The Treaty of Versailles: A Harsh Peace and Its Consequences

The episode of The Great War begins with a sponsorship acknowledgment, emphasizing the importance of community support through Patreon, which allows for the production of in-depth content. The creators express their commitment to delivering unbiased historical narratives, highlighting the extensive effort—100 hours of work—put into each episode.

In June 1919, a pivotal moment arises as the Allies present peace terms to Germany, marking a potential shift towards a new world order with the Treaty of Versailles. The speaker, Jesse Alexander, notes the urgency of the situation, as the Allies had only 39 divisions available and feared the spread of Bolshevism in Germany and beyond.

The Big Four Allied leaders—comprising the United States, France, Britain, and Italy—had differing priorities regarding the peace settlement. France, led by Prime Minister Clemenceau, sought security and reparations for war damages, while Britain aimed to maintain a balance of power in Europe, wary of a resurgent France. The U.S. desired a stable peace and the establishment of the League of Nations, reflecting their broader vision for international relations.

The German delegation, consisting of 180 members and led by Foreign Minister von Brockdorff-Rantzau, arrived in Paris on May 7, 1919. Their journey was deliberately slow to emphasize the war's devastation. Upon arrival, they were met with hostility and were placed under protection to prevent violence from French mobs, marking the first direct interaction between the Germans and the Allies since the armistice.

During their first meeting, Clemenceau delivered a brief speech to the German delegation, informing them that there would be no negotiations and that their responses could only be submitted in writing. This set a tone of finality and pressure on the Germans, who were still officially at war despite the armistice.

The discussion begins with a reference to Germany's defiant stance post-defeat, where it admitted to its loss but rejected the peace terms based on Wilson's 14 Points. The emotional tone of the Count is highlighted, emphasizing the ongoing naval blockade that resulted in the deaths of thousands of non-combatants, prompting reflections on guilt.

The speaker notes that the treaty presented to Germany was extensive, comprising 440 clauses, reflecting the improvisation and compromises stemming from total war thinking. The first section aimed to establish a framework for resolving disputes between states, laying the groundwork for a new world order, although Germany was excluded from this process.

Germany faced significant territorial losses, including the return of Alsace to France and the loss of various provinces to Poland, primarily affecting non-ethnic Germans. Additionally, Germany was stripped of its colonies in Africa and the Pacific, and the Saarland and Schleswig were also taken away.

The treaty imposed strict military limitations on Germany, capping its army at 100,000 volunteers and prohibiting tanks, submarines, aircraft, and poison gas. The High Seas Fleet was to be surrendered, and the Rhineland was designated as a demilitarized zone, despite French calls for it to be made a buffer state.

Germany was required to pay reparations, including billions of marks for damages and veterans' pensions, alongside a significant portion of its merchant fleet and 40 million tonnes of coal. The reparations were justified through the war guilt clause, which held Germany responsible for the war, a pragmatic measure that served as a moral condemnation.

The terms of the peace treaty were met with shock and disbelief in Germany, as many citizens had underestimated the severity of the conditions. The perception of the war as defensive and the belief that the German Army was unbeaten contributed to a sense of betrayal, leading to widespread protests and demonstrations across the country.

Public sentiment in Germany was one of outrage and confusion, with citizens questioning the absence of Wilson's promised points and expressing feelings of betrayal. Prominent figures, including politicians and journalists, voiced their discontent, suggesting that the treaty represented a form of subjugation rather than a fair peace.

Even among the Allies, there was criticism of the treaty's harshness. Notable figures, including South African leaders, expressed disappointment over the failure to achieve a Wilsonian peace, indicating that the treaty did not align with the public's expectations and sentiments regarding justice and trust.

The German delegation, led by Brockdorff-Rantzau, engaged in deliberations and counter-offers regarding the peace terms. They accepted the new order proposed by the Allies, but uncertainty loomed over the consequences of refusal, which could lead to the potential breakup of Germany. Brockdorff-Rantzau aimed to mobilize internationalist support to pressure the Allies into negotiating directly with Germany, favoring Cabinet Minister Matthias Erzberger's approach, who understood the dire consequences of refusal more than the terms themselves.

On May 29, the German response to the Allies' demands was presented, proposing to maintain the country's territorial integrity while agreeing to disarm and pay a one-time lump sum in reparations. They sought to limit the occupation period to a shorter duration than the proposed 15 years. Crucially, they rejected the notion of accepting responsibility for the war, which was a significant point of contention.

The Allies, after nearly five years of war, were not inclined to compromise on the treaty terms. Despite the German delegation's hopes for a more favorable outcome, the Allies, particularly Foch, were preparing for a potential escalation of hostilities. The British threatened to withdraw support, which infuriated Wilson, who accused them of undermining the peace process. Ultimately, only minor adjustments were made to the treaty, with Clemenceau refusing to negotiate directly with the Germans.

The Allies' ultimatum included a harsh tone, emphasizing Article 231, which placed the blame for the war squarely on Germany. This article stated that Germany bore the responsibility for the war that began on August 1, 1914, and highlighted the suffering of over 20 million people as a result of Germany's actions. The note made it clear that Germany had to accept these terms, plunging the German government into a state of crisis.

As the situation became increasingly dire, the German government, deadlocked over the peace terms, resigned on June 20. Chancellor Scheidemann opposed signing the treaty, believing that an immediate peace was necessary to avoid further Allied invasion and restore stability. The narrative of a 'stab in the back' emerged, with Erzberger being blamed for the situation, leading to a new government formation under Gustav Bauer.

The signing of the peace treaty took place on June 28, marking the fifth anniversary of the event that initiated the war. The ceremony was held in the Hall of Mirrors, a symbolic location where the German Empire was established. Wilson's advisor, Colonel House, noted that the treaty was designed to be as humiliating as possible for Germany. The signing was witnessed by over 1,000 onlookers, with Minister Johannes Bell representing Germany. Notably, China refused to sign due to issues regarding Shantung, and the ceremony concluded less than an hour after it began.

Following the signing of the peace treaty, a massive parade was held on July 14 to celebrate the event. However, there was a sense of unease among some participants, particularly within the British Empire. South African leader Jan Smuts expressed concerns in a letter to Wilson, indicating that not everyone was satisfied with the terms of the peace.

British diplomat Harold Nicolson reflected on the post-war order in Paris, suggesting that the new order was merely a continuation of the old, which had been tainted by the war's aftermath. He noted that the treaty's implications were significant, with Keynes publishing 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' that highlighted the burdens of reparations.

Ferdinand Foch, a prominent military figure, expressed concerns about the treaty, stating that while Wilhelm II lost the war, the treaty itself was merely an armistice for twenty years. This sentiment echoed the fears of many, including President Wilson, who, upon leaving Paris, expressed hope that the treaty would lead to a lasting peace.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm argued that the treaty's harshness made another war almost inevitable, a view supported by the ethnic conflicts that erupted in the post-Soviet era. However, recent scholarship has reassessed this perspective, suggesting that despite its flaws, the treaty achieved significant outcomes given the circumstances, particularly in addressing the French need for security and the British desire for self-determination.

New research indicates that Germany, despite its territorial losses, retained a strong industrial base and could have posed a threat but chose not to. The country found itself surrounded by hostile neighbors, which significantly weakened its position in Europe. Margaret Macmillan noted that the peace established was fragile and could not be sustained.

The enforcement of the treaty was questionable, with few provisions in place to ensure compliance. David Stevenson pointed out that while the treaty was not upheld, it was not solely responsible for the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Hitler later used the treaty as a propaganda tool, but his ambitions were not necessarily aimed at overturning the settlement itself.

The post-war landscape was characterized by a fragile peace, with the United States gradually moving towards isolationism, which was opposed by a resentful Germany and the Bolshevik regime. The peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria were also tenuous, lasting only a few more years amidst rising tensions in various regions, including the Middle East and Asia.

The League of Nations emerged as a significant entity aimed at fostering international relations and protecting minority rights. Historian Jörn Leonhard emphasized that the post-war period was not the conclusion of efforts to establish a stable order, but rather a continuation of the search for peace and stability in a fractured world.