Treaty of Versailles caused WW2

[IchabodPlain]

Maybe this has been brought up before,

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history? The idea that ONE single event caused another. As far as I've ever been able to reason with anyone who is knowledgeable about history (as and example beyond a someone who is a teacher, I have a friend who is very well-versed in WW1 & WW2 era politics and military history, especially in Germany), no one can back this point. There are always least two or more factors that play into every event in history.

Don't get me wrong, the ToV played a role, but it is not the sole deciding factor.

I wasn't sure whether to put this is the Philosophy sub-forum, but I am more concerned about the simplified, superficial view of history that seems to permeate in both school, and everyday conversations.

 

[Gregory]

Schools are operating under a time limit; they've only got so many semesters to cover a huge amount of material. It doesn't really bother me that stuff gets simplified as a result; it's a necessary evil for covering even half of what needs to be covered.

 

[ddt]

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history?

As Gregory already said, too little time to deepen the subject. Also, I think, it's easier to work in small soundbites or slogans. Thus, lots of historic events are reduced to have only one cause. Another fine example is the Dutch rebellion of the 16th C., which is often reduced to only have a religious cause.

Don't get me wrong, the ToV played a role, but it is not the sole deciding factor.

I'd even say it's not the most important role, how draconian the Versailles Treaty was and how unusual that Germany was not allowed to negotiate the terms.

I'd put as the two most important factors:

• The decision of the Entente to let the German armies get back to Germany unscathed, which enabled the "Dolchstoss" legend
• The spinelessness of the SPD to not do away with the old order, but in fact hand the real power on a platter to that same old order (e.g., the Ebert-Groener pact in November 1918). All civil servants, judges, etc. were still committed to the Reich, even without a Kaiser.

 

[hgc]

It's a 20 year stretch, so it's impossible to follow the trail of causes. I wonder how much of the simplified explanation of ToV causing the WWII is attributable to the fascists trumpeting the ToV as a cause of Germany's economic woes (not totally untrue) and as a reason for an expansionist response. Of course there are plenty of more proximate causes, the most obvious being the election of the Nazi majority in the Reichstag in 1933 and Hitler's rise to power. Did ToV cause that? Don't take Goebbels' word for it. Hitler was always going to pursue his expansionist agenda to the stopping point. The real question was whether Europe's other powers could have stopped him. Is the cause Chamberlain's (much talked of in recent days) appeasement in Munich in 38? Up until what point would it have been possible to reign the Nazis in? What if England and France had enforced the provisions against militarization of the Rhineland in 36? Perhaps that would have stopped him. I doubt it. What about the secret non-aggression pact with Stalin? Would Hitler have invaded Poland without it? Too many causes in the 6 years leading up to the war for me to pin significant blame on the ToV.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The ToV was one of many causes. And as stated already, maybe not even one of the most important causes. I also like the fact that it depends who you ask, as to just what part of the ToV caused the 2nd World War.
Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms and the fact that they were treated like a conquered foe ran than a valiant enemy.
American Liberals claim it was all to do with ignoring Wilson's 14 Points.
Pragmatists think (and I concur) that Germany wasn't disarmed and reorganized enough.

The nazi propaganda machine used the ToV as a focal point citing the reasons mentioned above... Combine that with the myth that the war was really a "draw", and you can hand-wave away any other causes if people aren't interesting in checking further.

It's a simplistic and convenient answer for mid-20th century European historians who'd rather blame something they had no part in than admit that the rise of Hitler and Fascism was a product of a whole new era... an era during which many of them stood by and did nothing.

As to the time limitations on teachers playing a part? This is inexcusable. Science classes have the same limitations to cover a lot during basic biology, for instance. Would it be acceptable to state something only remotely accurate in a discussion of reproduction? "Babies are made because people meet other people they are attracted to. The End." It's maybe a single factor, but they leave out all the more importing juicy parts because they don't have time? Unacceptable.

 

[Giraffe107]

We were taught that the ToV was one of several causes (as others have stated)- so 'not enough time' is not an excuse.

 

[ddt]

Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms

An interesting comparison is how much Germany in the end had to pay in reparations, and how much France had to pay Germany after 1871. The latter sum is actually bigger, and the French pulled it off to pay it in a handful of years, ahead of schedule, without the daily complaining. I admit that the open-endedness of the Versailles reparations - the grand sum had never been pinned down - was perverse, but the payments had definitely stopped in, I think, 1930, so a couple of years before the Nazis peaked and got power.

It's a simplistic and convenient answer for mid-20th century European historians who'd rather blame something they had no part in than admit that the rise of Hitler and Fascism was a product of a whole new era... an era during which many of them stood by and did nothing.

Are there professional historians who think that simplistic? I hope not.

