Key factors

Key Factors to the Paris Peace Treaties

First of all, there is the nature of the war itself: it was long and it was bloody; costly in lives and in money (with France and Belgium also suffering severe war damage.
Britain, France and America had different war experiences
- Britain and France had both paid a heavy price but the war had been fought on French soil.
- Whilst America had joined the war late and so, had not suffered such a loss of life and had actually profited from the war.
- As a consequence, the three leaders came to Paris with different priorities
- President Wilson wanted to reshape the post-war order based on self-determination and democracy, as well as to ensure lasting peace (and he felt all the major European powers shared some of the responsibility for the war). Hence his 14 Points that included a league of nations.
- Clemenceau wanted Germany punished and weakened, and he wanted France made safe.
- Lloyd George also wanted Germany punished and he wanted the British Empire protected, but he also wanted Germany to recover economically and he was concerned to avoid another war.
- And there was Italy and Japan (and Russia) to consider, the other countries who had fought too, and, also, the peoples of the defeated empires.
The peace conference was held with passions still running high
- It was held in Paris where hatred of Germany was at its most intense.
- The German delegation and those of the other losing powers were not invited to attend (nor was Russia).
- The size of the task, for example redrawing the map of Europe, was such that time was needed.
- But the politicians and diplomats didn’t have time, Europe was torn apart.
Common clauses in all the treaties
- They were all diktats
- War Guilt
- Territorial losses
- Reparations
- Military restrictions
- A delay before the defeated powers would be allowed to join the LofN
Reactions
- The French thought the TofV wasn’t harsh enough and Clemenceau lost the 1919 election.
- The British soon thought the treaty was too harsh – you can link this to Appeasement.
- America didn’t want to risk getting involved in more disputes and refused to ratify the treaty. It didn’t join the LofN either.
- Reactions and consequences in Germany
- Universal shock and horror
- Inflamed Right-wing nationalist parties
- Demands for revenge
- But for a brief period, it destabilised Germany from the German Revolution to the Hitler becoming Chancellor
- It made it more difficult for Weimar to establish itself
- And the events of 1923 link back to the TofV
- But the German government were right – they had to sign the treaty
- Reaching judgements on the treaties
- The first thing to consider are the Guilt Clauses: to what extent were the defeated powers alone, guilty? And this should include the way the war was fought as well as the causes of the war. Or should the winners look at the part they played too?
- The treaties were seen as both too harsh, and not harsh enough. How could this be so?
- Were they good or bad treaties? Were they wise? The key is whether the treaties made war less likely or more likely.
- If the peacemakers got things wrong, what were their most important mistakes?
- Saying they were justified at the time is different than saying they can still be justified with hindsight. Why?

Key Factors to the Paris Peace Treaties

First of all, there is the nature of the war itself: it was long and it was bloody; costly in lives and in money (with France and Belgium also suffering severe war damage.

Britain, France and America had different war experiences

Britain and France had both paid a heavy price but the war had been fought on French soil.

Whilst America had joined the war late and so, had not suffered such a loss of life and had actually profited from the war.

As a consequence, the three leaders came to Paris with different priorities

President Wilson wanted to reshape the post-war order based on self-determination and democracy, as well as to ensure lasting peace (and he felt all the major European powers shared some of the responsibility for the war). Hence his 14 Points that included a league of nations.

Clemenceau wanted Germany punished and weakened, and he wanted France made safe.

Lloyd George also wanted Germany punished and he wanted the British Empire protected, but he also wanted Germany to recover economically and he was concerned to avoid another war.

And there was Italy and Japan (and Russia) to consider, the other countries who had fought too, and, also, the peoples of the defeated empires.

The peace conference was held with passions still running high

It was held in Paris where hatred of Germany was at its most intense.

The German delegation and those of the other losing powers were not invited to attend (nor was Russia).

The size of the task, for example redrawing the map of Europe, was such that time was needed.

But the politicians and diplomats didn’t have time, Europe was torn apart.

Common clauses in all the treaties

They were all diktats

War Guilt

Territorial losses

Reparations

Military restrictions

A delay before the defeated powers would be allowed to join the LofN

Reactions

The French thought the TofV wasn’t harsh enough and Clemenceau lost the 1919 election.

The British soon thought the treaty was too harsh – you can link this to Appeasement.

America didn’t want to risk getting involved in more disputes and refused to ratify the treaty. It didn’t join the LofN either.

Reactions and consequences in Germany

Universal shock and horror

Inflamed Right-wing nationalist parties

Demands for revenge

But for a brief period, it destabilised Germany from the German Revolution to the Hitler becoming Chancellor

It made it more difficult for Weimar to establish itself

And the events of 1923 link back to the TofV

But the German government were right – they had to sign the treaty

Reaching judgements on the treaties

The first thing to consider are the Guilt Clauses: to what extent were the defeated powers alone, guilty? And this should include the way the war was fought as well as the causes of the war. Or should the winners look at the part they played too?

The treaties were seen as both too harsh, and not harsh enough. How could this be so?

Were they good or bad treaties? Were they wise? The key is whether the treaties made war less likely or more likely.

If the peacemakers got things wrong, what were their most important mistakes?

Saying they were justified at the time is different than saying they can still be justified with hindsight. Why?