An emphasis of the German problem is made in the opening of interpretation A where an account of the Brest-Litovsk treaty is given. This shows the principle of expansion that the Germans follow. Versailles can hence be seen as a necessity in controlling the overly ambitious Germans.
Therefore passage A is invalid by arguing that Versailles destroying the German pride was the cause of conflict as Germans needed to be weakened or they would have created more problems if left to their own devices. Most importantly, Brest-Litovsk is a typical example of the nature of most treaties including Versailles. It underlines the advantage that the winning party possesses. The implication that if Germans can exercise such treatments to other countries then it is right for them to be treated the same when they happen to be on the receiving end is created. Interpretation A is limited in the sense that it doesn’t pinpoint whether the peacemakers are to be criticised. Nonetheless, the passage acknowledges that the punitive terms set by the peacemakers’ rarely ensured peace but instilled an irrevocable bitterness in the Germans and this “desire to reverse the judgement of Versailles” meant that conflict was forthcoming. This sums Versailles up as ineffective from the beginning because of its harsh nature which mostly embittered Germany rather than ensuring a lasting peace.
Unlike Overy with Andrew, Macmillan pinpoints her judgements on the cause of conflict and she does not see the role of the peacemakers as a significant cause of war. She is valid in arguing that Hitler’s actions greatly contributed to conflict as witnessed in 1939 when he invaded Poland causing further problems. However she fails to recognise that Versailles equally had an effect on problems that followed. This is a limitation in her argument and is perhaps deliberate as admitting that Versailles had a grave impact on Germany would contradict her view that Versailles had little influence on the recovered Germany’s oppressive attitude. She instead sees the treaty as a tool which Hitler used neatly in propaganda. This argument is correct as Hitler did use propaganda as a tactic and an example is the German public who at that time supported expansion as they believed it was Germany’s “place in the sun”. 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. This validates Macmillan view that Hitler did play more of a role in causing problems than the peacemakers did and certainly the results of Hitler’s actions far outweighs the problems created by the peacemakers.
Ferguson’s interpretation gives a sense of the breakdown and instability created by self determination. He presents the view that the territorial changes and the principle of self determination were flawed. Ferguson’s judgement that self determination was unwise is correct and this is supported by the fact presented in the passage which shows that over thirteen million Germans were spread out over Eastern Europe. Examples of this were the German town Memel given to Lithuania and the formation of Poland where over 75,000 Germans reside. Interpretation D unmistakably points out that self determination was hypocritical and this statement is legitimate as the peacemakers promoted it in other states but herald it as inapplicable to their own empires. In particular were the British, whose empires totalled about a quarter of the world’s population. This crafts Versailles out as unfair as stated in the passage, it was hypocrisy “in the way Germany was treated” and this undoubtedly led to further resentment of the peacemakers by Germany making the prospects of future conflict likely.
Ferguson goes on to exclaim that self determination in effect was more of an advantage and in the future it did give Germany more reason to expand which led to conflict. His judgement is valid as seen in the case of Sudetenland where over three million Germans resided and Hitler used this as a reason to take that area. It did prove fatal as it strengthened Hitler’s momentum by giving him more space and resources. In showing the defects of self determination, Ferguson’s view is further supported by the passage where self determination led to internal conflict between the polish and Germans thus he is correct in stating that the peacemakers caused problems. However, it also strongly shows the complexity of the situation and as Macmillan stated, they had to “deal with reality” and in reality, the colonies were a crucial to Germany dominance. In this context, Ferguson’s judgement is questionable as the peacemakers deserve more credit than he gives for addressing the “far from easy” German problem. Self determination brought on chaos and disorder and the mix of different races like presented in the passage brought on instability and conflict.
Interpretation B concedes that the peacemakers wrongly implemented Versailles. Sharp accepts that peacemakers did not allow “Germany to expand” thus implying that Versailles was somewhat effective. Nonetheless, he does not neglect the deficiencies of the treaty as he correctly underlines that Versailles ironically put Germany in a stronger position than it was before. This argument is correct as altering Germany with the intention of making it weaker only made the smaller surrounding states vulnerable. This is seen in the case of Austria where Hitler easily annexed it with Germany. This strengthens Sharp’s view that the peacemakers were unsuccessful in destroying Germany and they deserve to be criticised for it led to future conflict.
Sharp states that “the system collapsed in the 1930’s” further highlighting the ineffectiveness of the peacemakers. This is valid as there was no real sense of security, the League of Nations proved futile without any army. There was no direction in the way Versailles would be implemented which explains why it was easy for Germany to infringe the terms of Versailles. Sharp is hence correct in blaming the peacemakers because they should have been less “severe” in the way Germany is punished and less “lenient” in the way Versailles is implemented to prevent future conflict. 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.