What were the social ramifications of the Treaty of Versailles?
444769
The worst social ramification of the Treaty of Versailles was the empoverishment of German people. The treaty set an unnecessarily heavy retribution for that nation to pay. \n\nGermans never accepted the harsh punishment imposed on them by the victorious nations, and a feeling of animosity gradually grew among them against the rest of Europe. That animosity made possible the rise of political forces that advocated extreme measures for Germany to overcome its hardships, which ultimately culminated in World War II.
627378
Actually, the Treaty of Versailles was voted by the Senate, and it was defeated. Instead, the United States negotiated and signed a separate treaty with Germany which led to American soldiers on temporary occupation duty in western Germany for about 4 years.\n\nThere were two main problems for the Senate, one personal and one dealing with policy. The personal problem was between President Wilson on one side and Senator Lodge (the Republican leader) on the other. The two had come to an agreement that they would both honor a political truce during the war, where neither side would use the war for electoral purposes, but President Wilson broke the agreement when in the 1918 midterms he campaigned saying that only Democrats would be able to create a lasting world peace. For obvious reasons, Senator Lodge felt betrayed by this, and when the voters actually turned out against President Wilson and voted in a Republican majority in the Senate, the Repbulicans were not in the mood to give a "do-over." To make matters worse, when President Wilson travelled to Europe for the 1919 Peace Conference, he invited only Democrats to come with him, Republican ideas were completely snubbed. When the Treaty was finally signed and brought back to the United States, even though Lodge agreed with many aspects of the final document, the Republicans felt they could not trust President Wilson and made certain that the treaty would be attacked everywhere it was debated across the nation.\n\nThe procedural problem was the incorporation of the League of Nations as a vague but permanent part of the treaty and thus a permanent responsibility of the United States. The treaty was very vague and just said that a League would be set up at a future date. Many people were very hesitant to get the United States involved in a world organization where American sovereignty was subordinated to some outside aurthority. During the war, even President Wilson had been very hesitant about this sort of thing, and the United States never actually signed the Entente Cordiale or entered into any permanent agreement with the Western Allies.\n\nIn the end, despite a very hard-fought debate which saw President Wilson travel the entire country supporting the Treaty (to be followed by Republican Senators to speak against it after the President left) and eventually led to President Wilson being debilitated by a stroke, the treaty went down to defeat in the US Senate.\n\nIt is likely that, especially with President Harding's Normalcy and President Coolidge's ideas of governmental non-intervention outside of Latin America, the United States would not have had a very good experience with the League if the treaty had been approved. The League in the end was built around the colonial asperations of Britain and France and as such had a very hard time reaching meaningful agreements to stop aggression throughout the world.
450059
The Versailles Peace Treaty ending World War I was signed on June 28, 1919, about 7 months after the Armistice stopping the fighting on November 11, 1918. It was one of the mos important treaties of the 20th century. It had a huge impact on the international status of Germany, impacting the country territorially, militarily, and economically. Germany was made a pariah country and largely blamed for the start of the War. \n\n\nI. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. \n\nII. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.\n\nIII. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.\n\nIV. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.\n\nV. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.\n\nVI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. \n\nVII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. \n\nVIII. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. \n\nIX. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.\n\nX. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development. \n\nXI. Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into. \n\nXII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nat
295538
"One of the most obvious effects of the famine was emigration. Although the famine itself probably resulted in about 1 million deaths, the resultant emigration caused the population to drop by a further 3 million. About 1 million of these are estimated to have emigrated in the immediate famine period, with the depression that followed continuing the decline until the second half of the 20th century. These migrants largely ended up in North America, with some in Australia and in Britain."\nTable of figures at the site below
175125
