Aice International History: Chapter 2: International Relations in an age of uncertainty 1919-33 Book Questions
To what extent is it fair to describe the post-war settlement on 1919-20 as 'a bad peace'?
Bad peace can be defined as peace that does not solve an issue, makes the problem even worse, and expands on the problem. From this definition of bad peace, it is evident that the post-war settlement in 1919-20 was 'a bad peace'. Some reasons why it was a bad peace was because excessively harsh terms were placed upon Germany, establishing successor states that were politically and economically unviable, Germany and Russia were excluded from any decision that was taken, Italy and Japan were unsatisfied, the reparations would destroy Germany, and Germany had no choice but to disarm. However, opponents might argue that the peace created was 'a good peace' because it ended the war, it established a League of Nations, there were new countries that were self-determinate, and that Germany deserved to be punished. However, the post-war settlement fits the definition of 'a bad peace' because it did not solve the problem and caused the problem to expand, like how Germany was being punished harshly which even after many peace's made, did not ease their tensions of what they had to pay for for World War 1, according to the Treaty of Versailles.
'Criticism of the Paris peace settlement is unfair, and shows a lack of understanding of the problems facing the peacemakers in 1919-20.' Discuss.
Criticisms levelled against the settlement include: • imposing overly harsh terms on Germany and the other defeated nations • creating 'successor states', which were economically and politically unstable and vulnerable • leaving some 30 million people living in minority groups under foreign rule, making future conflict almost inevitable. The problems faced by the peacemakers included: • the contradictory demands of the victorious nations • the ongoing disintegration of Habsburg, Turkish and Russian empires • the need to make decisions quickly.
To what extent was French foreign policy between 1919 and 1929 dictated by fear of Germany?
Following the Franco-Prussian War and the First World War, it is understandable that France feared a German revival in the 1920s, especially since the French had no guarantee of US or British help if Germany attacked. Prior to 1924, France showed an uncompromising stance towards Germany, in particular demanding full payment of reparations, leading to the occupation of the Ruhr. After 1924, however, France adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards Germany - agreeing to the Dawes Plan and enjoying improved relations at and after Locarno. This might suggest that France no longer feared Germany. However, this apparent change of policy was partly because of the failure of the Ruhr occupation, an action that had been condemned by France's potential allies, such as Britain. In reality, France remained wary of Germany and developed a series of alliances with countries in Eastern Europe.
What does the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk suggest about Germany's attitude towards Wilson's Fourteen Points in March 1918?
Germany, realizing that Lenin's Russia was desperate to end its involvement in the First World War, imposed extremely harsh terms in March 1918. This contradicted Point 6 of Wilson's Fourteen Points ('Russia to be welcomed into the society of nations and all its land restored'). When victory seemed likely in the war, Germany was prepared to ignore Wilson's proposals.
How successful was the USSR in its attempts to establish better relations with the rest of Europe between 1919 and 1933?
Lenin's realization that the worldwide revolution was not going to take place led to the USSR seeking peaceful coexistence and economic co-operation with other countries. This was most successful with Germany - a trade treaty was signed in 1921 followed by the Treaty of Rapallo (1922). Both countries used this to end their isolation in Europe. Although formal diplomatic relations were established with France in 1924, tensions remained between the two countries. Britain formally recognized the Bolshevik government in 1921 and there was a series of trade agreements between the two countries - however, these were often temporary and dependent on which political party was in power in Britain.
Why did the USA reject the Paris Peace Settlement of 1919-1920?
Reasons include: • a return to isolationism • the fear of becoming involved in another war • the rejection of Wilson's idealism • a determination to avoid becoming involved in European affairs, which were seen as the cause of the First World War • concern that the idea of a League of Nations would require the USA to become involved in other countries' affairs and allow other countries to interfere in the USA.
Why were there no Russian representatives at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-20?
Revolution in Russia had caused concern amongst the other major European countries, which feared the spread of communism (encouraged by the Russian organization Comintern). There was also resentment at Lenin's decision to pull out of the First World War - an action that gave Germany a major advantage. Lenin's Bolsheviks were not recognized as the legal government of Russia and, indeed, Western countries were helping Lenin's enemies in the Russian Civil War. It was largely at French insistence that Russia did not attend the conferences in Paris.
