Demands of France for Peace Treaty after WWII - Essay Example

Demands of France for Peace Treaty after WWII I. Introduction World War II can never be fully assessed without looking into World War I. Wars have causes and may start only from some various causes. But war may be a continuation from another one where armistice is properly seen as what was between them. This is what can characterize World War I and World War II as perceived by some historians based on events that happened. There was a peace treaty after the First World War, but somehow that treaty had in its package a cause for another world war. In the process of having the instigator punished, the self-concept of one nation may have been dashed to pieces one has to assert a stand by starting another war. In the making of the Treaty of Versailles that effectively ended World War I, France chaired the peace conference and saw fit to have Germany, the one who started the war be properly punished and the lands it confiscated returned. Germany signed the treaty but proposed some amendments. Still, the treaty was to the consciousness of Germans a reason to have a score settled and that came in World War II. In the opinions of many, the treaty was too harsh on Germany and France is now being seen in bad light This paper reconsiders France and looks into her demands after each world war and then makes a stand in the conclusion. II. Demands after World War II World War II. In 1939, World War II came, and this lasted until 1945.1 The war spread out to Europe, Asia, Mediterranean and Middle East, Africa resulting in Allied victory where casualties were 62 million, and 37 million of these were civilians and 25 million were military. The two groups that were fighting were the Allies composed of Soviet Union, UK and Commonwealth, USA, France/Free France, China, Poland, and Australia; and the Axis composed of Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Vichy France. 2 World War II was a truly global conflict with untold human misery that began on September 1, 1939 when German invaded Poland. Countries that participated in World War I were the same countries involved in World War II. On September 3, 1939 Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declared war on Germany and Canada followed a week later. Meanwhile, the United States joined the conflict in December 1941 after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.3 Treaties. After World War II, delegates from 21 member countries of the United Nations met in Paris on July 29, 1946, to draft treaties with Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Finland.4 Representatives of the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and France signed the treaties in Paris on Feb. 10, 1947. Border fortifications as provided in the treaties were to be limited only to keeping internal security. Also, guarantees against racial discrimination and the rebirth of fascist governments were provided for.5 Because of the devastating experiences of war that the nations went through especially in World War II, these two guarantees are understandable. Also, the Balkan treaties provided for free navigation of the Danube. Demands. At the end of the war, millions were rendered homeless, the European economy had collapsed, and 70% of the European industrial infrastructure was destroyed.6 The Eastern victors exacted payment of war reparations from the defeated nations, and in the Paris Peace Treaty, the enemies of Soviet Union which were Hungary, Finland and Romania, were required to pay $300,000,000 each to the Soviet Union. Italy was required to pay $360,000,000, shared chiefly between Greece, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.7 Meanwhile, the Western victors in World War II did not demand compensation from the defeated nations. Instead, a plan established by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall, the "European Recovery Program", better known as the Marshall Plan, called for the U.S. Congress to allocate billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Europe.8 As reflected in Table 1, the breakdown was as follows - compensation to the wWII victors at 1938 prices (Tabled by writer from discussions of answers.com [n.d.]) Grand total: $1330,000,000 Source Amount assigned Recipient (Eastern victor) Amount assigned Total 1 Italy $360,000,000 Yugoslavia $125,000,000 $125,000,000 Greece $105,000,000 $105,000,000 Soviet Union $100,000,000 $100,000,000 Ethiopia $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Albania. $5,000,000 $5,000,000 2 Finland $300,000,000 Soviet Union $300,000,000 $300,000,000 3 Hungary $300,000,000 Soviet Union $200,000,000 $200,000,000 Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia $100,000,000 $100,000,000 4 Romania $300,000,000 Soviet Union $300,000,000 $300,000,000 5 Bulgaria $70,000,000 Greece $45,000,000 $45,000,000 Yugoslavia $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Total $1,330,000,000 $1.330,000,000 $1,330,000,000 Table 1. Compensation to the WWII Eastern victors. Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria have to shell out a total of $1,330,000,000 to Yugoslavia, Greece, Soviet Union, Ethiopia, Albania., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia as indicated. There was no demand from Western victors. War reparation. Of the problems arising from post-war conditions, the issue of war reparation proved to be one of the most difficult. The Soviet Union felt entitled to the maximum amounts possible, with an exception for Bulgaria, which was perceived as being the most sympathetic of the former enemy states. In the cases of Romania and Hungary, the reparation terms as set forth in their armistices were relatively high and were not revised.9 By inference, Bulgaria, with only $70,000,000 to pay, while her companions had to pitch in more than three times this amount, had very little destruction from Germany and her allies. According to Margaret MacMillan, 10 from the start, France and Belgium felt that direct damage claims should receive priority in any distribution of reparations. Belgium had been picked clean. In the heavily industrialized north of France, the Germans had shipped out what they wanted for their own use and destroyed much of the rest. Even as German forces were retreating in 1918, they found time to blow up France's most important coal mines." It is understandable then that France would be feeling so bad for what disaster German had caused on its lands and properties. III. Political thought and public opinion World War II was tied to the expansionism of Germany and Japan: Germany had lost wealth, power and status after WWI and the expansion was to make Germany great again.11 In Germany there was a strong desire to escape the bonds of the Treaty of Versailles of World War I. Eventually, Hitler and the Nazis took control of the country.12 With Germany, the fact is that she never felt as though they were defeated in World War I. As such, her people had a hard time accepting the fact that they should have to pay for anything.13 It is deemed that the work of British writer Keynes had provided German supporters all the arguments they needed against the reparations and reconstruction efforts of the Versailles Treaty.14 Old pains: Treaty of Versailles. The final Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, attended by the major nations excluding Germany in the writing of the treaty.15 Some states - particularly France - were said to have argued for the complete humiliation and crushing of Germany. Others, however, insisted that vindictiveness would only make worse the condition that the treaty was meant to address.16 War guilt clause. In the Treaty of Versailles of WWI, the territorial changes were that: Germany was to lose all of its colonies. Four new nations were to be created by the treaty including Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Germany was required to pay $5 Billion in reparations within two years and an unnamed sum later. Moreover, a reserve army was abolished in Germany, and the manufacture of heavy artillery, tanks, military airplanes, poison gas, battleships over 10,000 tons, and submarines was forbidden. There was a War Guilt Clause that Germany would accept blame for starting the war.17 The German government ratified the treaty, as did France (Oct. 13), Great Britain (Oct. 15), Italy (Oct. 15), and Japan (Oct. 30). The U.S. government, however, never ratified it as it failed of the necessary votes in the Senate.18 Critics to Treaty of Versailles. The Versailles Treaty had its critics at the time and in the years that followed. British economist John Maynard Keynes19 was particularly negative in his assessment. He thinks Germany is being reduced to servitude for a generation of degrading the lives of millions of human beings. It is his book now that is being used by the Germans in their arguments. Other critics, mainly French, didn't think the Treaty of Versailles went far enough in humiliating and punishing Germany. But in Germany, it was greeted with widespread condemnation. 20 Harsh view. Keynes (cited in Henig) 21 refers to the economic terms as "outrageous and impossible." France, who pushed for harsher German punishment and reparation levels more than any other Allied Power, wanted the reparations to seriously cripple the German state. As for Sally Marks, 22 she states that the treatment of reparations by both sides was "the continuation of war by other means." She argues that the peace left Germany both powerful and resentful. But looking at those reparations, Atkinson23 thinks they really were not so economically damaging. Keynes in a way supported the German government who wished to avoid further punishment and humiliation. Lenient. Although Germany thinks that the treaty was far too harsh, most historians now think that the terms there, in fact were "relatively lenient."24 Henig 25 concludes that the Treaty of Versailles was not excessively harsh on Germany. "It deprived her of about 13.5% of her territory, 13% of her economic productivity and about 7 million [or 10%] of her inhabitants." Theoretically, the Allies could have dealt Germany much harsher blows.26 IV. Reconsidering France Recently, the peace conference in Paris at the end of the First World War has been drawing attention.27 To some Americans, the Versailles Treaty was unbearably harsh, particularly the monetary reparations; it destroyed the German economy causing inflation and depression, brought Hitler to power, and caused World War II. Americans mostly cast France as the major villain that after more than eighty years since its creation the Versailles Treaty remains one of the most misunderstood events of the twentieth century.28 Correction. One of two correctives in the area of fact given by Joel Blatt 29 is that Article 231 or the so-called "war guilt clause" was not authored by the French but by two Americans, Norman Davis and John Foster Dulles. Saying that this would surprise many, Blatt says this was supposedly in coordination with Article 232, and was designed to foster a practical reparations settlement. By inference from events, this has been charged all along to the French by public opinion, firstly because it was France that actively participated in the Peace Conference in Paris that tackled the Versailles Treaty. Georges Clemenceau, Prime Minister of France at that time, was chair of the conference.30 To Historian Robert Young, in assessing the role of the French in the breakdown of peace in Europe in 1933-1939, the French state had pursued an informed, rational, coherent policy against the odds however badly the story ended.31 After World War II, France was very docile and only went along with plans for Europe. In the plan for a new world order, France, along with America and England simply reunited her sector. 32 Legacy of World War I .After the First World War, the reparations that Germany had to pay created bitterness in Germany.33 Hitler was believed to have exploited this bitterness to get the people of Germany to follow him in his crusade of world dominance. France was left alone to fend for herself without any help of the Allies to calm Germany in the years leading to World War II. England did not want to be involved, so no one helped France.34 Docile. In the late 1930s after World War 1, France, along with Britain was a power to reckon with but they unwittingly left it.35 After WWII, it appears France power was definitely clamped down and couldn't make any demands like it belligerently did after WWI. Accordingly after WWII, Roosevelt objected to De Gaul taking power immediately after the war and presented General Eisenhower control of France and Italy for up to a year, in order to "restore civil order." 36 Winds of change. By 1998, France is being called a superpower with no power37 as though she had no right anymore to criticize actions of the United States. France for over two centuries was the mightiest military power in Europe.38 The France today (and Germany today in fact), remain frustratingly on the sidelines, as the USA did until Dec 7th 1941.39 Ambivalence. Today, according to Historian Robert J. Young, 40 France is ambivalent about most of everything. Young, as reviewed by Cairns says - "There is the river of French ambivalence and its confluent streams: ambivalent popular opinion, ambivalent parliaments, parties, politicians, cabinets, ambassadors, and generals. Ambivalence about economic policy, about Hitler and the Germans, about the Popular Front, about the nation's wider interests, about potential allies, about the price of past victory and the possibility of having to pay it again." 41 German revisionisthistory. For all that France is now, however, it is not warranted for Germany to espouse a revisionist stance. According to Kathy Herrmann42 there now abounds German revisionisthistoryof the WWII years in which Germans areconverted tothe roles of victims."Doing so is likely to stimulate feel-good feelings among the German people, [but] it also buries the lessons of history," she said. V. Conclusion War may make one nation hold on to the reigns of power. But while a nation may make war, she should also be ready to face consequences with dignity. Where a treaty for peace is forged, therefore, the warrior nation should be submissive enough to claims for reparations. Part of being warrior should include readiness to be punished as seen fit by those one has devastated. The risk should be borne more especially by the culprit who has started it all. In this case it was Germany that had started World War I. It was also Germany that started World War II in her invasion of Poland. The Treaty of Versailles demanding that she return all lands she had confiscated and many other reparation charges was intended to make her repay. Recently, being interpreted as too harsh on Germany, this treaty itself is seen as one that resurrected a fascist in Hitler who figured in World War II, therefore France is to take the blame for the hard-hitting demands she made after World War I. Public opinion can unmake a nation. But that is only as far as public opinion goes. Public opinion can be wrong. To say that France should take the blame for resurrecting a fascist is arguing from a wrong cause. To say that World War II was caused by being harsh on Germany is to want to appease a malefactor. As one nation wronged, France, like the other nations, had the right to claim for reparation. Proof that France did not do her role in the treaties out of spite was that Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles or the War Guilt Clause was written by two Americans and not by France. Germany's bad behaviour should not be blamed on another nation as to want to appease a tiger that she may not do harm. A nation, if it wants to be great, should properly behave as such. France, therefore, should be reconsidered as just in her demands not so much for requiring material payback from a snatcher but for wanting to teach a lesson to one that has started untold misery the world over. Endnotes 1 "Causes of World War II, Events preceding World War II in Europe, Events preceding World War II in Asia." World War II. Air and space. airandspace.org 14 Jan 2006 . 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 "The hard road to peace." World War II. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. 2006. Encyclopdia Britannica Premium. Service.britannica.com. 11Jan.2006. 5 Ibid. 6 airandspace.org, (n.d.) 7 Ibid. 8 "Paris Peace Treaties, 1947." answers.com 14 Jan 2006 . 9 Ibid. 10"Treaty of Versailles." wikipedia.org. 14 Jan 2006 . 11 airandspace.org, (n.d.) 12 Ibid. 13 James J. Atkinson, "The Treaty of Versailles and its Consequences. jimmyatkinson.com. 16 Dec 2002. 14 Jan 2006 . 14 Ibid. 15"Demands of Nations." killeenroos.com. 12 Jan 2006 . 16 Ibid. 17 killeenroos.com. (n.d.) 18 Peter N. Stearns (Gen. Ed.). (2001). "The Peace Settlements." The Encyclopedia of World History.6th Ed. Houghton Mifflin Company. 13 Jan 2006 . 19"PEACE" The First World War channel4.com . 20 Ibid. 21 Ruth Henig. Versailles and After: 1919 - 1933 (London: Routledge, 1995). p. 50. [Henig provides a very thorough account of the Treaty of Versailles and the development of the League of Nations. [She argues here that the reluctance to enforce the treaty, rather than the treaty terms themselves, was the main cause of the treaty's failure]. 22 Sally Marks. The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe, 1918 - 1933 (London, 1976). [Marks argues that it is incredible that the Treaty of Versailles came out as well as it did, considering the circumstances.]. 23 Atkinson (2002) 24 Ibid. 25 Henig (1995) 26 Atkinson (2002) 27 Margaret O. MacMillan. "Lessons of History: the Paris Peace Conference of 1919." dfait-maeci.gc.ca. Last updated 14 Jan 2004. 14 Jan 2006 . 28 Joel Blatt (1998). "Review of Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, (Eds), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Cambridge." New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press and The German Historical Institute, ix + 674 pp. Bibliography and index. ISBN 0-521-62132-1. H-France Review. Apr 2001. Vol. 1. No. 9. 15 Jan 2006 . 29 Ibid. 30 "Georges Clemenceau's Letter of Reply to the Objections of the German Peace Delegation, May 1919." firstworldwar.com. 16 Jan 2006. [Sourced from Source Records of the Great War, Vol. VII, edited by Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923]. 31 John C. Cairns. "Review of Robert J. Young, France and the Origins of the Second World War," H-France, H-Net Reviews, Sept, 1997. 13 Jan 2006 . 32 "To what extent was the end of World War II a reaction to the past" socialstudieshelp.com 13 Jan 2006 . 33 Nick Boots. "Outbreak of World War II." Summary of Origins of the Second World War by Rothwell, Victor, published by Manchester University Press, 2001. 15 Jan 2006. . 34 Ibid. 35 "Rise of Superpowers after WWII." cyberessays.com. 13 Jan 2006 . 36 Ibid. 37 Carlos Freymann. "France: a superpower with no power." San Antonio Business Journal. Comment. From 25 Sept 1998 print edition. 