IGSCE History modules 1 and 2 (ToV fairness/success of League)

President Wilson’s key aims in the Versailles conference

-don’t be too harsh -support democracy in defeated countries - give conquered countries the right to self-determine -the League of Nations -14 points -prevent communism

The fourteen points

-no secret treaties between countries -free access to seas always -free trade between all -all work towards disarmament -colonies to have a say in their future -German troops leave Russia -Belgian independence -France regain Alsace-Lorraine -Austria/Italy borders adjusted -Eastern European freedom from empire -Serbia to have access to the sea -self determination for people in Turkish empire -Poland become independent state + given sea access -league of nations set up

Wilson’s role in ToV negotiations

Took over negotiations and glossing over war crimes. Pushed idealistic principles and ‘brotherhood’

Prime Minister Lloyd George’s key aims

-keep British/German trade going -keep the British Empire intact -punish Germany a little -keep British Empire in power -compromise -prevent communism

Prime Minister Clemenceau’s key aims at the Versailles negotiations

-get revenge on Germany -punish Germany harshly -keep France safe at present/in future -represent French people’s call for German punishment -overall peace

Wilson motivations at ToV negotiations

-give America a foothold in European affairs -idealistic sense of peace -give smaller states the right to self determination -execute 14 points

Lloyd George motivations at ToV negotiations

-keep British interests front and centre -keep the Empire intact -as little damage to Britain as possible -prevent another war -keep public at home happy

Clemenceau motivations at ToV negotiations

-punish Germany for their crimes -represent French people’s call for Germany punishment/reparations -prevent another war

Lloyd George role in ToV negotiations

Occupied the middle ground and tried to appease both France and America; the compromiser. Realist.

Clemenceau’s role in the ToV negotiations

He was the leader steadfastly against Germany. The opposite of Wilson and uncompromising. Realist.

War Guilt: ToV terms

-Germany had to accept the blame for starting the war (Article 231)

Reparations: ToV terms

-Germany to pay 132 billion gold marks (approx £6,600 million) to Allies -France received all of the Saarland coal for 15 years

German Territory: ToV terms

-complex affair of carving up German European territory -Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia independent states -Alsace-Lorraine to France -Polish corridor established -North Schleswig to Denmark -Austria/Germany Anschluss forbidden -all German overseas colonies taken away and given to League

Denmark

To whom did North Schleswig go to post-ToV?

(Back to) France

To whom did Alsace-Lorraine go to post-ToV?

Poland

To whom did Upper Silesia, West Prussia and Posen go to post-ToV?

Lithuania

To whom did a northern section of East Prussia go to post-ToV?

Name the three Northern European states given independence post-ToV

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia

German army: ToV terms

-army down to 100,000 men -conscription banned, volunteers only -no armoured vehicles/submarines/aircraft -six battleships -navy down to 15,000 sailors -Rhineland demilitarised

What was the Rhineland?

The border area between France and Germany

League of Nations: ToV terms

-supposed to be an international police force -Wilson’s idea -Germany not allowed to join until proven to be peaceful

Why the ‘victors’ didn’t get everything they wanted

-aims were too different -public pressure was a factor -compromise was necessary -Germany still had power/allies -Germany had to be punished -primary goal was to rebuild Europe -very complicated issues

Wilson’s ToV achievements

-LoN set up -Germany got off relatively lightly -some Eastern European states given self determination -France got Alsace-Lorraine back -Poland got sea access

Wilson’s ToV failures

-Germany suffered high reparations -not all states were allowed self-determine -German army significantly reduced -only Germany had to partially disarm -colonies had no say in their future under the League -secret treaties were not abolished

Lloyd George’s ToV achievements

-(relatively)good compromise between France/USA -Germany not punished too harshly -had partial control over Germany’s lost colonies -German trade routes remained

Lloyd George’s ToV failures

-overseas colonies were not given directly to Britain -Germany was angry at accepting blame -may have been considered too harsh

Clemenceau’s ToV achievements

-German Empire taken away - Alsace-Lorraine back -Rhineland demilitarised -Germany army significantly reduced -Germany accepted full blame -significant reparations paid to France/League -German overseas colonies under League control

Clemenceau’s ToV failures

-not harsh enough -Germany still allowed to keep army -Germany allowed to stay as one country -no specific protections for French people

German issues with the ToV

-not invited to join league -army (point of pride) decimated -Allies took swathes of territory; areas key to economy -Allies not treated as harshly -not represented at talks -had to pay for all damage -had to accept sole blame -believed they were agreeing to (much less harsh) 14 points

Political impact of ToV on Germany

-political state went to hell -riots from angry extremists -gov called ‘November Criminals’ for signing -Germans divided -friekorps hired to exterminate communist revolutions -new Republic government already unstable

Economic impact of ToV on Germany

-WWI harmed economy -most money made went to reparations -German economy needed the goods/money given to Allies to stimulate their own economy -hyperinflation of 1923 indirectly caused by Treaty

(German) Hyperinflation crisis of 1923

Germany did not pay reparations on time and, in response, France sent military forces to take what they wanted from the Rhineland. German government ordered workers to strike to protest such treatment however kept printing money to pay them. Money became worthless quickly.

Social impact of ToV on Germany

-each German was devoted to their political party -any politician who promised a new age of prosperity for Germany was backed -impacted areas of great pride (army, navy, etc) -full blame was forced on them, many hated this -united under hatred for ToV -mass protests turned into riots

Other impacts of the ToV on Germany

-ethnic Germans were split into different countries -Germans felt defenceless with lack of army -people blamed ToV for problems it didn’t cause -Hitler exploited hatred of ToV to gain power -morale post-hyperinflation at major low

Justification of ToV by Allies

-not as harsh as Germany/Russia treaty of Brest-Litvosk -German economic problems were partly self inflicted -everyone had to compromise -working class allies were happy - they were effectively punished but not destroyed -German complaints were seen as trying to get out of punishment

Opposition/criticism of ToV by Allies

-Germany let off too lightly -‘just a 20-year ceasefire’ -Wilson said he wouldn’t sign if he were German -ToV too harsh -all Big 3 faced severe criticism at home -would lead to war again -lead to Hitler’s rise to power

Unfairness of ToV towards Germany

-Germany had no say -forced to sign; invasion threatened -most terms only applied to Germany -demilitarisation only applied to Germany -reparations were only paid to ‘winners’

Positive views of Treaty by modern historians

-They did the best they could with the information/circumstances they had -leaders under a lot of pressure to punish -did everything possible in the circumstances to ensure peace

Negative views of Treaty by modern historians

-did not pay attention to German criticism -unfairly biased towards Allies/against Germany -did not pay enough attention to consequences of their decisions -did not give enough attention to colonies

What Big3 wanted out of the LoN

-peace across the world -no more Great Wars -humanitarian efforts around the world -Wilson: ‘world parliament’ -Clemenceau: League army -Lloyd George: emergencies only

Aims of the League

discourage Agression, encourage Co-operation, encourage Disarmament, improve living Conditions (ACDC)

Organisation/structure of the League

A leading council of the most powerful countries meeting consistently. An assembly of all member countries was called once a year for big decisions. It could call on the armies of its members. It had many different (smaller) committees to oversee or enact their wishes in areas such as health/improving working conditions/etc

Major weaknesses in League structure

Despite it being Wilson’s idea, the USA never joined. The Council had all the power. The Assembly required a unanimous vote to act. Member countries had their own agendas and would act for their own interests, not necessarily world peace.

Why did the USA never join the League?

President Wilson lost the Congress vote that would have allowed him to join the League. There were concerns that trade sanctions would impact America and the USA was getting too involved in European affairs. Most Americans preferred an isolationist approach.

Article 10

Collective security: promising to act together in the face of a threat, whoever would face that threat, all would act to prevent it. The LoN thought they could prevent war this way.

Major weaknesses in League membership

-USA was not a member (most powerful for sanctions) -Germany was not a member (felt they did not have equal representation) -council members all had their own agendas which they prioritised -the Council had the most power -most were weakened significantly from WWI

The Assembly of the LoN

The ‘world’ parliament of the League. Met once a year. Votes had to be unanimous for motions to pass. A representative for every member nation. Recommended action to council.

The Council of the LoN

Met 5+ times a year. Made up of permanent (major world powers) and temporary (elected by Assembly for 3 year ‘terms’) members. Tried to resolve disputes by talking. Impose sanctions on countries if their judgment was not followed.

Vilna 1920~29 (League failure)

-Poland took control of Vilna, Lithuania 9/10/20 -Vilna had just become seat of Lithuanian government -the city was Polish-speaking and Lithuania/Poland had a history of conflict -League ordered Polish army to withdraw -Polish army refused. -League had no other cards to play (Fr/UK didn’t want to escalate)

Aaland Islands 1921 (League success)

-islands between Finland/Sweden was Finnish territory with majority Swedish speakers -people’s wish for independence almost became conflict -League stepped in, ordered Finnish troops to leave and Swedish citizens to have more protections -all accepted this

Corfu 1923 (League success?)

-Greece/Albania in dispute over borders -Italian general called to supervise then killed on the Greek side of the border 27/08/23 -Mussolini (Italian dictator) bombed Greek island (corfu) in retaliation -League condemned Mussolini, told Greece to pay League, would pay that to Italy when/if killers were found -Mussolini refused, ordered the matters raised to Assembly, got his way -UK/Fr divided, Fr back It, UK back Gr -Fr acting in self interest (forces in the Ruhr so couldn’t fight) -UK now back It -Gr ordered to pay It directly -Mussolini withdrew from Corfu -HIGHLY contested decision never changed

Why did Britain change their mind to back Italy in the 1923 Corfu problems?

France would not act against Mussolini, partly because their own army was busy (self interest). Britain would not act without the support of France therefore backed Italy. This made people lose trust in the League.

Bulgaria 1925 (League success)

-Greek troops invaded Bulgaria 10/25 after Gr soldiers killed on the border -League acted immediately ordering both sides to withdraw and Gr to pay sanctions to Bu -Fr/UK solidly backed this -everyone obeyed -settled easily

Why was the Bulgaria problem of 1925 so successful?

Both countries were easily willing to accept the League’s ruling. Britain and France also presented a united front due to their own self interest (negotiating new border agreements with Germany and could not afford to be seen divided).

Why did Greece raise an objection in the dealing of the Bulgaria problem of 1925?

The way that the League dealt with smaller and larger states was very different and hypocritical. They punished weak/small states more hardly because they knew they could get away with it.

Discouraging aggression: success/failure for the LoN (1920s)

Partial Success. Their treaties and threats of sanctions caused many countries to obey by their rules. However, they were far from eradicating aggression. The main reason for peace was not wanting to repeat WWI

Encouraging co-operation: success/failure for the LoN (1920s)

Partial success. Supported the Dawes Plan of American loans. Encouraged diplomatic solutions to conflict. Mediated conflicts

Encourage disarmament: success/failure of the LoN (1920s)

Utter failure. Some countries temporarily reduced the size of their navy, Germany was forced to disarm to an extent. Nothing else.

Improve living conditions: success/failure of the LoN (1920s)

Success. Many commissions were set up to make the quality of life better for those of marginalised communities. Also improved global connections and was the beginning of modern globalisation

Major criticisms of the League at its conception

It would be slow to act/members would act only in their own interests/it would be powerless without the USA

How did the League help refugees?

Helped return 400,000+ prisoners home. Tried to keep people who had run from war safe. Refugee crisis in Turkey ‘22, organised quickly to stop the spread of highly contagious disease. Set up many soup kitchens in camps

What problems did the Refugees committee face?

Constantly short of money for a huge task. Could not be everywhere. Work became harder in the ‘30s as LoN power diminished significantly

How did the League/ILO improve working conditions?

-banned poisonous lead from paint -limited hours small kids could work -campaigned significantly for better working conditions -introduced the idea of 48 hour week/8 hour day -called out all countries/organisations who did not meet expectations

What problems did the ILO face?

-many LoN members did not accept their recommendations for fear of losing money -very little power -very little resources and money

How did the League/Health Committee help improve health around the world?

-spread information on good practice -sponsored research into major diseases -backed vaccines and medicinal research-collected and distributed statistics -helped develop new treatments/programmes against disease -kept going as WHO post-1945

How did the League help slaves?

-worked to abolish slavery entirely -helped forced labourers as well as slaves -helped free 200,000+ slaves in Sierra Leone -organised raids against slave owners -challenged huge projects made with forced labour -brought down African worker’s death rates from 50% to 4% in some places

How did the League help people in other ways?

-kept careful records of places where they could not outright stop social injustice -provided information on rampant problems (sex work, drugs, etc) -blacklisted major black market drug distributors -made practical recommendations on industrial matters -made the international Highway Code

What was the 1929 Wall Street Crash?

American stocks and shared hugely plummeted in value. Banks collapsed, European loans were immediately recalled, Americans stopped purchasing from abroad (harming everyone’s economies). Led to mass unemployment.

In what ways did the Depression make the LoN’s work harder?

-More unemployment meant more people needed help -no money to use for aid -sanctions not imposed as no-one wanted to make the situation worse -loss of power -countries acting only in self interest -extremist groups who made promises put into power unjustly

Causes of Manchurian crisis (1931-3)

-loss of US/China silk exports from Japan due to Depression hit Japan hard -Japanese population growing too fast for them to support everyone -needed to ‘expand territory’ for more space and more resources

What was the Mukden incident?

Japanese military forces invaded Manchuria and set up a puppet government. They used the excuse of Chinese forces planting a bomb on the South Manchurian railway (allegedly, unproven)

Events of the Manchurian crisis (1931-3)

-Japanese forces invaded Manchuria (Chinese province) after Chinese forces were said to have planted a bomb on the Japanese-controlled railway -Japan said China was such a (political) mess that they ‘had to’ invade to keep the peace -China rebutted this -Lord Lytton led a commission to investigate the situation -decision took a long time to be made -after the League’s decision that Japan was in the wrong, Japan announced its further annexation of China then left the League -the LoN could do nothing

Consequences of the Manchurian crisis (1931-3)

-Japan left the League -Italy and Germany left the League soon after -China was still annexed by Japanese forces -the League was proven to be powerless against powerful countries/empires -trade sanctions were proven to be ineffective/impossible without USSR/USA -international trust lost

Name the ways in which the LoN was tested with the Manchurian crisis (1931-3)

-Britain and France’s self-interest was clearly exposed -the first real test after the impact of the Depression -the first major empire that did not take the recommendations lying down -tested inter-league relations -many disagreed with the decisions but nothing was done -tested international faith in the League and trust was lost

How did the Depression impact the LoN’s ability to resolve the Manchurian crisis?

-most council members were acting in self interest -Britain and France did not want to anger Japan as they had colonies in the area and couldn’t afford another war -the Depression indirectly caused the crisis itself -lack of money/resources to investigate due to everything focused on rebuilding economy -focus was on rebuilding economy instead of imposing sanctions effectively

Causes of the Abyssinian crisis (1935-6)

-Mussolini wanted revenge for ‘humiliating’ defeat in a battle four decades earlier -Mussolini wanted the thrill of the conquest -Abyssinia was also rich in natural resources -dispute inside Abyssinia was Mussolini’s cue to invade

Events of the Abyssinian crisis (1935-6)

-Italian dictator Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, using an internal conflict as an excuse -Haile Selassie appealed to the League -Mussolini said to be negotiating Jan-Oct ‘35 however was also pressing Italians into war frenzy -Britain/France signed Stresa Pact as a pact to fight Germany -League ruled no-one at fault -offered a plan for Italy to have some of Abyssinia -Italian invasion of Abyssinia Oct ‘35 -League did nothing for 2 months before placing small sanctions on Italy -Britain/France discussed Laval-Hoare pact to give Italy most of Abyssinia in exchange for calling off the invasion -this pact was leaked (they would not involve Abyssinia, and this was a non-LoN pact) -League disagreed but damage was done -Mussolini annexed the entire country

What was happening in European politics during the events of the Abyssinian crisis?

-Britain and France signing deal to make sure Italy would stand with them against Germany -British politicians backing collective security -League did very little in Abyssinian crisis -Br/Fr were unwilling to act against Italy due to their fear of war with both them and Germany -Hoare-Laval Pact was a breaking point for trust, as the deal was secret and behind Abyssinia’s back -fear of American damage to LoN member’s economic interests -promises for sanctions to stop if Italy stopped the invasion -France was threatened by Hitler in ‘36 and could not afford to go against Italy -Britain would do nothing without France