TofV Flashcards
Clemenceau aims
- cripple germany forever
- revenge
wilson aims
- idealist
- didn’t want GER punished too harshly
- wanted international cooperation to achieve world peace
- 14 points
- league of nations
- self determination
George aims
- wanted GER to lose its navies
- resume trading with germany
terms of the treaty
- war guilt
- reparations
- territory and colonies
- arms reduction
- League of Nations- GER not invited to join
Treaty of St Germain
1919
austria and Hungary to be separated
Austrian army reduced to 30,000
lost land to ITA and POL
treaty of neuilly
1919
BUL lost lands to GRE, ROM, YUGO
limited armes forces
treaty of trianon
1920
HUNG lost lands to ROM, CZECH, YUGO
3 million Hungarians living in other states
treaty of sevres
1920
TURK lost land to BRIT and FRA
what happened in germany in 1922 and 1923?
- failed to pay 2nd installment in 1922
- French and Bulgarian troops invaded the Ruhr in 1923
- workers were ordered to stop working, however the government would still pay them
- more money was printed
- hyperinflation
How could the T of V be justified - introduction
- context: Clemenceau’s aims + reason, George’s aims + reasons, Wilson’s aims + reasons
- Hindsight: historians are able to look back and interpret the big picture of certain events, however it can make one forget to see history as a ‘living thing’. Not judge outcomes based on facts people didn’t know at the time
How could the T of V be justified - historians
1) Zara Steiner (2004)
- idea that Germany was not destroyed
believed that the treaty was not excessively harsh
- flawed treaty that failed to solve a problem of both punishing and conciliating a country.
2) Margaret Macmillan (2001)
- they could not force the future and they could certainly not control it, that was up to their successors.
YES the t of v can be justified
- a compromise was reached despite different aims
- war-guilt: FRA wanted GER to bear complete responsibility and guilt for the war, BRIT had mixed thought, USA not happy
- disarmament: Wilson thought it was too much, Clemenceau wanted Germany even more disarmed and George had mixed opinions
- French president (Poincaré) wanted GER broken up into a collection of smaller states, but Clemenceau knew that the BRIT and USA would not agree
- Despite being a harsh treaty, it could’ve been much worse
- comparison with Brest-Litovsk treaty: USSR lost 89% of coal mines, in T of V GER only lost 16%.
- had positive principles and outcomes:
- L of N
- self-determination
NO the T of V can’t be justified
- too harsh and punitive
- created roots for war (hindsight)
- GER’s Econ. was already ruined: as is every country’s after a war, and with the treaty, GER lost territories, coal-mines, and had to pay a ridiculous amount of money in reparations
- made GER’s economy collapse and created roots for future problems as there was no diplomatic way in which Germany could pay and still survive as a nation.
- more problems caused then saved
- lack of agreement led to a treaty no one liked
Terms of the treaty (reparations)
6.6 billion pounds
Terms of the treaty (guilt)
- GER was forced to accept full blame
- caused deep resentment towards T of V
- exclusion of GER from L of N -> they felt even more humiliated
- germans blamed the t of v for hyperinflation
