The severity of the Treaty of Versailles has been a subject of historical discussion for many years. Germany had to accept the War Guilt, pay a large sum of Reparations for the losses of the affected countries, give up 13.5% of its territory and go through a severe disarmament. Some historians, such as A.J.P. Taylor referred to the Treaty as “a gesture of humiliation”, implying that Germany was trampled down by the Allies, who agreed between them terms of the Treaty, which were too severe towards Germany. Germany’s short term inability to pay for the expensive debt, which led to hyperinflation, additionally could suggest the severity of the Treaty. Nicholls wrote that the Treaty also “poison[ed] the political atmosphere in Germany for many years”, which implies it was the main factor, which caused turned people to political extremism and brought Hitler, who led Germany into the Second World War. However, this ignores the argument that Germany had to be punished for starting the First World War, and the Allies were to be compensated for their losses. As Mommensen has mentioned: “The treaty was harsh, but understandable”. During the First World War, the Allied Powers, which were attacked by Germany in 1914, suffered a loss of millions of people. Britain lost 750,000 people and about 1,500,000 were wounded. In France losses were the greatest: 1,400,000 were killed and 2,500,000 were wounded. USA lost just about 116,000 soldiers. So, the justification of the terms can be seen through the numbers of victims, which the powers have suffered. Furthermore, Marshal Foch, the architect of the victory of France in the First World War, having looked at the text of the Treaty of Versailles, uttered the famous prophecy: "This is not a world, but a armistice for 20 years.” (refer to visual source 1), highlighting the leniency of the Treaty through this phrase because despite the strict terms and demands of the Treaty of Versailles Germany was still able to recover, stabilise its political aspects, and come back with another war.
There’ exists an opinion among historians, such as Ferguson, Treaty of Versailles was too severe towards Germany in the economic aspect as it was the main reason for the hyperinflation of 1923. Ferguson argues that despite the fact that Schmidt’s economic policy led Germany to avoid economic collapses before, it were the reparations, which created most of the deficit for the Germany’s current account and therefore were the cause of hyperinflation after the German government started printing bank notes in huge amounts. In June 1919 a British diplomat, Harold Nicholson, wrote in one of his letters to his his father that “…the real crime is the reparation and indemnity chapter, which is immoral and senseless. There is not a single person among the younger persons here who is not unhappy and disappointed at the terms. The only people who approve are the old fire-eaters”. The member of the British delegation to Paris that the terms of the Treaty are too harsh, especially the reparations and indemnity chapter. He implied that the only people who approve this Treaty are the ‘fire-eaters’ such as Clemenceau. It is a reliable source, firstly, because the author comes from Britain, who wanted to punish Germany and also was a member of the British delegation in Paris. On the contrary, Nicholson is quite objective in saying that the Treaty for Germany is too harsh because of the reparations and security reasons, and the bias viewpoint may suggest the unreliability of the quote. Nevertheless, the letter is for his father so letters like these are considered to be reliable due to the sincerity. From the source it can be seen that the British delegates were the ones, who opposed harshness of the Treaty. One British at-the-time economist suggested the possible outcomes of contributing Germany to reparations payments, where strongly implied that the Treaty was too severe. He has referred to the Treaty of Versailles as a "Carthaginian peace” , an erroneous act provoked by the French representative side, which imposes that the “peace” meant a complete crushing of the enemy – Germany. The author also suggested that the severity, which Clemenceau wanted to impose on Germany was rather a sign of the French revanchism, than following of the adequate principles, which were set out in President Wilson's Fourteen Points, which Germany had accepted at the armistice. Keynes has used the Reparation clauses of the Treaty to be an expression of Clemenceau’s aim to destroy Germany. He also estimated that the capital liability to be imposed on Germany would be between £6,400 and £8,800 millions and conceded that the annuity (5% interest and 1% amortisation), which would far exceed Germany’s capacity. We can rely on the revealed information because Keynes was the principal representative of the British Treasury at the Peace Conference meaning that the expressed view was also supported by a large proportion of the Britain’s government. Also, regarding the representativeness of the source, the book arguments were (by a number of the US officials) used at Paris, during the peace settlement, meaning that they also supported this view. However, his arguments could have been unreliable as they were only predictions, and not actual facts. Nevertheless, the information was based on the current state of German economy and backed up by quite verifiable evidence, which proved to be quite reliable. So, by stating the arguments, Keynes has shown that Germany would be incapable of paying off the sum of the reparations, which proves that the Reparation terms of the Treaty of Versailles was too severe.
