If drawing up the terms of the peace settlement had been difficult, implementing them proved even more so. International tensions remained high in the years since the war for a number of reasons. Tensions between USA, B and F increased when the US senate rejected the peace settlement. Russia, whose Bolshevik gov had not been invited too the Paris Peace talks, remained isolated and fears of communism spread though Europe. Fears lead to anti-communist gov under Mussolini in Italy.

US ISOLATIONISM

Despite the leading role Wilson had played in negotiating the various treaties. Public opinion in the US was divided on the issue of whether the USA should ratify the Paris peace conference and join the LoN. Most democratic senators supported Wilson’s argument in favour of internationalism- that the USA should play a full and active part in International affairs. Most Republican Party senates opposed internationalism and argued in favour of internationalism affairs unless its own interests were at stake.

Since the Republican Party held a majority in the Senate, the USS decided in favour of isolationism, In November 1919, the US Sddenateb rejected the paris peace settlement and refused to let the USA join the Lon. Determined not to be involved in another war, and believing the terms of the ppc made future conflcit inevitable. Most were convinced that the USA should return to its traditional isolationist policy.

The USA’s decision not to ratify the ppc and instead made a seperate peace with Germany in 1921 had a profound impact on relations between European countries. In particular, it contributed to France’s already significant feelings of security. The French now had no guarantee of American support in the event of an attack by a resurgent Germany. Furthermore, Britain was clearly seeking to withdraw from European affairs, focussing on Australia, Canada and New Zealand. While B argued that disarmament was the key to future peace within Europe, France, fearful of a revival of German power, was totally opposed to it. To the British, it appeared that France posed a greater threat to future peace than Germany. As a result, there seemed little likelihood that Britain would guarantee French security. This left France isolated and consequently even more determined to prevent Germany’s post-war recovery.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS RUSSIA

Russia, now under communist rule, was viewed with suspicion and fear by its former allies and enemies alike. IN a European-wide climate of social and economic hardship, many governments feared revolution in their countries in the post-war years. Concern over the potential spread of communism was so great that many Western European nations, together with Japan, became involved in the Russian Civil War in an attempt to prevent Lenin’s Bolsheviks winning control of the country. For France, this situation meant the loss of another potential ally against a revitalised Germany. For Russia, this meant isolation and vulnerability.

There were, therefore, a number of underlying factors leading to international tension in the immediate post-war period. This tension was greatly increased by several issues which arose between 1919-23.

GERMAN HYPERINFLATION

Despite the USA’s decision to isolate itself politically from Europe, it continued to have a major effect on European economies. During ww1, USA had provided large loans to assist its European allies. Now it insisted on the full repayment of these war debts.

For most European countries, ravaged by the effects of war and struggling to rebuild their economies, the only way to meet these debt repayments was by ensuring that Germany payed their reparations.

In the wake of its defeat, Germany claimed that it was in no position- politically, socially or economically- meet these demands. Fighting on the Western Front during the First World War had been largely confined to France and Belgium, and Germany emerged fro, the war with most of its industrial infrastructure intact. However, Germany had borrowed heavily to finance its war effort, snd the combined effect of repaying these debts and meeting reparation requirements were catastrophic for the German economy. Much as Keynes had predicted, German inflation spiralled out of control. The value of the mark fell dramatically, and was now practically worthless. In January 1922, a loaf of bread cost 250 marks, and by November 1923 the price had soared to 200,000 million marks. Germany was suffering from hyperinflation, causing enormous hardships to its population. Germany’s Weimar Government, faced with numerous uprisings, struggled to maintain control over the country. Not strong enough to fix wages and prices, the government simply issued paper money, which rapidly became worthless, making the problem worse.

RUHR CRISIS

Germany’s economic problems were heightened by the actions of France and Belgium. In 1923, angered by Germany's failure to make reparations payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr- one of Germany’s most important industrial regions- with the aim of seizing coal and timber by way of payment. The German government ordered a policy of passive resistance, which effectively paralysed industry in the Ruhr as workers and miners refused to work. Although the French and Belgians largely failed in their aim to seize goods from German factories and mines, the economic effect of the loss of output from such a vital region of Germany was catastrophic, further fuelling their rising inflation. Naturally, this made it even less likely that Germany would be able to meet its reparation amounts in the future.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS GERMANY

Relations between Britain and France were strained as a result of their differing attitudes towards German recovery, which were highlighted by the Ruhr Crisis. Britain, keen to reestablish the lucrative trading partnership between them and Germany, encouraged Germany’s economic recovery. France, on the other hand, was determined to keep Germany as weak as possible for as long as possible. Britain opposed french actions in the Ruhr, considering them effectively as an act of war.

