Clemenceau resented Wilson’s generous attitude towards Germany and Lloyd George’s desire to not treat Germany too harshly. He said “if they British are so anxious to appease Germany they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial concessions”. These disagreements left the big three unsatisfied and ultimately left them with a weak mere shadow of a perhaps great treaty due to their own arrogance and. It contained many faults and weaknesses. The treaty of Versailles greatly humiliated Germany forcing it to accept soul responsibility for the war.
Collective security had a better response towards aggression rather than appeasement. This is because a lot more European countries didn’t approve of the decision made during the Munich Conference. Winston Churchill was one person who strong didn’t approve with this decision. He was a British politician who thought, “keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor” (Document 6). Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance.
When Keynes rejected the scale of reparations placed on Germany and resigned from his post at the Treasury, he lead the way for what many leading politicians were to understand later on. Keynes supported the approach of Lloyd George that for economic and political reasons, Europe needed a successful Germany, which would be seriously difficult to achieve whilst the excessive reparations were placed on them. Furthermore, his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919), was successful in influencing the view of Britain that a weak Germany would only make the recovery of Europe after the war, a lot more difficult. On the other hand, from taking this view, politicians were criticised for being 'too lenient' towards Germany. Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism.
Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”. From this I can conclude that source one doesn’t wholly hold Churchill responsible for the 1945 election defeat, however the reliability of the source is questionable as it is bias towards the conservative party. Source two, an extract from Lord Butler’s memoirs, clearly shows opposition to not only Churchill but also the conservative party, Lord Butler for example describes Churchill’s speech as a “negative attack on the labour party” and believed that he should have instead focused on “post-war policies”. By describing Churchill’s use of the word “Gestapo” as a “strategic blunder” shows that Butler is blaming Churchill in having played a role in the defeat of the 1945 election. Although both members of the conservative party, Butler and Churchill were political enemies, this is evident when looking at the extract: “a poor third place to the concentrated exploitation of Churchill’s personality” – this is a personal attack on Churchill’s actions.
However some historians would say that Britain was too complacent when it came to foreign policy, and as soon as they believed they had reached satisfactory targets, they wouldn’t go any further, and so risk harming British interests. Yet other historians would also suggest that at the time, Britain had no choice but to be sometimes complacent due to economic factors, and at the time, their policy making decisions were not ultimately harmful to interests, but best suited to the current international climate. British Foreign policy in the 1920’s was dominated by the France and German tensions. Britain and France disagreed on most issues. French leaders were particularly concerned about Germany’s efforts to undo the treaty of Versailles.
This angered Stalin as he did not want West Germany to recover and be given Marshall Aid. Marshall Aid made tension worse because it divided Europe further, the west could get richer and the east would go poorer because Stalin would not accept Marshall Aid. The back round of the Berlin Blockade and airlift cause tension because the west wanted Germany to be more prosperous but Stalin wanted Germany and Berlin to be weak. Tension increased because Britain and America joined their zones together creating Bizona. Stalin got angrier when he heard that France joined to create Trizona.
Their relations were worsen during Potsdam conference. Truman were the new USA president, he is very different from Roosevelt, he was much more anti-communist and suspicious of Stalin, he saw USSR's action in Eastern Europe a preparation of taking over the rest of the world. In Potsdam conference, USSR and USA had disagreement on the future of Germany, USSR want to impose heavy reparation on Germany as fear a strong Germany would post a threat to USSR in future, however USA want Germany to rebuild as Truman did not want to repeat the mistake in Treaty of Versailles again. Stalin was determined to protect USSR interest, so he was dissatisfied as the part of Germany he was controlling was pooper and less industry. Stalin was also obsessed with the security of USSR so the successful test of atomic bomb in USA
Opposition to the fourteen points was not solely limited to the United States. Countries in Europe that had suffered much damage from the war wanted the liberal policy of the fourteen points to exclude Germany. Wilson promoted democracy and equality for all, but many people would have rather blamed the war and pushed reparations on Germany. Two reasons for opposition to the fourteen points were the vague nature, and also the specific nature of the speech. Firstly, six of his points were vague suggestions for ideals such as self-determination.
Rachel Kay How accurate is it to say Frederick William IV was responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament? The Frankfurt Parliament was established to create freedom of press, German citizenship for all, fair taxation, equality of political rights and to create a unified Germany. However, countries like Austria greatly opposed it. Frederick William IV could be seen as responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament because he refused to accept any form of leadership and made it clear he distrusted the ‘gentlemen of Frankfurt’. However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions.
He also makes it seem like everything is crumbling around Paul, and destroying all hope of survival and return to normal life for anyone who had experienced the front line. This is very different from pro-war poetry, which makes war seem fun. Something Remarque does either subconsciously or very well, is to make you feel sorry for the German and Central Powers’ soldiers, and to grow a subliminal hate for the allied soldiers, no matter who’s side you came in on. The Textbook also does this well, but in reverse. The Textbook gives off a sense of dislike towards the Central Powers, and made them seem primitive and destructive for no reason.