You are viewing this post: Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia And Family Net Worth Explained? 113 Most Correct Answers
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
People are excited to learn about Steve Schleicher’s wife, age, Wikipedia, family and net worth, so let’s take a look below.
Steve Schleicher is an accomplished pre-trial and post-trial counsel specializing in criminal investigation, regulatory and internal investigations and common high-stakes cases.
He takes on the co-seat of Maslon’s Government and Internal Investigations Group.
Steve’s notable trials include a security organization holding an agreement in a major NFL area, as well as an information security breach and connivance of IP theft at a major automaker.
Steve Schleicher Net Worth
Schleicher’s assets are checked.
Although Steve’s only source of income is what he gets as a lawyer, he is content with his income and luxurious life.
Steve Wikipedia Bio and Family details
Steve Schleicher does not have a Wikipedia biography on his name.
advertisement
There are some details about him that can be found on the internet about how Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison appointed him “at large” to serve as an indivual on the prosecution in the George Floyd case, as stated in The Sun.
There is a lot of news on different sites.
Steve Schleicher’s family is from the United States.
According to the source, Schleicher lost his mother and he also had a brother. Also, there is no further information about his family, yes we know he is married with children but he has kept his family details private.
Prosecutor Steve’s Age: How Old Is He?
Steve Schleicher is 51 years old.
He was born on March 30th, 1970 in the United States. The American native loves celebrating his birthday with family and friends.
Steve Schleicher Wife: Is He Married?
Steve Schleicher’s wife’s information has not yet been investigated.
Prosecutor Steve is married but his wife’s details are not public but it seems he wants to keep his personal life private. And no details were found about his children either.
Anastasia Kvitko Wiki, Biography, Age, Height, Weight, Family, Facts and Networth
Images related to the topicAnastasia Kvitko Wiki, Biography, Age, Height, Weight, Family, Facts and Networth
See some more details on the topic Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained here:
Steve Schleicher Wife Age: Wikipedia and Family Net Worth …
People are eager to learn about Steve Schleicher’s wife, age, Wikipedia, family, and net worth explained, so let’s have a look down below. Steve.
Source: www.650.org
Date Published: 6/7/2021
View: 6929
Steve Schleicher Net Worth, Wikipedia – Biography, Salary …
Steve Schleicher’s Wife is Kathy Schlechter. The couple has three children. His sons are Jake Schlechter and Joe Schlechter. Their only daughter …
Source: www.exposebd.com
Date Published: 12/6/2022
View: 930
Tiffany Alyssa Age, wiki, Biography, Height, Weight, Net Worth – TVW …
Tiffany Alyssa Age, wiki, Biography, Height, Weight, Net Worth … Steve Schleicher Wife Age: Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained.
Source: wiki.tvw.net
Date Published: 1/13/2022
View: 5540
Keith Ellison – Wikipedia
Keith Maurice Ellison (born August 4, 1963) is an American politician and lawyer serving as … Spouse(s). Kim Ellison … Children, 4, including Jeremiah.
Source: en.wikipedia.org
Date Published: 8/2/2021
View: 9216
Steve Schleicher Net Worth, Wikipedia – Biography, Salary, Married, Wife
Steve Schleicher Wikipedia – He is an American prosecutor in the Derek Chauvin murder trial. Even though he hasn’t been mentioned on Wikipedia yet, here’s something you need to know about the lawyer. Steve Schlechter is an attorney who serves as a member of the prosecution for the murder of Derek Chauvin. He was appointed by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison wherever he worked as a member of the prosecution team for the George Floyd case.
The case of the murder of George Floyd is scheduled to have a final hearing on Monday, April 19, 2022. Steve Schleicher is the attorney and member of the prosecution for the murder of Derek Chauvin. Derek is charged with the May 25, 2020 murder of George Floyd on a Minneapolis street. Meet the prosecutor of one of the most anticipated murder cases.
Steve Schlechter Wikipedia – Biography
Steve Schleicher biography name is not written on Wikipedia website. He was appointed on short notice by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in the George Floyd murder case. Steve Schleicher is a professional litigator. Steve Schlechter specializes in handling cases versus criminal defense, regulatory and internal investigations, and sophisticated civil litigation.
Steve Schleicher Wikipedia – He is also Co-Chairman of Malsan LLP. He has received numerous awards for his outstanding work, including the 2017 Presidential Award for the Minnesota State Association of Narcotics Investigators.
Steve Schleicher Biography Real Name Steve Schleicher Age 45-55 (approx.) Gender Male Nationality American Occupation Attorney Net worth NA Wife NA Children NA
Steve Schlechter Wife, Family, Children
Steve Schleicher’s wife is Kathy Schlechter. The couple have three children. His sons are Jake Schlechter and Joe Schlechter. Their only daughter is Katie Schlechter. Steve Schleicher has not released his wife’s information or biography, so we cannot confirm valid dates. It seems that most of his personal life information is in shadow as most of the data is missing. Steve has also not released any information about his children.
Steve bad dude
Steve Schleicher must be around 55 years old. However, the exact age of the veteran layer is not available. At this time, we are unaware of Steve Schleicher’s net worth and salary.
ALSO SEARCH – Sandra Cam Net Worth, Wiki (Schwimmer), Biography, Age, Height, Family, Job, Relationship, Career
Following the George Floyd murder charge, Derek Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder, third-degree murder and second-degree murder. First, the prison sentence for all charges is 40 years for second-degree unintentional murder, 25 years for third-degree murder, and 10 years for second-degree murder. However, the right decision will be made after the dispute. Follow George Floyd’s heartfelt updates on multiple media including Facebook.
Steve Schlechter Net Worth
Given Steve’s experience and knowledge, he is paid more than his salary. Steve also makes an impressive income as co-chair of Mason’s government and internal investigation team. Based on all his earnings and earnings to date, Steve Schleicher’s total net worth now exceeds $1.5 million.
Instagram CLICK HERE Twitter CLICK HERE Facebook CLICK HERE
Steve Schleicher Wikipedia – He has not disclosed his net worth publicly. But as a lawyer, Steve should make good money and live a luxurious lifestyle.
ALSO SEARCH – Kamala Net Worth, Biography, Wiki, Introduction, Mother, Poems, Education, Writing Style
Keith Ellison
30. Attorney General of Minnesota
This article is about the Attorney General of Minnesota. For others named Keith Ellison, see Keith Ellison (disambiguation)
Keith Maurice Ellison (born August 4, 1963) is an American politician and attorney who serves as Minnesota’s 30th Attorney General. A member of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL), Ellison served as US Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district from 2007 to 2019. He also served as vice vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2017 to 2018. In Congress Ellison has served as Vice Chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Chief Deputy Whip. He also sat on the House Committee on Financial Services. Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress[1] and the first African-American representative from Minnesota.[2]
Ellison’s profile was raised when he joined the race for the Democratic National Committee chair in November 2016, garnering support from progressive groups and US Senators Bernie Sanders (of Vermont) and Chuck Schumer (of New York). His candidacy prompted a re-examination of previous statements and his affiliation with the Nation of Islam, which has been criticized by some moderate Democrats. [Who?] Ellison was defeated by former Secretary of Labor Tom Perez, who subsequently appointed Ellison vice chairman, a decision approved by a unanimous vote of DNC members.[3]
On June 5, 2018, Ellison announced that he would not seek re-election to Congress and would seek the office of Attorney General of Minnesota. Ellison won the Democratic primary and defeated Republican Doug Wardlow in the general election. He became the first African American to be elected to a statewide party office in Minnesota and the first Muslim in the United States to win statewide office.
Early life, education and career[ edit ]
Keith Ellison, the third of five sons, was raised Catholic[6] in Detroit, Michigan by his parents, Leonard Ellison, a psychiatrist, and Clida (Martinez) Ellison, a social worker.[7][8][9] Ellison and three of his brothers became attorneys; his other brother became a doctor. One of Ellison’s brothers also pastors the Church of the New Covenant Baptist in Detroit.[8] Ellison’s youth was influenced by his family’s involvement in the civil rights movement, including his grandfather’s work as a member of the NAACP in Louisiana.[7]
Ellison graduated from the University of Detroit Jesuit High School and Academy in 1981, where he was an active athlete and a student government senator.[8][10] At the age of 19, Ellison converted from Catholicism to Islam while attending Wayne State University in Detroit, and later made the following statement: “I cannot claim that at the time [my conversion] I was the most devout Catholic I had.” started to really look around and ask myself about the social circumstances of the country, questions of justice, questions of change. When I looked at my spiritual life and I looked at what could affect social change, justice in society…I found Islam.”[11][12]
After graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics in 1986[13], Ellison married his high school sweetheart[6] and moved to Minneapolis to attend the University of Minnesota Law School. Ellison graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1990.[14][15]
After graduating from law school, Ellison worked for three years at the law firm of Lindquist & Vennum, where he was a trial attorney specializing in civil rights, labor law, and criminal defense law.[14][16] Ellison then became executive director of the nonprofit Legal Rights Center in Minneapolis, which specializes in defending needy clients.[16] After leaving the Legal Rights Center, Ellison entered private practice with the law firm Hassan & Reed Ltd, specializing in litigation practice. Ellison also did regular community service. He has served as an unpaid host of a public affairs talk program on KMOJ radio[16] and has also often volunteered as a trainer for several organizations, working with youth between the ages of five and 18. He said: “It’s a great community building tool because it’s suitable for all ages and all genders. Anyone can find a way to fit in.”[16]
Minnesota House of Representatives[edit]
In November 2002, Ellison was elected to his first public office as a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives serving House District 58B. At the time he took his seat, his party was the smallest House minority in Minnesota history.[18] During this session, Ellison was appointed to the Governmental Operations & Veterans Affairs Policy Committee, the Judiciary Policy & Finance Committee, and the Local Government & Metropolitan Affairs Committee. He also led an ethics suit against Rep. Arlon Lindner over a speech Lindner gave which Ellison allegedly amounted to a denial that homosexuals were persecuted during the Holocaust.[7]
Ellison was re-elected to his seat in 2004 with 84% of the vote. During the 84th session, he served on the Civil Law and Elections Committee and the Public Safety Policy and Finance Committee. After his election to Congress, Ellison’s seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives was filled by Augustine Dominguez, a Latino community activist and member of the DFL.[19]
US House of Representatives[edit]
elections [edit]
Ellison’s seat in the House was previously held by Martin Olav Sabo, whose announcement of his intention to retire accelerated Ellison’s candidacy. At the DFL Congress on 6 May 2006, Ellison won party approval over nine other candidates, leading 2 to 1 on the first ballot and winning approval on the fourth ballot. In the primary, Ellison faced former Senator Ember Reichgott Junge, Minneapolis City Councilman Paul Ostrow, and Sabo Chief of Staff Mike Erlandson, whom Sabo had endorsed. Ellison won the primary on September 12, 2006 with 41% of the vote.[20] One issue raised by Ellison’s campaign opponents was the repeated suspension of his driver’s license for non-payment of tickets and fines.[21] Ellison had also failed to pay all or part of his income taxes in five different years between 1992 and 2000, forcing the state and the Internal Revenue Service to place liens on his home. He later paid over $18,000.[7][22] In the November 2006 election, Ellison faced Republican Alan Fine, Jay Pond of the Green Party and Tammy Lee of the Independence Party. Ellison won the seat with 56% of the vote.[23][24]
Campaign Funding Disclosures[ edit ]
In early 2006, the Minnesota State Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board [25] reprimanded Ellison for alleged events in 2002-04, viz
unreported campaign contributions
Discrepancies in cash balances and
misclassified payouts during his campaigns for the Minnesota House of Representatives.
In 2005, the board opened an investigation and Ellison was subpoenaed and fined. Ellison has been repeatedly fined for late filing,[28] has been sued twice by the Minnesota Attorney General, and has been cautioned for missing or incomplete disclosures.[21][29][30][31]
tenure [edit]
In 2006, Ellison became the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. He was sworn on a Koran by Nancy Pelosi
Ellison was elected to the House of Representatives on November 7, 2006 and sworn in on January 4, 2007. He received national attention for his decision to use an English translation of the Qur’an, translated by British scholar George Sale in 1734. once owned by President Thomas Jefferson for his mock inauguration ceremony, which drew both praise and criticism from political pundits.[32]
At the time of his swearing in, Ellison said he intended to focus on wages, housing, “aid and justice for the middle class” and ending US involvement in the Iraq war.[33] Ellison was also a vocal critic of the George W. Bush administration and sought a position on the House Judiciary Committee for oversight.[34] In his first week in Congress, Ellison voted with the new Democratic majority under the 100-hour plan to raise the minimum wage, allow federal funding for stem cell research, and allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.[35]
On April 3, 2014, Ellison introduced the Money Remittances Improvement Act of 2014 (HR 4386; 113th Congress) into the United States House.[36] The bill would make it easier for non-bank financial institutions, such as money service companies, to make international remittance payments.[37] Ellison said that “the passage of the Money Remittances Improvement Act is cause for celebration for all diaspora communities, including the Somali and Hmong communities that I proudly represent in Minnesota.”[38]
Credit reform [ edit ]
On May 3, 2007, Ellison introduced a bill to outlaw universal default, the practice by which credit card companies raise interest rates on customers who are in arrears with other creditors. The bill was supported by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank. Ellison, who described the bill as “the start of a whole credit reform effort that we will continue to pursue,” also announced his interest in curbing high interest rates on credit cards and facilitating the process for those who have a legitimate claim to filing for bankruptcy. [39] This provision was eventually enacted in 2009 as part of the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights section of the Credit CARD Act 2009.[40][41]
Committee tasks [ edit ]
Caucus memberships[edit]
Running for the Chair of the Democratic National Committee[edit]
Ellison ran for the Democratic National Committee chair in 2017. The post eventually went to Tom Perez, and Ellison took over the newly created position of vice chairman.
