After the World War I the most complicated and at the same time the most necessary step for Europe and for the whole world in general was to create a universal pact of peace and global safety. Although nowadays the meaning of this treaty has changed considering the historical background, it is still impossible to deny the Versailles Treaty has practically identified modern commercial and political world alignment of forces.
In the article Mark Mazower conducts certain practical research of the treaty where he, in fact, questions the main idea and hidden real motives veiled under noble sentiments of political leaders. (Mazower 1999) The author actually delivers quite a complexed and detailed analysis of advantages and disadvantages of the pact pointing at the impossibility of other alternatives. After the ending of war Germany was left, if so to speak, alone and humiliated and yet, it was not completely destroyed. During the decision making political leaders did not consider the global interest but more likely their own one. Furthermore, the process itself was very long and painful for every country which one way or another participated the World War I. The author claims that even though the opponents of Germany were on the same side during the battles and fights, somehow they got separated for their territorial ambitions did not coincide. Therefore, Germany was divided into parts, the winners rushed to seek for their new allies, and eventually the peaceful harmony gave cracks.
At the same time the treaty did had its pros. Despite the constant disagreements between enemies, the pact managed to create official illusion of peace. Though the flames were not extinguished, but the skeleton of peaceful life was created to protect people of the whole world from further deaths.
Another aim of the pact was to prevent future wars by forcing Germany to refuse from armament. The country was supposed to be left with a small army, which would not be able to control the military situation of the country. All kind of commercial military bargains and treaties were severely followed by the international leaders so Germany was under total control.
What is more, the forced occupation of German territories was supposedly to run its course as soon as Germany will prove its capacity to build a new country without aggression and enslavement of other countries.
On the other hand, such peace is often considered artificial by many chronologists of our time. The burden of guilt Germany had to carry was huge: constant reparations, forced separation of areas, forced rejection from army and armament and humiliation Germans suffered were unacceptable. (Bentley et al. 2008) Consequently, the bomb of offense would blow up.
Among one of the biggest cons researchers mention the concentration on one unique criminal Germany. Politicians did not really think about other principle players by choosing the only target. The allies threatened to keep leading war with Germany while searching for new terms to win as much as it was possible out of the treaty.
As for me, the article and the book I used were extremely interesting to analyse. As this is the story of my country I must know it and be proud of it. The information presented in the article provided me with deeper knowledge and detailed research of such ambiguous question as the Versailles Treaty.
Bentley, Jerry H., Herbert F. Ziegler, and Heather E. Streets. Traditions and Encounters. A
Brief Global History. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print.
Mazower, Mark. "Two Cheers for Versailles." History Today 1 July 1999: n. pag. Print.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: