To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles fair

To what extent can the treaty of versailles be deemed “harsh and shortsighted”

Introduction
The treaty of Versailles was constructed by a series of punishments that Germany was required to carry out, as a consequence for their input in the war and the destruction they caused on the Allies. Germany was made to accept and declare the fact that she was to blame. This was under the war guilt clause, that was used as a justification for the consecutive terms of the treaty that were to be imposed, particularly in the implementation of the reparations. There are several criticisms to the treaty, one labeling it as “harsh” due to the fact that certain aspects, once carried out, would cripple the entire German system. Another criticism is that the Treaty was deemed to be “shortsighted”, as it was based more on the immediate demands that would satisfy France and its desire for revenge, as opposed to the future concerns of the balance of power in Europe, that essentially led to the rise of Hitler. One historian, Harold Nicholson, declared the treaty to be “immoral and senseless”; however, although the focus was on Germany's punishment, her allies had similar fates, in that each treaty imposed reparations, loss in territory, and disarmament.

First paragraph – How the treaty of versailles was “harsh”
The initial trigger that caused a lot of resentment in Germany, - was that the Treaty was a diktat, whats more the treaty was actually only in english and french.
Historians –
- John Keynes – With the reparations at 6.6 billion the German economy would be “unable to recover”. It was a “shifting by the victors their unbearable financial burden on to the shoulders of the defeated.” - He describes their financial state as “unbearable”, thus showing the Allies in a more negative light because they proceeded to shift it onto “the shoulders of the defeated”, pushing Germany into a more critical state than its initial one as a result of the war. The criticism in this, is that although the Allies may have been suffering as a result of the war, they were better off than Germany.
- Harold Nicholson supports this as he highlights how the reparations and indemnity were “immoral and senseless”
- disarmaments – stripping Germany of its pride – resentment is shown when they sink her battleships in Scotland in protest. Army – 100,000 men, no navy/army/air force
- The Guilt clause – caused great resentment within Germany. They believed everyone should share the blame.
- Eric Campbell “we shall squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.”

How it can be deemed short sighted

Historians
- Niccolo Machiavelli “Never do any enemy a small injury for they are like a snake which is half beaten and it will strike back the first chance it get.” Due to fact they had not completely destroyed Germany and had instead left her weak, allowed for tension to build, and pathway for Hitler's gain in support and essentially led to Germany's rise.
– John Keynes (british economist) - “the future life of Europe was not their concern.”
- A newspaper in July 1919 labelled Clemenceau as a “vampire” implying that the French are sucking Germany dry of it resources and therefore its stability, even when they are at their weakest.
In another local newspaper in Germany, the treaty is classes as “disgraceful”, showing that the resentment that is building in Germany, and the idea that they will rise and seek revenge for the treaty that crippled Germany. This in itself can show how the treaty is short-sighted, as it is 1919 just after the treaty was signed.

Second paragraph – How the treaty could be deemed just
- However, typically in his speech at the House of commons in 1919, Lloyd George constructs an argument that twists the actions of the Allies into justifiable events that stem from Germany itself. Lloyd George justifies that essentially, in territorial terms, the Treaty was only restoring territory that never initially belonged to Germany.
- He uses examples of Schleswig-Holstein, portraying it as a small weak country, and how Germany took it against people's will. To further push his point he brings up Alsace-Lorraine, again mentioning how it was taken from a population which were “deeply attached”. T
Through the use of the adjectives “deeply” and “forcibly” it shows Germany in a bad light. It is almost used as a reminder that Germany is not being subject to greed, but in this instance, this part of the treaty is only restoring what was never Germany's to begin with. Thus highlighting the idea that the Allies are the heroes, in that they are “reknit(ing)” the territories to their rightful country.
- pointing out how the treaty is a result of the actions that they “inflicted upon the world”. It uses example to show that Germany is the immoral one here, in that she has never been considerate or cared for other countries, so the allies are returning the favor. - use 1917 treaty with Russia as an example.

- This view is supported by Niall Ferguson “relatively lenient”, other historians such as Sally Marks, Alan sharp viewed the Treaty as quite moderate, they consider the fact that had the situation been in reverse Germany would have sought huge areas of land from the Allies. Germany lost 13.5% of land much of which was Alsace and Lorraine, which as Lloyd George pointed out had not been Germany's before the Franco-Prussian war in 1871, and 13% of its productivity.
- The historians also take on the contrasting view that the treaty left them in a rather strong position in Europe, and that it remained a dominant power, due to the fact not only was it left physically undamaged but it had gained strategic advantages.
It also is dependent on the perspective because the English population viewed Germany as the one to blame, a popular saying after the war was “hang the kaiser”:

In some respects the treaty can be interpreted as having the intention of maintaining peace through disarmament, and through creating a League of Nations in order to unite countries. It is also implied by the fact the Allied Powers were not pushing harsh reparations upon Turkey after its territory loss. Summarizing the opinion that they did have a concern of future peace.

Third paragraph – Compare to other treaties

Despite the fact the treaty was deemed as immoral, there were several treaties signed between 1919 and 1923, that included similar punishments.
The treaty of St Germain
- 'tad pole' state
- 20% of its prewar population/ 25% of pre-war land
- reparations
- disarmament
- Austria and Hungary forbidden to unite.

The Treaty of Sevres (1920) Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire
- there was huge territory loss (e.g. Syria went to France as a mandate, Eastern Thrace went to Greece, Rhodes and Dodecanse Islands went to Italy....)
- The Straits (exit from the Black sea) were to become a demilitarized zone administered by the League of Nations.
- in article 105, Turkish people were given an egyptian nationality and you had to opt to become a different nationality
- article 145 outlines how everyone had to have equal rights within the remaining land this is very controversial due to the fact that article 40 outlined how similar to other countries it only had one vote, whereas the Allies had two.
- article 152, disarmament
- Accepted by SULTAN MUHAMMAD VI – however there was fierce resentment to the terms and the treaty was revised at Lausanne in 1923, where...
- Regained some treaty territory along the Syrian border and several Aegean islands
- Straits remained demilitarized
- foreign troops were withdrawn from Turkish Territory
- no reparations and didn’t have to have its army reduced

conclusion

- Although the treaty was deemed as short sighted, Lloyd George had his reservations about how harsh the clauses and terms should be, like America he wanted the assurance of future peace however, he was under a lot of pressure from the british public to come down heavily on Germany because the war had damaged british morale so heavily.
- "hang the kaiser" was a popular saying in the post-war period because people held Germany responsible, a lot of people had lost loved ones in the war and had their lives affected,
- so although he may have had hopes that the settlement would be fairer, he felt he couldn't insist on a fairer outcome because of the pressure he was under









 due to the English population and France.
- A summary on the comparison between the two opinions, reference to the question, and quote on direct views and conclude own personal point of view.