Final answer:
Supporters of the Treaty of Versailles might defend its harsh terms by emphasizing the need for security and compensation after World War I, accountability for Germany, and measures to prevent future aggression. However, Hitler's rise and disregard for the treaty indicated its inadequacies in ensuring peace.
Step-by-step explanation:
A supporter of the Treaty of Versailles might defend its harsh terms by pointing to the desire for security and retribution after World War I. The treaty, particularly with its war guilt clause and reparations, was designed to hold Germany accountable for the war and to ensure it would not be capable of initiating another conflict.
Supporters could argue that the severe measures were necessary to prevent future aggression and to compensate for the immense damage and loss of life caused by the war.
Additionally, the treaty aimed at dismantaling German militarism by severely limiting the size of its army and prohibiting certain weapons, which could be seen as a step towards lasting peace in Europe.
However, the rise of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nazi Party, capitalized on the resentment and economic hardship the treaty caused in Germany.
Hitler's defiance of the treaty's terms by rebuilding the military and remilitarizing the Rhineland showcased the vulnerabilities and limitations of the treaty in preventing the resurgence of a militaristic and aggressive Germany.
Ultimately, while intentions of the treaty might have been justifiable to its supporters, its enforcement and political consequences were inadequate, leading to further instability and setting the stage for World War II.