Talk:Treaty of Versailles

Bias

I think the fact this article has negotiation subarticles for Britain and America but not France is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous that Mr. Wilson is not criticized in the sub article for being ignorant about the suffering endured by France and Britain but not the USA- especially when there is plenty of criticism for George Clemenceau and David Lloyd George in their respective subarticles. It also fails to mention that Lloyd George played a good part in the negotiations by persuading Wilson to accept the war guilt clause whilst convincing Clemenceau to accept the League Of Nations clause.

Who else thinks the article should be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.150.109 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Date format

The date formats seem to have become a mixture of European and American. Since European English spelling is used, I propose to standardize on English date formats, e.g. [[28 June]] [[1919]].--Boson (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

officially ended World War I.

I have amended the opening sentence:

The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty that officially ended World War I.

I don't see how this is true. There were separate treaties with each of the Central Powers. One could just about argue that the war ended when the last of these was signed or when the last came into effect; even that weak argument would not help, since Versailles came into effect on 10 January 1920, while Trianon was not signed until 4 June 1920. I have changed the text to:

The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty at the end of World War I that officially ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers.

This might be made less verbose, but not by making it less correct. jnestorius^(talk) 15:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent change. I think there's a widespread mis-belief that this Treaty covered all countries involved, rather than just Germany. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone fix the first paragraph. "The Treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of World War I that was led by the Allied powers and put Germany in a deep hole."

What a load of rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.21.213 (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The opening section seems to either make the false or unclear claim that the Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to accept full responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War ("Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war [...]"). This is a common misconception, as the Treaty of Trianon and the — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gryps5 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

One thing I find noteworthy

Germany will finish monetary reparations in the year 2020 according to [1] and [2] and "material" reparations in the year 2028 as I read here: Moldauhafen (at least I don't know of any other settlements that possibly last even longer). Although the remaining annual payments aren't that big, I think it's quite astounding that six generations pay for the consequences of WWI. For comparison: France managed to repay the 5B Francs reparations of the Franco-Prussian War within two and a half years. 77.189.50.109 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Robert Paxton ("Europe in the 20th Century" 3d ed. pg 182) France took four years to pay off 1870 reparations, not three as stated in this article, nor two and a half, for what it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.205.133 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Germany only paid about 15% of the reparations that were stipulated in the Versailles Treaty, and of that 15% a rather large portion was paid with American bank loans to Weimar Germany. Loans that were never repaid. Overall, Germany never paid very much in reparations, especially when you consider the additional cost of WW11(Germany was never charged any reparations for WW11), but she paid for WW11 by losing european territory in the East.76.94.18.217 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Germany could probably have paid the reparations within 5 or 10 years if it wanted to. After all, it spent almost as much as the total reparations bill in four years just to fight WWI. And spent considerably more to fight WW2.

Certainly the requirement that the reparations be paid in gold would have posed a challenge to the financial markets of the day. But ultimately money is money and some method of arranging payment in short period of time could undoubtedly have been made. The real reason reparations were not paid is because Germany did not want to pay them.75.69.185.159 (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reparations are based on damages incurred. The Franco-Prussian war lasted about 6 months and Germany actually profited from the war. All the fighting and devastation had been in France not in Germany. On the other hand, In WW1 all the fighting and devastation had been done in Belgium, France, Russia, Serbia and Romania. So all the physical damage had been incurred within Allied countries not within the Central Powers. Also due to the very high number of killed and wounded,to the enormous financial cost, and to the enormous weight of diplomatic evidence that suggested strongly that Germany had started the war, there was a strong emphasis upon punitive and compensatory damages.75.84.227.196 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)edwardlovette75.84.227.196 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Let put this clear. Germany hasn´t started the War. And her Fault was in the same grade of any other Major Power involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.52.206 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Germany did start the general war. It declared war on Russia on August 1, 1914 and on France on August 3. It also invaded Belgium (in violation of its treaty obligations), bringing Great Britain into the war. Its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare caused the entry of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.185.159 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Though American, I have always been a 'Germanophile' since I was about 11 years old. I felt that Germany had been 'ganged up on' by multiple enemies. This feeling actually made me sympathize to some degree with Nazi Germany, atleast as far as recovering the territories lost in WW1. What changed my thinking was when I researched old books written at the time of WW1 available for free at arhive.org. For titles that cover responsibility for starting the war, I recommend the following;

1. 'Evidence in the Case' by James M. Beck(he was U.S. solicitor General, he explains international law) 2. 'J'accuse' by richard Grelling(aka A German), book was banned in Germany. 3. 'The Crime' by Richard Grelling(a followup book, 4 volumes) 4. 'The Vandal of Europe' written by Wilhelm Muhlon, he was a director of Krupp. 5. 'My Four Years in Germany' by James Gerard, American Ambassador to German Empire. Explains international law. 6. 'Face to Face with Kaiserism' by James Gerard, continuation of the first book.

In one of James M. Beck's books he stipulated 5 points showing Germany's guilt for World War 1. They are;

1.) Germany and Austria made war almost inevitable by a.)issuing an ultimatum that was grossly unreasonable and disproportionate to any grievance that Austria had and b.) in giving Serbia and Europe insufficient time to consider the rights and obligations of all interested nations.

2.) That Germany had at all times the power to compel Austria to preserve a reasonable and conciliatory course, but at no time exerted that influence. On the contrary, she abetted and possibly instigated, Austria in its unreasonable course.

3.) That England, France, Italy, and Russia at all times sincerely worked for peace, and for this purpose not only overlooked the original misconduct of Austria but made every reasonable concession in the hope of preserving peace.

4.) That Austria, having mobilized its arymy, Russia was reasonably justified in mobilizing its forces. Such act of mobilization was the right of any sovereign state, and as long as the Russian armies did not cross the border or take any aggressive action no other nation had any just right to complain, each having the same right to make similar preparations.

5.) That Germany in abruptly declaring war against Russia for failure to demobilize when the other powers had offered to make any reasonable concession and peace parleys were still in progress, PRECIPITATED THE WAR. 76.94.18.217 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You mispelled (sic) Austrian-Hungarian empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.70.235 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

World Zionist Congress

There was no mention of why anti-Semitism arose in Germany and why the Jews were blamed for losing the war. Many historians seem to think this is due to certain members of the World Zionist Congress influencing the policy of the Allies toward the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration helped to fuel anti-Semitism in what was a previously tolerant Imperial Germany. I added a line and cited Israeli historian Tom Segev's work One Palestine, Complete.

---

Since I haven't read the Segev book you've cited I'm forced to ask, does Segev actually provide evidence that the Balfour Declaration figured into the later Nazi movement? My memory may be weak, but I don't recall seeing that mentioned in MEIN KAMPF. As far as I know, the story that the Balfour Declaration was behind the rise of Naziism was started by Benjamin Freedman in the early 1960s. I don't know offhand of any evidence that Hitler ever showed very much interest in it. If Segev actually provides some details showing that early Nazis had specifically cited the Balfour Declaration as a complaint, then I think your comment should be edited further to mention a few details of this type. From the sounds of the title, Segev's book appears to be about Palestine more than Germany and so it's not clear that his book would have included any such details. Did you simply cite Segev as an authority on the Balfour Declaration, while otherwise assuming that the latter must have had something to do with Naziism? Or did you actually encounter some details in Segev's book which demonstrate that the Balfour Declaration was noted significantly by Hitler? That's the question which needs to be cleared up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.42 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Signatories

This article ignores all but the most visible signatories to the Treaty. Why is this? Were the contributions of those countries who earned a place at the table somehow less significant, and therefore worthy of omission?

Please refer to this document for a complete list of signatories:

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth10_doc_1919.rtf

--Rpaege (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That document only lists part one of the treaty, and part one of the treaty is just the covenant of the league of nations. So it only lists the signatories of the league of nations. I'm not sure that they all signed the treaty of Versailles. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Article 1 : The original Members of the League of Nations shall be those of the Signatories [of the Treaty of Versailles] which are named in the Annex [sic]". I also made some changes to the list.--Mandor (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Territorial losses

There is no mention of Bulgaria losing land to Greece, Romania and Serbia. There is no mention of Hungary losing land to Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Serbia, or 67% of its territory. There is no mention of Turkey losing land to Greece and all of its territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.49.105 (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely lots of countries lost significant amounts of land and that should be mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.252.25 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 

Each of the Central Powers and Turkey and Bulgaria had separate treaties. For example, the Treaty of St. Germain applied to Austria-Hungary. The treaty of Versailles only applied to Germany I believe.76.94.18.217 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)edwardlovette76.94.18.217 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a good reason why Jan Smuts isn't (to my knowledge) mention at all in this article even though he was the only person to sign both of the treaties which ended both World Wars and he was instrumental in developing the League of Nations and "In May 1945, he represented South Africa in San Francisco at the drafting of the United Nations Charter. Just as he did in 1919, Smuts urged the delegates to create a powerful international body to preserve peace; he was determined that, unlike the League of Nations, the United Nations would have teeth." Invmog (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Source

What is "Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung" ? It is now used as source in the article, yet I am uncertain of its scholary notability and would like confirmation that it is reliable scholary or accepted publication.--Molobo (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Prussian General Newspaper" (literal); it's a conservative (German sense of the word, obviously) weekly newspaper, the official paper of Landsmannschaft Ostpreußen - a nonprofit organisation, if that article is to be believed. – Toon^(talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Silesia

Actually the Plebiscite in Upper Silesia was not as commonly written to decide if whole Upper Silesia was to be given to Poland or Germany, but only to determine the line of German border. Per ToV: [3] 5. On the conclusion of the voting, the number of votes cast in each commune will be communicated by the Commission to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, with a full report as to the taking of the vote and a recommendation as to the line which ought to be adopted as the frontier of Germany in Upper Silesia. In this recommendation regard will be paid to the wishes of the inhabitants as shown by the vote, and to the geographical and economic conditions of the locality.

--Molobo (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Treaty the plebiscites were only suggestions regarding border

Per ToV:

In this recommendation regard will be paid to the wishes of the inhabitants as shown by the vote, and to the geographical and economic conditions of the locality.

--Molobo (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Axis

Any chance that the Axis can be mentioned in the lead section? What was the status? Was Germany the only Axis signatory of this document? The word Axis is not on this article at all. ~ R.T.G 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Axis didn't exist until the 1930s. During WWI Germany and its allies were known as the Central Powers, but even that isn't really relevent to this article since the Treaty of Versailles only dealt with Germany. Austria, Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria were all dealt with in seperate treaties.Shipman7 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That is relevant for me Shipman7. ~ R.T.G 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, RTG, while it may be relevant for you, it is not relevant to the article, and ultimately, that's what matters here. The Axis didn't exist when this treaty was signed, so no, it can't be mentioned in the lead section. It's status was non-existent, as several of the countries that would join the Axis were members of the Allies in WWI. The word Axis is not in the article because it is irrelevant to the article. Not trying to be a jerk or anything, I'm just saying that really it's a non-issue, so I don't understand why I'm even having to explain this stuff.SpudHawg948 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would take RTG's comment to refer to During WWI Germany and its allies were known as the Central Powers, but even that isn't really relevent to this article since the Treaty of Versailles only dealt with Germany. The Central powers are in fact mentioned (and linked to) in the lead, so that would seem to be taken care of. --Boson (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatories

Regarding the inclusion (or exclusion of) the british dominions in the list. As I understand it, they (Australia, Canada, New-Zealand, Newfoundland, Irland and South Africa) signed the treaty under the name of the representative for the British Empire. As such, I think the dominions should be included in the list.

[4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandor (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to join the author without any success. As such I am including Australia, Canada, New-Zealand, India and South Africa in the list of the signatories. Please refer to [6].--Mandor (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can find no other source that says Japan signed the Treaty. Does anyone have a source for this information? Boico101 (talk) 11:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the preamble of the Treaty has:

Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND JAPAN,

these Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers,

BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY,

these Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers, of the one part;

And GERMANY of the other part;

--Boson (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurocentrism

The Versailles Treaty had huge effects in the third world, so this should be at least mentioned at the end. The May Fourth Movement of China for example... --Aghniyya (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Occupation of the Rhineland and Ruhr

