Germany was in beneficial position at the beginning of the World War I, but it experienced significant damage as the consequences have been applied by the other states (Hewitson, 2014). Firstly, it remains evident that the treaty tends to hurt Germany’s economy by isolating it from the other countries and limiting its international relations (Comments, 1919). In this instance, Germany was no longer in control of its transportation roots and could not trade with the other countries. Additionally, the German land was no longer united, as the Germans have to share their territory with the Poles (Comments, 1919). In turn, Danzig was considered as Free State, which was no longer a part of the German Empire (Comments, 1919). It could be said that it was provisioned that the Germany’s trade has to be highly controlled while isolating the particular lands and causing damage to the economy.
Speaking of Germany’s point of view, the Germany had to be treated differently, and the unity of its territory had to be cherished and respected. In this instance, Germany implies that the new order has to be introduced to enhance the international relations and support the principles of the international law (Comments, 1919). Additionally, it could be said that Germany was not the only country, which caused the development of the war, as the overall chaos in the European system was the primary reason for the devastation (Comments, 1919). In this instance, Germany claims that the other countries should be responsible for the war, and Germany should be treated equally with the other states. Lastly, the unity of the German land should not be destroyed, and the economic relations limited.
It remains evident that the document highly refers to the violation of the law of self-determination by focusing on particular lands, which experienced the significant damage due to the inability of the Germans to choose the living place (Comments, 1919). In this instance, the document implies that the rights of the German citizens have been violated dramatically, as some part of the territory had to be shared with Poles. Furthermore, the citizens were not able to live freely on the land and contribute to the future development of the state, as their economic conditions could not be considered as favourable for the future development. In the end, the Germans had a right to deliberate this act of the high significance, as the authorities wanted to protect their citizens from the future damage.
In conclusion, I agree that some of the actions of the defenders of the treaty were rather unreasonable, and Germany was mistreated. I highly support the point that the citizens of the German land are not responsible for the actions of their authorities, as they cannot influence the decision-making of the politicians. In turn, I agree that the economic isolation was the essential element, which was proposed by the treaty, as it helped rebuild the economic stability in the other European states without being under the potential risk of the Germany’s attack. As for the possible response to complaints, the treaty will not change their decisions due to the threat of the German’s ability to gain strength and attack again.
However, the trade restriction and the destruction of the unity of the territory might be disregarded over a particular period. In turn, the defenders of the treaty might suggest that they will try to modify the order in other European states to enhance the political and economic relationships within Europe.
References
Comments of the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference on the conditions of peace. (1919). Web.
Hewitson, M. (2014). Germany and the causes of the First World War. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Web.