The German government even created its department to study how the war happened, and it was called the Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War.
We can't talk about the war without mentioning Hitler. Hitler, like many of the politicians, used the implied guilt as a way to rise to power, and a U.
Senator by the name of Henrik Shipstead believed that because the article was not revised, it was the contributing factor to Hitler's rise. Some other historians believe this, too. They believe that because the War Guilt Clause was harsh on the German economy, Hitler came to power as a result. However, there are some who believe the article has nothing to do with it, and blamed other factors for the rise of the Nazi party.
They believe that Hitler's rise to power would have happened regardless of the treaty. However, despite never reading it, the German people believed that they were being shamed, and it's understandable how Hitler or another politician could use this to their advantage and rile them up. By claiming the world was against them, it would make them feel and react in more and more extreme ways, and, eventually, form the Nazi Germany that history has studied extensively to this day.
The War Guilt Clause has been studied quite a bit in history, and there have been many different interpretations of it. Here are just a few interpretations of the clause:. Luigi Albertini wrote his own opinion about the war in his book The Origins of the War of At this point, it had been almost 30 years since the war, so there was some time to study it historically and look into different potential facets and causes. He believed that Germany had most of the responsibility for the war.
In fact, his work was the first time the concept of war guilt had been studied. Since the publishing of that book, there have been other works that have tried to study war guilt and the aspects that surround it. There have been studies of the term "war guilt.
However, others believe that the treaty itself was just the Allies being honest, but the clause was undiplomatic. Instead of making the German government feel guilty, the Allies should have let the German government move on from the war. One argument is by Elazar Barkan, who believes that the Allies should have encouraged healing rather than trying to make the Germans feel guilty and at-fault for the war. This admission guilt seemingly made the Germans feel resentment, and this may have caused tempers to rise.
However, other arguments say that Germany should have been guilty over the war. The idea is that the old German regime should be dismantled, and a new government should come in its place to encourage healing amongst the people. This belief may come from the fact that the Germans had at least some blame. The War Guilt Clause is something we can learn from.
Historically, it shows us that things can be misinterpreted, and miscommunication can cause plenty of problems. The Allies thought they had a fair deal with the clause. They believed that they were getting fair compensation for a war that was costly and fatal. Meanwhile, Germany felt like the clause was rubbing salt on the wound. Many politicians used the resentment the German people had to their advantage, and Nazi Germany was seemingly born because of it. It shows how obsessed people can become with their own country.
A citizen may take it personally when two countries have a deal, and they're the ones who were burned as a result. This can create resentment and can make the citizens potentially look up to and elect someone who has the same resentment, as they feel validated by this person i.
Views Total views. Actions Shares. No notes for slide. Question 1 By what other name is the War Guilt clause known? Answer 1 Article Question 2 Why is important for the Allies to blame Germany for the war? Answer 2 By making Germany accept total blame, the Allies were able to justify their demands for reparations. Question 3 Did the Germans have an opportunity to veto the War Guilt clause? Answer 3 No. They were told that if they did not sign the treaty, Germany would be invaded and occupied by the Allies.
Question 4 Of all the provisions of the treaty, the War Guilt clause? Answer 4 Not only did it make Germany liable for reparations, but it also reinforced the utter shame, anger and helplessness felt by the German people.
Total views On Slideshare 0. From embeds 0. Number of embeds 0. Downloads 6. President Woodrow Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points. Five long months later, on June 28—exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo—the leaders of the Allied and associated powers, as well as representatives from Germany, gathered in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles to sign the final treaty. By placing the burden of war guilt entirely on Germany, imposing harsh reparations payments and creating an increasingly unstable collection of smaller nations in Europe, the treaty would ultimately fail to resolve the underlying issues that caused war to break out in , and help pave the way for another massive global conflict 20 years later.
The Paris Peace Conference: None of the defeated nations weighed in, and even the smaller Allied powers had little say. Formal peace negotiations opened in Paris on January 18, , the anniversary of the coronation of German Emperor Wilhelm I at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in World War I had brought up painful memories of that conflict—which ended in German unification and its seizure of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine from France—and now France intended to make Germany pay.
None of the defeated nations were invited to weigh in, and even the smaller Allied powers had little say. The treaty was lengthy, and ultimately did not satisfy any nation.
In addition, it had to drastically reduce its armed forces and accept the demilitarization and Allied occupation of the region around the Rhine River. Most importantly, Article of the treaty placed all blame for inciting the war squarely on Germany, and forced it to pay several billion in reparations to the Allied nations. Faced with the seemingly impossible task of balancing many competing priorities, the treaty ended up as a lengthy and confusing document that satisfied no one.
But his fellow Allied leaders rejected much of his plan as naive and too idealistic.
0コメント