It was stated by Woodrow Wilson; who was becoming an icon demanding a lasting peace; that ethnic groups/"Nationalities" had a right to self-determination. That would prove to be ignored in the aftermath of the war as 'promises' made during and after the war had to be kept regardless of how illogical it appeared.
The 'new' map of Europe was coined as being a 'Peace without Victors.' As it worked out, the democratic countries literally handed a treaty spelling out everything to Russia and Germany as they were deathly afraid of communism.
The result of the war would be an unenforceable peace of which the greatest disappointment would be The League of Nations. It was this 'ideal' Woodrow Wilson would focus on as the instrument of peace to settle, through diplomacy, all conflicts that would lead to war. It was this provision of the treaty that allowed President Wilson to make concessions. He felt regardless of any tensions existing following the final treaty that the new League of Nations would destroy the chance war would break out again.
He failed to see a demagoguery within his own country that would defeat the very instrument he placed all his hopes and ideals for sustainable peace. A demagoguery that lasts today in the politics of Neocons and generals who believe the United Nations is a hinderence to the security of the United States. It is this 'theory' about a "national threat through cooperation' that stands as an impetus to decisions of unilateral war which lead to the wrongful invasion of Iraq and destabilization of the entire Middle East with faux 'democratic' elections of terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Brotherhood.
The 'opportunity' today, as the current president would see it, for democracy to reign in the Middle East was simply a fool hearty game of 'keeping ones fingers crossed' that all would be sincere and workable. As a result today, Egypt cautions the USA about secluding Hamas in Palestine while itself has issues of terrorist networks and a rising popularity of extremist political parties.
The current movement by these extremist networks in the Middle East, is a 'hope' that by allowing democracy and it's processes the Jihadist Parties will overcome all opposition to their presence and carry out still further atrocities against humanity. It's an unworkable solution fraught with more pitfalls to any sustainable peace.
But, the issues at hand is the failure of the Treaty of Versailles to secure a lasting solution to conflict.
The Versailles Treaty had no teeth. It was not enforcable and as a result there were five documents that comprised the treaty. France was at greatest risk and although the risk of reinvasion seemed inevitable there existed a blind faith that Germany would remain thwarted to ever have the capacity to war again.
The French wanted to set up the Rhineland as a separate state as a buffer zone, but instead, Germany was made to pay enormous reparations, placing it in huge debt that resulted in the economic demise. In addition, Britain and the USA set up a 'DMZ' for fifteen years patrolled by Allied troops. The DMZ was west of the Rhine and fifty kilometers beyond including the coal mines of Saar. The German nation would no longer have those coal mines to enhance it's economy for the payment of reparations. The coal mines were more or less an incentive for France to shut up and put up with the treaties as they were playing out.
In addition to the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) between France and Germany, Britain and the USA guaranteed they would intercede in any conflict that might arise while completely banking on Wilson's idealism of The League of Nations. The Congress of the USA would see the treaty differently and secure the country away from that alliance through a cooperative union of countries. The promises by the United States' Wilson would prove empty. France's security was demised right from the beginning although Wilson never had intended same.
Added to the provisions of the DMZ and reassures of Britain and the USA, Germany was to limit it's Army to 100,000 troops on long term service, it's Navy was nothing more than a coastal defense force and it was forbidden to have war planes, submarines, tanks, heavy artillery or poison gas. With that the signators of the treaty felt France was safe. There was no verification noted once the League of Nations was set aside by the legislative body of the USA and hence Germany conducted it's internal affairs unthwarted.
The events leading to WW II were even more significant and mostly unnoticed in their significant by the countries that would come to be at war again.
One of the articles of the treaty called for a "Mandate System" by which 'imperialism' would end. See, WW I was called "The Great War" post conflict. Of course at that time no one planned for another 'Great War' hence coining the wars I and II. It was widely felt the world had learned a lesson it would not repeat. The Mandate System which took a pre-WW I 'map' that included colonialism was to 'mentor' the colonies into independant nations. That never happened and as a result set up tensions between colonies and the "Great Powers." This imperialism by the way now would include all the inhabitated spaces on Earth. There was little left 'off the maps' of the world that didn't have some type of sovereignty to a larger power which had colonized it. So therefore, a lot of folks were unhappy.
The 1920s would see a lot of political experiments, the rise of labor, economic and ethnic pressures throughout a very divided Europe, the Soviet Experiment following the incompetencies of the last czar leading to the rise of "The Red Army" under Trosky leading to the rise of Stalin; the fascist experiment in Italy leading to the rise of Mussolini through intimidation of the Italian King making Mossoulini Prime Minister and the overall 'unrest' ethnically of the entire of Europe would contribute to destabilizing populous bases.
France would begin a search for security through all this mess, literally, and become the leading European nation. This high regard would eventually pit the French leadership against USA generals during WW II. France remains of high prestige in Europe and one of the five permanent nations of the United Nations Security Council. Because of this prestige the current administration in Washington, DC would like to see France eliminated from that role at the Security Council as it practices peace over war and does not contribute to the warring desires of the Neocons. But, that isn't the discussion here, now is it? Or is it?
