To add to the disarmament term, the Germans were told to destroy all of their current fortifications/bridges and place there miniscule, volunteer (so that the military training of an average person was only of a standard, as is the amount who received such tuition) army 50 kilometres from the border of the controversial Rhineland as well as allowing French and British armies to occupy around the river Rhine. This antagonised the Germans as the last thing the wanted was to effectively ‘give’ an important land to their victorious to sit and watch their every move- they wanted them out!
Furthermore, there was an additional clause (231) that the Germans felt they were again forced to accept. The ‘War Guilt’ clause meant the Germans had to agree to starting the whole war (of which they did not believe) therefore it provided the support for The Big Three’ (Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George) to demand larger reparations etc from them. The clause is still one that is argued today by many historians! The eagerness and alleged greediness of some of the victorious representatives irritated Germany hugely. The believe that they were being wronged and that the others were not abiding to Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918)- of which they had secretly hoped would release the pressure off them as Wilson famously asked for a ‘fair and just peace’. The Germans also felt that Woodrow Wilson continued to be hypocritical as he did not allow ‘Anschluss’ (the union of Germany and Austria) of where the Germans and Austrians regarded each other as one nationality and according to Wilson’s National Self-Determination pledge, should be allowed to merge as one.
The loss of German territory was severe hit to them. The Germans hated the fact they were now divided from East Prussia by the Polish Corridor and had lost an import port (Danzig) of which was economically rewarding for Germany in past times. (To state the statistics, Germany lost 10% of its territory, 13% of its economic producing industries, 10% of is population and about 40% of all its natural resources). Eupen-Malmedy was given to Belgium, Alsace-Lorraine (the extremely successful industry) was given back to France, Northern Schleswig was given to Denmark, land was also given to Czechoslovakia and West Prussia, Posen and Upper Silesia was given to Poland. All these lands were valuable or historical and were reluctantly lost by the Germans. In addition, The Saarland coal mines were put under the control of the League of Nations- association formed by the worlds’ major powers- but came to be exploited by France and in certain regions people were allowed the vote (plebiscite) to stay in Germany or not. The League of Nations also took control of Germany's overseas colonies (underlying: controlled by France and Britain through Mandates). Germany also had to return some Russia land taken in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918).
Still, another nationally hated term of the Treaty was that of the reparations. The sum £6.6 billion was decided slightly after the actual Treaty, and was told to be paid in gold, coal and ships (etc) as well as cash. The Germans believed this sum was over-estimated and was impossible to pay. The country suffered from huge economic recession and without its industry and resources for trading, it had no obvious source of income. The whole country was over wrought by unemployment, starvation and general poverty. The Germans have always disagreed profusely over the reparations and felt that they were being exploited massively. As we can see, the general German public despised the Treaty of the Versailles as it came to affect them in an unforgivable way.
Many understandable factors caused many effects (to name: the French invasion of the Ruhr after a missed reparation deadline, the economic recession and Hitler’s rise to power then onto World War II) that can be clearly pinpointed as stemming from the Treaty of Versailles. However many argue that despite Germany’s arguing, the Treaty was actually very fair.
-Was Germany’s Treatment Really So Unfair?
There are many points that the Germans have expressed to show evidence of unfair treatment in the Treaty of Versailles, however they were easily countered by the retorts of the victors.
As said above, Germany always felt it was not solely responsible for the war. They argued that countries had also been aggressively concocting war plans leading up to 1914. On the other hand, the victors retorted that in the very beginning of any confliction internationally (the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Austria) Germany showed blatant support for Austria-Hungary if it were to declare war on Serbia. A secret alliance was formed producing anxiety in the west of Europe WHICH THEN lead to the creation of the Triple Entente. Therefore this proves that the war guilt clause is justified, although does not prove it to be entirely Germany’s fault.
Another conflicting matter was of Great Britain continuing to blockade Germany through the period leading up to the Treat of Versailles- and of the restriction of German representatives inside the Paris Peace Conference (‘Diktat’). This left Germany in dire conditions even after the armistice, leaving Great Britain immorally wrong: and showing that they wished to deconstruct Germany further. Comparatively, countries internationally feared the rise of left-wing communism inside Germany and felt that the Treaty needed to be written and signed as quickly as possible, so that Germany can concentrate on becoming peaceful within it. This meant putting pressure on Germany to agree. This is a crude method of blackmail but was very necessary.
However, the argument that supports Germany’s plea was of the numerous acts of hypocrisy of the League of Nations (i.e. USA never joined the League of Nations). At paramount, Germany was forced to disarm and was told that as part of the 14 Points, the rest of the world (including Great Britain, America and France) were to disarm as well. This never happened leaving it unfairly vulnerable to other nations. Furthermore, Germany found the loss of their land grossly unjust. They argued that without their industrial areas, such as Alsace-Lorraine or Danzig, they could never pay the grossly unjust reparation bills. Yet, The Big Three stated that the new states formed (or land rightfully returned to previous owners) was all part of National Self-Determination* (the act of allowing nationalities to be run by there own nationalities!) and was wanted by the people. They also found the removing and controlling of their colonies unfair and said it contradicts the National Self-Determination rule, but the victors replied that they were under mandates; meaning they would teach the colonies to be civilised and once they are able to run independently they would let them. Nevertheless, the Germans argued again on the point of National Self-Determination, asking why they were told ‘No Anschluss’ (as said above). But the truth of the entire matter was that these 14 Points of Wilson’s were offered to Germany in 1918 but was refused by the Germans as they secretly believed they could still win the entire war. They undertook several strategies after, such as the Ludendorff Offensive, the scuttling of ships and the attacking of an Irish mail steamer, all causing unnecessary deaths and prolonging the war for everyone. Finally, after armistice was declared, the Germans insolently asked for the 14 Points to be obeyed (even though they discarded them before) but it was obvious they had lost the right.
Another example of Germany’s tainted views was when they were defiant against the taking of territory and natural resources. However, in March 1918 in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty between Russia and Germany, it was evident that Germany had been too harsh, taken plenty of Russia’s natural resources; yet was asking for leniency onto them! Plus, Germany’s aims in war, written in the September 1914 programme were recovered, showing Germany’s plans to take Belgium and North of France for themselves. This is extremely hypocritical, showing the Germany’s selfishness, greed and manipulative mind during and post war.
Moving onto a major topic of reparations, we can see the huge difference in views from both sides. The Germans believed it was outrageously unfair, but The Big Three believed it had been approached rationally during the extra time they took to calculate it. Many influential people over the world felt it could have been worse by plenty but Germany’s case strengthened as later on, they suffered a huge economic recession which led to national starvation of the general public. Germany fell behind in the reparations payment therefore France felt they had to invade Ruhr to force Germany to pay up: as well as causing chaos at the same time. These are certain knock-on affects that hint that maybe certain parts of the Treaty were not fool-proof. Yet, the truth of the matter was that Germany in the end paid very little of the £6.6 billion.
We can see there were no easy solutions and that this controversial issue could be argued for a long time. There is a quote that I believe is very true of this situation, it is by W. Carr, a historian who wrote:
“Severe as the Treaty of Versailles seemed to many Germans, it should be remembered that Germany might easily have fared worse.” I also think that at the time it may have seemed irrational and we know –from the benefit of hindsight- that it was a huge contributor to World War II. The collection of all terms spurred revenge inside most Germans but I believe that actions they did just before the end of the war were severely unjust and require a certain degree of punishment. Overall, the Treaty of Versailles was fair in itself but the uncalculated knock-on affects that stemmed from it has weakened its case.
