Why did it fail? Was it too harsh for Germany?
It failed because they didn't predict Germany building up a new Reich during an upcoming depression. No one was able to enforce it.
>>931723
Surely it's the cause of the Nazi's rise then?
>>931736
Both sides fucked up, people predicted this shit would fuck up the German economy very badly and it did fuck up the German economy very badly and people were mad as hell
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't harsh enough. What the allies should have done was invade and occupy Germany and do some nation building. Unfortunately it would take another world war before this lesson was learned.
Germany ought to have been partitioned into several independent states. The vast majority of its industry also ought to have been confiscated and distributed to newly independent states in Eastern Europe. Allied troops should have remained in the country far longer, and the country should have been subject to military governance. Autonomy for the German states shouldn't have even been considered until all or almost all revanchist parties and organizations were destroyed or discredited. Even after this, a body of peace-keeping League of Nations troops should have been left in Germany to make certain they didn't even think about re-unifying or breaking a single term of the peace.
>>931777
The Germans wouldn't have accepted that which would mean that the Entente would actually have to enforce it with their armies. This would have been possible of course but after the lossses of the war it would have been too much of a hassle for the Allies, compared to just giving them a peace treaty they can agree with.
>>931712
It was either too harsh for how forgiving it was trying to be or too forgiving for how harsh it was trying to be. And in the end it hurt Germany only enough to make them more angry.
TL;DR conpromises that satisfy nobody
Considering that the French chimped out twice in the 19th century (thrice, if you consider the 100 days rule a separate incident) and pretty much got away with it without too many consequences other than Napoleon being detained jn a tropical paradise and in 1873 France ceasing Alsace-Lorraine and paying a bit gold, it was definitely a harsh peace treaty.
It was too lenient
>>932092
>paying a bit gold
quite the understatement
Not nearly half as harsh as Brest-Litovsk, germans are just massive cry babies.
>>932106
>Not nearly half as harsh as Brest-Litovsk
That was Lenin's bitch ass fault. He should have given some parts of Poland and nothing more. Fuck the cuck.
>>932106
Many Entente shills claim this for obvious reasons all the time but it's still not true. Russia lost territories where non-Russians were the majority; that's essentially the same principle ("self determination of the peoples") the allies used for the Saint-Germain and Trianon treaties. (As a matter of fact, the Allies also ceded majority Hungarian and German areas to the newly founded states and Italy)
Furthermore, the Central Powers did not demand any other reparations from Russia.
>>932296
>Many Entente shills claim this for obvious reasons all the time but it's still not true.
are you implying that the treaty of versailles removed more than:
a quarter of the population of germany
a quarter of their oil production
a quarter of their industry
roughly three quarters of their coal production
?
because those are the impacts of brest-litevsk on russia
>>931777
Good luck getting major support for that plan after those long destructive years of war. Euros were done. It was a fucked up war that demoralized and killed thousands of them entire; an entire generation became disillusioned and the countries were exhausted of resources. Canada/US would have been the only ones with the ability to field a garrison force long term but 1) neither heavily disliked the Germans 2) they both had small militaries and 3) the US was still majorily isolationist
>>932326
sorry, a minor mistake, i actually meant:
a third of its population and roughly a half of its industry
>>932326
Okay, so you deliberately ignored my post? By your reasoning, the treaties of Saint-Germain and Trianon were even harsher, since they removed majority of Austria-Hungary's population and production.
>>931712
>Why did it fail?
because the germans did not largely want to abide by it (although they could have done so, e.g. pay the reparations, had they had the goodwill)
and because the allies were largely unwilling to enforce it
>Was it too harsh for Germany?
seeing as they only paid a fraction of the reparations, the only remaining argument about its being overly harsh has to deal with the other factors, namely losing territories - which amounted to colonies that were a drain on the treasury and regions that were mostly non majority german
that is not to say these would be somehow pleasant to germany, not at all, but in light of what the war had done to austria-hungary (dissolution and fragmentation), ottoman empire (kaput) or even russia after the brest-litevsk treaty (much more severe losses territory, population and industrial output), i think it is very hard to label it as being "too harsh"
remember that despite the war, germany remained the strongest economic power on the continent - a weakened but ultimately economically still strong enough germany was in the victorious powers best interests - and the war did not subject german territory containing a quarter of its industrial base to four years of destruction and looting (as in france or moreso in belgium), and they were not subjected to an occupation
>>932346
>Okay, so you deliberately ignored my post?
you mean the post in which you say
>it's still not true
to a proposition which states
> Not nearly half as harsh as Brest-Litovsk, germans are just massive cry babies.
despite the numbers clearly showing that it is in fact true
>>931712
It was basicly a middle Way that was never going to work
Either Punish them to the point that they can't have revenge or punish them lightly
Don't do it halfway, Its like kicking a guy in the balls rather than knocking him out
>>932358
Yeah, because the key issue I outlined and which you conveniently ignored was the fact that Russia had to cede non-Russian areas, which is the same principle the Allies applied to the Central Powers (with some exceptions were majority Hungarian and German areas had to be ceded). The Non-Russian areas of Russia just happened to make up a bigger share than the Non-German areas of Germany (whereas in the case of AH the Non-Hungarian/German areas made up the majority), it had nothing to do with the Entente being any more generous than Germany. You also ignored that Russia didn't have to pay any reparations, didn't have any limitations for its army, etc.
>>932376
The majority of territories lost by Germany after WW1 did not have a German majority population.
>You also ignored that Russia didn't have to pay any reparations,
They did.
>>932404
>The majority of territories lost by Germany after WW1 did not have a German majority population.
I didn't deny that, you must have misunderstood me
>They did.
The original Treaty of March 1918 didn't entail reparations, but you're right that there was another agreement in August 1918 where reparations were demanded (a small fraction of the reparations of Versailles) in exchange for the German retreat from Belarus and for the non-intervention in the Civil War
