Talk:Treaty of Versailles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Treaty of Versailles is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Comments:
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. Once references have been added, please remove the unref=yes switch of the {{WikiProject Germany}} template on this page.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

I tagged this page with {{POV check}} because I noticed several things that I wanted to put forward for other people to look at in this article

  • 1: "The Military conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were harsh and were put in action to prevent Germany from starting another World War."
Depending on who you talk to, this sentence may or may not be very fair. While Germany certainly had a large part in the onset of WWI, they cannot be held completely responsible. It can be argued that the other powers had as large of a part in its onset as Germany had. Because history is written by the victors, I have always felt Germany has been a bit too harshly critisized for the start of the war. While WWII seems way more clear cutin its origins, the reasons for the first world war are much more spread out.
The point isn't whether the feelings were justified, it is whether they existed. They did exist, and a quick read of Punch magazine of the period will confirm that this using this reason (prevention) as a justification was one of the ways that the British and French dealt with their grief. Bejnar 00:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it's stated as if this is the modern interpretation. It should be noted that "and were put in action to prevent Germany from starting another war, in accordance with the allied belief that Germany was responsible for WWI" Hvatum 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I see the article has been locked, that's probably a good idea. It's good in its current form. Better to have a good article then one with more information constantly being vandalized. Hvatum 05:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 2: "In January 1921, this number was officially put at 269 billion gold marks, a sum that many economists deemed to be excessive."
I bring this sentence up because it has been argued by many scholars that the monetary reparations put on Germany were well within the bounds of the German economy to pay off over time. The fact that the Germans saw this ammount as unfair is totally resonable seeing as how any other power after the war would have seen sactions as a an admission of guilt a well.
Agreed, people on this talk page seem to be moving towards a irrelevant modern economic interpretations which say Germany "could" have paid the reperations off. Such analysies really don't matter, because the salient fact is that the German populace did not feel Germany was responsible for the war, and therefore felt reperations in any amount, especially such a large amount were wholly unfair and vengeful. This went a long way to discrediting the Weimar Government from the get-go, a pretty bad idea if your aim is to prevent a stable bulwark against renewed militarism... of course hindsight is 20/20. Hvatum 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider these things and tell me what you think. I didn't change the article because overall I think it is pretty good. Especially the parts discussing what the Big Three powers were looking for in Germany after the war. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 19:05, 05 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given the hyperinflation caused by the war reparations, I think that the amount of money demanded was far too high. Didn't the US prevent a worldwide economic collapse in the 1920's by loaning Germany the money they needed for the reparations? --Kadett 19:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but scholars and economists have said this is because Germany did not use the money for any other purpose than to pay their reparations to France and Britain. It was meant to be put back into their economy, but they did not use it that way like they were supposed to. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, because, they um, had reperations to pay which France and Britain were demanding? Seems like paying reperations, instead of investing the money economically, would indicate that reperations were a factor in their inability to invest the money economically. Is there some problem with my logic? :-P Hvatum 20:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] When it was written

Did the treaty END the war, or was it written AFTER the war? I keep finding different information, one saying that the treaty officially ended the war; "The Treaty of Versailles was the peace settlement signed after World War One" and another saying that the treaty was written after the war.


Answer:

The armistice officially ended the fighting. The Treaty of Versailles was the peace treaty that would deal with the "final" conditions of Germany's surrender and the subsequent reorganisation of the international order.

[edit] Alternative Viewpoints section

I deleted this section because it was POV pushing and not written in an objective even-handed manner. The "facts" are not really facts, and the content here is not based on history. The user who created that section initially is 218.215.15.51 and if you look at his history, the bulk of his/her edits regard "alternate history" fiction novels. Clearly his expertise is not applicable to real history. I'm actually sort of surprised that we let his submissions slip through the cracks for the last 3 months.

Please do not revert page without providing explanation here first. The purpose is to create an encyclopedic entry. One that is unbiased and professional. That is why I removed the "alternative viewpoints" section. It simply does not adhere to the standards of wikipedia.

Thanks! 129.55.200.20 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)129.55.200.20

It's back again and I see no notice ... 80.142.196.172

Yup. I reverted it (back to the form without the alternative viewpoints). The modern viewpoint regarding economic implications is interesting but not appropriate as the conclusion to the summary of the article. Hvatum 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversial but should be linked to both WWI & WWII

why is this not mentioned at all in your WWI entry, there is no link to this page either...why? a historical document which led to WWII? sorry i don't get it.

