Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 15, 2013 Peer review Not reviewed January 21, 2014 Good article nominee Listed March 4, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: World War I A‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history A This article has been rated as A-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  World War I task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (index)

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

German revisionist historians who subsequently attempted to ignore the validity of the clause found a ready audience among 'revisionist' writers in France, Britain, and the United States.

Author states at least two conclusions that cannot be found in the reference source. While the book exists at the link specified, the specific page cited is unavailable. Given the significant controversy that exist over this clause, and not just from “German revisionist historians”, a single reference declaring it “valid” likely falls short of an encyclopedic determination. This is more true when the source cannot be reviewed. Since the above is my un-reviewed opinion, I have not edited the article, rather I bring this up as a point of discussion. Mr. Moral Panic (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of Germans felt humiliated and resentful on this point, and it became a major campaign issue for the Nazis in the 1920s. Overall the Germans felt they had been very unjustly punished by what they called the "diktat of Versailles." Schulze says, the Treaty placed Germany, "under legal sanctions, deprived of military power, economically ruined, and politically humiliated."^[1]

When the Germans on first reading it protested vehemently, the Allied position hardened and there was no effort made to revise it to remove the "guilt" theme.^[1]

Reading the original sources I note that some of the historians used to support the idea that the article specifically was problematic (rather than the Versailles settlement as a whole, or the German perception of it, or etc. etc.) seem to have been misquoted:

• Davies didn't mention the "war guilt" clause explicitly, and was talking about Versailles in general. The specific section (in a very general review of inter-war history) reads:

"The republican government of Germany was invited only in order to sign the Treaty of Versailles without comment, to accept sole guilt for the preceding war, and to pay astronomic reparations"

This doesn't support the statement that Davies criticised Article 231 of doing this, but instead that he was perhaps critical of the Versailles Treaty - if he wasn't just describing the POV of the Weimar government that is.

• Kershaw stated that:

"The ‘national disgrace’ felt throughout Germany at the humiliating terms imposed by the victorious Allies and reflected in the Versailles Treaty signed on 28 June 1919, with its confiscation of territory and, even more so, its ‘guilt clause’, enhanced the creation of a mood in which such ideas were certain of a hearing"

Kershaw, in his book about the rise to power of Hitler, does not attribute the "national disgrace" entirely to the war guilt clause but as a factor alongside the loss of territory.

• Macmillan was talking about both Articles 231 and 232:

"Starting the section in the treaty on reparations were two articles— Articles 231 and 232—that came to be the object of particular loathing in Germany and the cause of uneasy consciences among the Allies. Article 231 assigned responsibility to Germany and its allies for all the damage caused by the war. Article 232 then restricted what was an unlimited liability by saying that since Germany’s resources were in fact limited, it should be asked to pay only for the specified damages."

A fair summary of what she said here would necessary mention that it was both 231 and 232 that were "loathed", not just 231.

Particularly talking about Davies/Kershaw, I don't think we should be citing throw-away comments from historians written in a very general context, in works not about Versailles, as of equal weight to entire academic papers discussing Versailles and the article in detail. Obviously there is still discussion amongst historians about the Versailles treaty and the "war guilt" question (though my personal view is that the combined work of Fischer and Marks pretty much closed the book on that barring any more discoveries in the archives) but we need not exaggerate the extent of that dispute. FOARP (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]