Was the Treaty of Versailles just and fair?

Answer 1

The Entente and the US spoke with different voices in 1918-19. President Wilson talked about a peace without 'victors or vanquished', which implied concepts of fairness, but Britain and France (and their allies) imposed a conventional treaty with winners and losers. That is the key issue.

AnswerIn 1918 when the war had ended the League of Nations was drawn up, but at the same time the "big three" were planning a way to get compensation for the war and make Germany a lesser threat to any of the European countries.In 1914 Germany had a big empire covering parts of Poland and France. In 1918 the big three had Germany in the palm of their hands, then decided to make Germany a lesser threat by cutting its army down to 100,000 men , making them pay �6,600 million in compensation. They then decided to weaken their economy but not in such a way that Germany could not buy goods from abroad. Another aspect of the treaty was taking away Germany's colonies. Germany only had itself to worry about now.

Answer

Besides the points mentioned above, Germany had also lost more than 2 million men in the war, and was also suffering from poverty, etc., as her economy had been severely crippled, if not destroyed, by the war. Forced to give up ALL her colonies, disarmament and extreme reparations had only increased the impact on Germany and her citizens. To a certain extent all these were not very fair to Germany.

The colonies were a source of national pride for most German citizens. Besides, Germany saw the TOV as merely another excuse by the victors to annex her overseas territory - they were originally for the newly set up League of Nations to rule but were given to the Allied nations to govern due to the League's lack of resources.

As for disarmament, the Rhineland that separates France from Germany became a demilitarized zone, meaning that no German soldiers were allowed in there. The army was limited to 100,000 men, very small for a nation Germany's size, and the German Navy was only allowed to keep six battleships. Besides all this, the German armed forces were not allowed to build or buy any armed vehicles, submarines, or military aircraft. What was unfair to Germany in this was that NONE of the other countries disarmed, or were forced to disarm, to the extent that Germany was.

Worst of all was the reparations Germany had to give the Allied countries (6,600 million British pounds). Such a staggering amount left her with no means whatsoever of staging a post-war economic recovery, and was notably many times the value of the damaged she had caused. Hence Germany believed that the reparations

were intentionally meant to cripple her and keep her weak.

All these had only intensified Germany's motivation for future revenge. Besides the fact that Germany was not even invited to the Paris Peace Conference to appeal the decision, Adolf Hitler in the 1930s had promised to tear up TOV if he was elected, and when he did, he properly kept to his promise. World War Two started as a result.

It should be therefore correct to conclude that the Treaty of Versailles was not fair in anyway to Germany.

Hmmm...Based on historical precedent I would venture to say that yes, the treaty was reasonable. Throughout history it has been common practice for the victor to impose sanctions on the vanquished. The saying, "To the victor go the spoils" is particularly apropos. Alexander the great, Hannibal, Napoleon, the Vatican, Ferdinand of Spain, and many others have long practised this belief.

As to whether it "intensified Germany's motivation for future revenge," possibly, but that is not relevant in answering the question. Neither is Hitler's action upon election.

The treaty did not erase the German nation and split it up among the victors. It did not diminish its national identity, nor did it enslave the people of Germany. It did impose sanctions on a people governed by aggressive and opportunistic leaders.

Historically speaking, the Treaty of Versailles was reasonable.

AnswerHistory and surrender terms are written by the victors, and the losers suffer. That is what happened with the Treaty of Versailles. In the treaty Germany lost the bulk of its military, was forced to pay massive reparations which are payments for damages done by war to the victors and had to pay the costs of the war for all victorious parties. Ouch. Germany also had to admit in writing that they were the sole cause of WWI which is not true. All in all the Treaty of Versailles was "just" in the eyes of the victors because they wished to punish Germany. However the harshness of the treaty was one of the key factors to Hilter's rise of power in the later decades. AnswerFrance and Britain never intended the treaty to be fair. Both wanted to weaken Germany. (The idea of a 'fair' treaty came from President Wilson).

The British and French politicians had to think of their own embittered electorates. Prime Minister Lloyd George had just won an election back home and in the course of the election campaign had made all kinds of 'wild and woolly' promises: he had promised to 'squeeze Germany till the pips squeak'; he'd promised to 'hang the Kaiser'; and also to 'create a land fit for heroes' (for the returning British soldiers).

It would be completely unrealistic to think of Clemenceau and Lloyd George as wise or unwise men operating in a political vacuum. A 'fair' peace treaty would have been political suicide. The one who wanted a 'fair' peace was President Wilson - and it caused him problems back home.

Having said that, the treaty had some serious flaws. That is something for another question, however.

AnswerI would say the treaty was fair for a number of reasons. The foremost being the cause of the war and while the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is looked upon as being the cause there are many more significant factors. One of these factors was the arms race and to address this the military was restricted which is sensible to ensure Europe's security. Germany was the main aggressor in the war though Germany had already had a full plan for invasion of Belgium (a neutral nation) in 1906, eight years before the war. Germany did not attempt to avoid this conflict but was pushing for it and was just waiting for that one excuse to conquer Europe. Also they brought the U.S. into the war with the Zimmerman Telegram and allowed unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic; no ship was off limits for them even if it was civilian.

It would make sense that Germany would pay reparations considering the war was fought on Belgian and French soil for most of the war and Germany had deliberately destroyed coal mines in France and other targets which were unnecessary and uncalled for an attack. In addition to this, Germany had taken 6 billion marks from Russia in 1918 and 5 billion gold francs from France in 1871. Economic depression was not just the treaty's fault but that coupled with unwise choices and the crash of the stock exchange which affected the whole world.

As for land, all land that was taken from Germany was land that came from Germany's conquests which were turned into independent and sovereign nations.

This is not to say that Germany's allies were off the hook. The Austria-Hungary Empire was broken up, lost land and was not allowed to join together again and the Ottoman Empire lost its conquered lands in the Middle East as well.

Overall, Germany incited WWI and escalated it into a conflict much bigger than it should have been and the punishments were justified because they addressed Germany's role and actions in the war and it saved them from having their capital and country destroyed when the allies started to bear down on Germany (the allies never reached Berlin) and in fact even General Ludendorff of Germany wanted a "peace at any price."

Also, there is a difference between 'right' and 'fair' because the TOV role in the rise of Hitler and WWII is an argument of whether it was 'right' to punish Germany, not if it was 'fair'.

__________

As a result of the Treaty, nine nations were created or restored: Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These nations were allowed self-determination. Many Germans felt that they were not allowed this.

___________

The question of fairness is irrelevant. Woe to the vanquished! In war the spoils go to the victors.

Well, it was unfair in the sense that Germany, as one of the losers, had to give up territory and money. But it was not particularly harsh by the standards of history. Germany had imposed harsh terms on France in 1871 and on Russia in 1918, making them accept peace terms that were as "unfair" or worse.

Answer 2

Well it was definitely fair because the Germans had caused a whole load of commotion and unnecessary hassle and deaths (4 years worth in fact!). They had to admit that they started war which they did do and they lost the land for it and their army was cut. Again I say it is fair because Germany made the most damage and they deserved punishments.

Answer 3

No, it was still a matter of to the Victor belongs the Spoils. Fair does not count in warfare.

Well, it was unfair in the sense that Germany, as one of the losers, had to give up territory and money. But it was not particularly harsh by the standards of history. Germany had forced Austria in 1866, France in 1871, and Russia in 1918 to accept peace terms that were as "unfair" or worse.

Answer 4

I'm not sure what you mean by justifiable. Many think the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on the Germans and their desire for revenge led to WWII