Why is what not mentioned. --ScottyBoy900Q 21:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

Should we create a disambiguation page? There have been other notable Treaties of Versailles. The war between France and Britain was ended by a treaty signed there in 1783, for instance. (Currently, Treaty of Versailles (1783) redirects to Treaty of Paris (1783).) There's also the alliance between Austria and France of 1756, often called the first Treaty of Versailles. We currently have articles at neither Treaty of Versailles (1756) nor at First Treaty of Versailles... john k 01:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support this idea. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 00:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I move the WWI Treaty of Versailles to Treaty of Versailles (1919) and made the dismbiguation page the orginal Treaty of Versailles article page. I have checked for double redirects and have udpate some of the articles which link to the original TofV page, with emphasis those directly related to WWI or Versailles the location/building. --chemica 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germany's Economy

It is nevertheless called the big four even though there were only three significant players in discussions. J P Taylor uses refers to them as the 'Big Four' as well, and he would know.

"The Treaty of Versailles did cripple Germany's economy..." I find this phrase very unhelpful. The extent to which Germany's economic woes were the result of Versailles and the reparations remains the subject of serious controversy. Other, more likely, explanations can be found in the long term policy of deficit financing adopted and maintained before, during and after WWI.

If I understand correctly, much of the trouble was due to German attempts to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles. For example, the 1923 bout of hyperinflation was the result of a countermove to a French occupation of the Ruhr in response to German default on the reparation payments. That doesn't mean that the Treaty itself crippled the economy since we don't really know for sure that default was unavoidable. -- KarlHallowell 16:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
An important fact to be recognised is that the Ruhr was probably the most important area in Germany's industry and therefore a huge part of their GDP. Without it Germany had significantly less resources.
The Weimar Government deliberately sabotaged their economy post-Versailles/1920s to exploit this against the Allies and for propaganda purposes exaggerated their economic hardship. For example the German Government had to pay back loans that paid for their war so they deliberately depreciated the mark in order to wipe out internal debt. Versailles certainly did not 'cripple the German economy'. See chapter four of Ernest Troughton (who was living in Germany at the time the economy was supposedly 'crippled') - It's Happening Again (London, John Gifford, 1944), pp. 34-45.Johnbull 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally I'm very careful with books that were written during the wars - they can sometimes be quite biased. In any case I think that we can agree that the german economy had suffered both from the runaway inflation as well as running as a war economy during WWI. The reparations, excessive or not (well, demanding high annual payment for almost 60 years is quite over the top for me), did definitly further strain an already weakened economy. Stating "the Germans could have easily paid the reparations and just crippled their economy so they don't have to" is as one sided as saying "the german economy was in best health until Treaty of Versailles singlehandely crippled it". CharonX 02:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've edited the last section again. REGARDLESS of what the ACTUAL economic or strategic implications of the treaty were I think ANYONE with ANY understanding of history can agree with my revision. I say we leave it here. Obviously we cannot agree upon the actual implications of the treaty, however the psychological effect of it upon Germany was obvious. The versailles treaty, combined with the great depression, created the destabilization and uncertainty necassary for someone like Hitler to come to power. Remember, we're talking about what actually happend in history. The modern understanding is important, but the most important factor is without argument the actual psychological and social effects of the treaty, as this is relevant to the ensuing effects much more then the actual economic effect. If anyone disagrees, please flesh out your argument here first, instead of just reverting. Otherwise I believe the current state is a good compromise. Hvatum 20:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of the Treaty?

I read here and there of violations by Germany in subsequent years. For example, when did Germany finally ignore the restrictions on the size of the armed forces? Further, how did the Treaty finally end? This seems the place to describe these details. -- KarlHallowell 15:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  • The Treaty of Rapallo let Germany train its army in the Soviet Union (a breach of the treaty) and according to someone who was actually present in Weimar Germany, General J. H. Morgan, records that Germany never disarmed in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. See his book Assize of Arms or John Wheeler-Bennett's The Nemesis of Power.
    Johnbull 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Adolf Hitler#Rearmament and new alliances dates repudiation of Versaille in 1935 (conscription reintroduced), and this talk page's article can not be considered complete without mention of that.
    --Jerzy•t 07:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is strange in that it focuses so little on Germany's eventual blatant violation of the treaty. I think it would be useful to break down when they first broke each term. Superm401 - Talk 06:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What is uncertain there? It was gradually violated after Hitler came to power. Before that the allies were the ones disarming Germany, there wasn't much choice in the matter. Hvatum 03:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed someone added a section outlining violations to the treaty. Good job. It was incorrectly placed however, as it is pertaining to specifics of the treaty and therefore belongs in the body of the article (per Wikipedia policy). I therefore moved it between the article's conclusion and "reaction to the treaty" sections. I also corrected a few sentences which seemed poorly written or slightly confusing. Also, the point regarding the training of German military forces in Russia incorrectly states that Germany's "first" Tanks in Planes were tested. This is in fact incorrect, as both sides employed tanks and aerial combat units in the first world war.Hvatum 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Reparations paid?

