To what extent do you agree that the years 1919-1931 were a period of illusory peace in international relations?
Extracts from this document...
Introduction
To what extent do you agree that the years 1919-1931 were a period of illusory peace in international relations? Ever since the outbreak of World War Two historians have argued whether the inter-war period, that at the time had been believed to be peaceful, had, in fact, been a period of what we might call 'illusory peace.' A fundamental component of this argument is the circumstances and outcome of the Treaty of Versailles. It is argued that the treaty "should have made the victors either to conciliate the enemy or destroy them. The Treaty of Versailles did neither. It did not pacify Germany, still less permanently weaken her, appearances notwithstanding, but left her scourged, humiliated and resentful"1 However, it is also argued that the series of Agreements and reparations plans agreed and implemented by the great powers show unity, diplomacy and compromise.; Even the Treaty of Versailles itself has a compromising nature, although this did become to its detriment thus showing that peace may only have been temporarily achieved or only nearly missed. ...read more.
Middle
The Anglo-Soviet trade agreements in 1921 are further proof that the great powers were willing to negotiate and compromise and could well have been successful. It was only later when supporting the Russian Communist government began to cause political chaos in Britain that relations began to deteriorate again; Prime Minister Baldwin did not ratify the Anglo-Soviet agreement, the Arcos affair caused Britain to accuse Russia of espionage thus resulting in the following breaking of all diplomatic relations and ending all trade agreements. Still, the point to note is that action was taken to achieve peace, and, for a temporary period, relations were improved and normalcy came a little closer to being achieved. Before Hitler's rise to power, a degree of peace with Germany was also achieved. With hindsight we can see that '"the fundamental significance of Versailles was emotional rather then rational. Allied statesmen, urged on by the pressure of public opinion, made peace in spirit of revenge and not to guarantee national security. "2 Thus, in the early to mid nineteen-twenties, tempers began to cool, people began to think that maybe the treaty had been too harsh on Germany and ...read more.
Conclusion
The German people started to demand more revisions which were bound to cause further problems in Europe and drag the powers into conflict yet again. The problem of the growing Japanese fleet and Japanese expansion was also a problem that could only accelerate the great powers into conflict. Previously Japan had failed to be fully recognised as a great power, but with the weakening of China it was inevitable that Japan might strike thus greatly altering the balance of power, and again, bringing the powers into conflict. It may have been na�ve to suppose that Treaties such as the Kellog-Briand pact in 1929 renouncing war, could prevent a world war from becoming inevitable. In conclusion, although with hindsight we may see this period as purely the calm before the storm, for a brief period negotiations were made and peace was almost, if not temporarily achieved by the diplomacy and compromise of the great powers and their leaders. Thus, it would be wrong to consider this period as a time of illusion, rather as a period of fragile peace. 1 Lentin, Guilt At Versailles (1984) 2 Anthony Wood , Europe 1815-1960 (1986) Charlie Matthews 08/05/2007 1 of 2 ...read more.
The above preview is unformatted text
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 section.
Found what you're looking for?
- Start learning 29% faster today
- 150,000+ documents available
- Just £6.99 a month