There was a huge movement toward more socialism than imperialism in most countries during this time. The most dramatic examples took place in Britain where women were now allowed to vote at the age of 30 and the men at age 21. About ten years following women would also be allowed to vote at the age of 21. It was during this time "The Labour Party" (Click on) found it's roots.
I am not going to get into The Great Depression. It was a result of inflated currencies after the war, the high demand for consumer goods and the fact the 'democracies' were 'expecting' to pay their debts with German Reparations. It was all a big mess of which none of the resolve was provided for in the treaties. Oddly, though through all this it would be Russia and the Communists that would find it's best economic 'sea legs' after the war. It would be Russia that would come to be one of Hilter's Germany greatest enemy again with a viable Soviet Economy developed under Lenin and accelerated by "The Party." It was that rapid commitment to economic development that would come to be realized as one of the most striking accomplishments of the 20th century.
See, Russia did not and does not care about the rest of the world in the way of economic dependency. Russia has seen and does see itself as self contained. After WW I, Russia was not about to be a victim. It's leadership set the nation on a path to economic autonomy. That same 'Soviet' determination can still be noted in Russia today under Putin. Communists are very autonomous by nature. They seek not domination of wealth so much as stabilization of political blocks. It's just their way. I am not saying their leaders have been great humanitarians, but, at the same instance the verbiage used by 'The West' and the policies toward Russia are far from cordial. Russia survives. It's leadership insures it. But, that autonomy has made Russia a great ally in most conflicts that matter. Even today, Putin's Russia was in Afghanistan awaiting the USA arrival of troops with the first medical camp after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Needless, to say, I admire the Russians. They have never failed themselves and while some of their 'Space Accomplishments' have been chuckled at by the USA; today Russia has a very viable space program and the USA has only a struggling one.
But, to the particulars.
Nazi Germany is an entire discussion unto itself. I'm not going there. The Nazis were eventually defeated. It is the impetus to war that is my interest.
The first signs of 'weakness' by the Allied Nations of WW I would come in 1935. A fairly minor 'border' incident would be used by Mussolini to invade Ethiopia. During this time, 'Nationalism' regardless the country was at play. This attack into Ethiopia was more of a 'pride' issue as the Italians saw it, restoring the Glory of Rome, so to speak. It probably served as more of a distraction to Italians and bravery on the part of Mussolini. Lord, knows following such a war everyone needed brave leaders especially with ethnicity in the balance. Yes? Yes. It's a known fact that 'nationalism' is demonstratively present in any form of facsism, hence, Mussolini's 'taunting' of the League of Nations would prove worthwhile. It would eventually lead to the formation of 'The Axis Powers' with Germany. But, that in a moment. The League of Nations had failed and the countries once thought dominated by the Allies began to find 'weakness' in the treaty.There was a second treaty between Germany and France called the Locarno Agreements. I'm not going to discuss that except to say both the Versailles Treaty and the subsequent Larcarno were viewed as voluntary by both parties. They were not. Germany had been defeated and while the USA's Wilson was calling the war won without victors that was simply a selling point and nothing else. To prove same, after Mussolini's Great Adventure into Ethiopia, Hitler would move to remilitarize the Rhineland. The feeble security France feared would eventually fail did exactly that. Both Britain and France would register a protest at The League of Nations but the USA having defeated that provision of the treaty in it's legislature would find only silence to it's allies pleadings. Both Britain and France would remain passive following the event. Germany now realized it had freed itself of self imposed restraint and the country simply rearmed. It not only rearmed but it was doggedly determined to overcome any military obstacle. Germany was an economic disaster. The West wanted it that way. It was a HUGE mistake. HUGE. It was Germany against the world and Hitler knew it.
The 'practice' for WW II would come with the instability in Spain and the opportunity of the Franco regime during the Spanish Civil War. The monarchy in Spain had failed and a civil war lasting three years ensued. It would be the proving grounds for Italy and Germany which was joined eventually by Japan. The Spanish Civil War was actually a 'Mini-WW II.' No armed conflict is started with a match overnight. There always seems to be very obvious manifesting events and tensions that explode within time. The Spanish Civil War was completely ideological. On one side was Italy, Germany and Japan along with General Franco. Russia would materially support the Republic side of the war with volunteer forces from Europe and America. The result of the Spanish Civil war profoundly affected global politics. As a result the Rome-Berlin Axis was founded. The alliance with Japan occurred because it feared the strong Russian economy and military.
Oddly enough, Japan would not carry out it's attacks first against Russia during WW II, but, against the USA at a very distant shore. There are several reasons for that but I don't know that Russia has EVER in it's history been threatened by Japan as China has. That speaks very loudly to me. About both powers. About all three actually. The USA at this time was not viewed as a 'strong' militarized nation. It had defeated it's own treaty to fall into huge gains in capitalism now playing both sides of the war. That brings us to Pearl Harbor and my opinion of the USA regarding it's allegience to itself to that point was registered last week.