Look at Sources A and B below, both commenting on the Treaty of Versailles. Compare the views expressed about the treaty in these two sources.
Source A is heavily critical of the treaty, arguing that it imposes unreasonably harsh terms on Germany ('thinly-veiled slavery') and that it will lead to future war. Source B is equally critical, arguing that it will lead to future war - the weeping child represents the future generation that will suffer as a result of the treaty. Source A is a speech by a German politician to a German audience - it is heavily nationalistic in tone. Source B is a British cartoon designed for a largely British audience - it argues that the terms of the treaty were too harsh on Germany and is critical of Lloyd George for allowing France to get too much of its own way at Versailles. Clemenceau ('The Tiger') is depicted as the main instigator of the treaty, with Wilson and Orlando behind him. Lloyd George is shown in the shadows at the rear, implying that he played a relatively insignificant part in determining the terms of the treaty.
Why did France adopt a more co-operative and friendly approach towards Germany after 1924?
The French occupation of the Ruhr had not only failed but also led to condemnation from France's potential allies. This added to France's sense of isolation and vulnerability. The Dawes Plan offered a potential solution to the issue of reparations. The good relations between Briand and Stresemann following the Locarno Conference eased tension between France and Germany.
How justified were German objections to the Treaty of Versailles?
The German objections were: • concerns about security as a result of disarmament • loss of colonies to other European nations • 'German' people were forced to live under foreign rule (e.g. in Poland and Czechoslovakia); Germany split by Polish Corridor • the War Guilt clause • high reparations. However, while the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were harsh, they were not as bad as France had wanted, and they left Germany with the potential to recover economically. Moreover, Germany had no right to expect the Treaty to follow Wilson's Fourteen Points when it had ignored them in March 1918 in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Why was the issue of German reparations so important in the period of 1921-1929?
The key point is that the issue of reparations caused tension between France and Germany. France was determined to keep Germany as weak as possible, and therefore insisted that full payments were made. Given the economic problems facing European countries in the postwar period, Germany had difficulty in meeting payments, which in turn made it difficult for France and Britain to repay war debts to the USA. The failure of the Genoa Conference clearly indicated both the hostility that existed between France and Germany and the different attitudes of France and Britain (France wanted to keep Germany weak, Britain wanted a revival of the German economy). The French occupation of the Ruhr was a clear threat to peace. Despite its declared isolationism, the USA became directly involved in European affairs over the issue of reparations - the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan were US-inspired attempts to overcome the problems caused by reparations. The Young Plan finally accepted that the figure set for reparations by the Paris peace settlement was too high.
Why did problems in the US economy after 1929 have an adverse effect on other countries?
The prosperity of many countries was entirely dependent on US loans, which ended abruptly following the Wall Street Crash in 1929. Germany could no longer afford its reparations commitments, which, in turn, affected Britain, France and Italy. International trade declined, affecting all industrialized countries. This led to deflation and high unemployment.
Source A below is part of a speech given by a US senator in 1919. In what ways do the views expressed in this speech differ from those of President Wilson?
Wilson believed in internationalism, arguing that the USA had an obligation to work with the rest of the world to ensure future peace. Cabot Lodge clearly opposes this ('internationalism is to me repulsive'). He argues that Wilson's ideas will destroy the independence of the USA, using emotive words such as 'fetter'. Unlike Wilson, Cabot Lodge argues that the USA should not become involved in international organizations, such as the League of Nations, which would simply involve the USA in 'meddling and muddling in every quarrel which afflicts the world'. The extract is politically motivated and is part of the debate leading up to post-First World War US elections. Cabot Lodge reflects the view that the USA must, at all costs, avoid involvement in another major war.
'The USA's decision not to ratify the Paris peace settlement was the major cause of international tension in the period from 1919 to 1923'. Discuss.
• In support of the statement, it could be argued that the USA's failure to ratify the peace settlement added to French feelings of insecurity - the USA no longer guaranteed to support France in the event of an attack by Germany. It also undermined the effectiveness of the League of Nations. •In challenging the statement, it could be argued that there were other, more serious, issues that caused tension: Britain's desire to withdraw from European affairs added to French insecurity; the USA's decision to demand full repayment of war debts, which imposed economic problems on Britain and France; Germany's failure to pay full reparations, which undermined the ability of France and Britain to repay war debts to the USA; the French occupation of the Ruhr; while France wanted to keep Germany economically weak, Britain wanted the German economy to revive quickly; border disputes (e.g. Turkey taking some land from Greece); growing tension between the USA and Japan.