"It should be noted that the German government under the Weimar Republic and the Nazis never payed a cent or pence of reperations." -- Is this true? What are the sources?

You are right in doubting the statement. 67 billion Goldmark were actually paid (but in the eyes of the Allies only 20billion). My source is Cornelson's history book ISBN 3-464-64294-1 The edit is done in this time period: [1]. If statements added, changed or deleted are wrong (especially in that time period), please don't hesitate to change them back or add the suspicious sentence to this talk page for analyis.

The word "revenge" is constantly used here, or in my opinion mis-used, with respect to the France's position. It carries an inappropriate emotional conotation while it only seems rational and legitimate for the french to take the front role and make their demands after sufferring most of the immense war damage and uncavalier menace of the germans destructing everything in their retreat, per article.--Lucian 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of the word "revenge?"
Revenge: "to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of"
Demanding reperations for "suffering" war damage is a form of revenge. This isn't up for discussion, it's a basic definition of the word revenge. Perhaps this is bias on your part, but it's better to give the benefit of the doubt. If the author had used the word "Vindictive" then I would agree that it would carry inappropriate emotional connotation, but revenge is an accurate and appropriate word. Hvatum 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is the word "punish" which makes it violate NPOV i believe. That hangs on whether you believe Germany to be "guilty", which they did sign up to it has to be admitted. Thereby hangs the rub. How to weigh up a signed admission against a belief by most of a population. The word "Reparations" carrys with it no sense of guilt but simply of debt or wrong and the act of making amends, repairing or compensating. Therefore compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation as indemnity for damage or injury during a war. I think it is widely accepted today that the treaty was iniquitous, impractical and driven more by the short sighted national economic needs of each of the allies than by a serious attempt to repair, keep the peace or impose workable changes. Facius 20:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Does anyone have an original citation for the quote "...chain reaction leading to World War II" attributed to a Dan Rowling, historian, in 1951?

A Google.com search return numerous articles, all of which refer circularly to this this Wikipedia page. A search of several university libraries does not return any books or journals by anyone named Dan Rowling.

StormbringerFX time: 0412, 18 November 2006 (EST)

There is a series of articles on the Treaty of Versailles in The Times in 1929 (commemorating 10 years of existence).

Jackiespeel 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liechtenstein

The story being that Liechtenstein was left off the final list of signatories, and so found itself fighting two world wars with Germany in September 1939.

Is this true?

Jackiespeel 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self-determination a source of friction?

I found the following statement somewhat curious (it comes at the end of a paragraph on Wilson's influence at the peace conference):

"Self-determination was, and continues to be, a source of friction between different ethnic groups around the world as each group seeks to define and enhance its position in the world."

This almost sounds like the author is saying that national self-determination is to blame for conflicts between varying ethnic groups--surely one group oppressing another, which is often the situation when people are not self-governing, would be a greater "source of friction"? If he or she is not saying that, they should change it, if they are, I think they need to clarify their meaning more precisely. (I was going to delete it outright but didn't want to be heavy-handed).

Critic9328 02:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


I have removed certain personal opinions/PoV from this article but it still needs more work. Removed:

  • "The military conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were harsh and largely motivated out of fear and a French wish for revenge."
  • "In fact a great deal of the provisions regarding Germany in the treaty can be linked back to this fear and desire for vengeance."

- Ted Wilkes 15:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map needs edit

The map on the page shows the areas of German that were lost at the end of the WWI. The area that became western Poland is marked Danzig Corridor with an arrow pointing to the whole territory. My understanding is that the Danzig corridor, refers only to the narrow strip of land that separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany. The arrow needs positioning.

