The Peace that Failed

On January 19, 1919, thousands of diplomats, ministers, journalists, and observers gathered in Paris for the first session of the peace conference given the task of reordering the world after World War I. Participants included delegates from the thirty-two nations on the winning side, observers from the defeated Central Powers, and observers from numerous ethnic and religious groups—Arabs, Egyptians, Kurds, Irish, Zionists, Persians, Indians, Vietnamese, Africans, African-Americans, and Armenians. Women’s organizations and even supporters of the tsarist cause in Russia were also represented.

Many in attendance hoped the postwar treaties would reflect the vision of the U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who in January 1918 had issued his famous Fourteen Points in regard to the peace. Wilson had called for open diplomacy, free trade, reduced armies, a “readjustment” of colonial claims, and national self-determination in Europe. Although Germany would be required to return Alsace-Lorraine to France and abandon conquered territories in Russia and Belgium, there was no talk of punishing Germany or blocking “in any way her legitimate influence and power.” Wilson also called for the founding of a “general association of nations” whose purpose would be to preserve peace and guarantee the integrity of great and small nations alike.

British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and French premier Georges Clemenceau had different ideas. Clemenceau wanted to protect French security by weakening and punishing Germany. Lloyd George was more flexible, but whatever moderate inclinations he might have had were outweighed by his recent election promises to “hang the emperor” and “squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeak.” Their views prevailed rather than Wilson’s, and the result was the harsh Treaty of Versailles, grudgingly signed by Germany on June 28, 1919.

Germany lost all of its colonies, 13 percent of its land, and 10 percent of its population. Alsace and Lorraine, won from France in 1871, were returned to France. Northern Schleswig went to Denmark (remember all these territory shifts from Season 4???), parts of Posen and West Prussia went to Poland, while smaller bits of territory went to Belgium and Czechoslovakia. The coal mines of the Saar Basin were given to France for fifteen years, at which time the German government could buy them back. The Saar region itself was to be administered by the League of Nations. East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany by territory ceded to Poland, and the largely German port of Danzig on the Baltic Sea came under Polish economic control. The Germans were permitted to have no air force, a navy of approximately two dozen ships, and a volunteer army of no more than 100,000 officers and men. Article 231, the “war-guilt” clause, held Germany and its allies responsible for causing the war. On the basis of this claim, Germany was held accountable for all Allied losses and damages, and would be required to pay reparations. In 1921 the sum was set at $31 billion. The humiliated Germans deeply resented the Treaty of Versailles. In the 1920s, nationalist and anti-democratic politicians learned to play on these resentments and in doing so undermined the democratic government that had signed the treaty. Of those politicians, the most successful was Adolf Hitler, whose Nazis took power in 1933.

The reasons for German anger are spelled out in the comments and observations I would like you to read (you can read them by clicking here). They were submitted in October 1919 by the German delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, which continued to meet after the signing of the Versailles Treaty until January 21, 1920.

After reading the German comments, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: In Germany’s view, how would the country have been treated differently if the principles they attribute to President Wilson had been applied? What does the document reveal about the difficulty of applying the principle of ethnic self-determination in Europe? To what higher “fundamental” laws does the document appeal in order to strengthen German assertions? What view of colonialism is expressed in the document? Why do the authors claim that Germany has a right to its colonies? According to the authors of the German complaint, how will various provisions of the treaty hurt Germany’s economy? Do you agree with the authors of the document that Germany was being poorly treated? What response to their complaints might defenders of the treaty have made? Your thoughts…