Treaty of Versailles: Reasonable if more enforced?

Question

What is your opinion (Or anyone elses) veiw on this statement:

The Treaty of Versailles was a reasonable and appropriate settlement at the end of WWI that would have led to peace in Europe had it been more vigorously enforced?

If agreed, explain, if opposed explain. Sources wanted, yet not required. Basically, I'm researching different veiws on the Treaty to use in a paper. Any help would be great.

Thanks

Answer 1

At the time of the Treaty, the winning allies had inflicted substancial penalties on Germany. To Germany and most at that time the Treaty had been substancially enforced. Germany believed the Treaty to be severe and suffered excessively for decades due to it's severity. They found various ways to work around it and by the time Hitler took power [many feel that the Treaty of Versailles was a primary reason for Hitler's rise], Germany virtuallyignored the treaty.England, the US and others complained but did not enforce when Hitler built the army and the fleet around the Treaty and later violations during invasions of AUstria, Poland and France.

In my opinion, the severity and lack of duration on the treaty caused WWII.

Answer 2

It was unreasonable revenge - pure and simple. The penalties imposed on Germany were way out of line. Also, were the Austrians or Hungarians included? Not on your life!!!!!
It was a blatent attempt by France (with the approval of her allies) to make Germany a bankrupt and pastoral nation for the next several centuries.
It didn't work - it couldn't be enforced anyway.
Keep in mind that after WWII, the allies (Russians excepted) didn't do anything like that. They learned from the firat time

Answer 3

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'enforced'-I guess it refers to appeasement??

It was enforced esp as regards war reparations that the Germans had to pay which were totally unreasonable and efforts to pay them led to hyperinflation, humiliation and ultimately the rise of Fascism. Even at the time there were English speaking critics of this for example John Maynard Keynes (you should ref him in your paper) who wrote a famous tract 'The Economic Consequences of Peace' in about 1921 (I think).


On the other hand if The League of Nations had been managed correctly it could have contributed to peace but as Germany left....
Also think of its failure RE Spanish Civil war and Abyssinia

Anyway-I don't think it was a reasonable agreement, especially comparing it with the Truman Doctrine after WW 2 which fostered European cooperation etc.
Good Luck with your paper

Answer 4

No, because the treaty embarrassed Germany and was way too harsh on them. It shouldn't have been more enforced rather but more thought out.....they should've asked "what are consequences on the terms?" Making Germany pay $33 billion dollars and forcing them to admit to starting WWI was pretty indignifying, don't you think? It pretty much shifted the way to WWII. Poor Germans......at least they are good now.