[edit] Little political jokes

There are little political inside jokes in thus articles and international treaties which can be funny, but even so misleading when you don't understand them. One of them is the term that Germany had to accept the sovereignity of Austria.

Ever since the end of the "Deutscher Bund" 1866 Austria hadn't been part of any german organisation, but this didn't stop Austria from speaking and feeling, so being german all over the time, especially since the Imperial Germany and Austrian-Hungary had been allies since then, fighting WW1 together.

Once Wilson's politic of self-determination destroyed their empire. the germans of Austria seeked to unify with the other part of Germany. Not just that it was refused to them even when in plebiscites in some regions 99% of them voted for the unification, but parts of the settlement conneceted to the core like South-Tirol or the Sudetenland were stripped of it against the idea of Wilson's 14 points.

I don't lament. France and the other allies hadn't led the war to make Germany even stronger, given the stable population such a unification would have brought to germany charged with the loss of population based on the generous handing over of former german territory especially in the east.

But saying Germany had to accept the independence of Austria is like to force the USA to accept the independence of Illinois or England to accept the freedom of the "Free City of Manchester"... it is worse than a joke, it is a lie.

[edit] Quote

A book I have contains the quote, by Foch:

It is not a peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.

Is there a place in the article for it? It is especially interesting since he was right to the year, and it shows the doubt about the effectiveness of the Treaty. Ben davison 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A section on notable persons' quotations on the subject seems appropriate. I have previously read, and particularly like, that one. (That's French field marshal Ferdinand Foch, in case anyone's having trouble at the disambig.) --BDD 17:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versailles and aspirin

Does anyone else think that the bit about the trademark on aspirin being relinquished as part of the reparations is worthy of inclusion here? The link is here; the exact quote is "Believe it or not, the trademarks [to Aspirin] were given up at the Treaty of Versailles to France, England, Russia, and the United States in 1919.] I am not sure where this is in the full text or whether more products than just aspirin were affected. Does anyone else know? -Scm83x 11:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


- “it will be a miracle if much remains for reparations.” (John Maynard Keynes)

[edit] Sections

I think this page could be ordered into more structured sections. As a proposal, some rewording could give something like this:

--> Background for the Treaty (i.e. World War One coverage)

. After the allies won Germany signed the treaty as a diktat

. Germany signed the treaty in the light of Wilson's 14 pts

. They also expected to have some input/to receive a fair treaty


--> The Allies' Aims (and/or) The Making Of The Treaty Of Versailles

. Wilson's (and 14 pts)

. Clemenceau (Considerable pressure, vengeful)

. Lloyd George (Somewhat vengeful, under considerable pressure, "Make Germany Pay")

. Germany could "sit in"


--> The Terms of the Treaty of Versailles

. Economic

. Territorial

. "Moral" (War Guilt, pride)


--> Fairness

. War Guilt, (some say pointless, others say most justifiable)

. Territory (some say justifiable, others disagree citing self determination)

. Military

. Reparations (What value to place on it? include human loss? A figure germany CAN pay or a figure that reflects war costs? This dilemma)

. What Germany did to Russia in the T of Brest-Litovsk

. But Germany stood down while they could have carried on fighting (valour)

. Was the treaty a fatal compromise of conflicting interests?


--> Effects of the treaty in German society

. Kaiser's abdication

. Outarge, Germans in general did not feel as though they had lost the war . Disillusionment over reparations

. General strikes (crashing their own economy)


Admittedly it would be some work but I'm more than willing to help, the target being to make the switch without losing any information already present and hopefully adding some along the way! Who thinks this would be more logical? Any suggestions?

-Christopher --Christopher 19:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Irreconcilables

The section of the Irreconcilables article on the division of the U.S. Senate on approval of the treaty should be moved into the article about the Treaty of Versailles. -timrem 22:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree Bcem2 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I also concur Snoop 11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur as well. --chemica 01:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain further what you mean? And what's the Irreconcilables article? john k 04:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Irreconcilables article contains information about the US Senate debate over whether or not to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, specifically the three groups which most Senators fit into: Internationalists, Irreconcilables, and Reservationists. I am simply proposing that this information be worked into the article about the Treaty of Versailles instead of remaining in a seperate article, and perhaps expanded by someone with a greater knowledge of the subject. timrem 17:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency Conversion

