1 Were the peace treaties of 1919–

23 fair?
FOCUS POINTS
• What were the motives and aims of the Big Three at Versailles?
• Why did all the victors not get everything they wanted?
• What was the impact of the peace treaty on Germany up to
1923?
• Could the treaties be justified at the time?
This British cartoon was published in 1919 shortly after the
terms of the Treaty of Versailles had been announced. A
German man is holding the treaty terms which say how much
Germany has to pay for the damage caused by the war.
1 Does he think the Treaty is fair? Why or why not?
2 Does the cartoonist think the Treaty is fair? Why or why not?
3 What is the message of this cartoon?
However long or violent a war is, eventually the opposing sides must make
peace. But because war is destructive and leaves a bitter legacy, the
peacemaking after a long conflict can be the hardest job of all.
The people who had that role in 1919 had a particularly hard task. The First
World War involved more countries, using more powerful weapons, causing
greater casualties and physical destruction, than any war before it. The war
had bankrupted some countries. It led to revolutions in others. There was
bitterness and resentment.
In this post-war atmosphere almost everyone agreed that part of the job of the
peacemakers was to avoid another war like it – but no one agreed how to do
that.
Any treaty is a balancing act. The peacemakers have to keep the victors
happy but ensure that the defeated country accepts the terms of the peace.
Was it really possible to produce a treaty which all sides would have seen as
fair? That’s the key question you will have to think about in this chapter.
You are going to investigate what happened when these peacemakers got
together to draw up the peace treaties.
You will focus on:
• what the peacemakers were hoping to achieve
• how they worked
• what they decided
• why they decided it.
Then you will reach conclusions about the key question – how ‘fair’ were the
treaties they came up with, which means thinking about:
• whether people at the time thought the treaties were fair, and why or why
not
• whether historians (with the benefit of hindsight) think they were fair.
And remember…
the peace process was not just about Germany. Between 1919 and 1923 the
peacemakers drew up five treaties (one for each of the defeated powers)
although in this chapter you are going to focus most on the Treaty which dealt
with Germany: the Treaty of Versailles.
Aims of the Big Three: Wilson’s
viewpoint
High hopes for peace
Looking back it may seem that the peacemakers in 1919 had an impossible
job. But that is not how people saw it at the time. There was great optimism.
One of the main reasons for these high hopes was the American President
Woodrow Wilson.
In 1918 Wilson made a speech outlining Fourteen Points (see Factfile),
guidelines for a just and lasting peace treaty to end conflict.
When he arrived in Europe for the Paris Peace Conference, Wilson was seen
almost as a saintly figure. Newspaper reports described wounded soldiers in
Italy trying to kiss the hem of his cloak and in France peasant families
kneeling to pray as his train passed by.
Profile
Woodrow Wilson
(President of the USA)

Background
• Born 1856.
• Became a university professor.
• First entered politics in 1910.
• Became President in 1912 and was re-elected in 1916.
 • From 1914 to 1917 he concentrated on keeping the USA out of
the war.
• Once the USA had joined the war in 1917, he drew up the
Fourteen Points as the basis for ending the war fairly, so that
future wars could be avoided.
Character
• An idealist and a reformer.
• As President, he had campaigned against corruption in politics
and business. However, he had a poor record with regard to the
rights of African Americans.
• He was obstinate. Once he made his mind up on an issue he was
almost impossible to shift.

Wilson’s ideas
How did Wilson think the peacemakers could build a better and more
peaceful world?
• Don’t be too harsh on Germany. Wilson did believe Germany should be
punished. But he also believed that if Germany was treated harshly, some
day it would recover and want revenge. He was also concerned that
extremist groups, especially communists, might exploit resentment among
the Germans and communists might even seize power in Germany as they
had in Russia in 1917.
• Strengthen democracy in defeated countries. For Wilson democracy
was a key to peace in Europe. If leaders in defeated nations had to listen to
the views of their people and win their votes those people would not let
their leaders cause another war.
• Give self-determination to small countries that had once been part of
the European empires. He wanted the different peoples of eastern Europe
(for example, Poles, Czechs and Slovaks) to rule themselves rather than be
part of Austria–Hungary’s empire.
• International co-operation. Wilson also believed that nations should co-
operate to achieve world peace. This would be achieved through a
‘League of Nations’, Wilson’s most important of the Fourteen Points.
You can see from these principles that Wilson was an idealist. However, he
was not a politician who could be pushed around. For example, he refused to
cancel the debts owed to the USA by Britain and its Allies so that he could
put pressure on them to accept his ideas.
FOCUS TASK 1.1
What were the motives and aims of the Big Three at
Versailles?
Using the information and sources on pages 6–9, fill out a chart like
the one below summarising the aims of the three leaders at the
Paris Peace Conference. Leave the fifth column blank. You will
need it for a later task.

