IB-style Sourcework Assignment by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.uk /
1
The Peace Treaties and Their Impact: Sourcework Exercise (1 hour)
Source A: Count Brockdorff, head of the German delegation at Versailles.
We are told that we should acknowledge that we alone are guilty of having caused the war. I
would be a liar if I agreed to this. We are not trying to avoid all responsibility…however, we
emphatically deny that the German people should be seen as the only guilty party. Over 50
years the imperialism of all European states has poisoned the international situation.
Source B: J.M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919. Keynes resigned
from his position as a British representative at the Paris Peace Conference.
In my opinion, it is impossible to lay the responsibility for the war on any single nation. By
aiming at the destruction of the economic life of Germany this treaty threatens the health and
prosperity of the allies themselves. By making impossible demands it leaves Europe more
unsettled than it found it. The treaty, by overstepping the limits of the possible, has in practice
settled nothing.
Source C: From a modern school textbook
The Treaty of Versailles weakened Germany enough to leave her bitter and vengeful, but not
so weak that she was unable to retaliate. In this sense it contributed directly to World War
Two. The other peace treaties made the situation even more unstable by creating fragile new
states in Europe and beyond. In this sense they contributed not only to World War Two, but
also to many modern-day problems.
The Treaties with the Ottoman Empire (Sevres and Lausanne) left Britain in charge
of Iraq and Palestine, both of which remain sources of massive international instability. The
Treaties with Austria and Hungary (St. Germain and Trianon) firstly created Yugoslavia out of
Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia – an arrangement which collapsed in bloodshed in the 1990s.
The new state of Czechoslovakia was also created, but was destroyed by Germany in the
lead-up to World War Two, invaded by the communists afterwards, and broke up again into
the Czech Republic and Slovakia in the 1990s.
Source D: A cartoon about the Peace Treaties
IB-style Sourcework Assignment by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.uk /
2
Source E: The historian Sally Marks' verdict on the Peace Treaties
The Versailles Treaty was severe, but it is amazing that it is not more so. Thanks to Wilson’s
insistence, Germany lost remarkably little territory, considering how thoroughly she had lost
the war. True, the colonies were gone, but the European losses were relatively modest.
Compared to the harsh Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which Germany had imposed on defeated
Russia in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles was quite moderate. If, instead of being restrained by
Britain and the USA, Clemenceau had had his way, the Rhineland would have become an
independent state, the Saarland would have been given to France and Danzig would have
become an integral part of Poland. However, the Germans as a nation were not inclined to
count their blessings in 1919. Most of all they resented being forced to accept war-guilt.
Finally, the fact that the treaty was not negotiated but dictated to Germany and signed in
humiliating circumstances made it certain that the German people would accept no
responsibility for carrying out its terms. The real difficulty was not that the Treaty was
exceptionally severe, but that the Germans thought it was, and in time persuaded others it
was.
Source F: Robert Cecil, a British delegate at the Disarmament Conference of 1926
By the Treaty of Versailles the Germans are bound to carry out a drastic scheme of
disarmament. That they have substantially done, according to the view of the British experts.
They were also bound by the Treaty of Versailles to maintain their condition of
disarmament…[but] the disarmament clauses of the Treaty are described as the first step
towards world disarmament.
The actual words are as follows – “In order to render possible the initiation of a
general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the
military, naval and air clauses which follow”…In consequence, although the Germans were
bound to carry out the measures of disarmament indicated, the Allies were also bound to
carry out a measure of disarmament…The German contention will be that they have
disarmed, and that they have done it in advance of the Allies, that that is all they were
required to do unconditionally. The remainder of their obligation, the obligation to remain
disarmed was undertaken in consideration of the express assurances that their disarmament
was the 'first step towards that general reduction and limitation of armaments which the Allies
seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war.'
There is always a difficulty where the two parties to a negotiation have each given
undertakings with respect to a particular matter to say whether those undertakings are
dependent on one another or not. It seems to me fairly clear that morally they are: legally the
point may be more doubtful.
Questions
1a. Why, according to Source F, were the Germans unhappy about the lack of progress made
towards world disarmament in the 1920s? [3 marks]
1b. What message is conveyed by Source D? [2 marks]
2. Compare and contrast the views expressed about the Peace Treaties in Sources C and E.
[6 marks]
3. With reference to their origin and purpose, discuss the value and limitations of Source A
and Source B for historians studying attitudes towards the Peace Treaties at the time. [6
marks]
4. Using these sources and your own knowledge, assess the view that "The problem with the
Peace Treaties were not that they were too harsh, but that they were not harsh enough" [8
marks]