Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Tan Yong Jin Dylan Assignment

8 Pages2297 Words258 Views
   

Added on  2020-10-07

Tan Yong Jin Dylan Assignment

   Added on 2020-10-07

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Name: Tan Yong Jin DylanMatriculation No.: A0201602ATutorial Group: T23Role of the peacemakers in the outbreak of World War IIIntroductionIn the aftermath of World War I (WWI), the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (PPC) was held to dictate peace terms and devise a plan for world peace. However, this proved futile. A mere twenty years later, the world was once again embroiled in yet another catastrophic war, known as World War II (WWII). While the peacemakers in the 1919 PPC attempted to broker a peace agreement between the various countries, they ultimately failed to do so and instead inadvertently laid the foundations for WWII. This is because they were more concerned with pursuing their own national interests (Boemeke, Feldman & Glaser, 1998) and failed to create any driving force in the push for world peace. Although the outbreak of WWII should also be attributed to Hitler’s Nazi Germany, this must be seen in the context of the mandates imposed on Germany by the peacemakers during the 1919 PPC, as it created the conditions for Hitler to exploit and rise to power (Bell, 2013). Therefore, it is evident that the peacemakers in the 1919 PPC were undoubtedly responsible for the outbreak of WWII.Pursuit of individual national interestsOne of the main purposes of the 1919 PPC was to build a foundation for world peace through treaties and agreements. Yet, the peacemakers were more concerned with pursuing their own national interests. According to Boemeke, 1
Tan Yong Jin Dylan Assignment_1
Feldman and Glaser (1998), each country prioritised its own interests over the purpose of the conference. Wilson, representing America, was keen to create a peaceful world order based on internationalism. However, the rest of the Allied Powers had other plans. Keynes (1920) stated that “Clemenceau [was out] to crush the economic life of his enemy, Lloyd George [sought] to do a deal and bring home something which would pass muster for a week,” (p. 226) explaining that France and Britain had different goals in the conference. Henig (1995) argues that France wanted to significantly handicap Germany because she saw Germany as a threat and an enemy, having been invaded by Germany in 1870 and 1914. Britain, however, merely wantedadequate reparations as she saw Germany as a possible trading partner, which was mutually beneficial for their economies (MacMillan, 2001). On the other hand, Italy only cared about territorial gains in the PPC to enhance their position as a regional power (Henig, 1995). This was evidenced by the fact that Italy’s prime minister, Vittorio Orlando, stormed out of the negotiations after not being fully given the promised territories of Dalmatia and Tyrol. These conflicts of interests severely hindered any form of constructive discussion needed to create a peaceful world order. With the Allied Powers being too preoccupied with pursuing their own national interests, solid foundations for world peace could not be built. Instead, the peacemakers laid the foundation for WWII, as no concrete steps were taken to prevent future conflicts.2
Tan Yong Jin Dylan Assignment_2
Lack of driving force in the push for peaceDespite America’s intentions to create a peaceful world order, she eventually failed to follow through with action. Woodrow Wilson, for all his lofty ambitions to foster world peace through internationalism, was too preoccupied with his ideals and failed to anticipate a lack of support from the US Senate (Henig, 1995). The League of Nations (LoN) was intended to be the basis for international peace, yet Wilson failed to ensure US’s participation in it. This was because Wilson, a Democrat, severely overestimated the support that he was going to receive from his Republican-controlled senate. As a result, the US not only failed to join the LoN, but even withdrew from the Treaty of Versailles (TOV) as the US Senate did not ratify it in March 1920 (Henig, 1995). Without the US to spearhead a push for world peace, the remaining powers in the LoN could not come to an agreement on how to achieve peace. Henig (1995) states that France and Britain were “in total disagreement on the means through which last peace could be achieved,” (p. 33). This was proven true when neither France nor Britain were willing to retaliate against Germany when she remilitarized the Rhineland, as they did not want to risk the possibility of an all-out war with Germany. The lack of authority that the US could enforce left the LoN sorely wanting. Lacklustre efforts in an attempt to foster peace were far from sufficient in the increasingly volatile climate in post-WWI Europe. As a result, there was no concrete action taken to ensure peace and the instability in Europe persisted post-WWI. This eventually precipitated in the outbreak of WWI. Thus, it is fair to blame the peacemakers for causing this conflict.3
Tan Yong Jin Dylan Assignment_3

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
World War 1 & World War 2: Same War?
|4
|1344
|77

Factors behind the rise of Fascism in Italy
|6
|1866
|93