D.1. The Treaty of Versailles\nVersailles and German expectations:\nThe Treaty of Versailles is one of the most controversial international agreements. Many observers -- politicians and historians -- have tended to blame the rise of the Nazis on Versailles, following the dictum of an eminent democratic German politician. When asked about the ultimate reasons for the failure of the democratic Weimar Republic, he replied: "Versailles and Moscow." By "Moscow" he meant that subversive communist activity guided by the Russian Bolshevist government had undermined democracy in tandem with the Nazis. By mentioning "Versailles" he claimed that the peace treaty had had detrimental effects on the viability and domestic authority of the German democracy. \n\nThe French, on the other side, felt disappointed by the treaty. They had hoped to weaken Germany more, maybe to dissolve it. To them, the treaty did not seem harsh enough. \n\nIn general, it has seemed that the treaty was either to harsh or too mild. It was too harsh to reconcile Germany with its former war enemies and to integrate it into a lasting peaceful postwar order, and it was too mild to weaken Germany so as to make it impossible for it to ever again become a great power. The picture that emerges today after more intensive research is more complex and differentiated than that, but Versailles nevertheless remains both a highly ambivalent and crucial station in German history. The actual peace terms harshly disappointed the Germans, who felt that they radically contradicted the promises Wilson had made to the prerevolutionary German governments. The Germans, for right or wrong, felt betrayed by Wilson and the United States. \n\nIf we compare German expectations and the terms of Versailles, we cannot overlook sharp discrepancies. Instead of a negotiated peace in which Germany would be a significant, if not equal, partner, the treaty gave practically no room for German input and resembled more a dictate than a real peace settlement. Instead of admitting the new democratic Germany into the community of democratic nations, the Allies ostracized the vanquished nation. They even took pains to humiliate its national consciousness. Germany was -- for the time being -- not allowed to join the newly founded League of Nations and remained a pariah in the postwar order. Instead of a peace of reconciliation the Germans received a peace of submission and punishment. The principle of national self-determination, instead of being respected as a general rule, was always applied if it weakened Germany and its former allies but never where it would have benefited them. \n\nWilsonian ideology seemed to have covered traditional ruthless power politics with a moralistic glaze. How did this momentuous discrepancy come about? Were the Germans really betrayed? Should they ever have believed in a milder peace settlement? \n\nWilson's Fourteen Points:\nLet us now see how this misunderstanding came about. On 8 January 1918 Wilson offered Congress an outline for a moderate peace in Europe. He was prompted to do so by the critical condition of the Entente after the Russian defeat. In France and Britain war-weariness became stronger, and it seemed irresponsible to many political minds that war should be continued for aggressive French and British war aims. Wilson thus hoped to placate moderate opinion in the Entente and at the same time suggest to the Germans that they could expect a peace settlement that would not destroy their state but give them a chance to survive as a major nation. \n\nThe principles Wilson articulated in his Fourteen Points were above all: economic and political equality of all nations (against satellite states, as in German-dominated Eastern Europe, and for the restoration of Belgian independence). Wilson further demanded that Europe be reorganized along lines of nationality. This idea implied the German loss of Alsace-Lorraine and the creation of a tr
879133
1-The earliest social effects were the loss of  jobs and the  scarisity of hard cash. A shortage of good folowed fast and even if you had the cash you were short of goods and scared to spend. The big guy sit down on the money and it went out of circulation fast. People lost homes, families, so many died, and suffered malnutrion due to simply no food. Parents saw children die of starvation, mothers and wives saw  husbands go the suicide route be cause he was helpless to feed his family.\nSchool for many came to a stand still., many school nationwide were closed,and millions of children went without education.\nMy grandparents pulled their corn and gave the griss mill half of it as payment for turning the rest into corn meal. They were oneof the lucky ones.\nMedicine and medical care suffered.\nFamilies split up and the great movement west started. Before the depression Georgia's population was much more  than that of California.  The promise of work in the produce fieldsand fruit grovesof California sent many people there to go humry  with out even shelter over their heads.\nMen left their homes, looking for work and started the great "hobo" rides to nowhere. This usually meant they left a wife and children at home of on the roads. with nothing. Transients were usually refused help in cities and forced from small towns where people protected what little they had left.