Weimar's First Task - Ending the War

When they ended the war, many Germans were hopeful that the peace would be based on the 'Fourteen Points' proposed by American President Woodrow Wilson, rather than on the rather harsh tems of the Armistice.

They were brutally disabused of such illusions during the Conference which drew up the Treaty of Versailles – they were excluded from the negotiations, and presented with the terms as a fait accompli:

Going Deeper

The following links will help you widen your knowledge:

- Giles Hill on reactions to Versailles

  Simple Essay: Why was there opposition in Germany to the Treaty of Versailles?

 Source B

This cartoon appeared in the German satirical magazine Simplissimus, 3 June 1919

 Click here for the interpretation

1.   The German Reaction at Versailles

On 7 May, the victors presented their Treaty to the small German delegation.  Count Brockdorff-Rantzau angered the Big Three by giving a long speech criticising the Treaty; then the delegation left and set about countering it. 

A little later, they sent their counter-proposal (based on the Fourteen Points) to the Big Three – their reply was so good that one of the British delegation said it was much better than the Allies' suggestions, and even Lloyd George wondered for a time if they ought to rethink the treaty.

Then the delegation went home. 

Many Germans wanted to refuse to sign the treaty; some even suggested that they start the war again.   So it was with great difficulty that the President got the Reichstag to agree to sign the treaty, and the imperious way the two German representatives were treated when they were forced to sign made things worse.

2.   The Germans HATED the Treaty of Versailles [BRAT-U]

1.    The Germans hated Clause 231; they said they were not to Blame for the war.  The soldier sent to sign the Treaty refused to sign it – ‘To say such a thing would be a lie,’ he said.  Clause 231 did not physically harm Germany, but it hurt Germany's pride – and it was this, as much as anything else, that made them want to overturn the treaty.

2.    The Germans hated Reparations; they said that the Treaty was trying to starve their children to death.  At first they refused to pay, and only started paying after France and Britain invaded Germany (January 1921).

3.    The Germans hated their tiny Army.  They said it left them helpless against other countries.  At first they refused to reduce the army, and the sailors scuttled (sank) the fleet rather than hand it over.  The Dolchstosslegende grew up in Germany that the German Army had not been defeated, but had been ‘stabbed in the back’ by the politicians.

4.    The Germans also hated the loss of Territory – they claimed that the treaty was simply an attempt to destroy their economy.  Other nations were given self-determination – but the Treaty forced Germans to live in other countries.  Germans were also angry that they could not unite ('Anschluss') with the Germans in Austria.

5.    Most of all, the German delegates argued that the Treaty was morally Unfair – a 'diktat' (IMPOSED settlement).  They had not been allowed to take part in the talks – they had just been told to sign.

Primary Sources

Germany's Reaction - Sources

Brockdorff-Rantzau on the economic articles of the Treaty.

3.   Was the Treaty Unfair to Germany? [BRAT-UP] 

Many historians have denied that the Treaty was unfair, most recently the American historian Sally Marks (2013).
They argue:

1.    Actually, the peacemakers had explicitly decided NOT to Blame Germany for the war, although some delegates wanted to do so.

        Instead they used the word ‘responsible’ (which gave them the legal right to charge Germany reparations).  The German delegation, however, (intentionally) translated the word ‘responsible’ with the German word ‘Schuld’ – a word meaning ‘responsible’ in the sense of blame/ ‘moral guilt’ – so that they could be outraged about it.  Historians have known about this since 1929.

2.    As for Reparations, Marks says bluntly: “There are those, not all German, who claim reparations were unpayable. In financial terms, that is untrue”.

        Germany had not suffered any damage during the war, and its economy boomed in the 1920s.  Taxes in Germany were lower than in most of Europe, but the government refused to increase them.  The Treaties only required Germany to pay the first 50bn marks (£2.5bn) – the rest dependant on her ability to pay – over a period of 60 years, and the term was extended in 1924, and the amount reduced in 1929.  By comparison, the War had cost Britain £6.2bn, including a debt to the USA of £1bn, which the Americans required paying back in full.  It was not that Germany could not pay; Germany would not pay.

3.    As for the Army, Marks comments: “The German army was ample to maintain internal order and defend against all neighbors except France … critics do not say why Germany needed a larger army, nor do they explain why states that had spent four years defeating one German effort to conquer the continent should enable another.”.

4.    And as for Territory, Germany did NOT lose, as is often claimed, 13% of the land, 10% of its population, and 13.5% of its economy.  Recently, the historian Robert Boyce (2009) has pointed out that most of the areas lost had been newly acquired and/or were non-German.  Meanwhile, the peacemakers refused France’s attempt to make the demilitarised Rhineland a separate state, and left it as part of Germany.

5.    Modern historians do not believe that the Treaty was Unfair to Germany, especially compared to the terms that Germany had imposed on Russia in 1918, and intended to impose on the Allies if Germany won the war.  Correlli Barnett (1986) declared Versailles: “hardly a slap on the wrist”.

6.    So why is it, asked Sally Marks, that not just popular opinion, but many professional historians, still condemn the Treaty as unfair on Germany?  In Mistakes and Myths, she finds the answer: “one of the world’s most successful and longest-lasting Propaganda efforts.