Wiki: "Article 231 was one of the most controversial points of the treaty. It specified: 'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected *as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.' (end of)"* The clause highlighed sorta sounds like "poor innocent little us had a war forced upon poor innocent us totally unexpectedly", even though it was a war of choice (aka "preventive war") allround. *There were no innocents amongst any of the major powers.* Although the article doesn't mention the word "guilt", the fact that it stated "imposed upon (us)" without acknowledging own responsibility, means that by exclusion they might have well have stated "it's all your fault". Today, the formulation usually found acceptable for "Who started it?" is "No one nation is entirely at fault for WW1" (with the added "although Germany bears more guilt than others" sometimes added). So if that is as close to the truth as one can get today, it was also true in 1914. The way the "winners" tried to absolve themselves "per signature" in 1919 was truly cowardly. An exercise in "washing hands in innocence" at a time those in power knew what they had done (preventive war). They had sent millions to their deaths, and were not wiling to accept any responsibility themselves.
The question is not "whether (of not) Versailles was a failure", but WHY it failed. Versailles failed because of a "lack of foresight" and a lack of wisdom. The premise is false. According to age-old observation regarding human nature and warfare, Machiavelli stated that there are only two ways to "deal with" a defeated enemy: 1) *destroy completely,* and make sure he doesn't come back later to take revenge 2) *be fair,* in other words biblical values like "do onto others" determine the rules To be fair is to be wise. Europe lacked wise leaders. *There are no other good options.* History has proven. Only bad options remain. Bad options = the world set up for "eternal war". "Bad options" are choice, not necessity. According to the widespread European leaders' standpoint of "keeping a balance in power" between states in an effort to keep the peace, meant that in logic/reason and human nature, only option 2) remained as a valid way to proceed. In step the "losers" of Versailles. They enforced their 400+ point "peace plan"-division of the continent along random "lines drawn on the map" with a gun on the chest of Central Europe's main power. *What could possibly go wrong?*
Wiki: "Article 231 was one of the most controversial points of the treaty. It specified: 'The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected *as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.' (end of)"*
The clause highlighed sorta sounds like "poor innocent little us had a war forced upon poor innocent us totally unexpectedly", even though it was a war of choice (aka "preventive war") allround.
*There were no innocents amongst any of the major powers.*
Although the article doesn't mention the word "guilt", the fact that it stated "imposed upon (us)" without acknowledging own responsibility, means that by exclusion they might have well have stated "it's all your fault".
Today, the formulation usually found acceptable for "Who started it?" is "No one nation is entirely at fault for WW1" (with the added "although Germany bears more guilt than others" sometimes added). So if that is as close to the truth as one can get today, it was also true in 1914.
The way the "winners" tried to absolve themselves "per signature" in 1919 was truly cowardly.
An exercise in "washing hands in innocence" at a time those in power knew what they had done (preventive war).
They had sent millions to their deaths, and were not wiling to accept any responsibility themselves.
The question is not "whether (of not) Versailles was a failure", but WHY it failed.
Versailles failed because of a "lack of foresight" and a lack of wisdom.
The premise is false.
According to age-old observation regarding human nature and warfare, Machiavelli stated that there are only two ways to "deal with" a defeated enemy:
1) *destroy completely,* and make sure he doesn't come back later to take revenge
2) *be fair,* in other words biblical values like "do onto others" determine the rules
To be fair is to be wise.
Europe lacked wise leaders.
*There are no other good options.*
History has proven.
Only bad options remain.
Bad options = the world set up for "eternal war".
"Bad options" are choice, not necessity.
According to the widespread European leaders' standpoint of "keeping a balance in power" between states in an effort to keep the peace, meant that in logic/reason and human nature, only option 2) remained as a valid way to proceed.
In step the "losers" of Versailles.
They enforced their 400+ point "peace plan"-division of the continent along random "lines drawn on the map" with a gun on the chest of Central Europe's main power.
*What could possibly go wrong?*