Lecture 3 Flashcards
Locarno Treaties
- Stabilise borders of new central Eastern European and Central European states
Western borders guaranteed by the treaty; Eastern weren’t (Poland!!)
Allowed Germany to join the League of Nations.
Series of agreements whereby Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy mutually guaranteed peace in western Europe.
European diplomacy, made the League of Nations look weak.
Series of crises begin.
Treaties were successful.
Delegitimised the League of Nations.
Germany annoyed about Poland, happy to be in League of Nations. Looks positive.
These were led by German chancellor Stresemann as part of efforts to reintegrate into Europe and in the aftermath of the French promised departure from the Ruhr by 1925. The idea was to stabilize borders of new E and Central Euro states, and guarantee their borders. Between Chamberlain, Stresemann, and Briand (Br-G-Fr). Stresemann’s plan was to encourage German normalization with the world by increasing French security. This worked and Germany allowed to join the League.
The 1920s were more peaceful than the 1930s but the League did very little. Insecurity widespread and problems solved by great powers working outside the League.
1930s: League breaks down
Manchuria Crisis 1931
Japan has been given a chunk of China in 1919; encourages Japanese adventurism: Japan needs more territory and resources. Therefore it concocts a fake incident in Manchuria (where it already has significant interests) and invades on the pretext of the “Mukden incident”. Puppet state of Manchuko set up. League sends a Commission of Inquiry to determine the facts of the incident. Inquiry leaves in Dec 1931, doesn’t arrive till Spring 1932, and doesn’t report till Oct 1932 at which point Japanese power is well-entrenched. Commission finds Japan to be in the wrong but Japan’s solution is to leave the League.
Lessons: League mechanisms don’t work. Many states didn’t really care about the dispute (hence slow speed) and didn’t agree about whether to support Japan or China (see the problems with coll sec above).
By the 1930s, no one is happy any more with the post-WWI settlements:
- Germany revisionist (obviously)
- Soviets revisionist – want to reverse Brest-Litovsk
- Italy – was promised a ton of territory to swap to fight with the Entente in 1915 (Treaty of London) but they annoy Br and Fr by mobilizing only against A-H for the first year. Thus Br and Fr disinclined to support Italian claims at Paris Peace Conference, and Wilson isn’t keen either on self-determination grounds. So Italy wants the territory it was promised. NB Italy also took lots of casualties and gained very little – the benefit was really to Br and Fr by opening an additional front against AH and Germany.
- Britain are revisionist-ish- they are increasingly convinced Treaty of V is a dud.
- France: they didn’t get security from the treaty in any way – only possible allies are weak central European powers. So the treaty doesn’t help them and the League is not working.
From feedback
* The Locarno Treaties of 1925 were negotiated by German Chancellor Gustav von Stresemann as part of efforts to reintegrate Germany into Europe psot-WWI. There were 5 nations involved: Germany, France, Belgium, Britain, and Italy. The central aim of the treaties was to stabilize the borders of European nations particularly in Western Europe.
* [also note that they dealt with Central/Eastern Europe but these borders were not guaranteed – Polish/German territory questions left open]
* Tied to the end of the occupation of the Rhineland (we will discuss this more
today!)
* France: constantly seeking a guarantee of its border with Germany – goes
some of the way here but central security problem still unresolved
* “Spirit of Locarno” – peaceful start to the 1920s that brought Germany back
into the world community (membership of the LN)
* Didn’t do anything to the Eastern borders/new tiny states – doesn’t solve
these problems (Germany hoped these deals would help end the territorial
disputes with Poland over Upper Silesia and the Polish Corridor/Danzig)
* Works outside the LN – great power business as usual
* Austen Chamberlain gets the Nobel Peace Prize 1925, Briand and
Stresemann in 1926
Treaty of Sèvres
Ottoman empire sign in 1920. there is a lack of self-determination. New states created. Quickly disrupted by Turkish war of independence and Treaty of Lausanne 1923.
mainly territorial settlements created by the Treaty of Sèvres. The Turkish war of independence almost immediately contests the treaty and creates a number of conflicts along the borders, including between Turkey and Greece and Turkey and Armenia. War ends with Ataturk in power and forces negotiation of a new Treaty of Lausanne. This treaty establishes the borders of modern Turkey, a British mandate over Iraq and a French mandate over Syria. The northern part of Iraq has very contested borders as it brings in a number of different religions and ethnic groups – centred around Mosul – Kurds, Yazidis and a variety of other ethnic groups. This area was occupied by ISIS from 2014-2017. One of ISIS’s stated goals was to overturn the Sykes-Picot agreement, the wartime deal between Br and Fr that split their zones of influence and was reflected in the way the mandates were applied post-war.
“stab in the back”
Germany lost WWI suddenly, after a near victory. The ‘stab in the back’ myth maintained that the Imperial German Army did not lose WWI on the battlefield, but was instead betrayed by certain citizens on the home front – especially Jews, revolutionary socialists who fomented strikes and labour unrest, and republican politicians. The myth perpetuated the idea that pressure from Bolsheviks and Jews encouraged weak political leadership in Germany and denounced the German government leaders who had signed the Armistice on 11 November 1918.
