[Type text]

2.1 Causes of the First World War

Revision mnemonics for this topic:

First World War caused by MANIA Militarism - Alliances - Nationalism - Imperialism - Awful governments (i.e. bad diplomacy in the July crisis). July crisis best explained by the four steps of ARSE Austria declares war (28 July) - Russia mobilises (31 July) - Schlieffen Plan (1,3 August) -England declares war (4 August).

Key dates: 1871 - End of Franco- Prussian war; Germany united into single state under Bismarck's chancellorship. 1882 - Triple Alliance. 1887 - Re-insurance Treaty (Germany, Russia). 1890 - Bismarck resigns; Re-insurance Treaty lapses. 1894 - Franco-Russian agreement. 1900 - Second German Naval Law. 1904 - Russo-Japanese War; Entente Cordiale (Britain, France). 1905 - First Moroccan Crisis. 1906 - Algeciras conference. 1907 - Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia). 1908 - Austria-Hungary annexes Bosnia. 1911 - Second Moroccan Crisis. 1912 - First Balkan War. 1913 - Second Balkan War. 1914 - 28th June: Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated by Gavril Princip. 5th July: German 'blank cheque' to Austria-Hungary. 23rd July: Austria- Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia. 30th July: Russia orders mobilisation of her troops. 1st August: Germany declares war on Russia. 3rd August: Germany invades Belgium and declares war on France. 4th August: Britain declares war on Germany in defence of Belgian neutrality.

Militarism - how important was this as a cause of the war? How did it make war more likely? Did it make the outbreak of war inevitable?

After 1871, the war atmosphere engendered by the secret alliances led to an armaments race among the powers. The race was particularly serious between 1900 and 1914, as the international situation became much worse than before. There was a significant rise in the army and naval estimates of the European powers in these years.

[Type text]

All the Continental European powers had adopted the conscription system since 1870. France had conscription since the Revolutionary Wars, Austria-Hungary since 1868, Germany since 1870, Italy since 1873 and Russia since 1874. Only Britain did not have conscription. After 1890, the deteriorating diplomatic relations among the powers accelerated their military expansion programme. From 1913 to July 1914, Germany increased her standing forces by 170,000 men. France lengthened her period of military service from two to three years. Russia lengthened her term of service from three to three and a half years. Britain did not introduce conscription but had prepared her armed forces for both European expedition and for home defence. In general, all the powers increased their stocks of arms, produced more modern weapons of war and built more strategic railways.

Britain and Germany were the chief rivals at sea. Under Admiral Tirpitz, State Secretary of the Imperial Naval Office from 1897, a long-term shipbuilding programme began. The German Navy Law of 1898 increased the German battleships from nine cruisers to twelve. In 1900 Germany passed a Navy Law which doubled the German battle fleet.

In the meantime, Britain produced her first Dreadnought (literally, the word means fear nothing). Dreadnoughts were large, fast and heavily armed battleships with 12inch guns. They set a new standard in naval armaments and rendered all previous battleships obsolete. The naval race became intense. Between 1909 and 1911 Germany built nine Dreadnoughts while Britain completed 18 Dreadnoughts. In 1913, Germany widened the Kiel Canal to allow the easy passage of her Dreadnoughts from the Baltic to the North Sea while Britain built new naval bases for the Dreadnoughts in northern Scotland.

For centuries the powers of Europe had clashed over their competing interests around the globe. During the nineteenth century, they usually reverted to diplomacy to sort through their differences, but in the early twentieth century, the network of alliances emboldened both sides and diplomatic responses soon gave way to militaristic ones. To adjust to aggressive new order of international relations each of the powers began rapidly building up their arsenals, for it had become clear that the brawniest power would get its way.

Increased military and naval rivalry led not only to the belief that war was coming (The German ruling group felt that only through a war could Germany become a world power. Military preparations strengthened this belief.) and increase in military control of the civilian government (particularly in Germany and Russia) also increased cooperation among the military staff of the countries of the same camp. For example, all the three Entente powers held secret military talks. The British and the French naval authorities agreed that the French

[Type text]

navy should be concentrated in the Mediterranean and the British in the North Sea. Germany and Austria also had military agreements. When the First World War was fought, it was to be fought by all powers because they had made the military plan cooperatively.

As a result of the armaments race, all the European powers were prepared for a war by 1914.
Alliances - how important was this as a cause of the war? How did it make war more likely? Did it make the outbreak of war inevitable?

Background:

Triple alliance: Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy The countries had promised to aid each other militarily in the event war. Triple entente: UK, France and Russia Settled colonial disputes Recognized Germany as the common enemy No military agreements! Alliances - how important was this as a cause of the war? On the one hand, yes -The alliance systems in Europe escalated the Balkan affair (instability and disputes between A-H and Serbia) to a European war. Firstly, Germany gave the blank cheque to A-H, which gave A-H the confidence to invade Serbia. This would never had happen if they were not allied. Secondly, Germany mobilizes as a result of its military pact with Serbia. Then Germany goes to war because it has to honor its alliance with A-H. Then France and UK go to war because they have to honor the triple entente.