Revision Tip
Your completed chart from the Focus Task should be perfect for
revision on this topic. The basic requirement is to be sure you can
name:
• each of the Big Three
• one priority for each of them at the peace talks
• two issues that they disagreed about.
SOURCE 1
 A cartoon published in 1919 in an Australian
newspaper.
Source Analysis
Study the main features of Source 1. Who is making the soup? Who
is helping him? What are they adding to the mix? What is already in
there?

Factfile
The Fourteen Points: a summary
1 No secret treaties.
2 Free access to the seas in peacetime or wartime.
3 Free trade between countries.
4 All countries to work towards disarmament.
5 Colonies to have a say in their own future.
6 German troops to leave Russia.
7 Independence for Belgium.
8 France to regain Alsace–Lorraine.
9 Frontier between Austria and Italy to be adjusted.
 10 Self-determination for the peoples of eastern Europe (they
should rule themselves and not be ruled by empires).
11 Serbia to have access to the sea.
12 Self-determination for the people in the Turkish empire.
13 Poland to become an independent state with access to the
sea.
14 League of Nations to be set up.

Factfile
The Paris Peace Conference, 1919–20
• The Conference took place in the Palace of Versailles (a short
distance from Paris).
• It lasted for twelve months.
• Thirty-two nations were supposed to be represented, but no one
from the defeated countries was invited.
• Five treaties were drawn up at the Conference. The main one
was the Treaty of Versailles, which dealt with Germany. The
other treaties dealt with Germany’s allies.
• All of the important decisions on the fate of Germany were taken
by Clemenceau (Prime Minister of France), Lloyd George (Prime
Minister of Britain) and Wilson (President of the USA) who
together were known as ‘The Big Three’.
• The Big Three were supported by a huge army of diplomats and
expert advisers, but the Big Three often ignored their advice.

Did everyone share Wilson’s

viewpoint?
Not surprisingly, when Wilson talked about lasting peace and justice other
leaders agreed with him. After all, who would want to stand up in public and
say they were against a just and lasting peace?!
However, many were doubtful about Wilson’s ideas for achieving it. For
example, ‘self-determination’: it would be very difficult to give the peoples
of eastern Europe the opportunity to rule themselves because they were
scattered across many countries. Some people were bound to end up being
ruled by people from another group with different customs and a different
language. Some historians have pointed out that while Wilson talked a great
deal about eastern and central Europe, he did not actually know very much
about the area.
There were other concerns as well. So let’s look at the aims and views of the
other leaders at the Paris Peace Conference: David Lloyd George (from
Britain) and Georges Clemenceau (from France).
Profile
David Lloyd George
(Prime Minister of Britain)

Background
• Born 1863.
• First entered politics in 1890.
• He was a very able politician who became Prime Minister in 1916
and remained in power until 1922.
Character
A realist. As an experienced politician, he knew there would have to
be compromise. Thus he occupied the middle ground between the
views of Wilson and Clemenceau.

Did Lloyd George agree with Wilson?

In public Lloyd George praised Wilson and his ideas. However, in private he
was less positive. He complained to one of his officials that Wilson came to
Paris like a missionary to rescue the European savages with his little
sermons and lectures.
He agreed with Wilson on many issues, particularly that Germany should be
punished but not too harshly. He did not want Germany to seek revenge in the
future and possibly start another war.
Like Wilson he was deeply concerned that a harsh treaty might lead to a
communist revolution like the one in Russia in 1917. He also wanted Britain
and Germany to begin trading with each other again. Before the war,
Germany had been Britain’s second largest trading partner. British people
might not like it, but the fact was that trade with Germany meant jobs in
Britain.
However, unlike Wilson, Lloyd George had the needs of the British empire in
mind. He wanted Germany to lose its navy and its colonies because they
threatened the British empire.
SOURCE 2
We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive. We want a
stern peace because the occasion demands it, but the severity
must be designed, not for vengeance, but for justice. Above all, we
want to protect the future against a repetition of the horrors of this
war.
Lloyd George speaking to the House of
Commons before the Peace Conference.
SOURCE 3
If I am elected, Germany is going to pay … I have personally no
doubt we will get everything that you can squeeze out of a lemon,
and a bit more. I propose that every bit of [German-owned]
property, movable and immovable, in Allied and neutral countries,
whether State property or private property, should be surrendered
by the Germans.
Sir Eric Geddes, a government minister,
speaking to a rally in the general election
campaign, December 1918.
Source Analysis
1 In what ways are Sources 2 and 3 different?
2 Are there any ways in which they are similar?
Pressures on Lloyd George
Lloyd George faced huge public pressures at home for a harsh treaty (see
Source 2). People in Britain were not sympathetic to Germany in any way.
They had suffered over 1 million casualties in the fighting, as well as food
shortages and other hardships at home. They had been fed anti-German
propaganda for four years. They had also seen how Germany had treated
Russia in 1918 when Russia surrendered. Under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Germany had stripped Russia of 25 per cent of its population and huge areas
of Russia’s best agricultural land.
Lloyd George had just won the 1918 election in Britain by promising to
‘make Germany pay’, even though he realised the dangers of this course of
action. So Lloyd George had to balance these pressures at home with his
desire not to leave Germany wanting revenge.
Profile
Georges Clemenceau
(Prime Minister of France)

Background
• Born 1841 (he was aged 77 when the Paris Conference began).
• First entered French politics in 1871.
• Was Prime Minister of France from 1906 to 1909.
• From 1914 to 1917 he was very critical of the French war
leaders. In November 1917 he was elected to lead France
through the last year of the war.
Character
A hard, tough politician with a reputation for being uncompromising.
He had seen his country invaded twice by the Germans, in 1870
and in 1914. He was determined not to allow such devastation ever
again.

Did Clemenceau agree with Wilson?

In public, Clemenceau of course agreed with Wilson’s aim for a fair and
lasting peace. However, he found Wilson very hard to work with. While he
did not publicly criticise the Fourteen Points, Clemenceau once pointed out
that even God had only needed Ten Commandments!
The major disagreement was over Germany. Clemenceau and other French
leaders saw the Treaty as an opportunity to cripple Germany so that it could
not attack France again.
Pressures on Clemenceau
France had suffered enormous damage to its land, industry, people – and self-
confidence. Over two-thirds of the men who had served in the French army
had been killed or wounded. The war affected almost an entire generation.
By comparison, Germany seemed to many French people as powerful and
threatening as ever. German land and industry had not been as badly damaged
as France’s. France’s population (around 40 million) was in decline
compared to Germany’s (around 75 million).
The French people wanted a treaty that would punish Germany and weaken it
as much as possible. The French President (Poincaré) even wanted Germany
broken up into a collection of smaller states, but Clemenceau knew that the
British and Americans would not agree to this.
Clemenceau was a realist and knew he would probably be forced to
compromise on some issues. However, he had to show he was aware of
public opinion in France.
Think!
1 One of the ideas put forward at the Paris Conference was that
Germany should lose some of its key industrial areas. How
would you expect Lloyd George to react to a proposal like this?
You could present your answer as a short speech by Lloyd
George or in a paragraph of text.
2 Here are some extracts from the demands made by France
before the Peace Conference started:
a) German armed forces to be banned from the bank of the
River Rhine (which bordered France).
b) Germany to pay compensation for damage done by German
forces in lands they occupied during the war.
c) Germany’s armed forces to be severely limited.
 Which of these terms do you think made it into the final Treaty?
Give each term a percentage chance and keep a note of your
guesses. You will find out if you were right later in the chapter.

How did the peacemaking process

actually work?
In theory, the major issues like borders and reparations (compensation for
war damage) were discussed in detail by all the delegates at the conference
(see Source 4) – over 32 leaders with all their officials and advisers! As
Source 5 shows, it quickly became impossible to consult everyone.
SOURCE 4

A painting showing the delegates at the Paris

Peace Conference at work. It was made for
the Illustrated London News, which was a
very popular British newspaper aimed at a
mass market. It was particularly well known
for using paintings even after photography
was well established. The paper’s artists
were given official access to the meetings of
the Peace Conference to report and create
 illustrations. This image had the official
approval of the Big Three.
SOURCE 5
‘Wilson the Just’ quickly disappointed expectations. Everything
about him served to disillusion those he dealt with. All too soon the
President was qualifying the Fourteen Points with ‘Four Principles’
and modifying them with ‘Five Particulars’. Finding that one
principle conflicted with another, he made compromising
declarations about both. The Big Three abandoned Wilson’s
principle of open covenants openly arrived at, consulting others
only when they needed expert advice. They were occasionally to
be seen crawling round their maps on the hearth rug. Sometimes
they agreed and, according to one British official ‘were so pleased
with themselves for doing so that they quite forgot to tell anyone
what the agreement was’. Sometimes they almost came to blows.
Lloyd George made rapid, quick fire points but they were
ineffective against Clemenceau’s granite obstinacy. Even Wilson’s
self-important confidence crashed against the rock of Clemenceau
… Clemenceau was delighted when the American President fell ill.
He suggested that Lloyd George should bribe Wilson’s doctor to
make the illness last.
Historian Piers Brendon writing in 2006.
Source Analysis
Study Source 4 carefully and then discuss these questions.
1 Why was this picture published?
2 What impression was it trying to give of the conference and the
delegates?
3 After studying Source 4 and the other information in this section,
do you think the impression is accurate? Make sure you can
explain your view.
4 If you were using this image to introduce a documentary on the
Treaty of Versailles, what main points would you make in the
commentary that the viewer would hear?
It soon became clear it would be impossible to agree terms that everyone
would agree about.
• Clemenceau clashed with Wilson over many issues. The USA had not
suffered nearly as badly as France in the war. Clemenceau resented
Wilson’s more generous attitude to Germany. They disagreed over what to
do about Germany’s Rhineland and coalfields in the Saar. In the end,
Wilson had to give way on these issues. In return, Clemenceau and Lloyd
George did give Wilson what he wanted in eastern Europe, despite their
reservations about his idea of self-determination. However, this mainly
affected the other four treaties, not the Treaty of Versailles.
• Clemenceau also clashed with Lloyd George, particularly over Lloyd
George’s desire not to treat Germany too harshly. For example,
Clemenceau said that ‘if the British are so anxious to appease Germany
they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial
concessions’. Clemenceau felt that the British were quite happy to treat
Germany fairly in Europe, where France rather than Britain was most
under threat. However, they were less happy to allow Germany to keep its
navy and colonies, which would be more of a threat to Britain.
• Wilson and Lloyd George did not always agree either. Lloyd George
was particularly unhappy with point 2 of the Fourteen Points, allowing all
nations access to the seas. Similarly, Wilson’s views on people ruling
themselves were threatening to the British government, for the British
empire ruled millions of people all across the world from London.
ACTIVITY
Who said what about whom?
Here are some statements that were made by the Big Three at the
Paris Peace Conference. Your task is to decide which leader made
the statement and also whom he was talking about. You will need to
be able to explain your answer.
a) ‘He is too anxious to preserve his empire to want self-
determination for colonies.’
b) ‘His country has been ruling the waves for too long to accept
the need for freedom of the seas.’
c) ^He wants to wreck a country which in a few years could be a
valuable trading partner and a source of vital jobs.’
d) ‘Freedom of the seas is all very well but who or what will
protect my country’s ships and trade?’
e) ‘What does he know about colonies and how they should be
ruled? He probably doesn’t know where most of them are!’
f) ‘How can I work with a man who thinks he is the first leader in
2000 years who knows anything about peace?’
g) ‘If he is so anxious to make concessions to the Germans then
they should look overseas and make naval or colonial
concessions.’
h) ‘He is stuck in the past. If he gets his way Germany will be left
bitter and vengeful and there will be another war in a few
years.’
i) ‘He is very happy to give concessions to Germany in areas
which do not threaten his country.’
j) ‘If you carry on annoying me I am going to punch you!’
k) ‘There are new, better ways of making a peace agreement. He
should accept that all states should disarm.’
l) ‘He must make concessions to the Germans, perhaps over the
Rhineland or Alsace–Lorraine.’
The terms of the Treaty of Versailles
None of the Big Three was happy with the eventual terms of the Treaty. After
months of negotiation, each of them had to compromise on some of their
aims, otherwise there would never have been a treaty.
The main terms can be divided into five areas.
1 War guilt This clause was simple but was seen by the Germans
as extremely harsh. Germany had to accept the blame
for starting the war.
2 The major powers agreed, without consulting
Reparations Germany, that Germany had to pay reparations to the
Allies for the damage caused by the war. The exact
figure was not agreed until 1921 when it was set at
£6,600 million – an enormous figure. If the terms of
the payments had not later been changed under the
Young Plan in 1929 (see page 250), Germany would
not have finished paying this bill until 1984.
3 German • Germany’s European borders were very extensive,
territories and the section dealing with German territory in
and Europe was a complicated part of the Treaty. You
colonies can see the detail in Figure 6. In addition to these
changes, the Treaty also forbade Germany to join
together (ANSCHLUSS) with its former ally Austria.
FIGURE 6
Map showing the impact of the Treaty of
Versailles on the borders of Europe.
 • Germany’s overseas empire was taken away. It had
been one of the causes of bad relations between
Britain and Germany before the war. Former German
colonies, such as Cameroon, became mandates
controlled by the League of Nations, which effectively
meant that France and Britain controlled them.
4 The size and power of the German army was a major
Germany’s concern, especially for France. The Treaty therefore
armed restricted German armed forces to a level well below
forces what they had been before the war.
• The army was limited to 100,000 men.
• CONSCRIPTION was banned – soldiers had to be
volunteers.
• Germany was not allowed armoured vehicles,
submarines or aircraft.
• The navy could have only six battleships.
• The Rhineland became a DEMILITARISED zone. This
meant that no German troops were allowed into that
area. The Rhineland was important because it was
the border area between Germany and France (see
Figure 6).
5 League • Previous methods of keeping peace had failed and so
of Nations the League of Nations was set up as an international
‘police force’. (You will study the League in detail in
Chapter 2.)
• Germany was not invited to join the League until it
had shown that it was a peace-loving country.
Revision Tip
The more you know about the Treaty of Versailles, the more it will
help you. Make sure you can remember one or two key points
under each of these headings:
• Blame
• Reparations
• Arms
• Territory.
FOCUS TASK 1.2
Why did the victors not get everything they wanted?
1 Work in threes. Look back at the profiles of Wilson, Lloyd
George and Clemenceau on pages 6, 8 and 9. Choose one
each. Study the terms of the Treaty on these two pages. Think
about:
a) which terms of the Treaty would please your chosen leader
and why
b) which terms would displease him and why
c) how far he seemed to have achieved his aims.
d) Report your findings to your partners.
2 Look back at the chart you compiled on page 6. There should be
a blank fifth column. Put the heading ‘How they felt about the
Treaty’ and fill it in for each leader with a one-sentence
summary.
3 a) Choose one of the following phrases to finish off this
sentence:
The victors did not all get what they wanted because …
– Clemenceau bullied Wilson and Lloyd George into
agreeing to a harsh treaty.
– the leaders’ aims were too different – they could not all
have got what they wanted and someone was bound to
be disappointed.
– public opinion in their home countries affected the
leaders’ decisions.
b) Write a paragraph to explain why you chose that phrase.
c) Write two more paragraphs to explain whether there is
evidence to support the other two.
 FOCUS TASK 1.3
Was the Treaty of Versailles fair?
It is important to make up your own mind about this key question
and be able to back up your view with evidence and arguments. So
place yourself on this scale and write some sentences to explain
your position. This is provisional. You will return to it again.

German reactions to the Treaty of

Versailles
The government that took Germany to war in 1914 had been overthrown in a
revolution and the new democratic government in Germany was hoping for
fair and equal treatment from the Allies. When the terms were announced on
7 May the Germans were horrified. Their reasons are summarised in the
diagram opposite.
The new German government refused to sign the Treaty and the German navy
sank its own ships in protest. At one point, it looked as though war might
break out again. But what could the German leader Friedrich Ebert do?
Germany would quickly be defeated if it tried to fight.
Reluctantly, Ebert agreed to accept the terms of the Treaty and it was signed
on 28 June 1919.
SOURCE 7
THE TREATY IS ONLY A SCRAP OF PAPER! We will seek
vengeance for the shame of 1919.
German newspaper Deutsche Zeitung, June
1919.
SOURCE 8
 Cartoon from the German magazine
Simplicissimus, June 1919. The caption in
the magazine read: ‘The Allies are burying
Germany with the peace terms.’
Source Analysis
Study Source 8. If you did not know this source was German would
you be able to work this out? Explain how.

German criticisms of the Treaty of Versailles

War guilt and reparations
Germany had to accept the blame for starting the war and
therefore had to pay reparations.
• This ‘war guilt’ clause was particularly hated. Germans did not
feel they had started the war. They felt at the very least that
blame should be shared.
• They were bitter that Germany was expected to pay for all the
damage caused by the war even though the German economy
was severely weakened.
German territories
Germany certainly lost a lot of territory
• 10 per cent of its land in Europe
• All of its overseas colonies
• 12.5 per cent of its population
• 16 per cent of its coalfields and almost half of its iron and steel
industry.
This was a major blow to German pride, and to its economy. Both
the Saar and Upper Silesia were important industrial areas.
Meanwhile, as Germany was losing colonies, the British and
French were increasing their empires by taking control of German
territories in Africa.
Disarmament
The German army was reduced to 100,000 men. It could have no
air force, and only a tiny navy.
Germans felt these terms were very unfair. An army of 100,000
was very small for a country of Germany’s size and the army was
a symbol of German pride.
Also, despite Wilson’s Fourteen Points calling for disarmament,
none of the Allies were being asked or forced to disarm in the
same way.
The Fourteen Points and the League of Nations
• To most Germans, the treatment of Germany was not in keeping
with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. For example, while self-
determination was given to countries such as Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania, German-speaking peoples were being hived off into
new countries such as Czechoslovakia to be ruled by non-
Germans. Anschluss (union) with Austria was forbidden.
• Germany felt further insulted by not being invited to join the
League of Nations.
Non-representation
Germans were angry that their government was not represented at
the peace talks and that they were being forced to accept a harsh
treaty without any choice or even comment. Germans did not feel
they had lost the war so they should not have been treated as a
defeated country.
SOURCE 9

A mass meeting in Berlin in June 1919

protesting against the Treaty of Versailles.

Consequences of the Treaty for

Germany
The Treaty of Versailles had a profound effect on Germany for the next ten
years and more. The Treaty was universally resented. The historian Zara
Steiner argues that hatred of the Versailles Treaty was almost the only issue
which all Germans in this period agreed on.
Political violence
Right-wing opponents of Ebert’s government could not bear the Treaty. In
1920 they attempted a revolution. This rising, called the Kapp Putsch, was
defeated by a GENERAL STRIKE by Berlin workers which paralysed essential
services such as power and transport. It saved Ebert’s government but it
added to the chaos in Germany – and the bitterness of Germans towards the
Treaty.
Although Kapp was defeated, political violence remained a constant threat.
There were numerous political assassinations or attempted assassinations. In
the summer of 1922 Germany’s foreign minister Walther Rathenau was
murdered by extremists. Then in November 1923 Adolf Hitler led an
attempted rebellion in Munich, known as the Munich Putsch (see page 253).
Hitler’s rebellion was defeated but he was let off lightly when he was put on
trial and it was clear many Germans shared his hatred of Versailles. Over the
next ten years he exploited German resentment of the Treaty of Versailles to
gain support for himself and his Nazi party.
SOURCE 10
 A German poster from 1923 showing a
German worker refusing to obey the French
troops ordering him to work. The caption
says ‘No, you can’t force me’.
Source Analysis
Study Source 10. The artist had a difficult aim to achieve because
he wanted to show the German worker as strong and determined
but at the same time being threatened by the French troops. Do you
think he has achieved this aim? Explain which elements of the poster
led you to this conclusion.
Conflict in the Ruhr
Under the Treaty Germany agreed to pay £6,600 million in reparations to the
Allies. The first instalment of £50 million was paid in 1921, but in 1922
nothing was paid. Ebert tried to negotiate concessions from the Allies, but
the French ran out of patience. In 1923 French and Belgian soldiers entered
the Ruhr region and simply took what was owed to them in the form of raw
materials and goods. This was quite legal under the Treaty of Versailles.
The results of the occupation of the Ruhr were disastrous for Germany. The
German government ordered the workers to go on strike so that they were not
producing anything for the French to take. The French reacted harshly, killing
over 100 workers and expelling over 100,000 protesters from the region.
More importantly, the strike meant that Germany had no goods to trade, and
no money to buy things with. Their response led, in turn, to hyperinflation
(see page 17).
There is much debate about the developments in the Ruhr. Most Germans
believed that the crisis arose because the reparations were too high and
Germany was virtually bankrupted. Many commentators at the time
(including the British and French leaders) claimed that Germany was quite
able to afford reparations: it just did not want to pay! Some historians argue
that Germany stopped paying reparations in order to create a crisis and force
the international community to revise the terms of the Treaty. The debate goes
on, but there is no doubt that most Germans at the time believed the Treaty
was responsible for the crisis and that the reparations were far too high.
Hyperinflation
The government solved the problem of not having enough money by simply
printing extra money, but this caused a new problem – hyperinflation. The
money was virtually worthless, so prices shot up. The price of goods could
rise between joining the back of a queue in a shop and reaching the front (see
page 248)! Wages began to be paid daily instead of weekly.
Some Germans gained from this disaster. The government and big
industrialists were able to pay off their huge debts in worthless marks. But
others, especially pensioners, were practically left penniless. A prosperous
middle-class family would find that their savings, which might have bought a
house in 1921, by 1923 would not even buy a loaf of bread.
SOURCE 11
 A German banknote of 1923 for one billion
marks.
SOURCE 12
Billion mark notes were quickly handed on as though they burned
one’s fingers, for tomorrow one would no longer pay in notes but in
bundles of notes … One afternoon I rang Aunt Louise’s bell. The
door was opened merely a crack. From the dark came an odd
broken voice: ‘I’ve used 60 billion marks’ worth of gas. My milk bill
is 1 million. But all I have left is 2000 marks. I don’t understand any
more.’
Extract from Convert to Freedom by Eitel
Dobert, published in 1941. Dobert was a
writer and lecturer and joined the Nazi party
in 1920.
Germany eventually recovered from this disaster, but it left a bitter memory.
The bitterness was directed towards the Treaty of Versailles. It is no
coincidence that when Germany faced economic problems again in 1929
many Germans believed Hitler’s claims that the Treaty was to blame and they
should support his plans to overturn it.
Summary
While the Treaty did cause some genuine problems for Germany the
important thing to realise is that many Germans blamed it for other problems
which had little to do with it. This resentment was then in turn exploited by
extreme groups in Germany to gain power and influence for themselves.
Revision Tip
There were two problems Germany faced in the period 1919–23:
• political violence, and
• hyperinflation.
Make sure you can explain how each one was linked to the Treaty
of Versailles.

FOCUS TASK 1.4

What was the impact of the peace treaty on Germany up to
1923?
Summarise the impact of the Treaty on Germany under each of
these headings:
a) Political impact
b) Economic impact
c) Impact on morale

How was the Treaty seen at the time?

It was unfair!
Some said the Treaty was unfair!
None of the Big Three was happy with the Treaty (although for different
reasons) and some of the diplomats who helped shape the Treaty were
dissatisfied.
SOURCE 13
The historian, with every justification, will come to the conclusion
that we were very stupid men … We arrived determined that a
Peace of justice and wisdom should be negotiated; we left the
conference conscious that the treaties imposed upon our enemies
were neither just nor wise.
 Harold Nicolson, a British official who
attended the talks.
Some commentators at the time believed that the Treaty was unfair and unjust
(see Source 13 for example).
Source 14 is probably the most famous cartoon produced about the Treaty of
Versailles. The artist, Will Dyson, thought that the peacemakers were blind
and selfish and as a result they produced a disastrous treaty that would cause
another terrible war. It is a powerful cartoon. Because history proved it right
(the cartoonist even gets the date of the Second World War almost right) this
cartoon has been reproduced many times ever since, including in millions of
school textbooks.
SOURCE 14

A cartoon published in the socialist

newspaper The Daily Herald in 1919.
Another powerful critic of the Treaty was a British economist, John Maynard
Keynes. He wrote a very critical book called The Economic Consequences
of The Peace published in 1919. This book was widely read and accepted
and has influenced the way people have looked at the Treaty.
It is easy to think that everyone felt this way about the Treaty – but they did
not!
It was fair!
Others said the Treaty was fair!
At the time German complaints about the Treaty mostly fell on deaf ears.
There were celebrations in Britain and France. If ordinary people in Britain
had any reservations about the Treaty it was more likely to be that it was not
harsh enough.
• Many people felt that the Germans were themselves operating a double
standard. Their call for fairer treatment did not square with the harsh way
they had treated Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. Versailles
was a much less harsh treaty than Brest-Litovsk. This is the comment being
made in the cartoon on page 4.
• There was also the fact that Germany’s economic problems, although real,
were partly self-inflicted. Other states had raised taxes to pay for the war.
The Kaiser’s government had not done this. It had simply allowed debts to
mount up because it had planned to pay Germany’s war debts by extracting
reparations from the defeated states.
SOURCE 15
The Germans have given in … They writhe at the obligation
imposed on them to confess their guilt … Some of the conditions,
they affirm, are designed to deprive the German people of its
honour … They thought little of the honour of the nations whose
territories they defiled with their barbarous and inhuman warfare for
more than three awful years.
British newspaper The Times, 24 June 1919.
SOURCE 16
 A British cartoon published in 1919.
SOURCE 17
Terms of Treaty Better Than Germany Deserves
WAR MAKERS MUST BE MADE TO SUFFER
Germany’s chickens are coming home to roost, and she is making
no end of a song about it. That was expected, but it will not help
her much … If Germany had her deserts, indeed, there would be
no Germany left to bear any burden at all; she would be wiped off
the map of Europe … Stern justice would demand for Germany a
punishment 10 times harder than any she will have to bear …
The feeling in this country is not that Germany is being too hardly
dealt by, but that she is being let off too lightly.
From the British newspaper The People, May
1919.
Source Analysis
1 Study Source 16. On your own copy, analyse Source 16 the way
we have analysed Source 14 on page 18.
2 What does Source 16 reveal about British opinions on the Treaty?

How has the Treaty been seen with

hindsight?
Looking back at the Treaty from the present day we know that it helped to
create the cruel Nazi regime in Germany and helped cause the Second World
War.
As early as 1933–34 the British historian W.H. Dawson was arguing that the
Versailles settlement was a major cause of the rise of Hitler’s aggressive
Nazi regime in Germany (see Source 19). And while many later historians
disagreed with Dawson about the Treaty, they did agree that Hitler was able
to exploit the way Germans felt about the Treaty (see Sources 18 and 20).
SOURCE 18
The Versailles Treaty was one of the most outrageous and
predatory treaties in history. It was a blatant act of plunder
perpetrated by a gang of robbers against a helpless, prostrate and
bleeding Germany. Among its numerous provisions, it required
Germany and its allies to accept full responsibility for causing the
war and, under the terms of articles 231–248, to disarm, make
substantial territorial concessions and pay reparations to the
Entente powers.
An extract from an article on the website ‘In
Defence of Marxism’, published in 2009. The
title of the article was ‘The Treaty of
Versailles – the Peace to end all Peace’.
SOURCE 19
The rise of Hitler to power and the resurgence of militant
nationalism throughout Germany is alarming. Hitler is certain to
demand a reconsideration of the territorial provision in the
Versailles settlement. These demands, in a country which was
supposedly defeated and restrained indefinitely, serve as a warning
to the powers who wish to defend peace and stability in Europe.
They are also a reminder that nations tend to be slow to accept the
truth of a given situation unless they are forced to. Germany’s
claims of unfair treatment under the settlement have been clarified
and strengthened from year to year with the findings of impartial
research by myself and other colleagues. No attempt was made by
the victorious powers at Versailles to respect the rights and valid
claims of Germany.
British historian W.H. Dawson writing in 1933.
SOURCE 20
Hitler used the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 to raise the European
storms that Britain and France wanted to calm in the 1930s. Hitler’s
demands for the destruction of Versailles won him support at home
and also allowed him to disguise his true ambitions to build a great
empire from the German people and from foreign statesmen. Most
Germans wished to change Versailles and so they supported Hitler.
Even in Britain, Hitler’s demands did not seem to be completely
unacceptable. To the British, if Hitler’s only purpose was to modify
the Versailles settlement then it seemed reasonable to listen to him
and give concessions. The grievances of Versailles provided Hitler
 with the means to appeal to German and foreign support for
demands over territory and reparations. Indeed, to British
observers the history of reparations came to be seen as the history
of a grave and very large mistake.
British historian R.A.C. Parker writing in
1993.
We call this hindsight – when you look back at a historical event and judge it
knowing its consequences. You would expect hindsight to affect historians’
attitudes to the Treaty and it has – but maybe not exactly as you might expect.
Some historians side with critics of the Treaty and its makers. Others point
out that the majority of people outside Germany thought that the Treaty was
fair and that a more generous treaty would have been totally unacceptable to
public opinion in Britain and France. They highlight that the peacemakers had
a very difficult job balancing public opinion in their own countries with
visions of a fairer future. Some say that the Treaty may have been the best
that could be achieved in the circumstances.
Think!
Look back at your work in Focus Task 1.3 on page 13. Have you
changed your views after reading the information and sources on
pages 18–20?
SOURCE 21
 Nazi cartoon commenting on the military
terms of the Versailles Treaty. The text
reads: ‘The Mammoth Military superiority of
our neighbours’. The soldier’s symbol =
military treaties; F = peace time strength; R =
reserves; the German Reich is surrounded by
Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Poland and France
(left to right).
SOURCE 22
 A demonstration against the Treaty of
Versailles in 1933. The march was organised
by the Nazi Party. The banners read ‘Day of
Versailles, day of dishonour!’ and ‘We would
be free from Versailles!’
Source Analysis
Study Sources 21 and 22. Explain how the authors of Sources 19
and 20 could have used these as evidence to support their ideas.
SOURCE 23
The Treaty of Versailles has been repeatedly pilloried [criticised],
most famously in John Maynard Keynes’ The Economic
Consequences of the Peace, published at the end of 1919 and still
the argument underpinning too many current textbooks … The
Treaty of Versailles was not excessively harsh. Germany was not
destroyed. Nor was it reduced to a second rank power or
permanently prevented from returning to great power status … With
the disintegration of Austria-Hungary and the collapse of Tsarist
Russia it left Germany in a stronger strategic position than before
the war … The Versailles Treaty was, nonetheless, flawed. It failed
to solve the problem of both punishing and conciliating a country
that remained a great power despite the four years of fighting and a
military defeat. It could hardly have been otherwise, given the very
different aims of the peacemakers, not to speak of the many
problems they faced, many of which lay beyond their competence
or control.
Historian Zara Steiner writing in 2004.
SOURCE 24
The peacemakers of 1919 made mistakes, of course. By their
offhand treatment of the non-European world they stirred up
resentments for which the West is still paying today. They took
pains over the borders in Europe, even if they did not draw them to
everyone’s satisfaction, but in Africa they carried on the old
practice of handing out territory to suit the imperialist powers. In the
Middle East they threw together peoples, in Iraq most notably, who
still have not managed to cohere into a civil society. [But] they
could have done much worse. They tried, even cynical old
Clemenceau, to build a better order. They could not foresee the
future and they certainly could not control it. That was up to their
successors. When war came in 1939, it was a result of twenty
years of decisions taken or not taken, not of arrangements made in
1919.
Historian Margaret MacMillan writing in
Peacemakers, 2001.
 FOCUS TASK 1.5
Could the Treaty of Versailles be justified at the time?
1 Study Sources 18–24 carefully. Match one source to each of
these headlines:
• The best that could be achieved in the circumstances
• They did what the people wanted
• A death warrant for Europe
• Betrayal.
2 For each source, decide whether you think it is a critical, positive
or balanced view of the Treaty.
3 Now look back at the previous section on views from the time.
Write a paragraph explaining how far you agree with this
statement: ‘The views of the Treaty with hindsight are generally
kinder than the views expressed at the time.’

The other peace settlements

The Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany, but Germany had allies in the
First World War (Austria–Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey). These allies also
had to disarm and pay reparations. There were four other treaties which dealt
with them. These treaties were not negotiated by the Big Three but by
officers and diplomats working with the foreign ministers of the Allied
powers. The treaties were made in consultation with representatives of the
nationalities in eastern and central Europe (except those of the defeated
countries). Because the empire of Austria–Hungary collapsed in 1918, the
treaties made eastern Europe a ‘patchwork’ of new states.
The Versailles Treaty usually gets the most attention but these other treaties
were important, too. They attempted to solve incredibly complex and serious
problems. They set out what Europe and the Middle East would look like for
the next few decades, and in many ways these treaties still have a powerful
impact on the world today. Looking at the other treaties may also help you to
decide whether you think the Treaty of Versailles was fair.
Austria: The Treaty of St Germain, 1919
This treaty separated Austria from Hungary and confirmed that Austria was
no longer a leading power. Under the treaty, Austrian territories were
divided as follows: