Which WWI peace treaty was harsher?Versailles or Brest-Litovsk?

[kung Zog]

America and UK did want to give Germany a more balanced peace, it was France which insisted on a crippling peace...

Yes and no. First, I wouldn't call Versailles crippling.

Secondly, on may key questions the British and French were fairly much in agreement: reparations and disarmament. These two measures were aimed to limit German power, reducing it to a regional power, not a Great Power (my point is simply the distinction between the two tiers).

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Both operated on the same principle - strip away the ethnic minorities from the defeated power.

It was Russia's bad luck that she had more ethnic minority territory than Germany - and Austria and Hungary's bad luck that they had more than Russia.

Thats a logic I could follow

 

[MattII]

I generally agree, but then how do you value the harshness of a treaty?
For example is disallowing Austria to become a part of Germany harsher than taking away Finland from Russia?

Okay:
1) Disallowing Austria to become part of Germany in no way takes territory from Germany, it simply spots them gaining any more.
2) It wasn't just Finland they had to give up, it was the Baltic States, Belarus and Urkaine, that's a huge swathe of some very valuable agricultural territory.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

Not Belarus

 

[Saphroneth]

It is true that territories lost in Brest-Livotsk had never been under the possession of the USSR before. But territories lost in Versailles had never been under the control of the German Republic before, and territories lost in the Treaty of Paris absolutely had been under the control of the United Kingdom of Great Britain before.

The argument for self determination has a lot of teeth, of course - it's linked to the concept of nation-states - but it also implicitly discourages a country with ethnic minorities from developing in any way the areas those minorities happen to live in.

 

[MattII]

Not Belarus

Actually, they did occupy about half of Belarus.

And then Germany went and broke it quicker than Hitler broke the M-R Pact.

 

[fishingfred]

Both operated on the same principle - strip away the ethnic minorities from the defeated power.

It was Russia's bad luck that she had more ethnic minority territory than Germany - and Austria and Hungary's bad luck that they had more than Russia.

Agreed, still makes it hard to compare their harshness.

Okay:
1) Disallowing Austria to become part of Germany in no way takes territory from Germany, it simply spots them gaining any more.
2) It wasn't just Finland they had to give up, it was the Baltic States, Belarus and Urkaine, that's a huge swathe of some very valuable agricultural territory.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

1) The question is not: Which treaty took more land? it is Which treaty is harsher? In that sense creating a small landlocked "german" country while preaching National self-determination is kinda harsh.

2) Finland was only one example, I did not equate all of B-L to Austria. Though it would be interesting how many more Russians lived in B-L losses than "Germans" in Austria.
Still all I stated was that harshness depends on what you value more! Landsize, Population, National self-determination... etc.

 

[MattII]

1) The question is not: Which treaty took more land? it is Which treaty is harsher? In that sense creating a small landlocked "german" country while preaching National self-determination is kinda harsh.

Germany never owned Australia so it can't be seen as actually taking territory from them.

2) Finland was only one example, I did not equate all of B-L to Austria. Though it would be interesting how many more Russians lived in B-L losses than "Germans" in Austria.

See above, Austria didn't belong to Germany to begin with.

Still all I stated was that harshness depends on what you value more! Landsize, Population, National self-determination... etc.

You mean like Switzerland and Czechoslovakia are landlocked? Wait a minute while I get my handkerchief.

 

[fishingfred]

Germany never owned Australia so it can't be seen as actually taking territory from them.

See above, Austria didn't belong to Germany to begin with.

You mean like Switzerland and Czechoslovakia are landlocked? Wait a minute while I get my handkerchief.

1) We don't have Kangoroos
2) Part of Versailles was still that Austria (which wanted at that point in time) was not allowed to unite with Germany.
3) True, still doesn't change the fact that being landlocked increased Austrian desire to unite with Germany, as the population didn't see it as a viable state.

Edit: All I am saying is that forbiding an "Anschluss" should be included when measuring Versailles harshness

 

[DrakonFin]

The argument for self determination has a lot of teeth, of course - it's linked to the concept of nation-states - but it also implicitly discourages a country with ethnic minorities from developing in any way the areas those minorities happen to live in.

Sometimes there is little realistic options for developing such areas, though - for example for imperial Russia developing such things as naval defences or port facilities and communications in Finland or the Baltics, border areas with a lot of coast and seaports where minority nationalities in the Empire were local majorities, was beneficial for the whole empire in the long term. But such is the way things are when a nation wants to rule over other nationalities and not allow them similar rights as the majority nationality has, as evidenced by the Russification efforts of late 19th and early 20th centuries - that nation stands to lose those areas when push comes to shove.

