
but that is literally what had happened
see adam fergusson - when money dies: the nightmare of deficit spending, devaluation, and hyperinflation in weimar germany from 2010
>>916383
>Such a multicultural vibrant diverse paradise right?
Kinda like Germany.
>>912560
Vae victis
