Posted 17 September 2007 - 09:29 PM
It does make sense dazzlinglucida, and you have made a very good argument - the allies DID propose reparations as 'justice' (as per Lloyd George and Wilson) and revenge (as per Clemenceau).
However, the figure of 6.6bn was MUCH less than the cost of the war.
During the war, 8 million soldiers and 9 million civilians died.
12 million tons of shipping were sunk.
In France and Belgium, 300,000 houses, 6,000 factories, 1,000 miles of railway, 2,000 breweries and 112 coal mines were destroyed.
The human cost of the war (in terms of mental and physical disability) was incalculable.
The argument of the Allies, however, went further.
They argued that - since Germany (they said) CAUSED the war - Germany was liable to pay the FULL COST of the war.
This was the significance of Clause 231: that Germany was responsible ' for all the loss and damage to which the Allied governments have been subjected' - ie that Germany should pay, not only for the damage of the war, but also for everything that it cost the Allies to defeat Germany, such as the bullets and the bombs and the uniforms and the soldiers' pay etc.
At the conference, there was so much disagreement about reparations that no agreement could be reached, so the Treaty of Versailles just said that Germany should pay reparations - actual sum to agreed at a later date. A committee of the League of Nations was set up to decide a figure.
In 1919, reparations of £1 billion were suggested. During 1920, the figure was raised to £4½ billion, and then to £12½ billion! Eventually, in April 1921, the League of Nations agreed a sum of £6.6 billion – in installments, until 1984