Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Coursework

Better Essays
1369 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Coursework
Using these four passages and your own knowledge, assess the view that international diplomacy failed to achieve stability in Europe from 1919 to 1930.
Initially, interpretation A presents the view that mutual pacts between Germany, Belgium and France helped peace in the region. These agreements would have allowed the possibility of future dealings as well as reducing post-war tensions; however, as interpretation D agrees, I believe this détente was an “illusion”. I believe the idea the agreements helped achieve stability to be unjustified, as the 1920’s show, arbitration through international organisations failed to work – especially where Eastern Europe was concerned. In 1920 Poland launched two aggressive wars against Lithuania and Russia, the 1920 Polish-Soviet war and the 1919 Polish-Lithuanian war respectively, and despite Lithuania’s appeals towards the League of Nations, no action was taken against Poland. Russia’s situation also highlights a problem with countries that were not invited to join the League, namely Russia and Germany, as they could not appeal to the League - this is supported by France’s military invasion of the Ruhr in 1923. This supports the idea that arbitration did not achieve stability in 1920; countries could make agreements without fear of retribution from the League if they broke them, and this would have furthered paranoia amongst newer and smaller states in Eastern Europe who were unable to properly defend themselves. Fear from attacks would have led to a build up in arms, armaments, and alliances as is shown with the formation of the ‘Little Entente’ between Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia in 1919 and 1920. While one could argue this would have led to stability through stability, the Genoa Conference of 1922 highlighted tensions between the countries, especially where the Soviet Union was concerned – because of its failures, I believe it served only to increase tensions in the East with the Soviet Union and Germany. This shows the failing of international diplomacy and also can be used to show the unjustified view Mowat presents in regards to the Rhineland. Mowat refers to the Rhineland, the industrial heart of Germany, as Europe’s “most vulnerable area” and the Locarno treaties would have led to stability through dealing with it, however I believe that this is a very short-sighted opinion that completely ignores the issues that plagued Eastern Europe at the time. The East was a hotbed of activity; Bolshevik revolutions in Russia saw a communist group perform a coup against the previous regime, followed by the Bavarian Soviet Republic and the Hungarian Revolution; this would have created a lot of tension in the East due to the rising fear of communism – the inadequate response to these issues shows the failings of international diplomacy with the focus being on the West.
Likewise, Mowat also seems to believe in the promises made by Britain and Italy, guaranteeing support to any nation who is the victim of an attack. In theory, having two of the more powerful nations on the continent making promises to protect neighbours is a solid strategy for ensuring peace, their stronger militaries and untouched lands would have seemed to have given them the means to support their declarations. However, the belief that they could support a continent is very one-sided and lacks proper evidence to support it; Mowat does not explain factors which may have hindered their ability to make good on their promises. For example, Britain was fractured post-war due to Irish independence granted in 1921 and coupled with their massively reduced military spending from £700 million to £200 million, their movement from war to peace and the great losses incurred in World War 1 would have significantly reduced the likelihood that Britain would have intentionally gotten themselves into another conflict – the public opinion of war was very negative and it would have been difficult for any government to justify another conflict. Likewise, Italy was relatively undamaged after the war which left them in a stronger position relative to their neighbours. However, with the appointment of Benito Mussolini in 1922 which put in a Germany-sympathetic government in power and Italy’s frustration over Fuime put them in agitated state towards other members of the triple entente which would have reduced the chances that Italy would declare any sort of military action against a renewed Germany and these differing views between members of the League would create an uneasy environment within Europe, showing the failing of international diplomacy in achieving stability. Similarly to interpretation A, Sally Marks presents the view that diplomatic negotiations in Europe were advancing and that Germany was beginning to accept the conditions of Versailles. She claims “Stressemann was gracious” at the events but fails to mention his private persona which heavily contrasted the façade he displayed in public – because of this I think it is unsubstantiated to claim that international diplomacy was in any way achieving stability through Stressemann. This is supported by the treaty of Rapallo in 1923 which included dealings which allowed Germany to construct weapons on Russian soil in exchange for research cooperation, this shows that Stressemann was not complying with the terms at all and the rearming of Germany would have increased tensions across the continent, especially for France and smaller states in the East. Considering that Russia was not a part of the League shows that Stressemann was looking to cooperate with powers outside of central Europe, politically and geographically and that Briand’s attempt to “enmesh Germany in a new web of European integration” was not entirely successful. This is supported by interpretation C and the evidence that “Stressemann knew…in spite of Locarno” shows that leaders were not fully committed to Locarno despite German cooperation being the most important. This conflict of interests between the respective leaders in Europe highlights the growing schism between those in the West and those in the East, causing political instability and isolation. This supports the idea that international diplomacy failed to achieve stability due to the amount of double-dealings going on, especially from Germany – their inward attitude would show signs of a possible unwillingness to fully cooperate, even if they publically were open to the idea. In contrast to the view provided by interpretation C, Anthony Adamthwaite looks at the limitations of the diplomatic negotiations. He presents the idea that the economic recovery in the mid-1920s helped provide an illusion of prosperity rather than diplomatic relations. The 1920s saw soldiers re-enter the work forces of numerous nations, providing a great increase in urabnisation and infrastructure; wartime wages and new items on the market also helped bolster economies in the West. This would have helped maintain the “illusion” as people would have been distracted with more domestic affairs such as universal suffrage or culture explosions such as the Harlem Renaissance over international ones and any possible problems would have been overshadowed by the progress that was being made in other areas. However, I believe it’s one-sided to claim that Locarno was merely and illusion bolstered by the economic growth. Speeches made by Briand and the German delegates in Geneva in 1926 claimed to be very hopeful and this shows that despite the tensions that existed, some people may have genuinely felt a sense of reconciliation at Locarno which would have been helpful in securing stability in Europe as it promoted cooperation. However, similarly to interpretation C, I believe that Locarno “bore no fruit” in the end and the positive feelings ultimately resulted in nothing and agreements such as France’s vow to protect Czechoslovakia is an example of this; no action was taken against Adolf Hitler during his invasion in 1939 despite their initial satisfaction with the defensive treaties. This shows that the agreements made at Locarno were nothing more than lines in the sand that would easily be washed away by conflict – Germany knew that their words were hollow which is why they were so easily able to take land in Europe without retribution. Rather than creating stability, we see a situation where international diplomacy created a situation where in Germany could quickly rise in power due to the ineffectiveness of the Locarno treaties.
Interpretation D presents the view that Germany was “free of the checks imposed on it by Versailles"

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    WWII DBQ

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages

    During the early 1920s, World War I had just ended, and many countries were not happy with the outcome. The Treaty of Versailles was a poor settlement to World War I, and left three particular countries unhappy; Germany, Italy, and Japan. The Treaty of Versailles left many limitations on Germany, and failed to give Italy and Japan the recognition they deserved. During the 1930s, these countries decided to take action, and fight for what they wanted. Though both appeasement and collective security were taken in response, collective security proved to be the more effective response to the aggression.…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    history coursework

    • 3423 Words
    • 14 Pages

    Select five sources. Explain how useful these sources have been in informing you in your enquiry into the main features of trench warfare on the Western Front in the First World War.…

    • 3423 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    After the war ended, Allied leaders and President Wilson were faced with putting Europe back together the way it was before the war. Certain events led to the Senate’s defeat of the treaty. Wilson was an optimistic progressive, with striking policies for the outlook of Europe. Many of these plans were shut down by other leaders; Wilson still approved the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles because his prime issue, the League of Nations, was still included. Many people of the world did not see the League as a good idea. They wanted and were promised the war to end in a peace and “moralize nationalism”, but the treaty did not reach their expectations (Document B). It planned to prevent effects that were conflicting by using the same things for opposition. It wanted to use force to destroy force, militarism to prevent militarism, et cetera (Document A). Americans recognized that the resolutions projected and allowed by Wilson were condemned to fail.…

    • 696 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    My Coursework

    • 1088 Words
    • 5 Pages

    You are going to develop a business idea and write a business plan. Below is a list of possible businesses you might be interested in starting:…

    • 1088 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    A2 History Coursework

    • 1584 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to most of the interpretations, international diplomacy wasn’t the reason to why there was stability in Europe between 1919 to 1930. After the First World War many countries were unstable and economically drained. However the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles were put in place to make sure that another war would not occur again and that Germany pays for the First World War.…

    • 1584 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Kaiser, David E. Economic diplomacy and the origins of the Second World War: Germany, Britain, France and Eastern Europe, 1930–1939…

    • 13975 Words
    • 56 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    How much of an influence was the Great Depression on international peace in the period of 1929-36? The Great Depression has always been a subject of interest and criticism among historians. The aim of my Internal Assessment is to find out the extent of the impact that the Great Depression on international peace in the period of 1929-36. I will research my investigation in some of the many books published about the Great Depression, and also including various Internet sources. In B, I will describe the origins of the Great Depression, write a brief account of each involved country’s strengths and weaknesses, and note the key events that took place. I will analyze my findings in D and come to a conclusion as an outcome of this analysis in E.…

    • 1618 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    On the 28th June 1919, Germany resentfully signed the most famous treaty ever, Versailles. Although years of readjusting the treaty followed, this essay will focus mainly on the strengths and weaknesses of the 440 articles in 1919. The Treaty followed a massive war, with huge human sacrifice. It was supposed to be the Treaty to end all wars and give security to the countries involved. The overwhelming task that laid ahead for Woodrow Wilson (America), Lloyd George (Great Britain), Clemenceau (France) and Orlando (Italy) was on a bigger scale than any previous delegates had had to deal with.…

    • 1815 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Castlereagh Vs Wilson

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Concert of Europe was an international order created by a series of alliances that allowed Europe to experience the longest period of peace and stability ever known to the continent. The system aimed to preserve the status quo politically and territorially, and it relied very little on power to sustain itself. Rather, it worked by careful design influenced by the Pitt Plan and the errors of Richelieu’s work of the 1600s. Periodically, the involved nations would convene to discuss and agree on issues that could lead to the outbreak of a war. In this way, the system was able to maintain European peace by consensus. Perhaps the most important reason that the Concert of Europe worked was the sense of shared values that united the countries - a moral equilibrium allowed for power and justice to be in “substantial harmony”. In particular, Prussia, Russia, and Austria, the three Eastern powers, considered their unity as the “barrier to revolutionary chaos”. The system only disintegrated when the moral aspect was removed from European diplomacy - this substantiates a claim that the system’s success can be attributed to the moral equilibrium.…

    • 504 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this paper I read documents of The Sinews of Peace (‘Iron Curtain Speech’), Central Intelligence agency report, “Consequences of a Breakdown in Four-Power Negotiations on Germany”, Letter from Khrushchev to Ulbricht regarding the situation in Berlin, and Speech by President Ronald Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate, West Berlin, ‘Remarks on East-West Relations.’ The documents took place around 1946 through 1961. As each document explains and ties together the tension that was occurring in Europe and the Wester Powers. As the division was separating major cities and countries, of control and communism that was destructing the peace and recovery of the Wars.…

    • 1623 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War 1 Outline

    • 2851 Words
    • 12 Pages

    VI. Assess & discuss the failure of the Settlement of 1919–1920 to achieve a lasting peace in America & in Europe.…

    • 2851 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Magana, C. (2003, December). Signing of the Versailles Treaty. Retrieved September 28, 2011, from UCSB Department of History: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/1920s/CarlosTreaty.htm…

    • 2415 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Was Ww1 Inevitable

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages

    However this conclusion is a far too general statement to make, the years involved in the shaping the war’s evolution was vast and filled with changing Empires. Any event could have changed a leader’s view on their own situation as a part of Europe, most countries constantly striving to find themselves at the greatest advantage. By around 1902 all nations had formed their alliances, the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. Creating these alliances revealed a fear, fear of a war and the need for allies.…

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The League of Nations failed on many accounts to maintain peace in Europe, the League seemed only to back up countries within the League and would not intervene in conflicts its members were not apart of, as seen in the war between Russia and Poland from 1920 to 1921. In 1920, Poland invaded Russian land. The Polish army quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advanced into Russia. The Russians had to sign the Treaty of Riga, which handed over nearly 80,000 square kilometers of Russian land over to Poland. The League did nothing, as Russia was seen as a ‘plague from the East’ and was feared by the Western powers such as Britain and France, some of the Leagues senior members. The war between Russia and Poland showed that the League was looking out for its own member’s interest not the good of all nations and was one of its first failures.…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    On June 28th 1919, the “Big Three”, Georges Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson, and David Lloyd George, on behalf of Great Britain, the United States, and France, had formulated a peace treaty called Versailles Treaty to end the four-year-long First Word War, establishing the famous “Versailles System”. The purpose of the system is to build a peaceful world dominated by the victor countries, such as Great Britain, the United States and France. Therefore, the treaty harshly punished the losing countries, like Germany, Austria, and Hungary, making them decline in power. Every country participated in the Paris Conference with its own goals, and all countries, especially the three biggest victor countries, want to maximize their own interest. In this case, conflict was inevitable. Unfortunately, the treaty failed to make a perfect negotiation to solve problems, such as the placements new borders between countries, the amount of reparations the losing powers had to pay, and therefore, the treaty finally could only build a kind of illusive peaceful system, which was instability, and directly led to the Second World War. Why the Versailles treaty failed to bring peace and stability after the First World War? It’s no denying a fact that only when the most of delegation countries feel satisfied about an international treaty, or there are some powerful dominant country both have the willing and ability to sustain the treaty, the treaty can really take effect in a long term. However, in my opinion, all countries involved in the system, included the losing powers, the colonial countries, and even the victor powers, felt disappointed about the Versailles Treaty more or less, and unfortunately, at that time, the world system was an unstable one. The leading countries neither had the willing to protect the system in long term, nor had the ability to maintain it. Consequently, the collapse of the Versailles System was only a…

    • 2063 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays