Was The Treaty Of Versailles Fair?

The Versailles Settlement actually satisfied no one. Also, the American Senate was so disappointed by Versailles that they refused to confirm it. The British delegation thought it was 'neither just or wise'. The French were disappointed that Germany remained potentially powerful, and invaded only 2 years later. Nobody was satisfied by the Treaty, least of all the Germans, who would not have agreed to any of the outcomes advocated by the Great Powers, since they all fell short of Wilson's Fourteen Points of 1917. However, the Treaty satisfied no one because it was a compromise between very different aims, and was skilfully negotiated to acheive something out of an impossible situation. A compromise peace was thought to be better than no peace at all. Certainly the Peace was unfair to Germany, because Germany had lost the war. Even President Wilson supported justice less than he had before about 300,000 American soldiers had died. Clemenceau demanded revenge for the 1, 4000,000 French dead, which it was thought gave France, rather than Germany the moral right to demand resitution, because Germany had started the war and then lost it. Thus the Peace would be fairer to French losses than to German - it could never be fair to both. Equally, fairness was seen in the weakening of Germany's ability to attack France, rather in the application of the 'fair' principle of 'self-determination', which would have enlarged Germany by adding Austria. So the Peace was bound to be unfair to Germany. Was the Peace unfair because it satisfied no one? No, because the satisfaction of e.g. French desires, could only be at the cost of being more unfair to Germany, and more disobliging to American aims. Equally the other way round, the peace which would have dissatisfied the Allies most, was to have left German power intact.