What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #607
The Treaty of Versailles: A Very Short Introduction
Signed on June 28, 1919 between Germany and the principal Allied powers, the Treaty of Versailles formally ended World War I. Problematic from the very beginning, even its contemporaries saw the treaty as a mediocre compromise, creating a precarious order in Europe and abroad and destined to fall short of ensuring lasting peace. At the time, observers read the treaty through competing a desire for peace after five years of disastrous war, demands for vengeance against Germany, the uncertain future of colonialism, and, most alarmingly, the emerging threat of Bolshevism. A century after its signing, we can look back at how those developments evolved through the twentieth century, evaluating the treaty and its consequences with unprecedented depth of perspective.
The author of several award-winning books, Michael S. Neiberg provides a lucid and authoritative account of the Treaty of Versailles, explaining the enormous challenges facing those who tried to put the world back together after the global destruction of the World War I. Rather than assessing winners and losers, this compelling book analyzes the many subtle factors that influenced the treaty and the dominant, at times ambiguous role of the "Big Four" Woodrow Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of Great Britain, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy, and Georges Cl�menceau of France.
The Treaty of Versailles was not solely responsible for the catastrophic war that crippled Europe and the world just two decades later, but it played a critical role. As Neiberg reminds us, to understand decolonization, World War II, the Cold War, and even the complex world we inhabit today, there is no better place to begin than with World War I and the treaty that tried, and perhaps failed, to end it.
ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
The author of several award-winning books, Michael S. Neiberg provides a lucid and authoritative account of the Treaty of Versailles, explaining the enormous challenges facing those who tried to put the world back together after the global destruction of the World War I. Rather than assessing winners and losers, this compelling book analyzes the many subtle factors that influenced the treaty and the dominant, at times ambiguous role of the "Big Four" Woodrow Wilson of the United States, David Lloyd George of Great Britain, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando of Italy, and Georges Cl�menceau of France.
The Treaty of Versailles was not solely responsible for the catastrophic war that crippled Europe and the world just two decades later, but it played a critical role. As Neiberg reminds us, to understand decolonization, World War II, the Cold War, and even the complex world we inhabit today, there is no better place to begin than with World War I and the treaty that tried, and perhaps failed, to end it.
ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
143 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 25, 2019
45 people are currently reading
330 people want to read
About the author
Michael S. Neiberg
34 books55 followersMichael S. Neiberg is the Stimson Chair of the Department of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College. He has also taught at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Southern Mississippi.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
February 17, 2020
Most people with a passing interest in World War I or II know that the Treaty of Versailles was in so many respects an unmitigated disaster. It inflicted what seemed like at the time excessively punitive financial damages on Germany (although WWI ended in 1918, Germany would continue paying reparations for the war until their final payment of 94 million dollars in October 2010), a loss of colonial territories abroad and a slicing up by the Allies of pre-war Germany. There were also strict limits on the size of Germany’s military going forward well into the future. In short, the Allies, France in particular, saw this as the time to settle grudges and remove any chance of Germany being a military or domestic rival for the foreseeable future. In truth, it took Germany a remarkably short 20 years to rebuild itself military due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms in the treaty. Essentially it was “don’t do this, or we will do that”. Germany “did this” and France and the Allies despite their bluster about using force to ensure German compliance, had little appetite for another conflict. The Nazis in particular knew it, and exploited the perhaps somewhat justified public outrage about the indignities of Versailles to their advantage brazenly, leading to the eventual invasion of Poland in 1939 and another world war just 20 years after the devastation of the last.
While it’s entirely possible that had Versailles never happened, had the French been even slightly more magnanimous to their defeated foe, had Woodrow Wilson not been so idealistic about this being the time for his cherished League of Nations (to clarify, Wilson envisioned it as a league of White nations rather than a truly international body), had Japan not been given a large swath of China in the treaty which would later play a huge part in their entry into WWII, had the generals who actually fought the war and saw the bloodshed not been shut out of the peace process by jealous politicians who often knew little about the countries they were carving up, we may have been spared the horrors of Adolf Hitler and WWII.
At the same time however, perhaps history doesn’t work that way in that there is rarely one event that moves history. Rather it is a series of events, often over time, that have shaped history. While it is easier and perhaps comforting to say WWII, Hitler, or the Holocaust never become something that is forever fixed to our collective conscious without Versailles, the truth is more nuanced and complex. Yes, Versailles was bad policy. It was based on unbridled greed and meant to inflict as much pain as possible as the Great Powers of Italy, America, Britain, and France picked over the carcass of a vanquished Germany. But even without it, who is to say that something of equal or greater horror to WWII would not have befallen Germany or the rest of Europe. While Versailles was a significant spark, it was not the flame that set Europe and the world on fire.
