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

Versailles Treaty- evaluation of sources

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The terms of Versailles stirred different opinions on whether it was the correct approach in dealing with Germany and how successful these would be in maintaining peace. Collectively, all the passages reflect this view as the historians are divided on which events supposedly caused problems. Typically in some accounts, such as interpretation B and D, the peacemakers are criticised for creating problems whilst in interpretation C, Macmillan blames it on another factor which is Hitler's desire to expand. Interpretation A gives a balance by showing the German problem on one side and the resentment caused by Versailles on the other. However, there is no question that the circumstances in 1918 were incredibly complex and it was difficult to reach a resolution that would be accepted by all parties. The end of the First World War was the beginning of a complicated process for the peacemakers which involved maintaining peace as a foremost priority along with achieving their individual goals. Overy with Wheatcroft analyse the drastic change in Germany's power as they shifted from "industrial prosperity and national pride" to "political uncertainty and economic stagnation". Their report is credible as before Versailles, Germany's industry flourished with a strong foundation in coal, iron and steel. It was in effect the strongest nation in Europe with great influence on its surrounding states such as Austria and Poland. Having this opportunity, Germany exercised its power to expand as seen with Russia in this passage which brought on conflict. ...read more.

Middle

Even so, Macmillan wrongly dismisses the significance of Versailles in causing future conflict. Germany suffered huge losses and it was predictable that an attempt would be made to reverse the terms of Versailles. There was distrust between Germany and the peacemakers and unfortunately Versailles made Germany ever more anxious to restore its position and in doing so conflict was highly probable. Macmillan's judgement is further dismissed by the remilitarisation of Rhineland where the peacemakers took no action against Hitler boosting his confidence in German strength. Hence her reasoning that the peacemakers are not to be criticised is not credible as these events outline that the peacemakers were weak and ineffective which consequently encouraged Hitler to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland and ultimately led to the Second World War. The peacemaker's role wasn't a sole reason for conflict and Macmillan correctly indicates that the events leading to conflict were many and cannot be put down to Versailles. Her judgement is authentic as surely it could not have been only Versailles in 1919 that enabled the development of all the events that led to the Second World War in 1939. For instance, the Godesberg event in 1938, (Hitler requested for the right to occupy Sudetenland earlier than agreed) Hitler was more interested in his demands than keeping peace. Moreover, despite his infringement of the reparation and disarmament clauses, Britain tried to uphold peace by appeasement. The Young plan in 1929 helped ease the burden of reparation but as interpretation A concludes he still "wanted more" suggesting that the cause of conflict was further rooted than just Versailles. ...read more.

Conclusion

Unlike the other historians Sharp recognises that Versailles was mainly dominated with topics of "war guilt, reparations and disarmament" and in pursuing these aims, Sharp states that they failed to "foster a new democratic Germany". This argument is invalid as after the exclusion of the Kaiser, the new government formed was democratic and Sharp wrongly overlooks this development. Germany did fall back to being a dictatorship but this was due to the unfortunate event of the World Street Crash in 1929. This took the attention of Germany and allowed it time to re-emerge as a dictatorship. Sharp is therefore incorrect in blaming the peacemakers for not ensuring democracy in Germany. Interpretation B sums up the view that the peacemakers could have been more effective and because of the weak review of Versailles peace couldn't be upheld for long. The causes of conflict in my opinion developed over a period of time after the First World War. The treaty of Versailles does have a role in this as the problems that occurred such as Germany's attempts to regain what is lost is due to the terms of Versailles. This made Hitler aware of his stronghold and consequently made him more confident to pursue his aims of expansion. In doing so, Hitler became more of a reason why the Second World War came about as he cared more about his goals than upholding the peace. Poor international relations, the harsh judgement of Versailles and the German problem meant that keeping peace after the First World War was ever more difficult and eventually it climaxed into the Second World War. ...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 Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

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

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 Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Hitlers Germany

    The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, totaling some half million, were virtually exterminated. By comparison with this horrific tally of dead, the Western Allies suffered relatively light casualties in proportion to their populations: * France 520,000 (military and civilian dead), * Britain 390,000 (dead, including 60,000 civilians), * U.S.A.

  2. Why was the league so ineffective in dealing with the Abyssinian Crisis?

    The whole idea of the league was to stop aggressors and yet here they were trying to come to some sort of deal with them. Because of these meetings Mussolini thought that both Britain and France wouldn't object at Italy gaining another African colony of its own as both Britain and France had colonies of their own.

  1. Why was the league so ineffective in dealing with the Abyssinian Crisis?

    Abyssinia would be split up with Italy getting the fertile lands and a large area to the south would be reserved for Italian economic advancement. Neither Italy nor Abyssinia was involved in these "talks". These "talks" were then leaked to the press.

  2. What was the short term significance of the Treaty of Versailles on the emergence ...

    the Freikorps and the dangerous state of affairs, which is supported by the source showing freikorps violence. This cartoon is in a communist paper, however given they would be aware of the situation, it's more likely its purpose was to shock Germans as part of propaganda to sympathise with them and thus gain support through this highly emotive cartoon.

  1. Assess the short-term significance of the Treaty of Versailles.

    The image may have been used simply for informative, journalistic purposes or it may have used as a method of propaganda to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the Weimar Republic. Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, leader of the German delegation to Versailles, predicted a more severe effect three years earlier.

  2. The Holocaust was the result of Hitlers long held grand design to pursue a ...

    This source is extremely valuable in assessing the main contentions of the consensus argument; Ian Kershaw?s view is the result of the culmination of more than three decades of meticulous historiographical research on Nazi Germany, making the source extremely reliable.

  1. How accurate is it to suggest that the Treaty of Versailles was mainly responsible ...

    still had to pay for the majority of it, as well as trying to get their own country to recover. After the war, the German economy was already in a bad state, with many forms of industry completely destroyed. Therefore, Germany knew that it was going to struggle to pay

  2. Using all four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that the peacemakers ...

    Source D gives evidence to support source A?s claim that the flaws in the peace treaties were main reason for subsequent conflict, it is clear both authors agree that the peacemakers of Versailles deserve to be criticized for creating problems that brought on a further conflict as source D states

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