Peace Treaties 1919--‐23

The Big Three

Georges Clemenceau (France)

France had suffered greatly from WWI

- 2/3 of the French Army were killed or injured
- the Western Front was destroyed

It had also had previous incidences with Germany

- they had invaded in 1870

Therefore, Clemenceau’s main aims were:

1. Revenge
⇒ this was demanded by the public

2. Weaken
⇒ so that Germany would not be able to attack again

3. Pay for damage

⇒ so that the great damage to France could be repaired

Woodrow Wilson (USA)

The USA had had a much better experience in the war, and so Wilson was not motivated by
revenge. He instead was an idealist who wanted to make the world safe, and believed in self-
-‐determination. He wrote up the Fourteen Points in January 1918, outlining his aims for the
conference.

Wilson’s main aims were:

1. Establish a long--‐lasting peace

⇒ did not care about revenge, so did not want to crush Germany so that it would want
to take
revenge in the future
⇒ wanted to strengthen the democracy in Germany so that its people would not let its
leaders
start another war

2. League of Nations
⇒ peace--‐keeping organisation to deal with conflict through discussion, not attacks
⇒ would enforce disarmament
⇒ would enforce the Treaty of Versailles

3. Self--‐determination for the peoples of Eastern Europe

⇒ this was shown in his ‘Fourteen Points’
⇒ moral belief

David Lloyd George (Great Britain)

Britain, too had suffered

 - over 1 million Brits died
- the British public demanded revenge

There was no great threat from Germany

- the biggest threat of Germany to Britain was its navy
- Britain was protected as an island

Lloyd George did not want to destroy France so that

- it would prevent starting another war
- it could keep it as a trading partner (Germany was Britain’s second largest trading
partner).

Lloyd George’s aims were:

1. Slightly harsh
⇒ what the public demanded
⇒ and he had promised: “squeeze the German lemon till the pips squeak”

2. Protect British interests

⇒ restrict the threat to the Navy by Germany
⇒ limit self--‐determination which could threaten his Empire
⇒ make sure Germany is not too crushed economically that it cannot engage in trade

3. Limit domestic and international problems

⇒ not too harsh a treaty that would destroy Germany so that it would seek revenge
later
⇒ not too harsh that it would be taken over by communism

Why were there differences between the aims?

1. Different amounts of public pressure

⇒ Britain and France had suffered more and so were under more pressure
⇒ public wanted reparations for the damage

2. Differing amounts of threat from Germany

⇒ geographical differences
⇒ past experiences with Germany

3. Differing individual goals (which often conflicted)

⇒ Wilson wanted self--‐determination, which did not protect GB’s empire
⇒ Wilson wanted everyone to have access to the seas which threatened Britain
⇒ Clemenceau wanted to break up Germany to reduce its military strength
⇒ GB wanted to keep Germany’s economy going so that it would remain a trading
partner

Treaty of Versailles

War Guilt
- Germany had to assume blame for starting the war.

Reparations
- Germany had to pay £6.6 billion, which would not have been paid until 1984 if they
had not been limited under the Young Plan in 1929

German territories and colonies

 - Germany’s overseas empires were taken away, and became mandates under the
League of
Nations (effectively controlled by Britain and
France).

- the Saarland was to be held by the League of Nations for 15 years until a plebiscite
would be held
- Danzig would be a free city run by the League of Nations
- Alsace--‐Lorraine went to France
- Upper Silesia, West Prussia and Posen went to Poland
- union between Austria and Germany was forbidden

Armed forces
- army was limited to 10,000 men
- conscription was banned
- not allowed armoured vehicles, submarines or aircraft
- only 6 battleships
- Rhineland became demilitarised

League of Nations
- set up as an international ‘police force’
- Germany not allowed to join until it had shown it was a peace--‐loving nation

The Other Peace Settlements

Treaty of St Germain, 1919—Austria

Separated Austria from Hungary

Bohemia and Moravia became part of the new state Czechoslovakia
Bosnia--‐Herzegovina and Croatia went to Yugoslavia

Army was restricted to 30,000

Not very harsh as it was mostly sorting out a collapsed empire rather than punishing
Austria. Many peoples in eastern Europe were given self--‐determination and freedom,
though this did come with economic consequences. Austria especially suffered because of
the loss of industrial areas to Czechoslovakia. This was fair, considering they had started
the war.

Treaty of Neuilly, 1919—Bulgaria

Lost land to Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia

Limited to 20,000 soldiers
Paid £100 million in reparations

This was not very harsh, but fair considering Bulgaria had played a small part in the war.

Treaty of Trianon, 1920—Hungary

Transylvania went to Romania

Slovakia and Ruthenia went to Czechoslovakia
Slovenia and Croatia went to Yugoslavia

3 million Hungarians ended up in other states, and Hungary’s industries suffered greatly.
Treaty of Sevres, 1920—Turkey

Smyrna went to Greece

Syria became a mandate under French control

Also lost control of Black Sea and had to formally accept that parts of their former empire
(e.g. Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco) were either independent or under British of French
control.

Very controversial treaty. Turks were outraged and nationalists took back Smyrna. The Arabs
who had helped the British gained little. The motives of Britain and France taking Turkish
lands were suspect.
Opinions of the Big Three

Clemenceau
1. Overall, satisfied
⇒ the reparations would repair the damage to France
⇒ the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland and small Germany army would protect
France
⇒ France got some colonies and Alsace--‐Loraine
2. However
⇒ Treaty was not severe enough for the French public, who expected a treaty like Brest-
-‐Litovsk.
Within months he was out of
office.
⇒ Germany was not weak enough: wanted smaller army and broken up Germany
⇒ felt he did not gain enough land: Saar was not permanent and he did not gain the
Rhineland.

Wilson
1. Some success
⇒ self--‐determination for some peoples in eastern Europe (e.g. Poland, Latvia)
⇒ League of Nations set up
2. However,
⇒ much too harsh economic penalties
⇒ did not get all fourteen points (e.g. Freedom of the Seas)
⇒ US Government would not sign League of Nations

Lloyd George
1. Some success
⇒ managed to slightly moderate Clemenceau’s tough demands
⇒ limited Germany’s navy
⇒ resisted freedom of the seas
⇒ took over some of Germany’s colonies
2. But
⇒ still very harsh; he thought there would be another war in 25 years
⇒ economic penalties meant trading was impossible
⇒ did not want to be controlled by League of Nations

Why was it difficult to satisfy everyone?

1. Aims often conflicted

⇒ see above
2. Compromises had to be made
⇒ because the overall severity levels wanted varied, compromise had to be made
⇒ Clemenceau made it harsher than either Wilson or Lloyd George had wanted

3. Differences between public opinion and leader’s decisions

⇒ leaders were unable to do the best thing for international relations due to public
pressure
Impact on Germany

German Opinion

Germany was horrified with the Treaty.

- they felt that they had not started or lost the war
- war guilt was unnecessary
- war reparations were unreasonable—their economy was already ruined
- disarmament was humiliating
- German territories lost meant it lost 50% of its iron and steel industry
- self--‐determination was not allowed for Germans: it lost 12.5% of its population and
was not allowed to join with Austria
- being uninvited to the League of Nations was insulting

Why did Germany think the Treaty was motivated by revenge?

1. Excessive reparations
2. Humiliating losses of armaments meant they could not defend themselves
3. Unfair double standards
⇒ self--‐determination for some, but not Germans
⇒ Treaty of St Germain much less harsh
⇒ war guilt only on Germany

Problems for Germany

- The German people were upset with the government for accepting such harsh treaty
terms.
There were extremist attempts to overthrow the Weimar government, who were
called the
‘November Criminals’.
- The loss of the Saar and Upper Silesia did not help Germany recover economically.
In 1922, Germany fell behind on its reparations in 1922.
- This meant that in 1923 France entered the Ruhr to take what was owed to them.
The Government ordered the workers to go on strike so there was nothing for them
to take, but this meant the industrial output was even lower. The government
printed more money, but this led to hyperinflation.

Why did the Treaty cause problems for Germany?

1. People did not realise that the Weimar Government was obliged to sign
⇒ led to uprisings
2. Huge reparations and loss of territory
⇒ led to inability to pay reparations, which led to the invasion of the Ruhr and
hyperinflation
3. Lack of military
⇒ caused vulnerability—e.g. Ruhr
⇒ caused loss of pride

How far had Germany accepted the Treaty by 1923?

1. Had accepted
⇒ the Weimar government had signed the treaty
⇒ industrialists knew it was not as harsh as everyone was making it out to be: by 1923,
steel
production had surpassed Britain
⇒ Germans knew they would have to pay reparations, surrender territory and reduce its
armed
forces as the normal consequences of war
2. Had not accepted
⇒ people did not accept it: called the Weimar government “November Criminals”
⇒ many thought it punished the ordinary person instead of the leaders who had caused
the
war
⇒ extremist groups became more popular as they promised to revoke the Treaty
Was the Treaty of Versailles Fair?

1. Fair
⇒ immense human cost made it fair that Germany was punished harshly
⇒ although they did not start the war, they were the ones to invade Belgium, making it
large--‐
scale. Their land hunger needed to be curtailed so that no more catastrophes could
occur in the future.
⇒ Treaty of Brest Litovsk showed the severe terms of the Treaty were an acceptable
level
a) Russia lost 90% of its coal mines, 25% of its population and almost 300,000
square miles of land
⇒ the pressure from citizens was so overwhelming that the fact it was not even harsher
was an
accomplishment
2. Unfair
⇒ £6.6 billion of reparations was beyond what Germany could handle and gave them no
chance of recovery
⇒ treated unfairly compared to other peace treaties
⇒ war guilt was incorrect: Serbia and Austro--‐Hungary started the war. Did not achieve
anything
but hurt Germany’s pride
⇒ terms were strictly enforced compared to other treaties showing they were treated
differently
⇒ did not punish Germany, but completely destroy it. The small army meant it felt
threatened
and hurt its pride. The huge reparations punished the people not the leaders,
accomplishing little and making future war likely.
3. Conclusion
⇒ understandable that the Allies acted as they did; Germany may have done worse to
them
⇒ but still not the best decision. Did not accomplish much; harmed the citizens more
than the
leaders.