[jvm_]

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/dispa...

I was running while listening...

The US president negotiating the terms of Germany's WW1 surrender/repayments was trying to get a fairer deal, and France's president was negotiating for German punishment. In the days long negotiations, the US president fell ill (possibly with Spanish Flu), and was much weaker/combative when he returned to the negotiating table. Maybe if the flu hadn't hit him, Germany would have gotten a fairer deal and not felt unfairly treated which was a cause of WW2.

Also India's rebellion from the British was during that time, the British suppressing the rebellion's and the added pressures from the flu ravaging their country helped move that process along.

I wonder if the same could be said about the George Floyd protests. Part of it was the timing of everyone being off work/unemployed and having the time to go protest.

[est31]

That's an interesting story. Another component why the Versailles treaty was so harsh was that Germany had made a similarly harsh treaty with Russia before that, so the western powers gave Germany the same treatment that Germany gave Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

Ultimately, the Ottoman empire received probably the most harsh treatment of all, although they were the only country out of the group of Germany, Austria-Hungary and them which managed to reclaim some of the lost territory and keep it up until today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres

[doukdouk]

I wager that the French were less concerned with whatever happened in Russia, and much more with what happened in France:

>Most of the war's major battles occurred in France and the French countryside was heavily scarred in the fighting. Furthermore, in 1918 during the German retreat, German troops devastated France's most industrialized region in the north-east (Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin). Extensive looting took place as German forces removed whatever material they could use and destroyed the rest. Hundreds of mines were destroyed along with railways, bridges, and entire villages. Prime Minister of France Georges Clemenceau was determined, for these reasons, that any just peace required Germany to pay reparations for the damage it had caused. [0, emphasis mine]

Germany went above and beyond what was necessary for military purposes to cause damages to French industry. It is really not hard to see how "they destroyed our factory, they should pay to rebuild it" would have been a common train of thought.

If say, Japan had occupied part of the continental US in WWII and once it started to retreat its troops, it set California ablaze and reduced it to rubbles --- how many Americans would think "the Japanese should pay for the rebuilding of California" vs "Sure California was set ablaze, but don't you think making them pay back would be a little harsh on them?"? how many Californians?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_reparations#Backgr...

[masklinn]

The treaty germany imposed on france in the war of '70 was no less harsh either.

Versailles really wasn't that harsh by the standards of the time, the germans just got good propaganda out of it, for some reason.

[keldaris]

Although the issue is complex, a very dominant part of the "some reason" was that the German army never really experienced an unequivocal final military defeat (although it was clear to the high command that the war could no longer be won, this was far from obvious to the population) and remained in effective control of Germany, allowing them to consciously disseminate propaganda for their own ends as well as taking full advantage of the ensuing popular unrest after the end of the war.

[vondur]

Well Napoleon had pretty much stomped up and down on the Prussians and Austria during the Wars Of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars. I think part of the harshness of the treaty that ended the Franco-Prussian wars was a bit of revenge for the Germans.

[jychang]

That was 1812, though (plus the hundred days). There wasn’t any big German military defeat since the Congress of Vienna system until WWII, a period of over a century.

Imagine the USA’s military ego, but instead of losing Vietnam in the 70s, you stomped France instead. The military arrogance was real.

[peteretep]

> There wasn’t any big German military defeat

That’s because there wasn’t a Germany for at least half of that period. And while Germany may not have lost any nearby land wars, their colonial empire was a bit of a joke compared to the other European powers.

[vkou]

To be more specific - at the time the armistice was signed, no Entente soldier had yet a foot on German soil. The front-line was still running through Belgium.

To the average German pundit, it was not at all clear that the war was lost.

[Spooky23]

Maybe. But at that time, the population of Germany was malnourished and short of food, fuel and other commodities. Civilian death rates began to increase.

So like our plague deniers today, some people probably deluded themselves into believing victory was near. But I’m sure most knew it wasn’t going well.

[vkou]

Given that the press was only allowed to publish positive propaganda about the state of the war effort, all of that could have be explained away as some temporary supply disruption.

