Here's something I wrote (edited somewhat) a while back while investigating the idea that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't such a good thing as it first appeared:
On the 28th June 1919 the Versailles peace treaty was signed. It could be considered a remarkable occurrence when the different desires and plans of the planning nations are taken into account. However, while solving many issues and creating a temporary peace the treaty was not successful in the long term.
War broke out again with Germany 20 years after the treaty. Undoubtedly all the nations who constructed the treaty wanted a long lasting peace with Germany. In this sense it is therefore possible to say that the treaty was a failure, and that peace was not truly established.
The factors that caused the treaty to be one of compromise and placation rather than stability were the same factors that could have prevented the treaty being signed in the first place. While each of the peacemakers desired peace for as long as possible they also had to contend with the problems of maintaining popularity in their nations. Maintaining this popularity meant being “greedy” and attempting to get the most for their nation, even if this would reduce the durability of the peace.
For Clemenceau this didn’t take the form of pressure, since he was already fiercely patriotic and wanted the most for France. Woodrow Wilson had a particular problem in that he could not sign any peace treaty without the approval of the Senate. His idealism, while not suited for the realities of European politics anyway had to be twisted so that America would enjoy trade with Europe in the future, and its economy would prosper even more in the years to come.
Arguments were bound to arise due to the different perceived inputs into the war and the losses experienced by each of the victors. It is fairly remarkable that America was fairly treated in the discussions considering that Wilson could have been isolated for not entering the war until late, and using far less resources than the other two. Instead he was able to think about issues without the bias that years spent in Europe give, and attempt to give an impartial altruistic viewpoint. His presence in this role would have minimised land grabbing by Clemenceau.
In this respect Woodrow Wilson and Lloyd-George would have had fundamentally different aims to Clemenceau for the division of the land in Europe. France was the strongest enemy of the Germans, and wanted to do whatever possible to prevent Germany becoming powerful again. The French wanted Germany to be put into such a state that it would never be able to approach the power level of France and her allies. They wanted land to be given to France, particularly along the river Rhine so that a strong defensive position might be created for France’s protection from Germany. They also wanted Germany to have territory stripped away, to further weaken it. Wilson believed in national self-determination, the right of a people to have their own country. He therefore believed that it was wrong to take land from Germany that contained mostly German speakers, as it would only cause resentment and uprising.
It was this belief that caused the establishment of several new nations in central and Eastern Europe. These nations would not prove stable in the same way that established nations were and it may be thus that the American involvement made the peace less absolute, whilst helping it to occur.
War reparations were bound to be an issue that caused argument. Discussion of these could easily have gone on for a long time, and led to no piece at all. France wanted Germany to pay the full cost of the war. This was a ridiculous sum of money that the Germans could not afford. The Americans and, the British could see that this would cripple Germany. Whilst Germany was not supposed to have the power to start another was it was not intended that the citizens should starve, and Germany should become a backwards nation. It can be considered fairly remarkable that this issue was solved without the need for excessive compromise on the part of any one nation.
When all these issues are considered it seems remarkable that a peace was formed, but it should not be considered at all remarkable because of the fragility of the peace, and the short length of time which it lasted.