U2 Part 1 League of Nations 1920s

UNIT 2 (I) - THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS IN THE 1920S Y9 -IGCSE HISTORY

A. SETTING UP THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS After WWI everyone wanted to avoid repeating the mass slaughter of the war that had

just ended. They also agreed that a League of Nations –an organisation that could solve international problems without resorting to war- would help achieve this. However, there was disagreement about what kind of organisation it should be.

It had been American President W. Wilson the one who proposed the set up of this organisation among his Fourteen Points. He wanted the League to be like a world parliament where representatives of all nations could meet together regularly to decide on any matters that affected them all, hoping that this would stop wars. President Wilson insisted that discussions about the League should be a major part of the peace treaties and he achieved this: the setting up of the League of Nations was written into the Treaty of Versailles and all the other treaties that were signed at the end of the war. He thought that an international body such as the League of Nations would be the perfect tool to enforce the Treaty of Versailles and persuade countries to keep the promises they had made. THE ORGANISATION OF THE LEAGUE

The rules of the League, known as the League Covenant, formed part of each peace treaty. The League officially began its work in January 1920 when the Treaty of Versailles came into effect. Geneva was chosen for the League headquarters because it was in Switzerland, which had a long tradition of neutrality. Some officials worked permanently for the League in Geneva. They were known as the Secretariat.

The League set up a number of commissions and committees to deal with particular issues and problems. The most important commissions were those which dealt with disarmament and the running of the ‘mandates’ (the former German and Turkish colonies). The committees included the Health Organisation which campaigned to improve the health of people, particularly in poorer countries, and the International Labour Organisation which tried to improve conditions for working people.

The peace treaties not only set up the League but also established a group called the Conference of Ambassadors. The conference was supposed to have oversight of the way the peace treaties were put into effect. There was some uncertainty about which issues should be decided by the League and which should be sorted out by the conference of ambassadors.

All member states sent representatives to the League Assembly. This body met at least once a year. The League Assembly had no real power. Power in the League lay with a much smaller body known as the League Council. This was dominated by a few rich countries who were permanent members of the Council: Britain, France, Italy and Japan. In theory, decisions by the Council would be carried out by all member-states. Council decisions had to be unanimous: that is, all Council members had to agree. This rule made it difficult for the Council to take action if there was any disagreement among its members.

TASK A1 Draw a diagram of the League’s organizational structure using the information from the text. The words in bold will guide you!

THE AIMS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

All the major nations would join the League. They would disarm. If they had a dispute with another country, they would take it to the League. They promised to accept the decision made by the League. They also promised to protect one another if they were invaded. If any member did break the Covenant and go to war, other members promised to stop trading with it and to send troops if necessary to force it to stop fighting. Wilson’s hope was that citizens of all

1


countries would be so much against another conflict that this would prevent their leaders from going to war.

A Covenant set out the aims of the League of Nations. These were:

• to discourage aggression from any nation • to encourage countries to co-operate, especially in business and trade • to encourage nations to disarm • to improve the living and working conditions of people in all parts of the world

AMERICA SAYS 'NO' TO THE LEAGUE

At first it was envisaged that the USA would be a member of the Council, but in the end America failed to join the League. Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat. The majority in the US Senate belonged to another party -the Republicans- and many of them disliked Wilson. There was a strong tradition of ‘isolationism’ in the USA: a belief that America should not get involved in international politics. Wilson failed to compromise or to persuade his opponents to support the League. In March 1920 the US Senate stopped the USA from joining the League. The absence of the USA greatly weakened the authority of the new League of Nations.

SOURCE A

A EUROPEAN CLUB?

Many non-Europeans were very unhappy with the way the Covenant gave power to the European countries of Britain, France and Italy. At the first meeting of the Assembly, non-Europeans criticised the rules of the League. The representatives from Argentina were particularly critical. They argued for a democratic League, with the Council elected by all the countries of the Assembly. These ideas were rejected and the Argentine delegation walked out.

