1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

The impact of the treaties: Europe and the mandate system

The Treaty of Versailles had a distinct impact on the geo-political and

economic situation of Europe after the First World War. The geo-political
impacts were the creation of a number of new states in Central and
Eastern Europe and the redrawing of the frontiers of Germany and France.
The economic impacts were the weakening of the German economy
through territorial loss and reparations and the destruction of the free trade
zone in Eastern and Central Europe which had existed before 1914.
Beyond Europe, in the colonies of the defeated powers, the main impact
of Versailles was the establishment of the mandate system. This was an
attempt to make imperialism more progressive. The system did not in
fact work and it ended up being a thinly disguised way to add territory to
the empires of the victorious powers.
It is crucial to understand what geo-political changes the treaties did not
make. The Bolshevik Revolution, the political weakening of Britain and
France, the power of the United States, war debts and general economic
weakness, among other problems, were caused by the First World War,
not by the treaties. It is easy to become confused as to what changes
resulted from the war and which were created by the actions of the
peacemakers at Versailles.

The impact of the First World War

The issues, attitudes and policies that developed during the period 1918–
36 cannot be understood or appreciated without a sound knowledge of
the experience and impact of the First World War on all those who
participated in it. These experiences and impacts are often described as
cataclysmic. To fully understand what that term means and the
dimensions of those impacts on Western society, one must examine the
experience of the war from a number of vantage points.
The war caused the deaths of millions of people—mostly in Europe and
the Middle East. The dead were composed of soldiers and civilians who
died from battle wounds, disease, starvation and ethnic conflict. What is
most significant about these deaths is not only the sheer number but the
manner in which they occurred. Soldiers on the Western Front died in
millions in what can only be described as a strategic stalemate. After
four years of war the battle lines had not shifted appreciably from the
opening days of the war—the whole experience seemed to have been a
futile orgy of mud and blood which had resolved nothing. This was a far
cry from the romantic, chivalrous ideas of war that had existed in 1914
and that had seen huge crowds welcoming the onset of war as an
opportunity for glory and adventure.
The collapse of these images had left a deep scar on the European
psyche—optimism replaced by a deep pessimism reflected in a loss of
faith in the values of the pre-war world, in the institutions and
philosophies that had dominated the world before 1914. The number
and manner of the deaths had left a huge scar. The introduction of new
32
and terrible weapons of mass destruction such as poison gas, air

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 32 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

bombardment of civilians and ever more powerful armaments had

created a vision of even more destructive wars in the future. The
prospect of another Armageddon-like experience terrified Europeans
and caused them to search desperately for alternatives to war—any
alternative no matter how unlikely in practice.
This fear of war was not only based on physical destruction. The war
had destroyed so much else that was familiar. The confidence and
optimism of Europeans about their levels of education, progress and an
ever-improving world had been shattered. How could a society at the
peak of human development have allowed itself to engage in so
mindless and brutal a conflict? Everywhere one looked in 1918—one
could see evidence of a shattered world.
The political landscape had altered spectacularly with the collapse of the
Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German and Ottoman empires. A look at
the map of Europe in 1914 and in 1919 gives some idea of the
enormous political changes that had occurred. There were not only a
myriad of new countries but they had new political systems. The
monarchy was out; republicanism was in. Even more disturbing to some
Europeans was the fact that they had lost the leadership of the world to
the United States whose troops had rescued the exhausted European
armies in 1918 and whose economy was now the largest in the world.
Added to this was the fact that the hopes for a better world were
centred on the person of US President Woodrow Wilson.
Revolutionary political ideology had burst onto the scene through the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia. This was an event that would not have
transpired without the pressures created by the First World War. This
was not merely a political revolution but a philosophical one as well.
Bolshevism challenged the very pillars of Western society: religion,
property, family, democracy and individualism. What was worse— it
was threatening to spread and engulf Europe in a tide of revolutionary
violence and anarchy. The war had unleashed this monster and another
war might see further destructive ideas emerge.
Other major changes had taken place due to the war. The social
structure of Western society had been transformed. Women in Western
countries had received the vote and their role in the war had
guaranteed that they would continue to demand changes to social and
economic structures that would satisfy their demands for equal
treatment. The war had been a “total war” that had not only called for
intense physical effort from all sectors of society but had placed great
emotional demands on it as well. This was the first mass media war in
which governments unleashed masses of propaganda to raise the
emotional commitment to the war—anger, revenge, vilification of the
enemy were all widely expressed sentiments used to maintain the flow
of recruits to the killing fields and to sustain the sacrifices demanded of
the civilian populations. This near-hysterical campaign to support the
war had considerable consequences. The harsh aspects of the Versailles
Treaty can be traced back in part to the promises of revenge on the
enemy made by politicians during the war. The moderation and
consideration shown at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 could not be
replicated at Versailles when so much emotion and expectation had
33
been created.

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 33 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

ty:
It is easy to be cynical about the chances of success for the League of Activi
Nations and to mock those who believed in them. But the experience of
The geo-political/
the First World War convinced Europeans that another war would see economic impact of
the end of civilization and that any chance to avoid it should be the peace treaties
embraced uncritically. 1 Wilson believed that self-
determination would
It is understandable therefore to comprehend why people felt that lessen the chance of war.
entirely new ideas and methods to resolve conflicts would have to be To what extent do you
found and that humanity should rely on reason rather than strength to agree with this statement?
resolve disputes and maintain peace. A sense of interdependence and 2 Take the role of an official
mutual support rather than rivalry and conflict was the only way given the task of drawing
forward that offered a chance to avoid another war. This helps to the boundaries of the new
explain the over-optimism of the 1920s and the reluctance to confront states. Explain what
the dictators in the 1930s: compromise was better than the alternative. considerations you used
when drawing the
boundaries of Poland,
Geo-political impacts of the treaties on Europe Hungary and
The collapse of the Romanov, Hohenzollern and Hapsburg empires had Czechoslovakia.
allowed the creation of no fewer than ten successor states in Central
and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The Paris Peace Conference took
on the task of defining the frontiers of these new states, ostensibly in
accordance with the principle of self-determination—that countries
should be established according to the wishes of the people concerned.
This was a difficult problem as various nationalities did not always live
in well-defined geographic areas but were scattered over a wide range
of territories and/or intermingled with other racial or linguistic groups.
This was the result of having lived in multinational empires in which
people had some freedom to move around.
The most complex part of the problem was to create viable states in
terms of economics, communications and security. It seemed logical
that these states should be designed to be able to survive in the new
world and this meant access to natural resources, trade routes, rivers
and oceans. It is easy to see how this might complicate matters.
Extending a country’s borders to give it access to a trade route might
mean incorporating some people from another ethnic group. This is
clearly a violation of self-determination, but was judged necessary if
the state were to be a viable economic entity.
There was no easy solution to this problem. Populations could have
been relocated, but on humanitarian grounds as well as for more
practical reasons this option was not taken up. The Allies asked the
new nations to pledge to protect the rights of any minorities that
remained within their borders. In addition to requiring a promise to
protect minority rights, the peace conference provided a mechanism
by which minorities could appeal to an international body for
protection or redress. Minority groups could appeal to the League of
Nations, which maintained a Minorities Commission—adjudication
would be provided by the International Court of Justice. The
effectiveness of these treaties varied greatly, but they were a step
forward in emphasizing human rights.
The creation of these new states did not add to European stability but
instead produced a number of small, vulnerable countries which
34 often lacked political or economic stability. The manner in which
they were constructed gave rise to internal tensions as well as

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 34 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

ongoing disputes with neighbouring states. The factors that led to the
design of these states were numerous and complicated: ethnic,
linguistic, cultural, strategic and historical factors all played a role. In
addition, the aims and expectations of the Allies influenced the
decisions on the frontiers of the new states.
Self-determination meant that a common language and ethnic
background should decide the nature of the state. In practice, this Polish Corridor A strip of territory
principle was violated at Versailles in a number of cases, such as the forming part of the new Polish state
South Tyrol, the Polish Corridor and the Sudetenland. There were created in the Versailles settlements.
also many cases where ethnic groups were so intermingled that it was This territory divided Germany into two
impossible to separate them effectively. In practice this meant that parts and fuelled German hatred of
about 30 million people ended up as minorities in other countries. Versailles and Poland.

Map showing part of the old Austrian Empire showing the main nationalities, rivers and railways

Elbe

Prague Cracow Lvov

Danube

Bratislava
Vienna

Budapest
R. Danube

Danube

Czechs/Slovaks Hungarians Mountains Germans Poles Romanians Ruthenes

Railways Boundary of Austrian Empire This map of the former Austro-Hungarian empire demonstrates
the difficulty of creating economically viable independent states
while honouring the principle of self-determination.
In place of Empires
When their arms were not being twisted by Italians, Poles, well be another man's idea of a part of Czechoslovakia.
Czechs and Greeks, the Big Three tried to deal sensibly There was also the question of whether the frontiers
with the rest of Europe. The trouble was that the proposed for a new state made military and economic
continent's problems were too knotty to be unravelled sense. Surely, whereever possible, a country should have
quickly and to every one's satisfaction. access to the sea or to a major navigable river? Surely it
The principle of antional self-determination meant that made military sense to draw lines on the map along
new frontiers should be drawn according to the wishes of “natural” boundaries such as rivers and mountain ranges?
the people's concerned. But the people of Central and But what if, for example, by granting Czechs or Slovaks
Eastern Europe did not all live in tight compartments access to the River Danube, you included in their new state
labelled “Polish”, or “Czech” or “Hungarian” or “Italian”. lands where most of the people were Hungarian? What
There were places in which a few people of one nationality kind of self-determination would that be?
(for example, Hungarians) dominated a majority of, say, Source: Howarth, T. 1993. Twentieth Century World History: The
World since 1900. London, UK. Longman. pp. 41–2. 35
Romanians. One man's idea of a part of Poland could very

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 35 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

The Allies had to make an assessment as to whether self-

determination or economic/strategic viability should be the deciding
factor in the design of the new states. There was little point to a
nation being ethnically homogeneous if it could not survive. It was
hoped that stable, democratic governments would be developed in
these countries and it was realized that economic prosperity would be
a key to this. It was this thinking that led to the creation of the Polish
Corridor to give Poland access to the Baltic and the decision to make
Danzig a free city to maximize opportunities for trade.
The problems for these new states began immediately. Their economic
situation was particularly challenging. Before the First World War, the
Austro-Hungarian Empire had been one economic unit. After the war
this was destroyed and replaced by a group of small, fragile economic
units scrambling to survive, erecting trade barriers and interrupting the
normal flow of commerce that had existed for centuries. This is a
problem that might have been addressed by the peace conference, as it
was clearly not in keeping with the spirit of the third of the Fourteen
Points which supported the removal of trade barriers.
Serious disputes broke out between those states which had lost key
industries or access to resources. An example would be the dispute
between Poland and Czechoslovakia over the Teschen area, which
had large coal reserves and strategic rail connections.
The lack of economic and diplomatic co-operation among the new
states not only made them prone to hostilities with each other but also
rendered them weak and vulnerable to the territorial ambitions of
either Germany or Russia in the future. Both of these were determined
to revise the verdict of the First World War and the new small states
would prove tempting targets. Their inability to work together to
prevent the danger posed by Russia and Germany made their survival
doubtful in the face of a strengthened USSR and Germany.

German empowerment
The Treaty of Versailles—with all of the provisions designed to blame
Germany for the war, to reduce her territory, to confiscate her colonies,
to limit her military and to collect reparations—was deeply resented in
all parts of German society. The humiliation of having to sign the treaty
without benefit of any negotiation only heightened the sense of anger
and humiliation felt by the vast majority of the German population.
The territorial terms meant that Germany lost 12 per cent of her
population and 13 per cent of her pre-war territory. The most
significant losses were Alsace-Lorraine, which was returned to
France, and the territory taken to create the Polish Corridor, which
divided Germany in two. A further humiliation was that Germans
were not permitted to participate in the process of self-determination
as the Allies forbade the incorporation of Germans outside Germany,
in Austria and Czechoslovakia, into the Weimar Republic.
These losses and the sense of injustice felt by many Germans meant
that they were determined to seek a revision of the treaty at the
earliest opportunity. The fact that the countries on her eastern border
36 were weak and, in fact, represented a power vacuum would prove a

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 36 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

powerful temptation for Germany when she had recovered her

strength. The irony of the First World War was that although Germany
had been defeated, she was actually in a stronger position than she had
been before the war, particularly in the east. The Great Powers that
might have restrained her were gone, replaced by a power vacuum.
Soviet revisionism
A significant development at this time, not created by the Treaty of
Versailles, was the emergence of the Bolshevik regime in Russia.
Immediately after the war, Russia was weakened by the effects of
political revolution and civil war. As such, she did not pose an
immediate threat to the new states of Eastern Europe which might be
seen as a buffer against the spread of Bolshevism virus. In fact, Russia
had been defeated in a war with Poland and had lost considerable
territory as a result. When Russia recovered her strength, however,
she, like Germany, would very likely seek a revision of the verdict of
the First World War and her target would be the newly created states.
Their weakness and inability to co-operate with each other would
make them a target for Soviet revisionism.
The new states and their relationship with Germany and Russia was a
little like the old saying “while the cat’s away, the mice will play”.
When the cats returned, however, the mice would be in dire straits.
Any doubt about the hostility of Germany and Russia to the new states
was erased by their co-operation in the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922. This
treaty, which would serve to undermine the restrictions of Versailles
and restore the strength of these two nations, made it clear that they
were determined to revise the territorial arrangements of Versailles.

The Little Entente, 1921

A number of the new states, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania,
Little Entente An alliance of
were aware of their vulnerability and formed the Little Entente in
Czechoslovakia, Hungary and
1921. Its original intention was to protect them from the irredentist
Romania in 1921 to safeguard their
claims of Hungary, which was angry about the territorial losses that
new independence from other central
she had suffered through the treaties. The Little Entente was a model
European states such as Bulgaria and
of co-operation, particularly military and economic, among its
Poland. France tried to develop this into
members. If it had expanded, it might well have strengthened the
a counter-balance to German power.
whole region and made it less vulnerable to the revisionist ambitions
of Germany and Russia. However, as will be seen, rivalry and hostility
among other new states prevented this development.
Irredentism A desire to recover former
The alliance was supported by France, which was seeking a territory.
counterweight to the possibility of a German resurgence. The loss of
Russia as an ally had forced the French to seek another way to
balance German power and discourage their aggression by creating
the prospect of a two-front war. In line with this policy, France made
an alliance with Poland in 1921.
Poland was the most powerful of the new states and would have Teschen was an area of rich mineral
been an important addition to the Little Entente, but her ongoing resources claimed by both Poland and
hostility towards Czechoslovakia over Teschen made this impossible. Czechoslovakia. They had engaged in
This was an example of how the disputes which occurred when the hostilities over it in 1918. This dispute
new states were formed made it difficult for them to co-operate for poisoned the relationship between the
their mutual benefit or protection. two countries throughout the inter-war
period. 37

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 37 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

Source analysis
The following documents relate to Russia and Germany and the
Treaty of Rapallo.

Source A Source C
Weimar attitudes towards Soviet Russia Soviet reassurance to France over the Treaty of
Dr Walter Simon, Foreign Minister of the Weimar Rapallo
Republic, in a speech to the Reichstag, 26 July 1920. Extract from a letter from Chicherin to the French
I am not as worried about Eastern developments as foreign minister on the Treaty of Rapallo, 29 April 1922.
perhaps many of you are. I came to know Chicherin at In the statements of French Government leaders, the treaty
Brest-Litovsk and I regard him as an unusually clever man. between Germany and Russia … signed at Rapallo is
I do not believe it is in the interest of the Soviet Republic to regarded as an act directed against French interests. The
overrun Germany with murdering and burning hordes. assumption has frequently been made that secret clauses
What the Soviet Republic needs is economic aid. It has of a military and political character … are attached to the
robbed itself of a large part of its economic strength by an treaty of Rapallo.
excessive emphasis on the Soviet idea which would have
The Russian Delegation declare in the most categorical
made the reconstruction of the ruined economic system
terms that the Treaty of Rapallo does not contain a single
possible. I do not belong among those who see nothing but
secret clause, military or political, and that the Russian
chaos in Russia. I know from reports of independent and
Government is not a party to any act the operation of
knowledgeable men that a truly enormous creative work
which is directed against the interests of France or of any
has been accomplished, a work which in many respects we
other nation.
could do well to take as an example. I am prepared and
willing to give you the evidence. The Treaty of Rapallo has no other object than the
settlement of questions which have accumulated between
two States which were at war with one another and which
Source B feel the mutual necessity of re-establishing peaceful
Treaty of Rapallo relations …
Extract from the Treaty of Rapallo, 16 April 1922. In this respect, Russia’s policy remains unchanged,
Article 1 notwithstanding the hostility which France has thought it
(a) The German Reich and the Russian Socialist Federal necessary to show in regard to Russia in the last four years.
Republic mutually agree to waive their claims for
compensation for expenditure incurred on account of the Source D
war, and also for war damages, that is to say, any
German proposals to partition Poland after
damages … on account of military measures, including all
Rapallo
reparations in enemy country. Both parties likewise agree
to forgo compensation for any civilian damages. … General von Seeckt, in proposals to Reichswehr leaders,
11 September 1922.
b) The public and private legal relations between the two
states … will be settled on the basis of reciprocity. Poland’s existence is intolerable, incompatible with the
survival of Germany. It must disappear, and it will
Article 3 Diplomatic and consular relations will
disappear through its own internal weakness and through
immediately be resumed. …
Russia—with our assistance. For Russia, Poland is even
Article 4 Both Governments have furthermore agreed that more intolerable than for us; no Russian can allow Poland
… the general regulations of mutual, commercial and to exist … Poland can never offer any advantages to
economic relations shall be effected on the principle of the Germany, either economically, because it is incapable of
most favoured nations. … any development, or politically, because it is France’s
Article 5 The two Governments shall co-operate in a spirit vassal. The re-establishment of the broad common frontier
of mutual goodwill in meeting the economic needs of both between Russia and Germany is the precondition for the
countries. … The German Government, having lately been regaining of strength of both countries …
informed of the proposed agreements of private firms, We aim at two things: first, a strengthening of Russia in the
declares its readiness to give all possible support to these economic and political, thus also in the military field, and
arrangements. so indirectly a strengthening of ourselves, by strengthening
a possible ally of the future … and by helping to create in
Russia an armaments industry which in case of need will
serve us.
38

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 38 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

Source E Source-based questions

The shape of the future in the Treaty of Rapallo 1 a Identify the reasons given in Source A why the
The revisionist powers were not only deficient in force, but USSR is not a danger to Germany.
separated by differences of policy, interest and outlook too b What is the author’s purpose?
wide to permit of the formation of an opposing group. But 2 Compare and contrast the reasons for signing the
there were dangerous possibilities for the future. The Treaty given in Sources A, B and D.
normal tendency towards a reversal of combinations after
3 With reference to their origin and purpose, evaluate
a great war in itself suggested an ultimate rapprochement
the value and limitation of Sources C and D for a
between Russia, Germany and Italy: the first two had
historian studying the Rapallo treaty.
fluttered the dovecotes of Europe as early as 1922 by the
conclusion of the Treaty of Rapallo, whilst the opposition 4 Using these documents and your own knowledge,
between France and Italy was becoming increasingly acute, explain the impact of Rapallo on the geo-political
and the dissatisfaction of the latter at her treatment during settlement created at Versailles.
the Peace Conference tended inevitably to bring her into
the revisionist camp. With each reconciliation of existing
differences between these three Powers, and with the
ultimately inevitable recovery of Germany, a situation
could therefore be seen approaching in which the worst
features of the pre-war system might easily be reproduced.
Source: Rayner, EG. 1992. The Great Dictators. London, UK.
Hodder and Stoughton Murray, pp. 12–15.

Economic impacts
In economic terms, the Treaty of Versailles affected the European
economic situation more by what it did not do than by what it did.
It did not deal with any economic question directly except that of
reparations. Most critically, it failed to deal with the issue of Allied
war debts. This created bad relations among the debtor nations and
the United States for many years and contributed to general
economic instability as nations struggled to pay off their loans.
The debt issue created pressures which contributed to the Ruhr Crisis
in Germany and the poisoning of relations between France and Ruhr The centre of German heavy
Britain. A number of international conferences tried to resolve the industry. It was occupied by France and
debt issue as a means of alleviating tensions over reparations and Belgium in 1923 to force Germany to
assisting in economic recovery. They were all unsuccessful, as the pay reparations.
United States refused to cancel the debts of its Allies, thus weakening
their recovery and forcing them to continue to demand reparations
Dawes Plan This was created by
from Germany. The irony is that the United States was compelled to
the United States in order to restore
offer financial aid to Germany through the Dawes Plan in the
economic and political stability to
aftermath of the Ruhr Crisis. This might have been averted to some
Germany. America would lend money
extent if they had addressed the Allied debt issue earlier.
to Germany to rebuild industry and pay
The economic terms of the Treaty were condemned by JM Keynes, her reparations to Britain and France.
who argued that demanding high reparations from Germany, along
with the loss of territory and resources, was a foolish decision.
It would hurt all of Europe as it would prevent the recovery of
Germany, which was the economic engine of Europe.
The Allies, in punishing Germany, were only punishing themselves.
The Keynes view has been challenged by other historians but it had
considerable support in the post-war period and contributed to the
call for the revision of the Treaty. Considerable sympathy developed 39
in Britain and the United States for German requests to revise the

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 39 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

treaty and the reparations payments. This led to a serious rift

between the UK and France over the treatment of Germany.
The treaty also failed to develop any effective organization to
promote and ensure international trade, particularly among the
newly created European states. This failure to develop stronger
trading links would add to the catastrophic impact of the Great
Depression of 1929.
The establishment and impact of the mandate system
Many people believed that colonial disputes had been a major cause
of the First World War. Woodrow Wilson addressed this concern in
the fifth of the Fourteen Points, which proposed:
a free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all
colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that
in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the
populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable
claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
Liberal opinion in Europe and America as personified by Wilson
would not permit the victors simply to annex the colonies of
Germany and the Ottoman Empire.
This meant that instead of merely distributing the colonies of the
defeated powers as spoils of war, the decision was to create the
mandatory system to administer them. The administration of these
territories would be supervised by the League of Nations. The
mandates were given to the countries which had conquered them
from the Germans and Ottomans in accordance with Article 22 of the
League Covenant. This states that the purpose of the mandate system
was the well-being and development of the people in these
territories. The League was also charged with ensuring that slavery
did not occur in these territories and that an open door for trade
would be maintained. The proponents of this system saw it as a
vehicle to educate and improve colonial populations, with the
intention of the territories becoming independent democratic states.
The territories were divided into three classes of mandate, depending
on their degree of development and how soon they would be ready
for independent status:
● The “A mandates” were those countries which would be ready for
independence in the very near future. These comprised the former
Ottoman states in the Middle East: Lebanon, Syria, Palestine,
Transjordan and Iraq
● The “B mandates” were less advanced and had no immediate
prospects for independence. These comprised the German colonies
in Africa, which were divided between France, Britain and Belgium
● The “C mandates” were thinly populated and economically
underdeveloped. They were handed over directly to the nations
that had conquered them. This meant that German possessions in
the Pacific were distributed between Japan, Australia and New
Zealand. Southwest Africa was given to South Africa.
40

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 40 24/4/09 16:59:

 1 ● Peacemaking, peacekeeping—international relations, 1918–36

The mandate system was devised at Versailles but the actual decisions What was different about
on how to divide German territory had been made prior to the the mandate system in
conference. Documents such as the Sykes–Picot Agreement between comparison to previous
the United Kingdom and France in 1916 had divided the Ottoman wars, following which the
possessions between these two powers. victors simply annexed the
territory of the losers?
The mandate system seems like a thinly disguised form of territorial
annexation. The Japanese in particular annexed and fortified their
Pacific island mandates, in clear violation of the terms of the mandate
agreement. The impact on the people in the territories was minimal
and they were treated in the same way as other colonial populations.
Racial equality and progress toward independence were discussed,
but little or no real effect was given to these concepts. However, it
should be noted that, for the first time, a system of accountability was
introduced. This created the idea that colonial powers had specific
responsibilities to their subject peoples and that their actions could be
scrutinized by an international body.
The allocation of mandates gave rise to a number of controversies. The
majority of the mandates went to the UK and France, victors in the
war and already in possession of the world’s largest empires. This was
particularly galling to the Germans, who lost everything, and the
Italians, who received nothing despite being on the winning side. It
further embittered the Italians about the Versailles settlement, lent
support to the nationalist movements led by Mussolini and contributed
to Italy’s determination to acquire territory outside Europe.
Another major area of controversy caused by the mandate system was
the Middle East. The Arabs in the Middle East who had helped the UK
defeat the Ottoman Empire had hoped for land and independent
status. The British and French, however, had already decided to divide
the area between them according to the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Their
use of the mandate system gave them control of the Middle East after
the war—control that was sanctioned through the League of Nations.
This infuriated the Arab population and led to a number of uprisings in
the post-war period against both the British and the French.
A further controversy was created by the British decision to proceed
with the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which had given British Source: Catchpole, B. 1983. A Map History of
support for a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine. the Modern World. Toronto, Canada. Irwin. p. 33.

The African Mandates (these were The Middle East Mandates (These The Pacific
former German territories, now shared were former possessions of the Mandates
by Britain and France) Ottoman Empire of Turkey shared
* Belgian mandate by Britain and France)
N
PA

Kaiochow JA
TURKEY
PERSIA
TOGOLAND (IRAN)
SYRIA
ON

Marianas
INE AN

Suez
EST LEB

Canal AN
IRAQ Marshalls
B Carolines
RD

B
SJ O

CAMEROONS
PAL

AN

*
RWANDA GERMAN
TR

B
URUNDI E. AFRICA New
GERMAN SOUTH (TANGANYIKA) ARABIA Guinea Samoa
WEST AFRICA (To Britain)
(mandate granted
to Union of AUSTRALIA
South Africa)
C
British Empire
NEW
41
French Empire ZEALAND

915261_IBCC_HISTORY_Ch01.indd 41 24/4/09 16:59: