I heard a rumor that a Waterman pen was used to sign the Treaty of Versailles (which ended WWI). Is this true?

Rumour #2: I heard it was the precursor to the Mont Blanc 149 hence the name "diplomat."

hmm interesting...im sure no company would want their product to basically be the result of WWII =]

WWI, actually--1919.

I do recall seeing a contemporary Waterman ad touting the Versailles Treaty connection. I have not seen any more substantial and critical research, however -- which I would want to have, given that later treaties at least were typically signed with multiple pens. I would not be surprised if only one or two of the signers used a Waterman, which was then enough basis for the company to trumpet the fact while carefully omitting to mention other brands of pen were used as well.

I am not aware of any Waterman pen ever being referred to as a "Diplomat", whether in the USA or in Europe.

Finally, from what I understand, the consensus of historians is that the Treaty of Versailles was not the outrageously vindictive and intolerably demanding settlement that the Nazis so successfully and so self-servingly painted it to be.

If you had this ebay item in mind: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vie...em=290225128621
I have the vague feeling that this is a later pen.


Apparently each side used different pens.
For the Germans I found this TIME article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...iid=chix-sphere
For the Brittish I found this one: http://www.museumofworldwarii.com/TourText...Germany1920.htm
This looks like a silver safety but not sure what brand.

This book claims a Waterman was used by the British to sign the treaty

All this is post-midnight googling "research", so hopefully others more knowledgeable will chime in

This article says the German delegation that signed the treaty broke the ceremonial pen afterwards.

I have that Waterman ad, as a poster. It's entitled 'La plume de la pace' or something similar, and features a semi naked woman holding a giant black Waterman fountain pen in front of a rising sun on the horizon. I like it.

As for the Treaty of Versailles, it was unquestionably a very harsh treaty, believe me, but not as harsh as Potsdam, which virtually destroyed Germany and forced 15 million people out of their ancestral homelands. The main thing about Versailles that really annoyed the Germans was the 'war guilt' clause and the huge financial indemnity that it was forced to pay. The latter problem was largely solved by the Dawes and Young plans, even before Hitler came to power. The other issues were to do with the Polish corridor, the forbidden union with Austria and the Sudetenland. All of these could have been resolved in due course without a Nazi government. The British were willing to work with a moderate German government, and even in the early years of the Hitler regime there was hope of a general agreement to revise Versailles, but the latter's violent extremism soon broke the trust that had been established.

something like this ??

Here is a nice acticle that provides rather in detail how the signing took place. At some point in the article "the pens and the ink wells" is mentioned.

Ruud

jdboucher Posted Yesterday, 09:42 PM
hmm interesting...im sure no company would want their product to basically be the result of WWII =]

Deacon Posted Yesterday, 10:10 PM
WWI, actually--1919.



All of you are basically correct. JD was making an inference to WWII in his remark (Deacon missed the pun!)

The War Guilt Clause imposed on Germany by the allies was a very sore spot in the minds of the German people for many years after the war.
The Nazi party used this tension to their advantage in their rise to power. It was this false feeling of nationalism, pariotism, and elitism that led to the aggression that would lead to WWII.

I just recently had to argue that the Treaty of Versailles did not cause WWII in school. It was a very interesting debate.

The Treaty of Versailles was a major contributing cause, but not the sole cause of WWII. If one traces the roots of WWII, there is the rise of Hitler to power, then the Third Reich's militarization in violation of the treaty, then militarization of the Sudetenland, then Austria, then Czechoslovakia, plus German support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War, which has frequently been called the proving ground or tuneup for WWII.

Once Hitler came to power, the war was not yet inevitable. As each action taken by Hitler after his rise to power, starting with his militarization in violation of the treaty, it became more and more problematic to stop him. It's the old "ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" scenario. Add to that course of events the worldwide Great Depression of the late 20's and 30s, and the isolationist bent of the Europeans and Americans, and the hope for "Peace in Our Time" so effectively(?!) promoted by Neville Chamberlain, and yes, the war became inevitable.

But, like the 9/11 ramming of the WTC, the Blitzkrieg was unthinkable. Hindsight is always 20/20, and what is obvious to historians is not so much so to contemporaries. Historians sometimes lose perspective, and forget that pivotal events can change the very sensibilities of a society/culture/nation. Prior to 9/11, Americans would in no way have tolerated the current security measures at airports. But immediately after it happened, people screamed "why didn't the government stop this?!" For that matter, people are beginning to resent them now, just under 7 years after they went into effect. But how many hijackings occur nowadays, compared to pre-9/11? For that matter, how many hijackings are acceptable, as long as the hijackers don't ram into huge buildings and kill several thousand people?

Donnie

It wasn't just Germans who didn't like the treaty. Keynes, who had been part of the British treasury staff at Versailles, also thought it was flawed.
See his The economic consequences of the peace.

I don't know about the Versailles Treaty, but normally each signator of a treaty uses a different pen for each copy (there is one in each official language). Sometimes more than one is used. They are then often preserved in museums, or given to an appropriate person. A lot of people signed Versailles and I would guess that each delegation would have used a different pen, maybe several ones.