Some non-European countries were worried that the League would be dominated by white people. The Japanese asked that the League should promise to oppose racial discrimination. The Americans and the British rejected this proposal. The Covenant took a very patronising view of people living in colonies. It considered that more ‘civilised’ states should have the job of looking

2


after those ‘peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world’. PROBLEMS WITHIN THE MEMBERSHIP

Forty-five states were founder-members of the League of Nations. These were all either victorious or neutral in the First World War. The defeated nations were not allowed to join immediately. As a result Germany, Austria and Hungary saw the League as a club for their enemies. The founders were frightened of the spread of communism, and the new Soviet Union was also not invited to join. Lacking American, German and Russian membership, the League could not really claim to be the voice of world opinion.

In the absence of other powerful countries, the League was dominated by Britain and France. These two countries had different views of how the League should work. The French wanted to make the League into a military alliance, with strict obligations on members to support each other. This was a result of the French obsession with the dangers of an attack on France by Germany.

The British saw the League as a much looser, less formal organisation. The British resisted French demands for a stronger League. The British were finding it difficult to defend their own empire and had no wish to get involved unnecessarily in military conflicts anywhere else in the world.

SOURCE B: The British were very suspicious of the French. In 1919, George Saunders, a British official, criticised the French. “At the back of all this is the French scheme to suck Germany and everybody else dry and to establish French military and political control of the League of Nations. The French see the League of Nations as an organisation for the restoration of France to a supreme position in Europe and her maintenance in that position.”

SOURCE C: In 1920 Marcel Cachin, a French politician, commented on the League without the USA. “The defeat suffered by Wilsonism in the United States strikes at the very existence of the League of Nations. America's place will remain empty at Geneva, and the two countries that dominate, France and Great Britain, are divided on almost everyone of the topics to be discussed.”

THE POWERS OF THE LEAGUE COLLECTIVE SECURITY

Although the USA did not join the League, the ideas of Woodrow Wilson were central to its work. Wilson said that the League would provide ‘collective security’. This meant that if a member state of the League was attacked, all other countries of the League would act together to stop the aggression. Collective security could make use of four possible weapons:

• The pressure of world public opinion (condemnation) • Reducing the armaments of all countries to a minimum level (disarmament) • The use of trade sanctions • The use of force

WORLD PUBLIC OPINION

Wilson believed in the power of public opinion. He felt that if ordinary people were allowed to speak out politicians would never go to war. Wilson claimed that if the League of Nations had existed in 1914 politicians would not have dared to start the First World War.

3


Looking back, the ideas of Wilson seem very naive. His talk of the power of world public opinion was based on a number of mistakes: - In democracies like the USA people felt free to disagree with their government and could express a public opinion. Many other countries were not democratic and in these countries there was no such thing as a voice of public opinion. - There was no evidence that ordinary people preferred peace and justice to war and injustice. Aggressive governments often had widespread support among the public. - World public opinion did not always speak with one clear voice. What people wanted in France, for example, at the end of the war was very different from what most Americans wanted. - Democratic government had to pay attention to public opinion in their country. Powerful undemocratic governments could ignore public opinion at home and abroad. DISARMAMENT

The League was committed to disarmament: getting rid of weapons. Woodrow Wilson saw the arms race before 1914 as one of the causes of the First World War. The Covenant said that all members of the League should disarm.

The problem with this talk of disarmament was that it was so vague. The Covenant said that countries could keep a minimum level of arms needed for self-defence: it was not at all clear what this level was. A Disarmament Commission was set up to persuade countries to get rid of their weapons. The Commission had no way of forcing countries to disarm or checking that they had disarmed.

SOURCE D: The Covenant of the League of Nations committed all members to disarmament. “Article 8. The members of the League recognize that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.”

THE USE OF SANCTIONS AND FORCE

Perhaps the most important part of the Covenant were those articles that stated how the League would respond to future aggression. These ideas were found in Articles 11 and 16 of the Covenant: Article 11 said that the League of Nations would take action to stop war; Article 16 said that an attack on one member state would be seen as an attack on all League members.

The League Council would decide on the appropriate punishment to use against the offending state. The League had no army of its own. Instead, the idea was that all countries could act to help any other country if it was attacked. This turned out to be completely unrealistic. Every member state would first of all stop trade with an aggressive country, and if this failed every country would supply soldiers for a joint war against the aggressive country. This assumed that governments would be remarkably generous and would risk the money and lives of their own people in order to sort out a quarrel between two other countries. The threat of trade sanctions was weakened by the absence of the USA from the League. Members of the League knew that if they stopped trading, the USA could simply fill the gap.

4


CRITICS OF THE LEAGUE People in many countries disapproved of the League of Nations. Look at the following sources from these different countries. What criticisms did these people have of the League?

SOURCE E: an early Soviet view of the League as a club for fat Western capitalists. The slogan on the flag says ´Capitalists of the world unite´.

SOURCE F: An American called Lewis P.Showalter wrote an attack on the idea of the League in 1919. Showalter was an isolationist. The isolationists were successful in keeping the USA out of the League in 1920. “If there were twenty nations in the League we could control one-twentieth of our own affairs. If the Japanese would choose to send Japanese workmen over here to crowd out our workmen from our factories, mills etc., we could not say no. Ifthe Japanese choose to come over here, seize upon our farms and homes, or take them by taxation, you could not say no, as you had signed your death warrant when you went into the League.”

SOURCE G: William Hughes, the Australian Prime Minister, attacked proposals for the League in 1918. “I object altogether to President Wilson's scheme of a League of Nations. Where does it end? I don't know. He wants some sort of world-state, in fact a Utopia, in which all the nations would have to surrender some of their self-governing rights. There is to be an international police and there is to be a navy and an army, and so on, for this purpose. But it will not bear examination for ten minutes. It is a very obvious thing that no country will allow for a moment its vital interests to be decided by anyone but itself. Those who shout loudest for international arbitration will stand most rigidly on their own rights when a vital right is threatened. Let us ask ourselves if Great Britain would agree to interference by any council of nations as regards the size of her navy. Certainly not!”

SOURCE H: Adolf Hitler speaking in 1928 expressed a common German view of the League. “Our people must be delivered from the hopeless confusion of international convictions and educated consciously and systematically to fanatical Nationalism. Belief in reconciliation, understanding, world peace, the League of Nations and international solidarity - we destroy these ideas. There is only one right in the world and that right is one's own strength.”

SOURCE I: Newton Rowell of Canada spoke at the first League Assembly in 1920 and was unhappy at the way some European countries had so much power on the League Council. “You may say that we should have confidence in the European statesmen and leaders. Perhaps we should, but it was European statesmanship, European ambition that drowned the world with blood and for which we are still suffering and will suffer for generations.”

5

TASK A2 Can you find evidence to support or challenge each of the following criticisms of the League's organisation? • That it would be slow to act • That members would act in their own interests, not the League's. • That without the USA it would be powerless. Use a table like this to record your answers: Criticism – Evidence for – Evidence against

TASK A3 Using the information from the table on Task A2, write a 200 word essay explaining why collective security was unlikely to be successful. Give evidence from the sources (A to I) to support your answer.


B. THE LEAGUE IN ACTION: THE 1920S THE LEAGUE AND INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES IN THE 1920S

The treaties signed at the Paris Peace Conference had created some new states and changed the borders of other existing states. However, putting a dotted line on a map was a lot simpler than working out where the boundaries actually lay on the ground. These new boundaries might split a community, putting some people in one state and the rest in another.

It was the job of the League to sort out border disputes. From the start there was so much for the League to do that some disputes were handled by the Conference of Ambassadors. Strictly speaking, this was not a body of the League of Nations. But it had been set up to sort out problems arising from the post-war treaties and was made up of leading politicians from the main members of the League -Britain, France and Italy- so it was very closely linked to the League.

• Vilna, 1920

Poland and Lithuania were two new states created by the post-war treaties. Vilna (now Vilnius) was made the capital of the new state of Lithuania, but its population was largely Polish. In 1920 a private Polish army simply took control of it.

Lithuania appealed for help. This was a crucial first 'test case' for the League. Both countries were members of the League. Poland was clearly the aggressor, though many people could see its case. The League protested to Poland, but Poland did not withdraw. The League was now stuck.

6


According to the Covenant it could have sent British and French troops to force the Poles out of Vilna. But it did not. The French were not prepared to upset Poland because they saw it as a -possible ally against Germany in the future. Britain was not prepared to act alone and send troops right to the other side of Europe. In the end the League did nothing. The Poles kept Vilna. • Upper Silesia, 1921

Upper Silesia was an industrial region on the border between Germany and Poland. It was inhabited by both German and Polish people. Both Germany and Poland wanted control of it, partly because of its rich iron and steel industry. In 1920 a plebiscite was organised for Silesians to vote on which country they wished to join. French and British troops were sent to keep order at the polling booths.

