|
 |  | | Ask a Teacher - History - Conflict and Co-operation | |
|
|
|
|
Home / Other Stuff / Ask a Teacher / History / Conflict and Co-operation /
Question from |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ask a Teacher - History - Conflict and Co-operation - A Question from |
|
| Student Name |
|
| Question |
Was the Treaty of Versailles unfair?
|
| Answer |
The simple answer is no. The treaty was an agreement that was discussed, drafted and signed at the end of the Great War. Some people thought that the terms were too harsh (mainly the Germans), but many others thought that the treaty was too lenient (mainly the French and Belgians). However, whether or not the treaty was too harsh or too lenient is not the same as saying that the treaty was fair or unfair. For the treaty to have been unfair suggests that a "fair" treaty could have been signed. What would a fair treaty have been? Would a fair treaty have been one that was more lenient in the eyes of the Germans? Would a more lenient treaty have been fair to the French and Belgians who were victims of an unprovoked attack by the Germans in August 1914? Did the Germans think about the effects that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk would have on millions of Russians when they forced the Russian government to sign it in 1918? At the time, and under the circumstances, the treaty that was signed at Versailles in 1919 was not much different from what most experts had expected. The Germans were fooling themselves if they believed that they were going to be asked to sign a treaty that did not contain clauses about reparations, disarmament and war guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
