英文を訳して下さい。

質問

Finally, Evans argued that it is untrue that Versailles caused the premature end of the Republic, instead contending that it was the Great Depression of the early 1930s that put an end to German democracy. He also argued that Versailles was not the "main cause" of National Socialism and the German economy was "only marginally influenced by the impact of reparations".
Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty—such as Poles or Czechs—it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours.
Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi Party.[citation needed] The German historian Detlev Peukert wrote that Versailles was far from the impossible peace that most Germans claimed it was during the interwar period, and though not without flaws was actually quite reasonable to Germany. Rather, Peukert argued that it was widely believed in Germany that Versailles was a totally unreasonable treaty, and it was this "perception" rather than the "reality" of the Versailles treaty that mattered. Peukert noted that because of the "millenarian hopes" created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash. Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles. Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles.
French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.

回答No.1

Nakay702 · ベストアンサー

＞Finally, Evans argued that it is untrue that Versailles caused the premature end of the Republic, instead contending that it was the Great Depression of the early 1930s that put an end to German democracy. He also argued that Versailles was not the "main cause" of National Socialism and the German economy was "only marginally influenced by the impact of reparations".
⇒エヴァンスは最後に、ベルサイユが（ドイツ）共和国の早期終焉を引き起こしたというのは真実ではない、そうでなくて、ドイツの民主主義を終らせたのは1930年代の大恐慌なのだと主張した。彼はまた、ベルサイユが国家社会主義の「主な原因」ではなく、ドイツ経済が「賠償によって受けた影響はほんのわずかであった」と主張した。

＞Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty—such as Poles or Czechs—it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours.
⇒エヴァ・トンプソンは、この条約によって中欧および東欧の多くの国が圧制的なドイツ統治から解放されることが可能になったが、西洋の歴史学者はドイツの見解を理解することにより強い関心を抱くあまり、しばしばこの事実を無視しがちである、と指摘している。条約が成立した結果として ― ポーランド人やチェコ人のように ― 自由になった国々では、この条約は、より攻撃的な大国家が小国家に対して仕かけた悪事に関する認識の象徴のように見られている。

＞Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi Party.[citation needed] The German historian Detlev Peukert wrote that Versailles was far from the impossible peace that most Germans claimed it was during the interwar period, and though not without flaws was actually quite reasonable to Germany. Rather, Peukert argued that it was widely believed in Germany that Versailles was a totally unreasonable treaty, and it was this "perception" rather than the "reality" of the Versailles treaty that mattered.
⇒現代の戦略的ないし経済的分析にもかかわらず、条約によって引き起こされた憤りが大きな心理的根拠となって、最終的にナチス党が増大した〔要出典〕。ドイツの歴史家デトレヴ・ペウカートは、ベルサイユは不可能な和平（案）であるどころか、ほとんどのドイツ人が戦争期間中に求めていたし、実際、彼らにとってそれは欠陥もなく、かなり合理的なものだった。むしろ、ドイツでベルサイユが完全に不合理な条約であると広く信じられているが、問題はベルサイユ条約の「現実」ではなく、この「認識」（の仕方）なのである、とペウカートは主張した。
※この段落、よく分かりません。誤訳の節はどうぞ悪しからず。

＞Peukert noted that because of the "millenarian hopes" created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash. Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles.
⇒ペウカートは指摘した。第一次世界大戦中にドイツで創設された「千年の希望」のために、ドイツが今にも全ヨーロッパを征服するように見えたとき、第一次世界大戦で敗戦したドイツ帝国に連合国が課したいかなる平和条約も、ドイツ国家主義の反発を引き起こしたに違いなかったし、その反発を避けるために連合国がなし得ることは何もなかったのだ。その点に留意して、ペウカートはこう論評した。グスタヴ・シュトレーゼマンが1923年から1929年の間に実施した西欧列強諸国との和解友好政策は、ドイツがヨーロッパでより積極的な役割を果たす可能性を内包した建設的政策であったのだから、1919年のベルサイユのせいでドイツ民主制が死を宣告されたというのは真実でない。

＞Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles.
　French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.
⇒ペウカートは、最後に、ワイマール共和国を終らせたのは「ベルサイユ条約」でなく、「大恐慌」であり、ドイツ国内の自立主義政策への転換であると主張した。
　フランスの歴史家ライモン・カチエは、スデテンランドとポーゼン‐西プロシアの何百万人ものドイツ人が、敵対的な環境下で外国の支配下に置かれており、当局による嫌がらせと権利侵害が文書に記録されている、と述べている。

お礼

回答ありがとうございました。