I have this problem everywhere: inconsistency in currencies. I mean, it's all well and good that it was set at 132 billion gold marks, but if it was reduced to $XXXX (US Dollars), what does that mean? How much is that in German currency? You'd think it would make sense to compare the terms in the same currency. Otherwise, the values are meaningless. How many people know the conversion rate of USD-German Gold Marks at the time? (And don't go quoting "1 bazillion marks to a dollar," because those were paper marks. - Darkhawk

[edit] Revisionist history presented as fact

"The economic problems that the payments brought, and German resentment at their imposition, are cited by many as one of the causes of the end of the Weimar Republic and the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, which eventually led to the outbreak of World War II. This theory was discounted in the book Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret Olwen MacMillan."

I've rewritten this last section. Just because some over-enthusiastic wikipedian has read a piece of revisionist history doesn't mean this article has to be at odds with what most people understand of the Treaty of Versailles. Colonel Mustard 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've removed this sentence: In any case, the reparations issue was used by some in Germany as nationalistic propaganda.

This information probably should be in the article, but this sentence is so vague that someone needs to work out what exactly the original author was attempting to say and re-insert a clarified version. You can't "use" an "issue" as "nationalistic propaganda". Bad combination of verbs and nouns and things. Colonel Mustard 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The context is a bit odd also. The reperations issue was not raised by the Weimar government as propaganda, the Weimar republic didn't do propaganda! Hitler and the Nazis employed it as propaganda, it might be appropriate to mention this. But making such a large generalization as "Issue X was used by people Z as Propaganda" is too nonspecific to be useful to anyone. It will just leave the user feeling confused. Thanks for discussing your edits! Hvatum 03:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China

Several articles about China talk about the "humiliating Versailles treaty" being a major contributory factor to the May Fourth movement there, but nothing here describes why it was humiliating for China. i know the treaty gave large areas of Chinese territory to Japan without consulting the Chinese, but I don't know enough to edit it into the article. If anyone else does, then it should be in here.--Jackyd101 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versailles and the Collapse of Weimar.

I wonder if too strong a causal connection is being made here between Versailles and the eventual collapse of the Weimar republic. Few Germans-either of the political right or left-liked Versailles, but most came to live with it. With the onset of the 'calm years' from 1924 onwards parties irreconcilably opposed to the treaty were in a minority. The collapse when it came owed far more to a variety of economic factors-including the drying up of subsidies and investments under the Dawes Plan-rather than the 'humiliation and shock' of Versailles. Also it might be worth considering what kind of peace treaty would have been acceptable to Germany in 1919? One, I think, that would have left them stronger than before, at least in territorial terms. White Guard 00:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems to be commonplace in many American colleges to teach undergaduates that WWII was caused by Versailles and appeasement and then to slip in something about a funny little man with a toothbrush moustache as little more than an afterthought. Norvo 15:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Disagreed. You are misrepresenting scholarly opinion. I don't know where to start with the original poster: "what kind of peace treaty would have been acceptable to Germany in 1919?" What? So, your logic is "Germany would not have really liked any treaty the allies imposed. So the allies might as well impose the harshest terms they can mutually agree upon." Seems a bit queer to me. Kind of like saying "Law breakers won't be happy with any punishment, so we might as well give them all the death penalty."
Secondly neither of you have even read an average AP Euro Highschool textbook. The versailles treaty is not blamed as the sole factor leading to world war II. I've never read such a thing in any American textbook. Perhaps you should actually follow Wikipedia's policy, and find some original sources to back these claims up? In any case, a survey course of history for undergraduates will inevitably make over-simplifications, afterall, history is complex. It isn't easily distilled down into a one semester non-major course. Even my Highschool history textbook "American Pageant" attributed Hitler's rise to power primarily to [b]unemployement[/b] due to the great depression, not the Versailles treaty.
I've revised the article to focus more upon the Psychological effects of the treaty on Germany, since there is so much conflicting scholarship on the economic effects the article should not end with such. I believe we can all agree the Psychological effects are undeniable and significant. Thanks for helping Wikipedia! Hvatum 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I would like to see a map of europe before and after the treaty.

I agree. A map would help this article greatlyCheif Captain 04:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotect?