In 2017, after incumbent Chair Donna Brazile resigned, Ellison ran for the chair of the Democratic National Committee along with Howard Dean, Martin O’Malley, Raymond Buckley, and South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime R. Harrison , who was chairing the Congressional Progressive Caucus at the time, emerged as the front runner[52] and was viewed as a progressive alternative to the more moderate wings of the party.[53] The race has been viewed by some commentators and analysts as a proxy fight between the Clinton and Sanders factions of the party.[54]
support [edit]
In the fall of 2016, Ellison was endorsed by both Senator Bernie Sanders and the new Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer.[55] In November 2016, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid endorsed Ellison for DNC chairman.[56] In early December, Ellison’s endorsements included the AFL-CIO and several elected officials in Congress, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Martin Heinrich, and Representatives John Lewis, Luis Gutiérrez and Tulsi Gabbard, among others.
contradiction [edit]
Obama loyalists felt uncomfortable with Ellison and began searching for a candidate to oppose him, holding meetings with Obama administration Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez.[58] In November 2016, the Investigative Project on Terrorism published a 2010 speech in which Ellison questioned why United States foreign policy in the Middle East “is determined by what is good and what is bad in a country of 7 million people. A region with a total of 350 million people turns on a country with 7 million inhabitants. Does it make sense? Is that logical?” His remarks were interpreted as a reference to Israel. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) effectively announced its opposition to Ellison’s candidacy, issuing a press release stating that his statement “raises serious concerns about whether Ellison violates the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel.” [55] [59] CNN also reported on his past support of anti-Semitic and radical organizations and individuals, particularly the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but said they had found no anti-Semitic writings or public statements by Ellison, and cited his public rejection of the group “because of their dissemination of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements”.[55][60] The New York Times reported that one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors, Haim Saban, said in his 2016 foreign policy forum that Ellison was “clearly an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel person.”[61] Reporters for the Washington Post, Slate, and The Huffington Post have described this as part of a smear campaign against Ellison, noting that Ellison’s rivals agreed that Saban should apologize for the comments.[62][63][64] Responding to critics, Schumer said Ellison supported pro-Israel politics within the Democratic Party, telling The Atlantic that “although I disagree with some of [Ellison’s] previous positions, I’ve seen him support one of the pro -most Israeli platforms for decades by successfully persuading other skeptical committee members to embrace such a powerful platform.”[65]
Opposition also rose from Democrats, who feared that Ellison, a sitting congressman, would not be able to devote himself to the position full-time. In response, Ellison promised that if he won the election, he would resign from Congress.[66] Others opposed him on ideological grounds, which National Public Radio (NPR) described as representing the party’s split in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary between centrist supporters of Hillary Clinton and the party’s left wing, which supported Bernie Sanders. But FiveThirtyEight argued that Perez and Ellison have “essentially identical” ideologies.[55][58][67]
Outcomes and creation of the Vice-Presidency[edit]
By February 2017, Perez was perceived as the front runner, according to The New York Times.[68] A member of the Young Turks saw Ellison and Perez having dinner together a week before the election. After his election as chairman, Perez quickly moved for Ellison’s election as “vice chairman,” saying, “It’s a motion that I discussed with a good friend and his name is Keith Ellison.” The two newly-elected leaders worked together when Perez was Secretary of Labor and he has viewed Ellison as one of his “best allies”. The position of “Vice-Chairman” does not exist in the DNC charter.[72] On November 8, 2018, Ellison resigned as vice chairman to focus on his upcoming tenure as Minnesota Attorney General.[73]
Attorney General of Minnesota[edit]
choice [edit]
On June 5, 2018, Ellison announced that he would not seek reelection for a seventh term in Congress in 2018, instead running for Attorney General of Minnesota. On August 14, Ellison won the Democratic primary with 49.8% of the vote, just over 30% over his nearest rival. In the general election, Ellison faced Republican Doug Wardlow; [75] [76] Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis Party candidate Noah Johnson supported Ellison but remained on the general election ballot.[77] On November 6, 2018, Ellison won the election for attorney general by more than 100,000 votes.[78] This made him the first Muslim to win election to state office in the United States,[79] and the first African American to be elected to state office in Minnesota.
Allegations of domestic violence[edit]
During the election campaign, allegations of misconduct emerged that influenced the election. Politico wrote that Ellison’s election would depend on “what voters make of the allegations of misconduct he faces”. Ellison denied the allegation, claiming that Alexander molested him and threatened to “destroy” him. A judge granted Ellison’s request for an injunction against Alexander and denied a similar request by Alexander against Ellison.[82]
In August 2018, Ellison’s ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan and her son accused him of trying to pull her out of a bed while yelling profanity. He denied her allegations[83] and said in an interview that he didn’t know how to react because he didn’t want to demonize her.[84] A Minnesota Democratic Farmer Labor Party investigation conducted by attorney Susan Ellingstad concluded that Monahan’s allegation was unfounded, as she denied requests to provide the video she said proved her allegations. The report states that Monahan would not allow Ellingstad to view the footage in private.[87]
Unsealed Hennepin County Family Court divorce papers revealed that Ellison had alleged that Kim Ellison physically abused him.[88]
tenure [edit]
George Floyd case[edit]
On May 31, 2020, Ellison accepted a request from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to serve as the special prosecutor in the Derek Chauvin case.[89] Three days later, Ellison’s office charged Derek Chauvin, the officer who knelt on Floyd’s neck, with second-degree murder, a more serious charge than Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman’s original charges of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter.[ 90] [91] Ellison also charged the other three officers at the scene, whom Freeman’s office had not originally charged, with second-degree murder and manslaughter. Freeman and trial attorneys Steve Schleicher, Jerry Blackwell, and Matthew Frank were among those who served on Ellison’s prosecution team.[92] Chauvin was convicted on all three counts on April 20, 2021.[93][94] Ellison’s management of the prosecution earned him praise from progressives and led to speculation that he would seek higher office.
Political positions[edit]
economy [edit]
Ellison supports the Reward Work Act of 2018, which reforms US labor and company laws by guaranteeing the right of employees in public companies to elect one-third of the board of directors.
Abortion[edit]
In 2009 and 2011, Ellison had a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, indicating a pro-choice voting record.
LGBT rights[ edit ]
In an interview with the BBC’s Outlook program on 12 November 2010, Ellison was asked to describe his constituents. He replied, “The district I represent is the kind of district where a congressman can stand up for religious tolerance and against religious bigotry, against everyone, but also for gay rights.”[99] In Congress he was vice chairman of the Congressional Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Caucus.
Gun rights[edit]
During a March 2014 appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, Ellison said he was “pro-gun control, but I don’t think you have to eliminate gun ownership to have decent gun control.” Host Bill Maher asked him, “Then why doesn’t your party oppose the Second Amendment?” Guest Sheila Bair then interjected, “Fifty-one votes, that’s all it takes.” Ellison replied, “I wish they would. I wish they would.” Ellison’s campaign has explained that he was responding to Bair, not Maher. Bair said she was referring to President Barack Obama’s nomination of Vivek Murthy to the U.S. Surgeon General. Murthy supports stricter gun regulations.[100]
Iraq war[edit]
After President George W. Bush vetoed HR 1591, which provided military assets for the Iraq war, because it contained timetables for withdrawal, Ellison and Representative Betty McCollum, Minnesota House Representative Nancy Pelosi and others voted senior House Democrats voted “no” to HR 2206, which provided the funding without a timetable. The bill passed the house by a margin of 280 to 142. [101]
Ellison aligned with freshman Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz in opposing Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Iraq.[102]
On January 10, 2007, Bush announced his plans for troop surges in the 2007 Iraq war. The gist of that announcement had been in the Capitol for over a week, when the Associated Press asked Ellison for his reaction to the idea in January On 8/8/2007, he said it was “way too late, way too little… So instead of something small and doing ineffective things, why not focus on what we must ultimately do, which is start ending the occupation?” Ellison called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq: “We could call it a redeployment or a withdrawal, but I think we have completed the course in terms of our ability to resolve this conflict militarily, I think we need a political and economic and diplomatic commitment and we need to encourage the armed forces in Iraq to start ending the violence in Iraq to solve.” Asked if he would support Bush’s call for an additional $100 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ellison said, “I want to see [the proposal] first, I really want to look at it, but I’m not inclined to continue to support a war or an occupation that he does not want us out of and that is so costly in terms of dollars and lives of American soldiers, but also Iraqis. When asked for a reaction to the comments, the White House referred to an earlier statement by Press Secretary Tony Snow: “Democrats need to decide where they stand on two issues: ‘No. 1, do you want Iraq to be successful, and if so, what does that mean? And #2, do you believe in supporting the troops as you say, and how do you express that support?'”[103]
freedom of speech[edit]
In 2019, the city of Bloomington enacted an ordinance prohibiting the filming of students at the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in a public park, leading to a successful lawsuit against the city in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to order reinstating the first change rights of the participants.[104] Ellison had asked the court to drop the case.[105]
Iran[ edit ]
Ellison has supported the normalization of Iran-US relations and the reopening of an advocacy group or embassy in Tehran; He was one of only five Democrats in Congress to vote against the 2015 Iran nuclear deal review bill. Speaking to the National Iranian American Council, he said there was no point in cutting ties with the Iranian government because “if we set up an embassy or an advocacy group in another country, it’s not a gift to them… . You are not doing anything for the other country by having someone looking after our interests there, and withdrawing it is not a punishment.”[106]
Bush administration[edit]
On June 28, 2007, Ellison became a co-sponsor of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney with “serious felonies and misdemeanors.” Ellison’s spokesman, Rick Jauert, said the effort is “mainly focused on sending a message” and that Ellison “has no illusions that this is going anywhere and that’s fine.” We have more important things to do that affect people’s daily lives. He basically agreed on principle, reflecting the importance of the rule of law – that no one is above the law, not even the vice president.”[107]
On July 8, 2007, Ellison gave a speech in Edina, Minnesota, in which he denounced Bush’s commutation of Lewis Libby’s sentence: “If Libby is pardoned, he shouldn’t have the Fifth Amendment cover. He needs to come in and tell the truth. Now he could get Gonzales-itis [referring to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales], you know, with 71 memory lapses in two hours.” He also criticized Bush’s White House Office of Faith and Community Initiatives, saying, “This is in the Established the Department of Religious Outreach. … Evangelical-Christian movement. That’s really all.”[108]
On July 25, 2007, Ellison voted in the House Judiciary Committee to summon White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers for “failing to comply with subpoenas to fire several federal prosecutors” for contempt of Congress. .[109]
Trump administration[edit]
In 2017, Ellison stated that he was open to calls for impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, saying, “Donald Trump has already done a number of things that rightly raise the issue of impeachment.”[110] By December 2019 Impeachment of Donald Trump Trump, Ellison no longer served in the US House of Representatives.