CORFU INCIDENT

The threat of communism had a particularly significant impact in Italy. Having borrowed heavily to finance its involvement in the First World War, Italy’s attempts to repay these debts led to damaging inflation. The value if the Italian lira fell from five to the dollar in 1914 to 28 to the dollar by 1921. In addition to this massive increase in the cost of living, Italians also faced high unemployment as industry reduced production to pre-war levels and the number of people seeking jobs was increased by the return of more than two million soldiers. These circumstances inevitably led to disorder. Strikes organised by trade unions in 1919 and 1920 quickly descended into rioting and looting. In many industrial cities, workers took control of their factories and established councils to manage them. With the formation of the Italian Communist Party in January 1921, it seemed only matter of time before a revolution formed.

Formed in 1919, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Italian National Fascist Party had gained a reputation for violence, it’s black-shirted members regularly attacking communist headquarters and newspaper offices. Nevertheless, the party had achieved increasing support from those sections of Italian society that had most reason to fear communism – industrialists, landowners, middle-class property owners, the Roman Catholic Church and King Victor Emmanuel |||. In 1922, faced with the threat of revolution following the communist parties call for a general strike, the king asked Mussolini to form a government. Italy then became the world’s first fascist state.

In line with the aggressive nationalism which characterised fascism, Mussolini made it clear that his aim was to make Italy ‘great, respected, and feared’. ‘The Twentieth Century’ he declared, ‘will be a century of Italian power’. His early actions certainly seemed to reflect these grand statements. In March 1923, Italian troops took possession of the Adriatic port of Fiume. This action was in defiance of the Paris Peace Settlement, which had declared Fiume a ‘Free City’, to be used jointly by Italy and Yugoslavia. In August of 1923, four Italians were killed while engaging in a League of Nations attempt to resolve a border dispute between Greece and Albania. Believing that Greek government was responsible for the deaths, Mussolini ordered Italian troops to bombard, and subsequently occupy, the Greek island of Corfu. Greece appealed to the League for help, which instructed Italian troops to withdraw from Corfu. Mussolini refused to accept the Leagues authority, and the Italian occupation continued until Greece paid a substantial amount of compensation.

While Britain and France saw Mussolini as a useful ally against the threat of communism, his refusal to abide by the decisions made at the Paris Peace conference, and undermining of the League was a cause of concern throughout Europe.

OTHER DISPUTES AND TENSIONS

Elsewhere in Europe, other border disputes arising out of the decisions made at the Paris Peace Conference soon occurred. Turkey defied the peace settlement completely when its troops retook some of the land in 1922, including Smyrna and parts of Anatolia, awarded to Greece by the Treaty of Sévres. In doing so, Turkey became the first country to successfully challenge the post-war settlement, and in 1923 a revised treaty- the Treaty of Lausanne- replaced the original agreement. As a result, Turkey regained some land it had lost, including Smyrna,

AIMS AND IMPACT OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONFERENCES

Despite these simmering tensions, no country wanted another war. With this in mind, several attempts were made to improve international relations during the immediate post-war period.

THE WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (1921-22)

There was a clear need to reduce growing tensions in East Asia arising from Japanese expansion in the region, tensions that threatened to cause a naval arms race and, possisbly, lead to war. In 1921, therefore, the USA invited 9 nations to Washington DC to discuss naval reductions and the situation in East Asia. B, J, F and I were invited to discuss the naval capacity, and Bel, C, Portugal and the Netherlands were invited to join in discussions on the situations in East Asia.

The Washington Naval Conference led to a series of treaties which, at the time, seemed to guarantee peace in EA.

• THE FIVE POWER TREATY - USA, B, F, J, I

  Japan agreed to withdraw from some of its recently acquired C territory and limit its navy to 3/5 the size of B and US. In return, the Western powers agreed not to develop any new naval bases near J. All five countries agreed to limit their warship tonnage- B and the USA to 500,000 tons each, J to 300,000 tons, F and I to 175,000 tons each.

• THE FOUR POWER TREATY - USA, B, F, J

  Agreed to respect each other’s rights in the Pacific and far East, and to deal with any future disagreements by negotiation rather than military action. This treaty formally ended the 1902 treaty between B and J. B had become increasingly embarrassed by this alliance for two main reasons- first bc the reason for it (B’s naval rivalry w G) no longer existed; second, because in the event if any conflict bt USA and J, B would be obligated to side w J.

• THE NINE POWER TREATY - USA, B, F, J, BEL, C, PORTUGAL, NETHERLANDS

  This treaty guaranteed protection for C against invasion and agreed to uphold the ‘open door’ policy, allowing equal opportunity for all countries seeking to trade w C.

