Wrongs were justified and more I think that the Treaty is fair for the reason that Germany was not involved in any of the conflict for the assignation of the heir to Austria-Hungary. Russia had not even engaged against Germany… they were lining up on their border but they were mainly focusing on what the Austrian Empire would do. By acting on the Schliffen Plan they put basically all of Europe into chaos. I agree with Lloyd George with his thoughts of letting Germany have at least a decent bit of military to stand between Soviet Union and the rest of Europe. The fear felt towards the new communist country was understandable. Just look what happened to their country getting the communism government up into power. Their people were in terror of the revolution that lead to such loss of life and blood in their communities and family. The rest of Europe could only imagine what they would do if they would invade. In the treaty it definitely seemed reasonable that Germany be prohibited to have any U-boats. With the U-boats, Germany had set many people including American civilians to their watery deaths. What would have stopped them to do that again if they kept and built more U-boats? The only unfair act of the treaty was the amount of reparations that the Germans had to pay back. That part of the treaty had crushed their economy into an even more severe depression for all of the German people, than it was during the war. They were all having food shortages and other problems for the entire country, I could not imagine how hard it was for large families though.
Taft was the more successful "trust-buster". President Taft in my opinion was the better president. Though he was not as progressive in light of Roosevelt’s previous reign, he did improve America in ways that Roosevelt did not. Where Roosevelt supported and regulated the big companies, Taft broke apart them apart and let smaller businesses have a chance. In all Roosevelt kept the big companies, just in better regulated ways. That does not help the overall economy though. Taft had brought twice as many cases against companies in his four year term than Roosevelt had in seven years. With the big companies still in power because of Roosevelt, there were rare and few other options for consumers to get products other companies or small businesses. Though everyone says Roosevelt is the “trust-buster”, Taft was a more effective than his predecessor.
Is war itself morally justifiable? There is never a morally justifiable reason for taking multiple and countless lives in bombing of any sort. For those in charge of war most of them are just guarding their assets and/or trying to build something new. Even with protecting one's country and way of life does it really require the utter destruction and terrorism of and for another different from our own?