human rights[edit]
Ellison issued a statement on March 21, 2008, criticizing the Chinese government for its policy on Tibet and its relationship with Sudanese leaders “for committing genocide against the citizens of Darfur”.[111]
Ellison was arrested along with seven other people, including U.S. Representatives James McGovern, John Lewis, Donna Edwards and Lynn Woolsey, on charges of civil disobedience in April 2009 while standing outside the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. spoke to protest that the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, had called on international aid groups to bring food, medical supplies and water to leave Darfur.[112]
basic income [ edit ]
On August 17, 2017, Ellison said he supports a guaranteed basic income.[113]
Election endorsements for the 2016 US presidential election [ edit ]
Ellison was the second US representative (after Raúl Grijalva) to endorse Bernie Sanders for president in the 2016 Democratic primary.[114] He endorsed Hillary Clinton after she secured the party’s nomination.[115]
Election endorsements for the 2020 US Presidential Election [ edit ]
On June 28, 2019, Ellison endorsed Bernie Sanders for president, citing Medicare for All.[116] He endorsed Joe Biden after Biden won the Democratic nomination.[117]
Travel abroad[edit]
Middle East[edit]
In late March and early April 2007, Ellison was a member of a congressional delegation on a “Middle East fact-finding tour.”[118] The group included Representatives Henry Waxman, Tom Lantos, Louise Slaughter, Nick Rahall and Dave Hobson, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The delegation visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Western Wall. Ellison described his visit to Islam’s third holiest site, Al-Aqsa Mosque, as “personally moving”.[119][120] The group met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and discussed the peace plan drawn up by the Saudis in 2002.[119] The delegation also met with the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.[121]
The group’s visit to Syria was criticized by the Bush administration, which reiterated its view that the United States should not have diplomatic relations with state sponsors of terrorism. There, the delegation delivered a message from Olmert to Syrian President Bashar Assad that “Israel is interested in peace if Damascus stops supporting terrorism”.[119] In Lebanon, the group met with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Speaker Nabih Berri. They also visited Rafik Hariri’s grave and met with his son Saad Hariri.[122] In Saudi Arabia, the group spoke to King Abdullah and his Shura Advisory Council.[123] They praised his peace plan and advocated a greater role for women in his country’s political process. Ellison’s inclusion in the delegation was commended by Councilor Abdul-Rahman al-Zamel.[122][123] Calling the king a “visionary leader,” Ellison said, “Even being in the same country as Mecca and Medina is personally uplifting for me.” Message to Israelis and Palestinians that “People can come together. Reconciliation is possible.”[118]
Iraq[ edit ]
Am 28. und 29. Juli 2007 gehörte Ellison zu einer “überparteilichen Kongressdelegation aller Neulinge”, die den Irak besuchte, arrangiert von Verteidigungsminister Robert Gates und angeführt von Rep. Jerry McNerney. Vor der Reise sagte Ellison Reportern, dass er in Deutschland einen Zwischenstopp einlegen würde, um verwundete US-Soldaten zu besuchen, die dort behandelt werden.[124][125] Er sagte auch, dass er jeden Politiker respektiere, der den Irak besuche, und erwähnte den republikanischen Gouverneur von Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, der im Februar 2007 zusammen mit fünf anderen Gouverneuren ging. Ellison sagte: „Wenn dieses Land diese jungen Menschen auffordert, sich in ein Kriegsgebiet zu stellen, sollte ihre politische Führung sie besuchen.“ [124] Im Irak traf sich die Delegation mit irakischen und US-Militärbeamten, einschließlich General David Petraeus. [127]
Israel und Palästina [ bearbeiten ]
Kurz nach seiner Rückkehr aus dem Irak unternahmen Ellison und 19 weitere Vertreter eine einwöchige Reise nach Israel, die von der American Israel Education Foundation gesponsert wurde. Der Mehrheitsführer des Repräsentantenhauses, Steny Hoyer, leitete die Gruppe und lud Ellison persönlich zu einem Aufenthalt vom 12. bis 18. August 2007 ein. Die Gruppe traf sich mit dem israelischen Premierminister Ehud Olmert und dem palästinensischen Präsidenten Mahmud Abbas. Ellisons Sprecher sagte Reportern, dass die Reise „eine natürliche Fortsetzung seines Besuchs im Irak“ sei und dass „die Friedensfrage im Nahen Osten für die verschiedenen Gemeinden seines Distrikts im Raum Minneapolis wichtig ist – vom Jewish Community Relations Council bis zu den Gönnern des Holy Land Nahost-Lokal in der Lake Street und Central Avenue. Jedes Mal, wenn er in sein Viertel zurückkehrt, hört er davon.“ Die Gruppe reiste nach Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, in die Region Nordgaliläa und Ramallah und besichtigte die israelische Grenze zum Libanon.[128]
Während dieser Reise sagte Ellison, Israel habe ihm nicht erlaubt, nach Gaza zu reisen, wo ein Konflikt stattfand. In einem Interview mit dem Reporter Shihab Rattansi im Jahr 2009 drückte Ellison seine Enttäuschung über seine Unfähigkeit aus, die humanitäre Situation selbst zu sehen, und forderte eine offenere Diskussion über Gaza, indem er sagte: „Die Menschen, die eine starke Sympathie für die israelische Position haben … Und es ist politisch wirklich nicht sicher zu sagen, sehen Sie, es gibt zwei Seiten, und Israel war kein Engel darin, und sicherlich gab es Leute auf der palästinensischen Seite, die nicht zu einer konstruktiven Lösung beigetragen haben .”[129]
Während des Konflikts zwischen Hamas und Israel im Sommer 2014 veröffentlichte Ellison einen Leitartikel in der Washington Post, der ein Ende der Blockade in Gaza forderte. Unter Berufung auf seine drei Reisen nach Gaza seit 2009 schlug Ellison vor, dass die Stärkung der Gaza durch die Beendigung der Blockade die Extremisten schwächen und dazu beitragen würde, den endgültigen Status des Friedens zu erreichen.[131]
Gaza und Sderot [ bearbeiten ]
Am 19. Februar 2009 besuchten Ellison und sein Kollege Brian Baird den Gazastreifen, um sich die Zerstörungen des Gazakriegs anzusehen und sich mit internationalen und lokalen Hilfsorganisationen zu treffen, darunter das Hilfswerk der Vereinten Nationen für Palästina-Flüchtlinge im Nahen Osten. Dieser Besuch, von dem Ellison und Baird sagen, dass er nicht die offizielle Genehmigung der Obama-Regierung hatte, war das erste Mal seit mehr als drei Jahren, dass ein US-Regierungsbeamter Gaza betrat.[132] Ellison sagte: „Die Geschichten über die Kinder haben mich am meisten berührt. Kein Elternteil oder jemand, der sich um Kinder kümmert, kann unbewegt bleiben von dem, was Brian und ich hier gesehen haben.“[133] Am folgenden Tag besuchten Ellison und Baird die israelischen Städte Sderot und Ashkelon, die das Ziel zahlreicher Qassam-Raketenangriffe waren, wiederholt aus dem Gazastreifen gestartet.[133]
Norwegen [ bearbeiten ]
Ellison besuchte Norwegen im Januar 2008 wegen der herausragenden Rolle Norwegens im israelisch-palästinensischen Friedensprozess und wegen des norwegisch-amerikanischen Erbes vieler seiner Wähler. While there, Ellison met with former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, then president of the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights. The Star Tribune reported that the “trip underscores Ellison’s desire to play a role in the international peace movement.”[134][135]
Africa [ edit ]
In mid-2008 Ellison joined a U.S. House Democracy Assistance Commission delegation that traveled to six African countries, including Liberia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Mauritania and Kenya. “The people of the 5th congressional district [his own] know that, in this globalized world, to have peace and security relies on other people having a modicum of peace and security,” Ellison said upon returning. He attended a July 4 reception at the U.S. ambassador’s residence in Nairobi, Kenya, where Ellison met Sarah Hussein Onyango Obama, the step-grandmother of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.[136]
Advocacy for American Muslims [ edit ]
With his victory to the United States House of Representatives Ellison became the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress and the highest Muslim elected official in the United States, with Congressman André Carson elected in 2008, as the only other Muslim serving in the U.S. Congress.[137] Ellison’s election has been seen as inspirational to American Muslims, and he encourages civic empowerment through participation in the political process.[138][139] Ellison generally “downplayed the role of religion in his drive for office,”[140] but he has become active in advocacy for Muslim American civic engagement and civil rights causes on a national level since.[141][142][143][144]
North American Imams Federation [ edit ]
On November 18, 2006, Ellison gave a speech called “Imams and Politics” to the Fourth Annual Body Meeting of the North American Imams Federation. The Federation’s materials presented the issues to be outlined in Ellison’s speech as follows: “Many Muslims around the United States are involved in political activities at different levels. Recognizing the sensitivity of political issues and the potential for divisiveness within the communities as a result of divergent political views, Imams must be able to provide Muslims with the proper guidance and educate them on the etiquettes of any political involvement within the Islamic context. Questions also arise on whether Imams and Islamic centers should be involved in politics at all and what the extent of this involvement should be, therefore Imams should have the ability to address these concerns. Overall, it is important that Imams are aware and understand the general political climate of their communities and be especially conversant with the issues that affect Muslims.” Ellison also took part in “Community Night” with Imam Siraj Wahhaj, and Imam Dr. Omar Shahin. This was “for Imams to meet and interact with community members.”[145] Some of the participants of this meeting became involved in the Flying Imams controversy after being removed from an Arizona bound plane for “concerning behavior”.[146] Ellison became involved in this controversy shortly after it erupted when he attempted to arrange a meeting between parties including US Airways executives, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and other legislators and community members.[147]
MOSES interfaith group [ edit ]
On December 27, 2006, Ellison spoke at a meeting in Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in Detroit for Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength (MOSES). The meeting was with leaders from the Catholic, Muslim, and Arab-American communities, along with members of the organized labor movement. He told those in attendance that the principles of Islam guide his life, but he has no intention of imposing his faith on others, “I’m not a religious leader, I’ve never led religious services of any kind. I’m not here to be a preacher, but in terms of political agenda items, my faith informs me.”[148] He addressed the Qur’an Oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress and said that he hoped religion could be a uniting, rather than a dividing force: “They’ve never actually tried to explore how religion should connect us, they’re into how religion divides us. … They haven’t really explored … how my faith connects me to you.”[148]
Promoting U.S. with the State Department [ edit ]
Ellison with Minnesota Disabled Veterans
Two months after taking office, Ellison met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top State Department officials to talk about “showcasing his story as part of their public diplomacy efforts in the Muslim world.” According to the Star Tribune, Ellison was “profiled three times by the State Department’s overseas press bureau.” He also “did a Voice of America interview from his office, where an American flag was placed conspicuously behind his desk for the cameras.” In the interview which was set to play in the Middle East and South Asia, Ellison stressed global inclusiveness and quoted verse 49:13 of the Qur’an “Oh humanity, We created you from a single pair …” Ellison also accepted the Bush administration’s request to be part of a “teleconference with Karen Hughes, the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy. The White House has asked that the teleconference promote American values and confront ideological support for terrorism around the world.” The Voice of America applauded Ellison’s cooperation saying “He is the most famous freshman congressman in the world.”[149]
After he took his oath of office he was surrounded by the foreign press, intrigued in part by the oath controversy, who “had to be ushered out of his office after he took his oath to make room for home-state news crews.” Ellison has been “featured in a series of articles written for foreign dissemination by the Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs.” Including an article that was translated into Persian and Arabic that “highlighted the diversity of his constituents in Minnesota, ranging from Swedes and Norwegians to ‘the largest Somali immigrant community in America.'” In his work in cooperation with the state department, Ellison stresses the religious freedom available in the U.S., saying things like “religious tolerance has a much longer pedigree in America than some of the intolerance we’ve seen lately.” Even in his work with the State Department he remained critical of President Bush’s Iraq policy saying “he wants people around the world to know that ‘there are many Americans who want to relate to the rest of the world in terms of cooperation, not military domination.'” Ellison staffers told reporters that “the State Department has shown no signs of squeamishness about publicizing his criticism of the war.” When asked about working with elements of the Bush administration Ellison said “Hey, my country first. We can work out our political differences later. I’ve said I’m willing to do whatever I can to make some friends for America.”[149]
Public profile[edit]
Interview with Glenn Beck [ edit ]
On November 14, 2006, Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News[150] said to Ellison, “I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’ And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” Ellison replied that his constituents, “know that I have a deep love and affection for my country. There’s no one who’s more patriotic than I am, and so you know, I don’t need to — need to prove my patriotic stripes.”[151]
When asked by Beck for his opinion on Muslim extremists, Ellison replied, “They’re criminals. But I think that people who commit criminal acts should be treated like criminals, regardless of their faith.”[150] Ellison has also said, “Osama bin Laden no more represents Islam than Timothy McVeigh represented Christianity.”[152] Asked about the incident later, Ellison dismissed it, saying, “It’s just shock TV. Some pundits think they have to ask the most outrageous questions.”[153]
On January 2, 2007, Beck said on his radio program that Ellison did not take offense at the comments and the two had a friendly chat off the air. On January 9, 2007, at the Television Critics Association’s semiannual press tour, Beck said it was “Quite possibly the poorest-worded question of all time.” He clarified by saying, “My point to Keith Ellison … is the same point that I make to my own faith, and that is — you must stand up before things get out of control … And it’s important for people of all faiths, when someone is hijacking their religion, to stand and say, ‘That is not what we do. That is not who we are.”‘[154]
Nation of Islam affiliation [ edit ]
As a law student in 1989 and 1990 Ellison wrote several columns under the name “Keith E. Hakim” in the student newspaper, the Minnesota Daily. He defended Louis Farrakhan against claims of racism,[155] and further wrote that Farrakhan “is also not an anti-Semite” and called affirmative action a “sneaky” form of compensation for slavery, suggesting that white Americans instead pay reparations to blacks.[156][29][157][158] Mother Jones reported that, under the name “Keith X Ellison,” he wrote defenses of Farrakhan against accusations of anti-semitism after the 1995 Million Man March, and again in 1997.[159]
Minister James Muhammad, a former leader of the Nation of Islam’s Twin Cities study group, has said that Ellison served for several years as the group’s “chief of protocol”, in which capacity he acted as a liaison between Muhammad and local communities.[159]
Denunciation of the Nation of Islam in 2006 [ edit ]
During Ellison’s 2006 campaign Republican blogger Michael Brodkorb[160] unearthed posts about Ellison’s Minnesota Daily articles and his involvement with the Nation of Islam. In response Ellison wrote a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota & the Dakotas stating he had never been a member, and that his connections with the Nation of Islam were limited to an 18-month period during which he helped organize the Minnesota contingent at the 1995 Million Man March.[21][29][161] In 2016, CNN referred instead to Ellison’s “decade-long involvement in the Nation of Islam”.[162] Ellison’s letter denounced the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan: “I wrongly dismissed concerns that they [Farrakhan’s remarks] were anti-Semitic. They were and are anti-Semitic and I should have come to that conclusion earlier than I did”.[163] He explained his previous views by saying that he “did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed.” He also wrote, “any kind of discrimination and hate are wrong. This has always been my position”. During the 2006 campaign many prominent Jewish DFL activists supported Ellison, including fundraisers Samuel and Sylvia Kaplan and State Representative Phyllis Kahn, who said it was “inconceivable that he could have ever been an anti-Semite.”[29]