However, Étienne Mantoux, a french economist, counted that analysis in an attempt to disprove arguments made by Keynes. He claimed that “Carthaginian peace”, which Keynes maintained was not “practically right or possible”. Arguing the points made by Keynes, regarding German incapability of paying off the reparations, he stated that after the Dawes settlement of 1924, the recovery of the German industry was more rapid and considerable than Keynes had anticipated, and eventually in the years 1933-39 Germany was producing for the purpose of rearmament, which implies that a surplus of wealth far in excess of the annual liability, which a full charge of Reparation would have called for. In a lecture in the Nazi Foreign Office on 24 May 1939 General Thomas has reported on the output on a number of a few factories (which were permitted by the Allies in the Treaty had arisen) saying “The mightiest armament industry now existing in the world.” The results, which General Thomas revealed, regarding the success of Nazi economic recovery, were said to be achieved by making the preparation for the war the main target for the German economy. As General Thomas stated: "History will know only a few examples of cases where country has directed, even in peace time, all its economic forces deliberately and systematically towards the requirements of war…” , where he has made an implication of Germany putting all its financial resources into the War preparation. The source can be considered a reliable source of information because his sayings are backed are supported by verifiable evidence collected at the time of the report creation. However, it may be considered an unreliable source of information because Thomas was a German general and therefore, could be hiding a motive of blaming the Versailles in his sayings. Also, his tone seems persuasive in supporting the view point that the whole country economically relied on the war preparation, so the war could not have been avoided, considering the ignorance of the Allies. So, coming back to the point of Germany’s inability to pay for the Reparations, it can be argued that the country was actually capable of paying it off if they could find any other economic stabiliser apart from war preparation, however, prioritisation of Rearmament development was the reason for the the stop in reparations payments, not not actual incapacity of the country to pay for its debts. So, it can be concluded that the Treaty, was, to a large extent, not severe in terms of its reparations.
Some historians, such as Charles Ingrao, argue that the Treaty was too severe towards Germany in the territorial aspect as the there was a number of the plebiscites initiated as a result of the implemented territorial changes. Ingrao states that Schleswig plebiscites, which were held in March and February 1920 were “premised on a gross simplification of the region's history…”, as the population had to chose between Danish or German sovereignty. As the result of the plebiscites, the results of the electorates had very conflicting views. 74.9% of the northern Danish-speaking population voted for Denmark, while southern German-speaking area voted for Germany with 80,2%, which resulting in the partitioning of the province. The electorate source is a reliable source of information as it is a documentation, based on the real outcomes of the plebiscites and shows how the two zones were divided, with the exact number provided. However, it cannot be considered a reliable source of information regrading the severeness of the Treaty because some there was not much choice available to people and the documentations never consist of opinion and the voluntariness of decisions, which people have made cannot be assessed. But as far as known, Allies have followed the wishes of the population and therefore, potentially, a third-choice could have been insisted, showing that the plebiscite electorate can be considerate as a reliable source. As the result of the plebiscite, Tiedje's Line was created, which has the boarder between Germany and Denmark. Ingrao further stated that “Versailles ignored any possibility of there being a third way”, which highlights the ignorance of the implementors and implies the severity of the Treaty towards Germany and its population. Overall, as the result of the territorial changes Germany was lauded from three sides and has lost 70 square kilometres of territory and approximately 5,500,000 people, including Germans. The territorial conditions of the Treaty primarily discredited the Weimar Republic because Germans have lost faith in its government and a lot of hatred was fuelled. Due to the severity of the imposed territorial changes, population began to see traitors, who overthrew the Kaiser and destroyed the Empire, in the leaders of the November revolution as they did not manage to protect the population from the plebiscites and other taken action. German radicals, therefore had a chance of skilfully playing on the sentiments of public, and this therefore shows that the imposed action was too severe.
