The Treaty of Versailles: differing perspectives

One hundred years ago today and after six months of protracted negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference, the Treaty of Versailles was signed. The treaty formally ended the war between Germany and the Allies and saw the formation of the League of Nations, an intergovernmental organisation with the mission of resolving international disputes.

The treaty also imposed terms on Germany. One of the many provisions was the controversial Article 231, later known as the War Guilt clause: Germany was to accept responsibility, alongside Austria-Hungary, for causing the First World War.

The treaty has been the subject of contentious debate among historians ever since. Some have pronounced it ‘history’s most hated treaty’ and blamed it for paving the way for the Second World War, and others, and sometimes both, have argued that the peacemakers did the best they could in difficult circumstances.

But what did people at the time make of the negotiations and of the treaty? Our First World War resource reveals different attitudes in correspondence, diaries and camp newspapers.

For instance, American soldier Jacob Adams Emery writes to his mother on the 11th August 1918 about the lengthy peace negotiations:

He also expresses anger at the proposition to postpone discussions surrounding the League of Nations until after the peace treaty:

In contrast, Canadian Medical Officer Harold McGill conveys frustration at US President Woodrow Wilson’s championing of the League of Nations in a letter to his wife from the 16th February 1919:

On the day the treaty was signed, an article in The Amaroc News maintains: ‘For they [the Germans] must pay, they must pay heavily, and they will pay’:

On another page of the same newspaper, an article contemplates the situation in Germany and the efficacy of the treaty:

For more information about First World War Portal, including free trial access and price enquiries, please email us at info@amdigital.co.uk.