[Type text]
-Created tension between the 5 great powers in Europe and spread feeling of fatalism in European political world -Alliances promoted arms races On the other hand, no -The alliances were "loose" military pacts, it was far from certain that for example Germany would back Austria-Hungary when war broke out between Serbia and A-H or that the countries of the triple entente would stick together. There were even internal stresses in the triple entente that had arisen from colonial disputes in Persia between UK and Russia. As late as in 1911 AJP Taylor considered the triple entente to be virtually "in the process of disintergration". -Anther important point that disproves the arguement that alliances were not a cause of the WW1 is the fact that there were no military obligations in the triple entente, F, R and UK did not have to support one another. -Yet another point to consider is the fact that the alliances were created in defensive purposes, this should have led to greater restraint. Nationalism - how important was this as a cause of the war? How did it make war more likely? Did it make the outbreak of war inevitable? Background:

Austria-Hungary fearing Russian expansion, the Empire saw its future in the economic penetration of the Balkans. Important railways were constructed and the rise of Slav nationalism became an increasing concern to a state with such as large Slav population. In 1903, King Alexander of Serbia was assasinated and the accession to the throne was pro-Russian Peter I. The new government made it very clear that they favoured a policy of "South Slavism" and the customs union concluded in 1904 between Serbia and Bulgaria encouraged the view that Serbia was "the Piedmont of the South Slavs". By 1908 the Balkans had been free of major political crises for a little more than a decade, despite the emergence of the expansionist government in Serbia. However, in July that year the revolution by the "Young Turk" movement overthrew the corrupt rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid and offered the prospect to other powers to easy gain in the Balkans while Turkey was occupied with domestic problems. In september 1908, A-H annexed the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and after this success, both Germany and A-H felt strong enough to demand from Russia and Serbia formal acknowledgements of Habsburg authority. In March 1909 both gave their acknowledgements but Russia suffered huge humiliation and the result in Serbia was the growth of nationalist terrorist organisations. Historian Imanuel Geiss argues that "the Bosnian crisis was a kind of dress rehersal for the First World War".

The Balkan Crisis 1912-1913 The Agadir crisis brought European politics ro a pitch of tension and the implications spread eastwards down the Meditterranean. Italy's attempt in 1911 to improve its own standing in North Africa led to an unprovoked attack upon the Turkish possession of Tripoli. This stretching of Turkish resources led to even more temptation in the Balkan states to free themselves from the influence of Turkey, for good. From this emerged, in the early months of 1912, the Balkan League of Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Montenegro.

[Type text]

The first Balkan war between the Balkan league and Turkey began in October 1912 and by the end of that month, Turkey had suffered huge defeats and been driven out of their European possessions apart from a few cities. Tension arose from the division of spoils- A-H attemped to secure its control by insisting upon the establishment of an independent Albanian state and the exlusion of Serbia frmo the Adriatic coastline. More immediate tensions arose amongst the victors- Bulgaria's attempts to clear Macedonia of Serbian and Greek forces in June 1913 led to the Second Balkan war. Effects:

There is certainly evidence of heightened tension at political levels in France and Germany and of increased military preperations. France sought closer military ties with Russia and showed less interest in restraining her, and although agreements only committed France to support Russia if attacked by Germany, Russia could also expect France's aid in the event of a clash with Germany triggered by the confrontation of A-H. In Germany, the government was more reluctant to become involved in the Balkan crisis but showed clear signs of political unease and military preperations in case of a future crisis. By October 1913, at the time of Vienna's ultimatum to Serbia over Albania's independence, the kaiser was urging his ally to take a firm stand and that they had unswerving German support. France-Russian and Austro-german committments were tighter than ever, the confidence of Serbia was at its peak and the prestige of A-H and Russia was so low that they would be unable to tolerate any further blow.

German nationalism- "A Place in the Sun":

German desire to increase colonial influence evetually resulted in the two Moroccan crises in 1905 and 1911 which increased tensions and military preparations of the major European states. The Kaiser, in the course of a Mediterranean cruise took land at Tangier in Morocco and through public speeches and behaviour implied that the recognized the Sultan of Morocco as an independent monarch and called into question Anglo-French agreements over the colonial status of these terriroties. One view is that the kaiser was skeen to demonstrate that no international question could be solved without reference to Germany or possibly by forcing France to give ground on the issue, weaken Anglo-French relations. Outcome however was humiliating for Germany as it had to accept confirmation of French predominance in the sultanate after the Algeciras conference in january-March 1906. In the first crisis, no military preparations were made by any power but the defeat was seen to confirm German fears of "policy of encirclement" and according to historian Imanuel Geiss, Germany turned its back upon international conferences as a means of settling international disputes.

The Agadir crisis in 1911 however had even force effects:

[Type text]

It was unlikely to have lead to a general war due to Russia lack of interest in the affair but it contributed to the likelihood of a future breakdown in international relations. It worsened relations between Britain and Germany and weakened support for reduction in naval building programmes. Germany's attempt to spread its influence also destroyed the administration of Joseph Caillaux whose main aim had been to achieve some measure of reconciliation with Germany.

Imperialism and colonial rivalries - how important was this as a cause of the war? How did it make war more likely? Did it make the outbreak of war inevitable?

After 1870, the European nations began to acquire colonies in Asia, Africa and the Pacific. Their imperialistic activities accelerated from 1880 onwards. Between 1895 and 1905 imperialistic expansion reached its climax.Colonial rivalry was a cause of the First World War. First of all, colonial rivalry led to strained relations among the European powers. In Africa, all the European powers except Austria and Russia had colonies there. Thus there were many clashes among France, Britain, Germany and Italy. For example, France rivalled with Italy over Tunis and with Germany over Morocco.

Secondly, colonial rivalry led indirectly to the formation and strengthening of alliances and ententes. Italy turned to Germany and Austria when she lost Tunis to France in 1881. Russia and Britain could patch up their differences and form an entente in 1907 as a result of their mutual fear of Germany's expansionist activities in the Balkans. Russia, Britain and France could become firm friends after 1907 partly because of aggressive attitude of Germany in both the first and the second Moroccan crises.

Thirdly, colonial rivalry led to an intensification of the arms race. As mentioned earlier, in 1896 Dr. Jameson made a raid into the Dutch Republic of Transvaal in South Africa. Germany found that, without a navy, she could not send much military help to the Dutch. Shortly after the event, Admiral von Tirpitz, the German Minister of Marine, proclaimed the need of a strong navy. From 1898 onwards, Germany built more battleships.

Fourthly, colonial rivalry led to much hostility among the powers. In the first and the second Moroccan crises, war nearly resulted. France and Britain nearly came to war over their rivalry in the Sudan in 1898.

[Type text]

The Morrocan Crisis

Europe was presented with four major crises between 1905 and 1913, two between France and Germany over the North African sultanate of Morocco and two between Austria-Hungary and Russia over the Balkan states that emerged from the wreckage of the Turkish Empire.

In Tangier, Morocco the German Kaisers speeches and behavior implied that he recognized the Sultan of Morocco as an independent monarch, and called into question the recent AngloFrench agreements over the colonial status of these territories.

The Kaisers coup was followed by the formal demand that the status of Morocco should be referred to an international conference of the major powers. The outcome of the conference convened at the Algeciras in Spain 1906 was, however, very different from that anticipated by Germany. Isolated but for the faithful support of Austria-Hungary, Germany had to accept confirmation of French predominance in the sultanate, now strengthened by its control over the Moroccan police.

The Algeciras Conference played only a limited role in preparing the ground for international conflict. No military preparations were made by any power, British public opinion showed a marked lack of concern over Morocco, and subsequent Anglo-French military conversations come to nothing.

The Algeciras Conference played only a limited role in preparing the ground for international conflict. No military preparations were made by any power, British public opinion showed a marked lack of concern over Morocco, and subsequent Anglo-French military conversations come to nothing.

Lastly, it should be noted that diplomatic co-operation between the French, the British and the Russians at Algeciras also had a number of side effects. The discussions between the General Staffs, the group of senior officers responsible for the planning, organization and overall command of their national armies, of Britain and France were inconclusive. Colonial discussions between Britain and Russia ended, however, with an agreement in August 1907 that solved many of the outstanding disagreements over rival spheres of

[Type text]

influence in Persia. British control over south-eastern Persia kept Russia at a safe distance from Afghanistan, and thus India, and thus did much to remove the Asian tensions that had dogged Anglo-Russian relations at the time of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.

But after 1905 colonial issues became less important as the powers turned back to Europe and Europe remained their centre of rivalry. As stated earlier, from 1904 to 1907, Britain, France and Russia were able to settle their colonial disputes by the Anglo-French Entente and the Anglo-Russian Entente. By 1914 colonial disputes had greatly diminished. Thus colonial rivalry had little to do with the outbreak of the First World War.
Awful governments (i.e. the July crisis and diplomatic failures) - how important was this as a cause of the war? How did it make war more likely? Did it make the outbreak of war inevitable?

The July Crisis of 1914: Sarajevo and the response of A-H:

"Fifty years were spent on the process of making Europe explosive. Five days were enough to detonate it"- Basil Hart. On 28th of June 1914, the final crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand - heir to the A-H throne by a Serbian terrorist group called the Black Hand. The Dual Monarchy was backed by Germany in sending an ultimatum to Serbia on 23rd of July in such extreme terms that it was almost impossible for Serbia to accept (for example Serbian govt had to suppress all anti-Austrian organisations and propaganda and dismiss any officials to whom the Vienna govt might object). Some historians have argued that this was partly the fault of the Kaiser himself, as A-H might not have acted as they did if they had not been assured of German support (especially as Serbia was in an alliance with Russia).

[Type text]

The spread of the Balkan Crisis:

Within a week Europe was at war and this was mostly due to the reaction of Russia- although Serbia did not have much of a choice in rejecting the ultimatum, A-H declared war on Serbia 28 July. For Russia to remain inactive it would have stripped her of any influence in the Balknas as well as be devaluated as an ally in the eyes of France. Russia started to mobilize its forces on the southern borders and from here on, due to the military plan of Germany- the Schleiffen plan- the war was set into motion. 1 August Germany declared war on Russia. One could argue that Russia mobilization was not necessarily for war purposes, instead merely defensive, however the Schleiffen plan made it impossible for germany to wait due to the fear of a "two front war". A.J.P Taylor argues that all participants misjudged the nature of the conflict in which they were committing themselves - no great strains upon society.

The July Crisis did not necessarily make the war inevitable as had the crisis been contained only to the Balkan area, it would not have involved a total war where all major powers in Europe were dragged in. However, the German Schleiffen plan and the misjudgement of Europe's leaders ultimately resulted in the First World War. Historiography: the Fischer thesis and a question of blame? The German historian Fritz Fischer argues that the German ruling elite is to blame for the WW1. Fischer uses a document called "septmeber programme" that was issued by Bethman Holloweg (German chanchellor) in 1914 to support his thesis. The document outlines Germany's aim for world domination. Fischer claims that the document proved that the ruling elite in Germany had extreme expansionist aims, which a war would allow them to fulfill. War would also consolidate their power in Germany and deal with the threat of socialism. This argument is persuasive as he links long-term German policies to how German government acted in the July crisis (Germany gave blank cheque to A-H to trigger a European war). Criticism of the Fischer thesis: -There is limited evidence to prove that Germany had expansionist aims before 1914 -Too much focus is on Germany, which led to that Fischers neglects other factors, making his argument unbalanced. However, many other historians have completely differnet opinions of the causes of the first world war and who was to blame for it. John Keegan Focuses on events in the July crisis. Although there were long-term causes, war was never inevitable. Keegan sayas war broke out because of the lack of communication between the great powers during the July crisis. None of them had communicated their their objectives clearly during the crisi. As a result, Russia's mobilization and German ultimatum to Russia to stop mobilize led to a general European war. James Joll Attributes the outbreak of the war to disastrous decision made by politicans in the July crisis in 1914. Niall Ferguson Germany is not to blame because there is evidence that the social democrat party influenced the German Kaiser so much that he abandoned his expansionist aims. Ferguson sees UK as the country that contributed to the war the most as Sir Edward Grey completely misinterpreted ambitions and

[Type text]
decided to go into the war to stop German expansionism.

Did Germany cause the war? Quotes on this question of who or what caused the war:

Otto von Bismarck, nineteenth-century statesman: "the next war will start from some damn fool thing in the Balkans German head of army, von Moltke, 1912: I hold war to be inevitable and the sooner the better "

German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, when asked about how WW1 came about, 1914: "Oh - if only I knew! Von der Goltz, a German writer: "a long and bitter war was necessary for the sake of Germany's 'health". Lord Grey, British Foreign Secretary on the arms race: The moral is obvious: it is that greater armaments lead to war The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them - it was these that made war inevitable. US ambassador in London, 1914: "German militarism, which is the crime of the last fifty years, had been working for this for twenty-five years. It is the logical result of their doctrine. It had to come." Frank McDonough, British historian (1997): "Power lies at the heart of nearly every explanation of why nations go to war. The influence of powerful leaders, their aims, policies and decisions are crucial to any understanding of why nations go to war. [...] However, the most crucial factor in promoting war or peace is the prevailing balance of power. It is clear that an ineffective balance of power promotes war".

"The First World War was really the culmination of a long drawn-out crisis within the European system". "The rise of Germany was a primary factor which produced tensions among the major European powers."

DavidLloyd George, War Memoirs (1934): "The nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay ... The nations backed their machines over the precipice .... not one of them wanted war; certainly not on this scale.

American Historical Journal, book review (2003): "There was no "slide" to war, no war caused by "inadvertence", but instead a world war caused by a fearful set of elite statesmen and rulers making deliberate choices.

[Type text]

[Type text]

Treaties of WWI
Treaty of Brest-Litvosk (1918) Background context and attitudes informing the settlement:

Russia; October 26, 1917: Decree on Peace signed by the Bolsheviks, with the hope of a just peace settlement based on "no annexations, no indemnities". Bolshevik imperative to end the war - their rise to power had, to a degree, depended on the promise of "peace". Difficulty facing Lenin: 'peace at any price' to save the revolution at home (not possible to carry on fighting Germany and build socialism!) vs peace at any price that causes so much opposition (Tsarist Generals, Mensheviks, SRs, nationalists, etc.) that the revolution is overthrown anyhow! Lenin: "All other demands can and should be granted" - apart from the Bolshevik government being overthrown! Trotsky's policy of "neither peace nor war" - hopes to stall negotiations long enough for German soldiers to revolt against their masters, and for the 'world socialist revolution' to spread amongst the other Western belligerents. Bolshevik naivety going into the talks about how aggressive Germany might be - belief that Germany did not want more territory. Lenin:1920, "we gained a little time, and sacrificed a great deal of space for it";

Germany: "establishing a good economic and political relationship with the new Russia, in order to keep our rear military completely free, while at the same time detaching huge areas from the present Russia and building up these districts into effective bulwarks on our frontiers" - Lebensraum? Fischer thesis. "A peace which only assured the territorial status quo would mean that we had lost the war. Such a peace in the East has never been considered."

