Tag Archives: Treaty of Versailles

German Sympathy Post-World War I

Posted on by

John Maynard Keynes, an English economist, wrote his piece ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’ in 1920.  It was a reaction to the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War I.  Keynes seems adamant in his prose that  Europe was excessively punished following the Great War, seen when he wrote “This treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women and children” ((Keynes, ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920)).  Keynes wrote with the Allies as his audience as they were the authors of this treaty and should be held responsible for these ramifications.  The intent of this work was to underscore how excessively the treaty would reduce Europe’s power economically, with “no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe” ((Keynes, ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920)).  This statement alludes to Keynes’ message that not only will Germany be set up for future failure, but also the whole of Europe.

After shifting from agricultural to industrial with the Industrial Revolution, Europe was no longer capable of supporting its population’s food demands in its own; it required outside help through the purchase of food through trade.  And without the financial assets to do so, Keynes predicted the future prevalence of famines and the death of millions of Germans.

Keynes writes in defense of Germany mainly because he is a European.  With the livelihood of one of Europe’s largest powers in jeopardy and so much on the rest of the continent at stake, Keynes’ only option is to make the Allies aware of the drastic measures enforced and their implications across Europe.

As we see shortly after the Treaty of Versailles, the United States was struck by the Great Depression which affected Europe in some critically negative ways as well.  Would have or could have these effects on Europe lessen if the doctrine of the Treaty of Versailles were less debilitating and shown a little more forgiveness towards Germany?  Do you have any thoughts as to why these reparations and reductions were so excessive?

Spengler’s Therapy for the German People

Posted on by

Oswald Spengler wrote The Decline of the West following World War One, after his nation lost and was made weak. Spengler was a German philosopher and historian as well as an avid advocate for German hegemony. In his post-war writings he postulated that the European hold in world politics would inevitably come to an end. ((Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1922)) To prove his point he showed a trend in history where empires would reign for decades, even centuries, but would eventually collapse in on themselves. ((Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, 1922)) He was correct in that European hegemony was coming to an end to make way for the hegemonic rule of the United States; however, it’s arguable whether or not it was his sense of nationalism that drove him to this conclusion or his unbiased observations of history.

 

Germany was at the center of the losing side of World War One. The loss was decimating to the nation, as seen in the Treaty of Versailles, the document that ended the war in 1919. Every single article in the treaty weakens Germany, making them pay reparations, give up land, demobilize, and essentially fall under the power of the Allied Forces. ((The Treaty of Versailles, 1919)) As nationalist country that had just risen to extreme power to lose so greatly and be forced to submission of their neighbors was humiliating. Spengler was most likely engaging the German people in a form of therapeutic writing, reassuring them that the loss didn’t matter because Europe was on the decline anyways.

 
If Germany had won the war and had become the main power in Europe, would Spengler still have written that the hegemonic status of Europe as a whole was in decline? Or would he have reassured the German people that their status was as a prominent world leader, rather than the strongest nation of many in decline?

The Economic Consequences of Peace

Posted on by

The Economic Consequences of Peace addresses the effects of the Versailles treaty on the already fragile German system. It described provisions of the Versailles treaty and then illustrates the tragic effects. Keynes explained how before the war the population was living “without much margin of surplus” (Keynes), and in the aftermath people had to restore this system before starvation became a huge issue. Keynes also issued the warning that “men will not always die quietly”, directing this at politicians and men in power and saying that the negative temperaments brought on by starvation/desperation could be fuel for future issues. Another issue with the treaty was that it limited Germany’s ability to import raw materials, which in turn would cause the industries to collapse. If the industry of Germany were to collapse, it would be another factor in mass starvation and discontent in the population. Essentially Keynes issued a warning to not be rash in the direct aftermath of WWI, saying “some of the catastrophes of past history….have been due to the reactions following [war]”. If a population were to grow beyond what it is able provide food for while the economy is still in a fragile state, there is a higher likelihood of it causing future conflicts. Keynes showed a great understanding of predicting the economic side of the German situation, and approached it from this view instead of becoming personally invested in the political aspects of the war.

John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920)

Posted on by

John Maynard Keynes, one of the most important British economists of the 20th century, wrote The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) in response to the Treaty of Versailles. Keynes in his piece focuses on Germany and uses them as a representation as to what will happen, economically, if citizens of these countries follow this treaty.

Keynes argues that Germany, with a booming population and a rapidly increasing industry, can’t survive with the treaty’s proposed sanctions. He believes that the intellectual elite of the victorious countries fails to realize the stability of Europe, as a whole, and doesn’t promote economic solidarity in any way. The main danger here, Keynes believes, is that a rapid depression of the standard of life can leave to the starvation of many. He says, “Those who sign this treaty will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women and Children” (Keynes).