November 16, 2020
The book discusses in details the treaty of Versailles and its everlasting effects on history and the current face of geopolitics. A very interesting read, and quite easy to get into.
November 10, 2019
One of the excellent 'very short introduction' series of books which I rate highly.
Having read a great deal about the First World War over the past few years I thought I'd better read about the Treaty of Versailles. This is a brilliant analysis (albeit short) of the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty with all its flaws. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we now know how the Treaty meant that another war was almost inevitable. The author gets to the heart of the issues with pen portraits of the participants and the ramifications of the decisions made by the Treaty.
Having read a great deal about the First World War over the past few years I thought I'd better read about the Treaty of Versailles. This is a brilliant analysis (albeit short) of the Paris Peace Conference and the Treaty with all its flaws. It is only with the benefit of hindsight that we now know how the Treaty meant that another war was almost inevitable. The author gets to the heart of the issues with pen portraits of the participants and the ramifications of the decisions made by the Treaty.
December 21, 2021
The Treaty of Versailles marked the end of the First World War between Germany and the Allies, represented by Georges Clemenceau (France), David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Woodrow Wilson (United States) and Vittorio Orlando (Italy).
It was signed on 28 June 1919 in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, the same place where the proclamation of the German Empire had taken place in 1871. By imposing this location on Germany, France wanted to symbolically rid itself of the humiliation endured during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 by forcing Germany to recognise its responsibilities in the world war.
The terms of the treaty were severe towards the defeated country. An eighth of Germany’s territory was annexed and they were forced to give up their colonies to the victors. In addition, they had to give Alsace-Lorraine back to France and pay a heavy fine for damages caused during the war. The treaty also stipulated the abolition of military service, reducing the German army to 100 000 men, in the aim of limiting its power. In order to ensure that the many terms were respected, the Allies planned to occupy the left bank of the Rhine for 15 years.
The German delegates ultimately signed the document, which was viewed in Berlin as an embarrassing and antagonistic diktat imposed by the victors. In the end, the treaty was a diplomatic failure. It stirred up rivalries among European powers, anxious to maintain their standing, to the detriment of a damaged Germany, where the seeds of the Second World War were already being sown.
Today, many historians regard World War II not as the “Second World War” but as sort of a “World War I 2.0”—a four-year conflict followed by a 21-year pause in which hatreds continued to simmer and ugly prejudices grew genocidal under economic ruin and perceived international injustice.
It has been said that the Treaty of Versailles, horrifically consequential as it turned out to be, was a product of its time. The men who worked on it did not blithely put it together. In fact, the leaders and diplomats of the world’s greatest powers worked on it virtually non-stop for six months. As the ancient Greeks would’ve said, “They were between Scylla and Charybdis,” or as we say, “Between a rock and a hard place.” It’s hard to imagine that anyone, given the time and circumstances, could have done much better.
We do not however endorse the view.
Wilson died in 1924 and did not live to see the failure of his great dream, the League of Nations. In his defense, it must be said that the United Nations, which came to life at the end of World War II, was built on the foundations of Wilson’s idealism as well as its mistakes.
Georges Clemenceau passed in 1929, just after the stock market crash. In the years following the Paris Peace Conference, Clemenceau had come to believe that his successors had blundered in dealing with Germany. They had not coordinated with Great Britain, which, in turn, alienated them.
This caused Britain to slowly become more interested in the hostile political environment in France than in enforcing the treaty.
Clemenceau also made a highly popular speaking tour in the United States in which he praised the nation but condemned America’s decision not to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or join the League of Nations.
David Lloyd George came to believe that the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake. He had argued for milder reparations than the French and had been critical of their move into the Ruhr.
He believed that a carefully monitored Germany could be a bulwark against the spread of communism in Europe, but he himself saw the rise of communism in Germany itself in the 1920s. By the early 1930s, Lloyd George was among those in Britain that had come to see Hitler not as an enemy but as a German patriot, who, it seemed at the time, was working miracles in his country.
Throughout the 1920s, elements of the German General Staff, the group at the head of the German Army, had been secretly rearming. This was mainly done by making clandestine agreements with the Soviet Union. When Hitler announced open German rearmament in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, the wheels had already been in motion for a decade.
For a time, Lloyd George and others thought this was only natural; after all, in their minds, the treaty had been too harsh. Lloyd George’s close friend, Winston Churchill, differed in opinion.
However, by 1937, Lloyd George had come to see that Hitler was increasingly bent on aggression and disagreed with the policy of “appeasement” instituted by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Lloyd George remained in Parliament until his death in late March 1945, but he never held real political power after losing the position of prime minister in 1922 over issues with France.
Though the men of Versailles (and they were overwhelmingly men) had arrived in Paris to put an end to World War I, by the time the conference ended, the main goal of the diplomats and national leaders had turned into ending wars for all time.
Obviously, that did not work, and as a matter of fact, the end result of the Paris Peace Conference—the Treaty of Versailles—would likely cause more wars than any of its authors could have possibly dreamed of, including World War II.
It was signed on 28 June 1919 in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, the same place where the proclamation of the German Empire had taken place in 1871. By imposing this location on Germany, France wanted to symbolically rid itself of the humiliation endured during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 by forcing Germany to recognise its responsibilities in the world war.
The terms of the treaty were severe towards the defeated country. An eighth of Germany’s territory was annexed and they were forced to give up their colonies to the victors. In addition, they had to give Alsace-Lorraine back to France and pay a heavy fine for damages caused during the war. The treaty also stipulated the abolition of military service, reducing the German army to 100 000 men, in the aim of limiting its power. In order to ensure that the many terms were respected, the Allies planned to occupy the left bank of the Rhine for 15 years.
The German delegates ultimately signed the document, which was viewed in Berlin as an embarrassing and antagonistic diktat imposed by the victors. In the end, the treaty was a diplomatic failure. It stirred up rivalries among European powers, anxious to maintain their standing, to the detriment of a damaged Germany, where the seeds of the Second World War were already being sown.
Today, many historians regard World War II not as the “Second World War” but as sort of a “World War I 2.0”—a four-year conflict followed by a 21-year pause in which hatreds continued to simmer and ugly prejudices grew genocidal under economic ruin and perceived international injustice.
It has been said that the Treaty of Versailles, horrifically consequential as it turned out to be, was a product of its time. The men who worked on it did not blithely put it together. In fact, the leaders and diplomats of the world’s greatest powers worked on it virtually non-stop for six months. As the ancient Greeks would’ve said, “They were between Scylla and Charybdis,” or as we say, “Between a rock and a hard place.” It’s hard to imagine that anyone, given the time and circumstances, could have done much better.
We do not however endorse the view.
Wilson died in 1924 and did not live to see the failure of his great dream, the League of Nations. In his defense, it must be said that the United Nations, which came to life at the end of World War II, was built on the foundations of Wilson’s idealism as well as its mistakes.
Georges Clemenceau passed in 1929, just after the stock market crash. In the years following the Paris Peace Conference, Clemenceau had come to believe that his successors had blundered in dealing with Germany. They had not coordinated with Great Britain, which, in turn, alienated them.
This caused Britain to slowly become more interested in the hostile political environment in France than in enforcing the treaty.
Clemenceau also made a highly popular speaking tour in the United States in which he praised the nation but condemned America’s decision not to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or join the League of Nations.
David Lloyd George came to believe that the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake. He had argued for milder reparations than the French and had been critical of their move into the Ruhr.
He believed that a carefully monitored Germany could be a bulwark against the spread of communism in Europe, but he himself saw the rise of communism in Germany itself in the 1920s. By the early 1930s, Lloyd George was among those in Britain that had come to see Hitler not as an enemy but as a German patriot, who, it seemed at the time, was working miracles in his country.
Throughout the 1920s, elements of the German General Staff, the group at the head of the German Army, had been secretly rearming. This was mainly done by making clandestine agreements with the Soviet Union. When Hitler announced open German rearmament in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, the wheels had already been in motion for a decade.
For a time, Lloyd George and others thought this was only natural; after all, in their minds, the treaty had been too harsh. Lloyd George’s close friend, Winston Churchill, differed in opinion.
However, by 1937, Lloyd George had come to see that Hitler was increasingly bent on aggression and disagreed with the policy of “appeasement” instituted by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Lloyd George remained in Parliament until his death in late March 1945, but he never held real political power after losing the position of prime minister in 1922 over issues with France.
Though the men of Versailles (and they were overwhelmingly men) had arrived in Paris to put an end to World War I, by the time the conference ended, the main goal of the diplomats and national leaders had turned into ending wars for all time.
Obviously, that did not work, and as a matter of fact, the end result of the Paris Peace Conference—the Treaty of Versailles—would likely cause more wars than any of its authors could have possibly dreamed of, including World War II.
April 22, 2019
The Treaty of Versailles was difficult for me to understand when I initially studied 20th c. global policy and war. I somehow seemed to understand that the treaty had a role to play in the ending of WW1 and the later beginnings of WW2. In that sense, it's somewhat like Vatican I: it's important for various reasons, but you have difficulty articulating exactly why, especially in light of what came after (in this case, Vatican II).
This book by Michael S. Neiberg is exactly the type of good history writing that helps readers gain a grasp of the issues and importance of the event: clear, focused, and not mired in historical particulars which can sometimes slow down the narrative. Maybe this is because Neiberg focuses on one singular event (the treaty) as opposed to treating a series of important events within a single volume (histories of WW1 or WW2 that have to address the treaty). Regardless, this helped me to understand the various issues leading up to the peace talks, the key personalities, and the reasons why it left so many angry and disillusioned in its wake.
If you have an interest in global political or military history, I would highly commend this book. Coming in right at ~100 pages, it's short, clear, and easy to digest in a few hours or days (depending on how much free time you have).
This book by Michael S. Neiberg is exactly the type of good history writing that helps readers gain a grasp of the issues and importance of the event: clear, focused, and not mired in historical particulars which can sometimes slow down the narrative. Maybe this is because Neiberg focuses on one singular event (the treaty) as opposed to treating a series of important events within a single volume (histories of WW1 or WW2 that have to address the treaty). Regardless, this helped me to understand the various issues leading up to the peace talks, the key personalities, and the reasons why it left so many angry and disillusioned in its wake.
If you have an interest in global political or military history, I would highly commend this book. Coming in right at ~100 pages, it's short, clear, and easy to digest in a few hours or days (depending on how much free time you have).
May 14, 2024
After reading this book, Churchill's phrase popped up in my mind: "History is written by the winners". However, this book shows that the process of seeking justice is not as straightforward as it seemed. Even though the Allied representatives tried to get the most out of the Treaty, they faced numerous challenges along the way: Heavy reparations which were supposed to be paid by Germany seemed very doubtful as it could destabilise the situation in Europe economically, the interests of other countries were not take in account, President Wilson's struggle to get votes from Senate, etc.
Apart from that, it has to be mentioned took place only a century ago, it is a recent history. It reminds us that the line between barbaric wars and order based on peace is very thin...
Apart from that, it has to be mentioned took place only a century ago, it is a recent history. It reminds us that the line between barbaric wars and order based on peace is very thin...
March 11, 2019
Considering the only thing I remembered about the Treaty of Versailles from my high school history classes was that that it "ended" WWI, this was a good, concise look at the behind the scenes and other factors that influenced and affected the treaty's outcome. I did find it interesting to learn that four empires (the author's term) were gone by the end of WWI: German (Hohenzollern), Austro-Hungarian (Haupsberg,) Russian (Romanov), and Ottoman. I knew of all but the German but didn't put it together that all were gone at the same time.
March 6, 2019
The title of the book says it all; a well researched overlay of the treaty in only 101 pages. Great flow to it, as well, which is impressive as there were so many nuances and existing—and influential pre-existing—conflicts present at the time. Highly recommend to anyone seeking basic knowledge of the Versailles Treaty.
June 27, 2019
Una breve e chiara introduzione al Trattato di Versailles, il trattato che giusto cento anni fa, pose fine alla Grande Guerra. I suoi pregi - pochi - e i suoi difetti - tanti ma forse non così tanti come si pensa - sono descritti insieme alle manovre diplomatiche che portarono alla firma del trattato.
September 2, 2023
Honestly didn’t expect to give this book five stars but here we are. This is a really good and concise account of the Treaty of Versailles which never gets too technical. It’s also very enjoyable to read, like I think I laughed out loud a few times. Really great book. Also Woodrow Wilson sucks.
January 30, 2021
Good quick overview of events around the Paris Peace Conference. Gave me some ideas on books I want to read to dig deeper into events.
July 4, 2020
It's a good concise presentation about the Treaty of Versailles which takes a balanced approach to the subject. This makes the book a good introduction for the beginner, or for someone looking for a more than casual knowledge base. There's a short list of other works about it for further reading that will be a helpful guide to the scholarly literature.
Want to read
August 3, 2017Recommended by Open Letters Monthly
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews