What are the opinions on The Treaty of Versailles?

Answer 1

In recent years, many historians have evaluated the Treaty of Versailles as a thoroughly inadequate attempt at resolving the causes of World War I. The principal criticism focuses on the punitive nature of the treaty: Germany, considered to be the primary cause of the First World War, is held responsible for it, with financial (and other) reparations being demanded as a consequence. On this count and many others, that the Treaty of Versailles led directly to World War II's outbreak is disputed by few historians today.

Answer 2

History is not like math. Math, no matter how hard you claim it to be, is very straightforward. Use this formula and you have an answer. It cannot be anything else.

But in the case of history, everything is based on opinion. Sure, we can all agree that these were facts in history, but how did these events change history? What makes an event significant? These are the questions that historians face, and often, have to answer based on their own opinions on the subject.

For your question, I would believe that, yes, in fact, the Treaty of Versailles was viewed as a harsh treaty upon Germany. The treaty was probably viewed as a treaty that connected World War I and World War II, thus proving false the nickname for World War I: The War To End All Wars. Another opinion may be that the treaty was simply an armistice and that both World Wars are one war, separated by twenty years of "peace". And by "peace" I mean the strained peace that occurred as the WWI's Allies remained tense in fear if Germany should become powerful again as Germany suffered from the treaty it was forced to sign in 1919.

Still, these opinions may not be what all historians believe, but probably the majority of historians believe at least one of the ideas I have mentioned above.