User talk:EnigmaMcmxc/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I did a CE of the background section then got an edit conflict with you. ;O) I didn't prune it as drastically as I think aspects of Versailles which show continuity with previous diplomatic and not-so-diplomatic settlements need a mention. If these points are referred to in the description of the negotiations and who got what later on, I think there should be something early on to give context to the partitions of Germany in 1919 which were somewhat less extensive than that perpetrated on Poland in the late C18th.Keith-264 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Just a few quick queries:

  • diff, I am not following what the issue is here. A quick search on Powell shows that he is academically trained, his book contains footnotes and references, and on quick glance, there does not appear to be any major controversy surrounding the man. None of this breeches WP:RS, so I appear to be missing something here, why is he an unreliable source? Furthermore, is the suggestion being made that this piece of trivia is factually incorrect?
  • diff. Considering the treaty of Versailles covered economic, military, territorial, legal, social, morale, navigation, employment issues among many other subjects, why the call to restrict the article to only diplomatic histories? There are works amongst that list, which have been deemed poor, that provide the economic point of view of various economists, historians and other works already included in the active article and incorporated into this draft, and others that - that provide their sources - have only been used to provide additional information.

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Powell was a history major as an undergraduate many decades ago; that is not a professional status. He write MANY popular books on MANY historical topics, all with a heavy POV and no research. The Treaty was a diplomatic event and the diplomatic historians cover it very well--they include LOTS of factors. It is seldom covered by specialists in other fields. Using poor sources weakens the article. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Must we get bogged down in such minutiae? it's POV to judge sources; why not describe the main points of view and then name the adherents as I suggest below?Keith-264 (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Powell represents an extreme fringe viewpoint held by no RS. on page 1 he says “Wilson surely ranks as the worst president in American history.” In fact the consensus of scholars (both liberal and conservative) gives Wilson high marks. Rjensen (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Our opinion isn't the point, is he or his view notable?Keith-264 (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
We have Powell, McDougall, Schmitt, Steel, Tucker, and Trachtenberg all saying Wilson was not up to snuff. So how exactly is it a fringe view? I have noted that you have declared Powell (who has at least a BA) to be unreliable, Schmitt is now an old man and popular historian and should not be taken seriously (even though he held a PhD and wrote several works on the war, not to mention published his essay in a journal: not exactly the sign of a popular historian. If being a popular historian is a crime, then Ferguson and Taylor should be stricken from the article and I would argue that Taylor is probably the worse source used! As for the comment about footnotes, while I agree that the lack of footnotes and references is usually a major issue, I have seen far too many academic historians do so in their books.). Watching the various edits being made, it seems one awaits to see the problems with McDougall, Steel, Tucker, and Trachtenberg.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other commentators etc who are "extreme fringe viewpoint" merchants? If there are we could collect them under a sub-heading "Fringe merchants, bonkers and nincompoops" to give them no undue weight or put Powell in a Note is he's a lone eccentric. I think we should try not to judge his views as acceptable or not is he's notable. Some writers are notable for the quality of their work, some for their popularity and some for their influence on others so a hack writer who is read by millions is as notable as a recondite monograph writer who gets one footnote in one scholarly book. Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This diff ([1]) appears to be evidence that RJensen is not attempting to play fair at all and will label any source he does not agree with as weak or poor. He has complained that the article is too long and off topic, yet here we have a concise and well sourced (two academic works well sourced and cited by peers) section labeled as weak and in need of expansion. This is the very definition of moving the goalposts and hypocrisy! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps moving parts of your edit piecemeal to the official page could wait until it's been copy edited and the material in the second half that might fit better on other pages sectioned off? Is there such a thing as a campaignbox for subjects like this, a diplomacybox or some such thing? I'll see if I can finish a ce tomorrow.Keith-264 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Considering the edits against consensus on just the background section, I doubt at this time any method will be accepted.
As for the campaign box, the following page shows the current various navbox templates. They appear to largely deal with football and military related matters:
It seems we could create our own: Template:Navbox What's your idea?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
If we prune some of the narrative in the second half of the page (like my suggestion about Brest Litovsk) because there are specific pages dealing with those aspects and add the bulk of the material to them, adding a navbox with those pages in it to the infobox would summarise all the pages related to the TofV page. Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Something like this? Just a quick mock up:EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Paris peace conference

