•
The reparations that were demanded of Germany.
•
The allies demanded £6600 million in reparations, a huge figure for any country that has just come out of total war to afford.
•
So there's one point for the economical aspect of this question. As for the political, you could discuss the impact of Article 48.
•
Article 48 gave the president of the Weimar Republic considerable amounts of power and gave them the ability to rule without the consent of the Reichstag in an emergency.
•
You could argue that his was a return to pre-Weimar Germany, and an autocratic second Reich - how could Weimar Germany be a democracy if the president had some aspects of autocratic power.
•
As for another few points - just in case - you could mention the hyperinflation crisis of 1923 for the economic aspect of the question.
•
As for the political aspect - another point you could mention - is the system of proportional representation that the government was elected by, and how it let a lot of smaller parties gain seats. However, it meant that no party ever held a majority.
•
I would discuss each individual aspect of the peace treaty that corresponds to their correct leader.
•
For example, the French president, Clemenceau, wanted to punish Germany severally for the damage they had done to France throughout the war. Obviously, he succeeded in getting this, as the Treaty of Versailles is often referred to as being too harsh. And judging by the state of Germany after the Treaty, Clemenceau defiantly got what he hoped for.
•
France also succeeded in gaining more security, as Germany's armed forces was heavily restricted and the Rhineland was demilitarized.
•
President Wilson of America had his fourteen points, the biggest of which being the establishment of the League of Nations. This was obviously successful as it was established, however, Germany was not allowed to join.
•
Overall, Wilson's main aim was to ensure a war of such magnitude would not occur again. Such a wolly, because that plan obviously didn't work...
•
Lloyd George wanted to make Germany pay for what they had done, but only because that was what the British people wanted to hear.
•
Lloyd George wanted justice, not revenge. He stated that if the treaty was to harsh it would result in another war in the near future... he was right.
•
He also wanted to expand the British empire, and maintain their naval power. It can be argued that the British did not gain anything from the Treaty, as the treaty was still harsh despite Georges claims.
•
I've never come across this question before, so I'm not too sure, however ill attempt this.
•
the countries you mention were all stripped significantly of major territories. So, there's a starting point already.
•
Germany was also forbidden from an Anschluss with Austria - a ban on unification. To prevent a major power from potentially attacking rival countries in the future.
•
the former Austrian empire also succeeded land to newly formed countries like Poland etc. So, there's a development on the first point.
•
For a last point, as I am unfamiliar with this question, is that most of what the treaty of Versailles consisted of applied to Germany's allies as well. So much of what has been listed, can be applied to their former allies too.
•
Once again I am unfamiliar with this question, however I could give you some pointers.
•
Lloyd George at first wanted to condemn, restrict, force, humiliate and punish Germany - much like the French did.
•
Lloyd George wanted to punish Germany. However, this view was an adopted view from the British public - it was the public who wanted to punish Germany.
•
From my knowledge, Lloyd George wanted a less-harsh treaty as he thought a harsh one would lead to a future war - obviously, he was right.
•
I believe, as he thought more and more about it, his view softened to support this view.