Overall, the entire ordeal infuriated the country and was seen by her as unjust and unfair. There was a great uproar in response to Germany having to take the blame for the war. The Germans pointed out that other countries, for example Russia in supporting Serbia against Austria-Hngary, had helped cause the war, and therefore it is not fair to lay all the blame upon Germany alone. They were ofcourse also very distressed by the reparations themselves, which depleted the citizen's lives and wages, and the fact that the price due was so high. Having her land reduced both inside and outside Germany also meant that there were less means for attaining the money required - for example, less raw materials. It was also felt that the terms on Germany's military was very unfair; they would have perhaps accepted their forces being lowered by a percentage, but forcing them to cut down to just 100,000 men, etc., was regarded as ridiculous; how would they defend themselves if, for example, the communists attacked? What outraged the Germans further is that, unlike in 'Wilson's Fourteen Points', the Allies and other countries were not put under the same 'disability' (the Allies, etc., did not have to reduce their military).
Therefore, it could be argued that Germany's objections were justified; the reparations demanded were far too high, finally being fixed at £6,600 million - £660 billion in modern rates - in 1921. Soon, people in Germany had to pay almost double for necessities such as food. In some places within the country people actually died of starvation, and often the only Germans living well would be the farmers, who provisioned their own food and sold or traded it. A source tells of incidents in which people who carried money in baskets would rather throw out the money than the basket. The sheer rate of inflation was overwhelming. The fact that Germany had her colonies overseas taken away and had lost so much land didn't aid at all with the enormous reparations, and this infuriatd Germany all the more.
Also, the issue of blame was entirely unjust - it takes more than one country to start a war, and this was no exeption. However, these reasons appear shrimped by the opposition. For starters, Germany had encouraged the war throughout and before it even began; eg, the 'blank-check' she gave to Austria-Hungary, promising her support if there was to be a war. In addition, Germany does seem to be largely responsible for the war of that time, though the staggering clash of interests persist that eventual war would have been inevitable, as it had directly triggered and planned for it; the Schlieffen Plan. Surely this indicated that the Germans were responsible for the excrutiatingly long war. Also, when Russia split from the war, the 'Treaty of Brest-Litovsk', March 1918, forced on her by Germany was extremely severe, cutting a third of the Russian population and economy; there was evidence showing that Britain and France would have received equally harsh treaties had the outcome of the war been in Germany's favour.
So, what is the closing verdict; was this treaty fair on Germany and her people, or was it demanding too much? The final treaty had attempted to satisfy each prevailing country's demands; France (French Premier, Clemenceau) was at the source of the 'harshness' within the agreement, seeking vengeance for the dire loss of life and land it had suffered during the war, Britain (Prime Minister, David Llyos George) wanted to punish the Germans but not to the same degree as the French, whilst America (President Woodrow Wilson) originally wished for a more peaceful solution, but ultimately isolated herself from the Allies, regarding the entire issue with far less concern. Conclusively, the treaty set upon Germany was very demanding and unfair to the many citizens of the country who had been against the war or not part of it; however, the agreement could have been worse, much worse in comparison if contrasted with German issued treaties.