[Type text]
Terms of the Treaty:

Russia lost: 1/6 of population (62 million people); 27% of farming land (of highest quality in the Ukraine); 74% of iron ore and coal reserves; Germany set up 'semi-independent' governments in Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia, while Baltic states became independent republics. Russian-held area of Poland became part of the independent state of Poland, and Finland remained independent.

[Type text]

Strengths and weaknesses of the Treaty:

For Russia: + Lenin keeps his promise and ends the war, which allows focus on consolidation of power at home. On the one hand, it did lead to the civil war - i.e. increased problems for Lenin - but on the other hand, it allows Lenin to deal with his opposition and secure power over the entire country. Shows Lenin\s pragmatic flexibility in keeping power, and control over the Bolshevik party. - Loss of resources, territory, population - but on the other hand, he did not have control over these areas yet anyway, and by the end of 1918 Germany had lost the war and the treaty was annuled!; complete failure to spread world revolution! For Germany: land, resources and military buffer-zone; Kaiser Wilhelm, described treaty as one of the "greatest successes of world history". Temporary boost to German morale.

Key results of the Treaty:

For Russia: Adam Ulam - "the most humiliating peace in Russia's modern history!" : patriotic Russians horrified by loss of 'motherland', pushed them to join anti-Bolshevik forces (esp- Kadets); caused splits within the Bolshevik party (left wing wanted revolutionary war to spread Bolshevism, and not to end the war which allowed Germany to continue as an imperialist nation); Left SRs left sovnarkom in protest; increased opposition to Bolshevism leads to Russian Civil war. For Germany - short term: Germany doesn't need to fight war on the Eastern front, and also can bolster their supplies with some of the new territiories and resources. longer term: Allies used this treaty in order to justify harsh settlement of Versailles; but on the other hand, it has also been noted that treaty did not give away any Russian territory!

Treaty of Versailles, part of the Paris Peace Settlements (1919) Background context, aims and attitudes informing the settlement:

Britain: - 1 million people killed and faced public demands at home to "Hang the Kaiser". - Lloyd George though that the territory should go to the winners and colonies should be divided amongst the winners as well. - Germany should not be smashed into pieces- needs to recover as a trading partner which would also favor the Allies' economy as Germany still remained a great economic power after the war. - Reparations should be reasonable to allow Germany to recover and the money would be used to pay for war penions and pay debts to the USA. - The German army should be reduced but not to the extent that she would be unable to defend herself from France but her navy however, should never threaten the British Empire again. - Wanted to BLAME GERMANY! - The attitude towards the League of Nations was indifferent but thought it was a good way to preserve peace- Germany would be allowed to join when she was proven to seek for peace instead of military actions.

[Type text]

France: - Much of the fighting was fought on French soil so Clemenceau entered the negotiations reluctant to be diplomatic towards Germany. - 1.5 million killed. The public at home sought for revenge. - Clemencau also wanted the territory and colonies to go to the winners. - The Saar which was rich in coal and iron should go to France for industrial reconstruction. - The Rhineland should become an independent state. - Alsace and Lorraine (stolen from France in the France-Prussian war in 1870) should be returned and Germany should be broken up altogether! - Reparation payments should be massive to punish Germany and be used to rebuild homes and industry and pay debts to USA. - Germany's army should be completely dismantled so she would never be able to threaten France again and the BLAME SHOULD BE PUT ON GERMANY! - The attitude towards the League of Nations was this it was "a waste of time" and should be enforced as a way of enforcing the TOV- should definetely have an army. Germany should never be alllowed to join.

USA: - The war had a limited impact on the US as they only joined the war in 1916 and the public demands on President Woodrow Wilson was to go into isolationism and leave Europe to its own problems. - Wilson thought that the occupied territories should be allowed to vote on its won future ("selfdetermination") through plebiscites. - Colonies should become mandates- supervised by the winners but under the control of the League of Nations. - The reparation payments should be minimal so that Germany would not seek revenge - some interpretations have also been that the reparations should remain minimal so that Britain and France would have to stay in debt to the USA. - Thought that the army should be dismantled by all countries, not just Germany, as this was the only way to preserve world peace and avoid another arms race. - wanted to BLAME GERMANY! - Attitudes towards the League of Nations was "obsessed" and this was the first thing to be set up under the TOV and Germany could join when proven to be peace-loving.

[Type text]
Terms of the Treaty:

Germany lost her colonial Empire which was shared among the winners. Alsace-Lorraine (which consisted of 75% of Germany's iron resources) was returned to France. The Saar was handed over to the League for 15 years- France was to run its coal mines. West Prussia was given to Poland so that she could gain access to the sea (the Polish corridor) which split Germany into 2. Actual sum of war reparations was not fixed at Versailles but Germany signed a "blank cheque" (later settled at 6,600 million in 1921). Germany's army was limited to 100,00 men and conscription was banned as well as tanks and submarines. The navy was limited to 6 warships and the airforce dismantled. Rhineland was permanently demilitarised (German military permanently prohibited)! Under Article 231, Germany was to be held fully to blame for the war. The League of Nations was hoped to be able to solve international disputes and was the first issue dealt with at the conference.

Revision mnemonic for key terms of the Treaty: Territorial losses, Reparations, Army, Warguilt, League of Nations to be set up: TRAWL. Revision mnemonic for territorial losses imposed on Germany in the Treaty: Saar, Colonies, Rhineland, Alsace-Lorraine, Polish Corridor: SCRAP.

[Type text]
Strengths and weaknesses of the Treaty: +: - According to some historians, the treaty was successful because "Germany lost remarkably little territory, considering how thoroughly she had lost the war"- Sally Marks. Historiography of the Treaty: Orthodox view of settlement -

James Joll, "Europe was divided by the peace conference into those who wanted the peace revised (Germany, Italy, Japan and Hungary) and those who wanted it upheld (France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), and those who were not that interested (the USA and Britain)". E.H. Carr, self-determination and collective security as unworkable idealistic principles, and the settlement failed to settle the 'German problem'. A.J.P. Taylor, Versailles as crushing, harsh and lacking in moral validity, as no Germans accepted it and all wanted to overturn it. From this perspective, the Second World War was " a war over the settlement of Versailles; a war which had been implicit when the First World War ended because the peace-makers had not solved the German problem."

Revisionist view of Versailles -

Sees the settlement as a brave attempt to deal with huge, long-term problems, and argues the problem was not with the Treaty but with the failure to enforce its terms! Ruth Henig, treaty as a "creditable achievement", but one that failed because of economic and social problems, divisions between the Allies, and reluctance of leaders to enforce the treaty. The failure to do this meant a stronger Germany, and further indecision in the form of appeasement meant war. Paul Birdsall, US refusal to commit to upholding the settlement undermined both the League of Nations and the idea of a united democratic front supplying 'collective security', and thus was crucial in explaining the failure of the treaty in the longer-term Paul Kennedy, 1920s - the settlement worked, like the League of Nations; but 1930s - it was crushed by militarism of Italy, Japan and Germany, a collapse caused by the Great Depression and its effects.

The main points of the Treaty [BRAT]

The first 26 Articles of the Treaty set out the Covenant of the League of Nations; the rest of the 440 Articles detailed Germany's punishment: 1. 2. 3. Germany had to accept the Blame for starting the war (Clause 231). This was vital because it provided the justification for... Germany had to pay 6,600 million (called Reparations) for the damage done during the war. Germany was forbidden to have submarines or an air force. She could have a navy of only six battleships, and an Army of just 100,000 men. In addition, Germany was not allowed to place any troops in the Rhineland, the strip of land, 50 miles wide, next to France. Germany lost Territory (land) in Europe (see map, below). Germanys colonies were given to Britain and France. (Also, Germany was forbidden to join the League of Nations, or unite with Austria.)

4.

[Type text]

Source B

Source A The Allied governments affirm, and Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied governments and their peoples have been subjected as a result of the war.
The Treaty of Versailles, Clause 231 (the 'War Guilt' clause)

The Treaty of Versailles was the most important treaty of 19191920. It was the treaty with Germany, and was decided by the Big Three. It was the Treaty which set up the League of Nations. Also, the Treaty of Versailles set down the principles of how the defeated countries would be treated: they had to pay reparations, they had to disarm, they lost land, self-determination.

Four Other Treaties

FOUR other treaties were made with the four countries which had helped Germany in the war. They were written by officials who just followed the principles of the Treaty of Versailles. They were all named after places in Paris:

[Type text]

Self-determination
The treaties created new nation-states in Eastern Europe out of the old AustroHungarian Empire (i.e. the principle of self-determination): Treaty of St Germain

[Type text]

4 problems with self-determination

1. 2. 3. 4. It caused small Wars (see Source A, 1-3). It was not allowed for Germany. It created many small, Weak countries, which Hitler easily conquered later. The new nation-states had racialMinorities living there.

[Type text]

German outrage
When the Germans heard about the Treaty of Versailles, they felt pain and anger. They felt it was unfair. It was a 'Diktat' an IMPOSED settlement. They had not been allowed to take part in the talks they had just been told to sign.

The German reaction

On 7 May, the victors presented their Treaty to the small German delegation. Count Brockdorff-Rantzau angered the Big Three by giving a long speech criticising the Treaty; then the delegation left and set about countering it. A little later, they sent their counter-proposal based on the Fourteen Points) to the Big Three -- their reply was so good that one of the British delegation said it was much better than the Allies' suggestions, and even Lloyd George wondered for a time if they ought to rethink the treaty . Then the delegation went home. Many Germans wanted to refuse to sign the treaty; some even suggested that they start the war again. So it was with great difficulty that the President got the Reichstag to agree to sign the treaty, and the imperious way the two German representatives were treated when they were forced to sign made things worse.

The Germans HATED the Treaty of Versailles

The Germans hated Clause 231; they said they were not to blame for the war. The soldier sent to sign the Treaty refused to sign it To say such a thing would be a lie, he said. Clause 231 did not physically harm Germany, but it hurt Germany's pride and it was this, as much as anything else, that made them want to overturn the treaty. The Germans hated reparations; they said France and Britain were trying to starve their children to death. At first they refused to pay, and only started paying after France and Britain invaded Germany (January 1921). The Germans hated their tiny army. They said they were helpless against other countries. At first they refused to reduce the army, and the sailors sank the fleet, rather than hand it over. The Germans also hated the loss of territory. Germany lost a tenth of its land - they claimed that the treaty was simply an attempt to destroy their economy. Other nations were given self-determination but the Treaty forced Germans to live in other countries. Germans were also angry that they could not unite with the Austrian Germans.

Source B
The disgraceful Treaty is being signed today. Dont forget it! We will never stop until we win back what we deserve.
From Deutsche Zeitung, a German newspaper, 28 June 1919.

Source C
Those who sign this treaty, will sign the death sentence of many millions of German men, women and children.
Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, leader of the German delegation to Versailles (15 May 1919).

[Type text]

1.2.1 The Paris Peace Settlement

The representatives of 32 countries met in 1919 in Paris to draw up the peace settlement. The "Big Three" (France, USA and Britain) leaders were mostly in command of the decision makings and so was Italy but to a lesser extent. The settlement was created from five treaties; the Treaty of Versailles, St Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sevres/Lausanne. The Treaty of Versailles dealt specifically with Germany and was the major discussion during the draw up of the peace settlement whereas the other treaties dealt with the geo-political and economic future of Europe. The agreement containing the principles on which the League of Nations was to operate on took into account all five treaties.

1.2.2 The Treaty of Versailles

June 1919 Treaty with Germany Was signed in the Palace of Versailles Germany had to agree to accept full responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War June 1919 Treaty with Germany Was signed in the Palace of Versailles Germany had to agree to accept full responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War

Territorial loses:

The Saar administered by the League of Nations The creation of an independent Polish state West Prussia and Posen were given to Poland Alsace-Lorraine was given back to France Danzig was appointed as an international city Plebiscites in Upper Silesia, West Prussia and Schleswig Germany lost colonies and investments Was only allowed a regular army that was limited to 100,000 military personnel Was not allowed an airforce and only a very small fleet End of compulsory enlistment into the armed forces Rhineland to be occupied for 15 years by the allied military forces All commissions in Germany controlled by the allies until 1927 Germany to pay 6,600 million (132 billion gold marks) Reparations where to be paid in regular instalments, some in gold and some in goods The Allies struggled to get payments from Germany from 1921 to 1923 Dawes Commission 1924 France took over Ruhr in 1923 The USA refused to join which weakened the league Collective security New mandate principles Germany and the defeated nations were at first left out

Military Restrictions on Germany:

Reparations:

League of Nations:

[Type text]

1.2.3 The Treaty of St Germain

September 1919 Treaty with Austria Dalmatia, Slovenia and Bosnia were given to Yugoslavia South Tyrol, Trentino, Trieste and Istria were given to Italy Bohemia and Moravia were given to Czechoslovakia Galicia was given to Poland Bukovina was given to Romania Austria was not allowed to unify with Germany

1.2.4 The Treaty of Trianon

June 1920 Treaty with Hungary Hungary losses 2/3 of its territory Slovakia and Ruthenia were given to Czechoslovakia Transylvania was given to Romania Burgenland was given to Austria Slovenia and Croatia were given to Yugoslavia

1.2.5 The Treaty of Neuilly

November 1919 Treaty with Bulgaria Western Thrace was given to Greece Dobrudja was given to Romania Northern Macedonia was given to Yugoslavia

1.2.6 The Treaty of Sevres

1920 Treaty with Turkey The Straits of the Dardanelles to be controlled by the allies Saudi Arabia became independent Turkey lost the rights to Sudan and Libya Eastern Thrace and some Turkish Aegean Islands were given to Greece Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria became League of Nation mandates and were to be run by France and Britain.

