• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How Far Do You Agree That The Paris Peace Settlements Were Too Harsh?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How Far Do You Agree That The Paris Peace Settlements Were Too Harsh? The peace treaties that were agreed in Paris all demanded payment of reparations, the acceptance of war guilt, a degree of disarmament and control over numbers of offensive forces, losing land, and were drawn up by the League Of Nations. There have been many debates over whether these conditions were too harsh or not harsh enough, and about whether the League of Nations abused the power they had given themselves over other countries. I am going to give my opinion (for what it is worth) about these treaties and which particular aspects of the, were harshest. Did the countries sign their soul, economy and future away in and around 1920's, and were they almost forced to fight to regain their soul, economy and give them a reasonably optimistic future? The pen is mightier than the sword (or even a gun)! In a flourish of a pen Germany, Turkey, Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria all effectively betrayed themselves. Every living, wounded or dead man who donned his army uniform to fight for his country, to fight for the countries (if not his own) beliefs, all these man are now seen through the eyes of the general public around the world as evil. ...read more.

Middle

Yes, they damaged the enemy but the enemy lost the war, now lets make them suffer the repercussions! That would have been the attitude and I agree with it, it is justified, why should you suffer when you have the power to recoup your losses from other nations. Although this sounds harsh, in this circumstance/context it is not. As it is easy to sit at a computer, with a left wing state of mind and write about what should have done but in reality the people were bitter and vengeful and they wanted the enemy to pay for the damage it did. The disarmament of all nations was most fair in my opinion, the best way to prevent a war is to ensure there is no material or personnel to invade or fight with. Although this lost a lot of jobs for people who worked in the army and left countries vulnerable to attack, The League of Nations aim was to stop future invading so that this wouldn't be a problem and these disarmaments would probably be slowly eased as time progressed and the enemy states became trustworthier. If a country has a small army it cannot attack other nations, that was the reason and it was a just one. The problems were that France invaded Germany in 1922 laying to waste any peaceful League of Nations ideas and principles. ...read more.

Conclusion

In conclusion I would say the peace treaties were not very harsh and can easily see why people would find it harsh, depending on your stance politically. Unfortunately in reality the treaties were harsh enough to make Germany hate the League enough o go back to war with them, also giving them little option other then war as the country was falling apart having about 4 governments in 3 years, this shows the publics dissatisfaction with the governments, meaning the country was near impossible to rule due to hyper inflation, low morale and spiralling debts. But they were not harsh enough to stop Germany being able to retaliate the disarmament was not controlled strictly enough leaving Germany free to make an army. The League of Nations was not strong enough to stop France invading Germany (in the Ruhr, stealing valuable coal mines), making Germany feel victimized and below the law. No treaty was ever going to make everyone happy but these treaties were aimed purely at the short term, and after 10 years, all treaties were in tatters, it only took Turkey 3 years to fight against France and Britain, win easily and re-negotiate a better treaty for them. When it comes down to it, the first treaty signed in regards to the First World War was created by Germany; it set the standard for the allies' treaties. War Is Hard, Peace Is Harder. Leo Matlock ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. United Nations: The Wounded Dove

    North Korea almost took over the whole Korean Peninsula until the UN's and the United States Military came to the help the democratic south. With the help of the UN's they pushed North Korea all the way to the Chinese boarder but then retreated back the 38th parallel and bunkered it self to protect South Korea from future attacks.

  2. How far do you agree that the terms of the Paris peace settlements were ...

    Perhaps some of them felt they would not remain in power unless they demanded the cruel penalties they thought their countrymen wanted. Germany was expected to pay damages of ?6, 600,000,000, approximately 33 billion US dollars. However, because of the popular feeling widespread in some of the Entente countries, it

  1. Rationality, Educated Opinion and Peace

    Given this particular context, this paper questions the foundations of Wilsonian politics. This paper will thus postulate on the influence of public opinion and the impact of rationality on the maintenance of peace by drawing from the ideas of three important writers of this period: Edward Hallett Carr, Norman Angell and Alfred Zimmern.

  2. Vietnam peace movement

    In May 1970 a protest was held at Kent University in Ohio. It was against the law and the governor sent in the National Guard to break it up. The National Guard used tear gas, then opened fire, killing 4 and wounded 9.

  1. The Peace Settlements and the New Europe 1918-1923

    The war aims of the Great European Powers, and how they influenced the peace negotiations after the war. Thus the international politics in post war Europe, concerning the desires of the victorious nations, and the consequences this had for the defeated Central Powers.

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    Statistics show an initial increase in production: such as iron output increasing by 56 percent during 1965-75 and then decreasing to less than 7 percent from 1975-85.[16] Furthered by Brezhnev?s later crippled economic output, prior industrial growth stagnated in 1970-80, falling to less than 2.6 percent.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work