\nAll of the  old films of the soup kitchens show the men who were fathers, husbands, sons ect  getting a bare meal to just survive past starvation so you can imagine what the women  left behind with children suffered. Many families were suffering. Most familes on the move left or were thrown off their farms with what ever they could carry. \nThe depression meant the beganning of the end of the small farm dominance in America, and the beganing of large corporations.  Homes and farms which had been in the family for generations even back to the revolution were taken for token taxes of a few dollars. many farms went under the tax mans auction for under 5 bucks.\n\n2-Radical groups (like Hitler did in Germany) gained support because they gave the poor, and displaced something to blame their troubles on. They had seemingly good answers to soemhard  questions. They found the scapegoat the public was looking for and usually they were right in that it was the rich guy. This is what gave such a rise to such ideologys as socialism,and communism.  The public had no jobs like in Germany/europe (and as  always plenty of beer or boose) and they had plenty of mad, upset, and hungry people with plenty of time on their hands to listen to them.&#92;\n\n3-I heard  my father talk of some folks on the road getting help from strangers. My grandfather told him of walking and asking people for work for food.While he mentiond many towns would force you out if you were not a native some (especially farm families) would share their last with you. There were new bonds formed, new friends made, and a better appreciation of life and everything material after the depression started. My father as a young boy remebers when things began to pick up and people began to hope again. \n\n4- When people went to the banks and found them closed all at once they did not under stand what happened. Every bank only keeps a percentage their value in money on hand.  The rest is on loan for proifit. when the news began to filter down those on the inside withdrew theirs leaving nothing. When people woke up with no job,and no money this signaled the end of the 20s. and it nearly happened over night  which is why so many people suffered so fast.\nLitterially no goods for consumers,and no funds to purchase what there was brought in the 30s. Government for the most part became non functional and allowed those who did have money and power to later control the country. People like the Kennedys began their wealth during this time and used the depression to do so. Prohibition saw the small farmers who manuf
783381
I am assuming you mean the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1.  In that case it was ineffective because:\n\n1)  the monetary punishment of Germany and the other belligerent powers bankrupted them.  When countries and peoples have nothing left to lose, they must cast their lot with strong governments that will care for them in crisis. The Fascist governments that arose in the 20's and 30's are a result of the hopelessness of the people and their willingness to believe in omnipotent governments.\n\n2)  one of the main causes of the war was the disintegrating power of empires.  The German, Austo-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires could no longer hold together their centrifugal territories and possessions.  The war and the ToV removed these powers, but did not replace them with anything.  Peoples who had never been free suddenly were faced with having to make democratic choices, which they were unable to do, and strong forces, not necessarily just or benevolent forces, swept in to unite these groups of people that were suddenly left "empire-less."\n\n3)  Although the ToV dictated disarmament of the hostile powers, there was no method of verification and no punishments dictated for failure to comply.  As a result, when Germany began to re-arm, no one knew what to do.\n\n4)  Although this was not specifically the fault of the ToV or the signatories, the Great Depression bankrupt the victorious powers.  They could not enforce the provisions of the treaty, even if they had wanted to.  As a result, because Great Britain, the US, and France were so poor, they could not have fielded armies to stop Germany in 1933.\n\n5)  The League of Nations provided a false sense of security for the allied powers.  The belief in "peace in our time" and "the war to end all wars" was so strong that as a people, we were unwilling to admit that there was still evil and belligerence in the world, especially in conquered Europe.  We "showed them the ignorance of their ways" and put a deliberative body in place to settle disagreements before the use of force was necessary, so that strict governmental oversight was not enforced.\n\n6)  The ToV ended the war too early.  Triple Entente forces never crossed onto German soil, so it was easy for follow on governments to claim the war was never really lost.  Without an occupation and rebuilding, many Germans did not believe the war actually to be lost.
109047
The Treaty of Versailles imposed huge reparations payments on Germany for the damage that was done to France during WW1. The payment of this debt, at the expense of the German standard of living, and the ensuing hyperinflation played a large role in the rise of the National Socialist party.
