The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Thanks to Oro! I will no address Con's case.I. The Myth of VersaillesA very eloquent introduction on the part of Con, and largely lacking in substantive arguments. Rhetorical flourishes do not arguments make. I shall, however, address the notion of the contested "punitive" nature of the TOV in this round at a later point.II. The Myth-MakersA. GermanyIt is interesting that Con writes of Germany, that "this young, aggressive upstart nation emerged from a unnecessary war of her own making." There are two falsehoods in this single line alone, firstly, the idea that Germany was "aggressive" and that the war was somehow of Germany's own making. Notice here that Con is assigning to Germany blame for the war--in other words, he is saying that Germany is guilty of starting the war. This point was already thoroughly debunked in my earlier round. The Franco-Russian Alliance, the Triple Entente agreement, the Dual Alliance, and the Treaty of London (1839), created an interlocking web of alliances that would drag all major powers into nearly any war that erupted on the continent or in the colonies. To put it succinctly, "Russia got involved to defend Serbia. Germany seeing Russia mobilizing, declared war on Russia. France was then drawn in against Germany and Austria-Hungary." [1, 2] This web is aptly demonstrated by this image: click="document.location='/bsh1/photos/album/3486/22711/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/4/3486/92604-3486-ugpd5-a.jpg" alt="WWI: Web of Alliances" />Additional causes for the war can be identified, but it certainly is unfair to blame Germany for the war. I would be interested to see Con actually warrant this assertion with analysis. Neither was Germany esp. aggressive--certainly no more so that other powers at the time, e.g. Britain--nor was it guilty of beginning the war.Con then launches into a discussion of Germany's intact industrial might. While it is indisputable that Germany's economic heartland was less damaged than that of other allied nations, particularly France or Russia, this certainly does not substantiate the claim that Germany was left better off by the treaty. Germany had financed the war through borrowing; the of which was that "the exchange rate of the Mark against the US dollar fell steadily throughout the war from 4.2 to 8.91 Marks per dollar. The Treaty of Versailles, further accelerated the decline in the value of the Mark, so that by the end of 1919 more than 6.7 paper Marks were required to buy one US dollar...German currency was relatively stable at about 60 Marks per US Dollar during the first half of 1921...The first [reparation] payment was made when due in June 1921...Because reparations were required to be repaid in hard currency and not the rapidly depreciating Papiermark, one strategy Germany employed was the mass printing of bank notes to buy foreign currency which was in turn used to pay reparations. This greatly exacerbated the inflation rates of the paper mark...That was the beginning of an increasingly rapid devaluation of the Mark which fell to less than one third of a cent by November 1921." [3] This, along with Germany's inability to ultimately culminated in a horrific case of hyperinflation where by "November 1923, the American dollar was worth 4,210,500,000,000 German marks." [3]Ultimately, the conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the hyperinflation caused largely by the TOV led to severe economic harms for Germany, that extended far beyond the conclusion of wartime hostilities. To summarize (sorry for the large quote): "The Treaty of Versailles imposed a huge debt on Germany that could be paid only in gold or foreign currency. With its gold depleted, the German government attempted to buy foreign currency with German currency, an action equivalent to selling German currency in exchange for payment in foreign currency, but the resulting increase in the supply of German marks on the market caused the German Mark to fall rapidly in value, which greatly increased the number of Marks needed to buy more foreign currency. This caused German prices of goods to rise rapidly, increasing the cost of operating the German government, which could not be financed by raising taxes because those taxes would be payable in the ever-less-valuable German currency. The alternative was some combination of running a budget deficit and simply creating more money, each of which increased the supply of German currency on the market and reduced that currency's price. When the German people realized that their money was rapidly losing value, they tried to spend it quickly. This increase in monetary velocity caused still more rapid increase in prices, creating a vicious cycle. This placed the government and banks between two unacceptable alternatives: if they stopped the inflation this would cause immediate bankruptcies, unemployment, strikes, hunger, violence, collapse of civil order, insurrection, and revolution. If they continued the inflation they would default on their foreign debt. The attempts to avoid both unemployment and insolvency ultimately failed when Germany had both." [3]B. The U.S.Con has failed to draw any connection between U.S. rejection of the Treaty and the question of the treaty's justness or lack thereof. What relevance does this have in regards to the resolution? I would appreciate it if Con could clarify.C. BritainCertainly Keynes's bias is well-known, but that does not mean his arguments are without merit or that they should be eschewed entirely. Surely every economist of the era, even many of today, write with a bias in mind. If finding an objective source were our objective, we would fail miserably.Moreover, since I have not cited Keynes in this round as of yet, it seems Con is largely attacking a strawman, reducing my arguments to those of Keynes. That is neither fair, nor appropriate.Furthermore, a simple Ctrl+F search for the word "Keynes" in Con's cited source produce scant hit--no substantiation for Con's claims, which seem to undermine the strength with which Con attempts to impeach Keynes's analysis.III. Germany's OptionWe are not questioning historical trend here. I can agree that generally the vanquished are not included in the peace process by the victors, yet, what is generally the case is not in question. The question before us is what is "just." If it is not just to exclude any relevant party, even if doing so is common practice, it is still grounds for a Pro vote. Since Con has drawn no link from this argument to the resolution, specifically the concept of "justness," I fail to see what relevance this has on the debate. Again, I would appreciate it if Con could clarify.IV. Comparative JusticeThis resolution is not about comparative justice; the resolution does not ask whether the TOV was "more just" than something else. Rather, the resolution asks whether the TOV was "just," implying an absolutist evaluation, not a comparative one. Moreover, to have a comparative evaluation, we must have something to compare the TOV to. In this case, the resolution provides us with no such counterpoint; it does not say "The TOV was more unjust than X." Again, the topic simply reads, "The TOV was unjust." Therefore, if it was unjust in anyway, even if it was less or more so than some other point of comparison, a Pro ballot is in order. To put it more bluntly, perhaps, it is not my job to show that the TOV was more unjust than the Armistice of Versailles, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, or the Armistice with France. Any attempt to force me to do so would be abusive burden-shifting on Con's part.V. Germany Ignored the TOVAgain, what happen after the treaty was sign is immaterial to this debate. This debate is about whether the terms of the TOV were unjust, not whether the enforcement thereof was just or not.VII. ResponsibilityI await Con's remarks, reminding him that he should also respond to my case next round.ConclusionCon has strung together an interesting narrative predicated on the idea of the "myth" of vindictiveness surrounding the TOV. Yet, it seems that many of his claims have little to do with the central question of this debate, that is, the justness of the TOV, and, even more, many of his claims are simply inaccurate. I look forward to continuing this debate! Thanks :)SOURCES1 - http://education-portal.com...2 - http://americanhistory.about.com...3 - http://www.ask.com...