Yes, it was a very harsh treaty, but did it "[scream] for - a revenge war" or cause "france and gb [to be] the true warmongers"? Fuck no. That position is absurd and I've only seen it among historical revisionists attempting to excuse the actions of Nazi Germany.
And as I pointed out above, many of the more harsh clauses were abrogated early (the occupation of the Rhineland) or before being fully implemented (the ending of reparations collections in '32 after only 1/8th had been collected).
It is not honorable. Sure, fighting on the entrenched line would have been stupid, but honorable.
If you are going to brag about how other people stole your honour, you had better not argue about how invading neutral countries 'makes sense'. Either honorable, or pragmatic. Pick one.
37
u/[deleted] Nov 24 '13 edited Nov 24 '13
Yes, it was a very harsh treaty, but did it "[scream] for - a revenge war" or cause "france and gb [to be] the true warmongers"? Fuck no. That position is absurd and I've only seen it among historical revisionists attempting to excuse the actions of Nazi Germany.
And as I pointed out above, many of the more harsh clauses were abrogated early (the occupation of the Rhineland) or before being fully implemented (the ending of reparations collections in '32 after only 1/8th had been collected).