The Treaty of Versailles Was Unjust

Con asserts that my second two contentions are premised on the accuracy of the first. This is not accurate. An odd statement. Obviously, we can't determine whether the punishment was fair without first asking whether the punished was guilty. Let's remember that Pro's C1 is the question of responsibility for WW1 and our topic is whether Germany was treated unjustly. C2 is whether the punishment was fair and C3 is whether Germany should have been in on the negotiations. If Germany (by invading first on every front, by violating peace in neutral countries, by pursuing war long after every other nation begged for peace) was responsible then the TofV's punishment and Germany's exclusion almost certainly seem just. If Germany was innocent, a hapless friend who really had no choice about invading France and Luxembourg and Belgium and Russia because his ally was about to invade Serbia and Germany wanted to honor her alliance, then the potential injustice of non-participation or excess punishment might be on the table.I'm not sure why Pro would pretend that Germany's guilt is not essential to the question of German punishment. Pro argues that everyone has the right to defend themselves in court but the field of war is not a courtroom. Pro forgets that a homeowner has the right to kill or disable a home invader without first consulting the invader's rights. A soldier has the right to kill or disable a combatant without any effort to ascertain guilt. Such was Versailles: Nations at war, an invader finally disabled in the field. The only reason the question of justice arises at all is because the victors were more merciful than most: they broke the invader's arm and sent him back home. If the invader was killed outright, as most invaders are, there would be far fewer cries of injustice down the road (and of course, the invader would not have returned twenty years later to try a second time).I'll take exception to Pro's claim that I have only responded to C1. Pro has failed to discern although I'm certain our readers have not how points III and IV serve to counter C3. If Germany felt the TofV unjust, they should not have signed. Germany did sign because the TofV was far more merciful than Germany expected, far more merciful than any German victor past, present, or future offered to any of those vanquished by Germany.Pro has failed to discern although I'm certain our readers have not how points IV, V, and VI invalidate C2. Complaints of a Carthaginian Peace, of terms so harsh that Germany was essentially destroyed, are made a lie by history and by common sense.The German Govt. spent 170 billion marks in 1916, of which 91% was military spending. The TofV broke down reparations into 3 bond schedules of which Germany only had to two amounting to 50 billion marks: the last was really just a fiction to convince US and UK citizens that Germany was being punished more harshly than the fact). Total German reparations were less than 1/3 of Germany 1916 budget to be paid over a space of 20 years. (A 7% rate of repayment. Keynes argued for 3% and it was this difference of opinion that prompted his "Carthaginian" evaluation). [2]Although German failures to pay prompted to reductions and rescheduled payment plans in 1921, 1923, and 1929, the total reparation paid by Germany before 1932 (when they defaulted altogether) was 19 billion marks (or roughly $18.5 billion in 2013 US dollars- less than the US spends on air conditioning for overseas soldiers [3]). Worse, all German repayments were made using money from US loans to Germany, which were defaulted in 1934. In effect, Germany never paid a dime for reparations, how then could reparations still be judged as unjustly harsh?If Germany had apportioned in 1920 only one-third of what it spent on the military in 1916 (remembering that the German military had been sharply curtailed and that money was no longer required) the reparations might have been paid in a single year.When France tried to force German re-payments by military investment in the Ruhr, the German nation preferred to go on strike rather than repay, tanking German productivity to such a profound degree that inflation began to eat away at the German economy. Although the German mythology in years to come would be that TofV payment caused Germany's crash, the opposite is true: the German people were so stubborn about refusing to pay that they brought their nation to a disastrous standstill.So yes, our evaluation of C2 and C3 must depend on our conclusions regarding German guilt but no, such dependency does not excuse Pro's failure to address the debunking of C2 and C3 via arguments III thru VI.IX. DefensesAs soon as Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, Russia's hand was forced, and thus the cascade began.But Vienna did not seek World War and in fact feared one, correctly predicting that Austro-Hungary could not last long against any major power. Of the 7 major combatants only Germany desired a World war and only Germany ignored all bids for peace negotiations made during the July Crisis. Vienna no more began WWI by declaring against Serbia in 1914 then did Bulgaria or the Ottomans by declaring war against Serbia in 1913. All sought a much smaller engagement which was exploited by Germany to achieve a larger war against unrelated combatants, albeit absorbing the Balkan contest in the process.Con insinuates that Germany was the aggressive oneNo insinuation is required. The fact that Germany invaded first on all fronts, invaded 3 non-participants in the Balkan crisis and violated the neutrality of 2 of those non-participants makes an irrefutable demonstration of German intent.It was not just Germany that was militarizing and planning for war--most of the continent was. Yes, all the major players were preparing for war. Only Germany was getting ready for war on the scale of the one they precipitated:"It is also important to take notice of the fact that from 1910 to 1914, while France increased her defence expenditure by 10%, Britain by 13%, Russia by 39%, and Germany was the most militaristic as she increased by 73%"Already the richest nation and largest military in Europe by 1900, Germany continued to outspend her neighbors by 2 and 3 times because she anticipated, even hoped for, the chance to take them all on at once. Yes, France wished to regain Alsace-Lorraine. Yes, Russia had their eye on Constantinople. Neither had a plan to do so in 1914, knowing they were no match for Germany. Germany attacked first, that makes Germany the aggressor.However, we cannot blame Germany for what it considered doing, but only what it did actually do. Agreed, let's hold each nation to that standard, shall we?Once Russia began to mobilize in defense of Serbia, Germany's hand was forced.Nonsense. Nations have the right to deploy troops within their borders as they see fit. Mobilization is not an invasion nor even an act of war. Ukraine and Russia are fully mobilized against each other today, but if either nation's troops began to cross the border today that nation would be seen as the aggressor and instigator of war. Poland fully mobilized against Germany on Aug 30, 1939. Does that mean Germany had no choice but to invade Poland on Sept. 1st? Of course it doesn't.And what it did was obey the terms of its agreements with Austria by coming to its aid. Pro forgets that the 1879 Dual Alliance, like all of the alliances under discussion, were defensive alliances. [5] Germany was only under obligation if Austria were under attack. Since the Empire was not attacked until after its collapse against Serbia in the fall of 1914, Germany may not use that treaty as an excuse for her warmaking.Also, what about all of Germany's other treaties? Germany had peace treaties with France and Russia. Why weren't they equally honor bound to respect those contracts? Much worse, Germany was a signatory to the 1839 Treaty of London, guaranteeing Belgian neutrality and acknowledging a violation as an act of World War. [6] When the UK honored that agreement on Aug 4, German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg that he could not believe the UK would go to war over a mere "scrap of paper." Why would Germany feel compelled by the Dual Alliance when no terms of that treaty had been violated but also feel that they could violate another treaty without cause? The obvious answer is the network of alliances were half-promises at best, and nations will do what they think is best in the moment regardless of treaties or alliances.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.The first person shot was a French Corporal Jules-Andre Puegot, attacked by German calvary on French soil while he was eating breakfast on the morning of Aug 2nd. A full day before Germany declared war on France, German soldiers were killing French soldiers in France.The U.S. was forewarned of these zones, and there is evidence that the Lusitania was smuggling war supplies.Well it certainly makes Germany responsible for the war with United States unless Pro wishes to contend that the US did not have the right to sell what the US liked to whom the US liked, wartime or no. Just because Germany declared large portions of the Atlantic no-go zones did not give the Germans the right to destroy who they like within those zones.[1] Roger Chickering, Imperial Germany and the Great War, 1914–1918 (2004) [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://thinkprogress.org...[4] http://www.funfront.net...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1879)[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1839)[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...