In what ways might the USA's rejection of the Paris peace settlement have undermined its effectiveness?
• It removed much of the settlement's credibility, not least because the US president, Woodrow Wilson, was seen as the prime mover in Paris. • By making a separate treaty with Germany, the USA was no longer guaranteeing support to France in the event of future German aggression. This increased French concerns and led to greater tension between France and Germany. • Russia and Germany had not been involved at Paris at all - with the USA's rejection of the settlement, it looked even more like Britain and France were exacting revenge on Germany following its defeat in the war. • Wilson had been one of the strongest advocates of the League of Nations - the USA's refusal to join clearly weakened the authority of the League and its potential for maintaining future peace and security.
What attempts were made to improve international relations during the 1920s, and how successful were they?
1. Washington Naval Conference (1921-1922): Successful because Japan agreed to withdraw from some of the Chinese territory it was occupying and limit their navy to 3/5ths the size of the British and US navies; US and Britain agreed not to develop any new naval bases in Asia; Britain/US/France/Japan agreed to protect China against invasion. 2. The Genoa Conference (1922): The Genoa Conference, suggested by Lloyd George, aimed to settle the issue of reparations in order to improve relations between France and Germany. It was unsuccessful because France refused to compromise and Germany withdrew. 3. The Dawes Plan (1924): US helped end Ruhr crisis; Not successful because did NOT reduce German reparations total but reduced annual payments; US also gave Germany a large loan (France withdrew troops). 4. The Locarno Treaties (1925): Successful because Germany, France, and Belgium 'agreed to respect their joint borders'; Italy and Britain promised military guarantee to stop aggression (but had to appeal to LON first). 5. The Young Plan (1929): US banker helped actually reduce the amount of German reparations. Not successful because it lengthened the time time to pay, and this turned out to be a bad thing because the Great Depression came a year later, where everyone needed money.
Which side of the argument outlined in the historical debate on page 65 is more convincing and why? Debate Question: "By inflicting such harsh terms on Germany, the Treaty of Versailles was both unfair and unjust."
The side of the historical debate that agrees with this statement is more convincing than the side that disagrees with this statement. The side that agrees states that the Treaty of Versailles was placed upon Germany without Germany being able to voice their opinions on it and that the treaty did not follow Wilson's Fourteen Points. The side that opposes this claim might say that Germany placed even more harsh terms on Russia in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, so they shouldn't have expected better treatment since they did not acknowledge Wilson's Fourteen Points when making the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The side that agrees states that Germany was being forced to reduce its military capacity and disarm itself when no other country at the time was doing so, which would leave Germany open to attacks by other countries which could cause Germany to fall apart even more. The side that opposes this claims that disarming Germany was reasonable due to them having the chances to wage a war again had they not been disarmed. The side that agrees states that Germany lost territories in Europe, which were important Germany because Germany relied on them economically and militarily. The side that opposes this says that the territories that were taken away were the ones that Germany won from previous wars, so the losses weren't as much as France hoped for. The side that agrees states that the Polish Corridor made Germany split in half. The side that disagrees states that it was important for Poland to have access to the sea so that it was economically stable. The side that agrees states that Germany lost possessions that it owned in Africa, which could now be utilized by other European nations. the side that opposes this says that Germany was anyways late to the 'scramble for Africa', and that the possessions they had claimed were not that valuable. the side that agrees states that several German nationals were kept in other countries and that Germany could not unite with Austria. The side that disagrees with this claim states that since the Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and Russian empires broke apart, there were other people with different nationalities living under foreign rule, so this was problem was not only for the Germans. The side that agrees states that Germany was forced to take all the punishments of WW1 and pay all the reparations for the war, which was very expensive for them (6.6 billion). The side that disagrees states that a lot of damage had happened during the war and compensation was reasonable like how when Germany's defeat in the war was certain, they still decided to destroy French property like coal mines. Nonetheless, the Treaty of Versailles was still unfair and unjust because it still led to Germany being destroyed.
