Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What's your opinion regarding the TOV? Do you think it was fair for them to label Germany responsible for causing the war when it wasn't them? To pay for damages that everyone else should have paid for as well?

In my opinion, other members of the Triple Alliance and the members of the Triple Entente should have forked over some money as well and had restrictions. Besides, Germany did some major damage but Britain and other countries also applied the front when it came to damage as well.

Discuss.

The French were just trying to get back at Germany for embarrassing them. And shouldn't this go in the History Forum?

I think this would be better suited for the History Forum

That's what I said, kinda. u_u

This would be better suited for the History froum 13

As far as the treaty goes...Germany is lucky that the French didn't get their way...they wanted to DE-industrialise the German state...permenantly.

That is some scary sh*t...

Originally posted by Alliance
This would be better suited for the History froum 13

As far as the treaty goes...Germany is lucky that the French didn't get their way...they wanted to DE-industrialise the German state...permenantly.

That is some scary sh*t...

Thus WWII was imminent

Moved

Incidentally, Germany invaded Belgium, which was the effective start of the war being what it was. That's the largest part of blame.

Originally posted by Eccentric
That's what I said, kinda. u_u Oh sorry, I didn't see

We could have avoided a later war if only the representatives had listen to Ho Chi Minh.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Moved

Incidentally, Germany invaded Belgium, which was the effective start of the war being what it was. That's the largest part of blame.

From what I understand, the actual start of the war was when Austria-Hungary invaded Belgium because they did not take action to Franz Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo.

Well to quote every father of young children: "I don't care who started it."

Maybe Germany didn't start it, they sure as hell ****ed the whole thing up and turned it into the World War that it became.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
From what I understand, the actual start of the war was when Austria-Hungary invaded Belgium because they did not take action to Franz Ferdinand's assassination in Sarajevo.

Whoa, what happened to the conecpt of 'understanding' here?

Are you saying the BELGIANS shot the Archduke?

Holy crap, that is a worrying state of educational affairs.

I suggest you go back and learn some basic history (and Geography) before trying to raise discussion on a subject that you clearly have no idea about.

A Serbian man shot the Archduke, who was heir to the Austria-Hungarian thrown. Then, Austra-Hungaria demanded that Serbia takes some action toward it. Like to punish the wrong doers. As far as I remember Serbia didn't do anything, and Austria-Hungaria attacked Serbia, and then there was that whole chain effect that spread because the countries formed into alliances.

Fritz Fischer then preety much made Germany aggresive toward France. Then, they made a whole plan by makign 2 fronts, and making an attack on the right flank in which they would take Belgium. French made a plan to attack Germany's main industries, and Russia made a plan to just mobilize their armies against both Austra-Hungary and Germany at the same time. This escaladed the conflict by ALOT.

As far as I see it, Austria started the war, and Germany just helped fuel the conflict. However, Germany did cause a huge amount of damage.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
We could have avoided a later war if only the representatives had listen to Ho Chi Minh.

Well, thankfully no one was listening to the French at the time last of all some radical communist studing in France.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whoa, what happened to the conecpt of 'understanding' here?

Are you saying the BELGIANS shot the Archduke?

Holy crap, that is a worrying state of educational affairs.

I suggest you go back and learn some basic history (and Geography) before trying to raise discussion on a subject that you clearly have no idea about.

Before you go on into some unessecary rant about how people lack education, I suggest you go to awareness school ...

Considering I never said the Belgians shot the Archduke.

Ignorance FTW.

By the way, that was a mistake. I meant to say they invaded Serbia, but I sometimes get the two mixed.

Don't be contemptible, Sorgo X. Serbains shot the Archduke. You said that Austria-Hungary invaded Belgium because THEY did nothing about the Archduke being shot; as you meant Serbia, and as it was Serbians who did it, you VERY VERY CLEARLY meant that Belgians shot him, and all your childish 'ftw' nonsense does not change what an almighty mess up you made there. The alternative, btw, is that you meant A-H invaded Belgium because they did nothing about Serbians having shot the Archduke. Which is just as stupid a thing to say, perhaps even stupider.

And no intelligent person can POSSIBLY mix up Serbia and Belgium. This is not like Serbia and Croatia you know. Belgium is a totally different country on the other side of Europe. But as it is, you did mix them up- both of the tarhget of A-H and as the killers of the Archduke, because the two are directly linked.