Although Keynes makes valid economic criticisms, his argument is more economic based and less political based. The political situation of 1919 has a lot of importance in what is happening throughout Europe and Keynes fails to address that and also fails to provide alternative solutions to the readers’ problems.

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Three Points:

1. Germany was forced to surrender much of the territory they gained during the war.  They lost the territory that they gained from France and also had many other restrictions.  They also had many restrictions put on their control of the Rhine, saying “Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications” around the Rhine.  They were forced to return all of their newly controlled territories.

2. Germany was forced to disassemble their armed forces.  First of all their army was not allowed to have more than 100,000 members.  Those 100,000 members were only allowed to manage the territory and not actually invade any countries.  Along with this they were only allowed to have men in the army and not use any technology such as vehicles.

3. Germany was forced to accept all responsibility for the war.  The main aspect of this is that Germany would be forced to pay for all damage committed to the “Allied and Associated Governments”.  This put all the fault of the war on the Germans and that the “Allied and Associated Governments” recognized that Germany had to assume responsibility.

Questions:

1. Was there a less aggressive way to handle this and not put all of the blame on Germany?

2. How much of an impact did the Treaty of Versailles have on how Germany handled World War II.

Interesting Fact:

There was actually a second agreement, the Locarno Treaties in 1925 that was signed by the same group of countries that was used to fix relations with Germany.

Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Main Points:

1. Territory– The following territories were taken away from Germany:

  • Alsace-Lorraine (given to France)
  • Eupen and Malmedy (given to Belgium)
  • Northern Schleswig (given to Denmark)
  • Hultschin (given to Czechoslovakia)
  • West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia (given to Poland)

Germany must relinquish power over any overseas colonies to the League of Nations as well as any additional territory seized in the war not mentioned above.

2. Military– Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men and no tanks were allowed. Germany was not allowed any airforce or submarines and only 6 capital naval ships.No german soldier was allowed in the demilitarized zone west of the Rhineland and 50 kms east of the River Rhine. The Allies were allowed to keep an occupational army on the west bank of the Rhine for the next 15 years.

3. Financial– Germany would be required to accept full responsibility for the war, and therefore must pay reperations for any damage caused by the war to civilian property (most of which would go to France and Belgium to pay for the damage done to their infrastructure). Germany would not be permitted to unite with Austria, for fear this would help improve the diminished German economy.

Questions:

1. Was the Treaty of Versailles an appropriate and sensible way to ensure that Germany did not pose a military threat in the future?

2. Did the Treaty of Versailles subsidize the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Did it make way for facism?

Observations:

1. The Treaty did not completely crush Germany nor did it attempt to bring Germany into the League of Nations. I found it interesting that the League of Nations understood they could not crush Germany entirely but did not understand the repercussions that would surely ensue from such strict and oppressive guidlines regarding German land, military, and economy.

2. The Treaty essentially ensures that no “spoils” from the war stay in German hands and were in turn given to the countries participant in the League of Nations.

3. I think it is also important to envisage the sentiments of internationalism, national and global security, unity and collaboration, as well as prevention of conflict and total war while reading this document, as they were prominent notions shared by the end of the war.

“Boycotting French Fashion Goods”

Posted on by

The “Boycott of French Fashion Goods” excerpt from the Weimar Sourcebook focused on French Fashion’s place in German society. This piece encouraged a boycott of all French Fashion. Items could be inspired by French Fashion and made in Germany or other countries, but nothing bought could be of French origin.

It was interesting to discover that this boycott took place in 1933. This was about 15 years after the Treaty of Versailles. The fact that there was still such a level of animosity between the two countries at this point in time is very telling. Fashion was one of the areas of commerce that France was noted for. It was one of the countries that produced the styles that would be worn throughout the world. A boycott from this industry could have had a major impact on the market.

The economic crisis of the early 1930s brought about a series of tariffs in Europe and throughout the world that were meant to protect individual countries’ interests and markets. It could be argued that this boycott was another way to protect German interests. This was probably true; however, this was most certainly not the central reason. If the goal were to protect German markets through tariffs and boycotts, this piece would have encouraged a boycott of clothing from all non-German manufacturers and designers. Instead, this boycott focused on France. This piece specifically cites France’s invasion of the Ruhr Valley as a moment of hostility that made it impossible for Germany to support French businesses as Germans were dying at the hands of these businesses’ countrymen.

The situation between France and Germany was extremely tenuous throughout the Interwar Period due to the Treaty of Versailles and the attitude that the French had when facing the Germans: the idea that Germany was entirely to blame for the war; and that Germany needed to be punished for its actions so that it could never create another grand war again.

