Treaty of Versaille and World War II - Essay Example

PART I. ISSUE # 8. In order to put an end to World War I, the Big Four (United s, United Kingdom, France and Italy) agreed to make settlements.The culprit, Germany, was to make reparations and must pay for all the trouble it got the world into. Germany was, of course, not happy about the result. Many critics find the Treaty of Versailles flawed and weak. Until now, the issue: Was the Treaty of Versailles Responsible for World War II? (Mitchell 145) is still a point of argument and debate. Derek Aldcroft, in “Versailles Legacy,” Historical Review (December 1997), positively argues that World War II was an offshoot of the weakness and negative effects of the Treaty of Versailles. According to him, “The main problem was that in giving free reign to ethnic claims the European map came to resemble a patchwork mosaic which had no real coherence and which shattered the balance of power that had prevailed in the nineteenth century” (Mitchell 147). He asserts that in the early 1920s, the political and economic situation in Europe was fragmented and it became a conducive place for the outbreak of World War II. He cites the two main defects of the Treaty of Versailles are: it did not give satisfaction to any country, and that there was no strong leader to back it up. France was not happy about the compensation and the security issue, while Germany was suffering from the harsh treatment inflicted on it by the winning countries, and Italy was a victim of unfulfilled promises of territory in exchange for joining the war. The other countries under the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the new and reconstituted states also had their own grievances. Because of these grievances, the countries were divided and were never united. Aldcroft continues to assert that the Allied statesmen did not do a good job in clearing the mess after the World War I. 1 If they had done a good job, then Europe would have been more stable than fragmented. Moreover, he declares that the Allies were also disunited themselves and have different self interests and concerns. They were more concerned about their own welfare than that of Europe. On the contrary, Mark Mazower, in “Two Cheers for Versailles,” History Today (July 1997), does not support the idea that the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for the outbreak of World War II. According to him, “If we want to find guidance in the past for how to tackle the problems of nationalism that remain in Europe, we cannot do better than return to the diplomats who gathered in Paris eighty years ago” (Mitchell 160). He continues to say that the East European critics have forgotten that the Treaty of Versailles was formulated by local “nationalist elites and their supporters” and not by the “Powers.” Since its formation until the present, Mazower declares, the treaty has been the basis in confronting the problem of ethnic violence. Moreover, he cites the positive contribution of the settlement in that it “recognised and articulated the major problems for European stability at that time” and there was no other alternative seen during that time to handle the situation. In addition, the failures of the past had become lessons for the present, for instance the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Lastly, the critics must look at themselves if they could have done better if they were on the shoes of those peacemakers of 1919. Interestingly, David Icke, in “Was Hitler a Rothschild?” and … And the Truth Shall Set You Free, says that official history is only a veil and true history is hidden. He even adds, that it is not only untrue but “it is often 100% wrong.” According to him, the truth of the matter is that both the World Wars I and II were orchestrated by the Rothschilds and the Illuminati. They were behind all the leaders/personages and events that happened in the past until the present. They were even the ones who created and funded Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Their modus is: divide and rule. According to him, “They (Rothschilds) decided to impose impossible reparations payments on Germany, so ensuing the collapse of the postwar Weimar Republic and unbelievable economic collapse and thus create the very circumstances that brought the Rothschild, Hitler, to power” (Icke 13). In addition, “The Treaty of Versailles: The Inside Story” by http://library.thinkquest.org discusses in simpler terms the formulation of the treaty and the terms and provisions under it. The article states that the motive for framing the settlement was countries that defeated Germany wanted to get back and seek revenge against Germany, whom they believe to have started the World War I. It says: “They blame Germany for starting the war and causing so much harm to their countries.” It means, writing the treaty did not only end the war but it served as a means of punishing Germany. CRITIQUE I agree with Derek Aldcroft, David Icke and the article by the thinkquest.org but I disagree with Mark Mazower. Derek Aldcroft has proven his position clearly and has shown proof for his argument by giving examples and explanations of the weaknesses of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was punished and unjustly accused of starting the war when actually there were others who were involved. It was singled out as a culprit and the punishments imposed on it were based largely on the Allies’ grievances of the World War I’s damage on them. The fragmented states became a fertile ground for another war – the World War II. In addition, David icke is right in saying that much of the truth about history was hidden. History is like fiction, the historians sometimes filled in the blanks where some information were ignored or overlooked in order to come up with a unified and coherent report or presentation. If it is true that some influential people or group (Rothschild and Illuminati) were behind the treaty, Hitler and the World Wars I and II, then so much indeed is not reported correctly. Moreover, thinkquest.org coincides with the points of Aldcroft in saying that the treaty was a way of punishing Germany which was blamed for World War I. This injustice done I Germany as well as the self interests of the allies and the fragmented states all lead to another world war. I do not agree with Mark Mazower because his ideas are overruled by the other historians’ explanations. He even acknowledged the weaknesses of the treaty and it is not right for him to tell the European critics if they could have a better solution were they in the position of the peacemakers of 1919. I think the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for World War II and the failure to fully clear and recover from the consequences of World War I’s damages was its weakest point. PART 2. ISSUE # 17. Modern terrorism has become more evident these days. Man is constantly under fear of the threat for his/her life. Several and successive bombings have been reported worldwide and it seems countries and governments are at a loss for a possible solution to this dilemma. Scholars have argued about the causes of modern terrorism and so much has been said and written about this topic. One issue is: Do the Roots of Modern Terrorism Lie in Political Powerlessness, Economic Hopelessness, and Social Alienation? (Mitchell 324). Anatol Lieven, in “Strategy for Terror,” Prospect (October 2001), positively discusses that the roots of modern terrorism lie indeed in political powerlessness, economic hopelessness, and social alienation. He says that there is a need to reassess the attitudes that have guided the formulation of American policies since they were as old as the end of the cold war. This is brought about by the United States’ blind support for Israel, the strategy of the National Missile Defense (NMD) and militarization of space, and taking Russia and China as major threats to the interests of the United States. According to Lieven, “… successful war requires both a capacity for ruthlessness and an intelligent political strategy, including the attraction and conciliation of essential allies” (Mitchell 326). He suggests ending cold war policies against Russia and China change US policies towards Israel and for the US not to act alone but to act with other countries as international communities. On the other hand, Mark Juergensmeyer, in “Terror in the Name of God,” Current History (November 2001), thinks otherwise. He discusses that the bombings have the qualities of contemporaneity, violent and even vicious and terrifying, and have been motivated by religion. These acts of terrorism are influenced by ideas and the communities of support that lie behind the acts. He refuses to use terrorism to address these issues but he only uses the term terrorist as synonymous to murderer. The religions involved in the different incidents are not limited to Islam only but also with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. and those called fundamentalists. To know the answer as to why religion has become a major component of these brutalities he suggests that there is a need to understand the culture of violence. He says, this cultures are victims and the “significant feature of these cultures: the perception that their communities are already under attack – are being violated – and that their acts are therefore simply responses to the violence they have experienced” ( Mitchell 340). For him, it is necessary to understand why such acts occur. However, Nafeez Ahmed, in “The War on Truth” (226-230), seems to side with the issue of political powerlessness as one of the roots of modern terrorism. He focuses on the inability of the US government to thwart the 9/11 terrorist attacks. According to him, “… I analyse in detail the failure of the U.S. intelligence community in preventing the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks; the casual repression and/or misrepresentation of the facts related to 9/11; the failure of the US defence measures on 9/11; the historic and institutional basis for skepticism about the official narrative and some salient facts which illustrate the need for proper research into the linkages between U.S. government, military, intelligence, and corporate policy, and the ease with which the September 11 terrorist attacks went ahead.” He believes that “investigating the U.S. government role in relation