Aircraft Treaty Limitations?

[PMN1]

There were three Treaties/Conferences after WW1 that limited the specifications and numbers of warships.

Were there any attempts at similar Treaties for aircraft and if so how successful or otherwise were they?

[simon]

The only things I'm aware of was that the Versaille Treaty banned production of military aircraft and the formation of an airforce by Germany, and I suppose the SALT treaties of the Cold War eras could count at a push.

Well history has already judged the effectiveness of the Versaille treaty and the SALT treaties I'm only very vaguely aware of to be honest.

The reason I think that there was no equivalent of the Washington Naval Treaty and the others was that air power was such an unknown factor prior to world war two, so who knew what to ban and how effective it would be? And for all the proponents of the Douhet, Trenchard et al, there were the detractors that saw strategic air power as merely an adjunct to the ground and sea forces.

Remember even in 1942 the prime naval weapon was still seen as the Battleship, not the Aircraft Carrier, despite all the warning signs.

Mid war air forces really struggled to survive against the more traditional and tried and tested arms, it is a tribute to those who pioneered them that they are these days the pre-requisite arm for any operation by any armed force anywhere in the world that can afford to even scratch together a few battered old planes.

[Corsarius]

To my knowledge (this is just off the cuff) the Fokker DVII was so feared that it is the only weapon mentioned specifically in the Versailles treaty. I'm not sure but I don't think Germany was supposed to have an air force at all.

[GregP]

You are right, the Fokker D VII was mentioned in the treaty, and many D VIIs were squirreled away ikn barns and whatnot. Several survived, but not overly many.

I personally believe the treaty of Versailles was directly responsible for WWII since it threw Germany into poverty, making conditions ripe for Adolph Hitler's rise to power. If not for that, we might have had a relatively peaceful half-century or so.

Just my take on it.

[Corsarius]

I agree completely. In fact, it's what we were taught in Modern History at school.

The reparations imposed were, frankly, ridiculous. They only were able to meet it ONCE. The rest of the time they had to beg, or trade other goods instead of cash. I think (memory a bit hazy) that IF WWI reparations WERE met, then Germany would have finally paid off their war debt in about 1980 or so.

So welcome to abject poverty, Germany. Oh, and here comes hyperinflation.

Also, the Weimar republic was pretty useless as a governing body. They were deliberately set up so they couldn't decide anything, and seemed to change leadership and majorities the way I change my socks (at least once a month):D

So the Communists AND the Nazis rose in power, and had many street brawls and battles. The impotent league of nations stood by and did nothing, as they were not as well organised as the current UN (which itself is showing some serious flaws now).

Fast-forward over the beer hall putsch and the reichstag fire...

The allies then 'allowed' Hitler his expansions because he was rampantly anti-communist. The idea being that Germany would be a 'buffer' against the spread of communism into europe. Remember that the armies of the west, and the Russian 'white' armies had been defeated by Trotsky's Reds. Everyone was terrified of the communist expansion, and the 'cold war' really seems to have begun around 1920-21-ish. So Adolf was allowed certain expansions that would otherwise have resulted in a declaration of war, oblivious to the pact signed by him and Stalin. Finally, with the implementation of 'fall weiss' in September, the allies realised they had made a bit of a silly mistake and WWII was born.

The end.

[Ricky]

Actually, the reparations demanded of GFermany after WW1 were no worse in scale than those demanded of France (by Germany) after the Franco-Prussian War. The French paid up in full...

[andyo2000]

I'm just now reading a book on the Third Reich, and I haven't gotten very far into it. But I do remember reading a few thing's about Germany. To pay for WWI, Germany's government sold many, many war bonds. However, this wasn't enough, so they just printed more money. I believe the book stated that 1 mark ( German currency) before the war was worth an astonishing 300 marks after the war. Plus the massive unemployment and add in the repatriation clause and the Weimar Republic...and Germany was in it deep.

[GregP]

Actually the reparations were a lot worse in scale.

One of the items in the reparations clause was that Germany's Ruhr Valley, their industrial base, was to be given to France for 20 years. So, the world asked Germany to pay for WWI and then removed their means of doing so.

