The Treaty of Versailles

Historians and politicians in the world today have spent countless hours analyzing and
determining the severity of the Treaty of Versailles. It is evident that several perspectives
regarding this treaty have presented themselves in books and articles worldwide. Author, Sheila
Gordon, of 3rd September 1939 indicates that there is a clear distinction between two
perspectives regarding the treaty. She states that, There were two conflicting motives
underlying their decisions: the wish to provide a new political and geographical framework that
would ensure a peaceful and prosperous Europe, and the desire to punish Germany.1 Gordon
refers to the difference of opinions that the Big Three (Clemenceau, Wilson, George)
experienced when attempting to create a compromise. While some people believe that the terms
of the Treaty of Versailles were extremely harsh and burdened the people of Germany, others
argue that the terms of the Treaty were not as harsh as people claim them to be.
Gordon continues to present an objective view throughout her book by commenting on
both sides of the spectrum. She confronts the fact that Germany had created an unquestionable
amount of damage worldwide and thus proved to be a dangerous country. She continues to say
that, Germany must never again be allowed to threaten the peace of Europe-her power must be
reduced and limited once and for all.2 Gordon speculates that in order for peace and stability to
repair damaged countries, Germany must be severely punished. Due to the fact that Gordon
realizes Germany has threatened many countries of Europe, she states that the amount of power
they possess must have been reduced in order to compensate for threats and outward acts of
violence. On the other hand, Gordon addresses the opposite side and states that original
bitterness remained; reparations could always be blamed by the Germans for all their troubles,

1

rd

Shiela Gordon, 3 September 1939 (London, 1988) 26.

2
Ibid.

and served to remind them of their injustice of their situation.3 This being said, although
Gordon mentions the deserved punishment of the German state, she also indicates a strong
opinion towards injustice and unfairness within the treaty. Large reparations were implemented
which reminded them of their mistakes and troubles that would bring times of despair for years
to come.
In contrast to Gordon, Author Roger Parkinson of The Origins of World War II has a
more subjective perspective on the terms of the treaty. His insight delves into the significant
cruelty of the Treaty of Versailles and explores the problems that were encountered by the Big
Three when creating it. Firstly Parkinson writes, The result was undue haste in some respects;
important matters were overlooked or put aside-including the amount of reparations the Germans
were to pay.4 Parkinson indicates that the Treaty of Versailles proved to be an unnecessary
hindrance to the populace of Germany. He notes that the Big Three were unable to make sensible
decisions regarding Germanys punishment, and instead imposed harsh terms in a short amount
of time. Parkinson believes that the Big Threes inability to efficiently time manage resulted in
suffering Germans (due to the terms of the treaty). He notes that the reparations were far too
extreme and the Big Three failed to notice the extremity of the amount they were required to pay.
Parkinson further concludes that, The methods used were the territorial changes and the harsh
disarmament terms in the Treaty of Versailles.5 In Parkinsons opinion, the territorial
restrictions and disarmament of the military in Germany were the methods used by the Big Three
to punish Germany to the fullest extent. He concludes that not only were the reparations too
harsh, but so were the military extractions and eliminations enforced by the treaty. In sum,

Ibid., 30
Roger Parkinson, The Origins of World War II (England,1970) 13.
5
Ibid.
4

Parkinson sides with the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles forced unjust punishments upon the
populace of Germany that derived from the extremist terms.
Terry, Copp, author of No Price Too High proves to have opinions which are different
from both Parkinson and Gordon. He summarizes his perspective on the issue with a great deal
of emotional outbursts and obvious subjection. His book No Price Too High states that:
This view of the Great War and the peace settlement was never accepted
within Germany and quickly became unfashionable among liberal and leftwing intellectuals in Britain, the United States and Canada. This history of the
origins of the war was revised to argue that Germany had been drawn to the
war by her allies. The real causes of the war were said to be rival
imperialisms, the naval race, the armaments industry or simply capitalism. If
Germany was no more guilty than France or Britain, the moral basis for
restraining German military power or requiring reparations did not exist. The
development of revisionist ideas about the causes of the war was paralleled
by a growing disillusionment with the heroic image of the soldiers.6
In this paragraph, Copp is implying that the Treaty of Versailles was not as bad as people
claim it to be. He is pointing out that over the course of history, people have made the terms
of the treaty sound overly extreme and terrible, when really in fact they were not. Terry
mentions that Germany in fact was not drawn in to the war, but imperialism and capitalism
initially led the Germans into the war in the first place. Copp continues to argue that The Big
Three would have not imposed strict military restrictions and reparations onto unsuspecting
Germany if they were considered not guilty. Therefore, he implies that Germany must have
been terribly destructive during the war to deserve such a punishment served in the Treaty of
Versailles. He concludes by summarizing that the initial causes of the war were changed by
peoples imaginations when they simultaneously realized that the soldiers of the war were not
the heroic people everyone assumed them to be.

Terry Copp, No Price Too High (Ontario, 1996) 13