The industrial areas voted mainly for Germany, the rural areas mainly for Poland. The League therefore divided the region along these lines, but it built in many safeguards to prevent future disputes. It safeguarded rail links between the two countries and made arrangements for water and power supplies from one side of the border to be supplied to the other. Both countries accepted the decision. • Aaland Islands, 1921

Both Sweden and Finland wanted control of the Aaland Islands, which were midway between the two countries. Both countries were threatening to fight for them. They appealed to the League. After studying the matter closely, the League said the islands should go to Finland. Sweden accepted the League's ruling and war was avoided. • French occupation of the Ruhr, 1923

By 1923 the French were unhappy at the League's inability to ensure Germany kept to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. They were determined to make Germany pay reparations. The Reparations Commission announced in 1921 that Germany should pay £6,600 million over 42 years. The Germans, however, made only a small payment in 1922 and then stopped paying. The French were angry and took matters into their own hands.

On 11 January 1923 French and Belgian soldiers invaded the German industrial area of the Ruhr. This area was the heartland of the German economy. The occupation of the Ruhr did not work out well for France. The British and the Americans disapproved of the use of force. The people of the Ruhr refused to co-operate with the invaders and went on strike. Within a few months the French had to admit that direct action had not worked. • Corfu, 1923

One of the boundaries which had to be sorted out after the war was the border between Greece and Albania. The Conference of Ambassadors was given this job and it appointed an Italian general called Tellini to supervise it. On 27 August, while they were surveying the Greek side of the frontier area, Tellini and his team were ambushed and killed.

The Italian leader Mussolini was furious and blamed the Greek government for the murder. On 29 August he demanded that it pay compensation to Italy and execute the murderers. The Greeks, however, had no idea who the murderers were. On 31 August Mussolini bombarded and then occupied the Greek island of Corfu. Fifteen people were killed. Greece appealed to the League for help.

The situation was serious. It seemed very like the events of 1914 which had triggered the First World War. Fortunately, the Council was already in session, so the League acted swiftly. By 7 September it had prepared its judgement. It condemned Mussolini's actions. It also suggested that Greece pay compensation but that the money be held by the League. This money would then be paid to Italy if, and when, Tellini's killers were found.

Officially, Mussolini accepted the League's decision. However, behind the scenes, he got to work on the Conference of Ambassadors and persuaded it to change the League's ruling. The Greeks had to apologise and pay compensation directly to Italy. On 27 September, Mussolini withdrew from Corfu boasting of his triumph.

7


• Bulgaria, 1925

Two years after Corfu, the League was tested yet again. In October 1925, Greek troops invaded Bulgaria after an incident on the border in which some Greek soldiers were killed. Bulgaria appealed for help.

The League condemned the Greek action. It ordered Greece to pull out and pay compensation to Bulgaria. Faced with the disapproval of the major powers in the League, the Greeks obeyed, although they did complain that there seemed to be one rule for the large states (such as Italy) and another for the smaller ones (such as themselves) HOW DID THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS WORK FOR A BETTER WORLD?

The League of Nations had set itself a wider

task than simply waiting for disputes to arise and hoping to solve them. Through its commissions or committees, the League aimed to fight poverty, disease and injustice all over the world. • Refugees from conflicts were given vital help. A

famous Norwegian explorer, Fridjof Nansen, worked for the League on the problems of prisoners of war stranded in Russia and he helped half a million men to return safely home.

• The International Labour Organisation (ILO) was led by an energetic and effective French man called Albert Thomas. Under his guidance the ILO encouraged many countries to improve working conditions for ordinary workers: it introduced a resolution for a maximum 48-hour week, and an eight-hour day (though a minority of members adopted it because they thought it would raise industrial costs). The ILO is still in existence today and continues to campaign for workers' rights.

THE GENEVA PROTOCOL From the beginning, people were aware that the League was weak. The French, terrified as they were by the idea of a strong Germany, tried to give real military power to the League. However, Britain blocked moves in the early 1920s to improve the arrangements for the use of force. The Corfu incident demonstrated how the League of Nations could be undermined by its own members. In 1923 a 'draft treaty of mutual assistance' was discussed. This was meant to make the threat of force more practical by saying that the League would only ask members to send troops to nearby conflicts. In 1924 a document called the Geneva Protocol was discussed. The Protocol set out clear rules for the peaceful arbitration of disputes. If countries did not follow these rules the League was entitled to use trade sanctions and force. They hoped this would strengthen the League. But before the plan could be put into effect there was a general election in Britain. The British leader, Ramsay MacDonald, initially supported the Geneva Protocol. He fell from power in 1924 and the new Conservative government rejected the Protocol. Attempts to strengthen the military power of the League had come to nothing. So the Protocol, which had been meant to strengthen the League, in fact weakened it.

• The Health Organisation organised work on health matters, particularly in poorer countries. It worked successfully to reduce the number of cases of leprosy. Like the ILO, the Health Organisation continues its work today as part of the United Nations Organisation (today it is known as the World Health Organisation).

• Transport: The League made recommendations on marking shipping lanes and produced an international highway code for road users.

• Social problems: The League blacklisted four large German, Dutch, French and Swiss companies which were involved in the illegal drug trade. It brought about the freeing of 200,000 slaves in British-owned Sierra Leone. It organised raids against slave owners and traders in Burma. It challenged the use of forced labour to build the Tanganyika railway in Africa, where the death rate among the African workers was a staggering 50 per cent. League pressure brought this down to four per cent, which it said was 'a much more acceptable figure'. Even in the areas where it could not remove social injustice the League kept careful records of what was going on and provided information on problems such as drug trafficking, prostitution and slavery.

8


SUMMARY TASK (SECTION A & B) How successful was the League in the 1920s? The League had four objectives. These are shown on the file cards below.

* To discourage aggression from any nation

* To encourage coun-tries to co-operate, especially in business and trade

* To encourage na-tions to disarm

* To improve the living and working condi-tions of people in all parts of the world

1. Put the objectives in order, according to how successful the League was in achieving them. Put the objective you think was achieved to the greatest extent at the top, and that which was achieved least at the bottom. Write a paragraph to explain your order and support it with evidence from this unit.

2. Why do you think the founders of the League wanted to tackle social problems? 3. It is 1929. Suggest one change the League could make to be more effective in each of its objectives. Explain

how the change would help.

4. Which of the following statements do you most agree with? o ‘The League of Nations was a great force for peace in the 1920s.’ o ‘Events of the 1920s showed just how weak the League really was.’ o ‘The League’s successes in the 1920s were small-scale, its failures had a higher profile.’

Explain why you have chosen your statement, and why you rejected the others.

9


C. KEEPING WORLD PEACE: INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS IN THE 1920S DISARMAMENT IN THE 1920S

In the 1920s, the League largely failed in bringing about disarmament. At the Washington Conference in 1921 the USA, Japan, Britain and France agreed to limit the size of their navies, but that was as far as disarmament ever got.

In 1923, the League's first attempt at a disarmament treaty was accepted by France and by other nations, but was rejected by Britain because it would tie it to defending other countries.

In 1926, plans were finally made for a disarmament conference, but it took five years even to agree a 'draft convention' for the conference to focus on and in 1933 that was rejected by Germany.

The failure of disarmament was particularly damaging to the League's reputation in Germany. Germany had disarmed. It had been forced to. But no other countries had disarmed to the same extent. They were not prepared to give up their own armies and they were certainly not prepared to be the first to disarm.

Even so, in the late 1920s, the League's failure over disarmament did not seem too serious because of a series of international agreements that seemed to promise a more peaceful world. The two most important of these agreements were the Locarno Treaty and the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

International agreements of the 1920s

1921 Washington Conference: USA, Britain, France and Japan agreed to limit the size of their navies.

1922 Rapallo Treaty: The USSR and Germany re-established diplomatic relations.

1924 The Dawes Plan: to avert a terrible economic crisis in Germany, the USA lent money to Germany to help it to pay its reparations bill.

1925 Locarno treaties: Germany accepted its western borders as set out in the Treaty of Versailles.

1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact: 65 nations agreed not to use force to settle disputes. This is also known as the Pact of Paris.

1929 Young Plan: reduced Germany's reparations payments.

LIMITS TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE LEAGUE?

Discussions in Washington 1921-22

The USA had refused to support the League of Nations. America ignored the League and organised conferences of its own in Washington in 1921 and 1922. The conferences concentrated on trying to limit tension in the Pacific Ocean between Japan and the USA. This was precisely the sort of dispute that the League was intended to sort out. The Washington Conferences showed the world the limits of the authority of the League. The Washington Treaty was signed in February 1922. The USA and Britain agreed to have navies of equal size. The Japanese navy was limited to three fifths of the size of each of the American and the British navies. The proportions of the navies were, therefore, set at 5:5:3.

The outcasts club together: Rapallo, 1922 The British Prime Minister, Lloyd George, organised an international conference in Genoa in 1922. He wanted to find a solution to the argument between Germany and France over the payment of reparations and the level of German disarmament. The conference was a disastrous failure: the Americans refused to attend and the French and the Germans continued to disagree about reparations and disarmament. Germany and Soviet Russia had not been invited tojoin the League of Nations. While the main conference was taking place at Genoa, the German delegation had discussions with the Soviets at the nearby town ofRapallo. A treaty was signed on 16 April between Germany and the Soviets. It became known as the Treaty of Rapallo. The two governments agreed to establish friendly relations, and secretly agreed to co-operate on military planning. News of the treaty and rumours of the secret military deal shocked the French government. The deal between Germany and the Soviet Union enabled Germany to get hold of most of the weapons banned under the Treaty of Versailles. As a result, the Treaty ofRapallo was a blow to the authority of the League of Nations.

10


THE SPIRIT OF LOCARNO: 1925

In October 1925 representatives of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia met in Locarno in Switzerland. The key players at Locarno were the Foreign Ministers of France, Britain and Germany: Aristide Briand, Austen Chamberlain and Gustav Stresemann. The three leaders won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work at Locarno.

After many days of hard negotiation they emerged with some important agreements:

• Germany finally accepted the borders with France and Belgium that were laid out in the Treaty of Versailles.

• Britain and Italy agreed to ‘guarantee’ the main agreement; this meant that Britain and Italy promised to take action if any of the three countries attacked each other.

• The main agreement and the guarantee did not apply to the eastern borders of Germany as laid down by the Versailles Treaty.

• Germany accepted that the Rhineland would remain a demilitarised zone. • France and Germany agreed to settle any future disputes through the League of Nations. • Germany agreed to join the League of Nations. • In separate treaties signed at Locarno, France promised to defend Belgium, Poland and

Czechoslovakia if any of these countries was attacked by Germany.

The Locarno agreements were greeted with terrific enthusiasm, particularly in France. The agreements seemed to resolve some of the problems left over from the First World War. Many people saw Locarno as an end to the bitterness of the war and the start of a new period of peace in Europe. France felt that at last it was being given some guarantee of border security. Germany had shown more goodwill towards France than ever before. The agreements paved the way for Germany to join the League of Nations. Germany was granted entry into the League in 1926. Now the Soviet Union was the only major European power not in the League. Locarno was seen as a symbol of a new period of peace and stability. Some talked enthusiastically about the ‘spirit of Locarno’. However, a minority of people were much more suspicious of the Locarno settlement.

TASK C1 Explain in your own words whether you agree more with Source 1 or Source 2 about the fact that the Locarno treaties made the world a safer place.

SOURCE 1: Recent interpretations of Locamo have also been critical. H. Kissinger, 1994 The League of Nations' commitment to collective security was devalued by Locarno. For, if collective security was in fact reliable, Locarno was unnecessary. If Locarno was necessary, the League of Nations was, by definition, inadequate to ensure the security of even its principal founding members. Locarno, hailed in 1925 as turning the corner towards permanent peace, in fact marked the beginning of the end of the Versailles international order.

SOURCE 2: Written by historian James Joll in 1983. The Locarno agreements gave new hope that the League of Nations might assume the role which Wilson had expected of it and that, in spite of the bitterness of the post-war years, a new international order in Europe might be attainable ... lf one tries to look at the European scene between 1925 and 1929 as it appeared at the time, and without the knowledge of what came after; there seemed to be some grounds for hope.

11


THE KELLOGG-BRIAND PACT, 1928

Three years after Locarno, the Kellogg-Briand Pact marked the high point of international relations in the 1920s.

In April 1927 Briand suggested that France and the USA should sign a pact promising never to go war against each other. This proposed agreement was meaningless because there was absolutely no possibility of war between America and France. However, Briand saw it as a way of symbolizing the friendship between the two countries. The American government could see little value in the pact. The American Secretary of State was called Frank Kellogg. He eventually suggested that instead of an American-French agreement, all countries should be invited to sign an agreement not to go to war.

On 29 August 1928 government leaders of 15 powerful countries gathered together to sign the Pact of Paris. This soon became known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact. It said that each participating country would not use warfare in order to get what it wanted.

There was nothing in the Pact about what would happen if a state broke the terms of the agreement. Nor did the agreement help the League of Nations with disarmament. The states all agreed that they had to keep their armies for 'self-defense'. However, at the time, the Pact was greeted as a turning point in history. If you had asked any observer in 1928 whether the world was a safer place than it had been in the early 1920s, the answer would almost certainly have been yes.

In the months that followed most countries in the world agreed to the Kellogg-Briand Pact. The Pact was worthless as it put no real obligations or restrictions on countries. Japan and Italy both signed the Pact but before very long they used war to get what they wanted and the Kellogg-Briand Pact was shown to be completely irrelevant.

SOURCE 3: The so-called Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed on 21 August 1928. “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of international policy in their relations with one another. The settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

SOURCE 4: Not everyone was impressed by the Pact. In 1928, Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin referred to the Pact in a dismissive way.

“They talk about pacifism. They speak about peace among European states. Briand and Austen Chamberlain are embracing each other. All this is nonsense. Every time that states make arrangements for new wars they sign treaties and call them treaties of peace.”

TASK C2 1. What was the Kellogg-Briand Pact? 2. How did the Pact show French anxiety about the future? Use Source 4 to support your answer. 3. Why was the Pact virtually worthless?

12


THE ECONOMIC AGREEMENTS EUROPEAN ECONOMIC RECOVERY

One reason for optimism in 1928 was that, after the difficult days of the early 1920s, the economies of the European countries were once again recovering. The Dawes Plan of 1924 had helped to sort out Germany's economic chaos and had also helped to get the economies of Britain and France moving again. The recovery of trading relationships between these countries helped to reduce tension. That is why one of the aims of the League had been to encourage trading links between the countries. When countries were trading with one another, they were much less likely to go to war with each other.

GERMAN RECOVERY: THE DAWES AND THE YOUNG PLANS

In early 1923, France had invaded the Ruhr area to make Germany pay reparations. Sending soldiers into the Ruhr solved nothing. The use of force did not make the Germans pay up. In November 1923 France was forced to agree to take part in a review of the reparations organised by an American banker, Charles Dawes. The Dawes Plan was agreed in April 1924. The terms of the Dawes Plan • There was to be a 2 year freeze on the payment of reparations. • The level of German payments was scaled down. • The USA offered huge loans to Germany. • The French agreed to get their forces out of the Ruhr.

During the following five years the Germans paid a reparations bill of about $1 billion, and received American loans of about $2 billion. Germany did well out of the Dawes Plan. Much of the

13


money from the American loans was spent on building new German factories. The French had wanted reparations in order to make Germany weak. The Dawes Plan helped Germany to become even stronger. As a result of the occupation of the Ruhr the Treaty of Versailles had been significantly altered in Germany's favour. The Young Plan, 1929

The German government continued to complain at the level of reparations. The question of reparations was reviewed in 1929 by a committee led by an American called Owen Young. The committee produced the Young Plan. This considerably reduced the amount of reparations. The Young Plan was a considerable achievement for the German Foreign Minister, Stresemann. However, it did not bring peace and harmony to Germany. Extreme nationalists objected to the payment of any reparations and bitterly denounced the Young Plan.

After 1929 the Great Depression led to a great rise in unemployment in Germany and reparations effectively came to an end. In 1932 the participants in the Young Plan met to agree a conclusion to the sorry story of reparations. After a three-year freeze Germany was supposed to make a final payment. This payment was never made.

SUMMARY TASK (SECTION C) Go over the different agreements signed in the 1920s. Do you think it matters whether or not the League was involved in organizing these international agreements? For each treaty explain whether you think it made the League of Nations more or less powerful.

14

Documents

U2 Part 1 League of Nations 1920s