Timeline for Why was the Treaty of Versailles so harsh?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2017 at 23:54 | comment | added | sds | Compared to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Versailles was pretty moderate. | |
| Dec 14, 2015 at 12:03 | history | protected | Semaphore | ||
| Aug 1, 2015 at 18:23 | answer | added | jjack | timeline score: -4 | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 16:15 | comment | added | Nix | I plead to leave the question as is, as I feel there are several informative, objective and well-sourced answers. Opiniated answers should be downvoted or removed. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 16:00 | comment | added | CGCampbell | I'm not completely sure why this question has been flagged for consideration of votes to close, after a year, with multiple answers and (for this se) a high upvote count on the question and accepted answer. I can see that it (might be) broad, perhaps too broad, AND opinion based. If this question were asked now, with no answers, I'd agree with the closure, but as it is, I don't agree. (and yes, I know that "if it isn't on topic now, it wasn't on topic then, but then again, maybe not, as the mood of the curators changes over time) | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 12:35 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 30, 2015 at 16:01 | |||||
| Mar 8, 2014 at 10:21 | vote | accept | Nix | ||
| Feb 28, 2014 at 4:48 | answer | added | pugsville | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 13:49 | comment | added | Drux | Perhaps it was so harsh because WW II had not yet happened. (It certainly seems harsh in hindsight.) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 10:04 | answer | added | landroni | timeline score: -2 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 4:26 | answer | added | ichorallemande | timeline score: 30 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 0:03 | comment | added | Matthew Finlay | @Nix Unfortunately, with the US unwilling to write off their loans, there was no chance of the UK cancelling theirs. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 23:30 | comment | added | Nix | @MatthewFinlay Ah, interesting. However, US President Wilson was afaik against the harsh economical sanctions, as it would hurt the European economy (and in extension, the US). Great Britain also wanted to keep Germany financially stable, as they saw her as a potential trading partner. And in the end it was for naught: Germany had to loan money to be able to pay the reparations, causing explosive inflation. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 23:14 | comment | added | Matthew Finlay | In addition to the other answers, both France and the UK had amassed very large debts to the US during the war, of similar size to the reparations imposed on Germany. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 22:29 | answer | added | EndlessLoop | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 20:07 | history | edited | Nix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified that Germany did not in fact capitluate
|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 19:39 | comment | added | Nix | That's true. Had they not signed the armistice, they would probably have faced total defeat sooner rather than later. I will edit the text to reflect your points. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 19:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackHistory/status/437672420062035968 | ||
| Feb 23, 2014 at 19:28 | answer | added | Pieter Geerkens | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 18:15 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | Germany did not capitulate, they signed an armistice, and they were in fact in a very bad position as Germany internally was collapsing into civil war. Had the allies known this they would probably not have signed the armistice, but demanded full surrender. Which would have avoided the conspiracy theory, and may even have avoided WWII. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 12:29 | history | asked | Nix | CC BY-SA 3.0 |