Historians inside and outside of Germany, whilst recognising that economic and morale collapse on the home front was a factor in German defeat, unanimously reject the myth. Historians and military theorists point to lack of further Imperial German Army reserves, the danger of invasion from the south, the overwhelming of German forces on the western front by more numerous Allied forces particularly after the entrance of the US into the war, as evidence that Germany had already lost the war militarily by late 1918.
When Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party rose to power in 1933, they made the conspiracy theory an integral part of their official history of the 1920s, portraying the Weimar Republic as the work of the “November criminals” who had “stabbed the nation in the back” in order to seize power.
Armistice - military settlement to be followed by a treaty. Military consequences for Germany. Size and composition o the German military is dictated by the Treaty. No submarines or air force, 100, 000 only. Germany is required to pay reparations, award-guilt clause. Clause says Germany is responsible for the war. The question of reparations become a major political issue in Germany. Territorial settlements. Not the treaty they were promised. They agreed to sign a treaty on the basis of 14 points. Armistice in German implies a pause in hostilities/ceasefire.
As unintended effect of getting Soviets and Germans to cooperate (Treaty of Rapallo 1922 with secret military pat). German military ends up very skilled because it is small.
Treaty of Versailles wasn’t based on fourteen points. Also feel stabbed in the back by the Triple Ententre.
From feedback
This phrase refers to a conspiracy theory promulgated in Germany
following the armistice in November 1918, and the ensuing peace
conference, which ultimately produced the Treaty of Versailles. The theory, spread by military leaders like General von Hindenburg as well as right wing politicians, asserted that Germany’s military had not been defeated and that its surrender was a ‘stab in the back’ or a betrayal of the German people by socialists, communists, and Jews.
The stab was related to the belief that the treaty should have been
negotiated closely following the 14 Points
* The stab in the back was not based in fact
* Fuelled resentment over the Treaty of Versailles – if Germany hadn’t
lost, why accept the treaty and its restrictions?
* Clearly fuelled anti-Semitism and anti-Communist sentiment
* 1921 murder of Matthias Erzberger who had signed the armistice in 1918
* Development of anti-Semitic feeling on which Hitler could capitalize
* Anti-communism- anything better than a communist (explains rise of Fascism)
Manchuko
From feedback
* Problems with design of LN
* membership should have been universal and active
* Punishments can be avoided because not everyone is applying them (eg, sanctions0
* Leaving is a possibility – much more convincing to leave if numerous powers are not members
(imagine leaving the UN – do you think this would prevent enforcement action?
* Problems with collective security
* Ignores existing state interests
* You might have to act where you are not interested, or work against your own interests by
punishing a potential ally, or act to support an enemy
* Could draw you into a conflict anywhere in the world even if you are not interested
* Implications of Manchuria crisis/creation of Manchuko
* The LN’s existence probably played some role in Japan having to make up an incident
in the first place – they could have just invaded
* Balance of power in Asia firmly shifting – Japanese imperial intent is clear
Manchuko crisis began in 1931 when the Empire of Japan faked a
border incident in then “Manchuria’, providing them with a reason to
invade and annex the territory. By 1932, Manchuria (Manchuko) was
a puppet state of the Empire of Japan. Subsequently, the LN sought to
intervene by sending an official inquiry, which arrived in Spring 1932.
However, their report, which found that Japan had wrongfully
invaded, was not provided until 6 months later, when Japan had already entrenched their power in the territory.
- Failure of collective security
- The LN’s failure to respond:
- Why did it fail to respond? Institutional design/problems with collective security – realist
theory plays a role here - The LN’s existence probably played some role in Japan having to make up an incident in
the first place – they could have just invaded - Implications of failure: encourage other aggressors eg Italy and Germany.
- Balance of power in Asia firmly shifting – Japanese imperial intent is clear –
also shows that worldwide there is a rising Asian power. - Japanese imperial ambitions will require expansion
- Shows ongoing tensions in Asia that pre-date and post-date World War II.
Hoare-Laval Plan
Secret. Suggested ceding much of Ethiopia to Mussolini -dropped.
Abyssinia Crisis 1935
Longstanding border dispute b/w Italy (colony of Somaliland) and Abyssinia (Ethiopia) culminated in a small armed confrontation in late December 1934. Ethiopia asks for League to arbitrate as to who was responsible for the skirmish. January 1935 French foreign minister Laval meets with Mussolini and offers him large chunks of territory in French Somaliland and a free hand in the Abyssinian situation. The hope was that Mussolini would support France against Germany (remember France has no friends and Hitler in power). After this agreement Mussolini invades Abyssinia. League is called upon for help and arbitration; nothing really happens. Eventually League agrees to sanction Italy. Problems (again, all stemming from problems with coll sec above)
1. US ignores sanctions and continues to trade with Italy, so Italy has oil and sanctions meaningless
2. Hoare-Laval Plan: British and French foreign ministers offer to settle the war through a secret plan that would give Mussolini to control Abyssinia. (remember, at this stage it is late 1935 early 1936- they are worried about Hitler). Plan is leaked, and outcry causes it to be cancelled and Hoare and Laval to resign. If Britain and France were no longer supporting the League, who else would do so? (Also: demonstrates the main issue with coll sec: sometimes you have to agree with the aggressor for strategic reasons).
3. Nothing happens: League clearly cannot prevent conflict. Italy leaves the League. Hitler emboldened.
