How far do you agree with the view that the peace treaties of 1919–22 were vicious and short-sighted?

Agree: While the US had an influential hand in the peace treaties following WW1, the self interests of France often hindered the process of reconciliation and rebuilding. France desired a harsh line against Germany, hoping to destroy it so it could never threaten France again. Britain took a more sympathetic stance with Germany, hoping it would become a strong barrier against Eastern Communism. These self interests led to a brutal Treaty of Versailles which would cripple Germany economically for the years following the war. The Rhineland was demilitarised and territorial losses along with reparations of £6,600 million prevented Germany growing again for a while. Disagree: Some of the treaties involving the other losing countries such as Austria-Hungary in the Treaty of St.Germain mainly involved breaking up Imperial territories and making A-H a landlocked country. This had less of an impact on A-H’s economic capabilities as the Treaty of Versailles did to Germany, and it can be said that the allied powers were more interested in the fate of Germany in the grand scheme of things than the other losing countries. Conclusion: The self interests of Britain and France often dominate the treaty negotiations, particularly with the Treaties of Sevres and Versaille, which were particularly harsh towards the losing nations, offering less reconciliation than that offered to other lesser nations. In this sense the peace treaties were ultimately a motion towards preventing war, differing in severity depending on the relative power of each nation, and the prejudices of the winning powers.