When I get the time, probably tomorrow, I will create the page and make the above navbox permanent and add in detail for the other treaties and any links I missed for Versailles.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth announcing it on the official TofV talk page, to make sure there isn't one already which we haven't seen?Keith-264 (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just poised the question.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Depending on where you where thinking of placing the box, I guess we could just jack the campaign box template per the below. The only problem with jacking it would be the leftover terms "Campaignbox" and "battles =" since they are both needed to work. I don't recall ever making a permanent template, so I don't know if these could be removed/replaced/reworded if we were to create this.
I have included the two various styles that were used over the years on the Normandy campaignbox, where I jacked this one from, to present further options.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

V good piece of work Enigma, I'd add both.Keith-264 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Tried to add both and buggered up the one that goes at the top. Any help would be appreciated. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


Been working through the page, which so far seems to have the information but too many quotations and comments from historians, which I think would be better in an analysis section at the end rather than in the narrative. I changed some of the headers for brevity but all my edits are suggestions for you to consider not demands. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keith, I have had a quick look at your revisions - wow! So far, looking good and thanks for the various feedback left in the comments you have inserted too. I don't really have much time this weekend, but will give you a hand over the coming days and get cracking addressing the various feedback comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You've done the hard work, all that's left is some rearrangement to make it concise, that's easy compared to filling gaps.;O) I tried separating the narrative and analysis of the territorial changes within the section, which might work for some of the other sections above too.Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Sections 3–7
  • Are they reasonably acceptable after the ce?
  • Are the sections in the right order?
  • Are there any omissions? (apart from missing comment on abolition of the Luftstreitkrafte)

At the monent it reads like a survey of individuals - historians, economists, politicians and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. Presumably they boil down to "for" and "against", with some variation of reasons, which may also be divisible by time - pre 1939-1945, post 1945 say. We could rewrite these sections succinctly using such a model then order the writers according to notability (assuming we agree that politicians are at the bottom;O))Keith-264 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Does anyone want to refer to writers by surname only, the details are in the references section after all?Keith-264 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, yes they boil down to for and against or vise versa. Sounds like a plan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and a few questions of form, I have taken to placing citations at the end of sentences so I have shifted mid-sentence ones to the ends. I haven't got a clue how to do the citation system on this page, I'm only able to do sfn's so haven't combined citations when they're the same source, sorry. I also prefer pics etc on the right hand margin, I think it looks better but I didn't think to ask first, sorry2. I also centre captions.Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I may be using the old wiki markup for cites, I will go over them and fix them. Although I think we should wait until the end in case others are a little out of wack after CE. As for the pics, if I seem to remember there being wiki guidelines which say they are suppose to go back and forth across the page. That is something I can double check on after the CE and addressing of issues, so having them sit on the right is not an issue at present.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Greetinge Earthling, I'm off on a computer course today so I won't be doing much re the ce. The pictures on the right only is a matter of preference so I'll accept the will of the majority. I would leave citation remedies last too but I don't know enough about that system to help. The second half of the page seems to be a history of the diplomacy of the interwar years, which looks more like the history of the League of Nartions, which is part of the working of the Treaty but not necessarily the treaty. I had a look round and found a few other pages where I think some of this section might fit better, with links from this page to them (I did some experimental links using {{main|X}} and left notes alongside). I had in mind the format of a page like this Battle of Albert (1916). I'd like your opinion because it could address our colleagues' concerns about page length and relevance and at the same time avoid cutting the substance of your additions, rather than just copy editing the form. If this page becomes a hub as well as an article, it could tie the subject together like The Dude's rug. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I like that idea. One of the reasons I ended up putting so much on this draft was because there are quite a few articles that need to be vamped up. We can cut this one down to the core improve message, and at the same time improve numerous other articles by transferring info.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's red on you[edit]

Enigma, are you familiar with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors? It has a script you can use which puts red cautions on references, which have errors in them, so you can sort them out before submitting the page for assessment. I noticed 7-8 reds but don't know how to repair the citation system being used on the page. Keith-264 (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


[I wouldn't foreshadow with the following sentence]Wilson's ideals resulted him being awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize,[1]

[I wouldn't foreshadow with the following sentence]The German "imposition of harsh terms on Russia ... just two months after the announcement of the Fourteen Points seemed ... to demonstrate that German had no right to demand or expect leniency."[2]