Campaign contributions from members of CAIR [ edit ]
During the 2006 election Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) and James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, spoke at an August 25 fundraiser for Ellison.[29][164] Awad and Ellison knew each other as they attended the University of Minnesota Law School at the same time.[8][165] According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Ellison accepted individual contributions from Nihad Awad and another leader of CAIR; Ellison responded that he had fully disclosed all contributions and said that he had “nothing to hide”.[166] Ellison stressed that he was supported by individuals, and that the non-profit organization itself did not endorse his candidacy.[167]
His Republican opponent in the race, Alan Fine, criticized Ellison for accepting these contributions, saying that CAIR was “a group that Democrats say has deep ties to terrorism”.[168] In response to Ellison’s opponents, CAIR leaders Parvez Ahmed and Nihad Awad wrote, “We are proud of our personal donations to Ellison’s campaign” and derided any ‘guilt by association’ arguments.[169]
Reichstag fire and 9/11 [ edit ]
On July 8, 2007, Ellison discussed the power of the executive branch in a speech before the organization Atheists for Human Rights. He stated that Dick Cheney said it was “beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”[170] He went on to say, “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country, Hitler, in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying September 11 was a U.S. plan or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.”[170]
Fox News picked up the story[171] and their commentator John Gibson categorized Ellison’s comments as accusing President George W. Bush “of planning and executing the 9/11 attacks”.[172] In Congress, Representatives Eric Cantor and Zach Wamp wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanding she “swiftly and immediately” reprimand Ellison for his remarks.[173] The letter said, “Even if Ellison asserts that he was not implying that 9/11 was orchestrated by the administration, the comparison he draws between Hitler and the President of United States is disgraceful. These comments inflame hatred and division at a time when we should be promoting our unity and reconciliation.”[173][174] The Anti-Defamation League also stated “Whatever his views may be on the administration’s response to 9/11 and the conduct of the war on terrorism, likening it to Hitler’s rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the war on terror. Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.”[173]
When later questioned about his comments, Ellison told a reporter that Osama bin Laden, and not the Bush administration, was responsible for the attacks.[175] He added, “In the aftermath of a tragedy, space is opened up for governments to take action that they could not have achieved before that.” He pointed to the Iraq War and provisions granting greater arrest and surveillance powers within the USA PATRIOT Act as examples.[176] Ellison also said:
In response to a question, I stated that the Bush Administration exploited post-9/11 fears to advance a policy agenda that has undermined our civil liberties. I stand by this statement. … I want to be clear that the murderous Nazi regime is historically distinct and the horror of the Holocaust must be acknowledged as a unique event in human history. I did not intend any direct comparison between the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany and the current administration. I have taken consistent and strong stands against Holocaust denial throughout my life in public service.[173]
Sali remarks [ edit ]
Representative Bill Sali of Idaho drew criticism for his comments in an August 8, 2007, interview with the conservative Christian-based American Family News Network. Sali, an outspoken Evangelical Christian, denounced the Senate leadership for allowing a Hindu to lead the opening prayer, claiming that the non-Christian invocation threatened to endanger America by removing “the protective hand of God.”[177]
Former Democratic Idaho Congressman Richard Stallings, among others, demanded that Sali either apologize or resign. In response Sali sent Ellison an email saying he “meant no offense”.[178] Ellison was in Iraq with a congressional delegation, but his spokesperson, Micah Clemens, said, “The congressman just doesn’t respond to comments like that.”[179] A New York Sun editorial wrote that claims that the founders did not anticipate Muslim legislators are incorrect.[180] The specific subject was brought up in several state conventions to ratify the Constitution, including by William Lancaster’s opposition to the prospect during North Carolina’s 1788 Hillsborough Convention.[180][181]
Personal life[edit]
Ellison and his former wife, Kim, a high school mathematics teacher,[182] had four children between 1989 and 1997.[16] Keith Ellison is a Muslim, and although Kim Ellison is not, the Ellisons’ four children were raised in the Muslim faith.[183] One of their sons, Jeremiah, was elected to the Minneapolis City Council.[184]
During Ellison’s 2006 campaign Kim Ellison revealed that she had been living with moderate multiple sclerosis for several years.[185] Keith Ellison filed for a legal separation from Kim Ellison in 2010,[186] and their divorce was finalized on May 2, 2012.[187] Kim Ellison was elected to the Minneapolis School Board in 2012 as vice-chair and in November 2016 as an at-large member.[188][189]
Awards[edit]
Ellison was chosen by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee for its Trailblazer Award.[190] He was named an Utne Reader visionary in 2011.[191]
Memories [ edit ]
Ellison’s book, My Country ‘Tis of Thee, was published in 2014.[192]
Election history[edit]
Minnesota House of Representatives [ edit ]
Minnesota House of Representatives – District 58B, 2002[193] Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota House of Representatives – District 58B, 2004[194] Party Candidate Votes %
US House of Representatives [ edit ]
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2006 Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2008 Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2010 Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2012[195] Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2014[196] Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota 5th congressional district election, 2016[197] Party Candidate Votes %
Minnesota Attorney General election, 2018 Primary election Party Candidate Votes % Total votes 564,374 100.0
See also[edit]
Treaty of Versailles
One of the treaties that ended the First World War
This article is about the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919 at the end of the First World War. For other uses, see Treaty of Versailles (disambiguation)
The Treaty of Versailles (French: Traité de Versailles; German: Versailles Treaty, pronounced [vɛʁˈzaɪ̯ɐ fɛɐ̯ˈtʁaːk] ()) was the most important of the peace treaties of World War I. He ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed at the Palace of Versailles on June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the war. The other Central Powers on the German side signed separate treaties.[i] Although the armistice of November 11, 1918 ended actual fighting, it took six months of Allied negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to finalize the peace treaty. The treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on October 21, 1919.
Of the many provisions of the treaty, one of the most important and controversial read: “The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all loss and damage suffered by the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals as a result of the subjected to the war imposed on them by the aggression of Germany and its allies. The other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles.
This article, Article 231, became known as the war guilt clause. The treaty committed Germany to disarmament, extensive territorial concessions, and the payment of reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was estimated at 132 billion gold marks (US$31.4 billion or £6.6 billion at the time, equivalent to approximately US$442 billion or £284 billion in 2022).
Prominent economists such as John Maynard Keynes declared the treaty too harsh – a “Carthaginian peace” – and said the reparations were excessive and counterproductive. On the other hand, prominent Allied figures such as French Marshal Ferdinand Foch criticized the treaty for being too lenient with Germany. This is still the subject of ongoing debate by historians and economists.
The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left no one satisfied. In particular, Germany was neither pacified nor reconciled nor permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty led to the Locarno Accords, which improved relations between Germany and the other European powers, and to the renegotiation of the reparations system, resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan and the indefinite postponement of Reparations resulted at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. The treaty has sometimes been cited as the cause of World War II: although its actual effects were not as severe as feared, its terms provoked widespread resentment in Germany, fueling the rise of the Nazi party.
Although often referred to as the “Conference of Versailles”, only the actual signing of the treaties took place in the historic palace. Most of the negotiations took place in Paris, with the “Big Four” meetings typically taking place at the French Foreign Ministry on the Quai d’Orsay.
background
First World War
Newsreel footage of the signing of the peace treaty at Versailles
War broke out unexpectedly after the July Crisis of 1914. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and shortly thereafter most European powers entered World War I. Two alliances faced each other, the Central Powers (led by Germany) and the Triple Entente (led by Britain, France and Russia). Other countries stepped in as fighting raged across Europe, as well as the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In 1917, the new Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic under Vladimir Lenin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, which amounted to an extremely favorable capitulation for Germany. Sensing victory before American expeditionary forces could be ready, Germany now moved its forces to the Western Front and attempted to overwhelm the Allies. It went wrong. Instead, the Allies won decisively on the battlefield, enforcing an armistice resembling a surrender in November 1918.
The USA shape the peace conditions with the Fourteen Points
The United States entered the war against the Central Powers in 1917, and President Woodrow Wilson largely shaped the terms of the peace. His war aim was to detach the war from nationalistic disputes and ambitions. On January 8, 1918, Wilson issued the Fourteen Points. They outlined a policy of free trade, open agreements and democracy. While the term was not used, self-determination was assumed. It called for a negotiated end to the war, international disarmament, the withdrawal of the Central Powers from the occupied territories, the establishment of a Polish state, the redrawing of Europe’s borders along ethnic lines, and the formation of a League of Nations to ensure the political independence and territorial integrity of all states .[n. 3] It called for a just and democratic peace unmarred by territorial annexations. The fourteen points were based on research by the Inquiry, a team of about 150 advisers led by foreign policy adviser Edward M. House, into issues likely to arise at the expected peace conference.
armistice
In the autumn of 1918 the collapse of the Central Powers began. Desertion rates within the German army began to rise, and civil strikes drastically reduced war production. On the western front, the Allies launched the Hundred Days Offensive and decisively defeated the western German armies. Sailors from the Imperial German Navy in Kiel mutinied, leading to uprisings in Germany that became known as the German Revolution. The German government attempted to reach a peace settlement based on the Fourteen Points and claimed that it had capitulated on that basis. After negotiations, the Allied powers and Germany signed an armistice that came into effect on November 11 while German forces were still stationed in France and Belgium.
profession
The terms of the armistice provided for an immediate evacuation of German troops from occupied Belgium, France and Luxembourg within fifteen days. It was also stipulated that the Allies would occupy the Rhineland. At the end of 1918, Allied troops invaded Germany and began the occupation.
blockade
Both Germany and Great Britain depended on imports of food and raw materials, most of which had to be shipped across the Atlantic. The Blockade of Germany (1914–1919) was an Allied naval operation to stop the supply of raw materials and food to the Central Powers. The German Imperial Navy was mainly confined to the German Bight, using merchant fighters and unrestricted submarine warfare for a counter-blockade. The German Health Board stated in December 1918 that 763,000 German civilians had died during the Allied blockade, although a 1928 scientific study put the death toll at 424,000 people.
The blockade was maintained for eight months after the armistice of November 1918 and into the following year 1919. Food imports to Germany were controlled by the Allies after the armistice with Germany until Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919. In March 1919 Churchill told the House of Commons that the ongoing blockade was a success and that “Germany is very close to starvation”. From January 1919 to March 1919, Germany refused to comply with Allied demands that Germany surrender its merchant ships to Allied ports for transporting food. Some Germans viewed the armistice as a temporary end to the war, knowing that if fighting broke out again their ships would be confiscated. As the winter of 1919 progressed, the situation became desperate and Germany finally agreed to abandon its fleet in March.[23] The Allies then allowed the import of 270,000 tons of food.
Both German and non-German observers have argued that these were the blockade’s most devastating months for German civilians, although disagreement remains as to the extent and true culprits. according to dr Max Rubner, 100,000 German civilians died by continuing the blockade after the armistice. In the United Kingdom, Labor Party member and anti-war activist Robert Smillie issued a statement in June 1919 condemning the continuation of the blockade, claiming that 100,000 German civilians had died.[32]
negotiations
Talks between the Allies to establish a common negotiating position began on January 18, 1919 in the Salle de l’Horloge of the French Foreign Ministry on the Quai d’Orsay in Paris. Initially, 70 delegates from 27 nations took part in the negotiations. Russia was excluded from the war due to the signing of a separate peace (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) and premature withdrawal. In addition, German negotiators were excluded to deprive them of the opportunity to diplomatically split the Allies.
First, a “Council of Ten” (consisting of two delegates each from Great Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Japan) met officially to decide on the peace terms. This council was replaced by the “Council of Five”, formed from each country’s foreign ministers to discuss minor matters. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, and United States President Woodrow Wilson formed the “Big Four” (they eventually became the “Big Three” after Orlando’s temporary withdrawal “). These four men met in 145 closed sessions to make all the important decisions that were later ratified by the entire assembly. The smaller powers attended a weekly “plenary conference” that discussed issues in a general forum but made no decisions. These members formed over 50 commissions that made various recommendations, many of which were incorporated into the final text of the treaty.
French goals
France had lost 1.3 million soldiers, including 25% of French men aged 18–30, as well as 400,000 civilians. France had also been damaged more physically than any other nation (the so-called Zone Rouge (Red Zone); the most industrialized region and the source of most coal and iron ores in the Northeast had been devastated and in the last days of the war mines were inundated and Railroads, bridges, and factories have been destroyed.) Clemenceau intended to ensure the security of France by weakening Germany economically, militarily, and territorially, and ousting Germany as the leading steel producer in Europe. The British economist and negotiator at Versailles, John Maynard Keynes, summarized this position as an attempt to “turn back the clock and undo what the progress of Germany had accomplished since 1870”.
Clemenceau told Wilson, “America is far away, sheltered by the ocean. Not even Napoleon himself could touch England. They are both sheltered, we are not.” The French wanted a border on the Rhine to protect France from a German invasion and to compensate for France’s demographic and economic inferiority. American and British representatives rejected the French claim, and after two months of negotiations, the French accepted a British pledge to form an immediate alliance with France should Germany attack again, and Wilson agreed to submit a similar proposal to the Senate. Clemenceau had told the Chamber of Deputies in December 1918 that his aim was to maintain an alliance with both countries. Clemenceau accepted the offer in exchange for a fifteen-year occupation of the Rhineland and that Germany would also demilitarize the Rhineland.
French negotiators demanded reparations to make Germany pay for the destruction caused during the war and to reduce German strength. The French also wanted the iron ore and coal of the Saar Valley by annexing it to France. The French were willing to accept a lesser amount of World War I reparations than the Americans would concede, and Clemenceau was willing to discuss German solvency with the German delegation before the final settlement was worked out. In April and May 1919, the French and Germans held separate talks about mutually acceptable arrangements on issues such as reparations, reconstruction, and industrial cooperation. France, along with the British Dominions and Belgium, rejected League of Nations mandates and favored the annexation of former German colonies.
British targets
Britain had suffered heavy financial costs during the war but suffered little physical devastation, but the British war coalition was re-elected during the so-called coupon election in late 1918, with a policy of squeezing the Germans “until the pips squeaked”. The public Opinion advocated a “just peace” that would force Germany to pay reparations and not be able to repeat the 1914 aggression, although those of “liberal and progressive opinion” shared Wilson’s ideal of a conciliatory peace.
Privately, Lloyd George resisted revenge and tried to find a compromise between Clemenceau’s demands and the Fourteen Points, as Europe would eventually have to reconcile with Germany. Lloyd George wanted reparations terms that would not cripple the German economy so that Germany could remain a viable economic power and trading partner. By arguing for the inclusion of British war pensions and widows’ funds in the German reparations sum, Lloyd George ensured that a large sum would go to the British Empire.
Lloyd George also intended to maintain a European balance of power to thwart a French attempt to establish itself as the dominant European power. A revived Germany would counterbalance France and deter Bolshevik Russia. Lloyd George also wanted to neutralize the German Navy to keep the Royal Navy as the world’s largest naval power; to dismantle the German colonial empire, with several of its territorial possessions being ceded to Britain and others being set up as League of Nations mandates, a position opposed by the Dominions.
American targets
Before America entered the war, Wilson had spoken of a “peace without victory”. This position fluctuated after the United States entered the war. Wilson spoke of the German aggressors with whom there could be no compromised peace. However, on January 8, 1918, Wilson delivered a speech (known as the Fourteen Points) that explained America’s peace goals: rebuilding the European economy, empowering European and Middle Eastern communities, promoting free trade, creating mandates for former colonies and most importantly, the creation of a powerful League of Nations that would ensure peace. The aim of the latter was to provide a forum to revise the peace treaties as needed and to address issues that arose from peace and the rise of new states.
Wilson brought top intellectuals with him as advisors to the American peace delegation, and the general American position reflected the Fourteen Points. Wilson firmly opposed any harsh treatment of Germany. While the British and French wanted to largely annex the German colonial empire, Wilson saw this as a violation of the basic principles of justice and human rights of the local population and advocated their right to self-determination through the creation of mandates. The idea promoted called on the great powers to act as disinterested trustees of a region, helping the local populace until they could govern themselves. Despite this position, and to ensure that Japan would not refuse to join the League of Nations, Wilson preferred to cede the former German colony of Shandong in eastern China to the Empire of Japan rather than return the area to the Republic of China’s control. Another puzzle for Americans was internal US partisan politics. In November 1918, the Republican Party narrowly won the Senate election. Wilson, a Democrat, refused to include prominent Republicans in the American delegation, making his efforts appear partisan and adding to the risk of political defeat at home.
Italian destinations
Vittorio Emanuele Orlando and his foreign minister, Sidney Sonnino, an Anglican of British descent, were primarily in favor of partitioning the Habsburg Empire and were less hostile to Germany. Sonnino generally agreed with the British position, while Orlando favored a compromise between Clemenceau and Wilson. As part of the Versailles Treaty negotiations, Orlando achieved certain outcomes such as permanent membership of Italy in the Security Council of the League of Nations and a promised transfer of Britain’s Jubaland and French Aozou Strips to the Italian colonies of Somalia and Libya, respectively. However, Italian nationalists viewed the war as a “mangled victory” for what they saw as small territorial gains made in the other treaties that directly affected Italy’s borders. Orlando was eventually forced to leave the conference and resign. Refusing to see World War I as a mangled victory, Orlando responded to nationalists calling for greater expansion: “Italy is a great state today…on par with the great historical and contemporary states.” For me, this is our most important and principled extension.” Francesco Saverio Nitti replaced Orlando at the signing of the Treaty of Versailles.[61][Incomplete short quote]
Content of contract and signing
The German delegate Johannes Bell signs the Versailles Treaty in the Hall of Mirrors, and various Allied delegations are sitting and standing in front of him
In June 1919, the Allies declared that the war would resume unless the German government signed the treaty they had agreed upon among themselves. The government led by Philipp Scheidemann failed to agree on a common position, and Scheidemann himself resigned instead of signing the treaty. Gustav Bauer, head of the new government, sent a telegram declaring his intention to sign the treaty if certain articles were withdrawn, including Articles 227, 230 and 231.[ii] In response, the Allies issued an ultimatum that Germany would accept the treaty or face an Allied invasion across the Rhine within 24 hours. On June 23, Bauer capitulated and sent a second telegram confirming that a German delegation would be arriving shortly to sign the treaty. On June 28, 1919, the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (the immediate trigger of the war), the peace treaty was signed. The treaty contained clauses ranging from war crimes, prohibiting the union of the Republic of German-Austria with Germany without the consent of the League of Nations, freedom of navigation on the major European rivers, to the return of a Koran to the King of Hijaz.[n. 4][n. 5][n. 6][n. 7]
territorial changes
Administered by League of Nations Administered Annexed or transferred to neighboring countries by treaty or later by plebiscite and League of Nations action Weimar Germany Germany after Versailles:
The treaty deprived Germany of 65,000 km2 (25,000 square miles) of territory and 7 million people. In addition, Germany had to renounce the achievements made by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and grant independence to the established protectorates. In Western Europe, Germany had to recognize Belgian sovereignty over Moresnet and cede control of the Eupen-Malmedy area. Within six months of the transfer, Belgium had to hold a plebiscite on whether the region’s citizens wanted to remain under Belgian sovereignty or return to German control, reporting the results to the League of Nations and complying with the League of Nations’ decision. 8] As compensation for the destruction of French coal mines, Germany was to cede the output of the Saar coal mines to France and control of the Saar to the League of Nations for 15 years; then a plebiscite would be held to decide sovereignty.[n. 9] The treaty restored the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine to France, rescinding the 1871 Treaties of Versailles and Frankfurt on this issue. 10] France was able to make the claim that the provinces of Alsace-Lorraine actually belonged to France and not to Germany by disclosing a letter from the Prussian king to the Empress Eugénie, which Eugénie provided, in which Wilhelm I wrote that the territories of Alsace-Lorraine were requested by Germany for the sole purpose of national defense and not to expand German territory. The sovereignty of Schleswig-Holstein was to be decided by a referendum to be held at a later date (see Schleswig-Holstein Referendums).
In Central Europe, Germany was to recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia, which was actually controlled by Austria, and cede parts of the province of Upper Silesia. 11] Germany had to recognize Poland’s independence and relinquish “all rights and claims to the territory”. Parts of Upper Silesia were to be ceded to Poland, and the future of the rest of the province was to be decided by referendum. The boundary would be determined in view of the vote and the geographic and economic conditions of each location.[n. 12] The province of Posen (now Poznań), which had come under Polish control during the Greater Poland Uprising, was also to be ceded to Poland. Pomeranian (Eastern Pomeranian) was moved to Poland for historical and ethnic reasons, so that the new state would have access to the sea, and became known as the Polish Corridor. The sovereignty of part of southern East Prussia was to be decided by plebiscite, while the East Prussian Soldau area, which straddled the Warsaw-Danzig railway line, was ceded entirely to Poland without a plebiscite. 13] A territory of 51,800 square kilometers (20,000 sq mi) was granted to Poland at the expense of Germany. Memel was to be ceded to the Allied and Associated Powers at their disposal at their convenience.[n. 14] Germany was to cede the city of Danzig and its hinterland, including the mouth of the Vistula on the Baltic Sea, to the League of Nations for the establishment of the Free City of Danzig. fifteen]
Article 119 of the treaty required Germany to renounce sovereignty over former colonies, and Article 22 converted the territories into League of Nations mandates under the control of Allied states. 16] Togoland and Deutsch-Kamerun (Kamerun) were transferred to France, apart from parts given to Great Britain, British Togoland and British Cameroon. Rwanda and Urundi were allocated to Belgium, while German South West Africa went to South Africa and Great Britain received German East Africa. As compensation for the German invasion of Portuguese Africa, Portugal received the Kionga Triangle, a piece of German East Africa in northern Mozambique. Article 156 of the treaty transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan, not China. Japan was given all German possessions north of the equator in the Pacific, and those south of the equator went to Australia, with the exception of German Samoa, which was taken by New Zealand. 17]
Military Restrictions
The treaty was extensive and complex in the restrictions imposed on the post-war German armed forces (the Reichswehr). The provisions were intended to render the Reichswehr incapable of attack and promote international disarmament. 18] Germany was to demobilize enough soldiers by March 31, 1920 to leave an army of no more than 100,000 men in a maximum of seven infantry and three cavalry divisions. The treaty laid down the organization of the divisions and support units, and the General Staff was to be dissolved. 19] Military schools for officer training were reduced to three, one school per branch, and conscription was abolished. Private soldiers and non-commissioned officers were to be retained for at least 12 years and officers for at least 25 years, with ex-officers being banned from participating in military exercises. In order to prevent Germany from building up a large cadre of trained men, the number of men who were allowed to leave the country early was limited. 20]
Workers shutting down heavy artillery to honor the contract
The number of civilian personnel supporting the army was reduced and the police force reduced to its pre-war size, with increases limited to population growth. paramilitary forces were banned.[n. 21] The Rhineland was to be demilitarized, all fortifications in the Rhineland and 50 kilometers east of the river torn down and new buildings banned. 22] Military installations and fortifications on the islands of Helgoland and Düne were to be destroyed.[n. 23] Germany was banned from arms trading, limited the types and quantities of weapons, and prohibited the manufacture or stockpiling of chemical weapons, armored vehicles, tanks, and military aircraft.[n. 24] The German Navy was permitted six pre-dreadnought battleships and was limited to a maximum of six light cruisers (not exceeding 6,000 long tons (6,100 t)), twelve destroyers (not exceeding 800 long tons (810 t)), and twelve Torpedoes restricted boats (no more than 200 long tons (200 t)) and submarines banned. [n. 25] The naval strength should not exceed 15,000 men, including naval personnel, coastal defence, signal stations, administration, other shore services, officers and men of all ranks and corps. The number of officers and non-commissioned officers was not allowed to exceed 1,500 men. 5] Germany surrendered eight battleships, eight light cruisers, forty-two destroyers and fifty torpedo boats for decommissioning. Thirty-two auxiliary ships were to be disarmed and converted for commercial purposes. 26] Article 198 prohibited Germany from maintaining an air force, including naval air forces, and required Germany to surrender all air-related materials. In connection with this, Germany was banned from producing or importing aircraft or related material for a period of six months after the signing of the treaty.[n. 27]
reparations
In Article 231, Germany accepted responsibility for the losses and damage caused by the war “as a result of the … aggression of Germany and her allies”. 28][iii] The treaty required Germany to compensate the Allied powers, and it also established an Allied “Reparations Commission” to determine the exact amount Germany would pay and the form of that payment. The commission had to “give the German government a fair opportunity to be heard” and present its conclusions by May 1, 1921. Meanwhile, the treaty obliged Germany to pay the equivalent of 20 billion gold marks ($5 billion). in gold, goods, ships, securities or other forms. Das Geld würde dazu beitragen, die Besatzungskosten der Alliierten zu bezahlen und Lebensmittel und Rohstoffe für Deutschland zu kaufen. 33]
Garantien
Um die Einhaltung sicherzustellen, sollten das Rheinland und Brückenköpfe östlich des Rheins für fünfzehn Jahre von alliierten Truppen besetzt werden. 34] Wenn Deutschland keine Aggression begangen hätte, würde ein abgestufter Rückzug stattfinden; nach fünf Jahren würden der Kölner Brückenkopf und das Gebiet nördlich einer Ruhrlinie geräumt. Nach zehn Jahren würden der Brückenkopf bei Koblenz und die Gebiete im Norden geräumt und nach fünfzehn Jahren die verbleibenden alliierten Streitkräfte abgezogen. 35] Wenn Deutschland die Vertragsverpflichtungen nicht erfüllt, werden die Brückenköpfe sofort wieder besetzt.[n. 36]
Internationale Organisationen
Teil I des Vertrags war, wie alle während der Pariser Friedenskonferenz unterzeichneten Verträge,[iv] der Pakt des Völkerbundes, der die Gründung des Völkerbundes vorsah, einer Organisation zur Schlichtung internationaler Streitigkeiten.[ n. 37] Teil XIII organisierte die Einrichtung des Internationalen Arbeitsamtes, um die Arbeitszeiten zu regeln, einschließlich eines maximalen Arbeitstages und einer maximalen Arbeitswoche; die Regulierung des Arbeitskräfteangebots; die Verhinderung von Arbeitslosigkeit; die Bereitstellung eines existenzsichernden Lohns; der Schutz des Arbeitnehmers vor Krankheit, Leiden und Verletzungen, die sich aus seiner Beschäftigung ergeben; der Schutz von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Frauen; Vorsorge für Alter und Verletzungen; Schutz der Interessen von Arbeitnehmern bei einer Beschäftigung im Ausland; Anerkennung des Grundsatzes der Vereinigungsfreiheit; die Organisation der beruflichen und technischen Bildung und andere Maßnahmen.[n. 38] Der Vertrag forderte die Unterzeichner auch auf, die Internationale Opiumkonvention zu unterzeichnen oder zu ratifizieren.[n. 39]
reactions
Great Britain
Ein britisches Nachrichtenplakat, das die Unterzeichnung des Friedensvertrags ankündigt
Die Delegierten des Commonwealth und der britischen Regierung hatten gemischte Gedanken über den Vertrag, wobei einige die französische Politik als gierig und rachsüchtig betrachteten. Lloyd George und sein Privatsekretär Philip Kerr glaubten an den Vertrag, obwohl sie auch der Meinung waren, dass die Franzosen Europa in ständigem Aufruhr halten würden, wenn sie versuchten, den Vertrag durchzusetzen. Der Delegierte Harold Nicolson schrieb: „Schließen wir einen guten Frieden?“, während General Jan Smuts (ein Mitglied der südafrikanischen Delegation) vor der Unterzeichnung an Lloyd-George schrieb, dass der Vertrag instabil sei und erklärte: „Sind wir in unserem nüchternen Zustand? Sinne oder leidet unter Shellshock? Was ist aus Wilsons 14 Punkten geworden?” Er wollte, dass die Deutschen nicht an der „Bajonettspitze“ unterschreiben müssten. Smuts gab eine Erklärung ab, in der er den Vertrag verurteilte und bedauerte, dass die Versprechungen einer “neuen internationalen Ordnung und einer gerechteren, besseren Welt nicht in diesem Vertrag geschrieben stehen”. Lord Robert Cecil sagte, dass viele im Außenministerium von dem Vertrag enttäuscht seien. Der Vertrag stieß auf breite Zustimmung in der Öffentlichkeit. Bernadotte Schmitt schrieb, dass der “durchschnittliche Engländer … dachte, Deutschland habe durch den Vertrag nur das bekommen, was es verdient”, aber die öffentliche Meinung änderte sich, als die deutschen Beschwerden zunahmen.
