The Treaty of Versailles and its Impact: A Historical Examination

This essay examines the Treaty of Versailles, focusing on whether the peace settlement reached in 1919 was the best possible outcome given the circumstances, or if the peacemakers were responsible for subsequent international crises. The essay analyzes arguments presented by historians Margaret Macmillan and David A. Andelman, exploring their perspectives on the treaty's impact on Germany and the world. It highlights the economic and psychological factors that contributed to the rise of Nazism, and the lasting consequences of the treaty's terms, concluding with a persuasive argument based on the historians' viewpoints. The essay analyzes the historical background, the key players involved, and the treaty's impact on global politics and economics.

Running head: THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
The Treaty of Versailles
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
The Treaty of Versailles was the most crucial factor behind the beginning of Second
World War. It was also considered to be the most significant of all the peace treaties, which
brought the First World War to an end1. It ended the long war between the Allied Powers and
the Germany. However, what Germany thought to be a peaceful settlement was instead a
diktat that ultimately humiliated the Germany and kept them on a leash for years. This essay
shall elaborate on discussing whether the peace settlement reached at this Conference the best
that can be attained by the leaders of great powers in the conditions in the year 1919 or
whether the peacemakers of that year responsible for the different subsequent global crisis
during the 20th century, from the perspective of Margaret Macmillan and David A.
Andelman. The focus of this paper would be on explaining the different arguments presented
by these historians and would finally conclude on whose argument is more persuasive.
The Paris Peace Conference, also known as the Versailles Peace Conference was all
about the international meet up of the victorious Allies in the year 1919 and 1920, after the
end of First World War2. The main purpose of it was to develop the terms of peace after the
First World War. There were about thirteen nations that took part in the meeting. However,
the France, The Representatives of Great Britain, Italy and United States were called the “Big
Four”3. They dominated the proceedings that resulted in the formation of the Treaty of
Versailles- the treaty that articulated comprises that were reached at the conference. It was
signed on 28th June, 1919 and ended the war between the Allied Powers and the Germany. It
comprised of a plan for forming a League of Nations that was expected to serve as a global
forum and a global collective security arrangement.
1 Roskill, S., (2016). Naval Policy Between Wars. Volume I: The Period of Anglo-American Antagonism 1919-1929. Seaforth Publishing.
2 Weber, T., (2017, May). From Versailles to Shanghai: Pan-Asianist Legacies of the Paris Peace Conference and the Failure of Asianism
from Below. In Asia after Versailles: Asian Perspectives on the Paris Peace Conference and the Interwar Order, Edinburgh University
Press, 1919-33 (p. 77).
3 McKercher, B.J.C. and Goldstein, E., (2019). Introduction: Of War and Peace: Aspects of British Policy and the Treaty of
Versailles. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30(2), pp.194-200.

2THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
Woodrow Wilson, the president of United States was the strongest most advocate of
the League as he was of the belief that the treat would prevent the future wars4. He was a
great democratic leader who was always looking for placed to make improvements and
changes. However, as Margaret Macmillan pointed out in her 2001’s study “Peacemakers:
Six Months that Changed the World”5 that during the conference, Wilson frequently lost his
temper and that lead to arguments, which helped in generating new solutions. One of his
achievements was that famous fourteen points that proposed the the then congress his ideas
to end the First World War to an end. These points were idealistic, democratic and liberal in
nature. He did speak in inspiring terms but according to the author, he was less certain of the
specifics of how all his aims would be finally achieved6. However, Macmillan claimed that
the participating delegations at the main peace conference actually attained an enormous
amount and helped in paving the way for the rise of Nasizm. According to her, Wilson came
to the conference with moral obligation for establishing peace among the Europeans, What he
emphasized in it was that “he had not entered the war for selfish reasons”7.
On the contrary, it is to mention that in “Shattered Peace”, David A. Adelman have
covered how the treaty failed to resolve the conflicts in between Asia, Middle East and the
Balkans8. By means of briefly reviewing the issues of Great Powers, he laid down the
environment where the Paris Peace Conference took place. There were many diplomats at the
conference who played “an enormous role in the future shaped by disappointment, dismissals,
disillusionment and denials that originated in Paris”. According to him, each of the Great
Powers sought to change the world and the history in their own image and have explored the
larger forces and smaller vulgarities, which have morphed into the today’s horror that is
4 Anievas, A., (2014). International relations between war and revolution: Wilsonian diplomacy and the making of the Treaty of
Versailles. International Politics, 51(5), pp.619-647.
5 MacMillan, M., (2011). Peacemakers Six months that changed the world. Hachette UK.
6 Altic, M.S., (2015). The Peace Treaty of Versailles: The Role of Maps in Reshaping the Balkans in the Aftermath of WWI. In History of
Military Cartography (pp. 179-198). Springer, Cham.
7 MacMillan, M., (2014). Making War, Making Peace: Versailles, 1919. Queen's Quarterly, 121(1), p.24.
8 Andelman, D.A., 2008. A shattered peace. Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, p.3.

3THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
present in, a century later9. The author also claimed that the treaty included no provisions for
the economic rehabilitation of Europe10. It included nothing for making the defeated central
empires into some good and friendly neighbors, nothing for stabilizing the European states,
nothing for reclaiming Russia and nothing for promoting the compact of the economic
solidarity among the allies. With the same, no agreement was reached in Paris for the
restoration of disordered financial conditions of Italy and France and for making adjustments
on the systems of the old and the new world. It is evident that the Big Four did nothing to
solve any of the issues. It seems that reparation was their main excursion into the economic
field and they did everything to settle it from every viewpoint except from the view point of
the economic future of the states. With the same, the supplies of resources to Germany were
drastically cut and the land that they won so proudly was seized. It was something that was
forced upon the German people. All these resulted in the rise of Hitler who developed a ray
of hope among the Germans. He, with his Nazi party, broke the Treaty of Versailles and led
to the break of Second World War, the after-effects of which were more profound than the
First World War.
Hence, from the above analysis of the perspectives of both the historians it is to
conclude that the argument presented by David A. Adelman is more persuasive that Margaret
Macmillan. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles laid economic and psychological
groundwork for the formation of the Nazi Party that capitalized on German resentment about
all the burdens that were been imposed by the Allied Powers on Germany after First World
War. It forced Germans to develop negative attitude towards the treaty and turn into enemies.
Although the Treaty of Versailles ended the war between the Allied Powers and German, the
controversial War Guilt Clause that blamed Germany for the rise of First World War was
9 Andelman, D.A., (2008). A shattered peace. Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, p.3.
10 Marks, S., (2013). Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the versailles treaty, 1918–1921. The Journal of Modern
History, 85(3), pp.632-659.

4THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
nothing but a great humiliation for Germany to accept. Although the deep seated resentment
affected Germans in all ways, the sense of nationalism among them grew stronger than ever
before. All the mentioned terms in the treaty were highly punitive and they adversely
influenced Germany politically, socially and economically.

5THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
References:
Altic, M.S., (2015). The Peace Treaty of Versailles: The Role of Maps in Reshaping the
Balkans in the Aftermath of WWI. In History of Military Cartography (pp. 179-198).
Springer, Cham.
Andelman, D.A., (2008). A shattered peace. Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today,
p.3.
Andelman, D.A., 2008. A shattered peace. Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, p.3.
Anievas, A., (2014). International relations between war and revolution: Wilsonian
diplomacy and the making of the Treaty of Versailles. International Politics, 51(5), pp.619-
647.
MacMillan, M., (2011). Peacemakers Six months that changed the world. Hachette UK.
MacMillan, M., (2014). Making War, Making Peace: Versailles, 1919. Queen's
Quarterly, 121(1), p.24.
Marks, S., (2013). Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the versailles treaty, 1918–
1921. The Journal of Modern History, 85(3), pp.632-659.
McKercher, B.J.C. and Goldstein, E., (2019). Introduction: Of War and Peace: Aspects of
British Policy and the Treaty of Versailles. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 30(2), pp.194-200.
Roskill, S., (2016). Naval Policy Between Wars. Volume I: The Period of Anglo-American
Antagonism 1919-1929. Seaforth Publishing.
Weber, T., (2017, May). From Versailles to Shanghai: Pan-Asianist Legacies of the Paris
Peace Conference and the Failure of Asianism from Below. In Asia after Versailles: Asian

6THE TREATY OF VERSAILLES
Perspectives on the Paris Peace Conference and the Interwar Order, Edinburgh University
Press, 1919-33 (p. 77).