After Germanys sudden defeat and the growing unrest in all countries involved there was a huge emphasis for a lasting peace and it fell on the superpowers of France, the USA and Great Britain to sort out. The pressure forced the leaders into a quick and hasty settlement and without consultation to the people of Germany. However the superpowers involved had different motives for the peace settlement and these motives would later affect the enforcement and future changes in the treaty. Britain was very much of the opinion that Germany needed to be economically sound in order to be of any use, the United States wanted repayment of war debts and was somewhat idealistic and France very much looked for revenge and saw the treaty as being too favourable towards the Germans. In reality the Treaty itself was hard on Germany, mostly economically, with huge loss of land in Alcase-Lorraine resulting in Germany losing seventy-five percent of her iron-ore, sixty-eight percent of her zinc ore and twenty-six percent of her coal, her most valuable raw materials. Disarmament clauses were severe and huge reparations were to be paid. Moral indignation overflowed in the clauses of the treaty and crucially Germans were forced to accept a ‘War-Guilt’ clause. Another huge issue was the loss of German people, either through loss of territory or colonies this amounted to approximately six and a half million subjects, of whom half were German speaking. Ironically the treaty adopted a principle of national determination for everyone except the Germans, with huge amounts of Germans now in Poland and Czechoslovakia and millions more in Austria. This simply accentuated a sense of wounded racial pride in Germany and was a huge blow to national pride. Although these factors are not the sole reason for the rise in fascist Germany it does help to explain the German attitude to the peace settlement. It can also help to explain the reluctance of Germany to comply with the treaties, with defaults on reparation payments leading to the French and Belgian occupations of the Ruhr and secret deals with the Russians in order to seek rearmment showing a growing disregard for its authority. It can also be argued that the treaty would only be in place as long as the powers could enforce it, with all three leaders Wilson, Clemanceau and Lloyd George being out of power within a few years amendments and reductions in reparations became inevitable. This weakened the treaty and fuelled the growth of German right wing policies that called for it to be scrapped and the growing popularity among German people who now saw this as a right. Perhaps if the treaty had been more realistic, more enforceable and in any sense enforced then perhaps the rise in fascism could have been avoided at this stage.
Economic implications of the treaty and the growing global financial crisis were to have disastrous effects on Germany and fan the ever growing flames of a fascist Germany. The French occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 caused outrage in the German workers and caused havoc by creating hyperinflation of the German mark, particularly hitting the middle class hard. This situation was only resolved by the US securing loans for Germany and the rescheduling of reparations as set out in the Dawes Plan. However following the wall street crash in 1929 and the collapse of US credit, the European triangular cycle of Germany paying reparations to France, Britain and Germany and those countries in turn paying the US to service war debts was broken. This caused friction and a further breakdown in international diplomatic relationships. Germany was effectively in a domestic and economic crisis and by May 1932 unemployment had reached six million (30 percent of the workforce). It is from this point onwards that we begin to see the real rise of ‘Nazism’ and a direct link between German unemployment figures with Nazi popularity is certainly a growing trend. In 1928, and despite unemployment climbing to 10% the Nazi party won only 2.4% of the vote (12 seats). However lack of progress, the highest unemployment yet and the Nazi party promising economic recovery, the election in Sep 1932 saw the Nazi party achieve 37.8% of the vote and 230 seats in the Reichstag. It can be easy to see how disgruntled middle class voters fearful of a return to conditions in 1923(the year of hyperinflation) and fearing communist uprisings would be drawn to the kind of right wing parties emerging in Germany, specifically the Nazi party.
Looking to appeal to a wide audience right wing parties such as NSDAP(Nazi) party began to emerge with strong support in Germany. The Nazi party appealed to both unemployed workers with socialist promises and appealed to fearful middle class voters with promises of restoring law and order and the prevention of a communist uprising. Ironically, the Nazi party also looked to restore confidence in democracy; the German Revolutions and the treaty had left Germany with a system that produced weak coalitions through proportional representation and this meant they were incapable of cooperation.
Albert Speers, himself a Nazi officer and member of Hitler’s inner circle, wrote in his memoirs, ‘Inside The Third Reich‘, as the Nazi party being:
“... a sight of discipline in a time of chaos, the impression of energy in an atmosphere of universal hopelessness...”
However it should be noted that although the Nazi party was the one to capture the needs and desires of the German people with their twenty-five point programme it must also be noted that similar parties had sprung up all over Germany at this time, showing that fascism was a product of the German people and not opposed on them by the Nazi party. It was undoubtedly one of the biggest failures of the treaty that the people of Germany looked on democracy as a failure following the treaty and the instability of Weimar that followed thereafter.
In terms of the treaty it could be argued that although the seeds of a fascist Germany had already been sown, the treaty and the superpowers involved missed a real opportunity to stop the simmer pot of extremism that would one day go on to start the second world war. The terms of the treaty provoked resentment in the German people and they very much resented the fact that the peace was a ‘dikdat’ and without consultation. Reparations were harsh, completely unviable and led to further friction with France as well as contributing to the domestic and economic crisis that ensued in Germany in the 1920’s. Displacement of Germans outside the borders only perpetuated nationalistic feelings and right wing fascist parties had easy pickings of issues to sympathise with. However although historians were previously quick to judge the right wing and fascist parties and assume they dictated their fascist ways on the German people, most modern historians now accept that it was the economic and internal political turmoil that made the rise of fascism possible. It could also be argued based on the evidence provided, that a large majority of the problems facing Germany were in actual fact caused by the treaty itself, the unfair conditions initially imposed and the lack of enforcement leading to the eventual breakdown of the treaty and the rise of the Nazi party itself.
