War Guilt Clause
The German people felt that the purpose of the Treaty of Versailles was not to bring forth peace and justice but rather to stigmatize their country in the eyes of the world. For the Germans, the most condemning section of the Treaty of Versailles is Article 231, famously known as the ‘War Guilt Clause’. Amos Hershey apprises the popular German opinion of the time stating, “The acknowledgement of guilt in Article 231 [of the Treaty of Versailles] seems to me like a smarting wound which burns in the soul of the German people" (653-654). The War Guilt Clause blinded the Germans with anger and pushed them towards Hitler’s intent for war. Although the Treaty of Versailles is responsible for the economic instability which haunted Germany at the
…show more content…
Hitler’s rise to power, based on a political campaign that promised an improvement of the German identity, helped transform Germany into a leading economy. Soon enough, Hitler’s political authority gained enough momentum that he called for the remilitarization of Rhineland and a union with Austria, actions clearly forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. France, Britain and the United States did not regard these actions as harmful. Catherine Cline theorizes that because not even the creators of the Treaty of Versailles found it effective, “When Hitler brutally attacked the structure of Versailles in the 1930s, few were inclined to defend what they judged to be a morally flawed system” (683). Thus, Historians argue over the importance of world intervention. It seems the conclusion dictates that had he Allied Forces intervened against Hitler’s threatening actions sooner, he would have been discouraged to make future invasions and additionally, would have lost significant political influence when the Germans realized he could not follow through on his promises of a superior Germany. Even though the world economy was improving, World War II seemed inevitable. So, the world’s fatal mistake was leaving Hitler unchecked. If Hitler had been prioritized over the world economy, historians suggest the future events could have possibly played out
Hitler’s rise to power, based on a political campaign that promised an improvement of the German identity, helped transform Germany into a leading economy. Soon enough, Hitler’s political authority gained enough momentum that he called for the remilitarization of Rhineland and a union with Austria, actions clearly forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. France, Britain and the United States did not regard these actions as harmful. Catherine Cline theorizes that because not even the creators of the Treaty of Versailles found it effective, “When Hitler brutally attacked the structure of Versailles in the 1930s, few were inclined to defend what they judged to be a morally flawed system” (683). Thus, Historians argue over the importance of world intervention. It seems the conclusion dictates that had he Allied Forces intervened against Hitler’s threatening actions sooner, he would have been discouraged to make future invasions and additionally, would have lost significant political influence when the Germans realized he could not follow through on his promises of a superior Germany. Even though the world economy was improving, World War II seemed inevitable. So, the world’s fatal mistake was leaving Hitler unchecked. If Hitler had been prioritized over the world economy, historians suggest the future events could have possibly played out