So again, check your facts, your history, your Geography,. Also be a man and admit when you got something totally wrong- don't try and pathetically wriggle out of it in a way so publically embarrassing. You don't 'sometimes' get them mixed at all. All that happened is that you saw me talk about Germany invading a country and assume I meant the country A-H invaded, because of your very basic level of knowledge in this area not being able to understand what I was saying. You mis-judged.

So, let's return to the point here. Germany invaded Belgium. That was the crutch point that led to them being blamed for things,. Belgium was neutral, was no threat to Germany, never threatened Germany, and Germany had in fact signed a treaty saying they would guarantee Belgium's neutrality. Likewise, Britain and France were both pledged to defend Belgium if it was attacked. It was a totally innocent country that western Europe had pledged to defend. Germany completely ignored that because it did not suit their invasion plans. They went into it and that is the biggest factor that brought the UK into the war.

If Germany had not done that it would have been different. But the invasion of Belgium turned the war from a fatal spat between powers into a scenario where Germany was absolutely now the bad guy.

(Incidentally, in fact, Serbia agreed to nearly all of A-H's demands, but they invaded anyway)

Originally posted by Sorgo X
It doesn't matter. They were blamed for CAUSING the war. They may have generated the most havoc, but they were NOT the cause. Anyone with a shred of comprehension for logic and awareness can see that Germany was clearly not the cause for this war even happening in the first place.

Study your history. Here is Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. Show me where is blames Germany for starting the war.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Here is Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. Show me where is blames Germany for starting the war.

Regarding the treaty:

"The victors from World War One were in no mood to be charitable to the defeated nations and Germany in particular was held responsible for the war and its consequences."

Lol, A grade nine history textbook sentence writes:

"Germany had to take responsibility for causing the war."


And, Term eleven of the Treaty:

"(11) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war; "



You've pretty much been shown.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Regarding the treaty:

"The victors from World War One were in no mood to be charitable to the defeated nations and Germany in particular was held responsible for the war and its consequences."

Lol, A grade nine history textbook sentence writes:

"Germany had to take responsibility for causing the war."


And, Term eleven of the Treaty:

"(11) an acceptance of Germany's guilt in causing the war; "

You've pretty much been shown. There was no Term 11. Nice quoting of Spartacus Educational, by the by. I am reading the text of the treaty itself. When you can 'show' me with the text of the treaty, which you can't, then I will consider myself 'shown'

The text of the Treaty clearly says: causing all of the loss and damage. It did not say "Germany's actions caused this war", it said that the war was 'imposed upon by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

Like history clearly shows, Germany did not start the war. It was the actions of an angry Serb assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdidnand. But like the Treaty states, Germany caused most of the problems of the war and was in fact the war's chief aggressor. Are you arguing with that?

Germany invaded Belgium for the sole reason so they could attack French troops and flank them. They wanted to go for an easy victory, and rather then fighting the French troops heads on they chose the cowardly way and invaded Belgium which was completely neutral.

The action Germany did in Belgium made many contries on Serbia's side aggresive toward Germany. Germany had no reason to invade the innocent Belgium, for Belgium never threatened Germany.

This action brought England into the war, which preety much put the war into a whole different scale.

If you ask me, all countries had a reason to attack the other, EXCEPT GERMANY, because it attacked Belgium for it's own interest.

Originally posted by Strangelove
There was no Term 11. Nice quoting of Spartacus Educational, by the by. I am reading the text of the treaty itself. When you can 'show' me with the text of the treaty, which you can't, then I will consider myself 'shown'

The text of the Treaty clearly says: causing all of the loss and damage. It did not say "Germany's actions caused this war", it said that the war was 'imposed upon by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

Like history clearly shows, Germany did not start the war. It was the actions of an angry Serb assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdidnand. But like the Treaty states, Germany caused most of the problems of the war and was in fact the war's chief aggressor. Are you arguing with that?

You want text from the treaty? Here you go. Hold onto your seat, because I'm going to show you how the text you've been using to aid your point will effectively ... Defeat your point:

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) reads in full:

"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

In there, it states Germany had to take RESPONSIBILITY for the LOSS and DAMAGE caused to the allies. Just them.

Not to mention, this is named the "Guilt Clause" because Germany was FORCED by the Allies to accept responsibility for the War.

That's a fact. An unarguable one, at that.

