was the treaty of versailles fair essay

The answers to this question and all your GCSE/iGCSE history topics is only a click away.

Download our FREE app for Android and iOS .

Arguments For and Against the Fairness of the Versailles Settlement

• ❖ They believed Germany only said that it was unable to meet the terms because it wanted to escape punishment .
• ❖ They thought it punished the defeated countries but gave them the opportunity to recover.
• ❖ Some people believed it wasn't harsh enough. The French, especially, were worried Germany would soon recover enough strength to challenge France again.
• ❖ In 1918 Germany itself had made a treaty with defeated Russia , the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , that was much harsher than the Versailles Settlement .
• ❖ Germany had already agreed to pay reparations in the Armistice of November 1918.
• ❖ At the time, the First World War was the most devastating conflict the world had seen, and people saw it as the right thing for losing nations to be punished in this manner.
• ❖ 'History is written by the victors,' as the saying goes. In most wars it is common for the losers to agree to a harsh settlement.
• ❖ There were problems with the peace settlement, but the war had a huge impact on the geography of Europe. The peacemakers had to act quickly before the region became unstable so they did the best job they could.
• ❖ Some people, particularly in Germany, but also British politicians like J M Keynes, felt the Versailles Settlement was unfairly harsh for the following reasons:
• ❖ They had expected it to follow Wilson's 14 Points, but it differed from these significantly. Wilson's points were based on creating a fairer world for everyone; had they known the treaty would not be based on these principles, Germany might not have signed.
• ❖ They didn't believe Germany should accept the blame for the war. The causes of the war were complex; each leading European nation, including Britain, played a role in the tensions that led to war in 1914.
• ❖ They felt it was a revenge treaty , designed to make the Germans suffer.
• ❖ Many people feared it would lead to another war once Germany had recovered enough to take revenge.
• ❖ Six million Germans were displaced and had to live in other countries, despite Wilson's principle of self-determination . They feared persecution as they had been forced to accept responsibility for the war.
• ❖ The German people felt the treaty was a ' diktat ', a dictated peace, because they were not allowed to have a say at the conference.
• ❖ German was hugely affected economically by the war and felt it would never recover from the scale of reparations.
• ❖ The Treaty of Lausanne undermined any arguments about fairness regarding the Versailles Treaty .

Welcome to Clever Lili!

Turbocharge your history revision with our revolutionary new app! Clever Lili is here to help you ace your exams.

Enhanced Learning

Study guides, android and ios app, alexa and google home, ask question in facebook messenger, gcse history.

A text and voice app that allows you to easily revise for your GCSE/IGCSE exams wherever you are. Whether you’re at home or on the bus, GCSE History provides you with thousands of convenient bite-sized facts to help you pass your exams with flying colours. Great for student and teachers.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Treaty of Versailles

By: History.com Editors

Updated: April 24, 2023 | Original: October 29, 2009

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919 at the Palace of Versailles in Paris at the end of World War I , codified peace terms between Germany and the victorious Allies. The Treaty of Versailles held Germany responsible for starting the war and imposed harsh penalties on the Germans, including loss of territory, massive reparations payments and demilitarization. Far from the “peace without victory” that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had outlined in his famous Fourteen Points in early 1918, the Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany while failing to resolve the underlying issues that had led to war in the first place. Economic distress and seething resentment of the treaty within Germany helped fuel the rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party , as well as World War II .

The Fourteen Points  

In a speech to Congress in January 1918, Wilson laid out his idealistic vision for the world after World War I, which was at the time sometimes referred to as “the war to end all wars.”

In addition to specific territorial settlements based on an Allied victory, Wilson’s so-called Fourteen Points emphasized the need for national self-determination for Europe’s different ethnic populations.

Wilson also proposed the founding of a “general association of nations” that would mediate international disputes and foster cooperation between different nations in the hopes of preventing war on such a large scale in the future. This organization eventually became known as the League of Nations .

History Vault: The Last Day Of World War I

More soldiers died on the last day of WWI than on D-Day. Find out why Allied leaders found outrageous excuses to send 13,000 men to their deaths against a defeated enemy. The senseless 11th-hour slaughter captures the whole of WWI.

When German leaders signed the armistice ending hostilities in World War I on November 11, 1918, they believed Wilson’s vision would form the basis for any future peace treaty. This would not prove to be the case.

Paris Peace Conference 

The Paris Peace Conference opened on January 18, 1919, a date that was significant in that it marked the anniversary of the coronation of German Emperor Wilhelm I, which took place in the Palace of Versailles at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871.

Prussian victory in that conflict had resulted in Germany’s unification and its seizure of Alsace and Lorraine provinces from France. In 1919, France and its prime minister, Georges Clemenceau, had not forgotten the humiliating loss and intended to avenge it in the new peace agreement. 

Treaty of Versailles Terms

The “ Big Four ” leaders of the victorious Western nations—Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of Great Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France and, to a lesser extent, Vittorio Orlando of Italy—dominated the peace negotiations in Paris. Germany and the other defeated powers—Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey—were not represented at the Paris Peace Conference. Also absent was Russia, which had fought as one of the Allied powers until 1917, when, following the Russian Revolution , the country’s new Bolshevik government concluded a separate peace with Germany and withdrew from the conflict.

The Big Four themselves had competing objectives in Paris: Clemenceau’s main goal was to protect France from yet another attack by Germany. He sought heavy reparations from Germany as a way of limiting German economic recovery after the war and minimizing this possibility.

Lloyd George, on the other hand, saw the rebuilding of Germany as a priority in order to reestablish the nation as a strong trading partner for Great Britain. For his part, Orlando wanted to expand Italy’s influence and shape it into a major power that could hold its own alongside the other great nations.

Wilson opposed Italian territorial demands, as well as previously existing arrangements regarding territory between the other Allies; instead, he wanted to create a new world order along the lines of his Fourteen Points. The other leaders saw Wilson as too naive and idealistic, and his principles were difficult to translate into policy.

In the end, the European Allies imposed harsh peace terms on Germany, forcing the nation to surrender around 10 percent of its territory and all of its overseas possessions. Other key provisions of the Treaty of Versailles called for the demilitarization and occupation of the Rhineland, limited Germany’s army and navy, forbade it to maintain an air force, and required it to conduct war crimes trials against Kaiser Wilhelm II and other leaders for their aggression.

Most importantly, Article 231 of the treaty, better known as the “ war guilt clause ,” forced Germany to accept full responsibility for starting World War I and pay enormous reparations for Allied war losses.

How Did the Treaty of Versailles Lead to World War II?

The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo, sparking the outbreak of the war. Though the treaty included a covenant creating the League of Nations, an international organization aimed at preserving peace, the harsh terms imposed on Germany helped ensure that peace would not last for long.

Germans were furious about the treaty, seeing it as a diktat, or dictated peace; they bitterly resented the sole blame of war being placed at their feet. The nation’s burden of reparations eventually topped 132 billion gold Reichsmarks, the equivalent of some $33 billion, a sum so great that no one expected Germany to be able to pay in full; in fact, economists like John Maynard Keynes predicted the European economy would collapse if it did.

Keynes was not the only prominent critic of the Treaty of Versailles: The French military leader Ferdinand Foch refused to attend the signing ceremony, as he thought the treaty didn’t do enough to secure against a future German threat, while the U.S. Congress failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles , and later concluded a separate peace with Germany. The United States would never join the short-lived League of Nations.

November Criminals

In the years following the Treaty of Versailles, many ordinary Germans believed they had been betrayed by the “November Criminals,” those leaders who signed the treaty and formed the post-war government.

Radical right-wing political forces—especially the National Socialist Workers’ Party, or the Nazis—would gain support in the 1920s and ‘30s by promising to reverse the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty.

With the onset of the Great Depression after 1929, economic unrest destabilized the already vulnerable Weimar Republic government in Germany, setting the stage for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s fateful rise to power in 1933.

The Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles. U.S. Department of State: Office of the Historian . “The Treaty of Versailles: An Uneasy Peace,” WBUR.org (excerpt from Michael Neiberg, The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History), August 13, 2017. Treaty of Versailles. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum . The Treaty of Versailles, 1919. Chateau de Versailles .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Prof. Qualls' Course Blogs

Blogging and teaching, teaching and blogging…but always learning.

The Treaty of Versailles: Fair or Unfair?

The Treaty of Versailles, signed June 28 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference, was a treaty created by the Allied powers that ended the war five years after it started. The treaty reprimanded and condemned Germany for its overt aggression that started the war. The Allied powers—specifically the Big Three of the United States, Great Britain, and France—sought reparation for damages resulting from the war. The treaty disallowed Germany from entering the League of Nations for fifteen years, gave France certain territories back, created a demilitarized zone, and weakened Germany’s armed forces. ((From  The Treaty of Versailles and After: Annotations of the Text of the Treaty))  The language in the treaty is demanding and forthright, as it does not resist in expressing its desire for reparations; Germany views many of the demands as impossible to meet or simply too strict. However, having lost significant amounts of resources, troops, and money as a result of the war, Germany subsequently forced to agree to the demands of set forth in the treaty as they had no choice. However, after ratification, the treaty was eventually revised, giving Germany much more breathing room.

The treaty was created not only to reprimand Germany, but to send a message to Germany and its allies that over-aggression is not accepted in the international community. Any disregard of the law would result in significant punishment. However, the Treaty of Versailles backfired on the Allied powers and the rest of the world, as the strict demands inspired German nationalism. In effect, the Treaty of Versailles inspired Germany to reignite its military, leading to the rise of Hitler and Germany’s power during World War II.

I’m interested to potentially look into this more in the future, whether that be personal research or through taking a World War I class. Though Germany deserved its punishment for starting the war, (some people may disagree) I’m wondering if the Allied powers envisioned such an angry response. Do you think the demands listed in the Treaty of Versailles were too much, or not? Why was Germany so angry? How could Germany have responded in a much more peaceful way? Or, do you think Germany really shouldn’t have been punished much at all? I’m curious to see your responses to this.

Treaty of Versailles: 5 SEQ Samples

Common questions from O level history on the Treaty of Versailles will focus on the objectives of the Treaty. Another type of common question will revolve around whether it is fair or not.

To help students understand how to answer the questions above, I have listed down five sample Structure Essay Questions for them to model after.

Download Here!

1. Explain the aims of the USA and France during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919.

( P ) Under President Woodrow Wilson’s leadership, the USA wanted a fair treaty.

( E ) Wilson wanted to create a world based on just principles, be a safer place and never experience war as devastating as World War 1. Wilson had drawn up a list of his ideals, the Fourteen Points. He hoped to give people the choice of self-determination and create an organisation that would stop future wars. Wilson recognised that the Allies should punish Germany but wanted the punishment to be fair and not cripple Germany.

( E ) The USA had a different experience in WW1 and had suffered very little compared to France, having entered the war only in 1917.

( L ) Hence, it was not surprising that the USA’s aims were ideal and did not set out to overly punish the war’s losers.

( P ) France, on the other hand, was determined to punish Germany at the Paris Peace Conference.

( E ) Clemenceau aimed to weaken Germany to the point that it would not attack France again. Thus, Clemenceau wanted to weaken the German army and create a buffer zone between them. In addition, he wanted the Germans to pay so much compensation to France that the Germans would find their economy crippled. He also wanted land they had lost to Germany in an earlier war returned.

( E ) He did so because France had suffered tremendously during the war as the bulk of the fighting was on French soil.  More than 1.5 million French died, and hundreds of thousands were injured. In addition, the conflict destroyed large areas of agricultural and industrial land.

( L ) Hence, they set out to push forth terms that would cripple Germany.

2. ‘The main aim of the Treaty of Versailles was to foster democracy in the world.’ How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

( P ) A motive of the Allies was to foster democracy in the world.

( E ) USA’s Woodrow Wilson greatly championed this. Wilson’s principle of self-determination allowed people except Germany to choose where they wanted to live. New countries were also set up in Europe due to self-determination by the people of the territories.

Furthermore, British Prime Minister Lloyd George moderated the punishment meted out on Germany by the Allies. He felt that Germany should be punished but not too harshly. Furthermore, Western European powers were afraid of communism; fostering democracy became a vital motive.

( E ) The Allies hoped that Germany could be a barrier against the rising threat of communism, and to achieve this, the Treaty was meant to foster democracy.

( L ) Wilson, and to a lesser extent, Lloyd George, did not want to take revenge on Germany but rather to promote democracy in the world and prevent the spread of communism to the rest of Europe.

( P ) However, the Treaty of Versailles was also meant to prevent another outbreak of war in Europe and the world.

( E )  Britain and France had been affected by World War I. France had suffered the most as the bulk of the fighting had taken place there. These countries were against the idea of another war that might further drain them.

As it was, they were starting to recuperate their losses and pay back the debts they had incurred due to the war. Hence, France and Britain were war-weary, and the politicians from these countries seriously wanted to prevent an outbreak of another war.

( E ) They wanted to keep Germany militarily and economically weak. The Treaty kept the German’s army at 100,000 men, with strict air force and navy restrictions. In addition, the Allies demanded reparations that kept Germany financially vulnerable. They took away economically vital land so that it would lack funds to support its military operations.

( L ) Thus the Treaty of Versailles made to punish Germany for its involvement in the war.

( J ) Ultimately, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the statement that the main aim of the Treaty of Versailles was to foster democracy. The Treaty was too focused on punishing Germany and did not have clauses to help the new democratic government of Germany to do well. As a result, the democratic Weimar government in Germany struggled to repay its debts. It managed to stabilise Germany only because the United States intervened.

3. ‘The Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany only because of demilitarisation.’ How far do you agree? Explain your answer.

