Learning Objectives

​I CAN

​ 1. Evaluate: Judge how fair and effective the Treaty of Versailles was.
2. Produce my own conclusion on whether the Treaty built peace or future conflict

​Background • WWI ended Nov 1918; 8.5 million dead, Europe in ruins. • Germany surrendered, expecting a peace based on Wilson’s “14 Points.” Leader Country Main Aims Georges Clemenceau France Revenge, security, weaken Germany permanently. Woodrow Wilson USA Fair peace, League of Nations, self-determination. David Lloyd George Britain Punish but keep Germany strong enough for trade and to stop communism.

​Key Terms of the Treaty :
1. War Guilt (Article 231): Germany accepted full blame for WWI.
2. Reparations: £6.6 billion to Allies.
3. Territorial Losses: Alsace-Lorraine to France; colonies to League; Polish Corridor created.
4. Military Restrictions: 100,000 men, no air force, 6 ships, no submarines.
5. League of Nations: Created to prevent future wars. Reactions
• Germany: Outrage, humiliation, called it a “Diktat.”
• France: Relief but thought it wasn’t harsh enough.
• USA: Thought it was too severe; Congress refused to join the League. Historians’ Debate
• John Maynard Keynes: “The treaty will ruin Europe.”
• Marshal Foch: “Not peace, but an armistice for twenty years.”
• Modern historians: “A flawed compromise—punishment disguised as peace.”

​Reactions to the Treaty

​• Germany: outrage, humiliation ('Diktat').
• France: relief, wanted harsher terms.
• Britain: mixed feelings.
• USA: thought it was too harsh.

​Extract A: 'Germany must accept full responsibility for the war.'
Extract B: German Newspaper (1919): 'The Fatherland is dishonored!'
Extract C: Lloyd George (1919): 'We want a peace which will last.'

​Task 2: Big Three Perspective Statement Prompt:
Write a short statement (6–8 sentences) from one of the Big Three’s perspectives using Extracts A & C. End with a fairness rating (1–5).
Before writing:
Which leader are we choosing — Wilson, Clemenceau, or Lloyd George? What did that leader want from the Treaty?

While writing:
3. Does our writing sound like what that leader would say?
4. Are we using words or ideas from the extracts to support their viewpoint?
After writing:
5. Why did we give that fairness rating?
6. Would the other leaders agree or disagree with our rating — why? 7. What helped us understand that leader’s feelings about fairness the most?