Was the TOV too harsh on Germany?

The TOV imposed harsh measures on Germany, by first pinning the blame for starting WW1 on
Germany, then extracting territory and reparations from Germany. It also forbade Germany from joining
the League of Nations initially, and also limited the size of the German military. From the German
perspective, this was perceived as too harsh. However, from the French point of view, the TOV was not
harsh enough. On balance, I think that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh.

From the French point of view, the TOV was not harsh enough. France was attacked by Germany twice
within Clemenceau’s lifetime. World War 1, in particular, inflicted a lot of suffering on France. A lot of
the fighting took place on French and Belgian lands, and as a result, many lives and property were lost.
France alone lost 1.7 million lives. Clemenceau wanted to ensure that Germany would never be a threat
again and therefore wanted Germany to be broken up into smaller states. However, he needed to strike
a compromise as the UK and USA would not support breaking up Germany, and thus, while Germany
lost land, it was not broken up. Hence, from the French point of view, the TOV was not harsh enough.

The TOV was also not too harsh as it was similar to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and Germany was getting
a taste of its own medicine. Germany forced Russia into signing a treaty that took away a lot of Russian
land, including land that was rich in coal and agricultural produce. Russia also lost about 1/3 of its
population as a result of the Treaty, and had to pay 6 billion marks in reparation to Germany. The TOV
was therefore similar to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and should be seen as fair. Therefore, considering
what Germany forced upon Russia, the TOV was fair, and hence, not overly harsh.

However, the TOV could be seen as being too harsh if we consider the German point of view. The TOV
pinned the blame for WW1 on Germany when it did not start the war. Instead, it was the system of
secret alliances in Europe that caused a conflict in the Austro-Hungarian Empire to escalate into a world
war. Since Germany cannot be blamed as the main instigator of WW1, the War Guilt Clause was too
harsh.

Further, the TOV made severe claims upon Germany, forcing it to give up large tracts of land, and
Germany still had to pay reparations. These were too harsh as it led to long term difficulties in Germany
and were unrealistic. Taking away the industrial lands of the Saar and Germany’s overseas colonies
crippled Germany’s economy, and led to the economic crisis of 1922. Many Germans lost their life
savings. Germans living in lands given away also had to live under the rule of other governments in
Poland and Czechoslovakia. The German city of Danzig would also be separated from Germany and
become a free city under the League of Nations. When Germany could not keep up with payments, the
TOV allowed the French to occupy the Ruhr region, and took away raw materials as payment. This
further weakened the German economy, and it was unrealistic to take away Germany’s resources yet
expect it to pay reparations. Hence, the TOV was too harsh.

On balance, I agree that the TOV was too harsh as it failed to achieve the main aim of the TOV, which
was to prevent war from breaking out again. It punished Germany so harshly that it made the German
people angry, and became vulnerable to Hitler’s rhetoric later in the 1930s. While France may be
justified in wanting to use the TOV to take revenge on Germany, its attempts to do so only made
Germany more unstable. Therefore, the TOV was too harsh.