I think were at impasse because of our definition of "harsh". As I've already said, arguably all peace treaties are harsh on the losers, but the general conception of the Versailles Treaty is that 1) it was incredible harsh and restricting, unlike any other 2) that it caused hyper-inflation and 3) that it was responsible for bringing Nazi party to power.

1) Comparing it to treaties of the same era show this to be false. Peace treaty of 1871, Brest-Litovsk, WW2... show that it wasn't harsher than any of those treaties.

2) German economy was heavily hit by the war and hyper inflation was deliberately caused by the German government. Reparations strained the economy even more, surely but they weren't sole reason for hyper inflation or even the most important reason.

3) Arguably this might be considered true, but I would choose different wording - it wasn't Versailles treaty that was responsible but German perception of the Versailles treaty. They didn't believe they had been defeated and they had felt humiliated.

All this nonsense how Versailles treaty crippled German economy was proven false when just 20 years later (including four years of the Great Depression) Germany emerged as the principal economic and industrial power of Europe once again, with the strongest or second strongest army after Soviet Union (it's a matter of debate I would rather avoid at the moment). If it was so harsh, so crippling, so restricting how is it possible that only 2 decades after Germany had not just recovered, but regained its position of the dominant power in Europe in every way...