Very recently I watched a bunch of documentaries about the Nazi era. Whenever the treaty is brought up, they inevitably say it caused the rise of fascism and Nazism. It's commonly held to be the primary factor; the debt forced inflation and their military was broken apart because the Allied Powers thought Germany couldn't be trusted. My query is this: well, didn't it turn out that they really couldn't be trusted? I mean, didn't it turn out that once they militarized again that they did in fact use their military force to attempt a take over multiple continents? Were the Allied Powers really too paranoid and angry at Germany and it was the Allied Powers who were responsible for the atmosphere which gave way to all those dastardly deeds by the Nazis? Hitler from my reading was an anti-semite and nationalist d-bag before he became the political figure whose mustache has become shorthand for evil fascist leader. These are the things he instilled most into his version of Nazism and the German Empire isn't it? And if these elements of his psyche existed before The Treaty of Versailles, how can the Allied Powers be blamed for the rise of Hitlers fascism? It may be a great oversimplification, I'm no expert, I watch and read a lot about this era because it seems like such a foreign time to someone my age, and I am obsessed with understanding how and why such a crazily over the top regime with such categorical crimes against humanity so out in the open. I have no affiliation politically with this topic so please be nice, I'm just examining an less common belief and want to learn.
There are really several questions all wrapped up into this one larger question.
The first question, and the one in your title, is simple: "Did the Treaty of Versailles cause the rise of NSDAP?" And I feel that there is only one possible answer, and that is a definate yes. As to why, I look to the punitive nature of the ToV. While Germany remained "undefeated" in battle (in that no German territory had been occupied), the ToV punished Germany as the sole cause of World War One. This makes some sense, given the state of things in 1918. Serbia was an Allied nation, so it couldnt have been there fault; Russia was in the midst of a tumultuous revolution, and Tsar Nicky had been murdered; Franz Joseph was dead, and anyway the Allies ripped Austria-Hungary apart. That left Germany, which was allowed to exist. From Germany, the monetary reparations for the war were largely extracted. And on Germany the blame was placed. For the German people, this seemed unfair, and particularly harsh. Further, the resulting 5 years of chaos, revolution, and outright invasion, further seemed to demonstrate the Allies vindictiveness. They sought to destroy Germany for crimes it never really committed (a German would say). Then wrap in the Stab-in-the-Back myth, that Germans (see, Socialists, Communists, Jews) at home forced the Empire to capitulate. The Nazis, as well as other rightist parties stood in opposition to all that Chaos. Hitler in particular was vehemently anti-Communist and pro-German. He publicly declared that he sought to erase the stain of Versailles, and he sought to return Germany to its rightful place as a Great Power. And did I mention he hated Communists? Because who lost Germany the War?
So I think that Versailles produced the perfect conditions for an ideologue like Hitler.
The second question I see is: "So are the Allies to blame for these conditions, or were they right all along?" That question is a lot harder. Obviously, if we use hindsight, Hitler was obviously a bad dude who planned bad things from an early period. So it can be pretty tempting to say that the Allies were right all along, and they were correct in trying to weaken Germany. Im not sure how far you can take that interpretation, however. I think that the question of the Allies' responsibility is innately linked to the ending of the War, and the ToV. We venture into extremely dangerous "What-If" territory here, but its plausible to think that had Germany been "let off easy" by the Allied powers, the conditions mentioned above, and mentioned in your post, wouldnt have happened. Without the loss of prestige, the financial crisis, and the rise of independent, paramilitary, nationalist groups, the Nazis would never have gained traction with the German people, and the German establishment. But What-Ifs are dangerous, and there was a reason (however unfair and illogical it may seem now) that the ToV was so harsh. In many ways, World War One was the most destructive war then fought in Europe. It seems ludicrous that France and the UK, who suffered so much, would simply let Germany off the hook.
But I do think the Allies should get some (but not all, not even the lion's share) of the blame for World War Two. The ToV was very clear about what constituted a violation of the peace. From the Reoccupation of the Rhineland, to the creation of the Wehrmacht, to the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, the former Entente had all the casus belli they needed to attack the Nazi state when it was weak, and rearmament was just beginning. Again a "What-If", but it seems likely that a quick attack could have simply nipped the "Hitler Problem" in the bud, before he had a chance to entrench his position. But the former Allies all simply sat back and watched the Nazi state rebuild its pre-World War One power.
I think you're correct. For some reason or another, Versailles has been overstated in its effects on the events of the 1930's and some earlier happenings. the Hyperinflation crisis, for example, was more complex than debt causing inflation and revolved around a worker's strike in the Saarland, if I remember correctly.
The rise of communism and socialism in Germany, quite unrelated to Versailles, led to a backlash where an opposing force grew in influence. In the early 1920's, late 1910's, that was the freikorps and other para-military organisations and in the 1930's, when the KPD held some 100 seats in the Reichstag, that was the Nazis.
The Great Depression, particularly devastating in Germany due to an economic plan whose name escapes me and was instrumental in providing loans and credit from the US to Germany led to increasing popularity for the radical parties - this fuelled the growth of both the communists and the nazis. Germany, being largely middle class as it was in the 1930's veered more towards nazism.
Versailles was the worst possible treaty after the war - harsh enough to anger the nation and provide incentive for retribution, but not harsh enough to keep Germany weak. However, as you have correctly suggested, to say that Versailles led to the rise of Hitler is like saying the person who built the wall painted Da Vinci's Last Supper - without Versailles and its unique failings, Hitler's rise does not seem likely, but much and more was needed for Nazism to succeed even after Versailles.