[Tim]

Friends, this piece of historiography baffles me.

My impression of it is that a consensus developed in the 1920s that rallied against the belief in the treaty of versailles that blamed Germany for the outbreak of the war.

am i right in believing this?

also, if anyone knows of any texts on the war guilt debate, that would be most helpful.

[Maxim Litvinov]

My impression of it is that a consensus developed in the 1920s that rallied against the belief in the treaty of versailles that blamed Germany for the outbreak of the war.

I'm sorry. I tried. Perhaps you could restate the question, and then I might understand it.

[Englishman]

It means was there a belief in the 1920's that Germany had been treated too harshly in the Treaty of Versailles?

I think there was some consensus that Germany had been treated harshly. The Treaty was drawn up and signed with WWI still fresh in the memory and many of the statesmen involved did later say it was too harsh.

During the 1920's Germany was accepted back into the international sphere with its signing of the Locarno Treaty which guaranteed its Western borders and its admission into the League of Nations. The Dawes and Young plans, which restructured reparations, were also signed and it can be argued that these indicated that there was an acceptance among the Western powers that Germany had been treated harshly.

[Sid]

My impression of it is that a consensus developed in the 1920s that rallied against the belief in the treaty of versailles that blamed Germany for the outbreak of the war.

You mean against the War Guilt clause, which was the justification for the reperations clause? Basicaly yes, there was a consensus that the War Guilt clause was unjust, then post WWII (60's?) German historian Fritz Fischer wrote a very influential book ("War of Illusions") which basicaly said it was the Germans fault after all (though I have not personaly read this), but typicaly, now that theory has been largely discredited as well.

Unfortunately this is just from the top of my head, though I did study this at Uni so used to know what I was talking about. I seem to remember an essay question along the lines of "Versailles, a Treaty too soft for the harshness it contained, discuss." This sounds convoluted but the effects of the treaty were to leave Germany with strong territorial grievances, but failed to actualy damage their economic potential, leaving them pissed off but well capable of doing something about it.

[Englishman]

One of the reasons why Hitler was able to get away with so much during the 1930's was the feeling among the Western powers that he was only restoring the parity between Germany and the other nations of Europe that had been removed by Versailles.

[Monkeydust]

My impression of it is that a consensus developed in the 1920s that rallied against the belief in the treaty of versailles that blamed Germany for the outbreak of the war.

am i right in believing this?

I wouldn't say there was a "consensus" as such, opinion was still very much divided well into the thirties.

It would be fair to say, though, that the view that Germany was to blame for the war more prevailing into the 1920s, especially among politicians and academics.

The "average joe", however, often didn't change his views - and, to some extent, still hasn't.

This sounds convoluted but the effects of the treaty were to leave Germany with strong territorial grievances, but failed to actualy damage their economic potential, leaving them pissed off but well capable of doing something about it.

This is true.

The treaty was, in retrospect, the "worst of both worlds".

In terms of preventing another war, either a significantly harsher or noticeably more lenient treaty would have been more desirable.