Within the last six months I was reading a thread somewhere on reddit about historical misconceptions. There was an incredibly compelling comment about the Treaty of Versailles, talking about France's posturing post Franco-Prussian war and how much of the "reparations" were a political facade (which I've read several texts suggesting the same).
It was a breakdown of fiscal/financial strategy along with historical/political analysis. Did anyone happen to catch this?
If not, I'd like to hear what you all have to say: Was the Treaty of Versailles justified in the form it took? Did Lloyd George tone down the punishments a bit too much? Is it largely German propaganda that we are hearing today when we hear people say "The treaty was inhumane and largely the reason Hitler came to power"? Were the more negative outcomes of the Treaty more linked to Woodrow Wilson's imprint on it with his nation states and empire-busting?
I feel like there are a lot of critics of it but their arguments always strike me as flimsy "slippery slope" arguments. I really wish I could find the post I'm thinking of, though I feel like the person who posted it (or someone of similar mind) might see this in this subreddit.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Was the Treaty of Versailles justified in the form it took?
Expecting the Germans to pay reparations for the Damages they had done; reducing their military (in theory) to ensure that they could not seriously threaten the borders of their neighbours; relinquishing territories, most of which were off majority non-German populations. Yes, the Treaty was certainly justified in the form it took, especially considering the actions of the Kaiserreich in the past 4 and half years.
Did Lloyd George tone down the punishments a bit too much?
Aside from demanding plebiscites in Eastern Germany, I know of no other ways in which Lloyd-George affected the leniency/harshness of the Treaty.
Is it largely German propaganda that we are hearing today when we hear people say "The treaty was inhumane and largely the reason Hitler came to power"?
Not solely German propaganda; people like J M Keynes were castigating the Treaty rightly or wrongly before the ink even dried, and it had become more or less gospel by the end of WWII. Before Hitler came to power, the Treaty was essentially a non-entity, and opposition to it was a common feature of most party platforms in the Weimar Republic.
Were the more negative outcomes of the Treaty more linked to Woodrow Wilson's imprint on it with his nation states and empire-busting?
Wilson supported reparations, and was willing to be pragmatic when it came to territorial confiscations. Had the United States managed to join the League of Nations and thus aid Britain an France (really France) in enforcing the Treaty properly, some if not all of the issues facing the Treaty in the 1920s could have been handled.
Both /u/elos_ and I were involved in the discussions I believe you are referring to. I believe I archived some on my profile page in the subreddit wiki. If you'd like an excellent source, I recommend Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan.
Also, did the War Guilt Clause really play into WW2?