The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Although Pro's argument thus far has comprised 3 injustices perceived in the ToV, we can see that his second and third contentions depend heavily on the first. That is, Germany's C3 exclusion from negotiation, as well as the C2 fairness of terms depend heavily on Pro's contention that Germany "was no more guilty for the war than any...other powers, yet [was] saddled with the brunt of the culpability." Just as a prosecutor will seldom consult the accused regarding charges or a judge will seldom negotiate sentencing with a criminal, so too would the later contentions only seem unfair if guilt were not determined. Since by signing the TofV, Germany has already effectively pled guilty to charges, the necessities of international law have already been satisfied. We need only satisfy our individual sense of justice.If we can determine, therefore, that Germany acted correctly when she accepted principle responsibility for the Great War, then Pro is left only with some minor complaints about the proportion of reparation in relation to that apocalypse which Germany forced upon Europe. In as much as my final contention serves to directly refute the core of Pro's argument, let's proceed.VII. Germany Was ResponsibleA. Little War, Big WarLet's note one inaccuracy in Pro's "Brief History" that may in part explain his misapprehension regarding German intentions. Pro states "There were no such things as proxy wars, because even proxies were involved in this massive web of treaties. Any war, anywhere on the European continent, would eventually drag in every major power..." This is incorrect. Pro seems unaware of the First Balkan War 1912-13 [1] or the subsequent Second Balkan War of 1913 [2] or the essential context these conflicts lend to 1914 motivations. These were little wars compared to the apocalypse of the following summesr, but both conflicts were at least comparable in size to the 2003 Iraq War in terms of troop deployments and casualties. Both wars are accurately seen today as proxy wars between Russian backed Serbs, Austro-German backed Greeks and the rotten remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Serbia was the important victor in both conflicts and it was Serbian success that most concerned Austria following Ferdinand's 1914 assassination. The war Vienna sought was a war with Serbia; a war that might firmly establish her sovereignty over Bosnia-Herzegovina. Austria felt confident that they could take on the Serbs so long as Russian support was minimized. Thus she sought support from the largest and most modern army in Europe, Germany. Austria, the Ottomans and Russia all anticipated a short war, a war in the Balkans fought mostly by Balkan soldiers. Each power saw an opportunity for gain by such engagement. Unfortunately for these three, the conflict sought by the German military was on an altogether larger scale, a scale for which none of these power was prepared. Four years later Germany would capitualte but these three powers would be gone.B German Military PlansIn the 25 years since Kaiser Wilhelm had removed the supremely competent Bismarck, the German military had been preparing for a two-front war against France and Russia, believing that such a war was inevitable and necessary to establish Europe's youngest nation as the supreme mainland power. In reaction, both France and Russia increased spending and loosened draft requirements. In 1913, Russia embarked on her 4 year "Great Program" of military modernization and expansion that the German high command feared would be forever forbid German ambitions eastward. Hawks like Moltke and Falkenhayn insisted to the Kaiser that however Russia reacted to Vienna's declaration of war, Russia must be invaded in 1914. Failure to attack would almost certainly provoke a Russian invasion after 1917, felt the hawks. Further, because France would almost certainly use any invasion of Russia as pretext for recovering her losses in Alsace-Lorraine, France must also be attacked. [3] Germany correctly assessed that if France and Russia were both permitted to fully mobilize at their borders, Germany would be outnumbered and drawn into a war of attrition.Therefore, France must be attacked first with overwhelming force, Paris occupied and surrender assured the few short weeks it would take Russia to bring her massive army into Poland. The military put most of their popular support behind an opening invasion of their neutral, friendly, and defenseless neighbors, Luxembourg and Belgium. France believed that Germany would not dare invade Belgium as their neutrality was guaranteed by the UK and a declaration by that island nation would open the German flank to British sea power. As the former Queen Victoria's oldest grandson, Wilhelm was confident that Britain would back away from a general war. When on Aug 1st it became clear to the Kaiser that Britain would defend Belgium and the Kaiser advised that Belgium neutrality should be respected, Chief of Staff Moltke lied and said that the invasion had already begun. [4]Much more ougt to be said regarding German patriotism and the near ecstatic romanticism with which the German ruling class beheld warfare in this era, but we haven't the space here. For the purposes of understanding Germany's responsibilities we do better to focus on Germany's agression.C. First BloodAugust 1- Germany declares war on RussiaAugust 2- Germany invades Luxembourg. German reconnaissance forces in France and Russia.August 3- Germany declares war on FranceAugust 4- Germany invades Belgium- UK declares war on GermanyAugust 6- Austria-Hungary declares war on RussiaOn all fronts, Germany was the aggressor: first to declare war, first to invade. In spite of Pro's resignation regarding the inevitability of the network of alliances, we should note that both Italy and Romania refused to join in war with their Entente allies, because all of these treaties were defensive- they were only invoked by invasion of foreign power. Since Germany was the clear aggressor, Italy and Romania were able to withhold without breaking the treaty terms.D. Last BloodNow let's take a look at Germany's position on the Western Front in Nov 1918, when they finally sought armistice after 100 days of retreat: After four years of bloody war on the Western Front, Germany was still the only nation doing any invading.Here's the Eastern Front- And here are those portions of the sea over which Germany declared her right to sink any ship at will: Including, famously, American Cruise ships like the Lusitania.E. Allies against AggressionNor were Belgium and Luxembourg and the United States and Italy the only nations who tried hard to remain neutral but were compelled to war by German aggression: by 1918, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Portugal, Siam, and Uruguay had all been compelled to go to war against far away Germany.F. The conclusions are inescapable. Only Germany actively sought general war in 1914. France and Russia knew they weren't ready. Austria and Turkey hoped only for a limited third Balkan War. The UK and the US foresaw terrible economic damage for no political gain. Germany was the only invader in Europe and the first to make war Indeed, Russia would have gladly made peace at any virtually any point after the Battle of Tannenberg, 30 days into the war, but Germany wanted more. From beginning to end only Germany controlled the pace and the conduct of the Great War. Germany alone began WWI and Germany ended it because Germany was the only political body who wished to continue until domination could be achieved.VIII. RebuttalsAs we have shown and as Germany conceded at Versailles, World War I was Germany's war and she was rightfully accorded the bulk of reparations at the end of her disastrous adventures. In this light, France and Russia's position (as well as the US and UK proletariat) that Germany must be dismantled and her military leaders executed is certainly understandable and perhaps the only rational prophylactic against Germany's foreseeable re-emergence twenty years later like some Hollywood villain.If readers are convinced as I am that Germany's only honorable option was reparation, then Pro's C1 argument must be stand refuted. Likewise, if readers are convinced that Germany was the aggressor, then Pro's C3 argument that Germany was not consulted regarding the terms of her reparation seem paltry and not in keeping with our usual sense about how justice is determined. It is still possible to see Germany as the guilty party but nevertheless consider the sentence unduly harsh, but I don't see the TofV as such. Let's remember that Keynes "Carthaginian Peace" also describes Rome's failure to contain Carthage after defeating them in the first and second Punic Wars. After Rome's third victory, she killed or enslaved every survivor, burned the entire state to bedrock and salted the earth so that nothing might ever grow there again. Germany 1919 was not Carthage. She was allowed to live and keep her lands and her wealth and dominion in Eastern Europe. She was stripped of her massive armies and made to redirect a portion of the miltiary spending to the victors charged with rebuilding their fallen provinces, but this seems like a fair precaution. Germany gave up most of her colonies, but these were small and their unequalness to French and English holdings was a large contributor to that inadequacy that compelled Germany to war in 1914. She returned the lands she'd conquered in Eastern Europe, but that seem fair. That Germany might liken such rational conditions to Punic genocide seems histrionic at best.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...