Comments on: “Squeeze Germany until the Pips Squeak”

By: a German

a German — Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:25:52 +0000

Replying to David, below: Well, the 1871 treaty of Frankfurt just took away a region of France called Alsace-Lorraine which had been German-speaking since the fall of the West Roman Empire. Furthermore, a huge chunk of the 3.8 billion gold franc war indemnity due to be paid by France was offset by counting French canals and railways as well as other infrastructure in Alsace-Lorraine.
–
And the treaty of Brest-Litovsk saw no indemnities at all. It was supposed to give freedom to the non-Russian peoples of the fallen Russian Empire, ending the threat to Germany from the east. Nothing more. However, in the years from 1918 to 1921 the young Soviet Union managed to reconquer Ukraine and Byelorussia (except for the western parts which went to Poland in 1920), the Caucasian Republics, as well as ex-Imperial Russian Central Asia. Soviet attempts, undertaken in the same period of time, to re-take Finland, the Baltic states and Poland came to grief, however.
–
German indemnities after WW1 amounted to 132 billion gold marks. This might have been doable, had the victors not insisted on being paid in gold or in their own currencies. That was unfortunately impossible with German goods being de facto excluded from their former export markets with the help of exorbitant tariffs.
–
In my humble opinion, Deighton is possibly neither a liar nor an idiot, but Germanophobes such as he score guilty on both counts all too often.

By: Richard Munro

Richard Munro — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:15:47 +0000

Of course the economic problems of Germany were a factor in the rise of Communism and Nazism there. But the humiliations of the Treaty and of Danzig (Gdansk) upon a proud population and their language and culture contributed mightily to Hitler's rise. Indeed without the votes of northeast Germany, Hitler may never have gained power. Restrictions on the military were humiliating too. But since there was no permanent Allied occupation, the Germans were able to cheat almost from the very beginning and develop their air force, 88 guns, U-boats, etc. Reparations per se did not cause Hitler, but the Versailles Treaty certainly was the fulcrum by which Hitler turned the German people into victims and posed as the true defender of "German rights" and "German pride." Hitler understood the appeal of nationalism and the hurt pride of the German people, and exploited them to his benefit.

By: Richard Langworth

Richard Langworth — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 16:29:37 +0000

In reply to Elijah Horn. Not exactly. The words were by Eric Geddes, not Lloyd George, whose initial impulse was for a magnanimous peace. But as Charles Mee writes, "Squeeze Germany until the pips squeak" became the rallying cry of the 1918 British election, the Liberal Party's popularity recovered, and "Lloyd George was ebullient." 2) The real crusader for retribution was Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Northcliffe, and his powerful newspapers. Thrice rejected by Lloyd George for the cabinet Northcliffe had personal as well as political motivations for his strident advocacy. Neither is it correct to say the British and French accept no blame for the retributive peace. Britain's mistakes at the Peace Conference have been widely aired by historians, notably R.J.Q. Adams. French historians for their part have long criticised the French equivalent, post-1918 slogan, "L'Allemagne paiera!" (Germany will pay). Nor has Woodrow Wilson escaped blame, for the naivete that inspired too many of his impulses in the Peace Treaty. I have, however, modified the above post to suggest that harsh treatment of Germany was considerably mitigated by the USA, which loaned Germany more money than they had to pay in reparations. In short, this is a big, complicated subject, not conducive to sweeping generalizations.

By: Elijah Horn

Elijah Horn — Sat, 15 Dec 2018 04:52:46 +0000

And that was the opening shot that began the Second World War, which did not begin when Germany invaded Poland. It began when those words were uttered by an insane Welsh b——, David Lloyd-George. Woodrow Wilson did not know who he was dealing with at the Peace Conference. The British and the French still continue to believe they are innocent of any wrongdoing.

By: Richard M. Langworth

Richard M. Langworth — Sun, 26 Oct 2014 12:32:11 +0000

In reply to David. We can also say not resisting Hitler over the Rhineland was bad, but not resisting him at Munich was worse. Doesn't make the former untrue.

By: David

David — Tue, 07 Oct 2014 12:02:54 +0000

"committing Germany to vast reparations and squeezing so hard they contributed to a German economic collapse in the 1920s, leading ultimately to Hitler." This has become such a standard of historical dogma that I thought that it might be a good idea to present an opposing view by a serious historian, discussing just this question: "the treaty that finally emerged was not vindictive compared with Germany's peace with France in 1871 or the terms Germany inflicted on Lenin's Russia in 1917. In postwar Germany, politicians made much of the £1,000 million charged to Germany in reparations. Less was said about the £1,500 million loaned to her by Britain and the United States." (Len Deighton, Blood, Tears and Folly, Pimlico, 1995, p. 133) My first approach to this question would be to check Mr. Deighton's numbers, but I haven't got the time or inclination to even start on such a project right now.