Was there any criticism from the allied side regarding how harsh the treaty was?
Will provide sources when I get back home.
In China, the Treaty was viewed negatively and sparked the May Fourth movement, which some sees as the birth of Chinese Nationalism. The focus was however more on issues specific to China. The major one being the Shandong problem.
Pre-WWI, Germany owned concessions in the Shandong peninsula. After joining the Allies, China wanted it to be returned. However, as per the Treaty, it was given to Japan instead.
EDIT: Question for mods, are foreign sources okay for this board?
There was some criticism, most notably "the Economic Consequences of the Peace" by John Maynard Keynes, who basically said that the Treaty would reduce Germany to a state of "Asiatic slavery" and ruin Europe (SPOILER: IT DIDN'T!!!).
Others, most notably in France, believed the treaty was "too lenient for the severity of it's contents", which was absolutely correct. Ferdinand Foch believed it was an "Armistice for 20 years", because it did not sufficiently limit German power. Clemenceau actually LOST the presidential elections, because people were unhappy with his economic policies, and they felt he'd sold out France at Versailles. It is a myth, created by Keynes, that the French wanted the clock turned back to 1870. Clemenceau KNEW that was impossible, and given that Germany was France's largest trade partner prior to the war, they had no interest in seeing it destroyed. However, the feeling was that Germany, like the other Central Powers, should accept responsibility (they NEVER said "guilt") for the damages inflicted on the Allies during the war, as a result of aggressive action. It was recognized that Germany couldn't possibly pay ALL the costs and damages, so they decided on 50 Billion Gold Marks, in cash or kind (the Germans had previously offered to pay 80 and 100 Billion Gold Marks). Had the Germans actually tried to PAY IN GOOD FAITH, rather than deliberately sabotaging their own economy, then the sufferings of the mid 20's could have been (mostly) avoided.
In America, the main focus was the League of Nations; unfortunately, the Republicans controlled congress, and had already decided to Veto whatever Wilson brought back from Europe. Without the US in the League of Nations, the ability of that organization to do it's job was greatly weakened.
Economist John Maynard Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace was highly critical of it.
"Thus the Economic Clauses of the Treaty are comprehensive, and little has been overlooked which might impoverish Germany now or obstruct her development in future."