Too harsh or too lenient?

>look mom I made a thread

Neither. Its imposition on Germany made sense given the circumstances.

Too retarded, they had to know what they were doing

Too Lenient, it allowed Germany to continue existing despite being a massive ethnological mistake that was invented by Roman Catholics and unleashed onto the world by Napoleon and spent the 19th century failing to unify leaving unanswered questions that they could only answer through violence because Austria never wanted to be associated with them despite their unwanted advances like some creepy incel at a party trying to rizz Stacey

>>17797239 (OP)
Too lenient. Germany should’ve been split up and devoured by its neighbors.

>>17797239 (OP)
It was certainly more lenient than what was imposed on the French by the Germans after the Franco-Prussian war.

>>17797260
Only measuring the indemnity is merely a disingenuous attempt to present a completely slanted narrative.

The treaty of Frankfurt did not strip France of all its overseas territories. It took less than 3% of metropolitan France (compared to 12% of mainland Germany for Versailles), this on top of the fact that the treaty of St. Germaine took even more German speaking land from Austria. Of the land Frankfurt did take, only very little of it was majority French as well. The treaty did not disarm France. The treaty did not call for the trialing of thousands of "war criminals" (although this article was never enforced onto Germany). France was also not prevented from politically participating in certain ways with its neighbors.

>>17797255

>>17797239 (OP)
A perfect balance of both, meaning it was a disaster, of course.
Harsh enough to give the Germans some justified sense of injustice (the British and French accusing German of imperialist aggression etc. despite the Entente expanding their own imperialism into the Middle East at this time, as an example) but also lenient enough that it left the actual relevant parts of Germany intact and basically meant that Germany was still strong enough to rearm and get revenge

The best outcome of World War II would've involved Germany being split in half between France and Austria.

>>17797393
>World War II
*World War One I mean

>>17797326
VGH......

>>17797239 (OP)
i don't know if nations being made to pay reparations after they lose a war is the best policy for peace
initial disarmament and giving up of some resources, but to make them pay like a bill is just continuing the war in a way
people will say stuff during a war like: "we're not fighting the people, we're fighting the government" but then you make the people pay and struggle and most of all carry a constant source of animosity for years
seems like a reciepe for another war
either total conquest, or help them rebuild >>17797383

>>17797272

>>17797239 (OP)
Too harsh to make them butthurt
Too lenient to make them fuck things up again

>>17797239 (OP)
It was never enforced anyway. Germany never paid. They were already a decade behind schedule when Hitler came into power. France was occupying a third of the country for 11 years and still decided to be good boys morally superior country not forcing payment despite having total power to do so because they hoped Germany would be grateful and future allies (look how that turned out for them). Frenchmen even retreated from occupation in 1930 (aide from Saarland) when the treaty guaranteed it up to 1935. Demilitarization outside the occupation zone was never followed, even in 1925 military research and industry was back. Then in 1935 the Anglos decided it was a good idea to guarantee Germany naval armed forces up to 35% of the Royal Navy.
People arguing for either options are arguing about an uchronic what if scenario. Aside from restoring Alsace and some Polish lands the treaty only existed in the room where it was signed.

>>17797393
>>17797397
Surely you meant in 1815. The real crime was handing over all the Rhineland to Prussia in the Vienna Congress. England and Russia soon realized their mistake but it was too late.

>>17797272
how does one refute this

>>17797612
>nations being made to pay reparations after they lose a war is the best policy for peace
It happened after World War II as well.
> help them rebuild
Almost none of the fighting in World War I took place on Germany soil. There was nothing that needed rebuilding, in stark contrast to France and Belgium.
>>17797272
World War I was a larger conflict than the Franco-Prussian War. Naturally, the results of that war would also be more severe, especially when the Entente, had they wanted, could have pursued the war to the total collapse of the German state.

>Article 246:
>Hand over the skull of Hehe Tribal Chief Mkwawa to Britain

>>17797239 (OP)
too harsh if the goal was to reintegrate germany into the wider european order
too lenient if the goal was to utterly destroy germany and prevent it from ever seeking hegemony again
thats why the peace failed, there was no unified idea of what the post war order should look like