To what extent do you agree with the treaty of Versailles related to Germany was justified both Politically and Morally?

Andrew Ho How justified was the 01/05/2007

Treaty of Versailles

To what extent do you agree with the treaty of

Versailles related to Germany was justified both

Politically and Morally?

After the First World War (or the great war) the German sued for peace this peace treaty was to be held at Versailles, which is just outside Paris. Although this seemed a fairly natural place to have the peace agreement it was also the French getting back at the Germans. The Germans had held a peace treaty at the end of the Franco Prussian war (1870-71) at Versailles and this for said treaty was very humiliating to the French in both the terms and the fact that they had lost to the newly founded Germany; It was also a practical place for all the leaders to come to. The treaty had several main clauses these were that the Germans had to accept the war guilt and they had to pay reparations to all the allies except Russia who had drooped out of the war. The Germans also had to reduce the size of her armed forces from what it was at the end of the war to one hundred thousand men, she also was not allowed conscription, armoured vehicles aircraft or submarines, she was also limited to six battleships and was forced to demilitarise the Rhineland (all of this was on the condition that all the other countries in the treaty would also disarm as soon as possible however Germany had to disarm immediately). The German empire also loses out for all of their colonies are given to Great Britain. However Germany her self also loses some land both to the eats and to west firstly for the creation of the new state of Poland on the eastern front which splits Germany into two pieces this is because the league thought that is was important for the new Poland to have a passage to the sea and that passage led to the city of Dazing. On the western front, the league ruled the Saarland for 15 years until 15 years later when it would be given the right of self-determination. Alsace and Lorraine also became properties for France rather than Germany. Many people today same the treaty of Versailles was unjust however they make this judgement with the aid of hindsight. As I have already said many people do object to the treaty of the Versailles however it is only for two of its clauses that people have big objections about these two clauses are firstly reparations and secondly war guilt there is also a slight bit of controversy over separating Germany into two however not many people have a problem with this.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Firstly then reparations, at the time of the treaty of Versailles everyone thought that Germany should pay reparations even people like Woodrow Wilson. However in this agreement there were many disagreement with France being very extreme suggesting the sum of 3 billion pounds for just France, and the U.S.A. being very lapse. There was of course a middle ground and Britain stood there however they were swayed more to the French by the public opinion of the British public. Of course all of the countries had financial advisors to calculate how much it would cost Germany however they all seem to have had different opinions thus it is very probable that they influenced by their governments and put out the figure that suited them. There was also I many countries a !reparations commission which was set up there was one fo these in Britain and it was chaired by Mr. W.M. Hughes who was the prime minister of austalia and there were 7 other notable people on it these included Governer of the Bank of England who was Lord Cunliffe. There was alsio an international commission that was set up to give the final figure of reparations this was basically filled with all the finance ministers of each of the countries this commission was called the “Reparations commison” and was enforced under article 233 of the treaty of Versailles. The end figure for the amount of reparations that Germany had to pay was annouce1d by the commission on April the 26th,1921: “ Capital liability –132,000,000,000 gold marks, to be settled by the issue of bonds. Germany to pay 2,000,000,000 gold marks per annum, plus 26 per cent of the value of German exports”.1

This amounted to

The first argument for Germany to pay reparations of such a huge amount was put down by the British prime minister David Lloyd George he said, “But the countries (Germany and Austria Hungry) that deliberately plunge into that risk (war) cannot complain if it goes against them for they have chosen the most precarious and expensive method of procedure. Because they are better equipped and trained for its rules and intricacies than any of their adversaries.”2 This of course is a point worth thinking about for it certainly justifies the need to have reparitons for Germany. The argument for having reparations is that the Germany has to pay damages for the damage she has caused (this is or course what reparations means compensation for war damage by the deafet state3 ). Thus there would seemingly be no problem for Germany to pay a ceratin amount of money for reparations thus the condition for paying repartion is justified.

There is however the big problem as to how much Germany would have to pay in reparations. The amount that Germany had to pay did vary massovly with huge hyperboles from some of the powers e.g. the French finance minister M. Klotz estimated the damage done to France to be £5,360,000,000 however later the British ambasoder in paris estimated the damages to be about £859,000,000 which is almost 14 billion pounds less and some made huge understatements for example the one of the leading people in finance in America estimated it at only £3,000,000,000 which is tiny compared to the actual sum.

Page