609113
Wow, that's an indepth question to ask.\n\nFor starters, World War I completely reshaped the map of Europe and parts of the Near and Middle East.  The Austrio-Hungarian Empire was divided into Czechoslovakia, Hngary, Yugoslavia, and Austria; parts were also given over to Romania and to Italy.  The Ottoman Empire was divided into British and French Mandates, forming Iraq, Palestine, and Jordan for the British and Syria and Lebanon for the French, as well as the independant state of Turkey.  The Russian Empire was separated into Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.  The German (Prussian) Empire was divided as well, with part of their territories going to create the Polish Corridor, giving Poland access to the North Sea, an allotment was also made to Czechoslovakia, Blegium, and, of course, the German independant state.\n\nSome of the statistical information concerning World War I is as follows:\n\n-10 million soldiers dead\n-6.6 million civilians dead\n-21 million wounded\n-8 million MIA (Missing In Action) or POW (Prisoners of War)\n-Cost of War appx. $180 billion\n-Other Costs in Relation ~ $150 billion\n\nThere was also a mass movement of displaced people as their homes were utterly destroyed in the wake of the war.\n\nIn terms of politics, the ultimate loss of Russian troops allowed for the successful usurpation of the government by the Communist party.  Since Europe's economy was trashed, the United States became the dominant power in the world financially and wound up being the largest lending agent for the restoration of Europe.  France, bitter at their ultimate defeat, wanted Germany to be punished for its role in the war, which successfully undermined Woodrow Wilson's attempts to settle the Versailles treaty without instilling a sense of anger in the Germans unsuccessful.  Germany was forbidden to have a standing military, and felt betrayed by its high command (Jews, Liberals, Socialists), and combined with the effects of high unemployment created a perfect breeding ground for Hitler and the Nazi party to emerge later.  Italy did not get all that it asked for -- a mutilated victory -- which opened the door for Facism and Musilini.  Britain, with the creation of the Mandates in the Middle East, made a grab for the oil industry.  The Bourgeoisie class was elevated, which mostly eliminated the power of the Aristocracy, which, combined with a deteriorated economy, weakened the strength of Imperial Colonialism and set the stage for the dismantling colonial states held by European states all over the world.\n\nThe full repercussions of World War I would not be felt until World War II with the rise of Nazi Germany and Facist Italy.  The end of the war left countless dead and/or missing and/or displaced, German divided between western powers and those of Russia, who had taken over most of the countries that would later become the USSR.  This set the stage for the Cold War, which would last until the early ninties after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The Holocaust left over six million Jews dead and the remainder displaced.  As a result, many Jews migrated to Palestine, which soon after became Isreal, a nation backed by the west and resented by Muslims everywhere, thus creating tensions between the Middle East and the Western nations.  The advent of the first atomic bomb would also set off a long series of discussions on the US's use of nuclear technology against Japan.  The United Nations also formed as a result of World War II; their first conferences were held in San Francisco (mostly so the NSA could tap the other delegates' phone lines and listen in on other conversations being held).  The Cold War resulted in the Arms Race, and the decision of the US government to simply out-spend the Russians and drive their economy into the ground, slowly deteriorating the basis for their system of government.  Really, we have not seen all the final effects of World War II, though some of the major politica
18136
I don't think Germany ever felt that way.  The feelings of humiliation that developed due to the loss of WWI and the requirements for Germany under the Treaty of Versailles contributed to the fall of the Weimar republic, the rise of Hitler and thus to World War II.
139891
I like the first answer!\n\nHowever, I'll give in and give a bit more information.\n\nLook at Germany after WWI.  They were devastated, morally and economically.  They were supposed to pay gigantic reparations which realistically they could never pay.  Thus, they fell into a huge depression and were quite vulnerable to anyone who promised to "save" them.  A little wimpy untalented artist named hitler used incredible propaganda to bolster himself and his disgusting ideas.
