Germany's loss of land in the Treaty of Versailles was fair.How far do you agree explain?

History

1 answer:

bezimeni [28]3 years ago

4 0

Answer:

I agree with the statement “The Treaty of Versailles was a fair settlement” to a certain extent. I know that Germany had been unmerciful during the war leading to thirty seven million casualties. Therefore “The Big Three”: Lloyd George (Great Britain), Clemenceau (France) and Wilson (USA), the driving forces behind the treaty, need not be merciful in return. When you put the Treaty of Versailles in perspective against World War I it appears to be fair towards Germany. The war had destroyed most country’s economies and a large area of land. These, among many other things, needed to be restored. Considering that Germany had been defeated and they were largely at fault for the start of the war it was fair to make them pay reparations. After the war Germany was still a serious threat to the world. People believed that they would not give up. Therefore one of the main aims of the peace treaty was to make sure that the risk of Germany attacking again was as low as possible. The treaty of Versailles was fair to take away Germany’s armed forces and colonies as it protected the rest of the world in the short term and punished them. However, we now know that the Treaty of Versailles failed as the world has seen another, even more horrific war. I believe that the Treaty was unnecessarily harsh and not as fair as it should have been. All of the victorious nations were furious with Germany so at the time very few thought of being fair towards their enemy of four years. This is reflected in the treaty through the reparations Germany was forced to pay. These were outrageously high (£660 million) and later changed. The confiscation of Germany’s territories and colonies and the reduction in their army was also excessively severe. Although this was meant to keep peace in the short term it only angered Germany more, sparking revenge. War Guilt was also an unnecessary condition that publicly humiliated Germany triggering resentment. This was tactlessly done to compensate the victorious public who desired a subject to blame for the loss of their loved ones. Similarly the rest of the treaty was too harsh because the rulers had to please their countries if they wished to be re-elected. Germany did not get any second chances from the peace treaty. Their pride majorly suffered at the forced decrease in their army and they were not able to improve themselves in their colonies as those were repossessed causing jealousy and anger. The peace treaty unfairly focused too much on punishing Germany for what they did wrong rather than trying to maintain peace. This is because the public was too angry to think intelligently about preventing future losses. In general I believe that the Treaty of Versailles had good intentions however mainly due to public pressure it was too harsh and unfair. The Big Three had an impossible task and pleasing everyone was not probable but I believe they did the best that they could at the time. However the treaty was largely unfair and too severe contributing to World War II.

Explanation:

You might be interested in

In a well-written paragraph, explain how the governments of two different countries are similar and different. Use at least two

Ulleksa [173]

I am going to compare Germany and Iran.

In Germany, the power is with the people (=it's a democracy) which are represented by the members of the parliament: it's a representative democracy. It's also a federation of 16 states.

Iran, on the other hand is a theocracy: a country ruled by the members of the clergy. It can also be named an oligarchy: the power is with a few members of the society.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Japan began its hostilities because it needed more territory to _______

IceJOKER [234]

expand its resources

5 0

3 years ago

The area of the United states that was most affected by Brown v. Board of Education was

mote1985 [20]

<u>The South</u> was most affected by Brown vs. Board of Education.

3 0

3 years ago

How were the democratic and republican parties formed?

larisa [96]

The Democratic Party is the eldest of the two major political parties of the United States of America. This party actually began in 1791 by the formation of the Republican Party, that later changed its name to the Democratic-Republican party, and was founded by the Third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and the Fourth President of the United States, James Madison. They formed this party in opposition to Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. This party soon became the Anti-Federalists' party as more of them became members. The Democratic-Republican party began as staunch supporters of republicanism and the protection of all citizens inalienable rights. This political party was against having a national bank and national debt. Its members felt the national government should lead the example of being fiscally responsible. They were also opposed to Alexander Hamilton's Jay Treaty of 1794 fearing closer economic ties with England would strengthen the Federalists in the newly formed national government. The Democratic-Republican party was in opposition of a large and strong federal government which was what the Federalists were advocating. This is the root platform of the Democratic Party.
Instead this party was pro a constitutional republic where the inalienable rights of the citizens would be adhered and be law by being in the social contract known as a constitution. This was the reasoning behind this party's staunch advocating for strictly adhering to the main body of the United States Constitution and the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights).

