Was the Treaty of Versailles fair Reddit

Hello! Could someone help me answer this question. If I am not mistaken this is a 10 point IGSCE History question. Any suggestions/ideas?

People will often cite the Treaty of Versailles as being the main inspiration for German indignation against the world and the feeling of needing to reclaim Germany's rightful honor on the world stage. In a speech at a factory in 1940 Hitler lays out the inequality of standards of living and land distribution between Germany and other European powers following the 30 year war. I'm curious how accurate this is, and what effects the Treaty of Versailles had on top of this, and if it was proportionate to Germany's conduct and role during the first world war.

The treaty of versailles wasn't as terrible as it is often proclaimed. Germany was just whining so hard, that even the winners started believing it. from HistoryMemes

This is a slightly different prompt than a lot of others I see on here, but here we go.

The common view of the Treaty of Versailles is that it was too harsh, as it laid the entire blame of the war on the German Empire, it was forced to give up a decent amount of territory, and forced Germany to give extensive monetary reparations. Popular history usually states that these conditions were too harsh on Germany, which hit their national pride, and made them wanting to seek revenge. I am currently a graduate history student writing my thesis on this very topic, and I thought I would make a post here.

Context Behind WWI itself:

-There had been no 'major' since 1815, after Napoleon was defeated. In the century between 1815 and 1915, the largest war was a limited engagement in the Crimean War, with Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire creating a coalition to curtail the growing geopolitical influence of Russia. Another one of the more notable conflicts was the Franco-Prussian war, which I will talk about in a bit more detail. Some call this period of history the 'Pax Britannica' or the British Peace.

-The geopolitical situation for the 19th century was created at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, setting certain powers against each other, with the British Empire at the height of its influence and geopolitically and economically dominating the continent.

-When the Congress of Vienna was completed, Prussia's (Germany) counterbalance was Austria, which Prussia held significant geographic and military advantages over. However, following the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 the geopolitical situation established in Vienna may as well been put in the garbage with the unification of Germany.

-All of a sudden, you have a power in central Europe that is all of a sudden, one of the most, if not the most, powerful land empires in Europe and on the planet. In the Franco-Prussian war, France deployed FAR more troops than Prussia, at 2 million to 1.4 million, and Prussia still absolutely smashed the French empire, laying siege to Paris just several weeks into the conflict. It is CLEAR that the balance of power was way off in Europe, as everyone knew that a united Germany could crush France, the traditional western land power.

World War I was far more than a war set off by an assassination and diplomatic insults, in the years prior to the war, there had been a massive naval arms race, making the German navy competitive with the British Navy. The French and British becoming semi-allies in the later part of the 19th century was in large part, meant to counterbalance the German influence. This can also be used to explain the alliance between France and Russia. Not only was Germany the most populous nation in Europe, it was one of the most militarily advanced nations on the planet.

If the powers in Versailles, following in the First World War truly desired a lasting peace on the European continent, they should have pushed to severely weaken Germany, not just take away various possessions in East Prussia that were not very impact in the grand scheme of things. The Treaty of Versailles was not sucessful in sufficiently taking away the German ability to wage war for several reasons.

In 1939, the population of France was only 42,000,000 compared to Germany having almost 70,000,000 people, and about 75+ million if you include Austria.

The Rhine area, Germany's industrial heartland consisting of cities like Cologne, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Essen, etc. was only demilitarized following the war, and the industrial potential of Germany was still there.

In addition to the general population disparity in 1939, the First World War was far more impact on French demography France had 1.4 million military deaths in World War I, making up about 4.3% of their population. Germany had about 2 million military deaths in World War I, making up 'only' 3% of their prewar population. You also must consider that most of these military deaths were of males between the ages of 18-40, thus dramatically impacting the manpower pool 20 years later in favor of the Germans versus the French.

If your goal following the First World War was to create a new balance of power that would help bring peace to the continent, you should have followed the 1815 model instead of the 1919 model. In order to do this, you would have to dramatically strengthen France, or dramatically weaken Germany. While confiscated lands and reparations did hurt Germany, it did not hurt them to the point that the French could actually compete with the Germans on a military basis, as the Germans still had the industrial and manpower advantage over France. In order to solve this, you could have listened to the French proposal for the Treaty of Versailles, and sought to make the Rhine an independent protectorate. This would have critically restricted the ability of the Germans to wage industrialized warfare, and put France on a geopolitical parody with Germany.

I have to include this in a WWI write up. Woodrow Wilson was remarkably tone deaf on the realities of European geopolitics when he created his peace plans. If you wanted to create actual peace between the European powers, you would need to create a France and Germany that were roughly equal in geopolitical influence. These problems were solved after the Second World War when all of these powers, plus the United States, were in a power struggle with the Soviet Union. Wilson essentially said that we shouldn't punish Germany very harshly, sitting across the ocean and not living with the reality of your country being invaded twice a century.

Some people say it was fair against Germany, because they had destroyed a lot of Belgium and France. Others say it was very unfair for the Germans because they couldn't pay off the debt. Which is correct? Was the treaty of Versailles unfair or justified?

I found this BBC article that claims:

The Treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.

It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.

The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 200 and 300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, its factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.

Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler, who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.

Is this accurate? I've always learned in school and elsewhere that the treaty was excessively harsh and unfair, leading to the economic conditions in Germany that spurred World War II. The author's argument seems to boil down to largely whataboutism.

I have always heard that the Versailles treaty led directly to W.W.2. But have also read that Germany largely avoided the debt, by purposeful inflation, renegotiation, and default. It is also interesting that similar terms were imposed upon the French by Prussia in 1871...loss of alsace-Lorraine, indemnity, etc. Any good sources on this?

Edit: For those looking for a more indepth look at the economic side of the treaty, check out this post I made

A persistent myth about the rise of Nazism, and consequently WW2, is that the Germans were somehow forced to support a genocidal regime due to a combination of Hitler’s charisma and the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles leaving them no other choices.

Here’s some examples, mostly found by either searching “Treaty of Versailles Harsh” on google or just searching for the treaty on Reddit:

History memes:

https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/diqi9c/treaty_of_versailles/

https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/dtzbwf/really_prepared_me_for_the_real_world/f71cr53/?st=k2t7gjsb&sh=d9cbb2b4

https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/as7vbo/it_do_be_like_that_sometimes/egt03s7/

Quora:

https://www.quora.com/In-what-ways-was-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-too-harsh

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-extremely-harsh-on-Germany

https://www.quora.com/In-retrospect-does-France-think-the-articles-of-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-were-too-harsh-on-Germany

Misc Reddit:

https://np.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/b95dgu/bolsonaro_says_after_visiting_holocaust_museum/ek2xxqc/

https://np.reddit.com/r/sabaton/comments/7qd3ll/turks_listening_to_winged_hussars/dsp5ztc/

https://np.reddit.com/r/wwiipics/comments/8bg04u/us_forces_reach_the_maginot_line_in_1944/dx6yben/

https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/8yj4bf/americans_what_do_you_think_of_the_way_britain_is/e2bnyp4/?st=jjk87amg&sh=34bb33e4

Thankfully, most of the comments are filled with people pointing out that this view is wrong, but I figured a more in-depth look at the supposed harshness of the treaty would be fun. Plus I’m bored and don’t really feel like unpacking after moving, so here I am.

While the argument that Versailles drove the Germans to Nazism lends to the obvious stripping of agency from the German population during this pivotal period, that particular bad history has been covered before on this subreddit(u/Samuel_Gompers discusses it at length here). Therefore, this post will be focused on the supposed harshness of the treaty itself, rather than a direct rebuttal to the specifics of any of the above bad history.

Part 1: What is a Harsh Treaty? What is a Light Treaty?

In order to figure out if the Treaty of Versailles was unduly cruel to the Germans or not, the first step is to figure out what qualifies a harsh treaty. Therefore, what are some comparative treaties?

**Treaty of Frankfurt(1871)**1: The Treaty of Frankfurt is a decent place to start, despite being over forty years before WW1. Signed after the defeat of the Second French Empire in the Franco-Prussian War, it gave the new German state the mostly German-speaking land of Alsace-Lorraine. While not a massive annexation of territory, the provinces ceded were of great importance to France for two major reasons: Firstly, the forts, mountains, and defences in the area had been a part of French defenses since the 30 Years War, and secondly the area represented a large portion of France’s coal and steel production capabilities, which could have greatly slowed France’s industrialization had new mining areas not been discovered in Picardy. Finally, the treaty forced France to pay 5,000,000,000 francs in gold, and to grant Germany a Most Favored Nation clause for trade.

Treaty of Trianon(1920)2: If you’ve met a Hungarian nationalist before, you’ve absolutely heard of this treaty. The Treaty of Trianon, signed between the Entente powers and Hungary, reduced Hungary to around 28% of it’s pre-war size, granting land to Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. Most of the treaty is taken up with defining the new boundaries of the nation, or clauses stating that Hungary agrees to recognize other territorial changes that resulted from WW1. There is also the seizing of certain international properties and funds formerly belonging to the Austro-Hungarian Empire outside of Hungary itself.

**Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye(1919)**3: In short, this treaty divided and destroyed the Austro-Hungarian empire, forming new nations or giving certain areas to be annexed by neighboring nations. The Austrian lands of Sud-Tirol and Littoral were given to Italy, modern Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Slovenia went to the newly formed state of Yugoslavia, the concession port in Tianjin went to China, and the Imperial province of Galicia-Lodermia was given to Poland. Still, Austria did gain some land from the Hungarians, being given a mostly German-speaking strip of land from the Hungarian provinces of Moson, Sopron, and Vas. There is a clause demanding war reparations, yet an amount is not specified and no war reparations were collected from Austria, despite that clause’s inclusion in the treaty. Finally, the treaty also forced Austria, among the other Central Powers, to accept responsibility for starting the war. Same as the Treaty of Trianon, the land that changed hands was mostly handled by plebiscite, though a discussion can certainly be held on the validity of the votes in those plebiscites, given that they were overseen by Entente officials.

**Treaty of Sèvres(1920)**4: A historically interesting treaty, given that many of its clauses and provisions were not fulfilled or outright ignored. The treaty neutered the Ottoman Empire as an entity, demanding that most of the non-Turkish land be given to other certain polities. The Ionian section of the Adriatic Coast was given to Greece(Mostly focused around Smyrna), along with East Thrace. The straits of the Bosphorous would be held under an international zone. Kurdistan would be granted a referendum on independence. Armenia would be recognized as an independent state, and given a large portion of land that is now in modern-day Turkey. The Levant would be divided between British and French Mandates. The kingdom of the Hejaz would be granted international recognition. Rhodes would go to Italy, along with zones recognized for French and Italian influence. These territorial concessions would strip the Ottoman Empire from its size of 1,589,540 km2 (613,724 mi2) to 453,000 km2 (174,900 mi2). Ultimately, large sections of the treaty would be ignored due to Attaturk’s efforts, but that’s a topic for a different discussion.

What do these various treaties tell us? Firstly, that territorial concessions in Europe in this period were generally based around linguistic and cultural borders, rather than vengeful nations drawing lines on a map for fun(Different arguments could be made for territorial concessions in the Middle East and Africa, but once more, that’s a conversation for a different day). Secondly, that war reparations were a near constant of treaties, whether reparations demanded in name only(As in Austria’s case) or reparations actually paid(As in France’s case). A third bit of information is evident as well - the other major Central Powers, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans, were completely dismantled, and reduced to small shells of their former selves, with their multi-ethnic empires dismantled and many new nation states carved from them. The lightest treaty on the list above is the Treaty of Frankfurt, which still provided for an important economic and naturally defensive zone to be given over, and large war reparations provided.

Part 2: What were the original plans for Germany?

Discussion of what would happen to Germany after the war had been held between France and Britain, and later the USA, throughout the war. The following are mostly summaries of relevant chapters from the excellent book The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 years.

French War Aims5: The most prominent aim of France during the war and at the peace conference was the regaining of Alsace-Lorraine. The French government successfully negotiated with the other powers to gain back these lands without a plebiscite, and to retain the ability to expel German immigrants from the area, along with liquidating German holdings in mining and industry. The initial goal of the Clemenceau government was also to not only restore the 1870 border, but instead restore the border of 1814-15, which would add the small salients of German lands of in Saarbrucken and Landau, areas that would give France rich coalfields and mines. Outside of regaining the territories of Alsace-Lorraine, early French war aims included the creation of one or more nominally independent states on the left bank of the Rhine, which would be disarmed, given their own bank and bank notes, and included in a Western European Customs Zone. The Rhine Bridges would also remain under Entente occupation. France also desired several other territorial concessions, aimed at weakening Germany as much as possible. Notably, France wished to grant Denmark more of Schleswig than Demark wanted. France argued that Poland should be given land corresponding with the Polish frontiers of 1772, granting it a land corridor to the Baltic, along with the port of Danzig(Though an “internationalization” of Danzig would be seen as acceptable to France). The final territorial changes aimed at by France were the Polish claims to the entirety of Upper Silesia, which held the second largest German coalfield. Upper Silesia had not been part of Poland in 1772, but did have a mixed population of Poles and Germans. Economically, Germany would have to pay reparations for the damage it had done to the occupied provinces of France around Picardy during the war(One of the more important coal and steel producing areas in France at the time). Germany would also have to pay the French government reimbursements for disablement, widows pensions, the entire cost of the war on France, and pay back, with accumulated compound interest, the money France had paid to Germany from the Treaty of Frankfurt. Still, there was disagreements in France over Germany paying pure cash, as the Commerce Ministry feared that such payments would lead to inflation, and instead favoring massive coal deliveries from Germany and German payment for the destruction in occupied regions, and nothing more. While the above war aims were undoubtedly harsh and would have totally crippled Germany as a nation, they were simply aims, and the French government was willing to negotiate on most of them. France also supported, but did not demand, Rhenish and Bavarian separatism, thought it still emphatically did not wish for Germany to be totally broken up to pre-unification states. France did advocate for the German military to be reduced, but not totally crippled, and for Germany to be barred from the League of Nations.