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

"The Treaty of Versailles was received very badly within Germany. The nation had been blamed entirely for the first world war and had been forced to pay compensation to the allies under the war guilt clause of the treaty. The war guilt clause not only made the Germans accept responsibility for the war but also cost them dearly. 10% of German lands were lost as a result, all of Germany's overseas colonies were taken away and shared between the allies and a massive 12.5% of the German population found itself living outside of the new German borders. These terms had several very dramatic consequences on Germany."

From: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/germanyversailles.htm


http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/ww1/terms/term_34.html


Tomorrow, I'm going to get a screenshot of the GRADE NINE Socials Studies textbook.

If you try to say the War Guilt Clause is BS, I'll laugh in your face and PERMANENTLY put you on my ignore list. That would be beyond ignorant.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
If you try to say the War Guilt Clause is BS, I'll laugh in your face and PERMANENTLY put you on my ignore list. That would be beyond ignorant. And that would be beyond childish.

Germany caved to the Entente's demands because the Entente would simply resume the fighting and invade Germany itself. Which would be worse.

Germany is not to blame for the shot heard round the world, but they are to blame for escalating the conflict into a global war. They believed they could win however, as they had the best trained and equipped land-based military at the time. If they stormed through Belgium, they could bypass much of the French defensive forces and take Paris, just like they had back in the 19th century. That would essentially knock France out, giving Germany a good vantage point with which to take on the British.

Meanwhile, all they had to do was wait for the Russians to cave to both German and A-H defences in the East so they could move the bulk of their forces back to the Western Front. It was over-confidence on the Alliance's part.

The TOV was unfair to Germany. The original Entente owed the U.S. billions, so who better to pay off the debt than Germany. A-H had already surrendered and were useless as of the Treaty when it came to getting money out of the Alliance, compared to Germany at least. The Germans were the bad guys in 1918-1919. They invaded Belgium, unleashed posion and attacked "neutral" American shipping, while discussing plans with Mexico to invade the U.S.-Mexican border.

A perfect scapegoat.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
You want text from the treaty? Here you go. Hold onto your seat, because I'm going to show you how the text you've been using to aid your point will effectively ... Defeat your point:

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) reads in full:

"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."

In there, it states Germany had to take RESPONSIBILITY for the LOSS and DAMAGE caused to the allies. Just them.

Not to mention, this is named the "Guilt Clause" because Germany was FORCED by the Allies to accept responsibility for the War.

That's a fact. An unarguable one, at that.

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

"The Treaty of Versailles was received very badly within Germany. The nation had been blamed entirely for the first world war and had been forced to pay compensation to the allies under the war guilt clause of the treaty. The war guilt clause not only made the Germans accept responsibility for the war but also cost them dearly. 10% of German lands were lost as a result, all of Germany's overseas colonies were taken away and shared between the allies and a massive 12.5% of the German population found itself living outside of the new German borders. These terms had several very dramatic consequences on Germany."

From: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/germanyversailles.htm


http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/ww1/terms/term_34.html


Tomorrow, I'm going to get a screenshot of the GRADE NINE Socials Studies textbook.

If you try to say the War Guilt Clause is BS, I'll laugh in your face and PERMANENTLY put you on my ignore list. That would be beyond ignorant. Did I ever say that the Treaty of Versailles did not make Germany accept responsibility for the war? You'll find I did not. The Treaty of Versailles does not, however say that Germany started the war, merely that Germany was the chief aggressor and caused most of the damages of the war, which was true.

Your claim from the outset was this: Originally posted by Sorgo X
Do you think it was fair for them to label Germany responsible for causing the war when it wasn't them? That is not what the Treaty of Versailles said.

And now that that has been categorically disproved, you are changing your story. Nice job.

And Tangible God is absolutely correct. This: Originally posted by Sorgo X
If you try to say the War Guilt Clause is BS, I'll laugh in your face and PERMANENTLY put you on my ignore list. That would be beyond ignorant. Childish in the extreme

Honestly, I don't think that all the blame should have put on Germany, and I think that the Treaty of Versailles economically devestated Germany so badly that it had no real choice but to search for a new form of government (hence Nazism's growth in Germany). I think that Serbia should have been forced to pay a large sum of money to Austro-Hungary, even if Austro-Hungary did lose the first world war in the end.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Did I ever say that the Treaty of Versailles did not make Germany accept responsibility for the war? You'll find I did not. The Treaty of Versailles does not, however say that Germany started the war, merely that Germany was the chief aggressor and caused most of the damages of the war, which was true.

You make it sound like I said "But you said it didn't make them accept responsibility for the War!"

Yeah, I didn't think so. Nice try. Really.



In a last ditch attempt to keep yourself on your feet, you end up tripping? Ouch.

Unfortunately, I never said that what you posted is NOT what the treaty had said. Show me, Strangelove. Come on. I'll be waiting ... Forever. Hahaha.

BTW, the eleventh term I posted; Those aren't just from Spartacus. It's a summary of the terms widely used to describe main points regarding the term instead of people having to browse through the entire treaty. So, I consider it the treaty. Is it wrong, Strangelove? Is it?



I've lost my tolerance.

No, I haven't been disproved and I never changed my story. You're unhappy because I proved you wrong, and I did. You said the treaty did not make Germany responsible for causing the War when it DID make Germany responsible for causing the War, via the War Guilt Clause.

Another loss you're not going to be man enough to admit to, or what?

I'm not trying to be an ******* here, but you're again worming your way out of it, per usual.

Coming from the Master Worm himself, that's laughable.

And you can't lose tolerance. You mean you're losing your patience? Okay, fine. But that's no excuse to act like a petulant child.

And furthermore, what you think my argument is and what it is are two entirely different things. Someday you'll learn that.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Coming from the Master Worm himself, that's laughable.

And you can't lose tolerance. You mean you're losing your patience? Okay, fine. But that's no excuse to act like a petulant child.

TOLERANCE

1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA

I can't lose capacity? Endurance? Fortitude? Stamina?

Originally posted by Strangelove
And furthermore, what you think my argument is and what it is are two entirely different things. Someday you'll learn that.

Please. As you said:

Originally posted by Strangelove
And now that that has been categorically disproved, you are changing your story. Nice job.

It's obvious you still cannot admit losses. Someday, you'll learn to.

Ush-level pwnage is kickass.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Holy Crap, you;re the new biggest idiot in town.

Two simple points that now makr youy look like a total moroin:

A. ANYONE reading your first response to me can see that you meant. You said that A-H was going to invade Belgium because of the assassination of the Archduke. As you MEANT Serbia, and as that threat was against them because one of their nationals killed the Archduke, you obviously said, in error, tyhat a Belgian national killed the Archduke. Either that, or waht you said makes absolutely no sense.

B. You tell ME to learn some history.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I have never been so amused in my life.

Austria Hungary DID invade Serbia, you blithering idiot. It's extremely well documented- the first two attacks being failures, the third a success, and the flight of the Serbian people is one of the great humanitarian disasters of the war.

Their first invasion began in August 12 1914, almost immediately. 280000 men crossed the river that was the border. Belgrade fell in December that year, was re-captured on the 15th, but Serbian resistane crumples a year later and the country was lost.

All a major event of the First World War, one of the greatest victories for the Central Powers. And you have been prattling on like an ignorant child, trying to make out that MY history is at fault?

You have made a complete and total idiot of yourself TWICE now. First by confusing Belgium and Serbia, and then again by trying to say Austra-Hungary never invaded Serbia when this is a major factor in the war.

Holy geez. How much more stupid can you look? See, I HAVE studied my history. What have you been studying, nursery rhymes? Over a million dead in Serbia in that invasion, with the hughest proportionate front line losses of any nation fighting in the war, and you want to say it never happened? Shameful.

Anyway. Once more. By invading Belgium, Germany has the greater blame about the start of the war. And if you read the treaty properly you would note it says 'and her allies', not just Germany alone. First two events of the war- Germany invades westward at Belgium, Austria-Hungary invades Eastwards at Serbia. At least Austria-Hungary had some sort of grievance, albeit not a very good one. But Germany was being purely aggressive and nothing else, sacrificing an innocent country to its own ambitions and bringing the UK into the war. And they struck first. If Germany had not invaded, it is very possible the whole thing might have oetered out.

I apologize for my ignorance, then. I had no idea A-H invaded Serbia and it looks like I need to refresh some of my history.

To clear this up, if you're going to call me a moron next time:



Tryr to speel properlee.

If the most you can get me on is a few typos made because of my extreme shock at the content of your posting, then I am happy to be the clear winner by a fair few continents.

Was there even a doubt Ush? I have never seen you lose an argument on this forum, most likely because you are always sure to talk about stuff you know about, and you know much. It is not as easy for many people here.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If the most you can get me on is a few typos made because of my extreme shock at the content of your posting, then I am happy to be the clear winner by a fair few continents.

I admit my losses, but if you're going to call me a moron to throw salt on my wounds, you could at least spell it correctly next time.


It seem I have a few things to learn about WWI.

You did good. It's good to finally lose to someone who can actually debate.

Sorgo, you are on my ignore list. You are immature, combative, on top of an idiot. So don't bother.

Just so's ya know.

So what does everyone think should have been imposed on Germany instead?

Well Germany was responsible for the bulk of the damages, there no refuting that. The Allies were a bit overzealous in assigning blame to Germany and basically gutted its economy and military which led to the rise of Hitler, nationalism, and eventually the Third Reich.

So what I'm saying is that yes, Germany should have been punished, just not to the extent that it was.

did somebody step on toto?

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well Germany was responsible for the bulk of the damages, there no refuting that. The Allies were a bit overzealous in assigning blame to Germany and basically gutted its economy and military which led to the rise of Hitler, nationalism, and eventually the Third Reich.

So what I'm saying is that yes, Germany should have been punished, just not to the extent that it was.

Yes!

Originally posted by Strangelove
Sorgo, you are on my ignore list. You are immature, combative, on top of an idiot. So don't bother.

Just so's ya know.

Why? Because it was CLEAR you lost the debate?

I'm sick of you. You can join my ignore list as well. Your pride is too heavy. It's f*cking shameful.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Well Germany was responsible for the bulk of the damages, there no refuting that. The Allies were a bit overzealous in assigning blame to Germany and basically gutted its economy and military which led to the rise of Hitler, nationalism, and eventually the Third Reich.

So what I'm saying is that yes, Germany should have been punished, just not to the extent that it was.

The real question is of course how much would have been enough? Allowing Germany a military would not have been liked by other mayor powers, perhaps allowing to keep the Rhine land industry active would have helped, as Germany had no real way of making money to pay for the damages, but lowering the amount of money required from Germany would have just hurt the economies of the "victorious" nations... That wouldn't have made people happy...

The allied nations would of course always try to get the best for them out of the treaty anything less would not have been accepted, besides at that time they figured that the demilitarization of Germany would mean that they couldn't become a mayor threat to the world again, as even building a military would immediately mean war.

Originally posted by Sorgo X
Why? Because it was CLEAR you lost the debate?

I'm sick of you. You can join my ignore list as well. Your pride is too heavy. It's f*cking shameful. Who are you talking to? He can't see it.

Originally posted by Fishy
The real question is of course how much would have been enough? Allowing Germany a military would not have been liked by other mayor powers, perhaps allowing to keep the Rhine land industry active would have helped, as Germany had no real way of making money to pay for the damages, but lowering the amount of money required from Germany would have just hurt the economies of the "victorious" nations... That wouldn't have made people happy...

The allied nations would of course always try to get the best for them out of the treaty anything less would not have been accepted, besides at that time they figured that the demilitarization of Germany would mean that they couldn't become a mayor threat to the world again, as even building a military would immediately mean war. If the French hadn't taken over that town in Germany, then...

Germany should have paid, but the payments should have been smaller, or maybe further apart.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Who are you talking to? He can't see it.

He has the option.

O...k, some rather strange history coming our way.

A Serbian, Gavrilo Princip, shot Franz Ferdinand, A-H invaded, Russia defended Serbia - hence it went into war.

To say Serbia started war, is little far fetched and historically innacurate. It was a factor in WWI, but it was not the war starter. Kaiser in Germany was planning a war, mass mobilizing Germany, and lets not forget the infamous Schlieffen Plan.

Perhaps if Woodrow Wilson's 14 points were taken as proposed, Germany might not have let Hitler come into power. After death of Stresmann in '29, Germany again went into a rapid decline, hence leaving a rather large opportunity for Hitler, or someone radical alike to raise into powers.

Lots of ''ifs''...

Wilson's fourteen points might SOUND nice for peace and prosperty and etc, but in reality they're actually rather unrealistic.

Another if: If the League of Nations had actually done shit to stop Hitler getting appeased, such as arming at the border of the Rhineland when Hitler remilitarized it.

The first League of Nations made the concept of "collective security" laughable at best.

Why were they unrealistic? Wilson called for Germany NOT to be punished as harshly as France intended because of the fear of extremism.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why were they unrealistic? Wilson called for Germany NOT to be punished as harshly as France intended because of the fear of extremism.

In retrospect, possibly a reasonable approach.

They were different times then, the victors believed what they did was the right decision.

No, just France believed it was a right decision

I love the French though heart

Hitler wanted Nazis to rule thats it