The Versailles Treaty and (anti-)imperialism

[Dimentio]

Would you define the Versailles Treaty as imperialist? If that is the case, would you define Germany during 1919-1933 as being repressed under (semi-)imperialist arrangements?

If not, why was'nt it imperialist?

[turquino]

Would you define the Versailles Treaty as imperialist? If that is the case, would you define Germany during 1919-1933 as being repressed under (semi-)imperialist arrangements?

If not, why was'nt it imperialist?

It was, of course, imperialist in the sense that it was imposed by the victorious imperialist powers after the war, but I do not think that is the answer you are looking for.

Germany was an advanced capitalist country in competition with France and Britain. The Treaty of Versailles was the victorious imperialists attempt to impose restraints on their German competitors own imperialist expansion. In contrast, the German workers were not more oppressed by the foreign capitalists than they were by their own. The Treaty of Versailles might have been bad news for the German ruling class, but from the standpoint of workers it hardly made a difference which nationality of capitalists had the upper hand. This was very different from how capitalist imperialism oppressed its colonies in Africa and Asia because there the development of capitalism was held back by foreign domination. An India free from imperialist domination could in theory look at Britain and see an image of itself in a few decades, but while it was subjugated this was an impossibility. Except for some local rulers who had an interest in maintaining the system, the overthrow of foreign domination and development of a free capitalist system was the shared interest of the nation’s aspiring capitalist class and workers.

I apologize if my answer was too general for your question.

-turquino

[Dimentio]

Some users here claim that current-day China is exploited by foreign capitalists.

[ComradeOm]

Some users here claim that current-day China is exploited by foreign capitalists.I assume they're talking about foreign control of capital? Either way, its a stretch to argue that today's China or 1918 Germany is/was a colonial nation

You could argue of course that the war reparations demanded of Germany were a means of siphoning off German capital for the benefit of the Allied countries. I'd disagree though, Germany paid very little of its expected reparations and largely financed this by borrowing from the Americans. This in turn increased its war debts but then both France and Britain were also struggling with this (I think France even defaulted on its debts in 1928?). So you get the bizarre scenario where France and Britain are taking reparations from Germany which is in turn borrowing from the US who is receiving money from France and Britain! The only real winner here was Washington... which tends to explode the theory that Versailles was some imperialist plot

Generally I'd agree with turquino. The primary thrust of 'imperialism' in Versailles was in its role in limiting German economic/imperial competition. In addition you could point to the territorial changes in both Europe and Africa. But the treaty did not force Germany into a colonial, or semi-colonial, relationship with the West

[BobKKKindle$]

The Versailles Treaty was imperialist, but only in the sense that it allowed for a re-division of the world's territories, and strengthened the imperialist position of Britain and France by creating mandates in the Middle East and transferring control of German colonies to the victorious countries. The accumulation of war debts in Britain also signaled the emergence of the United States as the key imperialist power, as Britain was increasingly unable to sustain all of her colonies due to the pressures placed on government expenditure by the economic stress of the war and post-war recession, despite an increase in the size of her empire. However, Germany was not transformed into an oppressed nation by the war, despite her loss of colonies, and the measures that were enacted against some of her European territories, such as the Saarland, and Alsace-Lorraine, because the German bourgeoisie continued to accumulate capital generated through the exploitation of workers and peasants in the colonized world, and was eventually able to extend German imperialism to many European countries during WW2.

[Kassad]

Surely this is some form of jest. The entire concept of the First World War was rooted in imperialist expansion in the interest of geographical gain and resource domination. After the Age of Imperialism, where industrialized countries used their monetary power to dominate nearly all of Africa, what would you expect any future conflicts or wars to be caused by? Capitalism and hegemonic elitism are the core problems here, as usual.

The Treaty of Versailles was the industrial world's first of many, many grievous misunderstandings and miscalculations about potential military and economic domination. Western history books don't like to talk about how the Treaty of Versailles was one of the prime reasons that Hiter's Reich rose to power in Germany. Hitler preached the emancipation of the German people from colonialist European powers and the people of Germany were forced to pay absurd sums in reparations, as well as see their entire nations disarmed and their land sacrificed in the name of capitalist expansion.

It's simple to see why Hitler, or any dictator for that matter, rises to power. A dictator rises based on something that they know they can get the popular masses to either oppose or support. In this case, it was the Treaty of Versailles. If you lived in a war-torn nation filled with destruction and a total lack of resources and defenses thanks to capitalistic imperialism, I could see it as rational to support emancipation from those shackles by almost any means.

Though the United States and their bourgeoisie-dominated capitalist allies spend their time exploiting tiny, under-developed nations now, as it is economically simple for them, this was an example of manipulating a nation that was weak and defensless after war, much like Iraq is today. I doubt that the corporate elite expected someone like Hitler to rise, but can you say that it didn't make them jump for joy? Think about it. The corporate executives made millions off of the war effort and the deaths of millions. Why would they not want to see another war so they could profit even more? In fact, I implore you to find one war that the United States has partaken in that didn't have some sort of colonialist aim, whether it be through the theft of resources or meaningless excuses to set up military bases and occupations.

You can't, because at the end of the day, that's all war is. It's a last resort for capitalist bankers, executives and elitists to make profits when their other forms of economic exploitation fail. No matter how they attempt to justify their destructive crusade, there is no excuse and under capitalism, there is no end in sight.

