The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Thanks once again to Oro for this debate. I am sure it will be enlightening. In this round, I will define key terms in the resolution, provide a brief but necessary intro into the conditions that led to the onset of WWI, and then I will launch into my arguments. DEFINITIONSAll of the following definitions are from Merriam Webster: [1]Unjust - "not fair or deserved: not just"Fair - (1) "agreeing with what is thought to be right or acceptable" and (2) "not too harsh"Deserve - "to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital"Thus, I can show that the Treaty of Versailles--which I may refer to as TOV--is unjust in a variety of way: (1) I can show that the terms of the treaty are not right or acceptable, (2) that the terms of the treaty are too harsh, and/or (3) that Central Powers did not deserve the terms of the treaty.I may periodically reference these way in which I can affirm the resolution throughout the debate.A BRIEF HISTORY: THE START OF WWII will confine the discussion regarding the causes for WWI to what I feel are the two main points: the geopolitical ties that made the war an inevitability and the straw the broke the camel's back. Keep in mind that there were other issues at the time, including trade policy, militarization, colonial expansionism, etc. that increased tensions bringing them to such a point where even small provocations risked war, but I lack the character space to review any of these points sufficiently. Suffice it to say that the second of the two things I am about to address opened the floodgates and catalyzed all of these hostile influences into an urge for war.So, first things first. During this time it was generally thought that treaties were the answer to peace, i.e. that via a network of treaties, a nation could secure a stable geopolitical situation with a network of allies (or at least ensure neighbors' neutrality.) It made intuitive sense; consider, if you are country X, and you're enemies with nation Z and it's ally, nation Q, and you sign mutual defense pacts with neighboring states F, G, and R and a nonaggression deal with nation Q, you are safe. There is no way nation Z will attack you if three other nations come to your defense--it's outnumbered 4:1. And, because nation Q has signed a nonaggression deal, nation Z cannot rely on its assistance in the conflict.Now, this logic is all reliant on the idea that everyone abides by the terms of their treaties, but as long as nation Z thinks there is a chance, even a small one, that nations F, G, and R will abide by their agreements and defend nation X, it will think twice about attacking. There is a strong deterrent effect; it was the MAD of it's day.Eventually, treaties and alliances became so intricate that they were only truly understood by an elite few, one of those being the German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who exited power before the start of WWI. He was the primary champion of this web of intricate treaties. Unfortunately, with his death, the web began to unravel, and alliances shifted and changed in a way that disadvantaged Germany (e.g. it lost key connections with Russia,).While the treaty system did establish peaceful relations for several decades, it did have some important downsides. Chief among these blemishes was the fact that if any nation went to war, every nation did. It would cause an instant escalation. For example, there are 6 nations: A, B, and C on one side, and X, Y, and Z on the other. Each set of three is bound together by a mutual defense pact. Now, X gets into a spat with B, and X declares war on B. A and C are treaty-bound to defend B, and so they declare war in sympathy. Now, X is under attack. If X is defeated, Y and Z will be at a disadvantage, because instead of being 3 against 3, it will be three against 2. Balance is lost. Therefore, they cannot allow X to lose and jeopardize their geostrategic safety; they enter that war on X's side. So, what started out as a 1-on-1 conflict, escalated into a 3-on-3 conflict. 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 and their colonies. We can therefore credit this treaty system with making WWI truly a "world" war.The second key thing to observe here is the actual incident that initiated the war. Certainly, other tensions were contributing factors to the war, but this event was what brought everything to a head. It was the assassination of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, at the hand of Slavic nationalist Gavrilo Princip. It was widely reported that Princip's plot was known about or assisted by Serbia. Serbia's collusion in the assassination is doubted by some scholars today, but many also recognize the credibility of the claims that Belgrade was involved. Vienna issued a series of unreasonable demands to Belgrade in response, most of which Belgrade agreed to meet to avoid war. However, incensed by the fact that Serbia refused to agree to ALL of the demands, Austro-Hungry declared war. This, in turn, activated the cascade effect discussed earlier, whereby Russia mobilized in support of its ally Serbia, and France mobilized in defense of its ally Russia. Britain also mobilized in defense of its allies Belgium (invaded by Germany) and Russia. Germany, of course, invaded France via Belgium to preempt the seemingly inevitable French invasion of Germany. Italy was bribed by the allies (who offered it portions of Austro-Hungary) to join the Entente Powers (the allies). Later, the Ottomans, who were rivals with Russia in the North and Italy on the Mediterranean, and whose Sultan was a friend of the Kaiser, joined the Central Powers (Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire.) And that is a very brief synopsis of the onset of WWI. It should provide sufficient understanding to conduct the debate, but Con is free to expand should he feel necessary. In terms of sources, this is all from memory; I am an aficionado of early WWI history, and can provide sources if Con wishes.ARGUMENTSC1: Germany was wrongfully forced to accept responsibility for WWITo quote Germany's representative at Versailles, Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau: "We know the full brunt of hate that confronts us here. You demand from us to confess we were the only guilty party of war; such a confession in my mouth would be a lie." [2] This is, essentially, the main thrust of the argument I'm about to make.Article 231, commonly known as the "War Guilt Clause" reads: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies." [3] As you can see from my brief history section, Austro-Hungary was the agent that started the war; it drew first blood. Germany was merely upholding it's treaty obligations, as were France, Russia, and Britain. Therefore, Germany was no more guilty for the war than any of these other powers, yet it is saddled with the brunt of the culpability. Arguably, this misattribution of guilt is itself unjust, because it unfairly marks Germany as the agent primarily responsible for the war, when, as a matter of fact, it was not.C2: A Carthaginian PeaceThe TOV certainly imposed a Carthaginian Peace, or "very brutal 'peace'" which involves "completely crushing the enemy." [4] The idea of such a peace is to so utterly decimate the loser that they could never again pose a threat. There are various issues at play here that illustrate that the TOV went too far. Germany's actions arose not out of some inherent aggressive desire, but rather out of a system of complex treaty obligations that also dragged in France, Russia, and Britain. Surely, none of these other nations would've gone to war had not Serbia and Austro-Hungary gotten into a spat. Therefore, it is a mistake to view Germany as some war-mongering super-villain right on your doorstep. New sets of peace accords, giving Germany financial stakes in the success of the allies, or creating a more effective League of Nations to deal with conflict resolution all might've helped reduced the risk of Germany's entering into another war--and that risk was low regardless.Instead, the TOV set out to totally humiliate Germany, imposing a series of vindictive and harsh punishments. Germany would have to pay, by itself. 132 billion Marks, or $442 billion in today's money. [2] The expenses nearly bankrupted Germany, and were a major contributing factor to its subsequent economic collapse. No other Central Power nations were assessed damages. Why? Because the allies broke them up. Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were dissolved and reformed into myriad smaller states. Since they no longer existed, they couldn't be billed. Germany was paying for damages it wasn't fully responsible for. Germany was forced to give up land, it's armed forces were crippled, and it was occupied. [2]This is unjust because it is too harsh, because it is not equitable, and because Germany did not deserve the punishments it received.C3: Germany was Excluded form NegotiationsGermany was not even allowed to speak for itself as the TOV was being drawn up. The TOV was presented to it as an ultimatum. [2] It is not fair to completely shut out the voice of one of the signatories to the treaty. They should be able to defend themselves in the proceedings. It is certainly not right, nor is it acceptable, to do so.SOURCES1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...Thanks! Over to Pro...