The Treaty of Versailles – regarding only Germany resulted in territory being taken from Germany, most importantly the Polish Corridor, as there was a great German speaking mass of land, which was sorely missed. Alsace-Lorraine, Malmedy, Eupen, German South West Africa and other territories were also taken from Germany. Military terms of the treaty were that the German army be limited to no more than 100,000 men. The navy was also greatly weakened, whilst u-boat and air force were banned. Economic terms were that £6.6billion be given from Germany, as a reparation to France. Politically, Germany was humiliated and greatly weakened in their say. To decide whether the treaty was unfair and simply based on revenge, one must consider whether or not Germany was souly to blame for the war. If the answer is ‘Yes’, then it is made far easier to justify a harsh treaty. Germany had been responsible for a great loss of allied life, and also a huge loss in resources. Germany had settled two harsh treaties against France, including one after the Franco-Prussian war; this may make a harsh treaty more justifiable. Also, Germany had rejected Wilson’s fourteen points, which justifies that the treaty be harsher than Wilson’s points pushed for before the war. One could also say that Germany would have been harsh in their treaty if they had one the war.
On the other side, if one decides that Germany was not souly to blame for the war, the treaty could be more justified as too harsh. Firstly, the treaty was a dictat, meaning that Germany was there, but had no say. Secondly as Germany believed it to be harsh, the ‘seeds of future conflict had been sown’, meaning that Germany would not forget it. Also, the reparations greatly weakened the economy, leading to hyperinflation and the depression that Germany faced a few years later, and Germany never recovered fore many years. A post-war German Republic government was blamed for the faults of a pre-war monarchy. Revenge was definitely a factor, but the treaty was fair in its decisions. In terms of Germany, I feel that many of the terms were acceptable, but it was obviously too harsh in that the economy went into crisis and the country was weakened beyond repair, and this could have been avoided.
The other Treaties in the settlement were St.Germain, which dealt with Austria, Neuilly, which dealt with Hungary, Treanon, which dealt with Bulgaria, and Sevres, which dealt with Turkey. The main grievance that these countries had was the loss of territory due to the settlement. Austria’s army was reduced to 30,000, whilst Thrace and other territories were taken from it. Hungary, and Bulgaria both faced loss of territory and a limit on their military. Compared to the other countries, Turkey was relatively lucky in its loss, as it lost little land.
Clemenceau was generally very happy with the settlement – he was compensated, he gained territory, and he found revenge in the greatly weakened Germany. Lloyd George was generally happy, as Germany had been weakened- especially the navy. Wilson was not very happy at the result, as he felt the treaty to be too harsh, but he did agree that Germany should lose Alsace-Lorraine.
I feel that the other countries punished in the settlement were not treated too harshly, and that Germany was weakened beyond a necessary point, so I feel that the overall settlement was fair and decided under good intentions.