WE were the stupid ones tehre. If someone has a debt, they need to have income to pay it.

[Romantic Technofreak]

One detail, Andy: The price of 1 US-Dollar rose up to 4,2 Trillion Reichsmark (4.200.000.000.000 RM) in winter 1923/24.

[andyo2000]

I digress RT, but in response to GregP, wasn't there a clause in the Treaty of Versailles that forbid Germany to operate any industrial plant of any kind, anywhere in Germany? I believe that even if they had had the Ruhr at the disposal, the law-abiding Weimar Republic would never have started up those indutrial giants again.

Also, I believe the president at the time, Wilson, was the only leader of an Allied country to not sign the treaty. So really, we knew it was wrong, but we were still too weak diplomatically to change any of the Treaty, especially when you consider the centuries of resentment between the French and the Germans. We were also very helpful to the Germans in ridding themselves of the Treaty in the 30s....which in retrospect wasn't a good idea....but that's another story.

And to RT:
I wonder how much some bread would have cost? 100 trillion :D?

[Ricky]

Pretty much!
There are lots of photos from the time of kids making kites out of banknotes, or using bundles of notes as 'bricks' to build playhouses, as that was really the best use for them.
If you had a wheelbarrow handy, you could have carried enough to buy a loaf of bread...
[xx(]

[andyo2000]

So why didn't Germany just print extremely valuable (in terms of how many marks it was worth) to counter the inflation. I don't mean stopping the inflation, because with the Depression in the 30s that would have been impossible (America contributed the most money to aid Germany and the Depression effectively stopped payments), but they could have made the equivalent of a thousand dollar bill in America. Why didn't they just make one piece of money worth a loaf of bread?

And why did all of this not turn Germany's economy into a barter economy?

[Romantic Technofreak]

The biggest bank note was worth 100 Trillion RM. A loaf of bread was not worth a Dollar, so you could get one for less than a trillion RM. Of course this was a joke, but not for the people who had to suffer it. So, in 1924, the cut all the zeroes, and the Dollar was again 4,2 RM (like 4,2 DM in 1948).

After WWII there was the Morgenthau plan to strip Germany from any industry. But we were needed by both political blocks, so it was never executed (we in the west profitted from the Marshall plan instead). After WWI, no such plan existed. Also, it would not have been feasible, because Germany was not completely tied down and the Allies were not motivated to encounter all-German resistance (they tried something similar with Turkey, but even that did not succeed, it ended with millions of Greeks having to leave Turkey after living there for more than 2500 years).

Andy, sometimes I cannot suppress a smile when reading you contributions, but in time of life I know I am more than 30 years ahead of you. I only can advise you to start studying history. You are in the right age to begin. See you!

[simon]

Just a couple of points I think are worth making, firstly Britain was still paying off our war debt from WWII in the late 1990s, may even still be clearing the last of it now, I don't know for sure, whereas Germany had her slate more or less wiped clean at the end (Ignoring equipment and Scientists taken/borrowed by the Allies of course), so although we were the victors we were paying for our grandparent's war for almost as long as the Germans would have been paying for their Great-grandparents war, Versaille treaty reparations and all!

Britain ended WWII bankrupt, we were lucky that our US Allies had the Atomic bomb and the Invasion of Japan was not necessary, although we were getting it ready to go the Tigerforce could have finished Britain financially.

Second, I wonder if we sometimes under-rate the effectiveness of the Versaille treaty in the long run. True, it gave rise directly to the anger and frustration that launched the most destructive war yet seen, but the limitations on the German armed forces perhaps had long reaching effects.

With more surface vessels (And even a Carrier Group or two) the Kreigsmarine could have been used for more than just surface raiding, Sealion could have been a practical operation if Fighter Command could be subdued, rather than a symbolic invasion of an already defeated enemy. The Luftwaffe similarly could have entered the war with a true strategic capability rather than having to rely for much of it's bomber force on Treaty Bombers that had to double up as and appear like Airliners. These two factors could have tipped the balance of the war if correctly applied, but both were inhibited by the Treaty.

Perhaps in the long run, Versaille prevented a Europe from being dominated by the Nazis into our times?