Der frühere britische Premierminister H. H. Asquith aus Kriegszeiten und die Opposition der Unabhängigen Liberalen im britischen Parlament nach den Parlamentswahlen von 1918 hielten den Vertrag für zu strafend. Asquith setzte sich dagegen ein, als er bei den Nachwahlen in Paisley 1920 für einen weiteren Sitz im Unterhaus kandidierte.[83]
Premierminister Ramsay MacDonald erklärte nach der deutschen Remilitarisierung des Rheinlandes im Jahr 1936, er sei “erfreut”, dass der Vertrag “verschwinde”, und drückte seine Hoffnung aus, dass den Franzosen eine “schwere Lektion” erteilt worden sei.
Status der britischen Dominions
Der Vertrag von Versailles war ein wichtiger Schritt im völkerrechtlichen Status der britischen Dominions. Australien, Kanada, Neuseeland und Südafrika hatten jeweils bedeutende Beiträge zu den britischen Kriegsanstrengungen geleistet, jedoch als separate Länder und nicht als britische Kolonien. Indien leistete ebenfalls einen beträchtlichen Truppenbeitrag, obwohl es im Gegensatz zu den Dominions unter direkter britischer Kontrolle stand. Die vier Dominions und Indien unterzeichneten alle den Vertrag getrennt von Großbritannien, [n. 2] eine klare Anerkennung durch die internationale Gemeinschaft, dass die Dominions keine britischen Kolonien mehr waren. “Their status defied exact analysis by both international and constitutional lawyers, but it was clear that they were no longer regarded simply as colonies of Britain.” By signing the Treaty individually, the four Dominions and India also were founding members of the League of Nations in their own right, rather than simply as part of the British Empire.
France
The signing of the treaty was met with roars of approval, singing, and dancing from a crowd outside the Palace of Versailles. In Paris proper, people rejoiced at the official end of the war, the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France, and that Germany had agreed to pay reparations.
While France ratified the treaty and was active in the League, the jubilant mood soon gave way to a political backlash for Clemenceau. The French Right saw the treaty as being too lenient and saw it as failing to achieve all of France’s demands. Left-wing politicians attacked the treaty and Clemenceau for being too harsh (the latter turning into a ritual condemnation of the treaty, for politicians remarking on French foreign affairs, as late as August 1939). Marshal Ferdinand Foch stated “this (treaty) is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years.”; a criticism over the failure to annex the Rhineland and for compromising French security for the benefit of the United States and Britain. When Clemenceau stood for election as President of France in January 1920, he was defeated.
Italy
Reaction in the Kingdom of Italy to the treaty was extremely negative. The country had suffered high casualties, yet failed to achieve most of its major war goals, notably gaining control of the Dalmatian coast and Fiume. President Wilson rejected Italy’s claims on the basis of “national self-determination.” For their part, Britain and France—who had been forced in the war’s latter stages to divert their own troops to the Italian front to stave off collapse—were disinclined to support Italy’s position at the peace conference. Differences in negotiating strategy between Premier Vittorio Orlando and Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino further undermined Italy’s position at the conference. A furious Vittorio Orlando suffered a nervous collapse and at one point walked out of the conference (though he later returned). He lost his position as prime minister just a week before the treaty was scheduled to be signed, effectively ending his active political career. Anger and dismay over the treaty’s provisions helped pave the way for the establishment of Benito Mussolini’s Fascist dictatorship three years later.
Portugal
Portugal entered the war on the Allied side in 1916 primarily to ensure the security of its African colonies, which were threatened with seizure by both Britain and Germany. To this extent, she succeeded in her war aims. The treaty recognized Portuguese sovereignty over these areas and awarded her small portions of Germany’s bordering overseas colonies. Otherwise, Portugal gained little at the peace conference. Her promised share of German reparations never materialized, and a seat she coveted on the executive council of the new League of Nations went instead to Spain—which had remained neutral in the war. In the end, Portugal ratified the treaty, but got little out of the war, which cost more than 8,000 Portuguese Armed Forces troops and as many as 100,000 of her African colonial subjects their lives.
United States
After the Versailles conference, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson claimed that “at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!”[v]
But the Republican Party, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, controlled the United States Senate after the election of 1918, and the senators were divided into multiple positions on the Versailles question. It proved possible to build a majority coalition, but impossible to build a two-thirds coalition that was needed to pass a treaty.
A discontent bloc of 12–18 “Irreconcilables”, mostly Republicans but also representatives of the Irish and German Democrats, fiercely opposed the treaty. One block of Democrats strongly supported the Versailles Treaty, even with reservations added by Lodge. A second group of Democrats supported the treaty but followed Wilson in opposing any amendments or reservations. The largest bloc, led by Senator Lodge, comprised a majority of the Republicans. They wanted a treaty with reservations, especially on Article 10, which involved the power of the League of Nations to make war without a vote by the US Congress. All of the Irreconcilables were bitter enemies of President Wilson, and he launched a nationwide speaking tour in the summer of 1919 to refute them. But Wilson collapsed midway with a serious stroke that effectively ruined his leadership skills.
The closest the treaty came to passage was on 19 November 1919, as Lodge and his Republicans formed a coalition with the pro-Treaty Democrats, and were close to a two-thirds majority for a Treaty with reservations, but Wilson rejected this compromise and enough Democrats followed his lead to end the chances of ratification permanently. Among the American public as a whole, the Irish Catholics and the German Americans were intensely opposed to the treaty, saying it favored the British.
After Wilson’s presidency, his successor Republican President Warren G. Harding continued American opposition to the formation of the League of Nations. Congress subsequently passed the Knox–Porter Resolution bringing a formal end to hostilities between the United States and the Central Powers. It was signed into law by President Harding on 2 July 1921. Soon after, the US–German Peace Treaty of 1921 was signed in Berlin on 25 August 1921, and two similar treaties were signed with Austria and Hungary on 24 and 29 August 1921, in Vienna and Budapest respectively.
Edward House’s views
Wilson’s former friend Edward Mandell House, present at the negotiations, wrote in his diary on 29 June 1919:
I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months, with conflicting emotions. Looking at the conference in retrospect, there is much to approve and yet much to regret. It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way of doing it. To those who are saying that the treaty is bad and should never have been made and that it will involve Europe in infinite difficulties in its enforcement, I feel like admitting it. But I would also say in reply that empires cannot be shattered, and new states raised upon their ruins without disturbance. To create new boundaries is to create new troubles. The one follows the other. While I should have preferred a different peace, I doubt very much whether it could have been made, for the ingredients required for such a peace as I would have were lacking at Paris.
China
Many in China felt betrayed as the German territory in China was handed to Japan. Wellington Koo refused to sign the treaty and the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference was the only nation that did not sign the Treaty of Versailles at the signing ceremony. The sense of betrayal led to great demonstrations in China such as the May 4th movement. There was immense dissatisfaction with Duan Qirui’s government, which had secretly negotiated with the Japanese in order to secure loans to fund their military campaigns against the south. On 12 June 1919, the Chinese cabinet was forced to resign and the government instructed its delegation at Versailles not to sign the treaty. As a result, relations with the Western world deteriorated.
Germany
On 29 April, the German delegation under the leadership of the Foreign Minister Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau arrived in Versailles. On 7 May, when faced with the conditions dictated by the victors, including the so-called “War Guilt Clause”, von Brockdorff-Rantzau replied to Clemenceau, Wilson and Lloyd George: “We can sense the full force of hatred that confronts us here. … You demand from us to confess we were the only guilty party of war; such a confession in my mouth would be a lie.”[vi] Because Germany was not allowed to take part in the negotiations, the German government issued a protest against what it considered to be unfair demands, and a “violation of honour”, soon afterwards withdrawing from the proceedings of the peace conference.
Germans of all political shades denounced the treaty—particularly the War Guilt Clause that blamed Germany for starting the war—as an insult to the nation’s honour. They referred to the treaty as “the Diktat” since its terms were presented to Germany on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Germany’s first democratically elected head of government, Philipp Scheidemann, resigned rather than sign the treaty. In an emotional and polemical address to the Weimar National Assembly on 12 May 1919, he called the treaty a “horrific and murderous witch’s hammer”, and exclaimed:
Which hand would not shrivel, that shackled itself and us in such a way?
At the end of his speech, Scheidemann stated that, in the government’s opinion, the treaty was unacceptable.
Demonstration against the treaty in front of the Reichstag
After Scheidemann’s resignation, a new coalition government was formed under Gustav Bauer. President Friedrich Ebert knew that Germany was in an impossible situation. Although he shared his countrymen’s disgust with the treaty, he was sober enough to consider the possibility that the government would not be in a position to reject it. He believed that if Germany refused to sign the treaty, the Allies would invade Germany from the west—and there was no guarantee that the army would be able to make a stand in the event of an invasion. With this in mind, he asked Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg if the army was capable of any meaningful resistance in the event the Allies resumed the war. If there was even the slightest chance that the army could hold out, Ebert intended to recommend against ratifying the treaty. Hindenburg—after prodding from his chief of staff, Wilhelm Groener—concluded the army could not resume the war even on a limited scale. But rather than inform Ebert himself, he had Groener inform the government that the army would be in an untenable position in the event of renewed hostilities. Upon receiving this, the new government recommended signing the treaty. The National Assembly voted in favour of signing the treaty by 237 to 138, with five abstentions (there were 421 delegates in total). This result was wired to Clemenceau just hours before the deadline. Foreign minister Hermann Müller and colonial minister Johannes Bell travelled to Versailles to sign the treaty on behalf of Germany. The treaty was signed on 28 June 1919 and ratified by the National Assembly on 9 July by a vote of 209 to 116.
Japan
Obv: Flags of the five allies of World War I. Rev: Peace standing in Oriental attire with the Medal issued by the Japanese authorities in 1919, commemorating the Treaty of Versailles.: Flags of the five allies of World War I.: Peace standing in Oriental attire with the Palace of Versailles in the background
The disenfranchised and often colonized “non-white” world held high expectations that a new order would open up an unheralded opportunity to have a principle of racial equality recognized by the leading global powers. Japanese diplomacy had bitter memories of the rhetoric of the Yellow Peril, and the arrogance, underwritten by the assumptions about a White Man’s Burden, memories aggravated by the rise of racial discrimination against their business men, severe immigration restrictions on Asiatics, and court judgments hostile to Japanese interests, which characterized Western states’ treatment of their nationals. Japan’s delegation, among whose plenipotentiaries figured Baron Makino and Ambassador Chinda Sutemi, was led by its elder statesman Saionji Kinmochi.
