Critique the textbook: identify and reject simplistic explanations by digging deep and uncovering complexity (2/26)
The Treaty of Versailles is one of the most important historical treaty with deep impact in the modern world. It has produced undeniably complex controversies for its fairness. But our history textbook overlooks them and discuss the topic with a lopsided stance that denies the treaty’s unreasonableness by merely stating that the Germans were horrified by its conditions. After all, there is a lot more to the treaty than its strict conditions on the Germans. There are the questions of its propriety and justification, shortcomings, and effectiveness on ending the Great War and building world peace. The following paragraphs will discuss upon what the textbook’s superficial coverage of WWI implies and how the textbook should discuss the topic.
There is no doubt that Germany was a major belligerent in World War I and an aggressive nation that looked for war. But it should not be blamed for causing the war, as there are many other factors, such as Serbia’s support of terrorist groups, France and Russia’s blank check, Britain’s secret alliances, and the inevitable increase in competition between states, both militarily and economically. According to the textbook: “The German delegates were horrified” from the treaty’s deal that gave it full blame, made it pay huge reparations, impose arms limit, remove German territories, and stripped it of its colonies. Furthermore, following peace settlements grant self-determination, grant mandates to colonies, and build the league of nations. First, the textbook’s use of “German delegates were horrified” does not emphasize how the treaty was unfair causing the German delegates to feel uncomfortable. Rather, the use of “horrified” contains a negative connotation for the German delegates because rather than feeling “choleric due to the unjustified treaty and lopsided treatment,” the Germans feel horrified which could mean that they felt bad for causing WWI which forces them to pay for their wrongdoings. In fact, though, the Germans were not the only party that provoked WWI, because Serbia itself was also seeking for conflict by supporting the terrorist group that assassinate the archduke. Second, the textbook said that the German dissent of the treaty would poison the international community in twenty years, which implies to WWII begun by Hitler. Yet the textbook usage of “German dissent poison the international community” is disputed because German dissent was only the result of a harsh, dictated treaty, which facilitated for Hitler’s to reign. If not for the harsh treaty, Germany’s stable situation would stifle Hitler from coming in power. For example, Germany was able to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia due to its high population Germans, which was the result of peace treaties following WWI that cut up former German lands to other states without considering their right of self determination. Hence, the use of “German dissent poisoning the international community” is assigning the blame for Hitler’s rise to Germans rather on the Allies’ veritably unfair Treaty of Versailles, which is a more accurate description of the cause of WWI.
Instead of discussing WWI in a lopsided way that supports the Allies, the textbook should be more impartial to the historical event and be less biased. It should discuss the two points of views on the Treaty of Versailles through quotes and fair evidence. Rather than merely providing evidences that support the treaties and give substantial proof to its fairness while overlooking facts that show the Treaty of Versailles’ drawbacks, the textbook should also go over the negative aspect of the treaty, such as the lack of German enrollment in the League of Nations due to its role as the loser of WWI, the amount of reparation Germany is forced to pay which is unreasonable as said so by many delegates from the Allies’ side, the amount of German people forced to live under other states due to the new borders drawn, and the League of Nations’ mandates that gave the Allies an excuse to annex German colonies and deny them of self determination rights that are guaranteed in Europe and states the Allies want to be independent. Second, the textbook should provide substantial arguments both for and against the Treaty, such as France’s view that only weakening Germany would allow it to be secured. On the other hand, it could show how the Germans have a reasonable view for why the treaty is not fair.
This fair exhibition of facts of equal arguments for both sides will allow students to learn crucial information about the treaty from the textbook while deciding their view of the treaty on themselves rather than discussing for them. Only through this way could history be judged equally. Only through this way would history not be judged by the winners against the losers, but by what is right against what is wrong, what is true against what is false.