In 1824 the Democratic-Republican party split into two factions and dissolved. One of these factions led by the Seventh President of the United States, Andrew Jackson and the Eighth President of the United States, Martin Van Buren became the Democratic Party and the other the Whigs. Both of these parties proclaimed their stand for American Republicanism. The Democratic Party kept the platform of the Democratic-Republican party as its own.
The Democratic Party was the majority party in the United States until the American Civil War. In the 1850's this party split again and those in opposition to slavery left the Democratic Party and helped with the formation of the Republican Party. Those known as the War Democrats helped with the campaign that made President Lincoln, a Republican, the first president for the Republican Party to get elected. The Democratic Party further split into what was called the Southern Democrats who were in support of the Confederacy in the South.
By the 1890's the Democratic Party was primarily a Southern party whose members voted party-line each election. These Democrats were known as the "solid South."

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Michelangelo The creation of man.<br>1. What makes this a renaissance painting?

kvv77 [185]

Answer:

Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam

Michelangelo, Creation of Adam, from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, Rome, 1508-1512, fresco

The most famous section of the Sistine Chapel ceiling is Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam. This scene is located next to the Creation of Eve, which is the panel at the center of the room, and the Congregation of the Waters, which is closer to the altar.

The Creation of Adam differs from typical Creation scenes painted up until that time. Here, two figures dominate the scene: God on the right, and Adam on the left. God is shown inside a floating nebulous form made up of drapery and other figures. The form is supported on angels who fly without wings, but whose flight is made clear by the drapery which whips out from underneath them. God is depicted as an elderly, yet muscular, man with grey hair and a long beard which react to the forward movement of flight. This is a far cry from imperial images of God that had otherwise been created in the West dating back to the time of late antiquity. Rather than wearing royal garments and depicted as an all-powerful ruler, he wears only a light tunic which leaves much of his arms and legs exposed. One might say this is a much more intimate portrait of God because he is shown in a state that is not untouchable and remote from Man, but one which is accessible to him.

Unlike the figure of God, who is outstretched and aloft, Adam is depicted as a lounging figure who rather lackadaisically responds to God’s imminent touch. This touch will not only give life to Adam, but will give life to all mankind. It is, therefore, the birth of the human race. Adam’s body forms a concave shape which echoes the form of God’s body, which is in a convex posture inside the nebulous, floating form. This correspondence of one form to the other seems to underscore the larger idea of Man corresponding to God; that is, it seems to reflect the idea that Man has been created in the image and likeness of God – an idea with which Michelangelo had to have been familiar.

One of the questions that has been raised about this scene is the identity of the figures next to God. Given her privileged placement under the arm of God, the female figure is presumably an important one. Traditionally, she has been thought to be Eve, the future wife of Adam, who waits to the side until she is created out of Adam’s rib. More recently, however, a theory has been floated that this is actually the Virgin Mary, who takes this place of honor next to God and the child next to her, who would therefore be the Christ Child. This view is supported by the placement of God’s fingers on the child – the same fingers that the priest would use to raise the Eucharist during the Mass. Since Catholic theology holds that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, this theological understanding would be embodied in this painting. If this latter interpretation is correct, the Creation of Adam would be intrinsically linked to the future coming of Christ, who comes to reconcile man after the sin of Adam.

In all, the painting shows several hallmarks of Michelangelo’s painting style: the lounging position of both Adam and God, the use of bodies which are both muscular and twisting, and the painting of figures who come across as works of sculpture. It is good to remember that Michelangelo was, after all, a sculptor. Painting was not his primary area.

The Creation of Adam is one of the great jewels of Western art, though it and the rest of the Sistine Chapel ceiling suffered the ill effects of centuries of smoke that had caused the ceiling to darken considerably. It was not until 1977 that the cleaning of the ceiling was begun. The result of the cleaning was astonishing after its completion in 1989; what was once dark and drab became vivid. The change from pre-cleaning to post-cleaning was so great that some initially refused to believe that this is the way Michelangelo actually painted. Today, we have a much better understanding of Michelangelo’s palette and the world he painted, beautifully captured across the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago