What were the long-term consequences of the peace treaties of 1919-23? Flashcards
Dissatisfied powers
- Japan was disappointed because its idea for a racial equality clause had been rejected at the Paris Peace Conference and it had expected to receive a greater share of Germany’s former trading rights in China
- Italy had hoped to receive the Adriatic port of Fiume and a greater share of the former colonies of Germany and Turkey
- Germany objected to just about every aspect of the Treaty of Versailles - the territorial provisions, the disarmament clauses, war guilt, and reparations
The dissatisfied powers were likely to seek peace settlement changes when the circumstances were favourable. Germany’s dissatisfaction was sharpened by the conviction among many that it had been “stabbed in the back” in 1918
What was the “stab in the back” myth?
- After the First World War, the myth developed that Germany had not really lost the war at all but was betrayed by group of weak, unpatriotic, and socialist-inclined politicians. These were the ‘November Criminals”, who hoped to profit from Germany’s surrender
- There was no truth in this myth as Germany had only surrendered in 1918 because she was on the brink of military defeat. Surrender was certainly preferable to the destruction of the German army
- Nevertheless, the “stab in the back” myth gained popularity in right-wing, extremist circles in Germany and gave rise to the thinking that if the war had not really been lost, then the peace settlement was unnecessary and deserved to be overturned at the earliest opportunity
- Many of those who joined or supported the Nazi Party thought this way
Germany’s potential
Not only did the Versailles Treaty leave Germany extremely dissatisfied, it also failed to disable her and prevent her from growing into a powerful European state. Even though Germany had lost a significant amount of territory, including all her colonies, she was still left with considerable resources
It was the combination of Germany’s extreme dissatisfaction with Versailles, together with its ability to bring about a revision of the settlement that proved to be so dangerous
Hitler’s foreign policy
Destruction of the Versailles Settlement provided Hitler with a foreign policy agenda. Virtually every foreign policy action and demand that Hitler made between 1933 and September 1939 involved the violation of the Treaty of Versailles or the Treaty of Saint Germain. These actions included:
- German rearmament and the remilitarisation of the Rhineland
- the Anschluss or union with Austria
- the transfer of the Sudetenland (territory located along the extended border areas of western Czechoslovakia mostly populated by Germans. The area contained many of Czechoslovakia’s military defences, together with valuable raw materials and centres of engineering and textile manufacture. The famous Skoda engineering factory was located here) from Czechoslovakia
- the occupation of Prague
- the seizure of Memel
- claims made over Danzig and the Polish Corridor
The Treaty of Versailles, in particular, was detested by the German people and Hitler could ensure his short-term popularity by dismantling the treaty clause by clause
Impact on British and French opinion
The British were fully satisfied by the harsh, punitive aspect of the treaty. But it did not take long for many to question whether the treaty was fair. By the early 1930s, a common view in British government circles was that the treatment of Germany had been too harsh. The emergence of Hitler and the Nazis was seen as an understandable response to the excessive punishment meted out to Germany in 1919. It followed from this line of thought that if many aspects of Versailles were unfair, then it was the duty of British politicians to assist Germany in achieving the peaceful revision of the treaty. After all, the British were partly responsible for the nature of the settlement
The French reaction to the treaty was that it was not harsh enough. They had wanted a treaty that would permanently disable Germany in order to guarantee their security. By the mid 1930s, however, it was clear that Hitler was seeking to overturn the peace settlement. The French did not feel confident or strong enough to stand up to Hitler on their own so they acted in partnership with the British
A settlement of inconsistencies
The Versailles Settlement had created a whole series of inconsistencies or anomalies:
- the separation of East Prussia from the main bulk of German territory by the Polish Corridor
- the placing of Danzig, overwhelmingly populated by Germans, under League of Nations control
- the placing of 3.5 million Germans under Czech rule in the Sudetenland
All of these inconsistencies could be justified in one way or another, yet to many German people they represented a series of grievances that had to be dealt with. The British were sympathetic over many of these issues but they believed that they should be addressed in a peaceful and orderly manner. Unfortunately, Hitler had very different ideas
