We're talking post signing and its effects, lets not argue semantics

Semantics?
1919 Ethiopia is not equivalent to 1919 Tanganyika, 1919 Togoland or 1919 Sout-West Africa.
1919 Indochina is not equivalent to 1919 Tanganyika, 1919 Togoland or 1919 Sout-West Africa.

Of course, I am just trying to stimulate discussion.
Typically on the forum I see bantering and heated debates about topics that have little to none historical resonance. I'd like to see more meaningful discussion.

Versailles created the League, which is the predecesor of the UN. The UN and other products of the League are most felt today in modern foreign policy.

@ Kargo013: Before we proceed further, just out of interest, is this a school assignment?

Not at all, I just like stimulating discussion for the sake of broadening one's opinions and views.
If I wanted a concise answer I would consult other places, like ask.com or yahoo answers.

The major transformative impact is that it institutionalized international relations, made international law reflect abstract liberal principles instead of the realities of power dynamics, and decreased the importance of diplomacy (from here on out, countries favor large-scale conferences and forums). The Axis powers challenge to the Versailles regime was to attempt to overthrow this new system and restore the pre-Versailles order, but their defeat led instead to its further entrenchment. Obviously certain countries, like Togo, Cameroon, Gabon, Nigeria, etc, have felt a lasting legacy since their boundaries were redrawn. Togo was completely partitioned and half of it was annexed to Ghana, the remaining half was Frenchified and a large section of Cameroon was annexed to Nigeria. Austria was permanently separated from Greater Germany, which the Germans failed to overturn as they lost WWII. Alsace-Lorraine was permanently annexed by the French.

How about the precedent that this treaty set of returning to "status quo" after cessation of hostilities? Prior to this treaty, the majority of wars ended with one side gaining territory and the other losing territory (see Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War).
One could argue that the French and the Gemans are still feeling the effects of this mentality today, since neither country could have maintained autonomy if not for the willful withdrawal of the WWII victors (US & GB).
This mentality still manifests itself in modern international politics. Many observers advocated for a three-state solution in Iraq, but this was never seriously considered by the United States, which insisted upon a "unified and inclusive" Iraqi government. This despite the blood feuds which exist between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd populations.
The Treaty of Versailles, viewed in this context, seems to be the first major step toward a world (at least a Western Hemisphere) in which war is a zero-risk proposition for the very highest powers in any nation, who, regardless of their success or failure in taking or defending territory, will remain in power with their borders intact when the war ends.

"made international law reflect abstract liberal principles instead of the realities of power dynamics"
I expected more from you . . .

Things cost more because their money is worth less and because prices have also risen

reaven5566: Wrong thread. ;-)