Accoridng to other historians The fundamental significance of Versailles was emotional rather than rational. Allied statesmen, urged on by the pressure of public opinion, have made peace in spirit of revenge and not to guarantee national security. Taking this view a harsh appeasement would have been natural, yet Celmanceau – who devised even harsher reparations, did not have his way. Finally, the negotiators had to move quickly through a long agenda of issues, in order not to delay any further the establishment of a resolution to the fragile European predicament. Given these constraints and the general exhaustion of Europe after such a long war, the Treaty of Versailles was certainly not the best one could hope for, but it seems to have been the best compromise possible.
Whist this view takes the point that the treaty was too harsh. However, Germany was still the strongest power in Europe economically, so that the unwise thing about Versailles was that it annoyed the Germans yet did not render them too weak to retaliate However this view can be countered
Whilst most historians see the treaty as a filiure, few sing it’s praises taking the opinion that the treaty, whilst did fail was the best that could have been created considering the circumstances. If we extend this philosophy to the peacemakers of 1919 then we can argue that they did a remarkably good job. Three European empires had collapsed, economies were devastated, millions of people were homeless or victims of disease and nationalist and communist revolutions were breaking out all over Europe. The peacemakers had to act quickly to save their world and in this they were remarkably successful. However It can be argues this view is limited as the The Treaty of Versailles, which the Allies signed with Germany at the end of the First World War, has had a bad reputation ever since. John Maynard Keynes, the great economist, thought it was stupid, vindictive and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document