Talk:Treaty of Versailles

Japan's reaction

Is there any reason why japan's alleged "reaction" is based on a single source that only concentrates on the racial aspects on not on anything else? The Japan section is literally reduced to that single point and nothing else so one reading this would come away with the impression that Japan only cared about race, which isn't anywhere near true. 71.191.186.166 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I think there's just not much in the way of sourcing on this. This section needs a heavy edit and maybe just wiping. FOARP (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claims re hyperinflation

Under violations - reparations, the article states:

"Although the causes of the devastating post-war hyperinflation are complex and disputed, Germans blamed the near-collapse of their economy on the treaty, and some economists estimated that the reparations accounted for as much as one-third of the hyperinflation.[142]"

This is not at all supported by the source. I've seen no argument that the causes of hyperinflation are disputed by anyone or are particularly complex. According to wikipedias article on that topic, it was caused by money printing to pay for reparations and war debt. If there is disagreement on that it should be cited. Where are these economists who say reparations accounted for 1/3 of the hyperinflation? Not in the source as far as I can tell.

I think the sentence could be deleted without detriment to the article. 72.16.97.97 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Check the wikipedia article's media portal (near the bottom of the article), submenu "cartoons" to find inflation calculated from 1921 to 2023.Lord Milner (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the 1921 to 2023 inflation number relates to Germany's hyperinflation? It took place mostly within the course of a year in the early 1920s.

My issue, though, is with a statement in the lead section: "The treaty's terms against Germany resulted in economic collapse and bitter resentment which powered the rise of the Nazi Party, and eventually the outbreak of a second World War." There is no direct link between the treaty's terms and the hyperinflation, which peaked because of the government printing money to support the passive resistance to the occupation of the Ruhr. I couldn't find anything in this article to support the statement either. The bitter resentment and (helping) to power the rise of the Nazis, yes, but economic collapse, no. I think the phrase should be dropped. GHStPaulMN (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. The problem was my own careless reading. My apologies. GHStPaulMN (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The inflation was caused by the massive borrowing used to finance the war (Germany fought on credit) not with taxes. In addition to that France had been forced to pay higher fees in a prior war. I would also advocate for the dropping of that sentence in the lead. Chefs-kiss (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sally Marks is a good source on this and her evidence from the archives pretty much destroys the narrative that hyperinflation was caused by "money printing to pay for reparations and war debt" (yes, I learned this version in secondary school too). Specifically, the idea that, during the period of hyper-inflation, the Weimar Republic printed large amounts of paper cash to buy hard cash to pay reparations, instantly runs up against the problem that very little in the way of hard-cash payments were made from June 1921 until the Dawes plan, so how could hard-cash payments be the immediate cause? There are less-disputed ways in which reparations led to inflation, but they are things like the striking Ruhr workers who refused to make deliveries of in-kind coal payments being paid in paper cash by the government, and lower tax-revenues due to lower economic activity due to in-kind deliveries requiring printing of paper currency to bridge the gap. Printing money to make war debt payments weren't the main cause of hyperinflation either, but a desire to use inflation to greatly reduce the burden of this debt (which was listed in paper currency) was - Marks demonstrated this with Reich Chancellery archive material. Just in case anyone is minded to assert that Marks was some kind of fringe voice, her work on this was prize-winning and was described by Bill Keylor (head of history at Boston) as having "...won widespread acceptance in the profession". Trachtenberg and Schuyker are specialists in this field who also endorse this POV, as do others. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

War crimes

Whilst in the end not resulting in very much in the way of convictions, the war crimes issues around the Versailles agreement were an important factor in both the negotiations and the implementation of the agreement. That this is so is evidenced by, for example, the last-minute refusal of the Germans being explicitly because of articles 227-230 (i.e., the ones dealing with putting the Kaiser on trial, and trying war criminals) as well as article 231 (i.e., the "war guilt" clause). Previously this article did not mention the topic at all which is a serious omission. Even general histories of the WW1 period typically mention this issue, and there is substantial scholarship on the topic. I've added in the relevant content to each of the "big four" (though I don't think the Italians had an explicit agreed position), to the description of the agreement, and to the violations section (since in the end extradition was refused and the Germans declared not to have carried out the trials properly). FOARP (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Section on the formation of the German empire in the background?

I think one thing this article is possibly missing is some of the context of why states wanted what they wanted from Germany. For example, regaining Alsace-Lorraine was a very important goal of France, but we essentially leave the question of "why?" hanging. similarly, Poland kind of just appears in the text of the article with no real explanation as to why so much Polish territory was occupied by Germany. Since the article is already very long, and also since I am aware that one can always extend the period in a history article backwards to further explain who-did-what which can turn in to a historical blame-game, I don't feel confident to simply add this in without discussing first. What I'm thinking of is something along the lines of:

===The German Empire===

During the German wars of unification, Prussia under Bismarck successfully unified the smaller German states into an empire. In the course of these wars Schleswig-Holstein and (formerly-French) Alsace-Lorraine were added to earlier Prussian conquests in Poland as constituent parts of the German Reich. The peace Bismarck imposed on France in particular caused lasting bitterness in that country.

For sources on all this Weinberg's "The Defeat of Germany in 1918 and the European Balance of Power" appears to be a good source both factually and for these being relevant to Versailles (see, e.g., 252-3 on Poland). FOARP (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)