British War Aims6: British war aims were much less vengeful than the French, and more ideologically focused. David French states that “Britain was fighting not to crush the German people, but to bring about a change in Germany’s constitutional arrangements. They were engaged in a war to destroy the control of the Prussian military caste over the German state”. In a more real geopolitical manner, Britain wished to crush German ability to challenge Britain in any meaningful way, yet still keep Germany strong enough as to not upset the continental balance of power. If these aims were to be met, Churchill and Kitchener agreed that the German fleet would have to be destroyed, the Kiel Canal would have to be taken from German control, and a large indemnity would have to be placed on Germany in order to prevent the building of a German fleet that could challenge Britain. Still, a moderately powerful Germany in the center of Europe was desired, in order to “prevent Russia becoming too predominant”, as outlined by David Lloyd George. A key part of British, and by extension French, war policy in regards to treaty making and planning, was a belief that the German army still retained enough strength and ability to organize an orderly retreat to the Rhine, and make a strong stand there in the winter of 1918-1919. Therefore, certain calculations were made by British policy makers, who believed that in order to impose unconditional surrender upon Germany, fighting would have to continue into 1919. The cost of continuing the war into 1919 would outweigh the benefits Britain would gain by continuing the fighting and securing a more total victory. In addition, manpower shortages in the British Expeditionary Force in France, as well as fears that French General Ferdinand Foch would sacrifice British soldiers in order to save French manpower, factored into the decision to end the war as quickly as possible. Furthermore, fears were held that if the war continued on, the USA would supplant Britain’s economic place in the world, and have a merchant fleet that could challenge the British one. Because of the above fears and worries, along with other numerous fears, Britain’s War Cabinet decided that an early armistice, even one that did not give them all they wanted, was much more favorable than a late one. Therefore, Britain’s greatest aims were to secure the superiority of the British navy, to prevent Germany from retaining the gains it had secured in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, to keep Germany strong enough to retain a continental balance but not strong enough to challenge British superiority, and to make a quick peace before conditions turned against Britain. However, in reality, British fears that the war would last longer much longer were unfounded, and as Sir Eric Geddes said “Had we known how bad things were in Germany, we might have gotten stiffer terms”

An important take-away from this discussion of peace aims was outlined by Alan Sharp: “...Britain and France did have a grasp of their broad strategic aims, neither had really worked out the details of its peace program before the Armistice”7. The terms and aims outlined above were general ideas that the respective governments had about what they wanted from post-war Europe, rather than definite and organized plans. Still, from the above war aims, it is clear that Britain and France desired a harsh treaty to be forced upon Germany, comparable to the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Sèvres. A weakened Germany, giving up its non-German land(and debatably non-German land, if France had its way), economically and militarily unable to contend with an Anglo-French hegemony. Had all the original war aims been fulfilled, we would not be having this conversation, as the treaty would be undeniably harsh, though debate could be had over whether it was justified or not. But we’re not here to discuss alternate history, as interesting as it would be.

Part 3: What did the Treaty of Versailles demand, actually?

Here are the terms of the actual treaty, as preserved by the Library of Congress. But we're not here to sit and read through the entire treaty, so here is a brief summation of it’s terms as they pertain to Germany itself:

Border Changes to Germany:

Benelux Region: the Kries of Eupen, Malmedy, and Montjoie were to be ceded to Belgium, a small concession of an insignificant area. Luxembourg would be independent, and its border would follow the 1870 border with France.

France: The 1870 border would be restored(Giving Alsace-Lorraine back to France), with the Saar Basin being under French economic control though not outright annexed. The Saar Basin would be under a local Saar government, and after 15 years would be able to vote between joining Germany, joining France, or remaining independent.