Personally, I have quite little sympathy in store for empires like the Russian Tsarist state losing their position through smaller nationalities breaking away in times of turmoil. If you can't find the ways to hold together your multi-ethnic empire, outside political, cultural or military oppression, then you'll lose it eventually and there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

 

[Saphroneth]

Sometimes there is little realistic options for developing such areas, though - for example for imperial Russia developing such things as naval defences or port facilities and communications in Finland or the Baltics, areas where minority nationalities in the Empire were local majorities, was beneficial for the whole empire in the long term. But such is the way things are when a nation wants to rule over other nationalities and not allow them similar rights as the majority nationality has, as evidenced by the Russification efforts of late 19th and early 20th centuries - that nation stands to lose those areas when push comes to shove.

Personally, I have quite little sympathy in store for empires like the Russian Tsarist state losing their position through smaller nationalities breaking away in times of turmoil. If you can't find the ways to hold together your multi-ethnic empire, outside political, cultural or military oppression, then you'll lose it eventually and there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

Right - it's a tricky argument and situation. It's not as though the nations that exist there today are "false".

But I think it does matter in terms of how much land was stripped away by the Brest-Livotsk treaty. It ripped away a huge chunk of the Russian industrial base, for example - because it had been developed outside the culturally-and-ethnically-Russian bits.

 

[kung Zog]

Personally, I have quite little sympathy in store for empires like the Russian Tsarist state losing their position through smaller nationalities breaking away in times of turmoil. If you can't find the ways to hold together your multi-ethnic empire, outside political, cultural or military oppression, then you'll lose it eventually and there is nothing inherently wrong about that.

Indeed. I have no sympathy for Russia, but changing one colonial lord for another is not something I applaud either.

 

[GrafZahl]

Both operated on the same principle - strip away the ethnic minorities from the defeated power.

Except that the territories stripped away from germany were german ethnic majority and not the other way arround (with exception of poznan, which was polish majority, although not much), while ukraine, poland, finnland, the baltics were russian minority.

I agree that all german territories did not belong to the german republic before, but the point is, germany was called the german empire, but was a ethnic largely homogenous nation state (in europe!), while Imperial Russia was a multi ethnic empire.
The western entente powers proclaimed "self determination" and fair peace (wilsons 17 points, anyone?) and dictated versailles.
The severes treaty with ottoman turkey was also not about self determination. First the turks in todays turkey were not granted self determination. And second the arab territories stripped away were not grantes self determination, but became colonies instead.
Double crossing both the arabs (incited to revolt against the ottomans by the british/ Lawrence of arabia) and the zionist jews, who the british bribed for support via the balfour declaration in 1917. Laying the foundations for conflict in this area till today.

 

[MattII]

1) We don't have Kangoroos

Typo.

2) Part of Versailles was still that Austria (which wanted at that point in time) was not allowed to unite with Germany.

Same Situation with the Baltic States, except that they had been part of Russia.

3) True, still doesn't change the fact that being landlocked increased Austrian desire to unite with Germany, as the population didn't see it as a viable state.

Doesn't matter, because Versailles was exclusively with Germany, thus the fate of the other Axis powers has exactly zero bearing on the unfairness of this treaty.

Edit: All I am saying is that forbiding an "Anschluss" should be included when measuring Versailles harshness

No, because it's not unfair to Germany at all. It might be unfair to Austria, but that lot got a different treaty.

Except that the territories stripped away from germany were german ethnic majority and not the other way arround (with exception of poznan, which was polish majority, although not much), while ukraine, poland, finnland, the baltics were russian minority.

How the hell did they get a German majority on Alsace-Lorraine, they hadn't even owned it for four decades?

 

[fishingfred]

Typo.

Same Situation with the Baltic States, except that they had been part of Russia.

Doesn't matter, because Versailles was exclusively with Germany, thus the fate of the other Axis powers has exactly zero bearing on the unfairness of this treaty.

No, because it's not unfair to Germany at all. It might be unfair to Austria, but that lot got a different treaty.

The baltic states were <10% Russian in 1920.
The "Anschlussverbot" was part of both Versailles and Saint-Germain.
In that sense I feel justified taking it into account when talking about the harshness of Versailles.
Edit: All I am citing here is only important to harshness when taking into account National self-determination.

 

[Bad@logic]

Versailles is a bar fight that ends in the strongest guy in the room getting their finger chopped off, told to admit they started it, paying a fine, and only allowed a small knife in the future for defense. The negotiating style here is follow up or something worse will happen.

Brest-Livotsk is a bar fight that ends in both of the guy's arms supposed to be chopped off, but the amputator gets knocked out before they can finish the job. Unlike in the first, negotiations happen, these involving the amputator holding a gun to the victim's head and saying what a shame it would be if he declined.

I'd dare say I'd rather lose a finger, be forced to pay a fine, and be forced to admit I started things than getting my arms chopped off.

 

[Snaut]

Except that the territories stripped away from germany were german ethnic majority and not the other way arround (with exception of poznan, which was polish majority, although not much), while ukraine, poland, finnland, the baltics were russian minority.

If most of Alsace-Lorraine wanted to be French, they were French regardless of what language they spoke. Like Poznan, the parts of Upper Silesia transferred to Poland and the "corridor" also had a Polish majority. I think the areas Denmark got were also clearly Danish. But this is irrelevant to the OP's question anyway. If it were, a hypothetical treaty with an ethnically homogenous state which does not take away any of its territory would be as harsh as Brest-Litovsk, which is ridiculous.

 

[Matteo]

I am just wondering if you know what the "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk" actually said. I get the Feeling you only look at the wiki map and think "WOW they took a large piece out of the Russian Empire".

I agree that the territorial losses of Germany (not including colonies) are not as vast as the territories that the Russian Empire lost. But the overwhelming part of those territories were not transferred to the Central powers, but were territories that wanted to break away from the Russian Empire (Ukraine, Finland, some Baltics). Thats comparable (by Quality and probably quantity) to the territory Austria Hungary lost)

Now to other (selected and comparable) issues.

Navy ships - Germany had to surrender (most and best) of theirs, Russia could Keep them
Army - Germany was limited in Army size, Russia had to demobilize
Germany was prohibited to use (modern) weapons - no such Limit on Russia

Russia lost a sizeable part of Industry and mines (most went to sucessor states, or probablle sucessor states like Poland) - Germany lost for example the Saar coal mines (not the territory but the mines were now French property)

War guilt - well no such thing in the treaty with Russia.

War cost - both sides took their cost in B-L without demands to the other side. Versailles Germany had to agree to take on teh war cost eof the Entente (later it was fixed to around 269 Billion Goldmark). In an addition (August 1918) to B-L Russia agreed to pay 6 Billion Goldmark... (but this Addition had additional Agreements, some of which benefitted Red Russia - The russians even considered to ask Germany to send soldiers to fight against the Entente Forces on Russian soil ! - that Highlights the severness of German demands - the loser actually considered to INVITE the former enemy to help out

Sure B-L was not a light peace (and the Russians later said they should have taken Germanys original terms, because B-L later was harsher - maybe because Ukraine had made peace with Germany and wanted support from Germany ), but it let Russias sovereignity of the remaining territory fully intact. Versailles grossly limited Germanys sovereignity.

Russia could negotiate the terms, GErmany was FORCED to take the terms.

B-L had under 20 articles, Versailles 440!

What about the patents and rights Germany lost at Versailles?

True Russia lost more percent of ist European territory.

BTW did you know that only the English and French VErsions of Versailles were "binding" - For B-L the Russian text stood equal to the German... if questions would arise.

Waow !

The amount of the reparations was 132 billion gold marks, not 269.

And de facto, this amount the Dawes and Young plans reduced this amount. And finally the reduced amount was never paid.


The reparations were about reparing the terrible destructions Germany had causes on ally territories while itself sufffering none on its own territory.

The problem is that Germany could accept no peace treaty concluding a war it had lost because Germany considered itself the chosen/superior people. It deliberately started WWI because it feared that it may lose continental relative domination due to Russia's fast growth and modernization.

Then it made everything possible to sabotage the peace treaty that had missed its goal : breaking the german power so that Germany would never start such a war again.

Then it started it all again with WWII.

A peace treaty is never about global Justice. It is about securing peace in terme that are favourable to the winners.

 

[GrafZahl]

How the hell did they get a German majority on Alsace-Lorraine, they hadn't even owned it for four decades?

To be honest, I just forgot about Alsace-Lorraine. Anyway my informations about its population is lacking anyway.

I know it has been german for centuries (look at the city names), but was annexed by the french and they tried hard to make it french.
I just did a quick research (wikipedia). It seems like in the 1910 census between 10 and 20% of the people named french their native language. The rest should be german then.
Although it should be noted that about 15% of Alsace-Lorraines people immigrated from germany since 1870.
Till I get knowlegdge of opposing facts I therefore assume that Alsace Lorraine was also populated by a majority of germans.

And I have to tell that austria was a part of germany (first reich, Holy roman empire of german nation) for centuries. The house of Habsburg hold reign in this empire. Till today the insignia of the empire is kept in Vienna.

 

[RavenMM]

Versailles is a bar fight that ends in the strongest guy in the room getting their finger chopped off, told to admit they started it, paying a fine, and only allowed a small knife in the future for defense. The negotiating style here is follow up or something worse will happen.

Brest-Livotsk is a bar fight that ends in both of the guy's arms supposed to be chopped off, but the amputator gets knocked out before they can finish the job. Unlike in the first, negotiations happen, these involving the amputator holding a gun to the victim's head and saying what a shame it would be if he declined.

I'd dare say I'd rather lose a finger, be forced to pay a fine, and be forced to admit I started things than getting my arms chopped off.

Your chosen nickname suits you well.


If you count places like Finland, Poland and Ukraine as proper russian places back then, you have to count todays Namibia and Tanzania as german territory taken away in 1918.

And some people here should reread trotsky's no peace, no war policy, and the CP proposal before...