[Ricky]

Ah, now we enter the big debate -
Would the Nazis have gained power if the Treaty of Versailles was less harsh?

After all, it was the extremely harsh economic conditions that allowed the rise of extreme politics (lets not forget that the Communists also did fairly well in 1920s/30s Germany). Yes, these were common around the world due to the Great Depression, but German was rather a special case here.
(I think all this has been said before here)

However, on more relevant topics, how about the theory that actually the German Armed Forces would have been easier to defeat without the ToV? the theory runs like this:
In countries like Britain, Military thinking stagnated or remained sluggish. The C-in-C's of the Armed Forces tend to be conservative in outlook. Yes, we had our share of 'bright young things' outlining extroadinary new theories (warfare based around mobility and armour? It'll never catch on...), but they were stifled. Seealso Submarines. Aircraft Carriers vs. Battleships. I could continue.
In 1939 Britain still had Gloster Gladiator Biplanes in front-line service. America had possibly the world's most laughable Armoured Division (incidently, in 1920s/30s American Service, tanks were named 'Combat Cars' owing to inter-service politics over who is in charge of them...).
Even the design of weaponry & equipment suffered, with old designs being upgraded, rather than new, radical designs being implimented.

This situation is not just a 1920s/30s thing - it happens everywhere in 'peacetime'.

However, the Germans had been shorn of their Airforce, their Armour, and most of the Army & Navy.
Therefore (the theory runs) they had much more scope to start fresh, and to make use of every available innovation (in terms of equipnment and tactics) than any other country in the world. Little or no previous equipment, few 'hide-bound' Generals, and plenty of optimism. "We're making Germany great again".

I'm not sure I've explained that terribly well...
[:I]

[PMN1]

quote:Originally posted by simon

Just a couple of points I think are worth making, firstly Britain was still paying off our war debt from WWII in the late 1990s, may even still be clearing the last of it now, I don't know for sure,

I think it was finally paid off last year

[andyo2000]

Just a small addition here to Ricky's comment

I have read from many sources that the Treaty limited Germany's total military force to 100,000 men. However, instead of weakening Germany's military, it strengthened it incredibly. Every high-ranking official was extremely adept at doing their job. The enlistees, of which there were only a few thousand, were almost the "perfect soldier". So when the 1930s rolled around, Germany's military was one of the best armies in the world, and analgous to a drink mix, required "only add millions of troops" to create a world-class force. Of course, Hitler's regime had a few Stalin-istic characteristics and purged the force of many of it's greatest leaders - yet the advantage was still there.

[simon]

Additionally to this, the average German soldier in the 100,000 army was easily as capable as an NCO in any other army. SO come the decision to rearm all the German army had to do was fill out their platoons and companies with freshly trained soldiers, the NCOs to lead them at section and platoon level were already trained and waiting.

[GregP]

Interesting theories and information.

It is a good thing for us that the top-level Nazi leaders were incapable of leading a war effectively. Hitler's chiefs of the various departments were almost all incompetent except for Milch. Further, Hitler didn't trust his deputies to do their jobs, and in overriding their decisions, he wasn't as learned militarily as he might have been, so many idiotic military moves were made and many shortsighted military policies were implemented, many times as a result of political infighting.

Simple examples:

1) He started a 2-front war by invading Russia before conquering Great Britain.

2) He started a 3-front war by invading North Africa.

3) He took personal command of aircraft procurement and aircraft decisions that should have been left to field officers. They could have had jets at least 2 years sooner than they did. They never DID get a good strategic bomber. They never corrected the main faults of the Bf 109. They didn't produce the He-100.

4) He would ALMOST get a task done, and then lose interest in finishing it, allowing the Allies to recover (if the Battle of Britain had been waged in earnest for another month or two, or if an all-out attack had been mounted, the outcome might have been different).

Too many mistakes to mention them all!

Lucky us!

[Ricky]

Don't forget an inflexible approach to withdrawl -
If the German Armies in the USSR had been allowed to withdraw to a consolidated line over the winter of 42/43, they'd have been much better placed to resist the Soviet advances.