Versailles Verdicts
- Adolf Hitler hated it. The British diplomat Harold Nicolson called it 'neither just nor wise'.
- The British economist John Maynard Keynes prophesied it would ruin the world economy.
- Lenin declared of it: 'This is no peace, but terms dictated to a defenceless victim by armed robbers.'
Where contemporaries led, historians have followed. 'The unwise thing about Versailles was that it annoyed the Germans yet did not render them too weak to retaliate,' declared the British historian Norman Lowe. Pupils in Michigan, USA, are taught that the Treaty was: 'flawed to the extent that instead of preventing future wars it made a future war inevitable'.
Yet is any of this FAIR?
The peacemakers faced a Europe which had fallen apart - there was no question of just calling it a day and going home. THREE empires, comprising most of central and eastern Europe, had collapsed in revolution and bankruptcy. The peacemakers formed nation-states and drew boundaries which, more-or-less, have survived until today. If their attempts to establish peace and disarmaments only lasted 20 years, they DID invent the principle of 'collective security' to which still, in the United Nations, we look to prevent war between the nations. And the diplomats of Versailles constructed this peace, without chance to rehearse, assailed by a maelstrom of lobbyists and pressures, amidst revolutions, famine and Spanish flu, whilst at home, war-weary publics were demanding revenge.
- Margaret Macmillan, great-granddaughter of the great David Lloyd George, says: 'It is my own view - and a number of historians who have been working in this area for some years - that the treaty was not all that bad.'
- British politician and historian Neil Stonehouse believes that 'in a devastated and newly complex continent no better attempt could have been made'.
- Historian and schoolteacher Richard Jones-Nerzic argues that the peacemakers 'did a remarkably good job'.
What is your opinion of the Treaty of Versailles? What do you think -- for example - about these questions
- Was it fair or unfair?
- Was it successful or a failure?
- Was it a crafted peace, or a botched compromise?
- Did it help to lay the foundations of the future, or leave behind a legacy of hate?
Use the following webpages
and have your say!
posted by Mr John D Clare | 9:03 PM
32 Comments:
The Treaty of Versailles was a very very harsh treaty. I agree with President Wilson though. Germany should have not been made to sign the war guilt clause. This wasn't fair and no wonder Germany started another world war!
haha!The Germans bombed our chip shops they had to be punished...
I suppose it depends on where you look at it from. Even today, most Germans will tell you it was unfair, but many Britons would think it was justified by the damage Germany did during the war. Considering the pressures on the leaders at the time, and all their different aims, they did remarkably well to keep peace, and it took someone as comitted as Hitler to break it. Or maybe I'm talking nonsense. What would I know? I'm a kid.
Thanks Mr Clare!
Well, in the end it failed, so it wasn't all that great, but to be honest, I think most people were agreed that the peacemakers were faced with a practically inmpossible task...
For me, the Fischer thesis settled any outstanding matter regarding war guilt, so for that reason alone I think the treaty was fair. Whether they like to admit it or not, the German's invaded the neutral country of Belgium which went against the Treaties of the day. However, even if they had not been guilty of beginning the war, the Allies deserved a winners peace.
Why? Because whereas France's industry had been devastated by war, Germany was largely unscathed. They needed the finance simply to achieve equilibrium and even with reparations Germany were a greater powerhouse than France by the 1930s. Likewise, Britain had a massive widow's pension to pay and never recouped anything like what was spent fighting the war because of the Belgian invasion. Germany could not be trusted or allowed to keep a strong industry without the rest of Europe being compensated in the interests of the balance of power in Europe.
Also, whilst it was disappointing that the victors only pursued self determination for the losers, it seems reasonable that Germany lost territory in order to reestablish nation states in Europe such as Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The reason the peace failed, as Ruth Henig has pointed out, is because the Treaty wasn't enforced. Had there been more vigilance in the 1930s, Hitler could never have grown Germany so much in strength. The Treaty was fair and I think Lowe is wrong to say it was strong enough to annoy but too weak to destroy; had it been enforced it would have been sensible, not harsh, and it would have worked.
I think that the ToV was harsh for Germany, but fair for other nations. In 1918, Germany headed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and put pressure on Russia, and that treaty was even harsher than the ToV.
But on the other hand, ToV squeezed Germany and led to another war.
thankyou for your help thanks to me using this to revise i passed and got an A
and another thing the treaty of Versailles was a cruel but fair punishment germany shouldnt have started something they couldnt finish i have no problems with germans i study it at college they shouldnt have been alloweed any soilders sdo there!!!
The Treaty of Versailles was supposed to insure that World War One was "the War that ends all wars." Obviously that wasn't the case. If you look at current US armed occupations, like say Iraq, we must understand why we still have a presence. We are there for stability to make sure the republic survives. The Treaty of Versailles did not support the new republic of Germany. Germans did not have democratic traditions, making it easy at the time turmoil to change directions to fascism or socialism. Europe needed a stable Germany in order to keep peace in Europe. The Treaty of Versailles did not work to insure the success of the Weimer Republic.
the treaty of Versailles was treaty that at the beginning had a mixture of feelings and thoughts. many people thought the treaty was not right while the others thought it was fair and deserved. but personally i have to come to the verdict that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair and not deserved. the treaty caused hatred in the German people's mind which led to the fact that a revenge was expected of somehow. the punishment given to them was unfair and fair because there were something hings which were right to be taken away like not uniting with the Austrians (anschluss) but there was also some issue which was unfair for example the amount of reparations needed to be paid by germans. the treaty were recognized by some people as dangerous and unfair also but the big three didnt choose to reconsider the points of the war because each of them wanted to achieve something out of the treaty and once they got it, they seemed not to consider the harshness of the treaty and its reactions.
I think the treaty was more harsh than fair but it wasnt the best they could of done in 6 months. I dissagree woth clemenceau, this was the 'war to end all wars' but clemenceau wanted germany to be like a homeless child, weak, easy to target. the french only wanted money to pay for the damage. they didnt think of what it could lead to. i dissagree with woodrow wilson, i cant belive he thought the 14 points would ALL come true. he wanted a lot from a little. never the less he tried to stay neutral and make the treaty as fair as possiable, the most importent thing that came true of the 14points is the leauge of nations. this was set up and wilson, i imagin was slightley happier that he has got something. lloyd george is thinking the treaty was unfair but the election in engglan made him think if he is 'evil' he can stay in
DO I THIK THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES WAS FAIR?
not one single bit, most may argue that my point is invalid but i beg to differ. the reasons behind my opinion is that as we have discovered, the war started with the death of franz ferdinand leading the alliances to get involved, so to say that one country is solely to blame for the course of the war as said in article 231 is absolutely not fair. AFTER ALL it wasn't just the one country, it was its alliances to. Each of these countries had help from OTHER COUNTRIES during the war -hence the allinces-. i think that clemencaeu is a very selfish man, not thinking of the concequences his dicisions and actions would lead to. To say that woodrow was an idealist would be an understatement, to believe that listing down 14 points which you thought would end all wars and have the whole league of nations see to it...well you must me a dreamer. But on the other hand it could be argued that clemencau had a reason behind his dicisions. vengence a definite one...but the fact that the league of nations was set up to prevent repeat of the last war, peace and to take away all that a country has and to limit its army is more than enough to start another war. so why target a particular a country purely on the basis of losing a war and having what was rightfully yours taken away from you? i call that brainwash to just listen to one person alone and not to discuss. i think the TOV was not fair or just.
The Peace treaty of 1919 was unfair and I also find it fair in different ways,
German people thinks it's unfair
at present , at past and will be at future but in other people's view
like me as well will think that it is fair and also unfair. It's unfair because lot's people were close to starvation,for example the death of Walter Zimmerman was because of starvation and he couldn't bear his country facing a very worst situation.d People in Germany faced a very bad time for example bad nightmare,some others like_ losing the empire, only 100,000 man in army , no air force etcetera.
It's fair because
France lost lot's of properties which was destroyed due to war because most of the war took place at French soil so, losing properties and if it's destroyed by someone what should you think fair
so treating Germany harsh was fair and also German's started the because of imperialism.
I also want to add if the treat was not too harsh WW2 would have happened , Hitler wouldn't been able be the leader of Germany and 6 million Jews wouldn't have killed in extermination camp.