However, a number of historians, such as Corelli Barnett, argue that after the implementation of the territorial changes, Germany was in a way safer position than she had been before the beginning of the First World War, implying that it was highly unlikely that there was any potential of Germany being invaded with its new territorial state. Barnett stated that instead of weakening Germany, the Treaty has actually "much enhanced" the German power, especially in the East. He argues that at-the-time eastern borders became safer because the Austrian Empire was fractured into smaller states, which have appeared to be quite weak on their own. Also, Russia was wracked by revolution and civil war, and the position of Poland after restoration was in a way weaker position than even a defeated Germany. The West of the Germany was facing France and Belgium, which were smaller in population and less economically developed in comparison with its geographical neighbour. As can be seen from the visual source 2(find at the end), which is a map produced for the updated view of German territory in 1919, the lost 13% of the European territory did not, apart from a loss of population, affect the country greatly. It can be suggested that these were rather the stripped off colonies, which had greater effect on the fate of Germany. The Map created during the conference represents the exemplary outlook of the country after the territorial changes would be implemented. It is a reliable source of information because it was created during the conference under the control of the officials, so the author could not have been over-exaggerative. However, such map may not be reliable source as it provides Germany’s overlook before the plebiscites have taken place and therefore does not provide the actual overlook. Overall, it can judged that the territorial changes in Germany were quite severe, because with the territory, Germany has lost 5,5 million of people, which is a significant loss. The narrow choice, which German citizens were presented with during the plebiscites, suggests the ignorance of the Allies because in reality most of the population was innocent, but still had to follow the changes implemented by the Powers.
There also exists a prospective among historians, such as Bernadotte Schmitt, that the Treaty of Versailles was too severe towards Germany in terms of disarmament. The military provisions were intended to make the Reichswehr (German Realm Defence) incapable of offensive action and to encourage international disarmament, as was stated in Woodrow Wilson’s fourth point. Wilson’s speech on the 8th of January, 1918, where all of the points were declared, can be considered as a reliable source because it did not provide any opinion and later became a documentation, which outlined the ‘peace terms’. However, it may not be reliable because this documentation was provided by the American president, who supposedly asserted only his country’s interests, which further implies that it only showcases what the Americans wanted to get from the Treaty, rather than total overlook of the Allies’ intentions. Nevertheless, the Fourteen Points are considered a reliable source since having an unbiased format of documentation. So, a historian, Bernadotte Schmitt, suggested that the Treaty has actually disarmed Germany, however other countries such as France did not actually disarm due to USA’s unwillingness to join the League of Nations. Schmitt further implied that Germany was left to be the only unprotected country, which underlies the severity of the unbalanced disarmament, which was put in place.
However, some historians, such as Shuster, questioned the severity of the disarmament because the treaty did not ban German companies to produce weapons outside of Germany. German companies, which were producing war materials, moved to the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden to established factories there. In 1921 Bofors, a Swedish arms manufacturer, was bought by Krupp, German weapon developing company and German officials have sent troops to Sweden with a purpose of testing weapons. In 1923, The Times, famous British newspaper, has made several statements regarding the state of the German Armed Forces. Primarily, it noted that the forces had equipment for 800,000 soldiers, secondly, awarded the readers of army transferring its staff to civilian positions in order to hide their actual duties, and ,thirdly, also warned of the militarisation of the German police through the exploitation the Krümper system, which allowed to meet the requirements of the Treaty of Versailles, but at the same time allowed building up of the reserve for the future. The articles written by the Times newspaper should be considered as a reliable source of information due to its corroboration: the made statements were supported by the independent facts regrading the remilitarisation of the German Army. However, the articles consists of prediction-based statements as well, meaning that it is bias and therefore can considered unreliable in supporting the viewpoint that the German soldiers were transferring to civilian position. Since being a newspaper, it could be consisting of rumours, and therefore should not be considered reliable. But since the newspaper had a good reputation at the time, it could potentially be relied on, even though some statements were not supported by verifiable evidence. Overall, it can judged that the Allies were not too severe in restricting German companies from producing war materials. In addition to this, some historians questioned the list of the prohibited weapons. A historian Norman Davies wrote that it was "a curious oversight” that the rockets were not included in this list, which obviously undermined the severity of the military restrictions. The statement is to be supported by the fact that the German aerospace engineer – Wernher von Braun, took this opportunity for the development of V-2 Rocket, which was later used in the Second World War. To conclude, the military aspect of the Treaty of Versailles was not severe enough towards German because it did not prohibit the German companies from producing war materials in other countries. The likeliness of rockets being forgotten to be put into the lists of prohibited weapons is quite high, and therefore, it can be said that the Treaties were not too severe in the aspect go providing national security.
