The Treaty of Versailles made to keep the peace after World War 1 was weak and had many faults, like Article 231 which unfairly blamed Germany for World War 1. The League of Nations created by the Treaty of Versailles also was ineffectual due to its “lack of teeth.” For there to be stability in Europe international diplomacy needed to achieve strong social, economic and political foundations. Stability in Europe was dependent on international diplomacy following the Treaty of Versailles. These agreements and pacts were to build a new, better foundation of peace. Interpretations B, C and D suggest this never happened, instead only an illusion of peace was formed.
Eleanor Waller History – Do you agree with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy in the years 1514-25 failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims? I agree that the main reason for the failure of Henry VIII’s foreign policy is because he lacked resources to fulfil his aims. Source 4 and 6 both support the ideas that the lack of resources is to blame and the battle of Pavia and the second French War support this further. However, in Source 5 there are other reasons pointing towards the failure of the foreign policy but these reasons are not as significant as those found in sources 4 and 6. Source 4 agrees with the view that Henry VIII’s foreign policy failed because he lacked the resources to fulfil his aims.
They were the opposite from the Spartacists and supported the new republic, entering numerous coalition Governments. Due to these differing views the threats from the left were never able to raise enough support across Germany in order to actually be classed as threats, they didn’t really pose a threat to the new Weimar Republic. The above paragraph is
As a result of these political, social and economic failures, the Post Civil War reconstruction was a failure. From a political standpoint, there was anything but success. The goal was to unify and equalize the nation, and build trust but neither of these was accomplished. For example, ex-confederate leaders were not allowed to hold office. This exacerbated sectional tensions rather than quell them because the country could not unify if there was inequality existing.
Woodrow Wilson leaves the treaty with mixed feelings. The League of Nations is assembled, however Wilson can’t gain favour in congress and the USA doesn’t join. National self-determination was in Wilson’s mind achieved as the borders in Eastern Europe changed to represent nationalities governing themselves. Some of Wilson’s 14 points didn’t make it into the treaty; secret treaties were
There was not a single country which was completely satisfied or dissatisfied with the treaty of Versailles. There was certain part of the treaty where one country was pleased with but the other was not. France was most satisfied with article 231 of the treaty as their enemy Germany had to accept full responsibility for the war and the damage caused by the war as this was part of the war guilt clause, Clemenceau always wanted revenge as this was the perfect punishment for Germany. Germany also had to compensate the allies for any damage caused. Most of the north east of France was damaged and ruined due to all the fighting which took place, Many of the land and houses got destroyed; in 1921 Germany was set to pay £6.6 billion as reparations to her allies .France receives 60% of reparations, which meant that they could pay off all the debt which was cause during the war.
Each group had its own ideas on what was needed for Russia and each group wanted change, however, there were many problems within the groups and none of them were willing to work with each other; mostly due to the differences in their policies and how they carried them out. The Social Revolutionaries, who were mainly concentrated on establishing a democratic government, used violent tactics such as terrorism and assassinations, the most famous being the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. However, the Liberals, who also wanted to establish some sort of democracy did not agree on using violent tactics, they preferred to discuss things in meetings and banqueting campaigns. The Liberals were the most moderate of the opposition groups and wanted to keep the Tsar, but remove autocracy and have his current power shared between a democratic government. The Social Democrats, like the other two groups, also wanted to establish some sort of democracy; however, once again, they did not agree on using violence, they preferred to use propaganda campaigns, as did the Social Revolutionaries and Liberals, but not violence.
The first key issue I would like to discuss is the limited nature of the German revolution and how this damaged the prospects of German democracy. The way that Ebert used to take control lead damaged the prospects of democracy from the outset. Historians have criticised Ebert’s use of force to crush radical groups such as the Spartacists and his use of the Freikorps. Together with the crushing Spartacists in 1919 caused these left wing radicals to become divided and were therefore unwilling to compromise on reforms in the Reichstag. This made it far more difficult for coalitions to form and for democracy to function in the designed fashion.
Many people believe another fault of the League of Nations that contributed to war was; how they appeased Hitler by letting him have Czechoslovakia. They did this because they thought it would reduce chances of war, yet Hitler soon broke the agreement they had made and war started. Although many people would argue that the above cause was the fault of the League of Nations, I disagree because, if Hitler had not been so aggressively demanding, they would not have needed to appease him. However, the League of Nations is not completely without fault, Italy was disappointed by the League of Nations as she was denied territory promised by Britain and France. This lead Mussolini and Italy to join forces with Germany, making them bear resentment and wanting war.
Furthermore, German politics suffered polarisation as the left and right became more extreme, divisions were caused by differing views over war aims and developing concern over the establishment of the ‘Silent Dictatorship’. The first world war definitely narrowed political divisions initially which can be shown through Burgfriede which was introduced on 4th August to symbolise the political truce between all parties, even the supposedly ’unpatriotic’ Social Democrat Party gave their support for what was presented as a defensive war. However this political unity did not last as the military was unable to deliver on the quick victory that they had promised, and as the Schlieffen Plan failed and the heavy losses in battles such as Verdunn, the unity of the parties began to fracture. Subsequently Falkenhayn failed to find alternative strategies to break the stalemate and as a result Falkenhayn was replaced with military hero Hindenburg. For this reason, one can argue how the First World War increased political divisions.