[hutzlibu]

Parts of the "complex" is that there was a revolution going on, too. The monarchy was overthrown and the military command happily let the representants of the new democracy take responsibility of the "peace treaty". In the meaning of: "see, this is what democracy gives you. While the army is unbeaten in the field, those traitors give up to the enemy."

[billfruit]

And in the Eastern front Germany occupied much territories that while the treaties was being negotiated they were left in control for time being over a large swathe of Russian/Ukrainian/Belorusian territories even though in-effect Germany was the loser of the conflict, is what I remember vaguely from a history I had read.

[reitzensteinm]

One interesting thing I picked up from (I believe) the Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans was that while the repayments were harsh, enough international loans were made to Germany and unpaid once war broke out that the balance of cash flow was actually in Germany's favor.

Reading that, it really struck me that perhaps we were still internalizing Nazi propaganda. Or at least that we seek simple narratives to explain everything even if they do a fairly poor job of covering the details.

[refurb]

Yup. My understanding was the US was financially supporting Germany so the reparations wouldn’t crush the entire economy.

From what I’ve gathered, Germany’s “we’re not paying any more reparations” was more a political move that got Germans on the side of the govt than anything else.

[ithkuil]

I'm confused. You have to pay me 100 bucks, but no worries, I'll loan you 80 bucks over 20 years to help your finances. You'll have to give me 240 bucks.

[refurb]

I'm not that familiar with the details, but it would be more like:

- You owe me $1B in reparations, with $10M payable each year for 100 years

- You can only come up with $8M this year, so I loan you $2M

- You then borrow from someone else to pay me back

Kind of like a rolling credit that is more about cashflow than debt level. Countries like the US were worried that Germany would just run out of cash at some point.

[john_miller]

How much reparations had the french to pay in 1870?

[keldaris]

5 billion franks, the equivalent of hundreds of billions in today's currency (the exact amount is difficult to calculate for obvious reasons). It was significant enough to promptly cause an asset bubble in Germany when the French paid it with surprising alacrity, which then contributed to the spectacular crash of 1873 and ushered in an economic depression that lasted two decades (though many other causes contributed to the latter, of course - it was a worldwide crisis).

[masklinn]

> 5 billion franks, the equivalent of hundreds of billions in today's currency

Due within 5 years too (france managed to pay it in advance as it included military occupation until the war indemnity was paid), as well as ceding a major industrial region.

[Rgvh]

1870: 1450 tons of gold

Versaille: ~46000 tons of gold

[john_miller]

Russia did not have to pay any reparations to germany, so the statement of similar harshness is blatantly false.

[keldaris]

Russia ceded an immense chunk of its most prized territorial posessions, leading to 11 countries declaring independence and defaulted on almost all of its international obligations. In fact, the harshness of the terms proposed by the German army was such that the German negotiators were shocked at first. The harshness of the treaty was also explicitly cited by the Allied Powers in response to German complaints about the Treaty of Versailles.

[throwaway0a5e]

>and defaulted on almost all of its international obligations.

That had to do more with the regime change than the treaty though.

[Spooky23]

Russia’s situation was equivalent of lighting your house on fire (Ie sending in Lenin) and stripping the furniture before it burned down.

Defeat for Russia was utterly complete. The country was thrown into chaos and the aristocracy crushed and either slaughtered or exiled. Postwar, allied troops sort of intervened, but the result was pretty horrific.

[Bayart]

>Maybe if the flu hadn't hit him, Germany would have gotten a fairer deal and not felt unfairly treated which was a cause of WW2.

That's on interesting take. The feeling in France is that Germany got off far too easy because of US intervention.

[xref]

You’re saying the French today wished there was an even more punitive treaty than Versailles was?

[bodyfour]

I doubt that today it's a big topic of discussion, but pre-WW2 it certainly was. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles#France

Remember that the years of fighting on the Western Front had been on French (and Belgian) territory, not German. Their economic capacity had been injured and they wanted to be made whole.

The truth is that both sides were left wrecked economically by the war, and therefore both sides felt that they had gotten a raw deal at Versailles. Many inside France believed that Germany had been rewarded for losing the war and France had been punished for winning it.

Of course, the situation only deteriorated when Germany began failing to make its payments almost immediately leading to the crisis in the Ruhr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Ruhr