The treaties arising out of the WC undoubtedly reduced tensions in ea. All of the countries involved had been willing to compromise in the interests of maintaining peace. However, the treaties were far from perfect. For example, although the 5PT limited the tonnage of each nation’s warships, it did not include all types of shipping. As a result, there was a race to build cruiser ships that could be deployed in the event of war. Moreover, the treaties lacked a means of enforcement- they did not specify what action would be taken if a country violated the agreements it had made.

THE GENOA CONFERENCE (1922)

At the suggestion of DLG, reps of 30 different euro countries met in Genoa, Italy, to discuss ways of easing their post-war economic problems. France was represented buy its pm, Raymond Poincaré. Despite their political and diplomatic isolation, both G and USSR were invited to the conference, DLG believing their inclusion was vital to achieving the aim of ‘the economic reconstruction of Europe, devastated and broken into fragments by the agency of war’.

The conference, which ran from 10 April- 19 may 1922, focused largely on the issue of G reps. Facing its own massive economic problems, G was struggling to keep up w the schedule of payments. B, with a vested interest in restoring its German trading links, argued that the massive reps placed on G would undermine Euro eco recovery and should therefore be reduced. France, fearing a revival of G power and opposing anything which seemed to weaken the terms of the tov, insisted that rep payments be made in full.

The Genoa Conference achieved nothing. The USA, still pursuing its isolationist policy and determined to avoid involvement in Euro affairs, declined to attend. In the face of F’s unwillingness to compromise, G quickly withdrew from the conference. Feeling increasingly isolated and sensing an opportunity to develop their relationship w G, the Russians also backed out.

THE RAPALLO PACT (1922)

WW1 and the ppc had left both G and Bolshevik R isolated and vulnerable. Reps of both countries had attended the Genoa Conference, and they continued to hold joint discussions once the conference broke up in disarray. These discussions led to a treaty in 1921 by which G recognised the Bolsheviks as the legit gov of Russia- the first foreign gov to do so. Further negotiations, conducted by Georgi Chicherin and Walter Rathenau, foreign ministers, led to the signing of the TOR on 16 april 1922. Under the terms of the RP, R and G agreed to renounce all territorial claims against each other, and to ‘cooperate in a spirit of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both countries’

In facilitating increased trade bt G and R, the treaty was also of great economic benefit to both. Also led to industrial and military collaboration that allowed G to evade the terms of the tov. Major G companies, such as Krupp, built factories in Russia producing the very tanks, artillery, aeroplanes, poison gas and other military equipment the tov specifically banned them from producing. G also organised military training in Russia for G officers who had been dismissed from the army in compliance w the tov. R major weakness during ww1 had been the lack of modern military equipment and training. The R armed forces were now able to learn from G military expertise and technological skills.

The signing of the TOR caused great concern elsewhere in Europe, particularly in France and Poland. The French, fearful of communism spreading from Bolshevik Russia and determined to keep G weak and isolated, felt threatened by the increasingly friendly relations between these two countries. The Poles were well aware that both G and R claimed parts of the territory that comprised post-ww1 Poland. Flanked by G in the west and R to the east, Poland’s security was clearly under threat. Moreover, P’s own hopes of territorial expansion at the expense of G and R was curtailed.

THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE - 1923

The Treaty of Sèvres had never been formally ratified. While the Ottoman (Turkish) gov had signed the Treaty, Greece refused to do so because of its claims to former OE territory. This issue was further complicated when the Turkish National Movement , under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal, gained control over Turkey. Kemal’s gov rejected the TOS, claiming some of the territory that the treaty had taken from the former OE.

With the aim of preventing this situation leading to further border disputes, representatives pf all the countries involved met in Lausanne, Switzerland. Discussions were tense, and there were constant protests from the Turkish reps. Nevertheless, agreement was finally reached, and the TOL was signed on 24 July 1923.

In addition to settling the borders of Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria, the treaty formally recognised the independence of the Republic of Turkey, with Kemal as head of state. Turkey’s requirement to pay reparations was ended. In effect, Turkey had become the first country to mount a successful formal challenge to the Paris Peace Settlement.

If the treaties arising from the Washington Naval Conference had gone some way to relieving Western concerns caused by Japan’s rise to power in the Far East, little had been achieved in terms of relieving tensions in Europe. The French refusal to compromise at the Genoa Conference had undermined Britain’s attempt to improve relations between France and Germany. Failure to reach agreement on the issue of German Reparations led to the subsequent French invasion of the Ruhr Industrial area. Moreover, the failure of the Genoa Conference led to closer relations between Germany and Russia, culminating in the Treaty of Rapallo, which was widely perceived as a threat to stability within Europe. This stability was further threatened by the Treaty of Lausanne, the first international agreement to clearly demonstrate that, under certain circumstances, the PPC could be amended and changed.