As to the time limitations on teachers playing a part? This is inexcusable. Science classes have the same limitations to cover a lot during basic biology, for instance. Would it be acceptable to state something only remotely accurate in a discussion of reproduction? "Babies are made because people meet other people they are attracted to. The End." It's maybe a single factor, but they leave out all the more importing juicy parts because they don't have time? Unacceptable.

Teachers are, of course, bound to the number of lessons they can give and what ground they have to cover. When I was in high school, that meant 2 or 3 hours a week, 4 years, to cover the whole from Sumer to post-WW2. Mostly from a European perspective, of course. I don't think my teacher taught that the ToV was the single cause, but I'm very hazy about what I learnt in school and what I read myself outside of the school curriculum

 

[Foolmewunz]

ddt,

I should've emphasized the lower-case h in "historian" by saying "amateur historians and politicians", which is really what I meant. Although there are numerous degreed historians who are full of crap on many topics, this isn't an area I've seen many mistakes by people in the field. They all pretty well concur that there are elements in the ToV that, properly exploited as they were, could be said to be one of the causes of, if not necessarily WWII itself, then at least of the mood that allowed the build-up to WWII.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nazis claim it was the harsh repayment terms and the fact that they were treated like a conquered foe ran than a valiant enemy.

And a lot of other things. Whatever worked.

 

[soikins]

Is it just me - or does anyone else bothered by this kind of deterministic, cause and effect look at history?

Nope, you are not. Nassim Nicholas Taleb explores this problem in his book "The Black Swan". He is very critical about such after the fact explanations of causality like "Treaty of Versailles caused WW2" and calls them "The narrative fallacy" - "our tendency to construct stories around facts, which in love for example may serve a purpose, but when someone begins to believe the stories and accommodate facts into the stories, they are likely to err."

Wiki on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

 

[Tolls]

And a lot of other things. Whatever worked.

Quite.
Any treaty that was likely to result from the conference at Versailles would have been used by the Nazi party as a tool to get into power. Once you have created (or bought into) the myth that you didn't really lose then the whole concept of reparations is open to attack as "unfair".

And I thought that was what I was taught, but it was over 25 years ago so it's quite possible I have misremembered...

 

[Damien Evans]

Thought you guys might be interested in this cartoon, published in 1919: http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=3&search=Treaty of Versailles

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thought you guys might be interested in this cartoon, published in 1919: http://opal.ukc.ac.uk/cartoonx-cgi/ccc.py?mode=single&start=3&search=Treaty of Versailles

Prescient. Thanks for that, you made my day.

To answer the OP, yes, such reductionist cause and effect pronouncements misinform more than they inform.

DR

 

[Almo]

Yeah, simplification in history happens. Same for science. We still teach young people about the electrons in their circular orbits. The reality is far to complex to hit 1st graders with. So over time, you're told more about what really goes on. Some people never get that far. So it is with history. It's just a problem associated with the vastness of human knowledge and how little time we have to absorb it. Funny how when I found out about the strong nuclear force it occurred to me that I had never questioned how all those positiive charges could stick together in the nucleus!

I'd rather people had the mistaken idea ToV caused WWII than not know anything at all about. At least it shows a useful lesson; excessive measures taken by victors can cause future trouble. Also, it's not entirely false; it's just not the whole picture. I can deal with that.

 

[Nogbad]

It's a 20 year stretch, so it's impossible to follow the trail of causes. I wonder how much of the simplified explanation of ToV causing the WWII is attributable to the fascists trumpeting the ToV as a cause of Germany's economic woes (not totally untrue) and as a reason for an expansionist response. Of course there are plenty of more proximate causes, the most obvious being the election of the Nazi majority in the Reichstag in 1933 and Hitler's rise to power. Did ToV cause that? Don't take Goebbels' word for it. Hitler was always going to pursue his expansionist agenda to the stopping point. The real question was whether Europe's other powers could have stopped him. Is the cause Chamberlain's (much talked of in recent days) appeasement in Munich in 38? Up until what point would it have been possible to reign the Nazis in? What if England and France had enforced the provisions against militarization of the Rhineland in 36? Perhaps that would have stopped him. I doubt it. What about the secret non-aggression pact with Stalin? Would Hitler have invaded Poland without it? Too many causes in the 6 years leading up to the war for me to pin significant blame on the ToV.

The political mind set of the Nazis was not determined by the ToV. Just about every European country had a political wing not far from that of the Nazis. However, it might be argued that a couple things facilitated the Fascists step up to power in Germany and one of these was the grudge felt by the Germans over the ToV. The ToV did not make the Nazis but they certainly exploited a genuine anger over it. The other leg up to the Nazis was the fear of social chaos caused by hyperinflation and other social ills under the Weimar Republic.

The other great bogeymen of 1920s/30s politics was of course Communism and theories of conspiracies through global banking (the Great Depression being caused by the Market rather than any actual failing of factories or workers). We should remember that Fascists took power in Spain and Italy before Germany and were fiercely anti-communist and also protectionist. The Kings of Albania and Romania were not far from occupying similar political positions. Hitler and the Nazis took the political rhetoric further than these others but in many ways they were pushing at an open door caused by prevailing political sentiments across a swathe of Europe. It was those societies least affected from the fall out of WW1 and the revolution in Russia in 1917 that stood against the new boy on the political block, Fascism.

Another factor is that many countries including Britain and the US viewed the Soviet Union with considerable concern and a strong non-communist leader in Germany was not considered a bad thing at all (at least until it became apparent the cure was worse than the illness)

If the ToV had been handled differently and if either more continuity with the old order or a more robust new order had been set up in 1918 in Germany then perhaps the Nazis would have been a nearly party as they were in many other European countries.

My own view is that WW1 was responsible for 1917 in Russia and the subsequent rise of Fascism in Europe and that from the first bullet in August 1914 there probably wasn't much to be done to prevent the eventual fall out across the following decades.

I am happy to be contested on this though

 

[JoeEllison]

Nope, you are not. Nassim Nicholas Taleb explores this problem in his book "The Black Swan". He is very critical about such after the fact explanations of causality like "Treaty of Versailles caused WW2" and calls them "The narrative fallacy" - "our tendency to construct stories around facts, which in love for example may serve a purpose, but when someone begins to believe the stories and accommodate facts into the stories, they are likely to err."

Wiki on the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(book)

Sounds like the current problems in addressing the Bush administration... you have people rejecting any comparisons to Nazi Germany out of hand, because they dislike any "narrative" that includes those comparisons. It would be equally simplistic and wrong to claim that the Bush administration is JUST LIKE Nazi Germany. Both positions assume a simple story with superficial similarities.

 

[Solus]

It's a bit more complicated then Nazi propaganda as already stated. Another factor would be the great depression which has not been mentioned here. Had that not occurred the Nazis likely would not have been voted into power in the first place. The economic disaster in Germany at the time allowed demagogues like Hitler a chance that would have otherwise not existed.

I'm more curious though how war might have been averted between the U.S. and Japan. No idea on that one although I haven't read any books on internal WW2 Japanese history either.

 

[idunno]

The Germans were starving, humiliated,etc.
Without the ToV there would be no ascension of nazi party and its policies, though the Nazis used it as an excuse.
Its interesting that the German TV series Dresden,die Hoelle(hell) was cast all over Europe but not in the UK and USA, the countries who most like to keep the myth of the evil Germans and the Anglo American superstar saviours.

Last but not least, it is very easy to be brainwashed by people who are supposed to be cultured like some Nazis.
I dont like my native language, but when one of our most respected authors said that ours was the most beautiful language in the world, i had to fight hard with my mind to keep away the «appeal to authority» and stick to my opinion.

Now imagine you live in 1930s Germany where people were struggling and didnt know about «fallacies» and «hidden persuaders»

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nogbad,
Excellent post. I tend to agree if one says that WWI caused WWII. I just can't agree that the ToV was the direct cause. The ToV was just a symptom. It did nothing to address the issues that brought about WWI, so in that respect it was part of the cause.

Idunno,
What are you going on about? You're bordering on acting as a Nazi apologist; or at least in the mode of the traditional apologist for Nazi sympathizers.
Do you really believe that the appeal of the Nazis was that they were cultured? They were marginally educated lower-middle-class thugs.

 

[Uzzy]

I slightly disagree with you, Nogbad. The Treaty of Versailles was certainly a factor in Hitlers rise to power, and WW2, but not the most important one. I think that the Great Depression was key.

In 1928, the Nazi's polled 2.8% of the Reichstag vote. 1930 they polled 18.3%, which gave them 107 seats and made them the second largest party in the Reichstag. Interestingly, the assassination of Horst Wessel and Goebbels impressive propaganda campaign played a huge part.

Now, if the Treaty of Versailles was the main reason, why did the Germans give the Weimar republic a good decade of power, especially under Stresemann's able leadership. Only when the Great Depression kicked in were the German people willing to look at non-democratic alternatives, like the Nazi's and the communists.

I do agree with you when you say that WW1 doomed Tsarist Russia. It's often forgotten that Tsarist Russia was in quite a good state pre 1914, and rapidly improving, thanks to the work of Witte and Stolypin. But those reforms needed time to work, time denied to them by WW1. And yes, anti-communist feelings after WW1 were very high. It's also often forgotten that Britain, France and the US took part in the Russian Civil War (to a limited extent). Winston Churchill in 1919 said that 'Bolshevism must be strangled in it's cradle'.