[I wouldn't foreshadow this but leave it to an analysis section at the end, where historians' verdicts could be given either chronologically or thematically depending on how many and how different. If you want to leave it in I suggest a {{#tag:ref||group="Note"}} so as not to interrupt the narrative.] Bernadotte Schmitt highlights that "the tradition of peace conferences was that belligerents met on terms of equality", however as the Allies were at odds with each other, they did not invite Germany thus avoiding a German delegation attempting to play one country off against the other and unfairly influencing the proceedings.[3] Norman Davies declares a German delegation was only invited to "sign the Treaty ... without comment"[4] although as historian P.M.H. Bell points out "the whole object of winning the war was to impose upon Germany terms which she would never accept voluntarily".[5]

14 Points Summary Reliance on open diplomacy rather than secret agreements, freedom of the seas, free trade, disarmament, fair apportionment colonies, Russian self-determination, Belgian independence, restoration of French territory, Italy to receive territory based on ethnicity, Austria-Hungary to have fair development opportunities, Balkan independence, Self-determination for the peoples of the Ottoman Empire and free passage through the Dardanelles, an independent Poland and the formation of a League of Nations to guarantee independence for all countries.[6]

allied aims

[I'd put all these paragraphs in the analysis at the end] Georges Clemenceau, the French Prime Minister, said "if only we could get rid of Germany, there would be peace in Europe."[7] However, historian Gerhard Weinberg comments that regardless "of even the harshest terms proposed ... the continued existence of a German state, however truncated or restricted, was taken for granted by all" despite the course of German unification or German ambitions in Belgium (Septemberprogramm).[8] Wilson commented "We do not wish to destroy Germany and we could not do so if we wished." The British position on the future of Germany was that it should remain to be "a political counterweight to France and to resume her prewar role as Britain's chief trading partner."[7]

Weinberg further notes that Germany was viewed, as a result of the long and bitter war and the number of nations needed to defeat her, as "extraordinarily dangerous to the welfare, even existence, of other" European nations.[9] As a result, the victors sought to break 'Prussian militarism' by dissolving the German General Staff, which was "the brain and nerve center of the army". With Germany disarmed and her general staff dissolved, this would "render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations".[10] To further this goal and due to an universal conviction among the victors "that Germany had misgoverned its colonies", it was believed "it would be dangerous to restore the colonies because Germany might try to raise troops in the colonies to offset the reduction imposed upon it"[11] Due to Germany's invasion of Belgium, and her conduct in that country, coupled with the devastation brought upon French soil brought about the want to "limit German power in the future" so other nations could survive.[8]

Professor Ian Beckett sums up the goals of the three main powers: The French wanted "a punitive settlement", the British were after international stability, and the Americans desired "to create a better world based on principles of internationalism, democracy and self-determination."[12] Marc Trachtenberg disagrees. He states "it is important, if the true flavour of the period is to be grasped, that ideas be taken for what they were - that the integrity of conceptual structures be respected as historical reality." He argues that Wilson is made out to be a hero who did not want a punitive settlement "until he was 'bamboozled' by the Europeans". Trachtenberg highlights that Wilson had punitive goals in mind and that it is also too simple to claim the French worked "singlemindedly .. for a harsh, Carthaginian peace."[13] Overall, however, it was "hoped that a just and lasting peace would be concluded, that the war which [was] won would be the last war."[11]

[I wouldn't foreshadow here]In the long run the American Senate never ratified these decisions,[14] and historian Anthony Lentin argues that when the terms were put to the Germans, they "were maximum demands which might be reduced, but could not be augmented".[15]

[I'd leave this to the end too]Economist John Maynard Keynes argued that "the policy of France" was "to set the clock back and undo what ... progress ... Germany had accomplished."[16] Lentin counters this point by noting that Clemenceau "was too much a realist to argue for" such a position, yet he "sought 'physical guarantees' to prevent yet another invasion".[7] Keynes continued his argument stating by arguing for the annexation of territory, France would be able to curtail the German population and economy. "If France could seize, even in part, what Germany was compelled to drop, the inequality of strength between the two rivals for European hegemony might be remedied for generations."[16]

[I'd move this to the end too] William Bullitt, an American delegate at the Peace Conference wrote that the British went to the conference with a number of secret aims, the destruction of the German Navy, confiscation of the German merchant marine, the elimination of Germany as an economic rival, the extraction of all possible indemnities from Germany, the annexation of German East Africa, Cameroon and annexation of German colonies in the Pacific south of the Equator. Bullitt wrote later that "all of these secret war aims ... were achieved in one form or another by the Treaty of Versailles."[17]