The Treaty of Versailles is one of the most important historical treaty with deep impact in the modern world. It has produced undeniably complex controversies for its fairness. But our history textbook overlooks them and discuss the topic with a lopsided stance that denies the treaty’s unreasonableness by merely stating that the Germans were horrified by its conditions. After all, there is a lot more to the treaty than its strict conditions on the Germans. There are the questions of its propriety and justification, shortcomings, and effectiveness on ending the Great War and building world peace. The following paragraphs will discuss upon what the textbook’s superficial coverage of WWI implies and how the textbook should discuss the topic.
There is no doubt that Germany was a major belligerent in World War I and an aggressive nation that looked for war. But it should not be blamed for causing the war, as there are many other factors, such as Serbia’s support of terrorist groups, France and Russia’s blank check, Britain’s secret alliances, and the inevitable increase in competition between states, both militarily and economically. According to the textbook: “The German delegates were horrified” from the treaty’s deal that gave it full blame, made it pay huge reparations, impose arms limit, remove German territories, and stripped it of its colonies. Furthermore, following peace settlements grant self-determination, grant mandates to colonies, and build the league of nations. First, the textbook’s use of “German delegates were horrified” does not emphasize how the treaty was unfair causing the German delegates to feel uncomfortable. Rather, the use of “horrified” contains a negative connotation for the German delegates because rather than feeling “choleric due to the unjustified treaty and lopsided treatment,” the Germans feel horrified which could mean that they felt bad for causing WWI which forces them to pay for their wrongdoings. In fact, though, the Germans were not the only party that provoked WWI, because Serbia itself was also seeking for conflict by supporting the terrorist group that assassinate the archduke. Second, the textbook said that the German dissent of the treaty would poison the international community in twenty years, which implies to WWII begun by Hitler. Yet the textbook usage of “German dissent poison the international community” is disputed because German dissent was only the result of a harsh, dictated treaty, which facilitated for Hitler’s to reign. If not for the harsh treaty, Germany’s stable situation would stifle Hitler from coming in power. For example, Germany was able to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia due to its high population Germans, which was the result of peace treaties following WWI that cut up former German lands to other states without considering their right of self determination. Hence, the use of “German dissent poisoning the international community” is assigning the blame for Hitler’s rise to Germans rather on the Allies’ veritably unfair Treaty of Versailles, which is a more accurate description of the cause of WWI.
Instead of discussing WWI in a lopsided way that supports the Allies, the textbook should be more impartial to the historical event and be less biased. It should discuss the two points of views on the Treaty of Versailles through quotes and fair evidence. Rather than merely providing evidences that support the treaties and give substantial proof to its fairness while overlooking facts that show the Treaty of Versailles’ drawbacks, the textbook should also go over the negative aspect of the treaty, such as the lack of German enrollment in the League of Nations due to its role as the loser of WWI, the amount of reparation Germany is forced to pay which is unreasonable as said so by many delegates from the Allies’ side, the amount of German people forced to live under other states due to the new borders drawn, and the League of Nations’ mandates that gave the Allies an excuse to annex German colonies and deny them of self determination rights that are guaranteed in Europe and states the Allies want to be independent. Second, the textbook should provide substantial arguments both for and against the Treaty, such as France’s view that only weakening Germany would allow it to be secured. On the other hand, it could show how the Germans have a reasonable view for why the treaty is not fair.
This fair exhibition of facts of equal arguments for both sides will allow students to learn crucial information about the treaty from the textbook while deciding their view of the treaty on themselves rather than discussing for them. Only through this way could history be judged equally. Only through this way would history not be judged by the winners against the losers, but by what is right against what is wrong, what is true against what is false.
Hitler, in the image above, gained popularity in Germany with his right-wing ideology. His rise could be attributed to the Treaty of Versailles' harsh treatment of Germany which left Germany in chaos, causing Germans to loathe the allies and other veterans wishing to retake Germany's glory. | The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo marks the explosion of the powder keg of Europe, which would lead to WWI. The Serbian terrorist who assassinated him is part of a Serbian terrorist group that sought for the part of Austria-Hungary to become Serbia's. |