And even so, France has indisputedly started and lost the Napoleonic wars, and France wasn't disassembled either, was it? This is not WWII, Germany hasn't done anything France and Britain didn't do before yet.
IMO the Franco Prussian War is an example for my point rather than against it: Having agreed to each and every French demand, the Prussian king kindly rejected to continue doing so for all eternity - and France declared war upon the
false rumor that this last rejection wasn't polite enough. If that isn't French warmongery, I don't know what is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
I kindly recommend a look on a map of the world of 1914. None of those nations voluntarily joined the French and British empire. Nor did those conquests come without civilian casualties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_conquest_of_Algeria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#Concentration_camps_.281900.E2.80.931902.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State
Even if I were to demonize Germany, I'd choose Namibia, not Belgium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium
August 1 - Germany declares war on Russia.
August 3 - Germany declares war on France.
...
Oh, and the fact that the Napoleonic Wars had a completely different set of circumstances. Napoleon didn't declare war on the United Kingdom so they couldn't mobilize,
France started this war quickly so France's enemies can't mobilize, Germany started that war quickly so Germany's enemies can't mobilize. What is the big difference?
The allies used unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan in WWII and in WWI the food blockade wasn't even lifted after the German surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
...
and also the fact that France was disassembled. Natural border at the Rhine? Helvetia? France in 1836 was a pale shadow of France under Napoleon in 1805.
Russia was stripped of (not even all) her non-Russian territories, France was stripped of her non-French territories, and Germany was stripped of her non-German territories. What exactly do you think is the difference? What makes you think this is too harsh for Russia and not harsh enough for Germany?
The problem with the unlimited-punishment fraction is that people overlook there is a reason why it wasn't enforced: WWI isn't WWII. Atrocities against Germany are not overshadowed by the incredibly horrible crimes that Germany committed. After WWI, every punitive expedition to enforce the destruction of Germany will loose credibility to the Entente claim od supposedly defending freedom aginst ITTL non-existent Nazis and add credibility to the German claim that all she did in WWI was a desperate self-defense. Ironically, when Germany did provide that moral case, disassembling was barely under discussion. Germany ended up divided due to the controversy
how to unify the occupation zones to a single nations, not if.
A good peace treaty must include punitive measurements
and a path for Germany to move on and be a full member of the international community again. Leaving out the second was stupid and childish.
OTOH I must emphasize: I do not think the TOV caused WWII. Democracy fell to the great depression, not the TOV.