The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Thanks, Oro! I will defend Pro's case, then address Con's case, and finally provide some reasons to vote Pro.PRO's CASEOverviewCon states that we cannot determine whether the punishment was fair unless we first ask whether the punished was guilty. However, as I said earlier: "Consider, that everyone should have the right to defend themselves in a court, yet Germany was denied the chance to defend and represent itself when the treaty passed sentence on it. Even if the sentence is fair, the process is not, and thus the sentence is tainted." We cannot exclude the defendant from trial as Con would suggest--they have a right to speak up on their own behalf before judgement and sentencing is handed down. Germany was never given that chance. Even if Germany is guilty, if the process itself was unfair, then the result of the process cannot be considered so. Con DROPS this assertion. Therefore, my C3 is not reliant on my C1.As for my C2, perhaps the scope of the impact of my C2 is reliant on Germany's guilt, but it is not wholly contingent upon it. If Germany was guilty, then perhaps it deserved some punishment, but that does not mean it deserved the severity of the punishment it did wind up receiving.Con claims that the field of war is not a courtroom, but the TOV was not decided on a field of war. Germany was no longer a combatant that needed to be disarmed; it had already capitulated. Con's example of the soldier with the right to disabled a combatant therefore fails because in this case, the combatant was already on his knees. You do not punish someone who has already, for all intents and purposes, surrendered and punish them without court martial. The TOV assigned Germany guilt and then sought to punish it; reparations were just as much about allied rebuilding as vengeance. Certainly, this resembles a court in relevant aspects; Con himself even used these legalistic analogies, suggesting that Berlin "plead guilty to the charges." Germany--at the very least--should have been permitted to attend the kangaroo court that was the TOV and speak on its own behalf.Germany did not sign the TOV because it was merciful; in fact, the head of the Germany government resigned rather than sign because he thought it was just the opposite. In the end, Germany was forced to sign because it had no other choice--further conflict would have led to it's total collapse and occupation. It's allies had crumbled, and further prolonging the conflict would have been pointless. As I said earlier: "Germany did not so much 'plead guilty' as it acknowledged that it could no longer afford to fight on...Most rational agents under those conditions would sign the treaty, whether or not they accepted guilt."Con then brings up that Germany "never paid a dime for the reparations." That is totally irrelevant to this debate. This debate is about the terms of the TOV and how those terms were decided upon; this debate is NOT about the enforcement of those terms. The terms of the TOV were unfair, even if Germany found means of evading those unfair terms; however, I totally dispute the idea that reparations had no ill-effects on Germany, which I shall discuss more later.Notice: Con offers no evidence to substantiate his claim that the strike in the Ruhr (1920) was the real cause of German inflation.IX. DefensesA. Little War, Big WarCon says that Germany ignored all bids for peace--yet it in fact made some: to both Paris and Moscow. As for Vienna, Con is totally incorrect when he states that Austro-Hungary no more started a world war than did the Ottomans earlier. Yet, Vienna knew Russia was apt to respond with force, which it did in fact do. Russia's involvement spurred France's involvement, and so Vienna's declaration did, in effect, pull in the world.B. German Military PlansTwo points: (1) The scope of Germany's actions in the war do not make it responsible for the war, and (2) simply because Germany increased it's spending most does NOT make it the most militaristic.Consider, Germany may have increased it's spending the most, but it was still behind most of its adversaries in total military spending per-WWI. For instance, from 1908-1912, Germany trailed both Russia and the UK (except for 1908 where it tied with the UK and trailed Russia). Only in 1913 did Germany take over as the leader in spending. Surely, leading only 1 year out of 6 years in military spending does not make Germany the aggressor. [1]Certainly, Russia and France saw economic and land-acquisition opportunities in a war with the Central Powers. They may not have had plans pre-war to seize Constantinople or Alsace-Lorraine, but certainly they must have seen the chance to make those inroads when Austro-Hungary and Serbia erupted into conflict. For example, "Although Russia enjoyed a booming economy, growing population, and large armed forces, its strategic