Was the Treaty of Versailles a Reasonable Peace?

The armistice of November 11th 1918 gave both the allies and the central powers time to reflect on the effects of the war throughout Europe. Before the start of the war in 1914 countries promoted the idea that war was a great thing and to fight for your country was very honourable. But, by 1918 people across Europe saw for the first time how horrible war actually was. Where, in the past, people had only been exposed to the idea of war by the pro-war propaganda of various governments, Europeans were now experiencing war through fighting, the death of friends and family, through their countries being destroyed. By the time the allies came to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 the council of four wanted to make sure that what happened between 1914-1918 would not happen again and so the Treaty of Versailles was created in an attempt to ensure what happened between 1914-1918 would never happen again.
Historically there are two main schools of thought surrounding the Treaty of Versailles. The traditionalist school argues that the treaty was too harsh on Germany and that the reparations and territorial changes were unreasonable. However revisionist historians argue that because Germany was the main cause of the war the treaty was actually reasonable. I will argue in this essay that the revisionist school is the correct argument.
In the Treaty of Versailles, the transfer of territory had a serious impact on Europe. The aim of the council of four was to weaken German power in order to prevent another war in future. The treaty made Germany lose 10 percent of its land, 12.5 percent of its population, and most of its colonies. The treaty also asked Germany to return Alsace- Lorraine to France. All of these points are used by traditionalists to argue that the Treaty was unreasonable. However if you look at the Alsace-Lorraine point it is clear that it was inevitable and reasonable, because by returning this region to France the allies were able to undermine the pre-war