Versailles Peace Treaty with Germany

YES, THE PROVISIONS OF THE VERSAILLES TREATY WERE THE WORST POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR AFTERMATH
Name:
Course:
Date:

Introduction
Versailles peace treaty that was involuntarily signed by Germany after France, Italy and Britain representative alongside USA’s involvement remains one of the worst possible settlements of the much-needed peace in the aftermath of the First World War. This paper looks into the contents of the treaty and shows the flaws of various provisions that made it less popular.
The Terms of Versailles Peace Treaty
The treaty terms were very harsh in Germany who was not allowed to be at the negotiation table alongside the representatives of France that was the main rival headed by President Clemenceau from the French nation, Vittorio Orlando of Italy, Britain’s David Lloyd and USA’s Woodrow Wilson. It is possible to postulate that the treaty took advantage of the weak German military and government and developed punitive provisions for the treaty to favor France. It is because of the biases in the treaty that saw Orlando and Clemenceau lose their political seats while Wilson got rejected by the US Senate, and Lloyd faced dissents in Europe. If it would be a good treaty, then its champions would not face such wrath back in their home countries but would be celebrated. Therefore, the provisions were the worst possible for the settlement of the First World War.
The developments to the First World War were also important in informing the treaty as inadequate.

Before the war, Europe was highly divided based on political alliances and treaties with some countries being allies and others enemies. On the one hand was the Triple Alliance Treaty that comprised Germany, Italy, and Austria- Hungary. On the other end was the Triple Entente Treaty that included Britain, Russia, and France. However, Italy signed a secret treaty with France to show that in an event Germany waged war on France, Italy would not join the war against France. All this meant that Germany had only one weak ally, Austria-Hungary. Signing the treaty, therefore, meant that it excluded the Germans interests. Also, the team rejected the US representative, Wilson’s fourteen point’s suggestions., and so the treaty provisions were fully biased, based on what the German enemies, including France, Britain and to a lesser extent Italy though was good for them. If a fair treaty would be in place, then every party to the treaty would get an equal hearing, and since this was not the case with Germany, it is believable that the provisions were biased and did not present a fair settlement of the First World War.
The provisions of the treaty were politically motivated without social, economic and any other consideration. It is agreeable that all the European countries had citizens who were very committed to their nationalities. Notably, Paris, Munich, and London citizens celebrated the onset of the wars. Therefore, if one of the provisions of the treaty was to see Germany lose 13% of its territory, then the treaty was very biased and meant to cause more anger among the Germans who loved their nation. Germany ceded its citizens who lived in such areas as West Prussia, Rhineland, and Danzig city to the external powers through the treaty lost their nationalism love for the country. Such a move meant that the treaty was hinged on the development of a non-stable Germany as it challenged the German citizens to revolt against their government. The revolt came to pass as Wolfgang Kopp attempted a coup on the German government. Though he failed, the Germans remained discontent with the state of the treaty and thus easily allowed the heavy handed Adolf Hitler to take over power as a way of correcting the wrongs meted on them from the First World War and the Treaty. If the treaty were a fair way to solve the underlying political scores, then it would not go against the German citizens, and thus, it would not lead to the development of autocratic Germany. It is, therefore, agreeable that the treaty was one of the worst ways to solve insistent issues that lead to the First World War.
The treaty provisions unfairly ripped off German possessions and wealth to foreign powers. First of all, it meant that the German colonial countries were given out to the other colonial powers. Germany also lost some of its significant resource regions like Danzig city in West Prussia. The city became a free town for the Polish trade. Moreover, the coal exploits from the Saar, and Ruhr regions were given out to the long term enemies, France and British, as a way of repaying for the damages the German caused on the French coal mines. In total, the Germans were given a heavy fine through the treaty that totaled 6.6 Billion pounds, and that would be paid till 1988, 79 years later. It is possible to read economic malice in the compensations as the demanded amount from the treaty provisions were far more than the German economy could manage.So it is possible it was provided to ensure that Germany never becomes economically powerful in the region for the benefit of the British that was worried about German economic power. Such a move could not be a fair settlement for the aftermath of the First World War.
Military-wise, the treaty allowed Germany a maximum of 100000 men in the military, and 15000 navy soldiers, with a further provision not to manufacture weaponry or to import the same. It was pointless to curtail the German military if it was not for the benefit of the French government that was openly worried of the German neighboring military powers. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that France took the opportunity to ensure that Germany never rose again as a military superpower in the region, thus thumping their military powers. Such a move could not be a fair score on the settlement of the First World War damages. It is believable that such provisions were punitive and were not in good faith for peaceful reconciliations from the war.
Conclusion
If the Versailles peace treaty were in good faith, the consequences would not be negative on the proponents. However, it was because of its bias that all the people who ratified it faced a backlash in their countries. Therefore, the provisions of the treaty were not accurate and were in bad faith.

Bibliography
Best, Antony, Jussi Hanhimaki, Joseph A. Maiolo, and Kirsten E. Schulze. International history of the twentieth century and beyond. Routledge, 2008.
Kernek, Sterling J. “Distractions of peace during the war: the Lloyd George government’s reactions to Woodrow Wilson, December 1916-November, 1918.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 65, no. 2 (1975): 1-117.
Weitsman, Patricia A. “Intimate Enemies: The Politics of peacetime alliances.” Security Studies 7, no. 1 (1997): 156-193.