"The treaty of Versailles represented neither a Wilson peace nor a Clemenceau peace, but a witch's brew concocted of the least palatable ingredients of each". To what extent is this judgment of the Treaty of Versailles appropriate?

Authors Avatar

Versailles Treaty Controversy

11-January-2003

22-January-2003

Roham Gharegozlou, 1oIB

           Versailles Treaty Controversy        

History Essay

The Versailles Treaty Controversy

“The treaty of Versailles represented neither a Wilson peace nor a Clemenceau peace, but a witch’s brew concocted of the least palatable ingredients of each”. To what extent is this judgment of the Treaty of Versailles appropriate?

Language:          English

Subject:          History

Teacher:      Mme Therrode

Institution:          EABJM


        

One of the most controversial and debated topics in modern history today is the issue of the Versailles Treaty: an admitted compromise by several Great Powers with vastly different aims, there is no question of its being with at least a few faults. However, there are many who maintain that the Versailles Treaty was an unacceptable treaty exactly because of its compromising nature, which weakened its impact and indeed rendered its original aims redundant.

        The Treaty of Versailles was viewed by many as a treaty to the “War to end all Wars”, and therefore it was expected to prevent any further wars from taking place in the world at large and in Europe in particular. Such was the aim that the most important Powers present at the Treaty conference had in mind. All, however, disagreed strongly on the ways to implement this peace. Therefore, “The treaty of Versailles represented neither a Wilson peace nor a Clemenceau peace, but a witch’s brew concocted of the least palatable ingredients of each”

        As stated by medieval war philosopher and statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, a peace resulting from a victory should either be completely conciliatory (as practiced by Bismarck unto Austria after their 1866 war) or utterly destructive. As will be seen, the Versailles treaty was neither:

The conference at Versailles was attended by representatives of all the Victors of the war, and also by all the ethnicities whose fate was going to be decided there. Germany, and all the other Central Powers, were not represented. It soon became apparent, however, that the main Powers deciding the future fate of Europe and the world were the United States, represented by Woodrow Wilson, Britain, represented by Lloyd George, and France, represented by Georges “The Tiger” Clemenceau. Lloyd George, after settling the issues of naval strength and reparations with Germany, did not participate dominantly in the debates, but still usually was seen as trying to restrain Clemenceau. The clashes were, as a result, mostly between Wilson’s conciliatory policies and Clemenceau’s no-yield approach to the utter annihilation of Germany as a threat to France.  

Join now!

Woodrow Wilson had joined the war for idealistic reasons on the part of his country: propaganda across America portrayed her role in the war as champion for democracy and the savior of Europe. Wilson had also formulated, prior to the German Armistice, a list of “14-Points”, based on which the latter had been signed. He wished for an extremely conciliatory peace, even one with no clear victors defined. In addition, he had no wishes to impose reparations on the German peoples, nor in any specific way, save the returning of Alsace-Lorraine and the ‘mandate’-ation of German colonies, punish Germany ...

This is a preview of the whole essay