Historians such as John D Clare suggested that the Treaty of Versailles was too severe towards Germany from a lot perspectives, which were coming from many at-the-time politicians. The historian argues that ‘It wasn’t just the Germans who were horrified by the Treaty – Lloyd George, JM Keynes, most of the British public, the American Senate… they were all astounded at how harsh it was. And if we – and they – can understand just how crazy and unfair it all was, how badly must the Germans have felt?’ . D Clare makes an implication these were not only the Germans, who were shocked by the Treaty but also a lot of British and American politicians experienced commotion in relation to it. For example such politicians as David Lloyd have seemed to be very appalled by the terms. In one of his speeches he said ‘The conditions that were imposed upon Germany were ruthlessly applied to the limit of her endurance. It paid £2,000,000,000 in reparations. We experienced insuperable difficulties in paying £1,000,000,000 to America – and we are a much richer country than Germany.’. He intended to reassure the imposers of the Treaty that the terms of the Treaty are too severe towards Germany and in justifying his statement he mentioned that Britain, which had more available capital to pay back to America than Germany presently did, when the Treaty was issued. We can rely on the source due to its representativeness: the view was expressed by Lloyd George, who was the British Prime Minister and repented the views of the whole British Parliament. The source can also be considered reliable due to its corroboration: in the statement Lloyd George considered a case from the past, in backing up the idea that Germany will be incapable of paying off the the stated sum of the reparations. The tone of the speech seems to be quite calm, like statement of the fact, which does not intended to persuade, and therefore we can consider it reliable. However, the source can be considered unreliable due to its unbalanced viewpoint: in this speech Lloyd George supported only one side and therefore was bias, hiding the main motive of Lloyd George – thwarting French attempt to establish itself as the dominant European Power. Overall, the contemporariness of the source and the motive behind it (to make the terms realistic) make the speech a reliable source.
However, there exists an opinion among such Historians as Steiner, that the Germany was punished too leniently in comparison with the Treaties, which it has imposed itself on other countries previously. Zara Steiner states that the French and most of the American representatives responded that the Treaty of Versailles was much more benign and lenient than the terms, which Germany and other powers imposed of Russia through the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Articles of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk stated that in order to escape from World War 1 Russia had to give a huge proportion of its territory (Baltic states become vassal to Germany and and Kars Oblast went to Ottoman Empire), half of industrial undertakings and 90% of Russia's coal mines, in addition with a compensation of six billion marks for the damage done. We can rely on the information provided because the information is stated in the official documents, which terms were actually implemented. The official documents cannot be consisting of personal opinion and thus are reliable source of informations. However, we cannot make up a full opinion about the Treaty sorely focusing on the terms because we are not actually provided with the information regarding the outcomes of the Treaty. At the end of all, it can also be added that Germany, nevertheless, was still able to recover from the Treaty, which was imposed on it, and thus the Treaty does not seem to be too severe towards Germany. This leads to a conclusion stating that even though the punishment of Germany was seen as a very severe action for a number of politicians such David Lloyd George, the harshness of the Treaties, which Germany had imposed itself on other powers previously, implies that Germany was punished quite leniently.
It can be concluded that most terms of the Treaty were justified, however, something could still be mitigated. Having analysed the historians’ interpretations and the contemporary sources of infraction, it be said that the Treaty of Versailles was not too severe towards Germany. The Allies have rather attempted to get the refund for the damages done, which they got in the form of territory and financial compensation (not paid off fully). However, since not being as much interested in the aspect of militarisation, which would provide national security, their atticude towards it was not as severe and therefore, coupled with other factors, became the main reason for the beginning of the Second World War. The reparation payments would not allow Germany to develop economically, if it would not enter the state of preparation for the war. It can be said that that the Allies were to blame for the beginning of the Second World War because they did not make sure, where Germany will find capital to make the payment, and so they found rearmaments as a stabiliser to their economy. The disarming terms should have been severer, which would prevent Geramn companies from moving abroad and developing war materials there. Also, the development of the V-2 rocket, which Germany has used repeatedly, could have been prevented if the disarmament terms were more severe. At the same time, a less significant reduction of territories might not have caused as much anger by the population towards Weimar government, and country could have avoided turning to extremist parties such as Nazis. Nevertheless, it is not to be forgotten that the Treaty of Versailles was not the only reason for all subsequent events such as rise of Nazis and the Second World War as even with all its rigidity, until the Great Depression, the hope remained that the country would rise to its feet. But it was the world crisis that sent Germany, coupled with the Versailles system, into a knockout, suggesting that the ‘peace’ was not too severe. The allies, nevertheless, initially did not manage to keep the country pacified or conciliated, nor they did not manage to permanently weaken it. The allies, rather instigated by the pressure of public opinion, have made peace in spirit of revenge, a so-called “Carthaginian peace’, which did not guarantee national security, and could be said to be too severe, especially from the French side.