Versailles Treaty not as harsh as the terms for the end of WWII

From 10 big myths about World War One debunked by Dan Snow. His ten myths are:

1. It was the bloodiest war in history to that point
2. Most soldiers died
3. Men lived in the trenches for years on end
4. The upper class got off lightly
5. 'Lions led by donkeys'
6. Gallipoli was fought by Australians and New Zealanders
7. Tactics on the Western Front remained unchanged despite repeated failure
8. No-one won
9. The Treaty of Versailles was extremely harsh
10. Everyone hated it

I have read up on most of these and his brief synopses match what I have read.

I still occasionally come across the argument that the upper class got off lightly. It is a logically appealing argument to the Frankfurt School adherents who see everything through the lens of class, but the numbers belie the belief.

Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite were hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers whose job it was to lead the way over the top and expose themselves to the greatest danger as an example to their men.

Some 12% of the British army's ordinary soldiers were killed during the war, compared with 17% of its officers. Eton alone lost more than 1,000 former pupils - 20% of those who served. UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded, and an uncle was captured.

Why is the war seen as so uniquely destructive? Likely in small part because it was so uniquely destructive to the class who usually write the histories.

I have heard the argument that the Versailles treaty was not as harsh as it has been made out to be but I have retained some skepticism of that claim. Snow provides additional context that bolsters the argument.

The Treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but left it the largest, richest nation in central Europe.

It was largely unoccupied and financial reparations were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway.

The treaty was notably less harsh than treaties that ended the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 200 and 300 years, and home to most of French iron ore production, as well as presenting France with a massive bill for immediate payment.

After WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, its factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained after WW1 and another giant slice on top of that.

Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler, who sought to create a tidal wave of anti-Versailles sentiment on which he could then ride into power.

His is an interesting observation that underpins the importance of perspective. I have accepted that Versailles was harsh (though perhaps not quite as harsh as made out to be). However this is an instance of not making all the necessary comparisons. I compared Versailles to other treaties in the past. Snow compares it to the end of WWII. When you do that, the terms of Versailles do not look nearly as harsh as we usually think of them. I find it an interesting wake up call to think of the terms of WWII as being more harsh than the terms of the Versailles treaty. That does not quite seem right to me, but there is an objective case to be made that it is true. Interesting.