Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Keynes' disorganized critique of the Versailles Treaty . This book achieved instant fame when it was published in 1919, not only for its scathing criticism of the Versailles Treaty but also for its personal attacks against leading signatories (especially Clemenceau and Wilson).  For a book focused primarily on economic concerns, the text is surprisingly easy to read.  However, the book's poor organization vitally detracts from its effectiveness.  The principle reason the book is still famous today lies in the fact that it was written by none other than John Maynard Keynes, the founder of 20th century style, gov't & debt driven economics.    The book is organized into chapters on pre-war Europe, Allied statesmen, summary of key treaty points, reparations, post-war Europe predictions, and Keynes' suggestion of remedies to provide a practical treaty settlement.  Unfortunately, within each chapter things are jumbled together without clear rhyme or reason.  (Is this indicative of Keynes' own personal organization and logical thinking?)      Within the book, he makes a very practical (but politically infeasible) argument for a non-vindictive treaty.  He basically suggests that the Allies should forget both about reparations and repayment of wartime debts from the other Allies, and instead they should settle (though not ideally) for frontier adjustments and confiscation of only German gov't property.  (Did the German gov't sponsor Keynes' work in writing this book?)    Keynes argues that a crushing reparations burden on the German people would disincent them to produce anything beyond a mere subsistence minimum and discourage entrepreneurial enterprise.  There is some logic in this point; however, later on he goes on to state that the US should forgive its $10 billion debt to its wartime allies ($5 billion of which was owed by the UK).  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't such a move disincent American entreprises from entrepreneurship as well.  It's extremely hypocritical that the Allied gov'ts desperately sought loans from the US during the war and then once it was over to claim that they couldn't pay them.  If they didn't want to repay, then they shouldn't have borrowed the money - period.  (If I borrow money to buy a home, the bank won't ever agree to forgive my debt - regardless of whether I'm out of work, injured, or the house burns down.  I don't see why gov'ts should get any exceptional treatment.)    Notwithstanding his problems with disorganization and inconsistent logic, Keynes does produce a reasonable, brief list of treaty rememdies, especially in his efforts to restore economic life throughout Central and Eastern Europe.  Not until the advent of the Cold War and the interests of extending American political influence would Keynes' policies largely succeed (albeit yet again to the detriment of American taxpayers).    Overall, I felt the book was ok.  I would only recommend it if you have an interest in reading all of Keynes' work.  Don't expect to find any theoretical economic insights in the book, though.  Based on the high ratings on this page, I think the other reviewers here might have some pro-Keynesian bias
Output (English): NEG