[I'd move this paragraph of analysis to the analysis section]Schmitt notes that "the treaties were drafted by hundreds of persons. Each man did his own little job and then the pieces were glued together by a few big shots, who did not fully sense the enormity of the demands".[18] Lentin comments that the "whole package of terms was approved unamended by the Big Three without adequate co-ordination or review ... . No one had read them in full let alone discussed their cumulative effect." Lloyd George "admitted that he only received a complete copy at the last moment" and Wilson commented "I hope that during the rest of my I will have enough time to read this whole volume".[19]


Well the background section has been thoroughly copyedited and everyone's ideas incorporated. Shall we move it over to the main article, per the suggestions on the talk page there of doing it all one section at a time?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Suits me, I'd add a note to the talk page too.Keith-264 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Poland in the background[edit]

I believe that information about the uprising in Poland is important to the background of the treaty. The 14 Points called for Poland to be recreated, Germans claimed they surrendered based on these points, and these points were believed to be part of the basis of the peace treaty. The uprising factored into how the Allies redrew Germany's eastern borders, national self-determination, it links into the plebiscites that were (and were not) conducted, and why Germans were so angry at the treaty in regards to recreating Poland. Removing everything about the uprising removes that the treaty was to a degree acknowledging what had already happened: the Poles had taken their territory back, the treaty merely endorsed it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


RJ, your recent comments and edits are destructive of consensus. I'd be grateful if you made constructive suggestions rather than negative comments. Why don't you avoid "complete travesty--this is one of the main features of the Treaty and gets one sentence!!?????]" peremptory commentary like this and try discussing your objections and what you'd prefer instead? You're throwiing the baby out with the bathwater.Keith-264 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


I've read through the page and tried to make the text concise. I found the last third to be a bit confusing because writers were popping up and then disappearing so I suggest that a decision needs to be made to organise the narrative according to time, writers or theme. I'd choose theme as that will allow us to then subdivide by time (pre-war/post war etc) or for and against or both. I tried separating the text according to which writer I was paraphrasing but not being au fait with the details of the Treaty didn't get far. I'll try again tomorrow as it will be easy to spot the repetition and overlaps. Hope this helps. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Made a start in rationalising the pageKeith-264 (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Page structure[edit]



Allied powers[edit]




Central powers[edit]



Ottoman Empire[edit]










International organisations[edit]

[rj: this is one of the main features of the Treaty and needs needs much more attention]
[e: actually, its not. The Covenant of the LoN is a key theme to the Paris Peace Conference. As you clearly pointed out, this article is too long and needs to be cut down. As Keith as highlighted on the talkpage, although you have yet to respond, most information could be diverted to other articles and this be used as a hub. To illustrate this point, see The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which opens with the covenant;, The Treaty of Trianon, which opens with the covenant;, The Treaty of Neuilly, which opens with the covenant;, and the The Treaty of Sèvres, which opens with the covenant. Thus, there is no need for vast information on it, that is why there is a separate article dedicated to the subject as well as articles about the LoN.]
[K:As I've trawled around looking for {{main links I've notived that quite a few are start or c-class so excess material here will probably fit in them quite nicely and make it easier to bring a clutch of pages to B-class (for starters)]

Quite agree, none of the material is redundant.Keith-264 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)



[move to analysis]Norrin Ripsman wrote that Clemenceau's compromises over the Rhine resulted in his defeat during the January 1920 presidential elections,[20] however, Spencer C. Tucker notes that the political situation in France was much more complicated than that and "most observers" had "expected" Clemenceau to win.[21]

[move to analysis]Schmitt notes it was "only much later that the idea grew up that the five treaties of Paris had been conceived in iniquity and deserved to be revised or forgotten"[22] while Louise Slavicek states that John Maynard Keynes best-selling The Economic Consequences of Peace – "accurate or not" – did much to sway public opinion against the treaty.[23] In 1919, Keynes argued that the reparation figures were too high in relation to the damage done, that Germany would not have the capacity to pay and that if the figures were not revised it would place "an impossible strain on the German economy" and would render impossible, the reconstruction of the European economy.[24] The perception that an unfair Carthaginian peace had been imposed on Germany undermiined British will to uphold an unjust treaty.[25] By 192 British opinion felt that the Germans were being unfairly treated by the Poles. Lloyd George stated in the House of Commons that the Poles had no right to claim more than what the Versailles Treaty had granted them. The German press who ran a headline "Lloyd George against the rape of Upper Silesia." Jan Smuts described Poland as "a historical failure" and the Australian W.M. Hughes thought it "monstrous to put Germans under Polish rule."[26]


  • rj: very poor sourcing....need to use standard works (J M Cooper, T. Bailey, A. Link, A Walworth)
e: Is the narrative incorrect?
  • needs coverage of the Senate factions
  • needs analysis of Wilson's psychology
e: You have constantly stated that the article should not talk about every little thing, so elaboration required as to the need to single out Wilson's mental state and its relevance towards the treaty and American position.
  • needs more details
e: Such as?