This page seems to get more than its fair share of anonymous vandalism. Should it be semi-protected?--Boson 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret Honkey Ritual?
I happen to agree. User:tightkid 04:11 pm, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree. It is Wikipedia philosophy to allow anonymous edits. Semi-protection is intended to stop a sudden rash of attacks or a steady, continuous high rate of vandalism. At least one admin has suggested that 10-15 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is the threshold where semi-protection is warranted. The level of vandalisms appears to be on the order of 1 a day. I would leave it unprotected for now. If the rate of vandalism increases dramatically, we can ask for a temporary semi-protection. --Richard 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be tolerable at the moment. It was very bad in November/December, when practically all the edits were vandalism and reverts. It was then semi-protected for a couple of weeks and that worked for a few weeks, but then there was a build-up and it was semi-protected again for a couple of weeks in February. The effect seems to have lasted for a while. It's my guess (based on the IPs and the nature of the vandalism) that there is a rash of vandalism when the topic comes up in class in American schools. I wonder if teachers could be persuaded to encourage their charges to be more respectful of common property. All the energy spent on removing vandalism could then be devoted to improving the articles that help them do their homework. On the other hand, perhaps the young vandals will realize that constructive edits are much more rewarding and grow up to be valued contributors. --Boson 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Three vs Big Four discussions

[edit] Big Three?

Note that several texts books including R.R. Palmer have stated the "Big Four" and not the "Big Three" consisting of Wilson, George, Clemenceau and Orlando.

I changed the edition from the "Big Three" to the "Big Four" back to say the "Big Three." I kept the reference to Italy & Japan's representatives but they were not considered part of the major allies. That's why they are called the "Big Three" in almost every single WWI source. Can you please provide some bibliographic evidence of your claim? Also, please sign your posts. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It may as well be big 5 then, because Prime Minister Robert Borden of Canada was also a big presense.--Puckeater8 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

i don'think so. His presence is only significant because it was the first "canadian" external affair dealt with canadian government without the British Power. He didn't do much really.

According to Europe in the Twentieth Century (4th ed., 1980), by Roland N. Stromberg (late Professor of European History at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), it was the "Big Four," including Wilson, George, Clemenceau and Orlando (p.103). Ltell 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Both versions ("three and four") can be found in the literature, partly depending on what period one is talking about. This is explained in the article.
"Eventually Russia and five other countries left the meetings so only the "Big Four" remained. After Italy left, the final conditions were determined by the "Big Three" nations: United States, France and Great Britain."
This might be clearer if the article was better structured. In my opinion it needs a complete restructuring.
See also #Big Three/Four revisited--Boson 21:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Four vs Big Three

See [2] for a glossary that has both terms. I've reverted the page back to the Big Four term. -- Hirudo 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Three/Four revisited

See also: #Big Four vs Big Three and #Big Three? This seems to get changed back and forth, although evidence has been provided that both are used. The edits are are sometimes by anonymous users and result in odd statements. At the moment we have the "Big Four" consisting of three people. Sometimes we have "the Big four", followed by a statement that a fourth person also played a minor role. Could we get a consensus on leaving "Big Four" (but adding the name of the fourth person) and adding a footnote (ref) to the effect that some references talk of the Big Three, not including the Italian (and providing at least one citation)? --Boson 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I would suggest we add our opinions here (thus):

  • In favour --Boson 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: There is a Wikipedia article on the Big Four that includes this meaning.--Boson 13:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since someone has changed it back to "Big Three" without further discussion, and this is used elsewhere in the article, I have re-inserted the sentence about the Italian prime minister and added a footnote explaining that "Big Three" and Big Four" are both used. If necessary we could add citations to the footnote. --Boson 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brest Litovsk comperable to Versailles. Citations? (Quote removed pending source)...

I think some sources are needed to back up what's said in this article, for example: "Some modern historians, however, argue that this cause was reasonable in that it reflected the harsh terms Germany had negotiated with Russia with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk." Who are these historians?

User:AndiEffe 12:02, 08 December 2006.

I'm just going to remove that sentence, unless someone has a reputable source. The reperations to be paid by Russia were around 10B Gold Reichsmark, the reperations Germany was to pay were 29 times that amount! Unless someone can explain the reasoning behind this claim, I don't think it belongs in the article. Hvatum 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not That Unfair?

