Germany reluctantly signed the most famous treaty ever, the Treaty of Versailles, on June 28th, 1919. Despite the fact that years of revisions to the treaty followed, the focus of this paper will be on the 440 provisions as they were in 1919. Following a long and bloody conflict, the Treaty was signed.
In theory, it was meant to be a treaty that would bring a stop to all conflicts and secure the countries participating. To put it another way, the daunting challenge facing Woodrow Wilson (America) and his fellow delegates from Great Britain, France, and Italy was unlike anything they had ever faced before.
In the eyes of many, economics and reparations were one of the main flaws. That it was necessary to listen to popular demands that had been inflated due to the scope and duration of the conflict exposed one of the Treaty's weaknesses: the delegations. A conservative politician, Geddes, praised the phrase "we shall squeeze the German lemon till the pips squeal" when he pressed Lloyd George for heavy reparations.
However, despite Packer's claim that Lloyd George was against harsh reparations, George tacked on other benefits like war pensions in order to appease conservatives who felt that the original reparations amount was too low. Lloyd George could do little since 'no politician would have lived if he had argued that Germany should be forgiven,' as Kitchen demonstrated. Lentin, on the other hand, was of the opposite opinion, believing that public opinion merely served to increase pressure on the Treaty.
His statement later contradicted itself, saying that the delay in making restitution was due to delegate concerns about public dissatisfaction. As a result, it was necessary to acknowledge and satisfy the views of the general public to some level. Treaty-related goals, such as reducing reparations, were not always met.
The largest flaw in the reparations was Germany's need to pay the entire amount (£600 million). Heavily denounced the reparations since Britain relied on commerce, especially with Germany, and Germany needed to boost their exports and decrease their imports in order to make up for the loss of trade.
Consequently, the United Kingdom stands to lose money from its trade with other countries. I disagree with Feldman's view that the economic and financial agreements were "horrendous disasters," but he supported Keynes.
There was also disarmament hypocrisy in the Treaty of Versailles. Disagreements would be resolved through the League of Nations, rather than war, according to the articles of the League of Nations No country needed huge armies because of this, but Germany was obliged to reduce its military strength to 200,000 voluntary soldiers, indicating just how sparingly those quota points were applied. Germany was vocal about the injustice of disarmament throughout the revisionist period.
America, Russia, and Germany were left out of the League of Nations, which led to its demise. There is no League of Nations without three of the world's most powerful nations. As a result of Italy's seizure of Corfu, the League felt embarrassed by its lack of influence.
As a result of the Treaty's compromises, both strengths and weaknesses have been developed. Historians have been debating whether the Treaty would have been more effective if it had been tougher or softer because of these compromises. While the Treaty was 'too light to limit Germany, yet too severe to be accepted by Germans,' Marks accurately described it. They thought it was overly strict when it came to the distribution of reparations, disarmament, and territory.
As a result, Germany was able to persuade others that the revisionist perspective of the 1920s, which had been accepted by Britain, was excessively harsh. The Treaty's principal elements, such as self-determination, reparations, and disarmament, could be undone through revisionism. The rise of Nazism and World War II have been linked to the rise of revisionism. The Versailles Treaty sought to maintain peace for as long as possible, yet the compromise's flimsiness reveals that it was a failure.
After the war, there was a strong desire to impose a vindictive peace in order to atone for the harm caused by the conflict, which Germany was held responsible for starting. Even if the Treaty had been as lenient as possible, Germany would have sought to alter it. "Ultimately, no amount of adjustment would have pleased the Germans," says Kitchen, and I agree.
Because of this, the Versailles Treaty compromises had a lot going for them, especially in light of the circumstances. For instance, France intended to take the Rhineland but the other delegations realised that it would only infuriate Germany and lead to retaliation, so they came up with a solution where the Rhineland would remain vacant and demilitarised.
It's also possible to look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany's withdrawal treaty with Russia, as evidence of the strength of the concessions. Despite the flaws in the Treaty and the compromises, its strength shows that the accord was praiseworthy in view of the circumstances.
However, it may be claimed that the positives and negatives are inescapable. No matter what it said, the Treaty was certain to fail. In Mattrl's words, "the drive to overthrow the Treaty of Versailles had begun before the ink had dry on it." Germans would not have been weak had they accepted defeat and the terms that came with it.
As a whole, the Treaty of Versailles had a number of advantages and disadvantages, from the League of Nations' ideological revolution to the absence of economic consideration in reparations and the loss of lands. In spite of this, the Treaty should be applauded for being one of its own time, as no other treaty had ever involved as many global and European powers. Because the Treaty was made for its period, it had a limited lifespan.
Our academic experts are ready to help you with any writing assignment. We offer a service to suit your demands, from essay help experts to complete your essay and assignments related to subjects.