The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Thanks to Con for this debate! I shall now defend my case.OVERVIEWCon asserts that my second two contentions are premised on the accuracy of the first. This is not accurate. My C2's scope is impacted by whether Germany was to blame, but certainly not all of its impact re: fairness are contingent upon that. As for my C3, it certainly has nothing to do with whether Germany is to blame.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. Contentions 1 and 2 of my case deal with whether the sentence is fair, whereas C3 deals with whether the process is fair. There is a clear distinction here, and Con cannot say that my C3 in any way hinges on the validity of the preceding arguments.Additionally, Germany did not so much "plead guilty" as it acknowledged that it could no longer afford to fight on, in terms of human and economic costs, as well as under the full knowledge that further violence would like lead to their total defeat. Germany did not agree that it was guilty. It was presented an ultimatum that it had no choice but to accept, or face total destruction. Most rational agents under those conditions would sign the treaty, whether or not they accepted guilt or agreed with/acknowledged the validity of the terms.Note that, because Con is essentially just responding to my C1, is rebuttals are largely non-responsive to my other assertions. With these points clarified, I will now proceed to defend the bulk of my case. Con frames his rebuttals as an extension of his case; so I will treat it as such.CON's CASE, SECTION VIIA. Little War, Big WarAs it stands, I would amend my original statement to this: "Any war, anywhere on the European continent, risked dragging in every major power..." Ultimately, Con's arguments don't do much damage here, because they don't undermine the cascading treaties arguments among the larger powers. As soon as Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, Russia's hand was forced, and thus the cascade began.I would also like to take the chance to underline Con's own terminology here: "The war Vienna sought was a war with Serbia." Vienna sought the war, not Berlin. And, Con has offered little evidence to pin the start of the war to Berlin, so let's move on to discussing Germany's precise role in initiating the war.B. German Military PlansCon insinuates that Germany was the aggressive one, the one planning for a highly destructive war that would "establish Europe's youngest nation as the supreme mainland power." Yet, as a matter of fact, "all the major powers were preparing for a large-scale war...Britain focused on building up its Royal Navy, already stronger than the next two navies combined. Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Russia, and some smaller countries, set up conscription systems whereby young men would serve from 1 to three years in the army, then spend the next 20 years or so in the reserves with annual summer training...Each country devised a mobilisation system whereby the reserves could be called up quickly and sent to key points by rail. Every year the plans were updated and expanded in terms of complexity. Each country stockpiled arms and supplies for an army that ran into the millions. Germany in 1874 had a regular professional army of 420,000 with an additional 1.3 million reserves. By 1897 the regular army was 545,000 strong and the reserves 3.4 million. The French in 1897 had 3.4 million reservists, Austria 2.6 million, and Russia 4.0 million. The various national war plans had been perfected by 1914, albeit with Russia and Austria trailing in effectiveness." [1] Thus, Con's claims are disingenuous. It was not just Germany that was militarizing and planning for war--most of the continent was. Con says that France and Russia militarized in reaction to Germany's actions, yet ignores that Russia also wanted to recapture Constantinople and annex the province of Galicia. France was engaging in revanchism of it's own, and it's desires to reacquire Alsace-Lorraine was no secret. Even Con agrees to this when he notes: "France would almost certainly use any invasion of Russia as pretext for recovering her losses in Alsace-Lorraine." Certainly, Germany was not the only war-mongering nation involved, and certainly it wasn't alone in taking bellicose actions. Note that Russia did end up responding with force to Austria's actions. Germany's ally was threatened, and it was treaty-bound to come to her aid. Con claims that "hawks...insisted to the Kaiser that however Russia reacted to Vienna's declaration of war, Russia must be invaded in 1914." However, we cannot blame Germany for what it considered doing, but only what it did actually do. And what it did was obey the terms of its agreements with Austria by coming to its aid. Once Russia began to mobilize in defense of Serbia, Germany's hand was forced.Again, invading Belgium does not make Germany responsible for the war itself, and this point cannot be overemphasized. The war had already started by that point, and the momentum was un-arrestable. Certainly, Britain would likely have entered the war whether or not Germany had invaded Belgium, given their maritime rivalry with Berlin and London's participation in the Triple Entente.C. First BloodCon implies that first Blood occurred when Germany declared war on Russia (August 1). In fact, First Blood was drawn on July 28th, when Vienna declares war on Serbia. The next day, July 29th, Russia orders a general mobilization of its army. On July 31st, Germany mobilizes and sends a missive to Russia, demanding they halt their military actions within 12 hours; that same day, Germany asks France if it will remain neutral in a conflict between Russia and Germany. Germany gets its answer from Paris when, on August first, Paris orders a general mobilization for war. [1]What we can see from this fuller timeline is 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. It was obvious to Berlin that Russia and France were mobilizing and would fight against it's ally Autro-Hungary, and so it was forced to take preemptive action in order to ensure that Vienna was not crushed instantaneously. This is not aggressive; it's defensive in nature.We can also say that the treaty did bind Italy to support it's central power allies, namely because 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. Also, Italy was bribed by the Entente powers (France, Russia, Britain) with promises of land as well, and that also contributed to how it interpreted events.But really, that isn't so vital. What is vital is the implication behind the Italy argument; i.e. that Germany could've backed out. I've already suggested how Germany could've seen Vienna's actions as defensive, but let's also consider this froma geopolitical POV. If Vienna fell, Berlin would have no major allies in the region. France, with it's sights set on Alsace-Lorraine, and Russia, with it's desires set upon Galicia, may have turned on Berlin afterword, leaving Berlin in an untenable position. In a continent filled with rivals, it is not smart to be without allies; from the Kaiser's viewpoint, there may have been no other choice but to support its ally. Surely, this is not the action of an aggressor, but of a nation desperate to maintain its integrity.D. Last BloodJust because Germany pushed farther into any country than any other participant in the war does not make it guilty for starting the war, nor does it make it responsible for the war. Certainly though, Austro-Hungary pushed into Italy, and vice versa, and Con's own map shows that France did occupy some parts of Germany. But really, I fail to see the relevance of this argument.The U.S. was forewarned of these zones, and there is evidence that the Lusitania was smuggling war supplies. But again, this does not make Germany either guilty of initiating the war or responsible for the war.E. Allies Against AggressionI like how Con attempts to blame all of these nation's entries into the war on Germany. Certainly, these nations had their own interests in the war as well. Japan, for instance, joined the war due to a Treaty in had with Britain, and because "the Treaty also made possible the Japanese seizure of German possessions in the Pacific north of the equator during WWI, a huge boon to Japan's imperial interests." [2]F. ConclusionClearly, Con's inescapable conclusions aren't has airtight as Con has made out. Germany, as I have maintained throughout this debate, was neither guilty of starting, nor responsible for the conflict, tragic as it was. The need to have a scapegoat has made Germany an unnecessary victim in this crises, and that is equally tragic.PRO'S CASE/SECTION VIII, REBUTTALSThis functions merely as an extension of Section VII, Subsection F--it is an extended conclusion. Con again asserts that his claims have rebutted all of my contentions, no just my first. I succinctly addressed this erroneous notion in my overview.As for the claims about a Carthaginian Peace, those will be discussed more next round, I'm sure. I've already covered them in this debate too.SOURCES1 - http://www.ask.com...2 - http://www.ask.com...