CHANGING RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MAJOR POWERS

The ending of the First World War led to global economic chaos. Countries, such as F and Bel, needed to rebuild their industrial infrastructure following the devastation of war damage. B had lost over 40% of its merchant fleet during the war, significantly reducing its ability to trade. At the same time, these countries had to repay their war debts to the USA. Japan, which had gained major economic advantages from the war now found that it faced renewed commercial competition from other countries. The German economy, confronted with war debts and reparation requirements, declined into a period of hyperinflation. Even the USA, which had gained financial benefits during the war, found that its trading opportunities were reduced because of economic weakness elsewhere in the world. Unemployment rose as wartime production ceased and soldiers returned from the war. Economic hardships led to social problems, which in turn posed the threat of civil disturbance and revolution. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that international tensions remained high in the immediate post-war period.

A number of key issues shaped relations between the major powers in the period from 1919-1923.

FEAR OF COMMUNISM/ USSR

The threat of revolution was heightened by events in the USSR. The Bolshevik’s rise to power is Oct 1917 caused alarm across Europe. F and B were especially concerned, as they lost a vital ally when the new R gov withdrew from ww1 by signing the Treaty of BL w Germany. It soon became clear that Lenin intended to spread revolution as far as possible. R agents and propaganda appeared in all the major Euro cities.

In March 1919, communists from all over the world were invited to a conference in Moscow, which marked the inauguration of the Third International or Comintern. Its chairman, Grigori Zinoviev, proclaimed that “in a year the whole of Europe will be Communist.” Given the political and economic turmoil Europe faced at this time, widespread revolution did seem a genuine possibility. Even in the USA, fear that revolution may spread from Communist Russia led to a nationwide panic, known as the Red Scare in 1919 and 1920. Some countries (including F, B the USA and J) actively supported the Bolsheviks’ opponents in the R civil war.

By 1921, the Bolsheviks were clearly established in R. However, their hopes of a worldwide communist rev under R leadership had not materialised. Lenin now accepted that R’s future depended on peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation with other countries. In March 1921, B was prepared to sign a trade treaty with R, in effect recognising the Bolsheviks and the legit R gov. F, however, remained deeply resentful of Bol success in R. Not only had it robbed F of a potential ally in the event of attack by G, but it also increased the threat of rev in F itself. Moreover, the Bol refusal to repay R debts to F resulted in great anger. It was mostly at F insistence that R was not repped at ppc.

F concerns regarding Bol R were heightened when the ToR was signed, restoring fill diplomatic relations between R and G and ending the pol an eco isolation of both. the TOR caused great concern across EU esp in Pol and F.

THE IMPACT OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE USA

The USA’s decision not to ratify the ppc had major implications for int relations. It undermined the legitimacy of the various treaties which emerged from the ppc, and seriously damaged the cred of the proposed LoN. In particular, it was a cause of great concern in F. Under the terms of the ToV, both B and USA guaranteed to help F in the event of future G invasion. When the USA refused to ratify the treaty, B used this as an excuse to cancel its former commitment. With no guarantee of USA or B help, F was left feeling betrayed and vulnerable.

During the war, the USA had provided its EU allies such as B and F w sizeable loans, to be repaid w interest once the war was over. In 1919, B and F urged the USA to cancel these debts, They justified this bc USA had benefitted from sig eco advantages during the war, and that its post-war eco was un a much healthier state than theirs. USA rejected. For EU countries who already had eco problems this was another issue.

To repay these debts B and F relied of G reps. Yet G w hyperinflation couldn’t meet rep requirements. While B was willing to comp w the G gov, F insisted loans be paid in full.

F ATTITUDES TOWARDS G

F had been invaded by G twice in less than 50 years. After humiliation defeat un the Franco Prussian war 1870-71 and the devastating affects of G aggression between 1914-18, not surprising F wanted G not a threat. At the PPC, GC had demanded harsh terms. USA decision not to ratify TOV meant F no longer had guarantee of B and USA assistance if G attacked.

Under these circumstances, F adopted a harsh policy towards G between 1919-23. Aim was to ensure G remained too weak, both militarily and eco, to threaten them. Bc of this, F insisted G pay full reps, e.g refusal to comp at Genoa Conference. Since this was to be payed over 66 years, F could feel assured G would stay weak for ages.

When G fell behind in payments, G was prepared to adopt drastic measures to force the Germans to pay. This resulted in F occupation of the Ruhr in 1923. This extreme measure, effectively a act of war, proved counter- productive for 2 reasons:

• greatly increased inflation, so even harder for G to meet reps

• severely damaged F’s relations w B, who wanted G strong for trade. This meant F felt more isolated and insecure in its borders.