The politicians, who signed the peace treaty on behalf of Germany, were named and shamed as ‘stabbing Germany in the back’. This notion was emphasised by opposing political parties who were egger to take any opportunity to make these politicians look bad to the people of Germany. Germany was a militaristic state which and the republic was not going to succeed with so many opposing forces such as ex-soldiers who were willing to fight any rivals. The treaty of Versailles caused a profound sense of injustice and resentment amongst the German people therefore this translated into hatred of democracy. The treaty was not the only reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic, issues such as the period time and the great depression contributed to this also.
What was the War Guilt Clause? The War Guilt Clause was a main term of the Treaty of Versailles. It was clause number 231 and it blamed only Germany for the outbreak of war. This was one of the main terms that Germany was very unhappy about, as imperialism from many other countries had contributed to war. Germany had to accept this clause and couldn’t discuss it, as it was not invited to this conference.
America, despite its efforts, could not remain neutral and was forced to enter World War 1. Germany did not respect America’s decision to stay neutral and purposely sunk their ships in the British Isles. They sent the Zimmerman Telegram uniting other countries against America. Lastly, they blockaded British ports and prevented American trade with France and GB. Over 100,000 Americans died during WW1, but were rewarded with patriotism, an Allie victory and trade which once again
One thing the Germans were not happy in the treaty of Versailles is the War Guilt Clause, take blame for the war. Because of this they had to the reparation to the big three. The German government didn’t have the money to pay for the reparation as the country just lost a war and the factory are destroy and the environment is in a poor state. So then the USA banks lend Germany government loans. Its was all going well as Germany was getting in a better state and they are paying their reparation until 1929.
The Weimar Republic had signed the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, which increased their unpopularity. The Germans hated the Treaty because they saw it as accepting the blame for causing the First World War and admitting defeat. Also, the Treaty came with very harsh including paying reparations of £660 million to Britain and France. The people of Germany did not understand why the government signed this questioned whether they wanted the best for Germany. The hatred for the Weimar Republic kept on growing and this led to the Kapp Putsch, 1920.
"The only reason Germany hated the Treaty of Versailles were the territorial restrictions" - to what extent do you agree with this statement? At the end of the war the three main Alliance leaders met at Germany would have to agree to. The document that contained all of this information was called the Treaty of Versailles and Germany had to sign it. As well as the territorial restrictions the Germans also had to agree to many other things: an army of no more than 100 000 men; no air force, submarines or tanks, the reduction of their navy to 6 old battleships, they would pay the total cost of the war, they weren’t allowed to join the league of nations and they had to agree to the war guilt clause which meant they had to take full responsibility for the start of the war. Germany suffered 5 main territorial losses, which were: • Posen, the Polish corridor and Upper Silesia => Poland • Memel => Lithuania • Northern Schleswig => Denmark • Alsace-Lorraine => France • The Saar => League of nations (however it was returned to them after 15 years as the inhabitants decided to become German) Germany lost most of her empire at the end of World War One as well as part of her actual country.
As well, the only way that the Wilson plan would have survived the political intrigue of the Europeans was either through a league that had real teeth, or a super power willing to intervene as a worldwide police officer. Neither of which existed in 1918. Clemenceau’s views represented the average sentiment of the European Allies after the war. In the closing days of the war, a war weary European population must have tried to make sense of the carnage, of the loss. Clemenceau casts a pale light on the German population, blaming the war on the aims of “the intolerable German Aristocracy.” (Clemenceau, p. 73) The entire argument for the French and nay, European view, was the perceived threat that Europeans felt of German arrogance.
This made Germany angry as they had coal taken from them and there port was weakened so they were not as strong and economy was damaged. Germany also lost all of it colonies. This meant that germanise empire was destroyed. One of those countries was Samoa which was given to New Zealand. Germany was not happy about losing all this land as it made them smaller, it damaged the economy and they lost colonies to make them look stronger and to help them if another war broke out.
And the U.S. and Germany could not agree upon what to do with Germany, so it ended up being divided: West Germany to U.S. and Great Britain and West Germany to the Soviets. I believe this was a major event that made the cold war inevitable. Both sides could not come to an agreement and this led to the Berlin Blockade. Russia was trying to starve the West Berliners and the U.S. responded by flying in supplies. The blockade was a devastating crisis that solved nothing.
The first key issue I would like to discuss is the limited nature of the German revolution and how this damaged the prospects of German democracy. The way that Ebert used to take control lead damaged the prospects of democracy from the outset. Historians have criticised Ebert’s use of force to crush radical groups such as the Spartacists and his use of the Freikorps. Together with the crushing Spartacists in 1919 caused these left wing radicals to become divided and were therefore unwilling to compromise on reforms in the Reichstag. This made it far more difficult for coalitions to form and for democracy to function in the designed fashion.