The Establishment of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I - Research Paper Example

?Introduction The changes in history and the effects which they carry are meant to offer evolution to those who are interested in progression. After World War I, there was a need to have a change with the evolution of the globe, specifically because of the fatalities which were associated what the war. To change this evolution, the Treaty of Versailles became associated with the end of the war and what was expected to be associated with the resolutions to the war. While the particular treaty was expected to evolve and assist with the political regime of the time, it created more problems and harm throughout the globe. The Treaty of Versailles failed to resolve the primary causes of World War I and created problems and conflicts across the globe after the completion of the treaty. Examining the meanings behind the treaty and the associations which were incorporated with the history which it carried then led to changes and alterations with the political regime of the time. Roots of Conflict The approach to the Treaty of Versailles began with the need for Eastern Europe, Western Europe and the USA to reach an agreement to end the war. The goal was to create an end to the war while establishing peace among the different regions. The roots of the conflict began when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Versailles treaty. This was established with Woodrow Wilson who had the power to amend the treaty and alter the considerations that were required in developing a different approach to secure the end of the war. The failure to take the responsibility was not only established from the US Senate but also came from conflicts that were based on internal debates. Isolationists and divisions between political parties were not interested in the issues which were conveyed through the treaty and did not believe there was the correct establishment or development. The failure then came from the lack of establishment of what the treaty could have established to bring peace to the different regions of Europe (Boemake et al, 1998). The conflicts which took place with the lack of establishing the Treaty of Versailles led to world conflicts. The complexities of those who did not follow or establish the treaty led to a mixed message to various countries about the ideologies of the treaty. Without the establishment of peace after the war, a cognitive illusion was established. This was based on the inability to understand why the treaty would not be supported by different regions of the world while the political conflicts reflected the complexities of the war instead of ending the problem. The global repercussions led to divisions among various countries as well as framing of various countries from the illusion that there was disagreement among those which were associated with the treaty. The inability to establish the system from the treaty and the disregard then led to further conflict, tension and devastation, eventually leading to the beginning of World War II (Bottom, 2003). Preliminary Issues The issues which were associated with the root problems were inclusive of the pressures which were developed across political arenas. There were sets of domestic pressures that were first established, all which were developed specifically because of problems and disagreements about the specific treaty. This was combined with civilians that began to reflect the disassociations with the government through civilian losses and communities were not able to create and establish peace outside of the main problems. This was combined with the destruction of World War I that came from the lack of agreement. The political tensions that were established developed pressures and alliances as well as ties. This furthered to form enemies among those that were a part of the various regions (Krause, 2001). The political and social tensions that were established led to disconnections and re-establishment with the earlier conflicts which occurred. The earlier treaties which were accepted and rejected had formatted personal enemies and opponents politically and in terms of national conflict. The structure and organization which occurred then led to the belief that the earlier treaties as well as the Treaty of Versailles would irritate the opponents which were established globally. The nations which emerged and divided as a part of this created even more divisions and opposing forces which were established. The attempts to partner in some regions led to more opposing parties on the other side, creating several political divisions as well as alterations with nations which were expected to be a part of the treaty but which were unable to reach specific agreements in terms of what should have been established between the various nations (Meaney, 1993). Paris A main player with the divisions and decisions with the Treaty of Versailles was related to Paris and the role played with diplomats in this region. The role of Paris was to try to establish the necessary peace and to gather diplomats. The association which Paris had at this time was considered strategic for the movement into peace. The past associations with France had been through the Franco – Prussian War in which the conflicts were settled with Germany. This led to a neutral space between Eastern and Western Europe while creating a different approach to the issues which were related to the current war. However, the division of land from Germany and the associations that took place between Britain and the United States caused Germany to separate from the other countries while causing the divisions to move into a lack of establishment. The end result was grievances through Germany while Britain retrieved a large amount of loss from the war and the United States divided from the main agreements (Noble, 2008). The problem which arose after the meeting at Paris was based on the realities of the war and the grievances which were established. The focus of the diplomats in Paris was to hold a peaceful gathering in which various formats could be offered to divide and stop the political powers and divisions. However, the agenda of Germany and Britain were still in effect from the aftermath of the war and the powers which were occurring. The result was that both came in with the objective to stop the other power from moving forward while causing a sense of punishment from the other nation for the negative beliefs which were established by others. This led to complexities in which the nations divided not only by the main grievances but also by the objectives which each had for the final treaty. After the completion of the gathering, the same agenda remained, causing the treaty to become inadequate because of the intention and objectives of those which were associated with the meeting (Lentin 1985). Driving Forces of the Treaty The contention which was held among the nations led to the establishment of the treaty, specifically because it was recognized that boundaries needed to be made between the various countries. The treaty worked as a way to defend each nation while establishing specific rules to the neighboring countries. The first came from the tensions between Britain and Germany, specifically from the war. The agenda of both was to punish the other side while creating and establishing the problems in terms of the country which had not turned out victorious. Germany established that there was the need to defend their nation from the losses while stopping the other nations from taking away the land and other resources from the loss. At the same time, the objectives of areas such as Britain were based on trying to take land and to make the nation into one which would benefit their side from the victory which was established. The expectations of both sides were based on establishing the boundaries in terms of aims, ambitions and approaches which were required among the participants (Sharp, 2005). The