258078
After the "great war", the war to end all wars (WWI), no one wanted to get drawn into another big conflict. They thought the best way to stay out of a war was to avoid confrontation and let Germany do what it wants to.\n\nAccording to the treaty of Versailles, a whole host of restrictions were placed on Germany,.... they couldnt have an airforce, they couldnt have a very big navy, they couldnt put troops in a certain area near France, they couldnt build U-boats, ....\nWhen Hitler came to power, one by one, Germany broke pretty much every single stipulation of the treaty (and wasnt even very secretive about it).  Other countries didnt want to get into a war, so they looked the other way while all this was happening.  Germany decided that it wanted to annex the sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, so they did and other countries let them (Czechoslovakia wasnt too pleased though).\nGermany's invasion of Poland was the last straw and is commonly used to mark the start of WWII in Europe.\n\nEngland's prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, is known for his policy of appeasment.  Other countries looked on while Germany was doing all this, hoping to avoid another war when in reality it let Germany get away with way too much.
826633
I'd go for Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920
976496
I put "economic consequences of civil war" in my search engine and found the following information on the Civil war:\n\nCivil War – Consequences\n·    530,000 people died – larger than those in WWI & WWII combined\n·    abolition of slavery mounted to 1 billion dollar of ‘confiscated’ property\n·    w/o southern states to block, the ‘union’ passed important measures aimed at assisting US western expansion – Homestead Act & Pacific RR Act\n·    Republicans focused on economic & industrial policies (also, came to represent patriotism & national unity)\n·    The USA prior to Civil War was a plural, after a singular  (from the USA do to USA does)\n\nReconstruction\n·    Lincoln & Johnson wanted to accept the southern states back on the most generous terms possible\n·    One could not try each individual offender in the south of treason\n·    So, once a certain portion of the population took an oath of loyalty, the state could return and receive a pardon\n·    Republican Senator Charles Sumner felt these ‘ways’ were too timid\n·    He wanted more attention on the slaves and their rights\n·    Former slaves should have all the civil rights that whites held – including the right to vote\n·    Proposed Federal supervision – i.e. troops w/ bayonets to assist in the change\n·    Black Codes helped Sumner’s point be understood\n·    The Black community became, in effect, collectively the property of all southern whites\n·    Black school houses began being burned by 1866 \n·    in New Orleans, US Army had to halt uprisings against blacks\n·    In Louisanna, 3000 blacks were killed between 1866 – 76\n·    KKK emerges w/ former Confederate veteran soldiers\n\nTry "economic results of Civil war" to find more info on economic results and "outcome of civil war" or "compare north and south in civil war" for reasons for the south's loss.  \n\nhttp://www.swcivilwar.com/index.htm
1024055
hmmmm. that one is tricky. but take ww2 for ex. the war was a big boost for the economy esp. since it started during the depression. it gave people jobs. and helped with the stock market. socially it wasn't so great though it did help people by boosting there moral as in getting jobs. but on the German front it was devastating to Jews and anyone the Germans persecuted. long term it ended up bringing Communism which as we all know isn't that great. so basically you are looking for anything that would be kinda like that where you could see a drastic impact on all fronts. good luck. hope i helped if not sorry.
551201
Germany had been one of the leaders in industrialisation before WW1, but at the Treaty of Versaille the opposing countries put a stop to this ... in order to reduce the threat of Germany rebuilding it's power.\n\nAt Versailles the German government had been forced to sign a peace treaty that gave away 13% of her territory. This meant the loss of 6 million people, a large percentage of her raw materials (65% of iron ore reserves, 45% of her coal, 72% of her zinc) and 10% of her factories.\n\nThis naturally led to a depression in Germany and the people felt a little down trodden.  This was Hitler's springboard to inspire and unite the people.\n\nCheck out the link below for lots of great info, pictures and accounts of WW2 (it's a school level website on history ... it's brillant!)
836059
The industrial revolution was under way.  \n\nConsiderable numbers of people had moved into urban areas (More than half the population was urban)\n\nGreat Britain was at war with France.