IB-style Sourcework Assignment by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.

uk / 1

Why was there so little progress towards World Disarmament 1918-36?

Time Allowed: One Hour

Source A
Germany offers to proceed with her own disarmament in advance of all other peoples, in
order to show that she will help to usher in the new era of the peace of justice. She gives up
universal compulsory service and reduces her army to 100,000 men…She even renounces
the warships which her enemies are still willing to leave in her hands. She stipulates,
however, that she shall be admitted forthwith as a State with equal rights into the League of
Nations. She stipulates that a genuine League of Nations shall come into being, embracing
all peoples of goodwill, even her enemies of today. The League must be inspired by a feeling
of responsibility toward mankind and have at its disposal a power to enforce its will sufficiently
strong and trusty to protect the frontiers of its members.
Count von Brockdorff-Rantzau, German delegate at the Versailles Conference, complains to
Clemenceau about the Peace Terms, May 1919

Source B
The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction
of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement
by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the
geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such
reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. Such plans shall be
subject to reconsideration and revision at least every ten years. After these plans shall have
been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be
exceeded without the concurrence of the Council. The Members of the League agree that the
manufacture by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war is open to grave
objections. The Council shall advise how the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture
can be prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those Members of the League
which are not able to manufacture the munitions and implements of war necessary for their
safety. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to
the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of
such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.
Article 8 of the League of Nations Covenant

Source C
We desire security ... I am bound to say, quite frankly, that at the present moment we do not
feel that the securities are adequate.
The German disarmament is nearly completed, but the impossibility of re-armament
is no less an essential condition of security. What is the use of destroying obsolete weapons if
people may, in the meanwhile, manufacture improved weapons of greater destructive power?
We require more than a material disarmament, what we want is a moral disarmament.
We are spectators of a strange duel, a duel between the spirit of war and revenge on
the one hand, and the spirit of work and peace on the other…we can only feel secure when
the German Republic is established on a stable foundation, and when it is filled with the idea
of justice, dignity and liberty, which are the ideals of the League of Nations. But, unfortunately,
this duel is not yet concluded, and meanwhile we must keep our weapons in readiness...She
does not want to have lost a million and a half lives for nothing.
Speech by M. Noblemaire, a French delegate, 1926

Source D
Signer Vittorio Scialoja (of Italy), President of the Council of the League of Nations, officially
announced late in the week that the preliminary League disarmament conference scheduled
to meet at Geneva on Feb. 15, 1926, has been postponed to an indefinite date which will be
set by the Council when it assembles next month. Between the lines of Signor Scialoja's
bland pronouncement, diplomats read the disheartening truth that the world is not yet ready to
disarm. For the past fortnight the heads of many governments have been scurrying about
looking for a "formula" under which postponement could be effected without branding any
nation as unwilling to disarm. France and England have been especially anxious not to incur
this disagreeable onus of responsibility…Eventually it was decided that Premier Briand should
 IB-style Sourcework Assignment by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.uk / 2

request Sir Eric to take steps for postponement in the name of France, Italy, Japan,
Czechoslovakia and Uruguay—thus mixing and muddling well all question of responsibility.
Only the most unimaginative correspondents failed to turn up at least a baker's dozen
of "paramount considerations" which necessitated the postponement. Some of the most
significant:
1) Because the League Secretariat has not been given time enough in which to assemble the
necessary research material and arrange the indispensable routine preliminaries.
2) Because Russia obstinately refuses to attend a conference on Swiss soil, with the
deliberate intention of thwarting the League, which of course maintains its large and
immovable permanent equipment at Geneva.
3) Because France and England do not want Germany to sit in at such a conference until she
is within the League and has fully complied with the disarmament clauses of the Treaty of
Versailles.
4) Because France and England fear that if Germany came to the conference she might
present statistics to show that France and England are allegedly over armed and have been
acting high-handedly in the Rhineland.
5) Because France is afraid that England and the U. S. would try to restrict the conference to
considering only land armaments, forcing France to reduce hers, and then hold another naval
conference at Washington, where they could apportion the fleets of the world to suit
themselves.
6) Because Britain is afraid that France would renew her original intention of trying to make
the conference consider every possible form of "invisible armament" (peacetime industries
capable of being turned to war purposes, etc.) and so make the scope of the conference so
broad that it would wallow hopelessly amid a maze of insoluble questions.
Disarmament Postponed: An article from TIME magazine, 1926

Source E

September 1927 – David Low

“The Descent of Man, so far…”

Source F
The Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments—also known as the World
Disarmament Conference—convened in Geneva on 2 February 1932 and began negotiations
on the preparatory commission's draft convention. Secretary of State Stimson declared that
President Hoover would not authorize discussions involving political arrangements to facilitate
arms control measures. Nevertheless, on 9 February 1932, Gibson assured the gathered
diplomats that the United States wished to cooperate with them to achieve arms limitations.
As the disarmament conference bogged down, President Hoover and, later, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to stimulate negotiations. Citing the Kellogg-Briand Pact's
outlawing of aggressive war, Hoover on 22 June 1932 proposed a one-third reduction in all
armies and battle fleets. Additionally, he urged the abolition of tanks, large mobile guns, and
chemical weapons and the prohibition of aerial bombardment.
 IB-style Sourcework Assignment by RJ Tarr at www.activehistory.co.uk / 3

When the French argued that his plan must be anchored to some kind of verification, Hoover
reversed the earlier U.S. position. President Wilson initially rejected permanent supervision of
German disarmament at Versailles because this precedent might run counter to America's
future interests. "The United States," he declared, "will not tolerate the supervision of any
outside body in [disarmament], nor be subjected to inspection or supervision by foreign
agencies or individuals." Secretary of State Frank Kellogg restated this policy in January
1926. "The United States will not be a party to any sanctions of any kind for the enforcement
of a treaty for the limitation of armaments," he asserted, "nor will it agree that such treaties to
which it may be a party shall come under the supervision of any international body—whether
the League of Nations or otherwise." Arms limitation measures, he insisted, "so far as we are
concerned, must depend upon the good faith of nations." On 30 June 1932, Stimson
announced that the United States was prepared "to accept the right of inspection" if there was
any likelihood of concluding "a treaty of real reduction." This belated change of policy was
insufficient because the French now also demanded a guarantee of military assistance in
case of attack.
On 16 May 1933, President Roosevelt proposed abolition of modern offensive
weapons. He also announced America's willingness to consult with other states in the event
of threatened conflict, but since the Senate showed little interest in abandoning neutrality for
international cooperation, this initiative failed. Confronted by French intransigence and
German aggressiveness, the World Disarmament Conference slowly dissolved without any
accomplishments.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com

Source G
Whoever expects to meet a madman brandishing an axe and encounters instead a man with
a Browning hidden in his hip pocket cannot fail to experience a feeling of relief. But that does
not prevent the Browning from being more dangerous than the axe….If Hitler has so eagerly
accepted the English plan for armaments reduction, it is only because he counted in advance
and with full certainty upon its failure. He did not need to take upon himself the odious role of
the gravedigger of pacifist proposals; he prefers to leave that function to others. For the same
reason Hitler is not niggardly with his “warm thanks” to the American President for his
declaration in favour of armaments reduction. The more broadly and extensively the program
of disarmament is presented before the whole world, and the more inevitably it ends in a
collapse, the more incontestable will be Germany’s right to rearmament. … He is counting
firmly upon the prospect that, after the failure of the British program which he “supports”,
England, together with Italy, will support with all their might the right of Germany to strengthen
its defense ... against the East. Nothing but defense, and only against the East! ...Hitler
considered it self-evident that the Disarmament Conference is condemned to failure. “There
would be no need at all,” he wrote three months before his advent to power, “for the German
delegation to participate interminably in the Geneva Disarmament comedy. It would suffice to
expose clearly before the whole world the wish of France not to disarm for us thereupon to
quit the Conference, stating that the peace of Versailles has been violated by the signatory
powers themselves and that Germany must reserve for itself under these circumstances the
drawing of the corresponding conclusions.”
Trotsky's assessment of Hitler's foreign policy, 1934

Questions
1a. Why, according to Source G, did Hitler support calls for world disarmament? [3 marks]
1b. What message is conveyed by Source E? [2 marks]
2. Compare and contrast the views expressed about disarmament in Sources C and D. [6
marks]
3. With reference to their origin and purpose, discuss the value and limitations of Source E
and Source G for historians studying the failure of the League to secure World Disarmament
in the interwar period. [6 marks]
4. Using these sources and your own knowledge, assess the view that "French fear of
Germany was the main reason why the League failed to make any progress on the issue of
disarmament in the interwar period" [8 marks]