position was threatened by an expanding Turkish military trained by German experts using the latest technology. The start of the war renewed attention of old goals: expelling the Turks from Constantinople, extending Russian dominion into eastern Anatolia and Persian Azerbaijan, and annexing Galicia. These conquests would assure Russian predominance in the Black Sea." [2] Also, "The annexation caused widespread resentment in France, giving rise to the desire for revenge, known as revanchism. French sentiments wanted to avenge military and territorial losses, and the displacement of France as the pre-eminent continental military power." [2]Con then states that nations have the right to deploy troops within their boarded and that this is not an act of war. But it certainly is an act of aggression, esp. when the purpose of that mobilization is very widely known to be to engage in a war. In this case, Russia fully intended to intervene on the side of Serbia is Vienna did not withdraw. Poland's deployment against the Nazi's, however, was defensive, not offensive. Germany gave the Tsar a chance to call off the mobilization, and the Tsar refused; thereby compelling Germany to act in preemptory defense of its ally. Just like the 6 day war where Israel preemptively assailed Egyptian forces, such an action is not aggressive; it is designed to ensure one's one safety and that of one's core allies.Con DROPPED the following: "the assassination of the Archduke could've been considered, legally, the first act of aggression in the war, and that Austro-Hungary's response was merely defensive." Thus, under that interpretation, the Dual Alliance could've compelled Germany to action. It's alliances with France and Russia had expired before 1914, and were no longer in force. Surely, the network of alliances were much more that "scraps of paper" as Britain, Germany, France, Russia, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire all entered the war on the sides of their treaty-bound allies.C. First BloodCon DROPS all of the following: "(1) Austro-Hungary was the first nation to take aggressive action (declaration of war); (2) Russia was the second nation to take aggressive action (mobilization); (3) Germany attempted to dissuade Russia from escalating the conflict and tried to get France to remain neutral. Germany attempts to prevent the conflict from blowing out of proportion, and is the third, not the first, nation to take aggressive action."Con also DROPS that Germany could not have backed out of the conflict.D. Last BloodAgain, Germany involving the U.S. does not make Germany guilty for the war, as the TOV asserts.E. AlliesCon DROPS these points entirely.CON's CASECon drops his entire case. I will point out three key things here: (1) Con drops my arguments about inflation. Perfer these arguments over Con's unsubstantiated alternative explanation of the Ruhr strikes, (2) Germany's non-inclusion in discussions re: the TOV based on historical trends do not make that non-inclusion just, (3) this debate is not about comparative justice.VOTING ISSUESFirstly, Con cannot discuss points he dropped, as this would be unfair to me (I would have no chance to respond.)Responsibility- Germany attempted to prevent war, reaching out to both Paris and Moscow. Con dropped this.- Austro-Hungary was the one truly responsible; they declared war even before Puegot was killed. They set the ball rolling, reeling in Russia, France, German, and so on.- Germany had no choice but to help Vienna. As it interpreted events, it was treaty-bound to help, and geopolitically it could not afford to allow it's only reliable European ally to be defeated. Con dropped these points.- Russia, France, and even Japan were all willing to go to war as part of revanchist or expansionist desires; Con cannot say that Germany was the only war-mongerer.Impact: The "War Guilt Clause" unfairly attributes blame to Germany. This is unjust. My C1 is affirmed.Carthaginian Peace- My explanation of the causation of Germany's inflation was more reliably (supported by sources and analysis) than Con's.- Germany should not pay for a war it did not start.- Germany isn't responsible for all the damage of the war--it's allies were too; yet, it was saddled with all the costs of reparations.Impact: Reparations were unjust. They were too harsh. My C2 is affirmed.Negotiations- Germany asked for and "received an armistice on 11 November 1918; in practice it was a surrender." [3] It was not a combatant any longer, but was put on trial by the TOV for the war.- It had the right to defend itself, even if historically the losers of wars don't. It's a question of absolute justness.Impact: The process behind the TOV was unjust, tainting the TOV itself. My C3 is affirmed.Thank you! VOTE PRO!SOURCES1 - http://www.oldmagazinearticles.com...2 - http://www.ask.com...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...