Eastern borders: This is a long one, as it is a complete redefinition of Germany’s eastern borders. I won’t bore you all with laying out the incremental changes, but in short, the Polish dominated province of Posen would go to Poland, along with most of West Prussia, and a sliver of Silesia, though Poland would ship to Germany the products of the newly gained mines in Silesia for 15 years. The Free City of Danzig would be established. Another sliver of Silesia would go to Czechoslovakia. The port of Memel would go to Lithuania.

Denmark: “The frontier between Germany and Denmark shall be fixed in conformity with the wishes of the population.” Further outlined, this meant that the areas of Slesvig would be able to vote on whether to join Denmark or remain part of Germany, after being placed under an international government in order to ensure that the vote was not influenced by Germany or other local powers. All people 20 or older would be able to vote, regardless of sex or any other qualification, so long as they had been born in the area.

Colonies: All of them are given up. We could go into more detail here, but this post that is a rebuttal to Quora questions, Reddit comments, and memes is getting a bit long, so suffice to say that German overseas areas were given to France, Britain, China, and Japan, with German possessions in such areas seized by the local governments who would answer to one of the above-mentioned powers.

Economic demands of the Treaty:

Germany would be forced to pay reparations to China, France, and Britain for the destruction and looting done by German soldiers in WW1 and the German expedition into China in 1900-1901.

Germany would pay certain amounts to the citizens of Alsace-Lorraine, paying the pensions of soldiers from there, along with a few other more minor costs.

France would have control over which certain products produced in the Rhineland would be exempt from customs tax.

Other demands of the Treaty:

“Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the west of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine.”

“In the area defined above the maintenance and the assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manoeuvres of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilization, are in the same way forbidden.”

Violation of the above demands would constitute a hostile act against world peace.

Germany wasn’t allowed to annex Austria in order to create a Pan-German state, unless maybe the League of Nations said it was okay.

Military restrictions:

Germany would be restricted to a 200,000 man army, and a 15,000 man navy.

The police force restricted to pre-war size

Germany wasn’t allowed to have an air force.

There are many, many other demands and provisos of the treaty, but the above are the most relevant to the discussion and most notable.

Part 4: So, was the Treaty that bad?

Economically, the treaty itself was not unduly harsh. The economic demands placed upon Germany because of it were not anything new in the policies of peace-making, and the annexations or occupations of certain areas of economic importance were not particularly different from the annexations or occupations put in place against other nations on the losing side of wars, as can be seen in the treaties of Sèvres and Frankfurt. This is not to say that the treaty did not strain Germany’s collapsing economy(As the war itself and the British blockade had already basically destroyed it), but rather that the economic terms outlined by the Treaty of Versailles were not particularly rough when compared to other treaties of the time.

The border changes enforced by the treaty reduced the German population by 7 million, and 65,000 km2 (25,000 mi2). This might seem like a lot, when compared to the 1.6 million citizens and 14,470 km2 (5,587 mi2) lost by France in the Treaty of Frankfurt. However, when compared to the treaties of Trianon, Sèvres, and Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the population and land lost by Germany is not nearly as significant as the land and population lost by the Austrian Empire, Hungary, and the planned losses for the Ottoman Empire.

Because the loss of land and economic demands of the treaty would not cripple Germany, the demands upon the German military were strong, as the treaty demands upon the Hungarian, Ottoman, and Austrian militaries did not need to be as heavy, given that the total crippling of their states would theoretically prevent a strong military regardless. Still, those other powers did endure strong demands against their militaries, despite the division of their nations.

What does all this mean? Was the Treaty of Versailles a horribly rough treaty drawn up by powers lusting for revenge and the destruction of Germany? No. In comparison to the treaties of its day, the Treaty of Versailles was a pretty standard one, though the requirements for the restriction of the German military were a bit stronger than most. The Treaty could have been much worse for Germany, and indeed, Britain and France had aims of making the treaty harsher. But due to incorrect beliefs that Germany was in a stronger position than it actually was and could continue the war well into 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was lighter upon Germany than original war aims conceived.

TL;DR: The Treaty of Versailles wasn’t as bad as people think.

1: Treaty of Frankfurt: http://gander.chez.com/traite-de-francfort.htm (Sorry the treaty is in French, I was unable to find an English translation easily)

2: Treaty of Trianon: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Trianon

3: Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1920/3.html

4: The Treaty of Sèvres: Section 1: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Section_I,Articles_1-_260, Section 2: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Section_II,_Annex_II,and_Articles_261-_433

5:The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years edited by Boemeke, Feldman, and Glaser, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pages 90-93

6: The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Pages 69-86

7: The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Page 132

8: Treaty of Versailles: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0043.pdf