Treaty of Versailles, was it fair?

France

From the French perspective, the Germans deserved to give up everything in order to make amends for the destruction they caused in France (the treaty wasn’t punishing them enough)

-Clemenceau had wanted nothing but revenge on Germany, and that was definitely achieved, if not to the extent he had hoped for.

-They had also forced the harsh peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk on Russia in 1918 without worries. It could seem that, in their rage about having all the guilt on them, the Germans set out to make the treaty look much worse than it really was.

USA

From where the American and British leaders were standing, it seemed impossible to place the entire blame on one country, so the Clause 231 must have seemed quite harsh. But the treaty was a compromise – no one got everything they wanted, but more importantly, no one was completely short-changed. Not even Germany.

- Many of Wilson’s peaceful Fourteen Points weren’t accomplished, but he had faith in the League of Nations to sort things out later.

Britain

Lloyd-George was probably the most content out of the three leaders, because he had wanted a compromise between the French and American ideas to begin with

-Lloyd-George was probably the most content out of the three leaders, because he had wanted a compromise between the French and American ideas to begin with. He had wanted Germany to be punished somewhat because of the public opinion at home, but he hadn’t wanted France to then become very powerful. The British empire didn’t suffer from the treaty, and although the colonies Britain got from Germany had to be looked after on behalf of the League of Nations, Lloyd-George still got a good deal because he hadn’t been asking for anything extreme and had wanted a compromise peace in the beginning.

Germany
Perhaps it was rather severe to make the Germans agree that the entire war had been their fault, but those are only words. The reparations they had to pay because of their guilt were still relatively small, considering the amount the French would have liked to take. The economy was obviously not destroyed because Germany was soon the most successful nation in Europe again. In 1925, it was producing twice as much steel as Britain.

-Very little European territory was taken, and what was given away was mostly inhabited by people who considered themselves as Polish or French.
-Although the army was reduced, the generals were still there, and ready to rebuild. Isn’t it hypocritical of Germany to complain and say they were tricked, when they had only taken the Fourteen Points seriously once they’d been beaten?

Conclusion
What if one person group of people had achieved everything they wanted out of the Treaty of Versailles and the others nothing? Then it could be said the treaty was completely unfair to one group of people. A British economist, John Maynard Keynes, who had been an official at Paris was disgusted with the treaty. He said, “By making impossible demands it leaves Europe more unsettled than it found it.” But what if, for instance, the treaty had been made up of only Wilson’s ideas? First of all, Clemenceau and Lloyd-George would probably be furious, since they didn’t like the idea of self-determination and the French wanted revenge. Secondly, Germany might have been left too strong, and another war might have broken out even sooner. Who can say. It seems that the Big Three did the best they could by compromising.

Treaty of Versailles, was it fair?

By Edward Smirnov

This is a preview of the whole essay

Treaty of Versailles, was it fair?

By Edward Smirnov

After world war one, Germany was forced to sign a treaty by the Allies in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles on June 28, 1919. The Germans saw this treaty as very humiliating as their land, people and colonies were taken away from her but the Allies kept theirs, also they were not aloud to actively participate in the council as they were communicated via written notes with no oral discussion. In addition to that they received what they thought harsh demands from the Allies where they were not aloud an army more than 100,000, no U-boats neither aircrafts and only 6 battleships, not to mention the huge amounts of money they had to pay out as compensation for the damages of the war to Britain and especially France (over 36,000 million pounds). They had no choice but to sign as they had lost the war and the Allies threatened to invade Berlin. Germany sworn her vengeance for the shame of the treaty of 1919 and was the treaty fair?

The Germans claimed it was not fair because of all the extreme demands like their limited arms and army and especially the cost demanded for compensation of the war, and from my opinion they had very right to do so. This is because countries such as France probably knew that Germany could not possible pay out that kind of a sum like the one they demanded (30,000 million pounds) in a short amount of time, not even in a reasonably long one. This means that Germany’s future generation of what then were children should have the heavy burden on their shoulders of paying the prise of something they have neither experienced, participated nor knew about. Although France did loose a lot of buildings (factories, churches, schools), forest was destructed and a great loss of human life, it seems very unfair on Germany from the revenge hungry French who all the time were waiting for this possibility of wounding Germany deep and long lasting from the time Alsace and Lorraine were taken away from them during the unification of Germany. Although the German finance minister had made it plain that if the German won, the Allies would be made to pay for the costs of the war, I would say that kind of a sum would be a little too long lasting and very unfair for the innocent children of Germany. Instead of that sum, I would think it would be more fair for France to demand a sum of 2 billion from Germany, if we take all the other facts of what Germany was forced to do and what have been taken away from them (territory, land, colonies and people) into consideration.