Versailles represented a chance to overturn this imposed inferiority, whose tensions were strengthened particularly in Japan’s relationship with the United States during WW1. Confidence in their growing industrial strength, and conquest of Germany’s Far East possessions, together with their proven fidelity to the Entente would, it was thought, allow them finally to take their rightful place among the victorious Great Powers. They solicited support especially from the American delegation to obtain recognition for the principle of racial equality at the League of Nations Commission. Their proposals to this end were consistently rebuffed by British, French, American and Australian diplomats, who were all sensitive to their respective countries’ internal pressures. Wilson himself was an enactor of segregationist policies in the United States, Clemenceau openly ridiculed them, Balfour considered Africans inferior to Europeans – equality was only true of people within particular nations – while William Hughes, adopting a “slap the Jap” attitude, was a vocal defender of a White Australia policy.
Japan’s attempt, buttressed by the Chinese emissary Wellington Koo among others, to incorporate a Racial Equality Proposal in the treaty, had broad support, but was effectively declined when it was rejected by the United States, Great Britain and Australia, despite a powerfully persuasive speech delivered by Makino.[vii]
Japan itself both prior to and during WW1 had embarked on a vigorous expansion of continental colonialism, whose aims were justified in terms of an ideological vision of Asians, such as Koreans and Chinese, being of the same culture and race (dōbun dōshǖ: 同文同種), though its vision of those countries was paternalistic and geared to subordinating them to Japan’s interests. Aspiring to be accepted as a world actor with similar status to the traditional Western powers, Japan envisaged an Asian Monroe Doctrine, where Japan’s proper sphere of geostrategic interests in Asia would be recognized. Some years earlier, Japan secured both British and French support for its claims to inherit rights that Germany had exercised both in China and in the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator. American policy experts, unaware of these secret agreements, nonetheless suggested that Japan had adopted a Prussian model that would imperil China’s own search for autonomy, and these considerations influenced Wilson.
Implementation
Reparations
On 5 May 1921, the reparation Commission established the London Schedule of Payments and a final reparation sum of 132 billion gold marks to be demanded of all the Central Powers. This was the public assessment of what the Central Powers combined could pay, and was also a compromise between Belgian, British, and French demands and assessments. Furthermore, the Commission recognized that the Central Powers could pay little and that the burden would fall upon Germany. As a result, the sum was split into different categories, of which Germany was only required to pay 50 billion gold marks (US$12.5 billion); this being the genuine assessment of the commission on what Germany could pay, and allowed the Allied powers to save face with the public by presenting a higher figure. Furthermore, payments made between 1919 and 1921 were taken into account reducing the sum to 41 billion gold marks.
In order to meet this sum, Germany could pay in cash or kind: coal, timber, chemical dyes, pharmaceuticals, livestock, agricultural machines, construction materials, and factory machinery. Germany’s assistance with the restoration of the university library of Leuven, which was destroyed by the Germans on 25 August 1914, was also credited towards the sum. Territorial changes imposed by the treaty were also factored in. The payment schedule required US$250 million within twenty-five days and then US$500 million annually, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports. The German Government was to issue bonds at five per cent interest and set up a sinking fund of one per cent to support the payment of reparations.
Territorial changes
A crowd awaits the plebiscite results in Oppeln
In February and March 1920, the Schleswig Plebiscites were held. The people of Schleswig were presented with only two choices: Danish or German sovereignty. The northern Danish-speaking area voted for Denmark while the southern German-speaking area voted for Germany, resulting in the province being partitioned. The East Prussia plebiscite was held on 11 July 1920. There was a 90% turn out with 99.3% of the population wishing to remain with Germany. Further plebiscites were held in Eupen-Malmedy and Neutral Moresnet. On 20 September 1920, the League of Nations allotted these territories to Belgium. These latter plebiscites were followed by a boundary commission in 1922, followed by the new Belgian-German border being recognized by the German Government on 15 December 1923. The transfer of the Hultschin area, of Silesia, to Czechoslovakia was completed on 3 February 1921.
Following the implementation of the treaty, Upper Silesia was initially governed by Britain, France, and Italy. Between 1919 and 1921, three major outbreaks of violence took place between German and Polish civilians, resulting in German and Polish military forces also becoming involved. In March 1921, the Inter-Allied Commission held the Upper Silesia plebiscite, which was peaceful despite the previous violence. The plebiscite resulted in c. 60 per cent of the population voting for the province to remain part of Germany. Following the vote, the League of Nations debated the future of the province. In 1922, Upper Silesia was partitioned: Oppeln, in the north-west, remained with Germany while Silesia Province, in the south-east, was transferred to Poland.
Memel remained under the authority of the League of Nations, with a French Armed Forces garrison, until January 1923. On 9 January 1923, the Lithuanian Army invaded the territory during the Klaipėda Revolt. The French garrison withdrew, and in February the Allies agreed to attach Memel as an “autonomous territory” to Lithuania. On 8 May 1924, after negotiations between the Lithuanian Government and the Conference of Ambassadors and action by the League of Nations, the annexation of Memel was ratified. Lithuania accepted the Memel Statute, a power-sharing arrangement to protect non-Lithuanians in the territory and its autonomous status while responsibility for the territory remained with the great powers. The League of Nations mediated between the Germans and Lithuanians on a local level, helping the power-sharing arrangement last until 1939.
On 13 January 1935, 15 years after the Saar Basin had been placed under the protection of the League of Nations, a plebiscite was held to determine the future of the area. 528,105 votes were cast, with 477,119 votes (90 per cent of the ballot) in favour of union with Germany; 46,613 votes were cast for the status quo, and 2,124 votes for union with France. The region returned to German sovereignty on 1 March 1935. When the result was announced 4,100 people, including 800 refugees from Germany fled to France.[n. 9]
Rhineland occupation
French soldiers in the Ruhr, which resulted in the American withdrawal from the Rhineland
In late 1918, American, Belgian, British, and French troops entered the Rhineland to enforce the armistice. Before the treaty, the occupation force stood at roughly 740,000 men. Following the signing of the peace treaty, the numbers drastically decreased and by 1926 the occupation force numbered only 76,000 men. As part of the 1929 negotiations that would become the Young Plan, Gustav Stresemann, and Aristide Briand negotiated the early withdrawal of Allied forces from the Rhineland. On 30 June 1930, after speeches and the lowering of flags, the last troops of the Anglo-French-Belgian occupation force withdrew from Germany.
Belgium maintained an occupation force of roughly 10,000 troops throughout the initial years. This figure fell to 7,102 by 1926, and continued to fall as a result of diplomatic developments.
The British Second Army, with some 275,000 veteran soldiers, entered Germany in late 1918. In March 1919, this force became the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). The total number of troops committed to the occupation rapidly dwindled as veteran soldiers were demobilized, and were replaced by inexperienced men who had finished basic training following the cessation of hostilities. By 1920, the BAOR consisted of only 40,594 men and the following year had been further reduced to 12,421. The size of the BAOR fluctuated over the following years, but never rose above 9,000 men. The British did not adhere to all obligated territorial withdrawals as dictated by Versailles, on account of Germany not meeting her own treaty obligations. A complete withdrawal was considered, but rejected in order to maintain a presence to continue acting as a check on French ambitions and prevent the establishment of an autonomous Rhineland Republic.
The French Army of the Rhine was initially 250,000 men strong, including at a peak 40,000 African colonial troops (Troupes coloniales). By 1923, the French occupation force had decreased to roughly 130,000 men, including 27,126 African troops. The troop numbers peaked again at 250,000 during the occupation of the Ruhr, before decreasing to 60,000 men by 1926. Germans viewed the use of French colonial troops as a deliberate act of humiliation, and used their presence to create a propaganda campaign dubbed the Black shame. This campaign lasted throughout the 1920s and 30s, although peaked in 1920 and 1921. For example, a 1921 German Government memo detailed 300 acts of violence from colonial troops, which included 65 murders and 170 sexual offenses. Historical consensus is that the charges were exaggerated for political and propaganda purposes, and that the colonial troops behaved far better than their white counterparts. An estimated 500–800 Rhineland Bastards were born as a result of fraternization between colonial troops and German women, and who would later be persecuted.
The United States Third Army entered Germany with 200,000 men. In June 1919, the Third Army demobilized and by 1920 the US occupation force had been reduced to 15,000 men. Wilson further reduced the garrison to 6,500 men, before Warren G. Harding’s inauguration in 1921. On 7 January 1923, after the Franco–Belgian occupation of the Ruhr, the US senate legislated the withdrawal of the remaining force. On 24 January, the American garrison started their withdrawal from the Rhineland, with the final troops leaving in early February.
Violations
Reparations
Anschluß in violation of Art. 80 on the Adolf Hitler announcing thein violation of Art. 80 on the Heldenplatz , Vienna, 15 March 1938
The German economy was so weak that only a small percentage of reparations was paid in hard currency. Nonetheless, even the payment of this small percentage of the original reparations (132 billion gold marks) still placed a significant burden on the German economy. Although the causes of the devastating post-war hyperinflation are complex and disputed, Germans blamed the near-collapse of their economy on the treaty, and some economists estimated that the reparations accounted for as much as one-third of the hyper-inflation.
In March 1921, French and Belgian troops occupied Duisburg, Düsseldorf, and other areas which formed part of the demilitarized Rhineland, according to the Treaty of Versailles. In January 1923, French and Belgian forces occupied the rest of the Ruhr area as a reprisal after Germany failed to fulfill reparation payments demanded by the Versailles Treaty. The German government answered with “passive resistance”, which meant that coal miners and railway workers refused to obey any instructions by the occupation forces. Production and transportation came to a standstill, but the financial consequences contributed to German hyperinflation and completely ruined public finances in Germany. Consequently, passive resistance was called off in late 1923. The end of passive resistance in the Ruhr allowed Germany to undertake a currency reform and to negotiate the Dawes Plan, which led to the withdrawal of French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr Area in 1925.
Military
In 1920, the head of the Reichswehr Hans von Seeckt clandestinely re-established the General Staff, by expanding the Truppenamt (Troop Office); purportedly a human resources section of the army. In March, 18,000 German troops entered the Rhineland under the guise of attempting to quell possible unrest by the Communist Party of Germany and in doing so violated the demilitarized zone. In response, French troops advanced further into Germany until the German troops withdrew.
German officials conspired systematically to evade the clauses of the treaty, by failing to meet disarmament deadlines, refusing Allied officials access to military facilities, and maintaining and hiding weapon production. As the treaty did not ban German companies from producing war material outside of Germany, companies moved to the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden. Bofors was bought by Krupp, and in 1921 German troops were sent to Sweden to test weapons. The establishment of diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union, via the Genoa Conference and Treaty of Rapallo, was also used to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles. Publicly, these diplomatic exchanges were largely in regards to trade and future economic cooperation. But secret military clauses were included that allowed for Germany to develop weapons inside the Soviet Union. Furthermore, it allowed for Germany to establish three training areas for aviation, chemical and tank warfare. In 1923, the British newspaper The Times made several claims about the state of the German Armed Forces: that it had equipment for 800,000 men, was transferring army staff to civilian positions in order to obscure their real duties, and warned of the militarization of the German police force by the exploitation the Krümper system. [viii]
The Weimar Government also funded domestic rearmament programs, which were covertly funded with the money camouflaged in “X-budgets”, worth up to an additional 10% of the disclosed military budget. By 1925, German companies had begun to design tanks and modern artillery. During the year, over half of Chinese arms imports were German and worth 13 million Reichsmarks. In January 1927, following the withdrawal of the Allied disarmament committee, Krupps ramped up production of armor plate and artillery. [ix] Production increased so that by 1937, military exports had increased to 82,788,604 Reichsmarks. Production was not the only violation: “Volunteers” were rapidly passed through the army to make a pool of trained reserves, and paramilitary organizations were encouraged with the illegally militarized police. Non-commissioned officers (NCOs) were not limited by the treaty, thus this loophole was exploited and as such the number of NCOs were vastly in excess to the number needed by the Reichswehr.
In December 1931, the Reichswehr finalized a second rearmament plan that called for 480 million Reichsmarks to be spent over the following five years: this program sought to provide Germany the capability of creating and supplying a defensive force of 21 divisions supported by aircraft, artillery, and tanks. This coincided with a 1 billion Reichsmark programme that planned for additional industrial infrastructure that would be able to permanently maintain this force. As these programs did not require an expansion of the military, they were nominally legal. On 7 November 1932, the Reich Minister of Defense Kurt von Schleicher authorized the illegal Umbau Plan for a standing army of 21 divisions based on 147,000 professional soldiers and a large militia. Later in the year at the World Disarmament Conference, Germany withdrew to force France and Britain to accept German equality of status. London attempted to get Germany to return with the promise of all nations maintaining an equality in armaments and security. The British later proposed and agreed to an increase in the Reichswehr to 200,000 men, and for Germany to have an air force half the size of the French. It was also negotiated for the French Army to be reduced.
In October 1933, following the rise of Adolf Hitler and the founding of the Nazi regime, Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and the World Disarmament Conference. In March 1935, Germany reintroduced conscription followed by an open rearmament programme and the official unveiling of the Luftwaffe (air force), and signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement that allowed a surface fleet 35% of the size of the Royal Navy. The resulting rearmament programmes were allotted 35 billion Reichsmarks over an eight-year period.