1.2.7 The Treaty of Lausanne

1923 Treaty of Sevres was altered at Lausanne The Greeks were expelled Constantinople was given back to Turkey

[Type text]

1.2.8 Paris peace settlement issues

Germany, Russia and non of the other defeated countries were allowed to take part of the discussions nor attended the Versailles conference All the big decisions were made by the Council of four (United States, France, United Kingdom and Italy) The aims of the major powers were often contradictory and so compromises had to be made within the treaties Terms of the Treaty of Versailles were not soft enough to allow for reconciliation with Germany but not harsh enough to weaken Germany's power

1.2.9 German Response

Germany had hoped for a softer punishment as it had thought the treaty would have taken in much more of Wilson's Fourteen Points Did not think it was fair to have to accept responsibility for the start of the First World War Did not think it was fair that it had no say or that it was not part of the discussions Did not like the fact that it was forced to sign the treaty without any negotiations of the terms It disagreed with the reparations and especially the territorial losses It was also angered by the exclusion from the principle of self-determination The German population was angered by the treaty and wanted to see it revoked

1.2.10 Discussion and disagreements between the allies

Some thought the treaty was too harsh, others that it was too lenient Those who supported Wilson's Fourteen Points argued that the treaty had failed to create a peaceful world John Maynard Keynes argued that Europe would become weaker and poorer as a result of the restrictions, territorial losses and the economic weakening of Germany The British people started to recognise that the treaty may have to be reviewed The US refused to agree with the treaty as it opposed to Article X of the League of Nations. This was an article under which members of the League agreed to use their powers to resist aggression wherever it might occur. The US did not sign the Treaty of Versailles which had a big impact on the League of Nations

[Type text]

Results of World War One

Context:

After 4 years of fighting an armistice was signed on November 11th 1918 to end the war. Germany surrendered hoping to secure a peace treaty on the basis of Wilsons 14 points, leaving the Allies (chiefly Britain, France, USA and Italy as victors) as victors, and the Central Powers the defeated (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey). When the Allies met for the Paris Peace Settlements in 1919, to try and create a lasting peace and resolve the issues behind the war, they were facing a vastly changed Europe from that of 1914.

Key political results of the war, domestically and internationally:

Political map of Europe re-drawn: collapse of four great empires in central and Eastern Europe (Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). Following the Paris settlement, 9 new successor states emerged, including Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Austria and Yugoslavia. This meant the traditional balance of power was destroyed, replaced by a power vacuum of new unstable states undermined by ethnic rivalry within them.

[Type text]

Collapse of imperial monarchy and rise of republicanism: Historian Niall Ferguson argues that the war saw a loss of faith in the monarchy in many states and a triumph of republicanism undreamt of even in the 1790s. Furthermore, the traditional assumption that traditional governing elites knew best and had a natural right to govern was shattered forever. Key examples of the effects this could have is the rise of radical fascist political movements in Germany and Italy in the interwar years.

[Type text]

Continuity: surprising fact is the amount that the war did not change - i.e. Britain and France kept their empires and continued with colonial policies; and nationalism remained a powerful force in European politics.

League of Nations set up as attempt to reform international relations: as part of the Paris Peace Settlements, and a central part of Wilsons vision for a more ethical system of diplomacy than that which had contributed to war in 1914, a new international organization was set up in 1920 with its headquarters in Geneva.

Key economic results of the war:

Massive economic cost: perhaps the greatest impact of the war was economic, given its huge cost of34,000 million. This shattered the previous centurys economic progress. All powers had paid for the war though loans, and the need to repay these after the war created a difficult economic situation in the 1920s, especially in Germany where inflation quickly destroyed the currency and the savings of many middle-class Germans.

Physical damage caused by the war: also had a negative impact on the European economy, as large amounts of land and industry had been destroyed where the war was fought. This meant that manufacturing output decline dramatically. Taken together with the loss of trade and foreign investments over 4 years this left Europe facing economic crisis in 1919.

Decline of Europe, rise of America: the European powers were indebted to America, who saw her share of world trade increase significantly in this period. This signified the decline of Britain and France as Great Powers, and the gradual emergence of USA as the worlds economic superpower.

[Type text]
Key social results of the war:

Human cost and the lost generation: 8 million dead soldiers left a huge legacy of dependents (widows, children, war-wounded) that had to be supported by the state through pensions. Furthermore, in difficult conditions at the end of the war 5 million civilians died from disease, and15 million died from a flu epidemic in 1918-9 in Europe as a whole.

Improved position of trade unions and workers: given the governments dependence upon industry for military production during the war, workers and organized labour (ie. trade unions) were able to seek greater social and political power. This led to improved pay and conditions, and in Britian various social legislation after the war, including social insurance benefits for unemployed workers and their families.

Improved position and social status of women: the demands of a war economy brought women new employment opportunities in traditionally male-dominated roles, such as industry, engineering and transport - in Britain, an extra 1.5 million women entered the workforce. Though the wars end and the return of the men meant that women were often forced back into the home, these new experiences increased their confidence and led to increasing demands for more opportunities in the future. Women also gained greater rights in society largely as a result of their contribution in the First World War - in Britain women were now allowed to train for new professions such as architects and lawyers, while in many counties women were given a political voice through receiving the vote.