Whose fault is it that the Treaty of Versailles sucked so much and led to ww2?

Question

Whose fault is it that the Treaty of Versailles sucked so much and led to ww2?

Answer 1

The French were all about retribution.  The Brit.s wanted the same but the PM was weak.  Wilson appears to have had the final say.  As I recall, England's Lloyd George upon his return to England and being asked why England had faired so badly in the treaty, quipped, "I think I did as well as might be expected, seated as I was between Jesus Christ and Napoleon Bonaparte."  The French were the driving force behind the treaty, but it was America's President Wilson who again, had the final say.

Answer 2

saying that Germany was the only nation responsible of war. Unlike 2nd world war, Germany wasn't the ONLY ambitious one that started the war  

Answer 3

The Treaty of Versailles was intended by the Entente to be a victory treaty, by the US as an ideological platform, and the Germans as a status quo treaty.

The problem with it is that the Entente had no teeth to enforce a victory treaty it did not deserve to begin with, the US had no ability to persuade anyone of its major allies to take heed of Wilson's 14 points, and that Germany aside from the few opportunists who signed the treaty would have continued the war if that was what it would have looked like.

Generals on both the French and GB sides were fully aware that Germany was not defeated on the battlefield and that without American boots they had no offensive abilities against the Germans any longer.  If the US withdrew to status quo with a seperate German peace, they would be forced to deal with Germany alone.  Their only chance was to win by imposing a one sided peace treaty once Germany began de-mobilizing.  They rolled their eyes at Wilson whenever possible and had no intention of following his principals as far as their vast empires were concerned.  What was good for Ottoman and Austria-Hungary was certainly not for the French and British.

Quite naturally, like many predicated, 20 or so years later Germany re-armed and used Wilson's own principals to claim all areas where native Germans were.  Like in WW1, the French and British confronted Germany over an issue it had no way of preventing regardless and needed yet again American aid to finally remove them from defeat.

The Treaty was a slap to a Germany that was not defeated and that had accepted a stop in hostilities in order to get a status quo.  The French and British had not been able to put Germany in its place in ww1, and the piece of paper they used to win what they could not in battle was hardly going to be a good long term solution.

Answer 4

Mostly the French. They were out for their pound of flesh and wanted to punish the Germans. The British didn't mind this so much, but they weren't so eager for it either. The US recognized the potential for continued animosity and withdrew from the treaty in protest.

Answer 5

I would say it was the League of Nations. It is a great concept, but will never work until you have a Global trade agreements, and a Global monetary system, and economy, and then nationalism will slowly be less important.

Answer 6

It actuly was well put toughter and it would have stoped ww2 the problem was that the nations chose not to enforce it Germany was not sposto develope or deploy tanks....they started development in 1935 if they had enforced the treaty ww2 would have been stopped right there without Germanys panzer divisions they would have lasted a week.....furter more Germany wasn't allowed to fly a motorized airforce the first planes rolled off the production lines in 1934 another chance to stop the with out the Luftwaffe germanys blitz would have failed preventing ww2 the treaty was good jsut the allies choose not to enforce it....

Answer 7

There is a lot to be said that the French are to blame through Clemenceau for retribution but we know the British demanded retribution as well through David Lloyd George. If we look at the situation , the Germans should not have had to be burdened with the unjust reparations since all the countries through colonialism, imperialism, building up of armanents and treaties of alliances that all sides should be partially to blame for the conflict. This also includes the US although the desire of the League of Nations was Wilson's main objective he lacked the farsightedness to include some Republicans on the peace team which gave an aura of arrogance that the Republicans would not forget when it was time to vote for treaty ratification. By the United States not a part of the League of Nations it made it a weak and inefficient purveyor of the peace.