( P ) Yes, the ToV was unfair to Germany because of demilitarisation.

( E ) The Allies were worried that Germany could start another war if they were strong. Hence, the ToV stipulated that Germany could only maintain a minimal army of 100,000 men in the army, 15,000 men in the navy and no air force or tanks or submarines.

( E ) However, the ToV made Germany’s armed forces so weak that Germany had trouble defending itself. Thus, Germany was vulnerable as they could not fend off any incoming attacks easily. In that vein, their national security was under threat. The ToV also stated that Rhineland, the buffer region between France and Germany, be demilitarised.

However, the ToV did not consider French hatred of Germany, which left Germany exposed to a potential French invasion via the now defenceless Rhineland, only served to threaten German national survival further.

( L ) Thus, demilitarisation was unfair since it jeopardised German safety and compromised the country’s fundamental right to defence.

( P ) But there were other sides of the ToV that were equally, if not more, unfair for Germany.

( E ) One other such clause was the reparations of 6.6 million pounds that Germany had to pay. Finally, as part of accepting the War Guilt Clause, Germany had to take responsibility for all the costs of war.

( E ) However, like the country war-stricken countries, Germany also had to rebuild its economy. The massive deaths from the war only made Germany poorer than the other countries after the war. As such, they could not afford to pay for the reparations. Angered by the delay in payment, France proceeded to invade The Ruhr to obtain compensation in kind through German coal.

The invasion devastated Germany even more since that area was Germany’s most industrialised state, and the country had hoped to depend on it for survival. In addition, outraged German workers also stopped work in protest of the French invasion. Hence, the strikes slowed the German economy.

( L ) The reparations started a new cycle of problems after the war and made it nearly impossible for the nation to survive, rendering this clause unfair.

( J ) Comparing the two impacts of ToV, I would agree with the statement to a large extent. While money is certainly crucial for a country’s survival, it is almost impossible to be committed to restarting the economy or working productively if the German citizens have to worry about their safety and their families. As testified by the French invasion of The Ruhr, having potential threats lurking does not promote a healthy environment for Germany to function and, in turn, recover economically. Hence, since defence appears to be a more pertinent issue for Germany, demilitarisation would be a more unfair clause of the ToV.

4. ‘The Treaty of Versailles was fair.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer.

( P ) I’m afraid I have to disagree that the Treaty of Versailles was fair because Germany had to accept the War Guilt Clause.

( E ) This clause effectively shifts the blame for starting the war on the Germans. By taking full accountability, Germany was then also made liable to pay for the damages incurred during the war.

( E ) However, it was Austria-Hungary that first declared war on Serbia. It was the alliance system that pulled Germany into the conflict. Furthermore, many other countries were involved in World War One. Therefore, the Treaty of Versailles was not fair as the blame fell on Germany even though it was not entirely their fault. They were not the only aggressors in the war, nor were they the only country involved in causing damage, but they were held solely responsible.

( L ) The blame was incredibly unfair since the previous government, led by the late Kaiser, started the war, not them.

( P ) On the other hand, the Treaty of Versailles can be considered fair because Germany had caused extensive damages to neighbouring countries during the war.

( E ) The German military was powerful, and most of the battles took place in France. As a result, there was great devastation and the loss of lives. The fighting destroyed farms and lands. It also disrupted the lives of civilians. On top of that, France lost 1.3 million soldiers, and 4.3 million were wounded. In total, France faced $24 billion of damages.

( E ) The Treaty of Versailles was a fair one as it made Germany pay reparations after considering their actions and the damages.

( L ) As Germany was the cause of the destruction, it was only justified to punish Germany for it.

( J ) In conclusion, the Treaty of Versailles was not a fair treaty. Germany was not the only country involved in damaging the land. The Treaty did not punish the other countries for participating in the war, but instead, Germany had to bear the total cost of reparations. On top of that, Germany had no opportunity to defend herself or speak up against the terms as the victors excluded Germany from the Paris Peace Conference. As such, the punishments imposed by the victors on Germany were too harsh and unfair.

5. Explain why the Germans felt that the Treaty of Versailles was a humiliation.

(P) The Treaty of Versailles was humiliating to the Germans because it made Germany blame World War I.

( E ) Germany was forced to sign the War Guilt Clause, which meant that she had to take complete blame for causing WWI. As a result of accepting all responsibility, Germany had to pay 6,600 million pounds as part of reparations and compensation for all the damage caused in the war. Hence, this caused the Germans to feel humiliated because while she was not the only one to start the war, she had to take full blame, which seemed unfair.

( E ) Furthermore, the sum of reparations was also unreasonably high, and there was no way they could pay it when the Treaty of Versailles also imposed so many other economic punishments on them as well. As such, they felt humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles.

( P ) The Treaty of Versailles was humiliating to the Germans because of its harsh military terms.

( E ) The Treaty of Versailles made Germany extremely militarily weak.  Although Germany was one of the many countries that participated in WWI, she only one to be disarmed.

The German army was limited to only 100 000 soldiers, and no conscription was allowed. They were also not allowed to have an air force or any tanks. The navy was limited to 6 battleships and no submarines. The reduction made Germany very weak militarily. There was also a demilitarised zone in the Rhineland where they could not place any troops to defend themselves.

( E ) Many German officers and German citizens saw the disarmament as a disgrace as it severely weakened their defence capabilities. Moreover, even though the Allies were also involved in the war, they were not made to disarm.

( L ) As a result, the Germans felt that the Treaty of Versailles was highly humiliating for them as it seemed highly harsh on them and left them vulnerable.

If you want to know more about O Level History, do check out this blog post . For more information on the Treaty of Versailles, you can check this out .

You can download a pdf version below.

• League of Nations
• Rise of Stalin
• Stalin’s Rule
• Rise of Hitler
• Hitler’s Rule
• Reasons for World War II in Europe
• Reasons for the Defeat of Germany
• Reasons for World War II in Asia-Pacific
• Reasons for the Defeat of Japan
• Reasons for the Cold War
• Cuban Missile Crisis
• Reasons for the End of the Cold War

Critical Thought English & Humanities is your best resource for English, English Literature, Social Studies, Geography and History.

My experience, proven methodology and unique blend of technology will help your child ace their exams.

If you have any questions, please contact us!

Similar Posts

Complete Social Studies Issue 3 SRQ

Especially for students struggling with the Social Studies SRQ Issue e questions: Here are some sample essays! Ace your examination with these samples!

History of Sino-Japanese Relations

The Japanese invasion of China is detailed in the History textbook, but the history of Sino-Japanese relations is not explored. Read on to find out more!

Understanding Social Studies Sources

Understanding sources is a crucial part of understanding Social Studies. It is important we know how to analyse sources. Read on to find out more!

Situational Writing Formats

Have you ever been tasked to write an informal email, but you are unsure what is the format? Read on to find out all the formats for ‘O’ level English!

Cuban Missile Crisis: 4 SEQ Samples

Cuban Missile Crisis: 4 SEQ Samples The Cuban Missile Crisis was a tense 13-day confrontation between the USA and the Soviet Union (and Cuba). It is also believed the closest mankind came to destroying ourselves. You can download the pdf from the box below to find out how to answer questions from this topic. Download…

O Level History Elective Paper 2273: How to Ace the Paper!

The O Level History Elective paper forms part of the Combined Humanities paper. Read on to find out more about this subject and how students can score better!

The Treaty of Versailles

Written by: Bill of Rights Institute

By the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and consequences of U.S. involvement in World War I

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Decision Point at the end of Chapter 10 to allow students to explore the U.S. role in the conclusion of World War I.

From 1914 to 1917, the president and Congress debated America’s stance toward the war in Europe. Once the United States had been drawn into the conflict in April 1917, their attention turned to debating how best to execute the war and to shape the peace to come after the successful conclusion to the conflict. Guided by progressive ideals, President Woodrow Wilson’s vision was to create a new world order as part of the Treaty of Versailles, in which a league of nations would ensure that this, indeed, was “the war to end all wars.” During the treaty ratification process, Wilson had to decide whether he would fight for this goal without compromising or whether he would work with the Senate to get most of what he wanted.

Wilson’s idealistic vision was challenged in Congress by Republican Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Lodge had opposed Wilson’s neutrality policy during the war and opposed the Treaty of Versailles after the war. During the peacemaking process, the conservative Lodge was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and led the fight against the ratification of the Wilson peace plan, which he viewed as unconstitutional and threatening to American national sovereignty and traditional foreign policy principles. Lodge had to decide whether to obstruct the ratification of the treaty or find areas of compromise with the president.

Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, pictured here in 1916, led the group in Congress whose members opposed President Wilson’s peace plan.

The outbreak of war in August 1914 had prompted President Wilson to urge Americans to be “impartial in thought as well as in action.” Lodge thought neutrality was unsound and impractical and wanted to support the Allied powers. In May 1915, a German U-boat (submarine) sank the passenger liner  Lusitania , killing 1,200 people, including 128 Americans. Wilson asserted that Americans were “too proud to fight” and instead pursued peace for the good of the world. Lodge and his friend Theodore Roosevelt thought the president’s response was feeble idealism inappropriate to the tragedy.

In 1916, Wilson spoke at a meeting of the League to Enforce the Peace. In that speech, he articulated a vision of an association of nations that would keep the peace and end warfare. An international body of nations would stop aggression rather than relying on the existing balance-of-power diplomacy and system of alliances among sovereign nations. Wilson’s ideas culminated in his “peace without victory” speech of January 22, 1917, in which he promoted “the future security of the world against wars.” The new world order was to be rooted in a community of power to achieve peace.

Only a week later, Germany announced it would unleash unrestricted U-boat warfare, gambling that it could starve Great Britain and the Allies into submission before the United States entered the conflict. On April 2, the president went to Congress and asked for a declaration of war. Wilson said the United States must “make the world safe for democracy” by destroying autocracy in Europe and vindicating “the principles of peace and justice” in the world. Congress obliged by declaring war a few days later.

The American Expeditionary Forces were made up of approximately two million troops and helped support the war-weary English and French troops when the United States entered World War I. Pictured are officers of the AEF c. 1918.

As American troops fought in Europe, Wilson worked out his vision of a just and peaceful postwar order. In January 1918, he delivered his Fourteen Points speech, in which he argued for freedom of the seas, a reduction in arms, and national self-determination of ethnic minorities. Most important, Wilson developed his idea of a league of nations. The covenant, or agreement, of the League was the “key to the whole settlement,” as he saw it.

Wilson made several blunders preparing for the peace conference in Versailles. During the 1918 midterm congressional elections, he had made blatantly partisan appeals, stating that Republican dissent with administration policies was unpatriotic. Republicans then won control of both houses of Congress, making Lodge the Senate’s majority leader and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which considered the peace treaty. Wilson made additional missteps by not inviting any Republicans or senators onto the Versailles peace conference delegation and not consulting with Lodge before he left for Paris. Yet he needed the support of two-thirds of the Senate for the peace treaty to be ratified.

Wilson had a sense of providential destiny about his vision for the League of Nations and his own leadership. Against the recommendations of his advisors, he decided to be the first president to travel overseas to negotiate a peace treaty, because he believed no one else could achieve his goals. When he arrived in Europe in December 1918, millions celebrated him in Paris, London, and Rome, which fed his vanity and sense of moral purpose.

The president briefly returned to the United States in February 1919. On the evening of February 26, Senator Lodge and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee attended a dinner at the White House. Lodge sat impassively while the president spoke about a league of nations to keep the peace. Then he asked Wilson a series of questions. The answers confirmed Lodge’s fear that Article X of the Treaty of Versailles would commit the United States to a war against an aggressor nation that attacked another nation, thus bypassing the constitutional requirement that Congress retain the power to declare war.

Lodge believed in this constitutional principle and opposed committing U.S. troops to conflicts around the world based on the vote of an international body. He and other senators also feared that the League would supersede the Monroe Doctrine, which had asserted American preeminence in the western hemisphere for a century. Wilson was adamant that “you cannot dissect the Covenant from the treaty without destroying the whole vital structure.”

On the evening of March 2, Lodge worked at his home with two other senators to draft a Senate resolution expressing their opposition to the League of Nations. Thirty-nine Republicans signed it, and even some Democrats supported the measure. About a dozen senators were “irreconcilables,” who refused to support the treaty regardless of a compromise, and 40 were “reservationists” who were willing to ratify if Wilson compromised on Article X.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pictured here in 1919, was led by Henry Cabot Lodge (fifth from the left) and worked to garner support from fellow senators to block Wilson’s peace plan.

On March 3, Lodge delivered an important speech opposing the League of Nations. He criticized Article X for violating the United States’ national sovereignty and Congress’s prerogative to declare war, and he cited the danger that Americans would be forced to send their young men overseas to stop aggressor nations. He stated, “I want to keep America as she has been—not isolated, not prevent her from joining other nations for these great purposes—but I wish her to be master of her fate.” In the Senate, Lodge packed the Foreign Relations Committee with handpicked opponents of the League of Nations.

When President Wilson returned to the United States that summer, he broke with precedent and on July 10 presented the treaty to the Senate in person while addressing the body. As he walked into the chamber with the bulky treaty under his arm, Lodge jokingly asked, “Mr. President, can I carry the treaty for you?” Wilson retorted, “Not on your life.” In his speech, President Wilson asked the Senate rhetorically, “Dare we reject it and break the heart of the world?”

During committee hearings in August, Lodge repeated his concern that Article X violated the principles of the Constitution. He asserted that no American soldier or sailor could be sent overseas to fight a war “except by the constitutional authorities of the United States.” In addition, Lodge worried that membership in the League of Nations would bind the United States to fight in wars around the globe. He thought the primary goal of American foreign policy was to protect American national interests. He said, “Our first ideal is our country. . . We would not have our country’s vigor exhausted or her moral force abated, by everlasting meddling and muddling in every quarrel, great and small which affects the world.”

In September, Wilson further provoked Lodge and other opponents by taking the case for the League of Nations directly to the American people. His speaking tour was consistent with his view of American politics, in which congressional government was messy and the separation of powers an outdated principle. Instead, a strong president needed to act as a national leader who guided the nation in right principles through rhetoric. Large crowds applauded his message that the League was the “cause of mankind,” but the tour was soon cut short when the president suffered a debilitating stroke on October 2, which incapacitated him for months. From his sickbed, he refused any compromise because removing Article X “cuts the very heart out of the treaty.”

Early in the morning of November 19, 1919, spectators flooded the Senate gallery, jockeying for a good vantage point to view the historic debate and the vote on the treaty. Members of the press were there to report the outcome for their newspapers. The 68-year-old Senator Lodge captivated most people’s attention.

This political cartoon, created by John T. McCutcheon in 1918, depicts the U.S. Senate objecting to a marriage between the United States and its “foreign entanglement” bride via the League of Nations. (credit: The Ohio State University, Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum)

The senators debated the treaty during a 10-hour marathon, hearing from all sides, and then prepared to vote. Prodded by Wilson, who told them not to compromise, they rejected the treaty with reservations by a vote of 55–39. A vote was then taken on the treaty without reservations, as the Wilson administration wanted. It was also defeated, by a nearly identical vote of 53–38. Several Democrats begged Wilson to compromise, but he refused. The president deluded himself that he could “bring this country to a sense of its great opportunity and greater responsibility” if only his health improved. When the treaty came up for another vote in mid-November, Wilson obstinately said, “Let Lodge compromise. Let Lodge hold out the olive branch.” The treaty was voted down again, and then for a final time on March 19, 1920.

Throughout the debate over the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, President Wilson and Senator Lodge rooted their positions in very different visions of American diplomacy. Wilson thought the only way to achieve a lasting peace and new world order was a league of nations. Lodge wanted to preserve American national sovereignty and protect American national interests. This debate between idealism and realism continued to define the course of American foreign relations during the twentieth century.

Review Questions

1. Woodrow Wilson’s plans for the postwar peace was most strongly challenged by

• Henry Cabot Lodge, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
• Theodore Roosevelt, former president of the United States
• the United States House of Representatives
• supporters of the League of Nations

2. For President Woodrow Wilson, the “future security of the world against wars” most likely centered on

• restoration of a balance of power between France and Germany
• creation of a new world order based on a community of nations
• dominance of the United States in European politics
• retreat from American interventionism and internationalism

3. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points included all the following except

• self-determination for ethnic minorities
• freedom of the seas
• a league of nations
• promotion of European autocracy

4. A major misstep in President Wilson’s promotion of his peace plan after World War I was his

• failing to invite any Republicans or members of the Senate to the Versailles Peace Conference
• publicly outlining his Fourteen Points peace plan
• asking Congress for a declaration of war in 1917
• travelling overseas to attend the Versailles Peace Conference

5. The chief objection of the U.S. Senate to the Treaty of Versailles was

• the war reparations clause demanded by the European allies
• the war guilt clause aimed at Germany
• the self-determination proposal for ethnic minorities
• Article X of the League Covenant calling for collective security

6. Ultimately, the U.S. Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles, stating that it violated

• the Senate’s constitutional power to negotiate treaties
• the President’s constitutional power to declare war
• national sovereignty
• a Supreme Court decision

7. Senate ratification of the Treaty of Versailles required President Wilson to gain the support of

• the “irreconcilables”
• the isolationists
• the internationalists
• the reservationists

Free Response Questions

• Compare President Woodrow Wilson’s and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge’s foreign policy goals at the end of World War I.
• Analyze the reasons the U.S. Senate ultimately refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.

AP Practice Questions

“Resolved (two-thirds of the senators present concurring therein), that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty of peace with Germany concluded at Versailles on the 28th day of June, 1919, subject to the following reservations and understandings . . . 1. . . . The United States shall be the sole judge as to whether all Its international obligations and all its obligations under the said Covenant have been fulfilled . . . 2. The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations . . . 4. The United States reserves to itself exclusively the right to decide what questions are within its domestic jurisdiction . . . 9. The United States shall not be obligated to contribute to any expenses of the League . . . unless and until an appropriation of funds . . . shall have been made by the Congress of the United States.”

Henry Cabot Lodge, “Reservations with Regard to the Versailles Treaty,” November 19, 1919

Refer to the excerpt provided.

1. The position outlined in the excerpt is most consistent with

• the message of Washington’s Farewell Address
• the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine
• the United States’ entry into the Spanish-American War
• the treaty ending the war with Mexico

2. What was a direct result of the trend evident in the excerpt?

• An end to Progressive economic reforms
• Growing support for American isolationism in the 1920s
• Ratification of the women’s suffrage amendment
• The United States taking the lead in the League of Nations

3. Which of the following statements best supports the position outlined in the excerpt?

• Changing world conditions necessitated American internationalism.
• States’ rights did not extend to international relations.
• The U.S. Constitution established a system of checks and balances.
• Direct election of U.S. senators freed the Senate from the influence of special interests.

Primary Sources

Lodge, Henry Cabot. “Constitution of the League of Nations.” February 28, 1919.  https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/LodgeLeagueofNations.pdf

Wilson, Woodrow. “Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany.” April 2, 1917.  https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=61&page=transcript

Wilson, Woodrow. “Peace Without Victory.” January 22, 1917.  http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3898

Wilson, Woodrow. “President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points.” January 8, 1918.  https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp

Suggested Resources

Berg, A. Scott.  Wilson . New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2013.

Cooper, John Milton Jr.  Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Cooper, John Milton Jr.  The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.

Cooper, John Milton Jr.  Woodrow Wilson: A Biography . New York: Knopf, 2009.

O’Toole, Patricia.  The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2018.

Widenor, William C.  Henry Cabot Lodge and the Search for an American Foreign Policy . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

The Great War: Evaluating the Treaty of Versailles

Council of Four at the WWI Paris peace conference, May 27, 1919 (candid photo) (L - R) Prime Minister David Lloyd George (Great Britian) Premier Vittorio Orlando, Italy, French Premier Georges Clemenceau, President Woodrow Wilson

Wikimedia Commons

Although at the postwar peace talks President Woodrow Wilson wished above all to prevent future wars, the Treaty of Versailles, which formally ended World War I, is widely considered to have contributed to the rise to power of the Nazi party in Germany. Was the Treaty of Versailles a legitimate and justified attempt by the victorious powers to ensure that Germany would never again pose a military threat? Or did the Treaty, as the Nazis and many other politicians in Germany claimed, place an unfair and unnecessarily punitive burden on Germany? Was the supposed unfairness of the Treaty a significant contributor to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany—or was it merely a convenient rhetorical tool for German politicians to exploit? If the unfairness of the Treaty were indeed a cause of fascism in Germany, how do we explain the rise of fascism in Italy (which fought on the side of the allies in World War I) or the existence of fascist movements in Britain, the Netherlands, and other Western democracies in the 1930s?

By studying a variety of primary sources, maps, and supporting documents concerning the post-war peace process, students will develop a context for evaluating whether the treaty was a viable, fair one, and for considering some of the complex questions this issue raises about the historical causality and responsibility. The lesson fits within a larger unit on World War I, and some prior knowledge of the causes and events of the war is assumed.

Guiding Questions

Were the terms of the Treaty of Versailles fair and justified?

To what extent was the Treaty of Versailles successful?

Was the Treaty of Versailles a turning point for U.S. foreign policy?

Learning Objectives

Evaluate the motives and aims of the Treaty of Versailles.

Evaluate the arguments presented regarding the treatment of Germany following WWI. 

Evaluate how each country's unique wartime experience informed its motives at the Peace Conference.

Evaluate the consequences of key provisions regarding self-determination, reparations, alliances, colonialism, and armaments. 

Assess the short and long term consequences of the Treaty of Versailles in Europe and globally. 

Lesson Plan Details

NCSS.D1.1.9-12. Explain how a question reflects an enduring issue in the field.

NCSS. D2.Civ.6.9-12. Critique relationships among governments, civil societies, and economic markets.

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.4.9-12. Analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.5.9-12. Analyze how historical contexts shaped and continue to shape people’s perspectives.

NCSS.D2.His.12.9-12. Use questions generated about multiple historical sources to pursue further inquiry and investigate additional sources.

NCSS. D3.1.9-12. Gather relevant information from multiple sources representing a wide range of views while using the origin, authority, structure, context, and corroborative value of the sources to guide the selection.

• Review Hitler's April 17, 1923 speech , available here as a downloadable PDF, denouncing the treaty.
• Review Articles 42–50 and 231–235, and skim Articles 159–213, of the Treaty of Versailles ; the text is from the EDSITEment resource Great War Primary Documents Archive . Another webpage containing the text in its entirety, The Versailles Treaty , is available from the EDSITEment-reviewed from Internet Public Library, which has a page specifically devoted to World War I History.
• Review background information on the treaty and the German reaction, available through two resources from the History Department at Colby College, and reviewed by the Center for the Liberal Arts , an EDSITEment resource: " Germany's Responsibility for the War " and " The Weimar Republic: the Treaty of Versailles ."
• Read background information on the treaty's place in the subsequent rise to power of the Nazis, available at the EDSITEment resource U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum : " Treaty of Versailles, 1919 ." The article points out that the Treaty was a useful rhetorical device for the Nazis and other right-wing parties, which could brandish it as evidence of the traitorous actions of democratic parties that had accepted the terms of the treaty. The article also makes the point that in the years following 1921, the date the Treaty took effect, the Treaty was altered in Germany's favor, and that "with the occupation of the Rhineland on March 7, 1936, all military restrictions (which had already been violated before Hitler's accession to power) became null and void."
• Maps of Europe before, during, and after World War I are available through the Department of History at the United States Military Academy. The Map Library contains these contrasting maps: Europe in 1914 and Europe in 1919 ; The World in 1914 and The World in 1919 .
• Besides teaching students about the contents of the Treaty of Versailles, this lesson raises challenging questions about historical causality and responsibility. Students have an innate sense of what is and isn't fair and may have strong feelings about the fairness (or not) of the Treaty. Provided in the Introduction, and in activity 5, are some questions for discussion that may help your students think about—or rethink—the implications of the positions they take in activity 5.

Activity 1. Motives for the Treaty: the Trauma of World War I

Begin by sharing with your students the enormous and unprecedented human costs of the Great War. This will give them a context for considering the motivations of the allied powers in imposing the Treaty of Versailles, and for judging whether or not the terms of the Treaty were justified. By comparing the numbers of casualties and total troops mobilized, students will also have a basis for understanding the differing positions taken by the countries that drew up the Treaty.

Begin by examining death and casualty tolls from France and the United States, respectively. For a brief look, students may use the Diagram: Deaths by Countries in Thousands at the Great War Primary Documents Archive . For a more in-depth look, with information not only on deaths, but on total casualties and total mobilized men, have students look at the diagram Casualties: First World War , produced by the Spartacus Educational Network in Great Britain, a link from Center for the Liberal Arts . Have students note not only the total deaths and casualties, but also particularly the percentage of casualties relative to total mobilized. Also have students examine photographs of destruction along the western front in France. The three sets of Before and After photographs from the Great War Primary Documents Archive will probably suffice, although you may also wish to have students include some or all of the following: Ruins of Vaux , Ruins of Arras Cathedral , and Ruins of the Arras Hotel de Ville . What level of destruction do these pictures indicate? What are some emotions evoked when viewing these images? What happened to the originally charming and vibrant Village of Esnes? Why is it significant that major civic buildings such as the Courthouse (Palace of Justice), cathedral, and City Hall (Hotel de Ville) were destroyed? Can you envision what these buildings and towns may have looked like before the war? How long do you think it would take to rebuild these buildings and communities? How much do you think it would cost? Can a community ever really recover from such destruction? Ask students to speculate, based on this information, how France's goals for the postwar settlement might differ from U.S. goals. What might France fear? What would France probably want with respect to Germany? Why? Would those desires be reasonable? Why or why not? Why might the U.S. be able to take a more idealistic perspective?

The following video from the Khan Academy offers a summation of the lead up to the Paris Peace Conference after the Great War and the issues that needed to be resolved. 

Activity 2. Drawing Up the Treaty: France and the United States

Next have students read excerpts from President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech to Congress from the Great War Primary Documents Archive . Specifically, first have students read the last two paragraphs of Wilson's speech (the part before the actual enumeration of the points). What does Wilson say are the goals of the United States? What is his hope for the world and for the postwar talks? Then have students read the first paragraph right after the enumeration of the Fourteen Points. What is Wilson's stated attitude toward Germany? How would this attitude differ from France's? Again, in the context of the information from activity #1 above, why might the U.S. be more inclined than France to take an idealistic perspective?

Activity 3. Optional activity: A Treaty of the Victors

Have students write out a list, based on their knowledge, of what they believe would be the most important respective postwar goals for France, Germany, and the United States. Each country should have at least 5 items, ranked from most important to least important. (You may wish to start students out with one or two items, such as have Germany pay for the war or establish a peace-keeping body.) Break students into groups of three, each of whom represents one of these countries, and have students spend approximately 20-30 minutes attempting to negotiate an agreement centered around these goals. When time is up, discuss the process and share the various results. Were there any common goals? Were compromises made? Which country was most pleased with how the negotiations turned out? Most displeased? On balance, did each country feel it had achieved its most important goal? Were there any particular impasses or impediments to agreements?

Be sure to inform students that in reality, Germany was not represented at the settlement talks. Later in the lesson, after considering the real treaty, ask how Germany's presence might have altered the peace process. (An alternative activity would be to do the above activity with only France and the United States represented; this has the advantage of being closer to the historical reality.)

Activity 4. The Terms of the Treaty

• Now have students begin to consider the actual terms of the peace treaty with respect to Germany. First have students analyze before and after maps of Europe and the world. (See Preparing to Teach section for several options for maps to use in this activity.) How much European land did Germany lose? Which regions specifically? To which countries did this land go? What land worldwide was lost by Germany? To which countries did this land go?
• Students should then read Sections III and IV (Articles 42-50) of the treaty for the terms pertaining to the Rhineland and the Saar Basin; these articles are in the treaty section Political Clauses For Europe . (Preparing to Teach section above for links to the treaty.) Have students locate these regions on a map. Why were these clauses probably inserted? What benefits did these clauses give France? Was it reasonable to establish the demilitarized Rhineland buffer zone? How would the terms regarding the Saar Basin affect the German economy? How would Germany probably react to these terms?
• Next have students read the treaty for the terms pertaining to Germany's military, in the treaty section Military, Naval and Air Clauses . What were the terms for Germany? What sovereign powers did Germany lose? How might these clauses have satisfied France? How would Germany probably react? Have students discuss whether it is reasonable to disarm a former enemy belligerent.
• Students should then read the treaty for the terms pertaining to Germany's war guilt and reparations, in the treaty section Reparations . First discuss the infamous "war guilt clause," Article 231. Why does it single out Germany and not the other Central Powers? Based on their knowledge (again, it is assumed that students will have already spent time learning the causes of the war), is this clause accurate? Does Germany warrant more responsibility than other countries? Do the Allies bear any responsibility? As preparation, for this discussion, you may wish to have students read the aforementioned background essays that discuss the extent of German guilt. (See Preparing to Teach section for links to these essays.) Then discuss the sections on reparations, especially Articles 232-235. How much was Germany to pay? How might this affect the German economy?

Activity 5. The German Response

• Have students read the German Reply Memorandum to the treaty, written by the German Foreign Minister Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, available here as a downloadable PDF. Explain that Germany was allowed to fashion a reply to the treaty draft, but its terms were summarily rejected by the Allies. What objections does Germany raise to the treaty? Are these objections valid? Should the Allies have modified the treaty in any way to address these points?
• Now have students read Hitler's April 17, 1923 speech , available here as a downloadable PDF, denouncing the treaty. (Ideally students will already be familiar with the circumstances behind the Weimar Republic. If not, explain to students that the German Kaiser abdicated at the close of World War I, to be succeeded by a democratic republic known as the Weimar Republic. It was representatives of the Weimar Republic who signed the Versailles Treaty.) Discuss his speech. Why is Hitler so vitriolic concerning the Weimar Republic? What does he blame the Weimar Republic for? What other goals does he link to the elimination of the treaty? What imagery does he use? What actions is he alluding to at the end? How might this speech appeal to the emotions of the listener? Consider how the treaty may have contributed to the rise of Nazism, and by extension, World War II. Would Hitler have been able to give such a powerful speech or to find a receptive audience if the treaty had been different?
• Once students have had a chance to consider their positions on this question, discuss with your class some of the larger issues of causality and responsibility that are raised by this exercise. Some questions are: What are our sources for gauging the German response? Can we trust them? Might German politicians in the 1930s have had something to gain by exploiting the bitterness of defeat? If we believe that the terms of the treaty were unfair, does this mean that the allies bear responsibility in some fashion for subsequent developments in Germany? That the German response was justified?
• You may also want to discuss questions raised in the Introduction about other explanations for the appeal of fascism in Germany. Antisemitism was sometimes framed in terms of the supposed "unfair" advantages that Jewish bankers and merchants had taken of hardworking Germans (you can read more about antisemitism and the rise of fascism in Germany at the Holocaust Learning Center, a resource from the U.S. Holocaust Museum).

Meeting of the Minds seminar : Students assume the role of a representative they have researched and participate in a seminar as if they are that person. Students utilize research collected using primary sources, interpret those sources from the perspective of the person they are portraying, and participate in a discussion to persuade others and defend their positions. Some of the nations in attendance at the Paris Peace Conference to be represented include:

• United States of America
• Great Britain
• South Africa
• New Zealand

At the conclusion of the "Meeting of the Minds" discussion, students reflect on the research process, the discussion, and what they learned by arguing from someone else's perspective. This can be modified to small group discussions that each include the same competing perspectives/representatives rather than a whole group seminar. It is recommended that small groups include more than the "Big Four" nations (United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy) so as to more accurately represent the global nature of the Paris Peace Conference and set the stage for World War II. 

Questions to investigate, organize research around, and discuss from the perspective of the representatives students are portraying during the Meeting of the Minds seminar can include:

• What should be done about Germany's military?
• What should be done about Germany's colonies?
• Should Germany be required to pay reparations for war damages?
• What is meant by self-determination and which nations will be included?
• What should be done about those nations that make up the British Commonwealth?
• What new economic policies will we implement to protect international trade interests?
• What power should a League of Nations have and will you join?
• What will the new map of Europe look like (borders, capital cities, flags, etc.)? 
• Have students research other postwar settlements, such as the peace terms of the Congress of Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, and compare them to the Treaty of Versailles. Some sample questions to consider: What were the victors' goals at the Congress of Vienna? Were they different than the goals of the victors in 1919? Was the 1815 settlement a harsh one toward France? What happened to the government of France after the Napoleonic Wars, and how did this compare to what happened to the government of Germany? What territorial adjustments were made after the Napoleonic Wars, and how did these adjustments compare to the 1919 adjustments? The Congress of Vienna settlement is widely credited with keeping Europe out of a continent-wide war for 100 years (in fact, until World War I!). Why might it have been so successful at keeping the peace, whereas the Versailles settlement collapsed after only two decades? Students should conduct their own research for this expansion activity, but following are some basic background sites for students to begin with (all are linked to the EDSITEment resource, Internet Public Library): "Europe in Retrospect: International Order and Domestic Strife," produced by Britannia Encyclopedia Online; and "Congress of Vienna," a student essay from Chico High School in Chico, California.
• Hold a discussion/debate or give a written assignment exploring what, if any, are the victor's obligations after a war is over. To what extent should a defeated wartime enemy be punished? Is harsh punishment practical? Worthwhile? legitimate?

Recommended Websites

• President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points
• June 28, 1919: The Peace Treaty of Versailles
• Before and After Photographs
• Photographs of Destruction
• Diagram: Deaths by Countries in Thousands
• " Germany's Responsibility for the War "
• " The Weimar Republic: the Treaty of Versailles "
• Casualties: First World War
• " Treaty of Versailles, 1919 "
• Europe in 1914
• Europe in 1919
• The World in 1914
• The World in 1919
• " Europe in Retrospect: International Order and Domestic Strife "
• " Congress of Vienna "

Materials & Media

The great war: evaluating the treaty of versailles: worksheet 1, the great war: evaluating the treaty of versailles: worksheet 2, related on edsitement, united states entry into world war i: a documentary chronology, african-american soldiers in world war i: the 92nd and 93rd divisions, woodrow wilson and foreign policy, from neutrality to war: the united states and europe, 1921–1941.

Home — Essay Samples — War — Treaty of Versailles — Treaty Of Versailles Unfair

Treaty of Versailles Unfair

• Categories: Treaty of Versailles

About this sample

Words: 708 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 708 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: War

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 446 words

1 pages / 407 words

2 pages / 694 words

4 pages / 1626 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles, which marked the end of World War 1 (WWI), had a destabilizing effect on the German economy in the 1920s and created intense animosity between European powers. Ordinary citizens of Germany felt betrayed [...]

World War II, a pivotal moment in history that forever changed the course of the world, was a complex and multifaceted event with numerous contributing factors. While it may seem daunting to unravel the web of events that led [...]

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, otherwise known as “the shot heard round the world”, is widely recognized as the immediate cause of the First World War. However, while Ferdinand’s assassination [...]

The League of Nations was an organization there to maintain the peace in our world by solving disputes. However, have they really achieved their aim? Were they successful? According to historical facts, the League of Nation has [...]

Following the aftermath of World War I, the main superpowers of the world convened together to decide the fate of the enemy, Germany. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed and put into effect which therefore limited the [...]

Treaty of Versailles - The Treaty of Versailles ended World War I between Germany and the Allied Powers. Because Germany had lost the war, the treaty was very harsh against Germany. Germany was forced to "accept the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• Modern World History
• International relations 1900-1939

Treaty of Versailles, was it fair?

By Edward Smirnov

After world war one, Germany was forced to sign a treaty by the Allies in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles on June 28, 1919. The Germans saw this treaty as very humiliating as their land, people and colonies were taken away from her but the Allies kept theirs, also they were not aloud to actively participate in the council as they were communicated via written notes with no oral discussion. In addition to that they received what they thought harsh demands from the Allies where they were not aloud an army more than 100,000, no U-boats neither aircrafts and only 6 battleships, not to mention the huge amounts of money they had to pay out as compensation for the damages of the war to Britain and especially France (over 36,000 million pounds). They had no choice but to sign as they had lost the war and the Allies threatened to invade Berlin. Germany sworn her vengeance for the shame of the treaty of 1919 and was the treaty fair?

The Germans claimed it was not fair because of all the extreme demands like their limited arms and army and especially the cost demanded for compensation of the war, and from my opinion they had very right to do so. This is because countries such as France probably knew that Germany could not possible pay out that kind of a sum like the one they demanded (30,000 million pounds) in a short amount of time, not even in a reasonably long one. This means that Germany’s future generation of what then were children should have the heavy burden on their shoulders of paying the prise of something they have neither experienced, participated nor knew about. Although France did loose a lot of buildings (factories, churches, schools), forest was destructed and a great loss of human life, it seems very unfair on Germany from the revenge hungry French who all the time were waiting for this possibility of wounding Germany deep and long lasting from the time Alsace and Lorraine were taken away from them during the unification of Germany. Although the German finance minister had made it plain that if the German won, the Allies would be made to pay for the costs of the war, I would say that kind of a sum would be a little too long lasting and very unfair for the innocent children of Germany. Instead of that sum, I would think it would be more fair for France to demand a sum of 2 billion from Germany, if we take all the other facts of what Germany was forced to do and what have been taken away from them (territory, land, colonies and people) into consideration.

        Although they felt they were humiliated in the way that they were not aloud to effectively participate in the council I think that is fair on them because of them starting the war, there for having the war guilt upon them (as many historians say they have) and loosing it. That is something they had to accept.

This is a preview of the whole essay

        I also think that their talk about their great territory loss of 13% (including 10% of her population, 14% of her farmland and 75% of her iron ore resources) was their way to say something against the treaty and not accept it with silence because they themselves had Russia sign a unpleasant treaty (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk) during the war where Russia gave up 54% of her industry, 34% of her population, 89% of her coal mines and was forced to pay 6 billion marks to Germany. There for I think it was very fair that land, territories and colonies were taken away from Germany as she would do exactly the same if Germany had one the war, hence the fact that the treaty did not weaken Germany as what they had complained, their steel production was twice that of Britain by the end of 1925 and they were still a large country.

        Germany’s military had suffered gravely from the treaty. Both banks of Rhine were to be occupied by the Allies and the German forces were to be demilitarised on these areas. The Allies made it clear that Germany was not aloud to have an army larger than 100,000 men, no U-boats, no tanks and neither aircrafts while they had no guarantee that the other nations would have a weak army as well. This I think was a wrong move and a unfair deal on the Germans. This is because anger would grow within Germany for being forced to have small military, this anger could possibly be an important factor for the outbreak of the Second World War (something the Allies did not predict, nor think about which I think is wrong). It is unfair because Germany would not be able to defend it self if an outbreak is to occur, plus they would have a weak army while the rest of the powerful nations in Europe would not. On the other hand, if Germany still had a large army, then there would be less chances of peace prevailing in Europe, but I think the chances were unlikely that the Germans would attack again if they were aloud a large army, they would have no main reason for a second war as the one of them having a small army. So on the whole I think that the kind of assumption is very correct, Germany’s military should be reduced and be under surveillance for at least a period of time so no problems with peace prevailing in Europe should occur but not to such humiliating level where they are not even aloud to build aircrafts or tanks, how should they defend their country? So I think it was unfair and a bad move for the Allies to let Germany have such small army.

So my views and opinion on whether the treaty was fair or not is that it was fair if take all the facts into consideration. The fact that their Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was hard on the Russians when Russia left the war, so they should not say anything about the demands of Treaty of Versailles about their territory, population, industry and colonies because they had and would strip any other nation of these things if they won. The fact that they had to pay is reasonably fair because of what the German finance minister said about Germany making the Allies pay for the damages of the war if they won, only that the price could be made a little less and more realistic. And then the substantial fact that they arguably have the guilt of starting the First World War and also the ones loosing it. They cannot presume that they could by pass it without having to pay the price for all the damages, the change, the hostile environment created by them, the stress, the many years and those who died in the war. I even agree to the fact of them being forced to have a small army to the extend that their army could be a threat, but otherwise, I believe that their army was cut down a little way beyond the line.    

Document Details

• Word Count 1213
• Page Count 2
• Subject History

Related Essays

Was the treaty of Versailles fair?

Was the Treaty of Versailles fair?