You are claiming the "theory" is what transpired and that is my only hangup with that. The reason the French spread their payments out like the Germans was that if you demand the "lump sum", the World Economy collapses. It isn't a question of people being "naive", there was common sense in the Economic status of Germany. How do you make an already near bankrupt country pay reparations?
Fast Forward to 1929 and not just the US was affected by the Stock Market crash. The ripple effect reached across the Globe. BTW, the US was giving loans to the Weimar Republic until 1932.
What hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the Lausanne Conference (sp?) of 1932 stipulated that the "reparations be suspended". By that time it was clear that the deepening depression had made it impossible for Germany to resume its reparations payments. The U.S. had agreed to cycle back back to the Young Plan and modified it to include:
- to not pressure Germany for immediate payments.
- to reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million.
- to informally agree among the delegates that these provisions would be ineffective unless the US government agreed to the cancellation of war debts owed by the Allied governments.
As to your earlier question of "why Germany was allowed to take so long to repay". I referred to my 300 level World History notebook.
After Germany’s surrender in World War II, an international conference decided that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified. West Germany paid off the principal by 1980. In 1995 after reunification, the new German government announced it would resume payments of the interest to compensate for "East German debts".
Again, my only hangup has been the "theory", nothing else.
All due respect, your notes and/or book are/is of no help to you if you are not answering the question that was asked. I didn't care about post WWII. I wanted to know why Germany was allowed to build her forces up before WWII when she was suppose to be making restitution payments. How much do you think all of those Unterseeboots or both the Bismark and Tirpitz cost? When Spain's civil war (July17th, 1936 – April 1st, 1939) erupted, Germany, Italy and Portugal were requested to aid the Nationalists. Germany used the opportunity to cut her teeth on her new military, which was in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. Remember these provisions?
Part V of the treaty begins with the preamble, "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow."
German armed forces will number no more than 100,000 troops, and conscription will be abolished.
Enlisted men will be retained for at least 12 years; officers to be retained for at least 25 years.
German naval forces will be limited to 15,000 men,
6 battleships (no more than 10,000 tons displacement each), 6 cruisers (no more than 6,000 tons displacement each), 12 destroyers (no more than 800 tons displacement each) and 12 torpedo boats (no more than 200 tons displacement each).
No submarines are to be included.The manufacture, import, and export of weapons and poison gas is prohibited.Armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars are prohibited.Blockades on ships are prohibited.
Restrictions on the manufacture of machine guns (e.g. the Maxim machine gun) and rifles (e.g. Gewehr 98 rifles).
In reading such, one wonders... how does a country not allowed to have armed vehicles cut their airforce's teeth in battle? Uh oh, seems they had extra money. Just saying. Which is also why I asked Traveler about it. I have a hard time accepting that the allies were so eager to fight the war, France in particular, then get back their territories (see France again) only to wuss out when the guy who owes them money is hiding behind: "I'm broke, and if you don't believe me, just don't look at Spain when you investigate my claim." I haven't touched 1940 yet, let alone 1947, 1950 etc etc..
Secondly, why on earth would you put in a stipulation of payment when you are uncertain of the possible fulfillment of said stipulation? (this is in rebuke to your statement) What if Germany had NEVER reunified? If I were West Germany and East Germany, I'd never agree to new terms as the only way I have to pay you back currently is if I fulfill condition (A)... so I'll make condition (A) unobtainable. Are we going to go to war if they refuse to pay? We've seen the answer to that. I'd be safe in betting no. A contract can not be changed unless all parties agree and when Germany did reunite, we believed ourselves above such a global war. What if they had still said no? I mean how many years without full payments went by? I wish MY creditors were that forgiving.
It seems as if the world is hesitant to punish unless it's out of perportion. Germany was put as totally at fault for WWI, yet we've sat here talking about the idea of Serbia starting it, or Austria-Hungary, or even Britain. Germany was doing as her treaty required, as was France, Italy, Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, Chine etc etc. So Germany is at fault for being an faithful participant in what all others hold themselves to be, not just as faithful, but also above everyone else. Remember in 1939 when this tiny country west of Germany helped her invade? I think it was called the USSR... but it was so small, who would care. Then they got back stabbed and switched sides. Does that nullify any guilt they had for assisting in the start of the war? What about the fact Russia was intent on helping Germany even further until Operation Barbarossa halted such designs.
If you look at history, you must accept it's inconsistencies, but also one must understand WHY they even exist in the first place. I do not disagree with blatant facts, but this one isn't straight forward. It leaves many open questions as to why certain people's were punished while others who had just as much, or more, guilt are allowed to avoid persecution.
I'm sure I missed something, or left an open statement somewhere, but I'm in a hurry this morning, sorry.
Remember the very people who wrote the history books are the same bunch that got us in WWI to start with. The winners write history. If you want to see where some of this got started well before Wilson then read.
Bully Boy. by Jim Powell
So you are now of the opinion that events were already heading in the favor or World War before Wilson... How then is it's Wilson's fault? How is any one man at fault for such world events? You might site Hitler, but he was no alone. His party, his people, Russia, those who ignored him; they are ALL at fault for allowing him to be there. Our world is not cloistered, nor has it been for many a century. World events transpire as a result of many actions. Wilson might have done something differently, Britian might have. Serbia might have. The idea is to understand WHERE the errors lay, not who is easiest to blame. A child will lie, but that doesn't mean just because you don't understand that they are lying, yet many parent's assume so. I myself am guilty of such my with my niece. It was easy, she was 3. I'm an adult, so I know better and that means she has to be wrong... Yet I was. History is the same. Remember in 1800? evolution was BAD, it was WRONG, it was Heresy. Today anything but is considered uneducated. A man in Iran say the holocaust didn't happen, does that make it so? We must use reason and logic to interpret events.
Quotes and books are fine, so long as you can logically string your argument up so when someone tugs on it it doesn't come crashing down. As I said in a previous answer, Wilson was elected in after a vast majority of the events needed for World War were already in place. Let's say he wanted war... so did France and Austria-Hungary. Which is right? Is France right because we won the war with her? Or is she right solely because she won... If you say she was wrong, then obviously we need to look at who is at fault for WWII. If she was right, why wasn't Austria-Hungary? Double standards are no good in arguments because they can be used to smack your side down before it even starts...
Britain is no in the spell check lol I might have misspelled it again, I found one error already but Spell check never found it... hmmm