This attitude created such animosity between the two nations that Germany sought to punish France in return by attacking important aspects of their economy. Did this impact other areas of the French economy as well? Wine trade for instance? Did this boycott even have a great affect on the French market?

Keynes’ Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles

Posted on by

Keynes’ argument is based on the fact that he believes the environment in Germany established by the Treaty of Versailles will create conditions that force desperate men and women to political instability and radical forms of government in order to survive. When a group of people are pushed into a position of survival, they do not go quietly into the night; rather, they group together to fight for their common interests and survive as a whole. In regards to the 14 points, Keynes seems to argue in favor of them by arguing against the Treaty of Versailles. He states that the War Guilt Clause of the treaty will create the conditions established above. Because of Germany’s economy based around industry rather than agriculture, Germany was required to import food in order to sustain its population. However, with the new reparations and damage to its economy, Germany would no longer be able to subsidize these imports, leading to increased food prices and shortages all around. This is especially critical to the German population due to the fact that Germany was already facing food shortages for the past four years due to the Allied blockade. Keynes states that by instituting this treaty, not only will the Allied powers force Germany to drastic measures (possibly even communism), it will result in the deaths of millions of Germans. Keynes’ argument looks particularly strong to us, especially with our hindsight, and the fact that arguments that said the treaty was just and would support German growth are ignored in this general overview of a class. Further research is needed to see whether Keynes was an outlier in his prediction or if many economists of the time agreed in distaste for the oppression that this treaty created.

Comparison of Keynes and Versailles Treaty/Wilson’s Fourteen Points

Posted on by

As the founder of his eponymous economic school of thought, John Maynard Keynes contributed many influential theses on the economics of his day.  Nowhere is this more notable than in 1920’s The Economic Consequences of Peace, his controversial criticism of the Treaty of Versailles.  Keynes asserted that the Treaty would do little other than prolong and perhaps exacerbate the period of postwar unrest in Europe, noting that “the Treaty includes no provisions for the economic rehabilitation of Europe” (Keynes).  Instead, the major powers responsible for the Treaty (i.e. France, the United Kingdom, the United States) used it to advocate their own national interests.  With the exception of the U.S., who primarily viewed the Treaty as means of implementing President Wilson’s somewhat unrealistically idealistic Fourteen Points, Keynes argued that the aforementioned nations utilized the Versailles Treaty to reprimand Germany for the damage it caused during WWI , particularly by crippling its economy.  Keynes’ ultimate qualm about these tactics was that because Germany, a formerly thriving industrial nation, had become so firmly established as a staple of European industry and commerce, its virtual elimination from this economic community would cripple not only Germany, but all of Europe.  Although this excerpt did not offer any explicit alternatives to the Versailles Treaty, Keynes was noted several years later (1933) as an advocate of “economic nationalism…the autonomy which individual states had gained over policy as a result of the collapse of a unified international economy” (Mazower, 137).  It is then perhaps reasonable to infer that in the wake of this interwar economic crisis, Keynes felt that a Europe composed of economically independent states would be more stable than the tightly interdependent economic climate that dominated the decades prior.

John Maynard Keynes: The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920.

Posted on by

In this article, Keynes talks about the Treaty of Versailles, and it’s failure to address the economic issues of a post-Great War Europe. He states that victorious Allied powers fail to realize that the stability of Europe, and thereby the stability of both France and Britain as well, is reliant on a complicated system of continental and global trade, which the Treaty attempts to disintegrate.

He focusses on Germany and uses them as a representative of post-war Europe. He believes that the booming population levels, in relation to the rapidly increasing pre-war industrial levels, would not be able to survive with the territorial and financial sanctions the Treaty proposes. His prediction is proven by Mazower in his text “Dark Continent”. Mazower states that because the smaller Central and European nations did not have sufficient resources, they suffered in the post-Great War period. It was only with American loans were they able to initially recover, and thus through American liquidation during the Great Depression they were thrown back into economic turmoil. Alternatively, Russia was self-sufficient during the interwar period, and thus was an economic success, admittedly with a large human cost (Mazower, p.124-5). Finally, Mazower states that while autarky was a good short term plan, in the long run it was detrimental to the Russian economy (Mazower, p.119), especially in comparison to the trading-centric post-World War Two continental economies.

While Keynes’ criticisms are economically valid, he fails to address the volatile political situation of 1919. A perfect example of this revenge-based politics is the War guilt clause written into the Treaty of Versailles. This was unnecessary addition economically, but was an important political addition, especially to the democratic governments in Britain and France. In my opinion, Keynes, while economically correct, fails to acknowledge the context of the Treaty signing, and thus fails to provide viable alternative solutions.