Many historians have argued both sides of this question for a very long time. It is a key question in understanding other things such as why Hitler came to power or why ww2 was started. On the one hand people say that it was too harsh because it crippled a country others say it wasn’t harsh enough because the country wasn’t entirely destroyed however, Germany’s loss of lands and industry in those lands led to them being very dependent on America for money to continue it’s industry. However all the countries at the peace conference agreed that the reason that this treaty had to be established was because the problems that Germany and their allied nations had caused on the world and more specifically Europe. Nations had collapsed and the only way forward was to have this treaty so the world can move on. The main objective of the treaty was for the allied nations of the "big three" to get compensation and land from Germany and her allies to extend their empires and industry, however the amount presented both in reparations and loss of industry to the Germans was far too much for them to handle.
I agree very strongly with the fact that the treaty was too harsh for a number of reason’s, I think that the war guilt clause, the loss of the
…show more content…
He hated the war guilt clause and thought the amount of reparations to be paid was too high as well as there being too much reduction in the army. Instead, Wilson wanted a League of Nations which would be a committee of countries that would solve political problems peacefully instead of with war. Clemenceau was very opposed to the idea of the League of Nations because he wanted to be a large political player in the world and intimidate countries with France’s