You said that Germany having to pay lots of reparations according to the Treaty of Versailles was very unfair? Well, it doesn't seem that unfair when I read Part VIII: Annex I. I mean, don't you think innocent Belgian civilians, for example those in Ypres, whose homes were destroyed in the war, should have been compensated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.149.78 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Please don't post silly strawmen, it doesn't help anyone. No one said dutch civilians should not be compensated, you're actually the first one I've ever heard who put that forward as a suggestion! Maybe you are the revisionist here? 219 Billion Marks DNE the damage caused to dutch civilians... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hvatum (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
The first replie states that Belgian civilians should be compensated. The seccond is about Dutch civilians. Belgium and The Netherlands have nothing more in common than The United States and Canada. In fact, The Netherlands were neutral in the first world war. And then, to get on topic: I think it really was unfair to make a country bleed for 70 years. Compensation is one thing but making a country pay 269 billion gold marks is unfair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.60.217.88 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 'Dude, Riley, What's up with this?'?

...can someone get rid of that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.232.204.46 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It was already removed by the time you posted this request, but thanks for pointing it out. —Krellis 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia's Role

This confusion may be due to a misunderstanding on my part, but if, as it is stated originally, Russia was excluded from negotiations on the Treaty, why were they included in the meetings of the "Big Ten"? Did the group of nations not convene to discuss the treaty? -Hoekenheef 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, the big ten were the leaders and foreign ministers of Britain, Italy, France, the US, and Japan. john k 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War Guilt

The "War Guilt clause reads:

"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.

Why has this text been misconstrued for the past 88 years as blaming Germany "solely" for the war when it explicitly references "Germany and her allies"? 65.185.190.240 22:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies. It does not state Germany "and her allies accept the responsibility for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments... "
...This is pretty cut and dry. I think part of your confusion stems from a changing lexicon, instead of talking about blame in reference to the treaty one should address "responsibility" (which the treaty lays solely on Germany) and the "cause" which the treaty states was Germany and her allies. The responsibility is directed at Germany. Germany is a single easy target from which to demand reperations, so the allied governments laid responsibility on her, while ironically acknowledging that the "cause" was not Germany alone. 130.71.96.23 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This was written in 1919, after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire so Germany didn't have any allies by then. In any case, Verasilles was directed at Germany while other losers had seperate treaties. So Verailles wouldn't be asking defunct German allies to accept responsibility. If the clause truley implied that Germany was entirely responsible responsible for the war that it and its allies started, it would not include "and her allies" in the first place and would read: Germany accepts the responsibility 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. Rather, it seems to be a statement making Germany agree that the Central Powers started the war and not the Allies. 65.185.190.240 01:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That pretty much is what it says. You added a bunch of redudant verbiage but it still does not say "Germany and her allies accept the responsibility for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments... " Instead, it says "Germany accepts the responsibility." Oddly enough your revised version which supposedly would clearly place the blame still includes "and her allies" in it.
Perhaps a more modern example would clarify things for you. If the police said "Do you accept the responsibility of you and these two drunk people for the damage caused in this traffic accident?" I would assume your answer would be a strong no. Afterall, why should the police care whether or not you accept that seperate parties from yourself are responsible. The above statement is syntactically identical to the clause in the original treaty. Regardless of your and my differing opinion, I think we can both agree that there is at the least a dangerous amount of ambiguity there. If they had truly wanted to clearly divide blame they would have written "Germany and her allies accept the responsibility."
I agree that they do not explicitly blame the war only on Germany, though the article doesn't state this, so I don't really know what your complaint is. If you see a problem with the article then address it, but whatever misconceptions may or may not exist in society as a whole aren't really central :). Thanks for contributing, you have got me thinking about this point.130.71.96.23 04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Taking the car accident analogy one step further, you rent a car and together with your two drunk buddies get in an accident. One drunk buddy is killed, the other turns out to have few assets but you have a fair chunk of change. To whom do those injured or otherwise damaged by your accident turn to for restitution? Guess what, it's you. Even if you weren't driving and were just egging on the driver. You bear some responsibility for the damage. Are you responsible for all the damage or just some? That's for a jury to decide. Guess what the Big Four decided?
On a different tack, whose armed forces caused most of the damage? On French and Belgian soil? To Allied shipping?
--Richard 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-class for Military History

I decided after using this article from a research prespective that it deserved atleast a "B" rating instead of a "Start" rating. It meets all of the criteria and is much longer and better written then many of the "B" articles I've seen. It could use a POV check in some places (as has been previously mentioned) and still could use some references in many places also but I decided that it was more then good enough. Cheif Captain 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/e/Talk%7ETreaty_of_Versailles_bbe3.html"