[I'd cut this]Edward House wrote "I am leaving Paris, after eight fateful months ... Looking at the conference in retrospect there is much to approve and much to regret. It is easy to say what should have been done, but more difficult to have found a way for doing it. To those who were 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 always to create new troubles ... While I should have preferred a difference peace, I doubt whether it could have been made, for the ingredients for such a peace as I would have had were lacking at Paris." He concludes his thoughts "And yet I wish we had taken the other road, even if it were less smooth, both now and afterward, than the one we took. We would at least have gone in the right direction and if those who follow us had made it impossible to go the full length of the journey planned, the responsibility would have rested with them and not with us."[27]



[I'd cut this]On 7 May Count Brockdorff-Rantzau – "with the big treaty still lying unopened before him" – declared "The demand is made that we shall acknowledge that we alone are guilty of having caused the war. Such a confession in my mouth would be a lie".[28]

[Move to analysis]Sally Marks comments that "German politicians and propagandists fulminated endlessly about 'unilateral war guilt', convincing many who had not read the treaties of their injustice on this point".[29]



rj : very important topic -- missing e: It is also missing in the current live article too. Any suggestions on how to improve this missing area?



Rhineland Ruhr[edit]


Treaty violations[edit]



War guilt[edit]





Nazi Party[edit]

Minority Protection[edit]

Outside Europe[edit]

I'm not sure that Aftermath and Analysis are different enough to be separate, what does everyone else think? The post Versailles subjects mostly seem to have pages of their own so I would reduce their presence on this page to a heading, {{main|XXX}} and a paragraph or two and move any new detail here to the corresponding page.Keith-264 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved text here after putting a version in the background section.[edit]

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk[edit]

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (now Brest, Belarus) was signed on 3 March 1918 between the new Bolshevik government of Russia (the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey). The treaty ended Russian participation in World War I. The treaty was signed after two months of negotiations under the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. Soviet Russia defaulted on Imperial commitments to the Triple Entente but the treaty was abrogated as a condition of the Armistice. The treaty had been of tactical benefit to the Bolsheviks, who were fighting a civil war, by renouncing Russian claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania.

The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was Germany imposed on Soviet Russia two months after the announcement of the Fourteen Points and demonstrated the ambition of German war aims.[2] While Versailles stripped Germany of 25,000 square miles (65,000 km2) of territory and 7 million people,[30] the German treaty "pushed Russia back to its pre-Petrine frontiers" by taking 1,300,000 square miles (3,400,000 km2) square miles of territory and 62 million people.[31] This loss equated to one third of the Russian population, 25 per cent of their territory, around a third of the country's arable land, three-quarters of its coal and iron, a third of its factories (totaling 54 per cent of the nation's industrial capacity), and a quarter of its railroads. [30][31]"Germany's Carthaginian Peace terms against Russia" was "right in front of the allied statesmen at the Peace of Paris."[30]

[move this to the Tof B-L page] Slavicek states that "the Versailles settlement appears almost mild "in comparison to Brest-Litovsk".[23] Truitt asserts that the treaty "was probably the most punitive peace treaty signed since ancient times."[30] Charles Dobbs and Spence Tucker state that "it is worth remembering that the Treaty of Brest Litovsk was much harsher on the defeated power" than Versailles was on Germany.[31] Ian Bickerton states Versailles "was extremely lenient in comparison with the peace terms Germany had in mind to impose on the Allies" and "when contrasted with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ... the Versailles treaty does appear very lenient."[32] Fritz Fischer proposed, based off German archival sources including the Septemberprogramm written before the First Battle of the Marne, that Germany sought a similar peace for the whole of Europe. The September program was "an incredibly comprehensive shopping list of German war aims", in which Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg called for France "to be destroyed as a great power, Russia reduced to the dimensions reached under Peter the Great, Belgium turned into a German vassal state, Luxemburg annexed outright, French and Belgian coastal areas and ore-mining districts likewise annexed, Russia and Britain replaced by Germany as the dominant power in the Middle East and Persia, the Scandinavian states and Holland brought into the German orbit, a 'Central African Colonial Empire' created as a reservoir of raw materials, and the states of Central and Eastern Europe from the North Sea to the Black Sea – friend, foe, and neutral alike – gathered under the umbrella of an economic alliance dominated by Germany" while "Ottoman Turkey as well as Habsburg Austria-Hungary, in effect, were to become German satellites."[33]