to the September 11 terrorist attacks is a legitimate line of inquiry” and that there are anomalies in the narrative that “suggest a much wider picture of long-standing institutional corruption, involving the intertwined relationship between the interests of the U.S. military-corporate complex and the operation of international terrorism” (Ahmed, N.). In addition, Sultan Ahmed, in “The Roots of Terrorism”, traces the root cause of terrorism saying: “Alienation and a sense of deprivation and ultimately outrage, is the seed of terrorism.” He declares that people who have suffered “mass deprivation, discrimination, impoverishment and eventually social isolation” tend to resort to terrorism. These are the minorities who are marginalized by the more powerful states like the United States. They are often the victims of violation of their human rights. CRITIQUE I agree with Anatol Lieven, Nafeez Ahmed and Sultan Ahmed but I disagree with Mark Juergensmeyer. Anatol Lieven seems to pinpoint to the issue of social alienation as one of the roots of terrorism. The United States had acted as an independent super power that its policies affected the Arab countries and other smaller states, marginalizing them. Fully supporting Israel, the United States had widened the gap between Israel and the Arab countries. It caused more division than unity. In addition, Nafeez Ahmed supports the idea that political powerlessness in the form of lack of unity and coordination within the U.S. system made it unable to prevent the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Truth was hidden or concealed such that many innocent lives were lost due to repression and misrepresentation of the facts. Economic hopelessness and social alienation are the points made by Sultan Ahmed. He believes these are the reasons why terrorism is rampant these days. The marginalized communities who are deprived of economic development and social recognition tend to resort to terrorism in order to be heard and to have their needs and situations recognized and even be avenged. Although Mark Juergensmeyer may not agree that the roots of terrorism lie in political powerlessness, economic hopelessness, and social alienation but in religion and the culture of violence, looking deeper into his arguments he is also saying that these minority are alienated. Their alienation, deprivation and impoverishment may have caused them to resort to violence and terrorism in the guise of religion. I think the roots of modern terrorism do not lie in political powerlessness, economic hopelessness and social alienation, and these are magnified in the underlying beliefs and set of ideas of a certain group who have experienced oppression and marginalization by the mainstream government or states. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahmed, Nafeez Mosaddeq. The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, And the Anatomy Of Terrorism. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press. 2005. Ahmed, Sultan. The Roots of Terrorism. Defence Journal: Mind is the Ultimate Weapon. (October 2001). < http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/october/contents-october2001.htm > Icke, David. And The Truth Shall Set You Free. (15 November 2007) Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. The Western Heritage. 5th Ed. Englewood, CA: Prentice Hall. 1995. McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill, John Buckler, and Patricia Buckley Ebrey. A History of World Societies, 5th Ed.  Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 2000. Mitchell, Joseph R. and Helen Buss Mitchell. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World History. Vol. 1.  Guilford, Conn.: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. 2002. The Treaty of Versailles: The Inside Story. (13 November 2007). OUTLINE 1. Issue 8. Was the Treaty of Versailles Responsible for World War II? (p. 145) A. YES: Derek Aldcroft, from “Versailles Legacy,” Historical Review (December 1997) p. 147 B. NO: Mark Mazower, from “Two Cheers for Versailles,” History Today (July 1997) p. 155 C. Other historians’ opinions: …And the Truth Shall Set You Free (Treaty of Versailles, pg. 90-108) by David Icke The Treaty of Versailles: The Inside Story. (13 November 2007). D. Critique – I agree with Derek Aldcroft and David Icke but I disagree with Mark Mazower. E. My Answer – I think the Treaty of Versailles was responsible for World War II . 2. Issue 17. Do the Roots of Modern Terrorism Lie in Political Powerlessness, Economic Hopelessness, and Social Alienation? (p. 324) A. YES: Anatol Lieven, from “Strategy for Terror,” Prospect (October 2001) p. 326 B. NO: Mark Juergensmeyer, from “Terror in the Name of God,” Current History (November 2001) p. 333 C. Other historians’ opinions: Nafeez Ahmed, from The War on Truth (pp. 226-230) Sultan Ahmed, from “The Roots of Terrorism”. Defence Journal: Mind is the Ultimate Weapon. (October 2001). D. Critique – I agree with with Anatol Lieven, Nafeez Ahmed and Sultan Ahmed but I disagree with Mark Juergensmeyer. E. My Answer – I think the roots of modern terrorism do not lie in political powerlessness, economic hopelessness and social alienation. Read More