Territorial
On 7 March 1936, German troops entered and remilitarized the Rhineland. On 12 March 1938, following German pressure to the collapse of the Austrian Government, German troops crossed into Austria and the following day Hitler announced the Anschluss: the annexation of Austria by Germany. The following year, on 23 March 1939, Germany annexed Memel from Lithuania.
Historical assessments
Historians are split on the impact of the treaty. Some saw it as a good solution in a difficult time, others saw it as a disastrous measure that would anger the Germans to seek revenge. The actual impact of the treaty is also disputed.
In his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace, John Maynard Keynes referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a “Carthaginian peace”, a misguided attempt to destroy Germany on behalf of French revanchism, rather than to follow the fairer principles for a lasting peace set out in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. He stated: “I believe that the campaign for securing out of Germany the general costs of the war was one of the most serious acts of political unwisdom for which our statesmen have ever been responsible.” Keynes had been the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Paris Peace Conference, and used in his passionate book arguments that he and others (including some US officials) had used at Paris. He believed the sums being asked of Germany in reparations were many times more than it was possible for Germany to pay, and that these would produce drastic instability.[x]
Commemorative medal issued in 1929 in the Republic of Weimar on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles. The obverse depicts George Clemenceau presenting a bound treaty, decorated with skull and crossbones to Ulrich von Brockdorff-Rantzau . Other members of the Conference are standing behind Clemenceau, including Lloyd-George, Wilson and Orlando.
French economist Étienne Mantoux disputed that analysis. During the 1940s, Mantoux wrote a posthumously published book titled The Carthaginian Peace, or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes in an attempt to rebut Keynes’ claims. More recently economists have argued that the restriction of Germany to a small army saved it so much money it could afford the reparations payments.
It has been argued – for instance by historian Gerhard Weinberg in his book A World at Arms – that the treaty was in fact quite advantageous to Germany. The Bismarckian Reich was maintained as a political unit instead of being broken up, and Germany largely escaped post-war military occupation (in contrast to the situation following World War II). In a 1995 essay, Weinberg noted that with the disappearance of Austria-Hungary and with Russia withdrawn from Europe, that Germany was now the dominant power in Eastern Europe.
The British military historian Correlli Barnett claimed that the Treaty of Versailles was “extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms that Germany herself, when she was expecting to win the war, had had in mind to impose on the Allies”. Furthermore, he claimed, it was “hardly a slap on the wrist” when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that Germany had imposed on a defeated Russian SFSR in March 1918, which had taken away a third of Russia’s population (albeit mostly of non-Russian ethnicity), one-half of Russia’s industrial undertakings and nine-tenths of Russia’s coal mines, coupled with an indemnity of six billion marks. Eventually, even under the “cruel” terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany’s economy had been restored to its pre-war status.
Barnett also claims that, in strategic terms, Germany was in fact in a superior position following the Treaty than she had been in 1914. Germany’s eastern frontiers faced Russia and Austria, who had both in the past balanced German power. Barnett asserts that its post-war eastern borders were safer, because the former Austrian Empire fractured after the war into smaller, weaker states, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the newly restored Poland was no match for even a defeated Germany. In the West, Germany was balanced only by France and Belgium, both of which were smaller in population and less economically vibrant than Germany. Barnett concludes by saying that instead of weakening Germany, the treaty “much enhanced” German power. Britain and France should have (according to Barnett) “divided and permanently weakened” Germany by undoing Bismarck’s work and partitioning Germany into smaller, weaker states so it could never have disrupted the peace of Europe again. By failing to do this and therefore not solving the problem of German power and restoring the equilibrium of Europe, Britain “had failed in her main purpose in taking part in the Great War”.
American political cartoon depicting the contemporary view of German reparations, 1921
The British historian of modern Germany, Richard J. Evans, wrote that during the war the German right was committed to an annexationist program which aimed at Germany annexing most of Europe and Africa. Consequently, any peace treaty that did not leave Germany as the conqueror would be unacceptable to them. Short of allowing Germany to keep all the conquests of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Evans argued that there was nothing that could have been done to persuade the German right to accept Versailles. Evans further noted that the parties of the Weimar Coalition, namely the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), the social liberal German Democratic Party (DDP) and the Christian democratic Centre Party, were all equally opposed to Versailles, and it is false to claim as some historians have that opposition to Versailles also equalled opposition to the Weimar Republic. Finally, Evans argued that it is untrue that Versailles caused the premature end of the Republic, instead contending that it was the Great Depression of the early 1930s that put an end to German democracy. He also argued that Versailles was not the “main cause” of National Socialism and the German economy was “only marginally influenced by the impact of reparations”.
Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty — such as Poles or Czechs — it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours.
Resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi Party, but the German-born Australian historian Jürgen Tampke argued that it was “a perfidious distortion of history” to argue that the terms prevented the growth of democracy in Germany and aided the growth of the Nazi Party; saying that its terms were not as punitive as often held and that German hyper-inflation in the 1920s was partly a deliberate policy to minimise the cost of reparations. As an example of the arguments against the Versaillerdiktat he quotes Elizabeth Wiskemann who heard two officer’s widows in Wiesbaden complaining that “with their stocks of linen depleted they had to have their linen washed once a fortnight (every two weeks) instead of once a month!”
The German historian Detlev Peukert wrote that Versailles was far from the impossible peace that most Germans claimed it was during the interwar period, and though not without flaws was actually quite reasonable to Germany. Rather, Peukert argued that it was widely believed in Germany that Versailles was a totally unreasonable treaty, and it was this “perception” rather than the “reality” of the Versailles treaty that mattered. Peukert noted that because of the “millenarian hopes” created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash. Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles. Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles.
French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.[xi] Cartier asserts that, out of 1,058,000 Germans in Posen-West Prussia in 1921, 758,867 fled their homelands within five years due to Polish harassment.[xi] These sharpening ethnic conflicts would lead to public demands to reattach the annexed territory in 1938 and become a pretext for Hitler’s annexations of Czechoslovakia and parts of Poland.[xi]
According to David Stevenson, since the opening of French archives, most commentators have remarked on French restraint and reasonableness at the conference, though Stevenson notes that “[t]he jury is still out”, and that “there have been signs that the pendulum of judgement is swinging back the other way.”
Territorial changes
Map of territorial changes in Europe after World War I (as of 1923)
The Treaty of Versailles resulted in the creation of several thousand miles of new boundaries, with maps playing a central role in the negotiations at Paris. The plebiscites initiated due to the treaty have drawn much comment. Historian Robert Peckham wrote that the issue of Schleswig “was premised on a gross simplification of the region’s history. … Versailles ignored any possibility of there being a third way: the kind of compact represented by the Swiss Federation; a bilingual or even trilingual Schleswig-Holsteinian state” or other options such as “a Schleswigian state in a loose confederation with Denmark or Germany, or an autonomous region under the protection of the League of Nations.” In regards to the East Prussia plebiscite, historian Richard Blanke wrote that “no other contested ethnic group has ever, under un-coerced conditions, issued so one-sided a statement of its national preference”. Richard Debo wrote “both Berlin and Warsaw believed the Soviet invasion of Poland had influenced the East Prussian plebiscites. Poland appeared so close to collapse that even Polish voters had cast their ballots for Germany”.
In regards to the Silesian plebiscite, Blanke observed “given that the electorate was at least 60% Polish-speaking, this means that about one ‘Pole’ in three voted for Germany” and “most Polish observers and historians” have concluded that the outcome of the plebiscite was due to “unfair German advantages of incumbency and socio-economic position”. Blanke alleged “coercion of various kinds even in the face of an allied occupation regime” occurred, and that Germany granted votes to those “who had been born in Upper Silesia but no longer resided there”. Blanke concluded that despite these protests “there is plenty of other evidence, including Reichstag election results both before and after 1921 and the large-scale emigration of Polish-speaking Upper Silesians to Germany after 1945, that their identification with Germany in 1921 was neither exceptional nor temporary” and “here was a large population of Germans and Poles—not coincidentally, of the same Catholic religion—that not only shared the same living space but also came in many cases to see themselves as members of the same national community”. Prince Eustachy Sapieha, the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, alleged that Soviet Russia “appeared to be intentionally delaying negotiations” to end the Polish-Soviet War “with the object of influencing the Upper Silesian plebiscite”. Once the region was partitioned, both “Germany and Poland attempted to ‘cleanse’ their shares of Upper Silesia” via oppression resulting in Germans migrating to Germany and Poles migrating to Poland. Despite the oppression and migration, Opole Silesia “remained ethnically mixed.”
Frank Russell wrote that, in regards to the Saar plebiscite, the inhabitants “were not terrorized at the polls” and the “totalitarian [Nazi] German regime was not distasteful to most of the Saar inhabitants and that they preferred it even to an efficient, economical, and benevolent international rule.” When the outcome of the vote became known, 4,100 (including 800 refugees who had previously fled Germany) residents fled over the border into France.
Military terms and violations
During the formulation of the treaty, the British wanted Germany to abolish conscription but be allowed to maintain a volunteer Army. The French wanted Germany to maintain a conscript army of up to 200,000 men in order to justify their own maintenance of a similar force. Thus the treaty’s allowance of 100,000 volunteers was a compromise between the British and French positions. Germany, on the other hand, saw the terms as leaving them defenseless against any potential enemy. Bernadotte Everly Schmitt wrote that “there is no reason to believe that the Allied governments were insincere when they stated at the beginning of Part V of the Treaty … that in order to facilitate a general reduction of the armament of all nations, Germany was to be required to disarm first.” A lack of American ratification of the treaty or joining the League of Nations left France unwilling to disarm, which resulted in a German desire to rearm. Schmitt argued “had the four Allies remained united, they could have forced Germany really to disarm, and the German will and capacity to resist other provisions of the treaty would have correspondingly diminished.”
Max Hantke and Mark Spoerer wrote “military and economic historians [have] found that the German military only insignificantly exceeded the limits” of the treaty before 1933. Adam Tooze concurred, and wrote “To put this in perspective, annual military spending by the Weimar Republic was counted not in the billions but in the hundreds of millions of Reichsmarks”; for example, the Weimar Republic’s 1931 program of 480 million Reichsmarks over five years compared to the Nazi Government’s 1933 plan to spend 4.4 billion Reichsmarks per year. P. M. H. Bell argued that the British Government was aware of later Weimar rearming, and lent public respectability to the German efforts by not opposing them, an opinion shared by Churchill.[citation needed] Norman Davies wrote that “a curious oversight” of the military restrictions were that they “did not include rockets in its list of prohibited weapons”, which provided Wernher von Braun an area to research within eventually resulting in “his break [that] came in 1943” leading to the development of the V-2 rocket.
Rise of the Nazis
The Treaty created much resentment in Germany, which was exploited by Adolf Hitler in his rise to power at the helm of Nazi Germany. Central to this was belief in the stab-in-the-back myth, which held that the German army had not lost the war and had been betrayed by the Weimar Republic, who negotiated an unnecessary surrender. The Great Depression exacerbated the issue and led to a collapse of the German economy. Though the treaty may not have caused the crash, it was a convenient scapegoat. Germans viewed the treaty as a humiliation and eagerly listened to Hitler’s oratory which blamed the treaty for Germany’s ills. Hitler promised to reverse the depredations of the Allied powers and recover Germany’s lost territory and pride, which has led to the treaty being cited as a cause of World War II.[failed verification]
See also
Remarks
quotes
The following citations are direct links to primary sources held on Wikisource . Unless otherwise stated, links are to the Treaty of Versailles.
Sources
Continue reading
Historiography and memory
Baranyi, Tamás Peter. “Reassembling a World Order: Toward a New Historiography of the Paris Peace Conference.” Corvinus Journal of International Affairs 4.2-4 (2019): 1-32. on-line
Brezina, Corona. The Treaty of Versailles, 1919 : a primary source examination of the treaty that ended World War I (2006)
(2006) Boemeke, Manfred F. et al. eds. Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
Cornelissen. Christoph, and Arndt Weinrich, eds. Writing the Great War: The Historiography of World War I from 1918 to the Present (2020)
(2020) Cox, Michael. “The Making of a Masterpiece: John Maynard Keynes and The Economic Consequences of the Peace.” Global Perspectives 1.1 (2020) online.
1.1 (2020) online. Ferrari, Paolo. “The memory and historiography of the First World War in Italy.” Comillas Journal of International Relations 2 (2015): 117-126 [Ferrari, Paolo. “The memory and historiography of the First World War in Italy.” Comillas Journal of International Relations 2 (2015): 117-126. online].
Gerwarth, Robert. “The Sky beyond Versailles: The Paris Peace Treaties in Recent Historiography.” Journal of Modern History 93.4 (2021): 896-930.
93.4 (2021): 896-930. Marks, Sally. “Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the Versailles treaty, 1918–1921.” Journal of Modern History 85.3 (2013): 632-659.
Sampaio, Guilherme. “‘This Is No Longer a Book, It Is a Political Event’ The French Reception of John Maynard Keynes’s Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919–1920).” French Historical Studies 43.3 (2020): 451-482.
Related searches to Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained
Information related to the topic Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained
Here are the search results of the thread Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Steve Schleicher Wife Age Wikipedia and Family Net Worth Explained. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING