Thursday, January 27, 2011

THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Paris Peace conference was created initially with the honest purpose of keeping peace. At least that's what the allies had alleged and announced to the countries of Europe. The conference took place in 1919 in Paris and involved diplomats from more than 29 countries. These nations had joined together and declared the creation of a series of treaties that were to reshape the map of Europe and the world. However, there is much debate whether or not the treaties truly served its intended purpose of peace or could even possibly be blamed for the Second World War. Even though the conference was successful in keeping the nations of Europe too weak to revolt, tensions rose when the treaties began requiring too much from the countries.

The first treaty of the Paris Peace conference to be signed was the Treaty of Versailles; the treaty that ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. The treaty harshly required Germany to accept sole responsibility for causing the war and to disarm and pay heavy reparations to the Entente powers. With the treaty's order for Germany to disarm, Europe seemed a safer place. However, there was no saying whether or not Germany would eventually rebuild its empire and seek revenge; there was, after all, a Second World War. Even the victors argued on this very treaty. Several feared that revenge would truly be what Germans would be after while others argued that by disarming them now they would be a force that could be controlled. Finally the treaty was signed on the 28th of June in 1919, seemingly ending the conflict between Germany and the Allied powers.

Soon enough, the Treaty of Saint-Germain was signed on the 10th of September in 1919, by the Allies and the newly created Republic of Austria. The treaty declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was to disband and no longer be as one. As a result, Austria was politically unstable and economically weaker. In addition, with the treaties requirement for their army to be limited to a force of 30,000 volunteers, Austria was too weak to fight back and kept them quiet from revolting. Furthermore, the treaty called for the prevention of a future alliance with Germany without the permission of the League of Nations. With no alliances possible, Austria, just as Germany, was weak and alone and couldn’t possibly go against the Allies once more.

Perhaps one of the most disastrous treaties of the Paris Peace Conference was the Treaty of Neuilly-dur-Seine. On the 17th of November 1919 in France, a treaty was signed between the Allied forces and Bulgaria, dealing with its role in the war. It required for Bulgaria to give up Western Thrace to the Entente, cutting off Bulgaria’s access to the Aegean Sea. Trading being a major income for many nations, even before and still after the treaty, the economy was struck. In combination with the requirement for £100 million in reparations, the Second National Catastrophe occurred nearly rendering their economy useless. As with all nations, furthermore the League called for a reduction of their army to 20,000 men. With no army came no retaliation, a supposed peace yet the creation of a vulnerable Bulgaria. Eventually, however, Bulgaria regained land ceded by the treaty when they joined with Nazi Germany in World War II with the result of more disastrous results for Europe than before.

In 1920 the Allies and Hungary (the result of the disbanding of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) came together and signed the peace agreement named the Treaty of Trianon. The treaty, as many of the others, reduced and redefined the nation’s borders and caused Hungary to lose 64% of its total population. Hungary was also deprived of direct access to the sea and some of its most valuable natural resources which, like Bulgaria, led to economic instability. In addition, militarily their army was reduced to about 35,000 soldiers, leaving them almost useless if a war were to break out. In addition to the economical stress, Hungary had to pay war reparations to its neighbors.

The Treaty of Sevres was to be signed on the 10th of August 1920 in reference to the Ottoman Empire’s peace with the Allies. Militarily, as usual with the Treaties of the Conference, the Ottoman’s army was to be restricted to 50,000 men and the navy could only preserve seven sloops and six torpedo boats. In addition, they were prohibited from obtaining an air force. The treaty however was not signed by the empire. Instead, later on in 1923 on July 24th the Treaty of Lausanne was proposed instead. This was signed by the Ottoman Empire and was ratified by the Greek government. Politically The Republic of Turkey was recognized as an independent country, the successor state of the now non-existent Ottoman Empire. Economically, Turkey was not required to pay any reparations, unlike all the treaties due to the fact that this would have apparently destroyed the economy of this new country; something that was disregarded with dealing with the rest of the nations. Turkey was then able to build their economy, unlike Germany, for example, which was economically destroyed. Furthermore, no military limitations were imposed on Turkey, once again allowing the new country to build-up their army.

In conclusion, the Paris Peace Conference seemed more of a failure at keeping the nations of Europe stable enough to create a unified community. With their harsh rulings, the Allies ultimately forced the nations to question the League of Nations actions. Those who did not sign the agreements suggested were safe from having to limit their military. However, those who did ratify their treaties that required for a limitation of the nations army would find themselves in danger of those who did not. It seems that it’s understandable why the intentions of the League were questioned. They seemed to have destroyed European connections to bring peace rather than simplify them.

1 comment:

  1. Your introduction is eloquent and the amount of supporting detail is excellent...however, we are still not hitting the thesis and structure in a way that shapes the true argument and dissects it into causality/factors...let's look at your thesis:
    Even though the conference was successful in keeping the nations of Europe too weak to revolt, tensions rose when the treaties began requiring too much from the countries.
    ...
    What you are telling me is that militarily it was successful in ... However this actually led to increased tensions based on economics, ethnic and political divisions...etc

    It may seem simplistic, but do you see the difference? As a reader/examiner with the criteria from the rubric, it is important that we explicitly argue in a way that highlights causal factors
    The essay could easily build from there to incorporate all of your detail in support of the arguments

    The detailed causality within paragraphs saves you, so you'd probably get a 5, but the more explicit, the better.

    Also, please use a contrasting or white font, this was very hard to read and made extra work for me in opening a word document in order to read it.

    ReplyDelete