driving forces of the treaty which were associated with this then led to expectations on both sides which were not established or reached. This came from the political objectives, belief that both sides were unfair and the approach taken from the victory and loss of both sides. As the constitutional order was established with both sides, there was an alternative agenda by the political powers that became roots of future conflict. The lack of agreement and the force which was taken on both sides, as well as the concepts which were not established laid different problems for the countries which were involved in the treaty. This was combined with the understanding that the nation was moving into a global power that was associated with the competition for the land and expansion into global powers. The establishment of other nations which were involved led to more conflicts and difficulties that were bound by the treaty but which created future conflicts because of the desire to have the global powers and establishment through the binding of the treaty (Breuer, 2000). Inadequacies and Lack of Predictive Leadership The inadequacies which were established through the treaty were seen after the war and with the establishment of different political powers. While the treaty was meant to form peace among the nations, it instead created threats between the nations. The older treaties that had been established now were deemed ineffective and brought in older issues in terms of land, power and the effectiveness of the different nations. The breaking of the older treaties and the compromises which were made then led to issues with anger between the political parties that were involved. The treaty was not able to move into the political developments and conflicts which were associated with the reconciliation after the signing and the establishment of political conflicts that were created. The treaty created a threat, specifically to Germany, in the loss of land, identity, power and political culture. The response was one which could not have been predicted from the treaty and led to the treaty becoming ineffective in establishing peace because of the strong reaction which occurred (Lu, 2008). The complexity which occurred among the various nations led even further with the expectations which came from the treaty. From the signing and divisions of territories and powers between the nations were also misconceptions of the powers which were associated with this. The Western approach was based on an agenda of taking specific powers from the nations and approaches which were associated with this. The attitude which was created through politics led to an attitude of imperialism, specifically over Germany and the territories which were being divided among the nation. The imperialist attitude of taking over the nation and gaining power through the treaty then established more conflicts and problems from Germany. The friction which was created with the belief that there was a loss of power from the imperialist attitude led to various groups creating the desire to have the power back while establishing political forces that were not interested in the objectives and agenda that was associated with the treaty. The prejudice which was established by political parties on both sides then created more conflicts with the political forces (Agnew, 2005). The response which was taken by those which were involved with the Treaty of Versailles then led to changing attitudes that caused the failure of the Treaty. There was a belief that the imperialist viewpoint would create a new world that would conflict with the powers of Germany and other territories which were now under this influence. The attitude of those who had signed the Treaty was based on needing to find a way to get out of the situation, specifically because of the conflicts which had been established around this. While the Treaty was established to create a sense of neutrality and peace, the alternative motives, agendas and power struggles led to resistance and rebellion against these formats. This led to repercussions in terms of trying to find justice from the conflicts which arose while trying to gain a sense of power with the new world that was being established. Instead of developing a sense of peace from the treaty, the impact led to the redefining of balance, power and the need to establish a sense of justice within each of the territories (Orend, 2002). The problems and attitudes which arose from the Treaty of Versailles related directly to conflicts among the nations and divisions which occurred. This then established the concept from political leaders, specifically in Germany, to try to develop a different world that was outside of the imperialist powers. The concept of regaining power became the main objective, which led to further problems among nations. Eventually, the conflicts which were established politically led to World War II and the division of the nations that were in each region. The lack of remaining neutral and the desire to regain the power of the nation then created an effect that continued to develop the political procedure of regaining and establishing a sense of power between the various regions. The outcome was a complete break from the treaty and the movement back into creating boundaries between nations and fighting among those who were moving toward or against the imperialist powers of various nations (Rosenberg, 1970). Conclusion The establishment of the Treaty of Versailles after World War I was led to create justice and peace between the nations. This was combined with the need to have and establish various concepts in terms of regaining power and neutrality among the various nations. While the treaty was established to stop the conflicts of World War I, it did not work effectively among the nations, eventually leading to more boundaries and divisions among nations. The lack of response from the United States was the first association with this. This was followed by political rivalry and objectives which were between Germany, France and Britain. Each of these caused a power struggle between the nations, as opposed to developing terms of peace among the nations. The result was a continuous rise in the conflict and in the definition of power that was set by the political agenda. The result was casualties from the conflicts of political powers and eventually the rise into war based zones between the nations because of the lack of acknowledgement from the treaty which was established. References Agnew, John. (2005). “The History of States and Their Territories.” Geopolitics 10 (1). Boemake, Manfred, Gerald Eldman, Elisabeth Glaser. (1998). The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment After 75 Years. UK: Cambridge University Press. Bottom, WP. (2003). “Keynes’ Attack on The Versailles Treaty: An Early Investigation of the Consequences of Bounded Rationality, Framing and Cognitive Illusions.” International Negotiation 72 (1). Breuer, WB. (2000). Top Secret Tales of World War II. UK: Wiley and Sons. Krause, V. (2001). Minor Powers, Alliances and Armed Conflict: Some Preliminary Patterns. UK: Routledge. Lentin, A. (1985). Guilt at Versailles: Lloyd George and the Pre – History of Appeasement. UK: Routledge. Lu, Catherine. (2008). “Shame, Guilt and Reconciliation AfterWar.” European Journal of Social Theory 11 (3). Meaney, NK. (1993). “The British Empire in the American Rejection of the Treaty of Versailles.” Australian Journal of Politics and History 9 (2). Noble, NG. (2008). Policies and Opinions at Paris, 1919: Wilsonian Diplomacy, the Versailles Peace, and French Public Opinion. New York: Yale University Press. Orend B. (2002). “Justice After War.” Ethics and International Affairs 72 (3). Rosenberg, A. (1970). Imperial Germany: The Birth of the German Republic. UK: Oxford University Press. Sharp, Alan. (2005). “The Enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles, 1919 – 1923.” Diplomacy and Statecraft. 16 (3). Read More