Quote from the article Occupation of the Ruhr: The Occupation of the Rhineland gave the French and Belgian armies the springboard from which it was easy to undertake the occupation of the Ruhr. It links to the article Occupation of the Rhineland which redirects here. But in this article the occupation isn't mentioned at all. Shouldn't both occupations either be mentioned here or the redirect been reverted and the occupation get it's own article? The occupation is not seen as a violation against the treaty but it still could be mentioned in the violations section? It was used by Hitler to justify the reoccupying the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland. Cattleyard (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Appalling manipulation of the article by German nationalists

Quite large parts of this article were at some stage hijacked by (presumably) German right-wing extremists. I have toned down what they did to the section on territorial changes. You can tell their work because their English is a little shaky. Words fail me regarding what was stated in the section on the stab-in-the-back legend. The text actually perpetuated the legend and even seemd to make Jews responsible for the legend's existence! This ws appalling beyond belief and I have tried to amend it. APW (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming so much good faith. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't like my categorising of the anti-semitic and revanchist material in the article as showing a lack of good faith. However, that doesn't mean we have to move into sarcasm. I'd like to know on what basis of content you undid my removal of truly spurious material from the article. Do a search and you'll see that the History Project referred to, as if of some general importance, was just in one school. And even if it hadn't been just in one school, it is not relevant to the article and certainly no way for such a major article to end. APW (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've only looked at your first two edits, which, BTW, both introduced mistakes. With the 2nd edit of yours, and its summary, you went too far. With all your German right-wing extremists and anti-semitic and revanchist material etc. you are very close to violating both Godwin's law and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Editors_warned. Consider yourself warned. Besides, this edit of yours shows that the strength of your opinion by far exceeds your knowledge of facts. And that wholesale removal removed refs from reliable sources, like nytimes.com, bundesarchiv.de, dhm.de. This, and your aggressive behaviour, is not acceptable. -- Matthead  Discuß   04:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you can't violate Goodwin's Law on an article on Hitler. Likewise you can't violate Goodwin's Law on an article that is partly about Hitler. And yes, I agree with APW above that vast swathes of this article had been rewritten to represent a particular German nationalist POV which has some ugly parallels in Nazi propaganda of the interwar period.radek (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To Matthead: you write as if I were imposing some kind of POV with my supposedly strong opinions. I only *removed* POV material from the article to make it more neutral. I definitely did not try to impose any opinion of my own on it. I did, I admit, call a spade a spade in my description of why I'd removed it. I used the word "revanchist", which commonly means (see Merriam Webster) a person who wants loss of territory to be reversed. This is not an insult and precisely describes the ideas behind most of the material I took out. I believe that what I wrote was not in fact controversial except to a very small group of non-mainstream people. I did not actually insult anybody and I have not even looked into which editor(s) did what. I only described the type of material I had removed. This was, as Radeksz points out, of a strongly German nationalist type. I did not however bring in Nazis or Holocaust denial. I don't understand your scornful, even impolite - see guidelines - tone either to me or to Radeksz (see below). What is more, your own views on the Allies' conduct of the war in 1917 and their rejection of German peace proposals, which you express as if they should be obvious (with your sarcastic reference to raising poppies), are in fact far from being so. APW (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the usual anon

Who inserted stuff on "Allied Powers on... who continued active warfare and destruction" which is obviously POV and it was (badly and inaccurately) sourced to a primary source.radek (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me (and possibly "the usual anon") a good laugh: The proposal for peace made by the Central Powers Command on December 12, 1916 had been rejected by the Allied Powers on Dec 30, 1916, who continued active warfare and destruction. That's nineteensixteen, Radek. What is your POV on the main activities of the Allies in 1917? Raising poppies in Flanders fields? On the other hand, it is not funny at all that the Allies were not interested in peace in 1916. They could have prevented the death of many then, and even more so in 1939/1940. -- Matthead  Discuß   03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Treaty of Versailles"?

I was wondering everbody calls Versailles a "Treaty". The German side was forced to sign it so it seems to be an euphemism. Correct me if I am wrong but "Treaty" seems to be a misleading labelling. "Dictate" would be a more exact discription.--89.182.15.115 (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the German word 'Diktat', a term used by nationalist Germans ever since 1919. (Would you also describe the 'treaty' of Brest-Litovsk in the same way?) 'Diktat' cannot be translated 'dictate', which is not a noun in English. Dictionaries say that the word 'treaty' means a formal written agreement between two sides. This describes the Treaty of Versailles quite well. Also Wikipedia guidelines say that the commonly used term is the one to use as the title of articles. APW (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

When the Germans surrendered it was unconditional, the Germans agreed to such treaty by unconditionally surrendering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.66.90 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Unconditional surrender does not imply that the winner may decide on the details for a final settlement of the dispute. However, it does mean that the winner may continue to occupy the loser's territory until such a settlement has been achieved.

The Versaille "Treaty" was finally signed by both parties. It was not negotiated by parties of equal standing. Like many other "treaties", it was accepted by the weaker party (Germany) under duress, and under protest. The same goes for quite a lot of the "treaties" made during mankind's long and bloody history. Perhaps, it would be nice if English had two separate words, one for agreements made by parties of equal standing and to mutual satisfaction (like the Treaty of Rome), and the other for "agreements" which the stronger party presses the weaker party to accept (like the Treaty of Versaille).

However, AFAIK, there is no difference in terminology nor in validity of the one kind of treaties and the other (and besides, in many instances, it might be hard to decide whether or not an agreement was made under duress); not as concerns international treaties, anyhow. In WP, we should simply use the existing generally accepted terminology. JoergenB (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Reparations causing "Hyperinflation"

Reparations were specified as being in gold. As such they could not really have resulted in hyperinflation, since there is only so much gold in the world.

This large amount of reparations required in gold might, however, have resulted in extremely strange effects on international trade or finance. But most likely the economic effects would have been benign as France and Belgium rebuilt their northern territories by buying goods and services from Germany. In fact, this is exactly what happened when France later began to build the Maginot Line.

Another probable effect would have been to prevent Germany from re-building its military----from the Allies point-of-view a highly desirable outcome.

The German hyperinflation that did occur appears to have been a more or less deliberate choice on the part of the German government. There was no invisible economic hand holding an invisible economic gun that forced the German government to print quadrillions of paper marks. The decided to do that, because it was easier than raising taxes.

One can sympathize with this dilemma---- until one remembers that taxes not paid by Germans to repair damage caused by the German invasion of France and Belgium would have have...... been paid by French or Belgian taxpayers instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.206.210 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reparations were specified in gold: true. But they were never meant to be paid in gold. Rather reparations were meant to be paid in actual money and goods, especially resources such as coal and timber. Therefore inflation could have been caused by reparations. Everything else is opinion. And while many historians, such as Marks, will agree with your view that the German government is too blame for hyperinflation there will also be many historians who will disagree with this view. Further the opinion that reparations were feasible is not shared by all historians. For example some historians have drawn attention to equally valid points such as the prediction that a German economy geared on export (something which would have been necessary in order to fully pay for reparations) would have caused harm to the French/British economies as they would have been flooded by virtually free (as they were reparations) German goods. The UK coal miner strike in 1926, for example, was caused to a great extent by Britain being flooded by free german coal.

military restrictions for allies

Treaty of Versailles:

ARTICLE 8.

"The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years. After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. The Members of the League agree that the manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their safety. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval, and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes"

seems like the allies ignored this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.255.47 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and a widely recognised German encyclopædia (Der Große Brockhaus, 1957), which I just consulted, seems to consider this as a treaty violation. I'm in principle inclined to agree; but the points are much more vague than the main demands on Germany, which also makes it harder to pinpoint when or where a specific violation would have occurred. Besides, few historians or politicians from the allied side seem to consider the non-disarmament of the allies as treaty violations.

Another, more modern parallel, is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, where the second of its three pillars concern nuclear and general disarmament. Notice, that the International court of justice unanimously interprets the clauses on negotiations "in good faith" for such disarmament as an obligation to reach results, while our article now claims that there only are obligations to make negotiations "in good faith", not to bring them to a successful conclusion.

