Treaty of Versailles and World War II - Essay Example

Did the Treaty of Versailles make World War II inevitable? The causes which led to the coming of the Second World War are many and complex but at the very root of the problem we can find the Treaty of Versailles as the object which made World War II inevitable. While there were additional factors involved in the equation, it can be shown with relative evidence that the treaty created conditions in Germany which allowed the Nazi party to gear Germany for war. In this manner, World War Two simply became a continuation of events after the First World War. Introduction The Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919 after nearly six months of negotiations and discussions between the parties that were involved in the First World War. It officially ended the fighting between the Allies and the German army and it took place nearly five years after the events which had started the war. While there were many different clauses within the treaty, the most controversial one remains the idea that Germany and the countries allied with Germany had to take full responsibility for the war (Marx, 1926). Marx (1926) further notes that, “The admission in the Treaty of Versailles that Germany, by her aggression, caused the World War was wrung from us under compulsion by superior force (Marx, 1926, Pg. 177)”. Such an admission of guilt was not given because the German government agreed with the idea, rather it was taken from Germany to form the basis of the treaty. Marx (1926) further notes that giving Germany the burden of the war is a wrong statement since, “Such a statement is contrary to historical fact and is consequently repudiated by the German Government (Marx, 1926, Pg. 177)”. Articles 231-248 of the treaty asked Germany to disarm while other articles had clauses which made Germany give up its foreign colonies, not rebuild the border fortifications that had been destroyed and also make substantial contributions in terms of reparations to the victorious countries (Stevenson, 2006). The events which unfolded after the signing of the treaty showed that the treaty was weak to begin with and it became nearly impossible for the allies to enforce the treaty in its full shape and form. As early as 1922, three years after the signing of the treaty, Germany began to waver from the agreements which had been more or less forced by the allies and by the middle of the 1930s the treaty held meaning only on paper as Germany had started the process of rearmament and preparations for a new war were underway. Other Possible Causes The relationship between Germany and Britain was quite positive before Hitler’s rise to power since Germany was acting as a stopping point for communism which was thought to be spreading from Russia across Europe. Indeed, the Germans themselves feared that communist revolution could take place in Germany since a short lived communist revolution had taken place soon after the First World War. Those who put it down became the first members of the Nazi party which was seen as nothing less than the saviour of Germany from communist hands. Anti communist sentiments ran high in Britain with individuals such as Chamberlain and other members of the conservative party working on a policy of German appeasement to ensure that Germany remained anti-communist. In such a situation, the Treaty of Versailles was largely ignored as Hitler worked on his expansionist agenda in order to regain the glory which Germany once had. Of course, the British government had little idea about the plans being enacted by Hitler and even the reports of German rearmament were brushed aside so as to not enrage Germany against Britain. This in itself can be seen as a cause of the Second World War since had the British government understood the plans being made by Hitler, it is entirely possible that they could have reacted sooner and prevented Germany from becoming the threat which it eventually did. However, when we consider how Hitler motivated Germany and sought glory for the German people, it was the Treaty of Versailles which placed them in a position where they could not stand tall amongst the company of nations. Germany had been made the “felon who had wronged humanity (Marx, 1926, Pg. 177)”. Germany was accused of being expansionist in the First World War but to call Germany an expansionist country in 1914 is certainly a leap of faith since the German empire could hardly be considered an empire when we compare it to other European giants such as the British Empire which stretched all the way from its capital in London to its colony in Hong Kong. Even the Russian empire was moving onwards to the position of becoming a powerful industrialised nation in order to compete with the rest of the European community when it came to wealth and national status. The size of the nation is reflected in the respective sizes of the armies and navies which show that Germany was no match for Britain let alone the rest of Europe (Joll & Martel, 2006). Lu (2002) makes an extensive review of the treaty and notes that the treaty was expected to be just and it was expected to bring everlasting peace to Europe but, “Sadly, the treaty seemed to bring neither peace nor justice, but only to pave the way to a second, more devastating, world war (Lu, 2002, Pg. 4)”. The process of paving the way for the Second World War means that while the Treaty of Versailles was not the only cause for the Second World War, it certainly led to events which then led to the war. She further notes that: “Some scholars have interpreted the treaty’s failure as evidence of the foolishness of pursuing justice at all in relations between states; at best, the treaty was an example of good intentions incurring evil. George Kennan, for example, has called the Versailles Treaty a very silly, humiliating and punitive peace imposed on Germany after World War I (Lu, 2002, Pg. 5)”. In these circumstances, the treaty becomes the founding reason for the Second World War and a direct cause of the events which led to it. German expansionist ideas, the threat of communism, Hitler’s need to obtain more resources and more prestige for Germany, even the so called Jewish questions remain important