13 Jan 2006 . [Carlos Freymann is president of San Antonio-based Freymann & Associates, an international marketing and public relations firm]. 38 Ibid. 39 "Appeasement policies towards Hitler." Posted by freddo411. Windsofchange.net 3 Nov. 2005. 14 Jan 2006 . 40 Robert J. Young. France and the Origins of the Second World War. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. 191 pp. Appendices, notes, map, select bibliography, and index. ISBN 0-312-16186-7; ISBN 0-312-16185-9. 41 John C. Cairns. "Review of Robert J. Young, France and the Origins of the Second World War," H-France, H-Net Reviews, Sept, 1997. 13 Jan 2006 . 42 Kathy Herrmann. "German revisionist history overlooks the real history of WWI and WWII." bigcatchronicles.blogharbor.com. 7 Apr 2005. 15 Jan 2006. . References "Appeasement policies towards Hitler." Posted by freddo411. Windsofchange.net 3 Nov. 2005. 14 Jan 2006 . "Causes of World War II, Events preceding World War II in Europe, Events preceding World War II in Asia." World War II. Air and space. airandspace.org 14 Jan 2006 . "Demands of Nations." killeenroos.com. 12 Jan 2006 . "Georges Clemenceau's Letter of Reply to the Objections of the German Peace Delegation, May 1919." firstworldwar.com. 16 Jan 2006. "History of France."Francegate.com. 14 Jan 2006 . "Paris Peace Treaties, 1947." answers.com 14 Jan 2006 . "PEACE" The First World War channel4.com . "Rise of Superpowers after WWII." cyberessays.com. 13 Jan 2006 . "The hard road to peace." World War II. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. 2006. Encyclopdia Britannica Premium. Service.britannica.com. 11Jan.2006. "To what extent was the end of World War II a reaction to the past" socialstudieshelp.com 13 Jan 2006 . "Treaty of Versailles." wikipedia.org. 14 Jan 2006 . Atkinson, James J. "The Treaty of Versailles and its Consequences. jimmyatkinson.com. 16 Dec 2002. 14 Jan 2006 . Blatt, Joel (1998). "Review of Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, (Eds), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years. Cambridge." New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press and The German Historical Institute, ix + 674 pp. Bibliography and index. ISBN 0-521-62132-1. H-France Review. Apr 2001. Vol. 1. No. 9. 15 Jan 2006 . Boots, Nick. "Outbreak of World War II." Summary of Origins of the Second World War by Rothwell, Victor, published by Manchester University Press, 2001. 15 Jan 2006. . Cairns, John C. "Review of Robert J. Young, France and the Origins of the Second World War," H-France, H-Net Reviews, Sept, 1997. 13 Jan 2006 . Freymann, Carlos. "France: a superpower with no power." San Antonio Business Journal. Comment. From 25 Sept 1998 print edition. 13 Jan 2006 . Halsall, Paul." Treaty of Versailles, Jun 28, 1919." Modern History Sourcebook. Aug 1997. 14 Jan 2006 Henig, Ruth. Versailles and After: 1919 - 1933 (London: Routledge, 1995). p. 50. [ Henig provides a very thorough account of the Treaty of Versailles and the development of the League of Nations. Herrmann, Kathy. "German revisionist history overlooks the real history of WWI and WWII." bigcatchronicles.blogharbor.com. 7 Apr 2005. 15 Jan 2006. . Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914 - 1991 (New York: Vintage Books, 1996). Keynes, J M. The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919, MacMillan and Co., Limited. Reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. Lesaffer, Randall (Ed.). Peace Treaties and International Law in European History. From the Late Middle Ages to World War One. Universiteit van Tilburg. (ISBN-10: 0521827248 | ISBN-13: 9780521827249). Published August 2004, 504 pages. 14 Jan 2006 . MacMillan, Margaret O. "Lessons of History: the Paris Peace Conference of 1919." dfait-maeci.gc.ca. Last updated 14 Jan 2004. 14 Jan 2006 . Marks, Sally. The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe, 1918 - 1933 (London, 1976). Mazower, M. 2000. Dark Continent. New York: Vintage Books. p. 212. Polsson, Ken. "Chronology of World War II." islandnet.com. Last updated: 6 Jan 2006. 12 Jan 2006 . Stearns, Peter N. (Gen. Ed.) (2001). "The Peace Settlements." The Encyclopedia of World History.6th Ed. Houghton Mifflin Company. 13 Jan 2006 . Steele, Jeffery. (Reviewer). John Maynard Keynes, (1995, 1 Jan). The Economic Consequences of the Peace. (Twentieth-Century Classics). With Introduction by Robert Lekachman. Penguin Classics; Reprint edition, ISBN 0140188053. [A sever economic critique of the 1920 Treaty of Versailles written by the famous economist, who was a member of the British peace delegation until he quit with disgust]. Young, Robert J. France and the Origins of the Second World War. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996. 191 pp. Appendices, notes, map, select bibliography, and index. ISBN 0-312-16186-7; ISBN 0-312-16185-9. Read More