[ComradeOm]

Western history books don't like to talk about how the Treaty of Versailles was one of the prime reasons that Hiter's Reich rose to power in GermanyWhat history books have you been reading? The argument that Versailles was a prime contributor to WWII is as old as the treaty itself. Its continually been cited as a major cause for war and no half-decent Western history of those decades fails to mention it. They even have it in school books these days. Frankly, if this is supposed to be a revelation then you're at least five decades late


Hitler preached the emancipation of the German people from colonialist European powers and the people of Germany were forced to pay absurd sums in reparations, as well as see their entire nations disarmed and their land sacrificed in the name of capitalist expansionNote my comments on reparations above. I'm not going to bother discussing the merits of German imperial claims vs Franco-British imperial claims. Of course if Hitler said so...


You can't, because at the end of the day, that's all war is. It's a last resort for capitalist bankers, executives and elitists to make profits when their other forms of economic exploitation fail. No matter how they attempt to justify their destructive crusade, there is no excuse and under capitalism, there is no end in sight.I'd be much happier if you could show that Versailles placed Germany in a colonial or semi-colonial relationship with the West

[Vahanian]

Would you define the Versailles Treaty as imperialist? If that is the case, would you define Germany during 1919-1933 as being repressed under (semi-)imperialist arrangements?

If not, why was'nt it imperialist?

Yeah of course it would be considered imperialist. one of the reason it was started was because of imperialist country's and afterward they took whatever colony's away that Germany had gotten were token away form them. and they were repressed under the treaty because they had to pay reparations for a war they actually didn't start

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yeah of course it would be considered imperialist. one of the reason it was started was because of imperialist country's and afterward they took whatever colony's away that Germany had gotten were token away form them. and they were repressed under the treaty because they had to pay reparations for a war they actually didn't start

Yea, pretty much. It basically because of this treaty that Hitler rose to power. The people were desperate for a solution to their problems. They saw Hitler as this solution(partly because of his charisma). Of course this then led to Germany actually starting a war. At least they were forced to pay reparations that time. Besides with the treaties of Versailles, it was just pretty much a way to benefit England and France, the two main imperialistic powers. They got more territory out of this and France pretty much wanted to crush Germany. They almost succeeded too.

[Vahanian]

Yea, pretty much. It basically because of this treaty that Hitler rose to power. The people were desperate for a solution to their problems. They saw Hitler as this solution(partly because of his charisma). Of course this then led to Germany actually starting a war. At least they were forced to pay reparations that time. Besides with the treaties of Versailles, it was just pretty much a way to benefit England and France, the two main imperialistic powers. They got more territory out of this and France pretty much wanted to crush Germany. They almost succeeded too.

Hitler also rose to power because of the stock market crash in 1929(EDIT: and the treaty).and this treaty wasn't only to benefit France and great Brittan it was because they want to punish the Germans for "starting the war". also France wanted this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism


French revanchism was the main force behind the Treaty of Versailles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles), which regained Alsace-Lorraine for France, pinned the blame of the World War on Germany and extracted huge reparations from the defeated powers. The conference was not only opened on the anniversary of the proclamation of the Second Reich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire), the treaty had also to be signed by the new German government in the same room, the Hall of Mirrors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_of_Mirrors_(Palace_of_Versailles))

[LOLseph Stalin]

Hitler also rose to power because of the stock market crash in 1929.and this treaty wasn't only to benefit France and great Brittan it was because they want to punish the Germans for "starting the war". also France wanted this

Although the stock market crash did help Hitler to power faster, it wasn't the sole reason as to why he got elected in 1933. The ordinary citizens of Germany were angry as they had been forced to sign the treaty of Versailles without taking part in any of the conferences. Of course the conditions of this treaty were bankrupting Germany so they attempted to print more money, making inflation skyrocket. You can pretty much say Germany was already in a depression before the stock market crash.

[Vahanian]

yeah, i know i edited it. sorry bout that i was overtired and didn't proof read it. also in Germany between 1923-1926 there was a "golden age" in the Wiemar republic before the stock market crash. the hyper inflation occurred in between the November revolution and the golden age.

[LOLseph Stalin]

yeah, i know i edited it. sorry bout that i was overtired and didn't proof read it. also in Germany between 12 and 1923- 1926 there was a "golden age" in the Wiemar republic before the stock market crash. the hyper inflation occurred in between the November revolution and the golden age

Yes, the Weimar Republic did have its good days, but with that treaty destroying Germany's economy it was almost certain some kind of tyrant would rise to power, promising change. In extreme situations people look for extreme solutions. It's almost a shame that the Communist uprising got crushed so early on(1918). History would have turned out so differently...

[Vahanian]

Yes, the Weimar Republic did have its good days, but with that treaty destroying Germany's economy it was almost certain some kind of tyrant would rise to power, promising change. In extreme situations people look for extreme solutions. It's almost a shame that the Communist uprising got crushed so early on(1918). History would have turned out so differently...


It wasn't only the fact that people look to extreme in extreme times (it is a part of it) it was because before the republic the were led by the kaiser and weren't used to democratic bureaucracy and they felt that it didn't get anything done. And you right History would had been different if the Bavarian Soviet republic would have succeeded