Talk:The Economic Consequences of the Peace

Old AfD
This page was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2005. The archived discussion is here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Post War Settlement
The paragraph "Post War Settlement" should not be in this article, since it appears to be describing World War II, not World War I. "Economic Consequences" was written just after World War I.  I'm giving fair warning to delete this paragraph. DEddy (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Political Consequences of the Peace
Shouldn't this page contain at least a mention about "The Political Consequences of the Peace" from Jacques Bainville ? As this book seems to have been more prophetic about the interwar period leading to WWII (Jacques Bainville) than "The Economic Consequences of the Peace". "A peace too harsh in its mild features, too mild in its harsh aspects". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.136 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the above comment had a point, but unfortunately the book appears to be available only in French. At least I've been unable to locate an English edition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can find a translation on http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~purslow/bv/bv.pdf but the translator doesn't allow any use of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.249.136 (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll take a look. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050419021632/http://cupid.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/het/keynes/vebrev.html to http://cupid.ecom.unimelb.edu.au/het/keynes/vebrev.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031219192258/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020101faessay8056-p0/walter-russell-mead/in-the-long-run-keynes-and-the-legacy-of-british-liberalism.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020101faessay8056-p0/walter-russell-mead/in-the-long-run-keynes-and-the-legacy-of-british-liberalism.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Numbers by Mantoux
The numbers by Mantoux mentioned in "Reception" appear to be cherry picked: why 1929? Do the numbers for coal export include the reparations and the shipping to the Saar, which were not previously exports but were necessary for the area to continue its industrial activities? Are the figures for national savings adjusted for inflation?

It's also incorrect that Keynes "predicted" certain figures, he merely says that without certain macroeconomic pre-conditions it would be impossible to achieve certain outcomes. Keynes also says that technological development may change the situation later, so the increase in efficiency by 1929 confirms what Keynes said rather than disprove it.

The removal of was also incorrect. A point Keynes makes repeatedly is that Germany would need foreign currency or alternative financial systems to rebuild its industry and pay for the necessary imports of food and raw materials (especially iron ore which used to come from the Saar). The article World War I reparations likes to stress that the USA did provide such financial assistance, even mentioning a certain figure for GDP and stressing one USA historian's view that «the Germans largely escaped paying for the war and instead shifted the costs onto American investors». Keynes correctly predicted that financial assistance from USA was the only possibility and that by keeping up the appearance of reparations it would only be magnified. Nemo 08:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Source of Summary
The current summary of the article is basically identical to the very first version of the whole article from 2005. It is unclear where that version came from, but identical text appears at various sources, such as a book-cover or as another summary at Librivox, where it is ascribed to the reader himself (Graham McMillan). I have my doubts that these are reliable sources.

While that may not affect much of the summary, it does leave the second, quite important passage regarding the League of Nations and appeasement without a reliable source. In my view that section should be removed. -Muhali (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

amazing assertions that are not backed by sources
maybe I am wrong, but this article should be removed from wiki as it makes the most amazing assertions without sources, eg this paragraph The book was a best-seller throughout the world and was critical in establishing a general opinion that the treaties were a "Carthaginian peace" designed to crush the defeated Central Powers, especially Germany. It helped to consolidate American public opinion against the treaties and against joining the League of Nations. The perception by much of the British public that Germany had been treated unfairly was, in turn, a crucial factor in later public support for the appeasement of Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In Our Time discussion of the book
BBC Radio 4's In Our Time discussed the book in September 2023. The expert guests were Margaret MacMillan, Michael Cox, and Patricia Clavin.< Radio 4's In Our Time discussed the book in September 2023. The expert guests were Margaret MacMillan, Michael Cox, and Patricia Clavin. Radio 4's In Our Time discussed the book in September 2023. The expert guests were Margaret MacMillan, Michael Cox, and Patricia Clavin. JezGrove (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)