Was the Treaty of Versailles Fair? – Laura Aberle

Who can say for sure whether the Treaty of Versailles was fair or not? The answer depends on your point of view. From the French perspective, the Germans deserved to give up everything in order to make amends for the destruction they caused in France. Therefore, the treaty wasn’t punishing them enough. 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. Clemenceau had wanted nothing but revenge on Germany, and that was definitely achieved, if not to the extent he had hoped for. 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.

What about Germany? Wasn’t it unfair to place the entire blame on her, and to make her pay such hefty reparations? It might be argued that the treaty was aimed at completely destroying Germany’s economy and that they had lost too much territory and money. People worried that their army would be ruined by it as well. It was argued that the politicians who signed the treaty were tricked because they had thought only Wilson’s Fourteen Points had been used in writing it.

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? 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.

Did the Big Three also feel cheated? Despite the whines heard from Germany about the brutality of the treaty, Clemenceau’s wishes for revenge had only been halfway fulfilled. He had wanted Germany broken up into small states and to pay much more in compensation for the destruction and death which had taken place in north-eastern France. Of course, one must consider that he had to negotiate with Wilson, who was much more concerned with a ‘just peace’ and self-determination. When you look at how different their views were, it’s obvious that the fairest treaty would be made by compromising. France did get Alsace-Lorraine and the Rhineland back under her control, the German army was reduced significantly, and there was a ban on tanks, submarines, and the air force.

Wilson certainly didn’t accomplish everything he had hoped for, but that can be expected when you look at how much he wanted. No, secret treaties weren’t banned, not everyone was disarmed, and there wasn’t free movement of ships. Wilson was disappointed with some parts of the treaty, but one of his most important ideas, setting up a League of Nations, had been achieved. He signed the treaty because he had a lot of faith in the League and thought he would be able to accomplish whatever had been left out of the treaty later. Like Clemenceau, he didn’t get a lot of what he wanted, but the most important ideas were included in the treaty.

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.

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.