The reparations clause, too, can be justified. The fighting on the Western Front (which was, as previously stated, a direct result of Germany’s Schlieffen Plan) had caused severe damage in France. Roughly one million soldiers had died, and countless numbers of homes, roads, and railways had been damaged or destroyed completely. It is therefore reasonable for France to demand reparations, especially as they were fully aware that the requested sum of £6.6 billion would never be paid fully. The Treaty also granted Alsace-Lorraine back to France, which was also, justifiable. It was the only region that was taken away from Germany and given to France permanently, and that was because it had originally been part of France, and it should be rightfully returned. It was also justifiable as elf-determination had been achieved for the French people of Alsace-Lorraine. In addition, self determination was achieved for Poles, Czechs, Slavs at Croats, to a greater extent than it had in the past.
It is also understandable that Germany’s army would be weakened to the extent that it had been. Germany had attacked France twice, in 1870 and 1914, and France felt unsafe and threatened by German military power. It is therefore easy to understand that France would want to significantly reduce the power and strength of the army, as well as making the Rhineland (an industrial area on the Franco-German border) a demilitarised zone. It was also these aggressive displays from Germany which made it understandable that they were denied a place in the League of Nations. It was justifiable, as Germany had shown that peaceful negotiations had not been her strong point. In addition, the denial of access into the League of Nations for Germany until it proved to be a peaceful nation provided incentive for Germany to settle disagreements in a non-violent manner.
At the time of the signing of the Schlieffen Plan, the British public believed that the treaty fairly served justice. However, the German population, who believed they merely agreed to ceasefire rather than having lost the war, thought that the treaty was extremely harsh and unfair. Including this, they believed that the Treaty would be based on Wilson’s fourteen points, which appealed to Germans much more than Lloyd George’s or Clemenceau’s ideas. The treaty had turned out to be very different than they had expected it to be.
The War Guilt clause was a huge insult for the German people, and the clause which angered them the most. It was, to them, unfair. They were not the only ones to blame for the war, as other nations such as Russia, Austria and Serbia had their own role to play in starting the war. Of course, it was Germany who greatly helped in escalating it, however, the initial start of the war cannot be solely blamed on Germany. In addition to this, as much as self determination had been achieved for the people of Eastern Europe, it had not been achieved for Germany. The Treaty of Versailles had been unfair as Germany had lost 10% of its land, and thousands of Germans were now living in a foreign country. Self determination had been achieved for every other nation at this point, and it was unfair for the Big Three to ignore the rights of the German People.
Furthermore, the German army was weakened to such a great extent that they could no longer defend themselves. For a large and powerful nation, 100,000 men and six battleships was from enough to keep the country protected from any attacks from other countries. It was unfair that Germany was the only major power that had to disarm, and felt that other countries had to disarm to their level in order to achieve Wilson’s point of disarmament for all nations. Also, their economy had been severely weakened, as great industrial areas in Germany had been taken away from them and given to neighbouring countries such as France and Poland. As a result of this, the country couldn’t build it’s economy, which was already suffering dramatically due to the high costs of the war.
Also, Germany shouldn’t have been denied a place in the League of Nations, as that was also seen as embarrassing and insulting by the German people. The League of Nations existed to solve issues peacefully, and had Germany been a part of it, they may be more tempted to solve their issues with other countries through it than rather through violence. However, if they are not granted entry into the League of Nations, there is no longer the option of peaceful negotiation, leading directly to the violence that the denial of access had originally been trying to avoid.
In conclusion, I believe that neither the initial reaction of the German, British or French people adequately showed how just the Treaty exactly was. It was not as harsh as Germany believed, and although a lot of land had been lost and the military had been greatly cut down, they do not realise that if Clemenceau had his way, it may have been much harsher. However, the treaty was quite harsh; the immense loss of land, splitting Germany into two, and the loss of self determination can be seen as incredibly harsh acts. The treaty did not fail because it was too harsh, as the Locarno honeymoon period proved that Germany were able to live with and accept this Treaty. In summary, although the Treaty was harsh, its harshness, for the most part, had been justifiable, and Germany did indeed deserve to be punished, but not as much as the Treaty of Versailles stated it should.
