DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONALISM
Introduction
In the years immediatelyafter World War I,the view developed that it was the existence of the massive military machines of the European powers that had made war possible in 1914.Thus it followed that if another disaster were to be avoided,these military machines needed to be destroyed.A war cannot be fought without military power.Furthermore it was argued that the existence of large armed forces meant that any move made by any power was greeted with fear and suspicion.Consequently there was always the danger that an isolated incident could escalate into something more serious.
Unfortunately,despite all the good intentions,the story of disarmament between 1919 and the 1932 Disarmament Conference is a story of failure. Specific proposals contained too many flaws and nations took diametrically opposed positions on the entire issue.In some ways it could be argued that disarmament was and still isa logically impossible.
The first step in disarmament after the war was the treatment meted out to Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.It was hoped that this would begin a general move towards disarmament.Article 8 of the League Covenant saw disarmament as a specific goal:
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 enorcement by common action of international obligations...
Reasons for the Failure of Disarmament
*In the same way that France found it impossible to compromise over the issue of reparations,so it found it impossible to do so over disarmament. Britain saw disarmament as a means of achieving security.France believed that it was necessary to first achieve security before the process of disarmament could begin.
*The French viewed Germany as a potentially powerful nation of 70 million. France,a nation of 4 million,would always be at Germany`s mercy unless it could be sure of an ally,so it aimed at keeping Germany weak and could not move on disarmament until its security had been established.
*The major divergence of opinion on the disarmament question can be summarised as follows:
-the British desire for disarmament versus the French aim for sucurity;
-the Greman desire for disarmament versus the French aim for security;
*Throughout the 1920s Germany demanded equality.Anglo-French differences over Germany were already great and these spilled over into the area of disarmament as Britain again sympathised with the German cause.
*Added to Frances fear of a German rival was the now growing fear of Bolshevism.`The hydra-headed fear of Bolshevism added to the sense of insecurity which checked disarmament.
General Blaskowitz, Commander of German Army Group G had an extremely challenging task of balancing operational factors to achieve his organization’s assigned objectives. The German leader, Adolf Hitler, and his German armed forces high command OKW had a desired end state of German dominance of Europe. In order to achieve this desired end state the theater strategic objective for OB West, the German theater command was the defense of France, both from the ongoing Allied invasion in Normandy and an anticipated Allied amphibious assault in Southern France. General Blaskowitz’s operational objective, as directed from Hitler and the German high command, was to defend Southern France, with the mission of “holding the coast at all costs.” (pg. 16)
1. Germany was prepared to launch the First World War in order to become a great power.
One of the main aims of the League was to stop war. This aim was
Hitler had long been obsessed with attacking and controlling France. After their defeat in World War I, the German people, government, and military were humiliated by the enormous post war sanctions leveraged against them from the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to defeat and humiliate the French people in the same way that his country had to. For him, revenge was necessary. The German plan was to swing into France using a new tactic known as Blitzkrieg or “Lightning War”.
The desire for disarmament was natural; it was followed by a wave of anti-war feeling. The war had done what the writing of all economists had failed to do: demonstrate modem warfare that brought loss on a huge scale to the victors as well as to the beaten. The LON showed a general determination to find alternatives to war settlements of international disputes.
The concept of collective security was damaged by France’s unilateral actions in the Ruhr in 1923. France agreed on making the Germans pay their reparation by industrial produce and raw materials not cash but the Germans couldn’t pay all the reparations in such a small time which led the payments fall into arrears. therefore, the France government was upset to the extend it had used force upon Germany by sending its troops to Ruhr valley in January 1923. This led the Dawes plan to come and fix the two countries relationship by making Germany pay the reparation by two mortgages their railways and the industrial and Dawes sent an American supervisor there so he could see if they were paying the reparations as planed but Germany became unhappy and Britain and France wondered it this will affect their own reparation for the US. France economy gained production from the Ruhr crisis whereas Germanys economy collapsed and its employers were in strike. Thus, the tension between France and Germany increased. In addition to that Rhineland promoted that it wanted to be independent because Germany didn’t do anything for them. Therefore, the Ruhr crisis had an impact on the France breaking the rules of the league of nation and treaty of Versailles for their own benefits. Consequently the collective security failed due to the fact that France broke the rules and didn’t keep its
... under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?” There was one mutual emotion that united every country in Europe by the end of the war: discontent. With a staggering 37 million casualties throughout the war, there was little to be optimistic about. Nevertheless, the creation of the League of Nations at the end of the war showed progression. In theory, the League of Nations gave an opportunity for nations to diplomatically express their emotions in order to prevent war, rather than holding them in just as Austria and Serbia did. Despite this aspiration, the league practically failed immediately by not giving Germany the ability to voice its emotions during the creation of the harsh Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, with such German anger and resentment looming large it is not surprising that another world war broke out in 1939.
The League of Nations has been seen as a seriously flawed international organisation and its failure to prevent World War Two has been well documented. Provide something of an alternative perspective by identifying and highlighting important policy-areas in which the League made valuable progress.
World War I ended, the start of the interwar period, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. After World War I, Allies wanted to create a treaty that would prevent another war from happening. Diplomats from England, France, and the United State met together at Versailles to discuss peace terms, but all three nations wanted different things. England and France particularly wanted revenge for what Germany had put them through. They eventually got the revenge that was sought after, and Germany was forced into signing the treaty; which in German eyes was deemed unfair. Germany was determined to do everything in its power to undermine the treaty.
The Treaty of Versailles is an example of how the neglect of principles proposed by the Catholic Church, namely social restoration, just accords, long-term security and physical reconstruction, can lead to lasting global repercussions and future wars. The sanctions were enforced in the hope of slowing German recovery and eliminating future conflict. However, the United States didn’t sign this treaty because we recognized that it didn’t give the Germans a fair deal or promote long-term security (Treaty).
The growing British empire docked fear into countries around the world. The British empire was feared that their intense growth would be unstoppable. The fear of Britain's success can be seen in propaganda. This is seen in the headlines of German propaganda, “ England, the blood sucker of the world” (Poster collection, Hoover Institution Archives). The growth of the British empire lead to a paranoia of english power. The anxiety of nations around the world is justified when looking at the area that Britain had control of, as seen in
It has been almost a century since the first Paris Peace Conference was hold, but even until now, it is a popular yet also controversial event in the history of the world. The Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 involving more than 1,000 representatives from over 30 nations. The results of the Conference are five treaties regarding terms that, according to the Conference, shall prevent any upcoming conflicts among nations. Although World War II started only after 15 years, nonetheless, the treaties did function as a buffer between countries. Although many resolutions were discussed, the negotiation of the Conference revolves around four main topics, reparation from the previous war losses or limitations on the main Central Power, Germany, self-recognition, President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the annexation of land.
Military planning in some countries also caused an increased fear of war. Since military machines were being developed, each country was appointing a general staff of experts. The greatest problem with this was that there was a fear that "some chief of staff, in order to maintain the schedule on his 'timetable', might force an order of mobilization and thus precipitate war." These two factors also led, in part, to the alliance system. If two or more countries are allied with each other, then they have a better chance of defeating their common enemy if war is declared.
France aimed to get revenge on Germany for the Franco - Prussian war of 1970 - 1971 where France were disastrously defeated, Germany aimed to stay free from an invasion from France and keep Austria-Hungary happy as France and Austria- Hungary were on either side of German, and Russia wanted an ally so it could feel safe form Germany.
This essay thus includes the architects of the Iron Chancellor to isolate France before this war, his strategy to bring southern German states into war through French provocation, his superior planning during the invasion of French territory and his army’s advanced use of modern technology.