The 1919 Treaty of Paris ended World War I, but imposed heavy penalties on Germany.
Overview
- The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, and officially ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers.
- The controversial War Guilt clause blamed Germany for World War I and imposed heavy debt payments on Germany.
- The Treaty of Versailles was a major contributing factor in the outbreak of the Second World War.
Ending the First World War: the Paris Peace Conference
Exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand—the event that tipped Europe into world war—the Treaty of Versailles was signed in Paris on June 28, 1919. The armistice signed on November 11, 1918 officially ended the hostilities, but the negotiations between the Allied victors at the Paris Peace Conference lasted six months and involved diplomatic delegations from over thirty-two countries.1start superscript, 1, end superscript
Signing of the Treaty of Versailles in the palace's Hall of Mirrors, June 28, 1919. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
US President Woodrow Wilson had delivered a speech in January 1918, in which he laid out his vision for the postwar world. The Fourteen Points elaborated Wilson’s plan for the comprehensive overhaul of international relations. He called for an immediate end to the war, the establishment of an international peacekeeping organization, international disarmament, open diplomacy, the explicit disavowal of war, and independence for formerly colonial territories. Wilson’s Fourteen Points were hugely influential in shaping the contours of the postwar world and in spreading the language of peace and democracy around the world.2start superscript, 2, end superscript
In addition to negotiating the Treaty of Versailles, the Paris Peace Conference established the League of Nations, an international peacekeeping organization tasked with resolving international disputes without resorting to military force.3start superscript, 3, end superscript
Terms of the Treaty of Versailles
The Treaty of Versailles established a blueprint for the postwar world. One of the most controversial terms of the treaty was the War Guilt clause, which explicitly and directly blamed Germany for the outbreak of hostilities. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, to make territorial concessions, and to pay reparations to the Allied powers in the staggering amount of $5 billion.
Although US President Woodrow Wilson was opposed to such harsh terms, he was outmaneuvered by French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau. France was the only Allied power to share a border with Germany, and therefore suffered the bulk of the devastation and casualties from the German war machine. The French aimed to weaken Germany to the greatest extent possible.4start superscript, 4, end superscript
Consequences of the Treaty of Versailles
Although President Wilson was heavily involved in negotiating the treaty, which reflected his vision for the postwar world, isolationists in the US Congress proved a major stumbling block to ratification. The so-called “Irreconcilables,” mostly Republicans but also some Democrats, opposed the treaty, particularly Article X, which committed member-states of the League of Nations to go to war on each other’s behalf in the event of an unprovoked act of aggression. The Irreconcilables saw this as a violation of US sovereignty and some believed that it would commit the United States to an alliance system that could lead to another war. Due to the opposition of the Irreconcilables, the Treaty of Versailles was never ratified by Congress, and the United States never became a member of the League of Nations.5start superscript, 5, end superscript
Cartoon showing Germany crushed by the giant reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles.
An American political cartoon suggesting that Germany was crushed by the giant reparations demanded by the Treaty of Versailles. New York World, 1921. Image courtesy Wikimedia Commons.
When Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany in 1934, his government began to violate many of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Not only did Hitler announce a moratorium on all debt payments and cease making reparations, but he began to build up the German armed forces in earnest.6start superscript, 6, end superscript Some historians believe that the onerous terms of the treaty laid the psychological and economic groundwork for the rise of the Nazi party, which capitalized on German resentment of the burdens imposed by the Allied powers after the First World War.7start superscript, 7, end superscript
What do you think?
How did Wilson’s Fourteen Points influence the terms of the Treaty of Versailles?
What were the strengths and weaknesses of Wilson’s vision for the postwar world?
Was the Treaty of Versailles a direct cause of World War II? Why or why not?
Article written by Dr. Michelle Getchell. This article is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Notes
- For more on the Paris Peace Conference, see Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (New York: Random House, 2003).
- See Erez Manela, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).
- For more on the League of Nations, see George Scott, The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1974).
- William R. Keylor, The Legacy of the Great War: Peacemaking, 1919 (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), 34.
- For more, see John Milton Cooper, Jr., Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
- Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy (New York: Penguin, 2006), 52-53.
- Norman A. Graebner and Edward M. Bennett, The Versailles Treaty and its Legacy: The Failure of the Wilsonian Vision (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 107-109.
Be specific, and indicate a location in the text:
In the second paragraph, how is the moon large enough to block the sun? Isn't the sun way larger?
| Have something that's not a question about this content? |
This discussion area is not meant for answering homework questions.
Before asking, please make sure you've checked the top questions below and our FAQ. Thanks!
Couldn't it be a little too early in history to tell if the United Nations has in fact "succeeded" in its goal of preventing World War III? The fear of "entangling alliances" is a legitimate one, and all it takes is ONE major conflict of a NATO member state, in order to draw the USA into a total war that geographically it would have otherwise played no part in...
Only next time, it wouldn't involve dynamite, bullets, nor gas, nor trenches, but rather weapons of mass destruction and horror. Isn'… (readmoreof this comment)t total global military disarmament preferable to this system of entangling alliances that we have built up today? Thanks to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and Woodrow Wilson before him).
Only next time, it wouldn't involve dynamite, bullets, nor gas, nor trenches, but rather weapons of mass destruction and horror. Isn'… (readmoreof this comment)t total global military disarmament preferable to this system of entangling alliances that we have built up today? Thanks to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and Woodrow Wilson before him).
I'm a bit perplexed by the initial part of your question as the main article at no point says that the UN has prevented WWIII.
The issue with the alliances which contributed to WWI was, in part, that they were not always open, and, in part, that they closed off avenues for diplomacy. The whole point of the League of Nations was to make diplomacy and negotiation primary means of averting aggression, and war a last resort. (Debate about whether WWII could have been prevented if the US had joined… (readmoreof this comment) the League is interesting, but, at the end of the day, not definitive. We can engage in counterfactuals, but never, really, prove them.)
Like it or not, as a global power, not just in military terms, but in banking, industry, trade, etc, the US is completely engaged in world politics. Realistically, the US is able to pull other countries into its own international conflicts, and it participates in military ventures not because of an off/on switch in NATO, but based on an intricate calculus of cost and benefit. While it's perfectly valid to debate the merits of any engagement, it is (sadly) unrealistic to expect that global military disarmament is a possibility.
The issue with the alliances which contributed to WWI was, in part, that they were not always open, and, in part, that they closed off avenues for diplomacy. The whole point of the League of Nations was to make diplomacy and negotiation primary means of averting aggression, and war a last resort. (Debate about whether WWII could have been prevented if the US had joined… (readmoreof this comment) the League is interesting, but, at the end of the day, not definitive. We can engage in counterfactuals, but never, really, prove them.)
Like it or not, as a global power, not just in military terms, but in banking, industry, trade, etc, the US is completely engaged in world politics. Realistically, the US is able to pull other countries into its own international conflicts, and it participates in military ventures not because of an off/on switch in NATO, but based on an intricate calculus of cost and benefit. While it's perfectly valid to debate the merits of any engagement, it is (sadly) unrealistic to expect that global military disarmament is a possibility.
Global disarmament is an idle day dream. While it would be very nice if everybody laid down their weapons and swore off war, it will never, ever happen. War is caused by two people wanting the same thing, or in the worst case scenario, one nation desiring the extermination of another nation. Thankfully, the second scenario is rare, but as long as this world lasts, nations will always covet each others stuff and try to take it by force.
why did the league fail
It failed due to the United States not being there. They had one of the best militaries and navys
How did the Espionage and Sedition act lead into the Treaty of Versailles
I hope I can ask this right, is it your belief the penalties imposed on Germany brought about the next WWII? Was the rise of Hitler made possible by the treaty of Versailles?
Is it possible that Lodge and the other Senators just didn't want to get involved with another war and took the position of Washington?
Is it possible that Lodge and the other Senators just didn't want to get involved with another war and took the position of Washington?
After the Great War, the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, and the capitulation of the German Empire, there was a plethora of political groups, factions, and parties that all attempted to gain power. The National Socialist German Workers' Party was only one of many political parties that aimed to (and had the capability to) hold power.
If the Treaty of Versailles was actually enforced by the Allies, Germany would be in no position to start a war on the scale of WWII. Under the Treaty, the… (readmoreof this comment) German army would be restricted to a mere 100,000 troops and the German navy could have no more than 15,000. In addition, the Treaty barred Germany from having submarines and from having an air force. Compared to the other European countries at the time, Germany was outclassed, outnumbered, and outgunned as a result of the Treaty. In August 1914, France mobilized 4,186,000 troops. Even by the end of the war, France alone had well over a million soldiers in October of 1918 (1,670,000 troops). Thus, if Germany was left with only 115,000 personnel (including the navy), German forces would be outnumbered nearly 10:1. Even if France did not call up its reserves, Germany would still be outnumbered.
Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles also left Germany stripped of its overseas colonies, thus removing access to resources and manpower. In addition, Germany was forced to pay reparations and cede other territories, such as the Rhineland. The reparations forced Germany to print more money, leading to inflation. After the First World War, the Weimar Republic would not have the manpower, the resources, the equipment, nor the money to fund any large-scale war.
Anyways, the Second World War could have started through other means, such as the rise of the Soviet Union or with the rise of the Empire of Japan.
If the Treaty of Versailles was actually enforced by the Allies, Germany would be in no position to start a war on the scale of WWII. Under the Treaty, the… (readmoreof this comment) German army would be restricted to a mere 100,000 troops and the German navy could have no more than 15,000. In addition, the Treaty barred Germany from having submarines and from having an air force. Compared to the other European countries at the time, Germany was outclassed, outnumbered, and outgunned as a result of the Treaty. In August 1914, France mobilized 4,186,000 troops. Even by the end of the war, France alone had well over a million soldiers in October of 1918 (1,670,000 troops). Thus, if Germany was left with only 115,000 personnel (including the navy), German forces would be outnumbered nearly 10:1. Even if France did not call up its reserves, Germany would still be outnumbered.
Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles also left Germany stripped of its overseas colonies, thus removing access to resources and manpower. In addition, Germany was forced to pay reparations and cede other territories, such as the Rhineland. The reparations forced Germany to print more money, leading to inflation. After the First World War, the Weimar Republic would not have the manpower, the resources, the equipment, nor the money to fund any large-scale war.
Anyways, the Second World War could have started through other means, such as the rise of the Soviet Union or with the rise of the Empire of Japan.
You are smart to worry about the phrasing of the question! To say that the War Guilt clause and reparations "brought about" WWII suggests that this section of the Treaty of Versailles was the sole, and inevitable, cause of WWII. I doubt that any serious historian would argue that this was the case. WWII was brought about by many, many interwoven factors. However, the economic hardship as well as resentment which the clause created in Germany were almost certainly factors which Hitler… (readmoreof this comment) capitalized on, and which contributed to the rise in power of the Nazi party.
In answer to your second question, sure, many of the members of the US Congress wanted very much to stay out of another war provoked by what they considered European squabbling. The issue is that the US was economically and financially interdependent (not dependent, but intertwined) with European nations. Arguably, it would have been better to acknowledge this and try to take a hand in preventing major European conflict, as opposed to standing back and just hoping to be able to stay aloof from it.
In answer to your second question, sure, many of the members of the US Congress wanted very much to stay out of another war provoked by what they considered European squabbling. The issue is that the US was economically and financially interdependent (not dependent, but intertwined) with European nations. Arguably, it would have been better to acknowledge this and try to take a hand in preventing major European conflict, as opposed to standing back and just hoping to be able to stay aloof from it.
No . That reason of which the Americans were against reputations was that not all was to be blamed on Germany. And yes that was ,The infatuate reputations on Germany, the one of many reasons for WWII.
The enormous debts to the Entente caused the German goverment to rapidly print money and the economic condition in Germany to decline sharply.That was around the time the Great Depression started and the world financial condition worsen. So by that point the German population was desperate for change.Combine this with Hitler's convincing promises to return Germany to strength and it's pretty obvious why the Nazis won.So I guess you can say that Hitler's rise to power was partly caused by some… (readmoreof this comment) of the demands by the Allies.
I heard the Treaty of Versailles angered countries like Japan who were on the verge of being a world power, but weren't allowed to talk, because they weren't considered a world superpower yet. Is that true?
True. They were considered a regional power, surpassing stricken China and war torn Russia during this time. In fact, they had conquered the German trading post of Tsingtao (the British equivalent of Singapore and Hong Kong). Kaiser Wilhelm had once said that "I would rather lose Berlin to the Russians than lose Tsingtao to the Japanese." In fact, the Kaiser thought of the Japanese as the "Yellow Peril" and as a superpower. Anyway, Japan invaded the German Bismarck islands (the Carolines) and… (readmoreof this comment) provided invaluable anti German naval service to Britain in the Pacific. After WWI, the US essentially confronted Britain to say that England would have to choose between allying with Japan and the US. Britain inevitably needed US help as a contingency in both hemispheres. I hope this answers your question! :)
Why would the treaty be the effect of Hitler and WWII? Germany seems to be doing this everytime we or anybody else comes up with some way to make peace. I feel like they just want be stubborn cause they had to pay for the first war.
many people agree that the treaty of versailles did eventually play an important role in ww2. But at the time of its establishment, was the treaty of versailles justifiable?
I agree with this answer because even though we have had a lot of conflict with Germany, the people and the country aren’t to blame for what their leaders have done. We punished Germany for what Hitler was doing and those people were innocent. Just like the Jewish people, they didn’t deserve what Hitler did but because Hitler believed that the Jews were impure, the people of Germany went along with him because he was their dictator. Still, no one deserves what they went through and I give the… (readmoreof this comment) US serious props for stopping it. But there was no way a treaty was going to prevent war, even though it was set in place for that exact purpose
That is arguable. Some historians say it was justifiable, as it was meant to prevent another war, but most people believed the conditions were too harsh on Germany. They placed all the blame on Germany, which wasn't really fair.
Weren't the reparations 6.6 billion ?
It was 55 billion in reparations but it wouldn't be completely paid off till 2020 until ww2 happens.
How much money was Germany expected to pay? The text states $5 billion, but the picture represents Germany with a $55 billion debt. Thank you in advance!
At the time it was stipulated to be $33 billion. (About $402 billion today).
I think the difference arrises from the interpretion. The video says that it's $450 billion on 2013 terms. May be it depends on the economy of the year it is interpreted to be.
Do the American public share the same viewpoint as their President about this treaty? Are they for or against it? And are they for or against the League of Nations and Wilsons 14 points?
Wilson actually made a massive tour of the US after Versailles to convince the US to accept his pet project to protect the world. Unfortunately for the world, US senator from Wisconsin Henry Cabot Lodge and others vehemently crusaded to prevent the US from pursuing foreign entanglements and defending the policy of isolationism. On the majority opinion of the citizens of America at this time I do not know much about and cannot answer.
Discuss the site
View general discussions about Khan Academy.
Flag inappropriate posts
Here are posts to avoid making. If you do encounter them, flag them for attention from our Guardians.
abuse
- disrespectful or offensive
- an advertisement
not helpful
- low quality
- not about the video topic
- contentious posts about politics, religion/atheism, or personal issues
- soliciting votes or seeking badges
- a homework question
- a duplicate answer
- repeatedly making the same post
wrong category
- a tip or thanks in Questions
- a question in Tips & Thanks
- an answer that should be its own question
about the site
- a question about Khan Academy
- a post about badges
- a technical problem with the site
- a request for features
Report a mistake in the article
Example:
The link in the third paragraph is broken.
Report a mistake in the article
Discuss the site
View general discussions about Khan Academy. 
Share a tip
Thank the author
Have something that's not a tip or thanks about this content?