Versailles Treaty- evaluation of sources

Authors Avatar

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. Its army totalled to some 3.8 million men at the start of WW1 and its navy was just as powerful as the British navy. However as correctly designated by Overy with Wheatcroft, the terms of Versailles “shattered” a once proud nation and the German’s bitterness over this made conflict likely. For example, Germany lost all of its colonies, its army was limited to the mere number of 100,000 men and they lost land to Poland and France. As correctly presented in interpretation A, there was certainly “political instability” due to the exile of the Kaiser and it proved uneasy to replace a dictatorship that dominated for decades with democratic principles. Economic stagnation followed due the loss of resources together with paying reparation of £6,600,000. These collectively led to tension and disorder and this is presented in interpretation D where the confusion of the situation is outlined. Almost all of Eastern Europe was affected by the decisions made in Versailles bringing to mind its role in creating the disorder which made conflict possible. Interpretation A accepts that Germany was facing many changes all on the judgement of Versailles which destroyed the “German pride and made Germany the pariah of Europe”. In this light, these historians present the view that Versailles did not ensure peace as much as it embittered Germany making conflict in the future inevitable.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay