Without doubt it is clear that some of the countries held great anti-German feelings during and after the war. Especially France, they held the highest lack of remorse against the Germans. Whereas countries such as the United Kingdom and the USA wanted majority peace throughout Europe and felt that peace was the main objective rather than annexation of land etc. It is fundamentally clear that Frances ideas pursued in the treaty was solely based on anti German feelings. They wanted to annex the Rhineland and, even worse, the coal production would be given to France with reparations on top of that. By taking their coal supply Germany will crumble. They already owe money from the war originally and with no money coming in, due to the coal annexation, the country will have little income/industry. Consequently Germany will not be able to deal with all these problems and cease to exist as a country. With France this is ultimately about the anti-German feelings seeing as though Germany tried major annexation of land and a takeover of France, the feelings are completely understandable. Also one could argue that (article 231) the war guilt clause was also triggered by anti-German feelings.
They knew that the clause would cause extreme unrest in Germany and due to the blame Germany would have this would seriously affect the country as a whole, in the long-term. Britain developed a growing sympathy for Germany whereas France thought it was being too lenient. However it was also the situation created by the war that shaped the term of the treaty and not just anti-German feeling. It should be mentioned that it wasn’t just Germany but Austria-Hungary and Turkey also had to sign treaties, which shows it isn’t solely about anti-German feelings. Plus the treaty has to sufficiently appease the other countries so German consequences were also inevitable. Personally I think that the French ideas were motivated with anti-German feelings but the other countries wanted what was best for theirs.