I think that although it was harsh that Bulgaria, Germany, Austria, Hungary had to admit it was their fault the war happened, as it was really an accident waiting to happen. It was defiantly to be expected; the press, and the public were getting behind Lloyd George (British PM) and Clemenceau (French leader) to make the enemy pay in all senses for what they did. Many lives had been lost and to get some closure the public would want the enemy to admit they had done wrong and it was their fault, everything was their fault. If Germany had won then they would have the same. This is not unfounded, they did the same in-fact they probably set the standard for the future treaties in 1917 when they made Russia pay many reparations and sign War Guilt when Russia pulled out of the war. So I think the war guilt was fair.
The fact the countries had to pay reparations was also completely fair in my mind, for the war guilt I looked at two sides of the argument but for paying reparations there is very little argument to say that reparations shouldn’t be paid. That argument is that all countries suffered damages so they should call it even, and it is nearly impossible to put a sum on what should be paid. But the fact that the nations lost the war means they should reimburse the winning nations losses, they lost the war, they need to think twice about starting another war, they need to pay money, it is unfair for the winning nations to pay for damages to their own property. Yes, they damaged the enemy but the enemy lost the war, now lets make them suffer the repercussions! That would have been the attitude and I agree with it, it is justified, why should you suffer when you have the power to recoup your losses from other nations. Although this sounds harsh, in this circumstance/context it is not. As it is easy to sit at a computer, with a left wing state of mind and write about what should have done but in reality the people were bitter and vengeful and they wanted the enemy to pay for the damage it did.
The disarmament of all nations was most fair in my opinion, the best way to prevent a war is to ensure there is no material or personnel to invade or fight with. Although this lost a lot of jobs for people who worked in the army and left countries vulnerable to attack, The League of Nations aim was to stop future invading so that this wouldn’t be a problem and these disarmaments would probably be slowly eased as time progressed and the enemy states became trustworthier. If a country has a small army it cannot attack other nations, that was the reason and it was a just one.
The problems were that France invaded Germany in 1922 laying to waste any peaceful League of Nations ideas and principles. Also there was not a careful enough watch on t he armies by the League, and Germany slowly grew their armies larger then the set parameters which gave them confidence to expand their armies especially after they became a member of The League therefore becoming ‘more trustworthy’ so there was less attention paid to the growing army.
The fact that land was lost from the enemy states was in some parts quite harsh in others understandable, for example Germany losing its major coal mines was harsh as it gave them little chance to rebuild their economy from their natural resources. Although the winning states were looking to benefit from winning the war but only looking at the short term, i.e. money and land, they would have lost German as a strong trading partner for years to come leading their economy to fall as Germany couldn’t buy their produce (as Lloyd George originally thought). Austria and Hungary lost a lot of land to decrease their strength, as an empire, which in reality was disintegrating anyway, meaning they would pose less of a threat in future years, this, was brutally harsh and perhaps unfair as it lost them population and land and destroyed what they had fought for all those years ago but again was a sure-fire bet to stop any vengeance being taken as they wouldn’t have the people or strength to do it. So it was fair in that respect, but losing land is more permanent, so was harsher, money can be re-earned but you can never get your land back without fighting really, so it was a eternal blow.
Austria and Germany being stopped from trading or allying with each other was another measure taken, although I think this was a little harsh but as they were the main allies against what we as British would call the allies, (Britain, France, Italy, Russia, America, Belgium) so stopping a future alliance would seem like a fair idea. But again it restricted what trading they could do economically, and basically just branded them as fellow evil conspirators now banned from talking together like to children separated to opposite ends of the room in class.
In conclusion I would say the peace treaties were not very harsh and can easily see why people would find it harsh, depending on your stance politically. Unfortunately in reality the treaties were harsh enough to make Germany hate the League enough o go back to war with them, also giving them little option other then war as the country was falling apart having about 4 governments in 3 years, this shows the publics dissatisfaction with the governments, meaning the country was near impossible to rule due to hyper inflation, low morale and spiralling debts. But they were not harsh enough to stop Germany being able to retaliate the disarmament was not controlled strictly enough leaving Germany free to make an army. The League of Nations was not strong enough to stop France invading Germany (in the Ruhr, stealing valuable coal mines), making Germany feel victimized and below the law. No treaty was ever going to make everyone happy but these treaties were aimed purely at the short term, and after 10 years, all treaties were in tatters, it only took Turkey 3 years to fight against France and Britain, win easily and re-negotiate a better treaty for them. When it comes down to it, the first treaty signed in regards to the First World War was created by Germany; it set the standard for the allies’ treaties. War Is Hard, Peace Is Harder.