consideration but none of them can be considered as important as the impact which the Treaty of Versailles had on the course of history. Of course the viewpoints taken on the treaty by the allies and the viewpoint taken on the treaty from the German side were quite different even at the time when the treaty was being enacted. As noted by Lu (2002), “The Allied delegation at Versailles described the treaty as a ‘peace of justice’; its German counterpart condemned it as the ‘victorious violence of our enemies’ (Lu, 2002, Pg. 10)”. As early as 1926, Germans such as Marx (1926) were explaining to the world the real causes for the first world war and trying to show that Germany was not the monster it had been made out to be. In later years, by 1939, Hitler had taken Germany from a country without any economic, military or even social cohesion to a war machine where the entire nation was geared for the purpose of war. While he had been elected democratically as part of the dictates of the Treaty of Versailles, his regime was totalitarian and his word became the last word with regard to what was to be done in Germany. The shame and ignominy from the treaty allowed Hitler to play with German sentiments. German society was completely changed through the control which Hitler and the Nazi party had on the economy, society and businesses in Germany. Understanding the economic background of the period is quite important since the Treaty had rendered the Germans economically distraught. When the Nazis came to power, the situation of Germany in terms of monetary placement was quite disastrous. As a direct result of the aftermath of the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, a lack of business investment and development had been created which resulted in very high levels of public unemployment. This meant that the total economic system was under the thread of a collapse and the government was under pressure to do something about it. Hitler gave the total responsibility of reorganising the economic system to powerful German bankers such as Hjalmar Schacht. Under his guidance, harsh changes were made which included a ban on trade unions strictly enforced wage controls (Wiesen, 1996). These measures certainly helped some businesses to make investments since labour prices were kept fixed within a given community and no workers were allowed to negotiate their salaries through union operations. Larger Companies approved of these steps and willingly worked with Hitler’s party. The money coming in to the economy was greatly increased through the extensive use of deficit spending and the interest rates were held stable at 4.5%. To develop military strength, the Nazi party fully cooperated with local as well as international businesses and made shell companies like the MEFO which issued bonds that covered up the spending on armaments. These things were all done in violation of the Versailles Treaty but the world failed to take action before the situation became impossible to resolve (Hayes, 1987). It was the Treaty This is because the treaty went far beyond simply blaming the German delegation, the terms of the treaty were so designed that their application simply meant the death of Germany when it came to political, moral, social and economic growth of the country. Even physical dismemberment was built into the clauses of the treaty as vast areas of Germany had to be handed over to the allies. The treaty was expected to bring justice to the people of Europe yet the justice it brought was entirely flawed. Flawed justice does not mean that the war initiated by Germany was just in any way. Instead of foreign influences or the political movements of alliances across the European continent resulting in the inevitable situation of war, the war was undoubtedly created by Germany and thus the blame for the First World War much as the Second World War goes to the Germans. Fischer (1967) points out some strong connections which link the methods Germany ruled under Kaiser Wilhelm in the First World War with the way Germany worked under the total control of Hitler. The primary connection being the business alliances which benefited from the process of the war in many different ways such as the industrial manufacture of weapons and the overall economic activity required for keeping up the war. Of course the argument presented by Fischer (1967) is a rather extreme end of the spectrum which give the causes for the second world war since it suggests that Germany simply forced the war upon Europe while the rest of Europe was unwilling to go to war but was dragged into the war because of the various treaties which had been made by nations in the past. The other end of the spectrum for the causes of the Second World War focuses on a different idea. That idea is that the European nations went to war simply because the treaties and alliances created power blocs that were too weak to withstand even the slightest push (Hayes, 1987). Conclusion Martin & Martin (2003) say that it was St. Augustine who gave the two principles which guide entry into a war i.e. the war should be jus in bello (just in action) and that it should be jus ad bellum (just in cause). This definition is considered the basis of commonly accepted laws for waging or entering into a war. With this definition, the German causes for entering into war in 1914 are certainly questionable but the resulting treaty shows us that the cause of Germany’s entry into the Second World War became inevitable. Word Count: 2,118 Works Cited Fischer, F. 1967, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, Norton. Hart, B. 1972, History of the First World War, Pan Books. Joll, J. and Martel, G. 2006, The Origins of the First World War, Longman. Lu, C. 2002, ‘Lessons from the Treaty of Versailles’, International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 3-25. Martin, G. & Martin, C. 2003, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage Publications. Stevenson, D. 2006, ‘Britain, France and the origins of German disarmament, 1916–19’, Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 195-224. Wilhelm, M. 1926, ‘The responsibility for the war’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 177-194. Read More