Although they felt they were humiliated in the way that they were not aloud to effectively participate in the council I think that is fair on them because of them starting the war, there for having the war guilt upon them (as many historians say they have) and loosing it. That is something they had to accept.

I also think that their talk about their great territory loss of 13% (including 10% of her population, 14% of her farmland and 75% of her iron ore resources) was their way to say something against the treaty and not accept it with silence because they themselves had Russia sign a unpleasant treaty (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) during the war where Russia gave up 54% of her industry, 34% of her population, 89% of her coal mines and was forced to pay 6 billion marks to Germany. There for I think it was very fair that land, territories and colonies were taken away from Germany as she would do exactly the same if Germany had one the war, hence the fact that the treaty did not weaken Germany as what they had complained, their steel production was twice that of Britain by the end of 1925 and they were still a large country.

Germany’s military had suffered gravely from the treaty. Both banks of Rhine were to be occupied by the Allies and the German forces were to be demilitarised on these areas. The Allies made it clear that Germany was not aloud to have an army larger than 100,000 men, no U-boats, no tanks and neither aircrafts while they had no guarantee that the other nations would have a weak army as well. This I think was a wrong move and a unfair deal on the Germans. This is because anger would grow within Germany for being forced to have small military, this anger could possibly be an important factor for the outbreak of the Second World War (something the Allies did not predict, nor think about which I think is wrong). It is unfair because Germany would not be able to defend it self if an outbreak is to occur, plus they would have a weak army while the rest of the powerful nations in Europe would not. On the other hand, if Germany still had a large army, then there would be less chances of peace prevailing in Europe, but I think the chances were unlikely that the Germans would attack again if they were aloud a large army, they would have no main reason for a second war as the one of them having a small army. So on the whole I think that the kind of assumption is very correct, Germany’s military should be reduced and be under surveillance for at least a period of time so no problems with peace prevailing in Europe should occur but not to such humiliating level where they are not even aloud to build aircrafts or tanks, how should they defend their country? So I think it was unfair and a bad move for the Allies to let Germany have such small army.

So my views and opinion on whether the treaty was fair or not is that it was fair if take all the facts into consideration. The fact that their Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was hard on the Russians when Russia left the war, so they should not say anything about the demands of Treaty of Versailles about their territory, population, industry and colonies because they had and would strip any other nation of these things if they won. The fact that they had to pay is reasonably fair because of what the German finance minister said about Germany making the Allies pay for the damages of the war if they won, only that the price could be made a little less and more realistic. And then the substantial fact that they arguably have the guilt of starting the First World War and also the ones loosing it. They cannot presume that they could by pass it without having to pay the price for all the damages, the change, the hostile environment created by them, the stress, the many years and those who died in the war. I even agree to the fact of them being forced to have a small army to the extend that their army could be a threat, but otherwise, I believe that their army was cut down a little way beyond the line.

Was the Treaty of Versailles fair in Its Treatment of Germany?

When the peace armistice was signed on 11th November 1918, no plans had been made for a peace settlement so it was decided that one would be drawn up in the New Year. Representatives from Great Britain, France and USA were among those attending. Each had different ideas of how to treat Germany, and to what extent she would pay for the war. After the treaty of Versailles was agreed, the Germans were upset by the terms; they felt it was too harsh. The treaty was fair to Germany; it was harsh but could have been a lot worse.

The main aim of the Treaty of Versailles was to make sure that Germany would be punished for the war. Each of the main countries in attendance had different ideas of how to punish Germany. The USA was the only country who didn’t seek revenge from Germany. They had joined the war late and had not lost nearly as many soldiers in battles as other nations had. President Wilson of the USA called for “peace without victory.” He didn’t want Germany to be crushed so that her economy would never rebuild. This, Wilson felt, would make Germany seek revenge for the treaty. The only way to make sure that the treaty stayed in place and was followed by all countries to be involved was to make sure it was fair and that all countries accepted its terms without resentment.

Great Britain agreed with the idea of a fair treaty, but also needed to impose certain terms on Germany in order to rebuild after the war. Lloyd-George demanded the whole cost of the war in reparations. He didn’t see this as selfish because he felt that Germany had started the war, therefore they should pay the price of defeat. At the same time, there was no wish to destroy Germany, she was an important trading partner and a shattered German economy would have implications on Great Britain as well. No personal gain was wanted which put Great Britain in the position in which she could change the tide of the Treaty. Lloyd–George’s decision could change whether the treaty was lenient, following the USA, or extremely harsh as called for by the French.

France wanted full on revenge from Germany. An ideal outcome as seen by Clemenceau would be Germany crippled by the Treaty. The French felt unsafe being so close to the Germans. They had absolutely no barrier from the full force of Germany, unlike Great Britain who had the sea and USA who had huge distance. A crippled Germany would be no threat to France in the future. Perhaps another reason for the French wish for revenge was memories of the Franco-Prussian war of 1871.

The first point in the Treaty that the Germans felt angry with was the forced signing of the War Guilt Clause. This took all blame for the war and placed it on the Germans. They saw it as not their fault. A crisis in the Balkans had led to the strong links between Austria-Hungary and Germans called upon and Germany brought in to the picture. This point wasn’t fair to the Germans. The clause actually blamed Germany and her allies but it was still Germany who took most of the blame.

The treaty aimed to take away power from the Germans. This happened in many ways, but the most obvious way to remove power was to cut the size of the country down. The amount of land taken away from Germany seriously damaged her economy. The Saar coal field was one of Germany’s main industrial areas. The handing of this to France for a fixed period meant that Germany couldn’t use it to generate revenue to pay the rest of the reparations. Many Germans ended up living in other countries, which was bound to cause trouble. All land that was removed from German control was done for a reason. This made the point fairer on the Germans. Clemenceau had put forward an idea to completely split Germany into 2 countries but it was rejected by other countries. It could have been a lot worse for Germany at this time. This was a fair price for Germany to pay.

The reparations called for by Great Britain and France weren’t fair on Germany. There was no way that Germany could have afforded to pay all of the reparations demanded. Especially with the loss of the Saar coal field. Although the German economy was still reasonably strong, there was no chance of it recovering from the war whilst it was under pressure to pay the huge sum that that was asked for. Although France had spent vast amounts of money on the war, Germany had spent a great deal more although none of the fighting had been on German soil so they weren't faced with huge land problems. Britain had primarily demanded the whole cost of the war from Germany, Lloyd George reconsidered, however, when he realised that it wasn’t possible for Germany to pay. The original amount of 6,600 million dollars was almost half paid off by 1921 and if left, could have been settled in another 2-3 years. It was then, however, that the reparations committee met once again and decided that another 25 billion dollars should be added to the total sum of reparations. This was ridiculous and extremely unrealistic although this amount was later changed to a much smaller sum which was fairer.

The Germans were angry that the peace treaty didn’t directly follow Woodow Wilson’s 14 points, as had been offered earlier. The allies saw it that the Germans hadn't accepted the points when they had originally been offered and so they should pay the price with a heavier settlement, Also, the Germans weren't invited to join the much talked about “League of Nations”. The newly set up league didn’t feel that Germany deserved to be a part because of the fact that they had been the main aggressor in the war. The Germans strongly resented this as they had no say in international affairs. This wasn’t fair on Germany, and many historians speculate that if Germany had been allowed to join, World War 2 may never have happened.

The treaty of Versailles was fair on Germany to an extent but there were parts that weren't. The treaty wasn’t harsh enough to cripple Germany but was too harsh for them to accept the terms. Many factors of the treaty were resented by the Germans. The still reasonably strong economy coupled with the peoples resent and desire for revenge on the Western Allies were major contributing parts for World War 2.