how do you think germany should of been punished after world war 1 and why?

I'll start by saying hindsight is a wonderful thing! We all know that The Treaty of Versailles contributed significantly to the outbreak of WW2, but I'd like to point out that Germany was not solely to blame for the outbreak of either conflict. By the end, most of the countries involved in WW1 were exhausted financially by it (apart from the US who profited immensely from it). It is in human nature to find "someone to blame", and owing to the huge losses incurred, the British and French public would not have accepted Germany "getting away with it". So in the end, Germany had to be punished to appease the public (despite fears that economic sanctions would make it easier for the communists to gain a foothold).

I hope this isn't your homework I'm doing here...
 
From a strictly logical standpoint, they should either have been punished so harshly that they could never have inflicted damage again (like what the Spartans did a lot) or in accordance with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points plan, which is what America and Britain wanted to do anyway (it was France being in a sulk that pushed the Treaty of Versailles to be so harsh). Cause basically, what they did, was to make it harsh enough that everybody in Germany was pissed off and looking for revenge and international pride, but not harsh enough that they couldn't build up an army again.
But like I say, thats strictly logic. If you want a moral answer, you kinda have to decide for yourself.
 
well there different administrations that come along in the picture after the war.so you cant punish a new administration for something that the previous one did.I think the lives lost and them losing the war was punishment enough

that's like holding obama responsible for something bush did
 
Back
Top