• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles harsh and short-sighted?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Caroline Sims To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles harsh and short-sighted? The peace treaties of 1919, were an attempt to come to an agreement with the losing powers that they accept their blame and peace would be resolved while they pay the consequences. As Germany was a losing power of the war, she was made to sign the treaties and accept their consequences. This essay will examine the extent to which the Treaty of Versailles was harsh and short-sighted. I will begin with the reasons why the Treaty of Versailles can be justified. Firstly, there were three victorious powers who negotiated the peace treaties; David Lloyd George, for Britain, Woodrow Wilson, for America, and George Clemenceau, for France. The French suffered the most war damage, with the most brutal battles being fort there, including thousands of square miles of trenches dug up and 1.5 million casualties. Therefore, George Clemenceau opted for a considerably higher amount of reparations than the other two winning powers. However this was compromised and ended up at 6.6million, which was substantially lower than Clemenceau's original proposal. ...read more.

Middle

On the other hand the previous point that the allies gave up on implementing the Treaty could aid the opposing view that the terms were short-sighted because the fact that Britain, America and Italy gave up shows the Treaty to be one of which was doomed to fail. Henig argues that 'the victorious alliance, which had defeated Germany and negotiated a set of peace terms, had crumbled away. It was this critical collapse, rather than the provisions of the peace terms themselves, which ensured that the Treaty of Versailles was never fully accepted or enforced. Negotiations at the peace conference exposed the divisions between the victorious powers and opened the rifts.' This agrees with the statement that the Treaty of Versailles was shortsighted as the allies weren't strong enough to initiate it's terms. Furthermore as stated in 'The Treaty of Versailles 80 Years On', 'Britain, the United States and Italy, had little stomach to enforce the resulting settlement on a resentful and protesting Germany.' France was the only power willing to punish Germany fully and Britain was more interested in securing military budget than aiding France. ...read more.

Conclusion

Historian Anthony Wood demonstrates the extend of its impact: 'the fundamental significance of Versailles was emotional rather than rational'. He goes on to state that it indicated the desire to achieve 'national humiliation of Germany' and that Germany must 'alone suffer as a result of the hated Treaty'. From evaluating the works of several historians and my own research, I have discovered that at the time of the Treaty of Versailles, it's terms were seen as emotionally and physically punishing on Germany, who was forced to give up most economic resources, pay mass reparations and lose population. However, I feel that the terms, although already quite harsh, could have been greater. Clemenceau could have had his way in the Conference and Germany as a country would have found it much harder to recover. The Allies could have collectively pushed the terms through so that Germany couldn't limit them, meaning the terms would have had a significantly harsher effect. Then again, unable to effectively enforce this treaty, a harsher one would not have been able to lead Europe any closer to peace. Therefore I feel the Treaty of Versailles was as harsh as it could be given the circumstances of disharmony between the powers, but Germany could have faced much worse. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

This is a well balanced essay that stays focused on the question asked and uses a good range of available historiography. At times, the author's ideas get lost compared to those of historians. Ensure these are always the driving force of an essay. 4 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 26/07/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Did Oliver Cromwell achieve his objectives from 1642 to 1658?

    5 star(s)

    He abolished the "Oath of Engagement" which was introduced shortly after the execution of the king, making people sign an oath to the Republic and against the Monarchy. His acceptance of the 'Humble Petition and Advice' meant the government was extremely similar to a Monarchical government; it re-introduced a House

  2. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent was James I responsible for his financial problems?

    It got to the stage where the value of his gifts went down and therefore he would have to give out bigger and better gifts. The gifts would have become worth less because of the high rate of inflation in England at this time.

  1. Describe how Cavour, Garibaldi, Mazzini and Victor Emmanuel II helped to bring about the ...

    To avoid civil war, Garibaldi handed over his conquests in the Southern Italy to Victor Emmanuel II when the two met near the Volturno on October 26. Angered at not being named viceroy in Naples, however, Garibaldi retired to his home on Caprera, off Sardinia.

  2. Why did the Chartists fail?

    However, Parliament rejected it by 235 votes to 46. So, John Frost turned to violence in November 1839. He led 1000 people armed with clubs in the Newport Rising. It very quickly turned violent and 22 men were killed when soldiers turned up, and a further 50 were injured.

  1. To what extent was The Peasant's Revolt a direct result of The Black Death?

    Peasants worked on their lord's land, owned as much by the lord as the land was. These villeins had very few rights, could not own their own land, and were answerable entirely to the lord who owned them. After the Black Death, the position of these poorest peasants changed dramatically.

  2. 'The support of George III was the most important reason why William Pitt the ...

    Fortunately for Pitt, George III returned to health before any bill could be passed which effectively saved his position. The regency crisis is clear evidence about the importance of George III supporting the ministry of William Pitt, as whilst he was absent Pitt had to struggle to maintain his job.

  1. What Was The Main Cause Of The First English Civil War?

    The King long delayed releasing a reply until Parliament threatened to publically release the document, forcing a quick response. In spite of seemingly moderate negotiations, rumours began to circulate that Parliament had intentions of impeaching Queen Henrietta Maria. Charles was fiercely defensive of his Catholic wife and as a result

  2. To what extent did Tudor rebellions have similar causes

    They had a divide and rule policy. The most common theme that ran throughout all the politically motivated rebellions was resentment of lowborn ministers, for example, Wolsey in 1525, Cromwell in 1556 and Essex in 1601 wanted to rid parliament of Cecil 'the caterpillars of the common wealth.'

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work