• 7 May: Victors presented ToV to Ger delegation. Count angered Big 3 w. long speech criticising ToV → left to counter it.
• Later, Ger sent counter-proposal (based on 14 Points); so good even Lloyd George considered revising ToV.
• Ger delegation returned home.
• Many Germans wanted to refuse signing; even restart war. Reichstag only agreed w. difficulty. Treatment of Ger reps when forced to sign worsened resentment.
The Germans HATED the ToV
1. Clause 231: Ger denied blame. Soldier sent to sign refused, calling it a "." Clause 231 did not physically harm Ger but hurt national pride → desire to overturn ToV.
2. Reparations: Claimed intended to their children. Initially refused to pay; only started after Fr
& Br invaded (Jan 1921).
3. Army: seen as leaving Ger defenceless. Initially refused to reduce; fleet rather than hand it over. Army did not accept it had been defeated → (= blaming politicians).
4. Territory: Germans claimed ToV aimed to destroy Ger economy. Also, other nations given self-determination, but Germans forced to live in new states. Anger ∵ w. Austria was banned.
Was the ToV Unfair to Germany?
Many historians argue NO:
1. Clause 231: Peacemakers explicitly avoided blaming Ger. Used "responsible" (→ legal right to reparations), but Ger deliberately mistranslated as ("guilt") to fuel outrage. (Historians have known since 1929.)
2. Reparations: NOT unpayable. Ger suffered no war damage
& economy boomed in 1920s. Taxes lower than much of Eur; govt refused to raise them. ToV required only first 50bn marks (£2.5bn) over 60yrs; reduced in 1929. By contrast, war cost Br £6.2bn (incl. £1bn owed to , which demanded full repayment). Ger could have but would not pay.
3. Army: Ger army big enough for & defence vs all but Fr. Why did Ger need a larger army? Why should victors allow a defeated aggressor to rebuild its forces?
4. Territory: Did NOT lose 13% land, 10% pop, 13.5% economy as often claimed – most lost areas or non-German. Peacemakers rejected Fr plan to separate Rhineland; left it in Ger.
5. Comparisons: ToV v mild cf. terms Ger imposed on Rus (1918) or planned for Allies had it won. ToV "hardly a ” (Correlli Barnett, 1986):
6. Propaganda: "one of the world’s most successful
& longest-lasting efforts." → widespread belief in unfairness (Sally Marks, 2013).
The German Reaction at Versailles
• 7 May: Victors presented ToV to Ger delegation. Count BROCKDORFF-RANTZAU angered Big 3 w. long speech criticising ToV → left to counter it.
• Later, Ger sent counter-proposal (based on 14 Points); so good even Lloyd George considered revising ToV.
• Ger delegation returned home.
• Many Germans wanted to refuse signing; even restart war. Reichstag only agreed w. difficulty. Treatment of Ger reps when forced to sign worsened resentment.
The Germans HATED the ToV
1. Clause 231: Ger denied blame. Soldier sent to sign refused, calling it a "LIE." Clause 231 did not physically harm Ger but hurt national pride → desire to overturn ToV.
2. Reparations: Claimed intended to STARVE their children. Initially refused to pay; only started after Fr
& Br invaded (Jan 1921).
3. Army: seen as leaving Ger defenceless. Initially refused to reduce; SCUTTLED fleet rather than hand it over. Army did not accept it had been defeated → DOLCHSTOSSLEGENDE (= blaming politicians).
4. Territory: Germans claimed ToV aimed to destroy Ger economy. Also, other nations given self-determination, but Germans forced to live in new states. Anger ∵ ANSCHLUSS w. Austria was banned.
Was the ToV Unfair to Germany?
Many historians argue NO:
1. Clause 231: Peacemakers explicitly avoided blaming Ger. Used "responsible" (→ legal right to reparations), but Ger deliberately mistranslated as SCHULD ("guilt") to fuel outrage. (Historians have known since 1929.)
2. Reparations: NOT unpayable. Ger suffered no war damage
& economy boomed in 1920s. Taxes lower than much of Eur; govt refused to raise them. ToV required only first 50bn marks (£2.5bn) over 60yrs; reduced in 1929. By contrast, war cost Br £6.2bn (incl. £1bn owed to USA, which demanded full repayment). Ger could have but would not pay.
3. Army: Ger army big enough for INTERNAL ORDER
& defence vs all but Fr. Why did Ger need a larger army? Why should victors allow a defeated aggressor to rebuild its forces?
4. Territory: Did NOT lose 13% land, 10% pop, 13.5% economy as often claimed – most lost areas NEWLY ACQUIRED or non-German. Peacemakers rejected Fr plan to separate Rhineland; left it in Ger.
5. Comparisons: ToV v mild cf. terms Ger imposed on Rus (1918) or planned for Allies had it won. ToV "hardly a SLAP ON THE WRIST” (Correlli Barnett, 1986):
6. Propaganda: "one of the world’s most successful
& longest-lasting PROPAGANDA efforts." → widespread belief in unfairness (Sally Marks, 2013).
