This brings me to one bone of contention in more than one case.
In 1848, the US was beating Mexico like a drum. They had occupied Mexico City, defeated every army Mexico threw at them. It was easily within the power of the United States to annex all of Mexico. In exchange for only annexing part of Mexico, the Mexican government agreed to cede part (California and Tejas). For adherents of the Mexican government today to accept the benefits (cessation of the war and incomplete annexation) while attempting to deny the winner the agreed-upon price is disingenuous.
Likewise, in 1918, Germany was losing the Great War. In exchange for not completely destroying, occupying and carving up Germany, the Allies agreed to allow Germany to remain intact, in exchange for the benefits awarded to the Alllies. For Germany to go back 20 years later and say, "This treaty was too harsh. We want to renegotiate it." The Allies should have said, "Fine, let's go back to the situation on November 11, 1918, with a German army collapsing, a German people starving slowly to death, and a victorious Allied army advancing inexorably toward Germany, then we can renegotiate."
The Allies had paid a heck of a cost to reach that point. The loser cannot accept the benefits of the deal (cessation of the war) and deny the winners their benefits.
Don't like the deal? Then don't accept the deal. Let the beatings continue.