Would the Treaty of Versailles be viewed less controversially if the German economy had been able to recover as quickly as the Japanese economy was able to in the 1980s?

After WWII, the United States invested heavily in Japan and helped in every way possible to help it recover. This was in part due to the fact that the United States needed a bulwark against Chinese communism in the area, but it was also due to the United States wanting to prove that they could rehabilitate a country after a war in a much cleaner fashion than the post WWI era.<br><br>The Marshall Plan was in many ways an earlier trial in Europe and it was successful, however the investment was much less and the circumstances were different. Japan was much poorer and more backwards than any European country at the time of its defeat. Yet they were able to quickly industrialise and catch up to the Western standard of living, and in many ways surpass it. <br><br>WWI Germany was not in anything like the same position. Germany was the second wealthiest nation in the world, with a large amount of its industry intact. It was more similar to modern South Korea than it was to modern Japan. In that sense, does anyone think that if the German economy had been able to recover much faster in the 1920s, then the Treaty of Versailles would be viewed in a different light?<br><br>It seems to me that it is unfair to criticise the Treaty of Versailles too much for the post-war instability of Germany, as that can be attributed to a host of outside factors such as the hyperinflation, the post-war depression and the fact that Germany simply couldn't pay the reparations in the manner that the Americans and the British had envisaged.