In 1929 the Young Plan replaced the Dawes Plan. The Young Plan had the same aim as the Dawes Plan but it reduced the total reparations and extended the period of reparation payments by about 60 years, therefore easing the pressure on Germany. Britain and France also agreed to end their occupation of the Rheinland five years ahead of schedule. The young plan therefore took even greater steps than before to create peace between the nations where the economy was concerned, therefore showing that again peace was a reality.
Yet the situation between different countries was not simple and I think the relationship between Britain and France was an illusion of peace and was under strain during the 1920's. Although France did all they could to make an alliance with Britain out of fear from Germany, few British politicians actually really trusted the french and the British Government was againsed most points of the French policy. This came to light when France wanted to build a Channel Tunnel but were rejected by Britains foreign office who said that 'our relations with France never have been and are not, and probably never will be, sufficiently stable and friendly enough to justify the building of the Channel Tunnel'. This blatently showed that peace was only on the surface.
Also at the time, the Locarno Pact was seen as a huge triumph. It showed that Germany had been accepted by the other nations. People talked of the 'Spirit of Lorcano' and Chamberlain, Briand, and Stresseman were awarded the Nobel peace prize for their efforts. On the surface it looked as though peace was to be the enevitable for Europe and it seemed to improve the atmosphere between nations. However, the Locarno Treaty can now be seen differently than at first, for example if peace was to be the future then why in 1927 did france build the Maignot line of defence along the German border?
In 1928, even more efforts were made in the attempt to create world-wide peace in the form of the Kellog-Briand Pact. This was a treaty that stated that all the parties that signed ‘agreed settlement of all conflicts, no matter of what origin or nature, that might arise among them, should be soughtnly by pacific means and that war was to be renounced as an instrument of national policy.’ Altogether the Pact was signed by 62 nations. Like many other pacts during the 1920s it gave the promise of peace but like many others, it didn’t offer a solution if the pact was broken. This suggests to me that the poloticians at the time would not have worried about these peace treaties being false or an illusion, and infact really believed and trusted other nations. Yet because of this trust the pact never made any real impact to international peace and quickly proved to be meaningless.
During the 1920's British government was eager to prevent war and create peace, not only reflected in Pacts such as the Kellog-Briand Pact but in their policy of disarmament. Germany had already been disarmed and members of the League of Nations agreed to disarm, "to the lowest point consistent with national safety." Most Governments wanted disarmament for both political and economic reasons. Disarmament of the most powerful nations would surely reduce the threat of war and result in international peace. In Britain, defence spending was cut back and the army turned to its pre-war role of imperial police force. Even an naval ratio had been set up, where britain was set to have a equal navy to the US. This I think is quite a big point because traditionally Britain was the biggest naval power in the world so to be branded the same as the US, a good relationship would have to be established. This just emphasises how serious nations were, so how could all this be an illusion?
I think at the time the only thing that would break the peace was the relationship with Germany so it was worrying when in the middle of the geniva conference Russia and Germany signed the Treaty of Rapallo. This brought economic and military benefits to both Russia and Germany. Germany was able to produce and test new weapons in Russia, which was banned in Germany, and Russia received useful German technical expertise. Yet if peace was the future then why did Germany see the need to create and test new weapons? I see this point as an false illusion of peace.
In conclusion I think that although Britain was involved in a variety of issues throughout the world it can be argueed that they were mainly only concerned with protecting their own security and improving trade. Most issues that threatened international peace that Britain resolved also benefited Britain in one way or another. In many ways I think the pacts and treaties that were made were just an illusion and seem a little meaningless yet at the time it would have seemed the right thing to do as they could not forsee the future, and see that this slackening of Germany’s close watch would lead to another world war.
