- Both sources give the views of Lloyd George. Why do you think there are differences between the two sources?
I think there are differences between the two sources are, that source B was written during the peace conference, when everyone was feeling hatred towards Germany, and they had the opportunity to do something about it. In source C, Lloyd George was giving this speech after the peace conference, when something had been done to Germany that had had an effect on her. Also, in source B (during the peace conference), Lloyd George was worrying about what restrictions to put on Germany. They needed to be strict, so that the countries that had been affected by Germany, could feel something was being done to get back at Germany. I think that source C showed that the restrictions placed on Germany were strict enough, and that they were warnings to other nations against the perils on which the German Empire shattered itself.
3. Study Source D.
Do you think the cartoonist was sympathetic towards Wilson and his ideas?
Explain your answer, using details of the cartoon.
I don’t think the cartoonist who drew source D, was very sympathetic toward Wilson’s ideas. I think he thought they were very harsh, and he had too many of them. At Paris, Wilson tried to have every one of his decisions debated by all 32 nations. But this was too slow, and most nations were only interested in their own problems. Wider issues had to be decided by the great powers. Wilson was increasingly forced to compromise on his Fourteen Points, and had to place his hope in the League of Nations to put right any problems with the peace treaties. I think that the cartoonist was describing the dove of peace as the peace treaty, and the idea of the peace treaty was to please everyone (except of course for the countries that were being punished), and that is what the dove is trying to do. The branch symbolises the ideas of Wilson that he was putting forward to the League of Nations. The only problem is that the branch is too big, so the dove cannot cope very well with it. If everyone had got all their ideas in the treaty, you might as well have blown Germany and all her population to pieces. If that had happened then the Allies would not have got reparations payments, and although the Allies would find a way of getting the money for the rebuilding of their countries, this defeated the object of taking revenge on Germany.
4.Study Source E.
How far does this source show that Wilson failed at the Paris peace conference? Explain your answer.
I think that this source shows, that Wilson feels that they have done as much as they can, and now it is up to the gods to decide their fate. He says that ‘as no-one is happy, we have a just peace’. I think he is saying, that if one person, got everything they wanted then although that person may be happy, the other people may not, because they may have disagreed with what that person was saying. None of the victors got the peace they wanted, not least because they all wanted a different kind of peace. However, even when the nations first assembled in Paris, they were not free to shape the peace as they wished. Wilson was one of the victors who did not get everything they wanted. Not all his ‘fourteen points were debated by the representatives from each country, so he felt that he was not satisfied with the outcome of the treaty.
5. Study Sources F & G.
Do you think the authors of Sources F & G would have agreed with each other about the Treaty of Versailles?
Explain your answer.
The author of Source F feels that the Treaty of Versailles is just an armistice for fifteen years. The countries being punished will just wait for fifteen years, thinking of ways to get back at the Allies. Then when fifteen years is up they will take revenge. Basically they think the peace treaty is just a piece of paper with a bit of ink splashed across it.
The author of Source G is an American journalist, who feels that the Wilson was not to be blamed for the action taken at the end of the peace conference. He feels that Wilson did his best to ensure that the principles America felt should guide the peace making when the war ended, would be put in the treaty. America had such high hopes; and now, at the end, they are acting like the Germans did in the war, starving people, grabbing territory – or helping to grab it for our friends – standing by while the grand gesture of revenge and humiliation is made.
6. Study Source H.
Do you find this a reliable judgement on the Treaty of Versailles?
Explain your answer.
Every head of the five-headed monster in Source H, are representing the main Allies at the peace conference. The heads are Britain, France, America, Italy, and Japan. I think that the middle head (the one that is feeding off the body of Germany) is supposed to be France, because they felt the most hatred towards Germany. France had borne the brunt of the fighting on the Western front. Much of north-east France had been devastated. The Germans had systematically looted areas under their occupation, and deliberately destroyed mines, railways, factories and bridges during their retreat. The depiction of the Allies as a five-headed monster and of them being one, was I feel, to symbolise their unification, and their power over Germany. But as this is a German cartoon the cartoonist portrayed the Allies as a monster, as this is the way the Germans see them.
So, feel that this is both a reliable, and unreliable judgement on the Treaty of Versailles depending on whom you ask.
7. Study all the sources.
How far do these sources indicate that the peace treaties were justified at that time?
Use the sources to explain your answer.
Most of the sources are from 1919, and this was the time in which the Peace Treaty of Versailles was completed. An armistice was put in place while the representatives from each of the Allies countries thought of terms on which Germany could be punished, in a way that would get reparations payments, land and other things from her that would pay back the Allies so they could re-build their lives.
Most of the sources state that at the time, the Treaty of Versailles was totally justified. The reasons were, that the Allies wanted revenge for the terrible damage and injury inflicted on them, and they felt that the terms of the treaty went some way to compensating for the terrible losses of life, land and freedom.
The treaty was an attempt to make sure this sort thing didn’t happen again. They resolved this by disarming and punishing the alleged aggressors. But it was only an armistice for fifteen years, and when the fifteen years was up there was the possibility of revenge.
It also showed the world that if anyone tried to take over another land and destroy its freedom, democracy and human rights, they couldn’t get away with it, and should expect to pay.
It was easy to see it as justified from the Allies side, but there were the ordinary people of Germany to consider. Whilst it was easy to feel the military and financial restrictions were justified at the time, by today’s standards it appears rather short sighted and harsh, for example: the devaluation of the German economy caused by the German government, printing huge amounts of worthless bank notes to pay off reparations, had a devastating effect on the lives of ordinary men, women and children.
Whilst the terms may seem harsh to us today, I am quite sure that people living at the time, who experienced terrible loss and devastation would feel it was more than justified, against what they must have seen to be a totally evil and hostile race.