Thinking Point: Why do these historians differ in their interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles?

Source A

'Compared to the treaties which Germany had imposed on defeated Russia and Rumania in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles was quite moderate. It stripped Germany of just over 13 per cent of her territory, much of which, in the shape of Alsace and Lorraine, was returned to France. It also reduced Germany's economic productivity by about 13 per cent and her population by 10 per cent. Germany lost all of her colonies and her large merchant vessels, 75 per cent of her iron ore deposits and 26 per cent of her coal...'

Source B

'Basically, I think one can say the Treaty was harsh, but understandable. It created in Germany a political climate in which it was exceedingly difficult for a democratic system to develop... The allied governments were under the pressure of their own public which demanded the Germans to pay for it all.'

Source C

'Germany was humiliated in different ways by the Versailles Treaty and by the defeat of 1918. First, a part of the country was occupied by Allied Troops and especially by African French Troops on the left bank of the Rhine... This humiliation was very deep in German society and it had a lot of consequences later. The second humiliation, of course, was the restriction of the German army and the limitation of its army for the future. And, the third humiliation was the Treaty itself. The fact that German leaders were not invited to the conference, and they only had to sign the Treaty with no objection, and that they had to sign a treaty which declared clearly that Germany was responsible of the disaster in Europe and in the world.'

As historians, all three have access to facts that weren't available to everyone at the time. This would seem to make them more reliable than people at the time who could have had a one-sided view. However, they are also influenced by their knowledge of what happened after the War. This colours their viewpoint and makes them less reliable.

In this case, these historians mainly disagree on the harshness of the treaty.

• Henig cites the relatively small reduction of Germany's industrial and economic power, though she doesn't talk at all about the psychological effect it had on the country.
• Mommensen talks about the effect it had on Germany's delicate political system. He also talks about the Allied people wanting their leaders to exact revenge, which he seems to feel is justifiable. This implies that Germany was responsible.
• Audoin-Rouzeau uses the word 'humiliated' many times. This is an important part of the Treaty for him, suggesting that it was not the harshness of the terms, which were hard for Germany to bear, but the way that they were carried out.