The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28th, 1919 and is notorious for its failure in achieving a long-lasting peace and preventing a second World War. Many argue that the Treaty of Versailles failed because it was harsh and unfair. However, the treaty was harsh only on paper and not in its execution, and the treaty was not unfair as it’s actions could be argued as justifiable. The reasons why the Treaty was not as harsh nor unfair as the statement claims is because of the enforcement of the treaty, the treaty in comparison to the other treaties of WWI, and the Treaty’s actual impact on Germany.
The content of a treaty becomes futile without the active enforcement of the treaty. That was the main problem with the Treaty of Versailles. While the terms of the treaty may have appeared to be harsh and aggressive, that was only on paper. As historian, Lentin, said, “The treaty was too mild for its severity.” The disarmament of Germany was not enforced and Germany and in 193 they had already begun rebuilding their military. The disarmament of the Rhineland was not enforced either and Germany resumed militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936. Though the Saarland was supposed to be a mandate of the League of Nations, Germany reclaimed it in 1935. The League of Nations, without a formal army or the support of the US, lacked the power to enforce the treaty. It is clear that because Germany noticed it was facing no consequences for it’s actions, they could treat the Treaty of Versailles as less than a mere suggestion. Without the enforcement of the terms of the treaty, the League of Nations had set a precedent that Germany could do as it pleased. In the words of historian, AJ Taylor,“Though the Germans accepted the treaty in the formal sense of agreeing to sign it, none took the signature seriously. “ While the treaty seemed to be very harsh on paper, it was not enforced and the League of Nations lacked the means, the teeth, to do so. Without the enforcement of the disarmament of Germany, the demilitarization of the Rhineland and without the League of Nations having any power to make Germany comply to their demands, the treaty was not harsh, it was mild.
The Treaty of Versailles was one of a few peace settlements of WWI, yet it was considerably more lenient than the others. The Treaty of Versailles is significantly less harsh or unfair than the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918 with Russia and Germany, Russia had to give up land that was worth 34% of Russia’s population and 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and fined 6 billion marks. Austria-Hungary was split in the Treaty of St Germain, and Austria was reduced to just 29% of its pre-war land without access to a port. The Treaty of Trianon with Hungary had cost Hungary 3.3 million of its population to neighbouring countries where that population then became ethnic minorities. In the Treaty of Sèvres, the Ottoman Empire was cut up as though with a cookie cutter and handed out to Allied nations and the ethnicities within the Ottoman Empire. In comparison, Germany only lost 1/10th of its population and 13th per cent of its European territories. It lost its African colonies but that ended up benefiting Germany as it allowed for them to focus on Europe. The Treaty of Versailles was not as unfair or as harsh as the other Treaties of WWI where countries like Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were split up, and countries like Austria, Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire lost a lot of their land and people. It pales in comparison to the severity of the treaties such as the Treaty Brest Litovsk, Treaty of St Germain, Treaty of Trianon, and Treaty of Sevres.
It is argued that the Treaty of Versailles was harsh because of Germany’s reparation cost. Though the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, the actual total for the reparation cost was only determined 2 years later, in 1921 meaning that Germany went in blind, unknowing of how much they would owe the Allies. According to Harold Nicolesen, “The real crime is the reparations and indemnity chapter, which is immoral and senseless.” The reparation cost was seen as obscene, a danger to the well-being of the common German people and a burden Germany would carry upon its back for many generations to come, with damage it may never recover from. The Germans painted a grim reality for its people and its future where Germany will be crushed beneath the Treaty’s boot. Lenin said at a political conference, “It is an unparalleled and predatory peace, which has made slaves of tens of millions of people, including the most civilised. This is no peace, but terms dictated to a defenceless victim by armed robbers.“
However, even with such a high cost of reparations. Germany remained, as Lentin put it, “The single most powerful nation-state on the continent”. Germany’s industries were producing steel three times more steel than France. Some historians argue the portrayal of life in Germany due to the reparation was actually a smokescreen and its suffering may have been exaggerated by German Politicians. On the other hand, France was in shambles. Its industries were decimated, its men of working age were injured from war, their economy was struggling, its population rate was static, its northernmost parts were ruined from war and life in France after WWI was bleak. Germany was never invaded by France and had all its industries still intact, it is not unfair or harsh to ask Germany for large reparations. France needed that money to fix their country. Moreover, Germany’s reparations were waived completely. They never had to pay it back. As for Lenin’s comments on the Treaty of Versailles being an unparalleled and predatory peace, Lenin’s views on the Treaty of Versailles were from the perspective of a Bolshevik communist and the Treaty of Versailles was designed with anti-Bolshevism in consideration. Loyd George, one of the peacemakers, was hesitant to be too harsh on Germany in fear of the spread of communism in Europe and hoped to use Germany as a bastion against it. The Treaty was not harsh because, despite a large reparation cost being decided for Germany, Germany did not pay it back, nor did the reparation cost destroy its status as a European Power. The reparation cost was fair as France, whose economy, industry, and working population lay in ruins, needed the money to stitch its nation back up after the war. With the spread of Communism, Germany was not treated too severely in order to prevent the spread of communism which had taken root in Hungary and Russia. Therefore, the Treaty of Versailles was not harsh and not unfair.
While some perceived the Treaty of Versailles as a harsh and unjust peace, the treaty was fairly reasonable in its demands of Germany. If anything, it could be argued that it was too lenient, especially in its enforcement and in comparison to the other treaties of WWI. The League of Nations was powerless to stop Germany and Germany got off much better than the other Central Powers and Russia. The reparation cost may have been high and though it was decided 2 years after the treaty was signed, it was justifiable as France needed that money and the reparation it did not cripple Germany’s status as a European power or entirely crush the people’s wellbeing as German politicians claimed. Germany never even paid the reparations in full. The Treaty of Versailles was a failure, but it did not make it unjust or too extreme.