Movie Background
Where and when (mention specific event) did the Peace Conference take place? What is the background of this conference?
Palace of Versailles in France, beginning in January 1919, just two months after the end of World War I (Armistice signed November 11, 1918).
In the film, what major emotions did allies show and what were some effects of those emotions?
Anger.
–Anger made both Clemenceau and George to focus on short-term oriented and neglect the long-term goals or consequences such as implementing the negotiated terms or maintaining long lasting peace.
–As a result, they claimed a very big piece of the pie beyond the size of the pie. So, it was an empty win.
What are the stereotypes against Germans and what did that do?
The Germans are a really stupid people. They always do the wrong thing.” - President Woodrow Wilson
It dehumanized the counterpart, making punishment feel justified and empathy impossible, a barrier to integrative negotiation.
Which country was excluded from the main peace negotiations, and how did this violate fairness principles?
Germany was denied participation, symbolizing a lack of procedural justice, no voice, no respect, no transparency.
Their isolation in Versailles represented a process designed by victors, not shared by all parties.
What was the goal of the conference, the immediate outcome of this conference and its long-lasting impact?
Brought together victorious Allied powers to decide the postwar order. Aimed to secure peace, assign war guilt, and redraw borders.
Immediate Outcome:
Long-Term Impact:
What emotions did the German delegates express, and what are the effects of these emotions?
Shame and humiliation. Withdrawing or disengagement from the conversations. Shut down cooperation.
Fear. Fear of worse punishment suppresses assertiveness, resulting in "empty consent".
How was the self-confirmation bias being demonstrated in this negotiation and how is that shaping the negotiation?
Very different evaluations of who is responsible for the war.
Georges Clemenceau: “I don’t think that there is any question that we are here to decide the issue of German guilt and ultimately the German reparation.”
David Lloyd George promised to bring $300 billion from Germany as a reparation for the war loss.
German delegates’ position: “who is innocent in wars?” and “the allies committed atrocities too.”
The Treaty imposed harsh reparations and war guilt on Germany. What type of fairness principle was violated?
Distributive justice, outcomes were excessively punitive rather than restorative.
Instead of restoring balance, the treaty redistributed suffering and created long-term resentment.
Who were the three dominant negotiators featured in the film and what do they represent? What are their demands, power, and in what ways did they demonstrate their power?
Woodrow Wilson (U.S.)
Sought a “just peace” through his Fourteen Points and the League of Nations.
Held moral and intellectual authority, but limited political backing due to U.S. isolationism.
Symbolic power, strong ideals, weak enforceability.
Georges Clemenceau (France)
Demanded harsh reparations and security guarantees.
Moral and emotional leverage from France’s devastation in the war.
Driven by fear of another German invasion, set the punitive tone of the treaty.
David Lloyd George (Britain)
Having just won re-election on the slogan “Make Germany Pay,” he needed to satisfy domestic demands while preventing long-term instability in Europe.
Drew power from economic and colonial dominance.
He played the mediator, aiming for a treaty that punished Germany but kept it economically stable for trade.
What was Italy angry about?
Italy’s anger over broken war-time promises about land from Austro-Hungarian Empire walkout.
Italy entered World War I on the Allied side (1915) after being promised territorial rewards in the Treaty of London (1915), including parts of the Adriatic coast (Dalmatia, Fiume).
At the conference, the Big Three (U.S., U.K., France) refused to honor those promises, viewing them as excessive and incompatible with Wilson’s principle of self-determination.
Feeling betrayed and humiliated, Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando and his delegation walked out in April 1919 in protest.
Italy’s anger stemmed from broken promises, exclusion from key decisions, and loss of prestige, they felt treated as a second-tier ally despite heavy wartime losses.
How is framing / loss aversion demonstrated in the negotiation and how is that shaping the negotiation?
The French and British were taking huge risks by requesting exorbitantly large reparations from Germany that Germany was unable to pay
France more than Britain (and both more than the United States) suffered huge losses of life and property
Recall Prospect Theory: Loss frame, more risk-taking to “get even”
Even some Allied leaders felt uneasy during the signing of the treaty. Why did the process feel. unfair even to the victors?