"Germany's Carthaginian Peace terms against Russia" was "right in front of the allied statesmen at the Peace of Paris."[30]

The treaty had been of tactical benefit to the Bolsheviks, who were fighting a civil war, by renouncing Russian claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. It was a harsh peace that the Allies often cited as harsher than versailles, so Germany should not complain.[34] imposed on Soviet Russia two months after the announcement of the Fourteen Points and demonstrated the ambition of German war aims.<ref name=Tucker2005a902/

I hope I have not misunderstood here, but the reason for bring up the ToBL in the background was to later link it to the various historians comments on it, who seem to be very keen on comparing the two. Is the suggestion here that the first four sentences, of the section earmarked to be moved, will not be in the final draft thus remove the comparison?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought that it was pertinent to Versailles but as a background matter since it demonstrates the sort of peace settlement the Germans imposed and works as a comparison to Versailles so I moved it from the bottom of the page and put in two short paragraphs to illuminate a link to the TofBL page. I thought that the rest of the material on this page could go on the BL page if it isn't already there. Same goes for the nazis, but they aren't specific to the Treaties of Versailles like the war guilt and plebiscite provisions. (Same with the navbox below, I'm not sure that including BL and the nazis is a good idea since it is a bit a priori.) The material below the cut can go anywhere you think best, obviously if you want to mention BL in the conclusion, historians' verdicts on it will explain its relevance to the page. [having read the passage again, it reads like quite a good verdict on German boss class duplicity over Versailles - why not put it all in the conclusion?]

Nice to hear from you again, life had been interrupting my Wiki writing this last few weeks. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur about the conclusion.
I was a little unsure on adding the Nazis and BL to the navboxes, but they are easily removed. If there are no other points to raise about them I can go ahead and make them permanent (with the Nazis and BL removed).
As always RL is the priority so no worries there, the same thing can be said here - other than the odd edit and reverting of vandalism I have not had much time to spend editing. Onwards and upwards!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorted!Keith-264 (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have created the nav and sidebox and added them to the main article. They can be found here and here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Navbox and sidebar[edit]

Recent edits[edit]

Just seen your recent work, I'm off to learn computers but I'll have a look again later today. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no probs. Look forward to your feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I am pretty sick at the moment, so I will not be editing much over the coming days. When I am up to it, I will get back to work on this article. The recent edits, do you think they are progress in the right direction?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, nice to see you're back. I'm trying to get a replacement laptop set up so my presence will be fitful but let me know if there's anything you need doing. Regards, Keith.Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the help and advise so far. My own edits are going to be here and there too. I am going to try and cut down the reparations section and transfer the info to the article on Article 231 and expand and improve that one. As always, any input would be appreciated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

BIS[edit] thought you might be interested in this....Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Nobel Peace Prize 1919". Retrieved 5/29/2013.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  2. ^ a b Tucker (2005a), p. 902
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schmitt103 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Davies, p. 133
  5. ^ Bell, p. 21
  6. ^ John Algeo, ed. (2001). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Cambridge University Press Volume 6. p. 41. ISBN 9780521264792. Retrieved 11 January 2013. 
  7. ^ a b c Lentin (2012), p. 24
  8. ^ a b Weinberg, p. 9
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Weinberg8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Bell, p. 20
  11. ^ a b Schmitt, p. 106
  12. ^ Simkins, p. 72
  13. ^ Trachtenberg, p. 503
  14. ^ Lentin (1992), p. 31
  15. ^ Lentin (1992), p. 32
  16. ^ a b Keynes, p.34
  17. ^ Denson, pp. 470-1
  18. ^ Schmitt, p. 108
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Lentin.282012.2922 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Ripsman, p. 110
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tucker.281999.29191 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference Schmitt104 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ a b Slavicek, p. 77
  24. ^ Bell, p. 23
  25. ^ Lentin (2012), p. 27
  26. ^ Görtemaker, p. 37
  27. ^ Stanley, p. 26
  28. ^ Craig, p. 141
  29. ^ Marks, p. 232
  30. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Truitt114 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ a b c Tucker (2005a), p. 225
  32. ^ Bickerton, p. 133
  33. ^ Martel (1992), p. 56
  34. ^ Srivastava Joshi. International Realations. Krishna Prakashan Media. p. 26.