By what measuring stick? It was more just than the peace Germany imposed on Russia.
They clearly did in several instances during WW1. Not to mention there's a reason the allies asked for reparations to offset the destruction that Germany caused.
Here's comes the Holocaust denial.
Darn Churchill and his mind control powers for making Hitler annex and invade Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.
The debt was quite payable if Germany didn't pour all their money and effort into rearming and other economic deadweight.
Compared to what?
That the Nazi's lied to Germans about the payments and how they were furiously spending money elsewhere is the fault of the Nazis, not the treaty itself.
Partly agree with the first but the Nazis were never elected into power. They were installed their by old conservatives who thought they could control the Nazis and sided with them instead of the more popular left. And in doing so they fucked over their country and contributed to the horrors that followed.
The nazi were not the only ones to protest that the reparation demands were too high. There has been volumes written on that.
France was harsher, but again, you're eliding the question. How did the Treaty of Versailles compare to other treaties, contemporary or earlier? What's the measuring stick for unfair or excessive you're using?
Sure, but again, the Nazis didn't win really democratically. Hindenberg was already ruling as by decree, and the Nazis actually performed worse than the election before. There's no amount of scorn that would be excessive for the bargain that Hindenberg and von Papen worked out.
They used Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Russians, as slave labor, and gassed millions of civilians(disproportionately women and children) for no other reason than to "racially cleanse" Europe. The only thing the war had to do with that, is created the opportunity to carry it out.
Do you expect me to write and publish a paper on the treaty and its harshness?
It didn't, that is once again down to nationalist-driven interpretations of the treaty (and article 231 specifically). The causes of WW1 are complex, but Germany clearly had the largest immediate role in its start. Additionally, as most of the war was fought on French soil, it would be quite logical that damages were heavily slanted toward Germany.
Do you believe Hitler and all those who acted in his name were justified?
Nope, I simply asked what you were using as a measuring stick, and you can't answer it. But you are convinced Versailles was abnormal. See the huge gap in reasoning there?
The best work on inter-war Germany in recent decades is stuff like Wages of Destruction. Are you familiar with it and its conclusions on this?
Is there a meta analysis or survey you're basing your views on? Those aren't hard to find.
Perceptions don't magically happen, it was fueled by exploitation from nationalists in many instances.
Course he did, as did his ilk. They were more afraid of leftists than blatant crazies like the Nazis, nor did they want to offer any reforms of substance and create a third way. And we saw the outcome.
Interesting. Would you be willing to outline what you agreed with or consider justified, in terms of Hitlers rise to power and subsequent conflicts and acts? I'd like to understand your perspective, and where exactly you draw the line.
