|
|
|
|
It is one of my ‘beefs’ that teaching in schools is always out of date. Most teachers, and the people who write your textbooks, all went to University YEARS ago and their scholarship can have fallenbehind the times. Nevertheless, twenty years ago, in 2004, I wrote to a number of my teacher-friends and colleagues, asking them THEIR opinion of the Treaty of Versailles. They came up with a wonderful array of ideas, which I am sure you will find useful for your essays
CriticismsThe impression of a failed Peace has been – rightly or wrongly – the judgement of many historians, and many of my modern teachers believed that it failed to secure peace and ruined the future:
The Peace of Versailles was an unsatisfactory compromise with little chance of ensuring an enduring peace. Each of the 'Big Three' had different aims which had to be modified in order to reach an overall agreement and the Germans were not even allowed to take part in the negotiations. Germany was humiliated, the French didn't feel completely secure, the British had wanted the re-establishment of trade more than anything else and the Americans had had to give up on their ideals of self determination where Germany was concerned. All this was a recipe for disaster in my opinion. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Carole Faithorn
The Treaty of Versailles was the basic cause of the Second World War, the holocaust and the Cold War. Why? Because it was a treaty made without thought of fairness or consideration as to what its effects might be. Instead, the treaty created an alien system of democracy that was never more than stable and which because of the constitution's flaws allowed Germany to be torn apart by extremist political parties like the Communists and worse Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. In effect it put Germany in a situation it couldn't get out of, with unworkable political systems and economic and social problems just waiting to explode (hence the Nazis and their scapegoating of Jews became much easier). Had the treaty been fair and balanced it's likely Germany would never have become embroiled in starting a Second World War, nor would the madman Hitler have come to power and so the Holocaust would never have happed. Could this have been predicted? Lloyd George was sure the Treaty of Versailles would lead to a Second World War and he was right. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Dave Wallbanks (2004)
The Treaty of Versailles was to ultimately lead Europe to a Second World War due to the direct fact that the Big Three' ultimately had different goals in terms of achieving peace. What is clear from the terms of the Treaty is that France had one main aim, revenge, whereas the USA wanted money and Britain, it could be said, wanted a more fair resolution that would prevent future conflict. What they all failed to take into account was that in order for a plan, a treaty or an arrangement to be successful everybody has to have the same aims and goals. This goes some way to explaining why the Treaty of Versailles was not the success that it could have been. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Nichola Boughey (2004)
The Treaty of Versailles was an aberration. The Allies couldn't agree amongst themselves what to do with the defeated Germany and ended up accepting a document that was agreed begrudgingly by some of the major nations involved in its construction. Something created so quickly and in an environment as hostile as the immediate aftermath of the bloodiest war of all time was bound to be filled with clauses created more through fear and anger than forgiveness, compassion and a desire for rebuilding relationships and really ensuring long lasting peace. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Dan Moorhouse (2004)
The victorious imperial powers in the Great War - England, France and the USA... were in competition for world trade - Britain based upon the Sterling currency, USA on the Dollar and France on gold. Industrialists in all three made huge profits out of four years of slaughter, and the push towards bigger monopolies carried on in earnest. Only socialism stood in the way of the capitalists. The common concern for the rulers of the 'Big Three' was not fear of a wounded Germany, but the spectre of working-class rebellion at home, encouraged by the 1917 Revolution in Russia. A crippled Germany was not in the interests of the USA in particular, due to her dominant geographical position in Central Europe. A co-operative and pro-capitalist Germany could act as a bulwark, or even an aggressor towards the new socialist state in the East. The main aim of Versailles was to crush working-class movements in Germany by fostering nationalistic feelings and the sham of liberal-democratic capitalism. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Dafydd Humphreys (2004)
PraiseOnly two of my teachers writers found anything to praise about the Treaty, and even their praise was muted:
EP Thompson famously agued that historians should take care to ‘avoid the enormous condescension of posterity’; we should make judgements on the actions of people of the past on their terms rather than ours. If we extend this philosophy to the peacemakers of 1919 then we can argue that they did a remarkably good job. Three European empires had collapsed, economies were devastated, millions of people were homeless or victims of disease and nationalist and communist revolutions were breaking out all over Europe. The peacemakers had to act quickly to save their world and in this they were remarkably successful. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Richard Jones-Nerzic (2004)
The Treaty of Versailles was an amazing feat. In six months three old men created a new Europe from the ruins of the old. It was not perfect; it could not prevent World War 2, only a crushing defeat for Germany in the first could have done that; self-determination was restricted to Europe. Yet in a devastated and newly complex continent no better attempt could have been made. Beset by conflicting demands the peacemakers left their mark. Look at a map of modern Europe - not so different from a map of 1920 is it? Not bad for a such a despised treaty. A private communication to www.johndclare.net from Neil Stonehouse (2004)
What did I think in 2004?
The Peace of Versailles established two wonderful new and amazing ideals -- self-determination and the League of Nations – and though at the time these were perhaps practically-unachievable dreams, THE DREAMS, ONCE EXPERIENCED, NEVER WENT AWAY.
In the long-run the principle of self-determination led to the dismantling of the British Empire, and the setting-up of a Scottish and a Welsh Assembly! And when the Americans invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, it was their stated aim not to stay as conquerors, but to help the peoples of those countries to set up their own, democratic governments. Meanwhile, the League of Nations has become the United Nations, and we still aspire to a world where nations settle their differences by negotiation, not by war. Self-determination and the United Nations dominate the international politics of the world we live in. It is hard to calculate how much we owe to the peacemakers for these two ideas.
TThe failure of the Treaty of Versailles was a failure of management. The Treaty-makers compartmentalised the process of negotiation – so there was one working group looking at the League of Nations, another at territorial adjustments, another at reparations etc.– and there was insufficient communication between the different aspects. The problem was that each issue was settled quite reasonably in its own right. The damage to France was massive – so wasn’t it reasonable that the invader should pay to put things right? After four years of invasion and slaughter, wasn’t it reasonable for France to want the border with Germany to be VERY, VERY secure? And if German militarism had ignited the war, wasn’t it reasonable to reduce German armed forces? The problem is that 10 plus 10 plus 10 doesn’t make 10. It makes 30. And it was the same with the Treaty of Versailles. Nobody was keeping track of the final total impact all these decisions would have on Germany. And when they put them all together into those 440 different articles, I think they all got a complete shock. Because, taken together, all those ‘reasonable’ decisions (and remember that Lloyd George and Wilson had persuaded the French to tone down their demands) – taken together, the Treaty of Versailles simply wiped Germany out. By the time they had got a reasonable sum for reparations, it came to £6,600 million – a third of what some people wanted, but still totally beyond any country of the time to pay (with the exception, perhaps, of the USA). By the time they had secured France’s eastern border, and created Poland etc., they’d taken a tenth of Germany’s land, half its industry, and its best farmland. Everybody else in Europe had got self-determination – but an eighth of the German population ended up under the rule of different countries, and the Germans in Germany were forbidden to unite with the Germans in Austria. And then the peacemakers reduced the German army until it was a tenth of the French army, and smaller than the Czechoslovakian army.
It wasn’t just the Germans who were horrified by the Treaty – Lloyd George, JM Keynes, most of the British public, the American Senate… they were all astounded at how harsh it was. And if we – and they – can understand just how crazy and unfair it all was, how badly must the Germans have felt? And of course we know how badly the Germans felt – they felt 'Adolf Hitler' badly. This is what I wrote in 2004.
|
|
|
| |
