Which of the Paris Peace Conference treaties was "fair?" (If any)

[politicus]

Go.  I'd argue that Neuilly was the only one approaching fair, and even that inexplicably gave chunks of land to Yugoslavia.

EDIT:  Dammit, screwed up the poll.  It was meant to be a "Check all that apply" poll.

Yeah, I have 2 that's fair and 1 that's mostly fair. Trianon was the worst. It butchered Hungary completely, and left large overwhelmingly Hungarian areas outside Hungary. The rest where not completely unreasonable, considered they did loose a major war.

[politicus]

Austria wasn't dismembered by the treaty, it had dismembered itself already due to lack of any popular support or redeeming value.
If anything, Austria (modern definition of) was artificially created by that treaty - the point being prevention of reunification of the German-speaking rump with Germany. There is the obvious issue of the German speaking parts of Bohemia, I suppose.

Actually Austria got Burgernland from Hungary, so they also gained territory.
The treaty shouldn't have given Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia and Southern Tirol to Italy, but the vast majority of the German speaking areas in the Hapsburg monarchy remained in the new Austrian state.
Especially the incorporation of Sudetenland in a Slavic state was unfair and foolish. It was fairly obvious that it would lead to trouble. As a minimum the area should have had a high level of autonomy.
Austria should also have been allowed to join Germany.

Unfair, but not as brutal as Trianon. Not more unfair, than could be expected after the loss of a major war. But none the less: Stupid.
I actually think stupid vs. sensible is a more relevant criteria than fairness, when it comes to Peace Treaties.

[politicus]

Actually Austria got Burgernland from Hungary, so they also gained territory.

True, but, you know, not all that relevant in the big scheme of things. (Unless you're a Burgenländer, I suppose. 'Burgenland' is also a made-up word with a, cough, interesting pedigree.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, it's not clear that they would have been happy there - a union in 1918 (opposed for obvious realpolitik reasons by the victors) might well have led to a divorce soon enough just as the 1938 union did. But, basically, yes.

The issue presented here by the OP was fairness. Not realpolitik. So, no need to state the obvious.

Anyway, Sudetenand is the core in any evaluation of the fairness of this treaty.

[politicus]

Shouldn't there be a "none of them" option?

I agree. Its a highly interesting topic, but the poll is problematic in several ways. Better to close the thread and start a new one. But thats of course up to the OP writer.