Actually, there has been some success in limiting the nuclear arm's race by agreements; but at least the strongest nuclear power seems not to be very active in trying to achieve a global nuclear disarmament (not to talk of a non-nuclear one), to put it mildly. Again, there are troubles in putting the alleged violations to task. If a signatory without nuclear weapons acquires such, there is no doubt that this violates the treaty; but at what point would the seeming lack of (e.g.) US interest in achieving a general nuclear disarmament definitely turn into a treaty violation? JoergenB (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Irreconcilables"

Irreconcilables redirects here but the article makes no mention of the term. Drutt (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Section: Other

Why is one miscellaneous clause included? Either more should be added (but Wikipedia should not include trivial information), or this section should be removed. dude1818 (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment and flight of Sudetenland and Posen Germans == lack of NPOV

It would be good if the article listed some credible sources for the claims made. Where was the number of 750 000 Germans taken from? What specific acts of "harassment" took place? These statements clearly indicate a very serious exodus of Germans, but fail to pinpoint the exact cause. Such massive migration must be well documented. Why are there no other references? I find that fragment of the article interesting, but too vague.

The source seems to be some "Prussian" (???) newspaper with a clearly biased POV revealed outright by the title: Die "Jagd auf Deutsche" im Osten, Die Verfolgung begann nicht erst mit dem "Bromberger Blutsonntag vor 50 Jahren" What exactly is "Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung"? Seems like some German nationalist paper, or a bulletin of expelled Prussian Germans. In both cases this is clearly a biased POV. I propose some credible contemporary historical reference is given on the harassment of Germans. If it is documented, like the article claims, it should be not difficult to find a professional scientific/historical analysis, instead of some dubious newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.105.236 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

What areas specifically were transferred to France?

The article says Alsace and "much of Lorraine", but the article on the Franco-Prussian War states that Prussia took only 1/3 of Lorraine (Moselle). Also the article on the Treaty of Frankfurt (which ended the Franco-Prussian War) says that Prussia took some smaller areas along with Alsace and part of Lorraine, such as regions within the Vosges department—presumably these would have also been returned to France? (It's also very confusing because the prewar region of Moselle is not the same as the postwar one.)

(from the article on the Treaty of Frankfurt):

The treaty:

   * Established the frontier between the French Third Republic and the German Empire, which involved the ceding of 1,694 French villages and cities to Germany in:

       * Alsace: the French departments of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin, except for the city of Belfort and its territory;
       * Lorraine: the French department of Moselle, one-third of the department of Meurthe, including the cities of Château-Salins and Sarrebourg, and the arrondissements Saales and Schirmeck in the department of Vosges.

Historian932 (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The Saar

I would disagree with the following statement, "Therefore, France was awarded full possession of Germany's coal-bearing Saar basin for a period. . ."

I thought the Saar area was a LoN protectorate and never, in fact, actually controlled by France; although it did receive it's coal produce for 15 years.

SR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.181.202 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncited line

"The United States also wished to continue trading with Germany, so in turn did not want to treat them too harshly for these economic reasons."

Are "economic reasons" the only reasons? I think there is more to it than this. Could someone please either cite this line or remove it? It makes it sound like America's only interest was its economic concerns. --DanielCD (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Beka1357, 22 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The United States of America did not sign the treaty of Versailles you said the US was a signatorre it isn't

my source is
    http://worldatwar.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/759261?terms=wilson's%20fourteen%20points
    a glencoe history textbook
    http://www.essortment.com/all/versaillestrea_reif.htm 

Beka1357 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be confusing signature with ratification. If you look here, you will see a facsimile of Woodrow Wilson's signature. It is the first signature under the treaty. --Boson (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

reparations error

i can't change it because the article is locked, so sorry if i'm doing this wrong - its my first time...

"The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6,600 million) in 1921"

its only small but could be misleading - the reparations were £6.6 billion, not million.

it should be changed to...

"The total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion, £6.6 billion) in 1921" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.228.39 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Y Done

£6,600 million is the same as £6.6 billion, but I suppose it could mislead the unwary. --Boson (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "Also, Germany was forced to provide France, Belgium, and Italy with millions of tons of coal for 10 years. However, under the control of Adolf Hitler, Germany stopped outstanding deliveries of coal within a few years, thus violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.[citation needed]"

This is not logical. Hitler rose to power more than 10 years after the treaty.

83.85.73.7 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

misleading statements in "violations"

the list in this part states over and over "hitler violated the treaty", but herr hitler was no signatory of the treaty. germany violated the treaty, "under the leadership of" or "under the gouvernment of" herr hitler but nonetheless germany is the correct term here. please change, thank you. 84.61.112.233 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

pretty please? 84.61.112.233 (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Y Done[7]--JayJasper (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)