Treaty of Versailles

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 [the Allied and Associated Governments] 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.

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 [b]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. [/B]

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?

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.

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.

Your claim from the outset was this: That is not what the Treaty of Versailles said. And now that that has been categorically disproved, you are changing your story. Nice job.

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?

And Tangible God is absolutely correct. This: Childish in the extreme ❌

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.

Originally posted by Sorgo X

I actually made a major mistake, because A-H never invaded Serbia. A-H declared war on Serbia, but the Russian mobilized before they could act.

I know the Serbians shot the Archduke. Princip was Serbian. The Black Hand was Serbian. I'm trying to explain to you it was a mistake.

I meant that A-H declared war on Serbia. I made quite a mistake, although I did not intentionally do it.

No, I never made it clear that the Belgium'S shot the Archduke. Show me where I made that "VERY VERY CLEAR"

I will be waiting.

No, I did not mean that. A-H never invaded Belgium. It was a mistake on my part. I did not intentionally mean to say that. I'm not stupid, I know that the A-H declared war on Serbia because they took no action against the assassination.

It was merely an accident. I sometimes mix up countries involved in the war. Don't try to judge people's intelligence. It was a mix up. Nothing more and nothing less, Ushgarak.

I love your little psychoanalysis. You post it like it's true or that it actually matters in this instance. I told you I sometimes get them mixed up. If you can't prove otherwise, that's the way it is. Don't tell me what I did. You don't know me.

Anyways, I'm no fool. I can man up and admit I made a mistake and got the two mixed, because I did.

What I said:

"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."

What I meant to say:

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

I understood what you said FULLY. I merely made a mistake of wording and got the two mixed up because you were mentioned Belgium'S.

Humans make mistakes, and I'm about to point out a few you've made when we move on.

Upset by their Archdukes assassination, Austria Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. A day later, Russia conducted a mobilization against Austria Hungary in defence of Serbia, which then increased into a full fledged mobilization.

Germany then threatened to attack Russia on July 31, 1914, if they did not demobilize their units immediately. Germany then consulted France and asked them what they would do in a Russo-German War. France responded, and stated they would act in their own interests and mobilized their units.

On August 1, 1914, Germany declared war on Russia. Three days later, on August 3, 1914, Germany then declared war on France as well. Germany then invaded Belgium to cripple French units, violating Belgium’s official neutrality. This even then prompted Britain to declare war on Germany. That's what went down.

It's that simple. Basically, Germany was not the cause for this war. It was a chain of events from the point of the Archdukes assassination and saying that Germany caused WWI is not only a lack of knowledge REGARDING the first WW, it's ignorant.

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.

No, no, no ... And you sit here and question my intelligence? Foolish hypocrisy, at it's finest.

A-H *NEVER* invaded Serbia. They had no time to act because the Russians had already fully mobilized. They only THREATENED TO INVADE Serbia.

Study your history.

I'm going to wait for you to man up and admit you were wrong, seeing as you love to tell people to do that. I'm expecting that you practice what you preach, yes? [/B]

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.

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:

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

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!