Because procedural fairness was absent: decisions were made in secret, without neutrality or consistency. When process legitimacy collapses, even those in power sense the moral imbalance.
Which countries delegations were excluded from early discussions, and how were they being treated?
What was China angry about?
Chinese anger over Allies ignoring Japanese colonization of Shandong province, previously under German imperial rule refusal to sign treaty
China joined the Allies in 1917, expecting to regain control of Shandong Province, which had been seized by Germany and later occupied by Japan.
However, the Treaty of Versailles awarded Shandong to Japan, not China.
The Chinese delegation’s pleas for sovereignty and equality were ignored, despite Wilson’s promise of self-determination in his Fourteen Points.
The decision symbolized racial and colonial double standards — great powers applied self-determination only to Europe, not Asia.
China’s anger led to the May Fourth Movement (1919) — a massive national protest and intellectual awakening demanding equality, modernization, and independence from imperial control.
How is overconfident bias demonstrated in the negotiation and how is that shaping the negotiation?
Those who run for office are likely overconfident about their ability to judge…
•Woodrow Wilson: My view of peaceful diplomacy and idealized notion of self-determination is absolutely right, “I am representing God’s Will.”
•Georges Clemenceau and David Lloyd George: Our view of German guilt and their sole responsibility for the war is absolutely right.
Because of their overconfidence about their judgment-making ability, there was no room for a conversation & motivation for creative solutions
•Woodrow Wilson: Overestimated Congressional support
•Clemenceau and Lloyd-George: Anchored themselves and others to initial monetary demands and ability to get Germany to pay
Why is fairness, not power, crucial for sustaining compliance in negotiated agreements?
Fairness builds internalized legitimacy, coercion only creates surface compliance. Germany signed under threat, not belief, once power faded, resentment resurfaced. Without fairness, peace becomes temporary obedience.
Why does the location matter?
Symbolic Power: France had suffered the most destruction during WWI; hosting the talks highlighted its moral legitimacy and victim status.
Agenda Control: As host, France could set schedules, control access, and influence logistics, reinforcing Clemenceau’s procedural power.
Psychological Advantage: Negotiating on home ground boosted French confidence and subtly put pressure on visiting delegates to defer to local customs and emotions.
Public Sentiment as Leverage: Clemenceau could invoke French public anger and grief to justify harsh terms on Germany, strengthening his bargaining position. Surrounded by French destruction and victims heightened emotions. German’s train ride through destruction. Negative editorials about Wilson’s approach in Parisian newspapers
Symbolic Setting for Closure: Choosing Versailles (where Germany had declared its empire in 1871) for the signing was deliberate, revenge through symbolism, turning the location into a power statement.
What were Arabian countries angry about?
Arabian anger over broken war-time promises, i.e., Arab independence for revolt against Ottoman empire, replaced by French and British recolonization of Middle East via establishment of five mandates walkout, refusal to sign treaty.
Broken Promises: During World War I, Britain had promised Arab independence (through the Hussein–McMahon Correspondence, 1915–1916) in exchange for helping fight the Ottoman Empire.
At Paris, those promises were reversed, the Allies secretly divided the region under the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) between Britain and France.
Mandate System: Instead of independence, the conference placed Syria and Lebanon under French mandates, and Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan under British control.
This repackaged colonization as “trusteeship.”
Ignored Delegation: The Arab delegation, led by Emir Faisal (son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca), argued passionately for Arab self-rule.
His pleas were largely dismissed by the Great Powers, who prioritized European and colonial interests.
Resulting Anger: The Arab world saw this as a betrayal of wartime sacrifices and Western hypocrisy in applying Wilson’s “self-determination” only to Europe.
What is the Mandate System and how did that institutionalize stereotypes about non-European people?
It declared that some territories were “not able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.”
This framed non-European societies as childlike and incapable, legitimizing European control as a “sacred trust of civilization.”
In reality, it repackaged colonization as moral duty, turning racial hierarchy into policy.
If you were mediating the Versailles talks, what would you do?
Focus on shared recovery, not blame.