To What Extent Was the Treaty of Versailles Fair or Unfair?

696 Words3 Pages
The Treaty of Versailles is an issue that has garnered much controversy and contention on the topic of whether or not it was fair. The byzantine web of diverse opinions often bars one from a neutral and unbiased insight into the degree of equitability of the Treaty of Versailles. While many argue that the terms were too harsh for the deemed “aggressor” of the war, Germany, others assert that the Treaty was really quite lenient. Although it is impossible to stamp the Treaty as absolutely fair or unfair, it is conceivable to analyze whether it was equitable based on the outcome and effect it brought forth. In the era of the World War I, for the deemed aggressor to take responsibility was not an unfair or preposterous idea. The “loser(s)” of a war had to admit full responsibility for their actions, and accept harsh reparations. Just a year ago, in 1918, Germany itself had imposed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk upon the new Bolshevik government of Russia. It is arguable that the Brest-Litovsk Treaty contained much harsher terms than those of the Treaty of Versailles; Russia was forced to give up Estonia, Riga, Lithuania, Livonia, and some of White Russia. The loss of these lands was particularly daunting for Russia since they were of great economic importance. Thus, in comparison with the harsh terms of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the Germans were in no position or right to complain about the consequences they had to face. The Treaty of Versailles was actually issued quite lenient punishments for the Germans when considering the damage wrought by the war. However, to charge Germany as being fully responsible for the Great War was also unfair and faulty. The assassination of the Archduke of Austria had prompted Austria-Hungary to retaliate by declaring war on Serbia, with the support of Germany. Serbia too, had the powerful Russia as its ally. Therefore, when Russia
Open Document