Although above all I will say that Treaty of Versailles was more unfair than fair.
the treaty of Versailles was a harsh treaty on Germany. it blamed them for the war when it was not only their fault and it made them pay huge reparation costs that would damage Germany ´s economy and angry them so much that one day they would take revenge (as Adolf Hitler did later).
On the other hand, Germany had made Russia sing a very harsh treaty and started the war so they deserved a punishment.
my opinion is that Germany should have been punished but not so harsh and the reparation costs should not have been so big.
apologies for some mistakes in my comment like WW2 wouldn't have happend and others
Do I think the peace treaty is fair ?
As a historian I should think about both sides of the war, our side (Britain) and look at Germany's side. looking at our side we can say that the peace treaty is fair because to us they started the war and the reparations set caused by Germany. The people of Britain were telling David Lloyd George and other MP'S that Germany should be punished for the war and to be blamed. looking at Germany's side you can see as historians that Germany will suffer severely and go bankrupt given by the reparations set and the punishments given . the German economic would be destroyed and cause the German people to be starving. This will affect future generations of German people because this is more like a souly punishment until paid. this peace treaty will cause a future war and as historians we know that there was World War 2. Thanks
The treaty of versailles was a dark and harsh turn for germany.Arch duke Franz ferdindand was not germanys fault the blaim was'nt Germanys to take they were just supporting there alliances.
The German people were suffering as a reaction of the strict rule that were stated of the TOV.Woodrow Wilson wanted no more war at this state germany would be stepped over until war will be enevitable.As the treaty rose people lost their jobs.Walter Zimmerman died as a result of job lose from the army this was happening everywhere.
is the treaty of Versailles fair?
if im being honest im not quite sure what i think about the treaty being fair or not i guess it depends on what way you look at it in some ways it was defiantly fair and the germans deserved every bit but in other ways i think it wasnt as all the countries werent treated as badly as germany the germans would argue that this was not fair and many french would say it wasnt fair enough but it blamed them for the war when it was not just their fault and it made them pay huge reparation costs that would damage germany but im still not sure on what exactly i think about the treaty of Versailles i still have mixed feelings
For every action theres a reaction and Germanys reaction was big causing WWII.In all fairness Germany were treated terribly a treaty to end all wars was cracking and burning Germany will fight back and thats the problem with the big three they were blinded by the fact they thought it was under control
I am a year 10 GCSE student
I think the Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh on Germany because of the reparations that they had to pay, the territory, and armaments. I understand that they should pay for the damage they caused on France for example on their way home from France they were destroying there coal fields and that caused them to give their own coal fields to France for 15 years so they lost a huge amount of their money. They were all deprived from Saar. German lost 13.3 million of their population and 10 per cent of their land to make Poland and to Czechoslovakia. That also lost Alsace-Lorraine to France, north Schleswig to Denmark. They found out that the Rhineland had become independent their army was cut to 100,000 men they were left with 6 battle ships, and no planes, submarines or tanks. I think that this is too harsh on Germany because it is all not their fault because just before The Great War started you have the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand which was Austro-Hungarian and was killed by Serbian what was close to when the war first started so I don't understand why Germany were punished so harshly just because France was angry with what they did.
megan brayshaw
i am a year 10 gcse student
i think the treaty or versailles was very harsh on germany because of the reparations and population they lost.i understand why germany had to pay so much for the damamage they caused to france and britain they had to pay 6.6 bollion franks to france. Germany had to give their coal fields to france for fifteen years as on there way home they destroyed frances coal fields causing them to lose alot of money.Ten percent of there land was lost to make poland and czechoslovakia,13.3 million of germanys population was lost some of the population was lost to poland and some of it was lost to czechosolvakia. germany had to return Alsace-Lorraine to france. They found out that the rhineland had become independent there army was reduced to 100,000 men they had no planes, no submarines or tanks and they were left with 6 battelships. The treaty was to harsh on germany because the reason ww1 started was because of the assasination of archduke franz ferdinand who was an Astro-Hungarian and was killed by a serbian and germany was punished because france was angry with wat they did.
i am a year 10 gcse student,
i have to say i can't make my mind up for i have heard many good reasons to take each side. in many ways i am dissapointed by the big three for they had six months to work a fair yet harsh punishment, and they couldn't even do that, poeple may jugde me for it because it is a hard thing to deside on but i must say what i think.
germany's views on the peace treaty, for they think its discrasful to blame them for the war, in many ways i can understand there reasoning for it.for they didn't kill archduke franz ferdinand e.c.t. but on the other hand i think of the french and how we thaught on their land and how much of thier land was destroyed.in wihch case it was fair for germany destroyed most of france, in fact the french's views are that germany got let of the hook lightly,wihch i do not agree with. my conclusion is that the peace treaty was what caused WWII and that it was eqully unfair and fair in the same way.
Hello, I am a Year 10 GCSE student, and these are my opinions on the fairness of the Treaty of Versailles.
I think the Treaty of Versailles was harsh, but there reasons for the allies doing such thing. You have got to take into account the elections coming right up after the treaty was signed, which means that Lloyd George had to be meaner than he wanted to and agree with Clemenceau, so that the British people would want to elect him.
I do not think that Germany should have been solely to be blamed for causing the war, as there were things such as: The arms race and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand.
I can also see why Clemenceau was so greedy, the Germans had caused so much damage to France, collapsing any coal mines they come across, for example. While Woodrow Wilson was so lenient due to the Germans not causing much damage, unlike France and Britain.
I am a GCSE student
Do I Think The Peace Treaty Was Fair?
I think the Peace treaty was fair and unfair. On Germany's side the peace Treaty was too harsh on them and made them pay big reparations for the war, but it could make Germany angry and start future wars for example World War 2. From the British perspective it was fair because they started the war and the reparations set caused the war. The British people was saying to David Lloyd George and other Member of Parliaments that Germany should be punished, however Germany will suffer because they would be bankrupt and people would be starving and homeless so this poverty could also lead to future wars.
I think that the Treaty of Versailles was completely pointless. It was supposed to be a Peaceful Treaty but it led to the cause of another war. I partially blame the Big Three for this because i think if they had taken this Treaty more seriously and considered their proposed terms more thoroughly then possibly they could have seen the flaws in their own suggestions. For instance, if only Clemencau realized how much more from the impossible he was asking from Germany with its 6,600m reparations then perhaps Germany would not have ended up with hyperinflation in 1923. Then Hitler would not have had to suffer so much and who knows maybe if the Treaty was not as harsh as it had been, then Hitler may never have come to power.
We think that the Treaty was...
Harry: Unfair becuase Germany was punished too much. In the long term Germany was able to field a new army and start a new war
It was sensible because they made the threat of Germany very low and the risk of another attack for nil...but it wasn't fair because it destabilised Germany in the long run
Sensible in the short term but was unfair. The Big Three was only interested in themselves not what was best for the world. Reparations were unfair but in the short term the German threat was removed.
It was sensible but unfair to the Germans. Although it was sensible in stopping another war this wasn't the case in the long run.
The Treaty of Versailles was in a sense the best that President Lloyd George could do with President Georges and Wilson fighting over what they would do with Germany. It was harsh in a way that Germany was displeased and eventually started WWII, but was also fair, since Germany was a major threat to France, and that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was even harsher and unfiar, in a sense. But in my opinion, the ToV failed because of the weakness of the French to act, the unwillingness of the British to help, the hard headedness of the Americans to not join the League, and the ruthless cunning of Hitler. So it was basically all jumbled up together and was not the fault of one nation, but the fault of the combined mistakes of all the nations. That is my view on the Treaty.
Although not the best treaty, with so much pressure on all the big three(each faced an up-coming election) and with such different aims, they did really well.
It could easily be argued that the German's call for fairer treatment wasn’t justified because of the harsh way they had treated Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, Versailles was much less harsh in comparison.
I think that considering the extremely complex and dynamic circumstances that the peacemakers were faced with, they did the best that they could to reach an agreement that somewhat satisfied most powers involved (with the obvious exception of Germany). It certainly cannot be called a perfect treaty by any means, but it nonetheless impressive, again keeping the situation in mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home