Syllabus:
Japan; America; Europe; (i) 1st and 2nd World Wars as Total Wars: Societal implications (iii) World War II: Causes and consequence; (iii) Fascist Counter-Revolution, Italy and Germany; Hitler, Foreign Policy; Mussolini, Fascism; WW II
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rise of Nationalism in Japan
How did Japan develop between 1868 and 1894? Did the ‘Restoration of Meiji’ mark a sharp break with the past? [1987, 60 Marks]
The years 1853-1894 witnessed the transformation of Japan. Explain. [1998, 60 Marks]
Japan was a feudal state which was in seclusion with Emperor just as a figurehead and real power lying with Shogun, who was originally the chief officer of Emperor but had managed to monopolise the power.
Opening of Japan to Western Exploitation:
Japan had wrapped herself in rigid seclusion but in 1853, her veil was opened by the USA when US Navy appeared in Japanese waters to demonstrate strength, demanding protection for American sailors and allowing American ships to put into Japanese ports. Japan was forced to accept the treaty to throw open two ports to Americans.
By 1867, almost all European nations concluded treaties with Japan by which they secured commercial rights, open ports, extra-territorial rights and control over tariff.
Restoration of Meiji Emperor:
The opening up of Japan by foreigners gave rise to anti-foreign movement which soon developed into agitation to abolish the Shogunate. Many of the feudal lords with strong anti-foreigner sentiments demanded that actual power of the state be restored to the Emperor. In 1867, Shogunate was abolished and the imperial authority was restored. The emperor was brought from his seclusion and was installed at Yedo, previously the Shogun’s capital and which was now renamed Tokyo in 1868. Thus started Meiji era.
Development of Japan between 1868 and 1894.
Internal reconstruction of Japan: | Westernisation of Japan: |
|
|
Did the Restoration of Meiji mark a sharp break from the past?
The restoration of Meiji in 1868 marks a sharp break with the past because of stunning progress made in Japan in almost every area after Meiji restoration. The progress was so quick and deep that Japan transformed from a backward feudal state to a modern powerful state in less than three decades after Meiji Restoration.
Rise of Militarism in Japan
“The Anglo-Japanese Treaty (1902) marks a milestone in the development of Japan as an Asiatic power.” [1988, 20 Marks]
Anglo-Japanese Alliance, (1902–23), alliance that bound Britain and Japan to assist one another in safeguarding their respective interests in China and Korea. Directed against Russian expansionism in the Far East, it was a cornerstone of British and Japanese policy in Asia until after World War I.
The alliance served Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) by discouraging France, Russia’s European ally, from entering the war on the Russian side. It was renewed in 1905 and again in 1911 after Japan’s annexation of Korea. On the basis of its tie with Britain, Japan participated in World War I on the side of the Allies.
“The Russo-Japanese War helped in the rise of Japan as a great power.” [2014, 10 Marks]
Reason: The Russo-Japanese War (1904 –1905) was fought between the Russia and Japan over rival imperial ambitions in Manchuria and Korea.
This War helped in the rise of Japan as great power because of the following factors:
A victorious Japan forced Russia to abandon its expansionist policy in the Far East, becoming the first Asian power in modern times to defeat a European power. Japan proved that its military could defeat the major powers in Europe.
Most Western powers were stunned that tiny island Japan not only prevailed but decisively defeated Russia. Japan had won every battle fought during the war on land and sea.
In the Russo-Japanese War, Japan had also portrayed a sense of readiness in taking a more active and leading role in Asian affairs, which in turn had led to widespread nationalism throughout the region.
But the rise of Japan as a great power faced resistance from other powers like the USA. Japan could not obtain territorial gains and monetary reparations from Russia due to oppositions from other powers. In spite of this, War increased the prestige of Japan and helped in the rise as a great power.
Tagore’s Admiration and Criticism of Japan: One of his lectures in Japan in 1916 ("Nationalism in Japan"), he observed that "the worst form of bondage is the bondage of dejection, which keeps men hopelessly chained in loss of faith in themselves." As in the case of India, he saw the need to build the self-confidence of a defeated and humiliated people. Tagore shared the admiration for Japan widespread in Asia for demonstrating the ability of an Asian nation to rival the West in industrial development and economic progress. Tagore saw Japanese militarism as illustrating the way nationalism can mislead even a nation of great achievement and promise.
“Japanese policy in relation to Manchuria reacted back upon Japan affecting her both economically and politically.” Comment. [1982, 20 Marks]
Resources rich Manchuria annexed - > LoN -> But Japan withdraw -> Japan aggression -> rise of military Japan -> imperialist vision -> WW where she was lost badly.
Account for the rise of militarism in Japan between the two World Wars. How did it affect the peace of the world? [1979, 60 Marks]
Trace the growth of militarism in Japan in the inter-war years. What international reaction did it provoke? [1997, 60 Marks]
Show how the presence of a weak and helpless China next door brought about the rise of militarism and collapse of democracy in Japan. [1994, 60 Marks]
Japanese militarism and imperialism steadily developed for five principle reasons.
The first two reasons, Japan's desire to be a Western-style imperialist power and Japan's concern for its Security and Safety, played important roles in the growth of militarism up to the end of Russo-Japanese War in 1905.
The next two reasons, Japan's belief in its leadership role for Asia and Japan's frequent provocations by Western Powers, gave rise to an expansion of militarism and imperialism from 1905 to the 1930s.
The final reason, Japan's desire to secure its economic interests, rose in importance as Japan entered the decade of the 1930s.
Aspiration for Western Style Imperialism | Security Concerns | Belief in Asian Leadership role | Provocation by western powers | Economic Interests |
Meiji leaders sought to make Japan a first rate nation (ITTO KOKU), which included the prestige and power associated with foreign territorial possessions. During the 19th C, Western powers of Br, Ge, Am, Fr, Bel, Net, Russia and Italy made various overseas territorial acquisitions, many times through military means. Knowing very well the long history of Western Imperialism, which began in 16th C, the Meiji oligarchs desired to join the Western powers in demands for rights and privileges in other Asian countries. However, the oligarchs realized that the country needed to modernize and strengthen its military before it attempted to assert its demands to the Western Powers. This led Japan to a rapid increase in military expenditures between 1895 and 1904. | Japan's militaristic attitude intensified as government leaders recognized the need to ensure defence of the country against Russia and other Western Powers. With China being so Weak militarily and economically in late 19th C, Japanese leaders feared the rivalries of the Western powers could bring China to collapse, which would have profound implications on the security of Japan. Control over Korea represented an essential element in the protection of Japan against Western countries due to the two countries geographical propinquity (पड़ोस) and due to Korea's having borders with both China and Russia. | In late 19th C many Japanese leaders came to believe that their country had a "manifest destiny" to free other Asian countries from Western imperialist powers and to lead these countries to collective strength and prosperity. Fukuzawa Yukichi and other late 19th C writers supported foreign expansionism and Social Darwinism, which promoted survival of the strongest cultures by a process of natural selection. This belief was bolstered with defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05. | Japan's signing of unequal treaties with America, France, Holland and Russia in 1858 placed restrictions on Japan's national sovereignty, such as extraterritoriality, which meant that foreigners in Japan had immunity from the jurisdiction of the Japanese legal system. 1921-22 Washington Conference (unfavourable battleship ratio for Japan), 1919 Paris Peace Conference (no inclusion of racial equality clause in League of Nations) provoked Japanese sentiments. 1906, the school board in San Francisco ordered Japanese and other Asian children to attend segregated schools. 1924, America passed Japanese Exclusion Act to shut off Japanese immigration into US. These series of international affronts to Japanese pride and status provided fuel to the militaristic sentiments of Japanese government leaders. | With Japan's heavy dependence on foreign trade, the world depression that began in 1929 caused great economic hardships to the Japanese people. Economic growth required strong export markets for Japanese textiles and other goods. Manchuria's extensive land area and abundant natural resources such as iron and coal provided a ready solution to Japan's overpopulation problem and its need for raw materials to support its heavy industries; which focused on military equipment build up. |
Rise of Japan also led to rise of conflict.
Japan seized Manchuria in 1931. A series of wars was fought after that with Chiang Kai Shek's order in China. Japan later moved into other countries in South Asia which led to series of conflicts and wars. The stubborn and provocative attitude of the Imperialist Western Nations toward Japan provided a favourable environment for Japan's advance toward militarism, and imperialism which ultimately led to World War II.
World War I: Causes and consequences
The Treaty of San Stefano had made Russia very powerful and increased her influence in the Balkan Peninsula but the treaty of Berlin made her quite weak and dissatisfied. The Congress of Berlin dispersed after the treaty of Berlin was signed.
Lord Beaconsfield after his return from the Congress of Berlin (1878) boasted: “I have brought peace with honour.” Comment. [1998, 20 Marks]
England was greatly benefited by this treaty. Hence Queen Victoria bestowed rare titles and honours on Disraeli and Salisbury. Disraeli was undoubtedly an able politician who conducted the foreign affairs of England very wisely and efficiently but he lacked common sense, otherwise the treaty must not have contained the seeds of future wars and the Balkans must have been saved from the crisis of 1912-13. Disraeli boasted of having returned with peace and honour but in fact, he brought neither peace nor honour.
“The Berlin Congress failed to unlock the Eastern Question. Though there was no longer major war in Europe for nearly three decades after the Treaty of Berlin, it contained the seeds of many future wars.” Critically Evaluate. [2015, 20 Marks]
The Berlin Congress (1878) was a diplomatic meeting of the major European powers at which the Treaty of Berlin replaced the Treaty of San Stefano, which had been signed by Russia and Turkey at the conclusion of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78.
Dominated by the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, the congress solved an international crisis caused by the San Stefano treaty by revising the peace settlement to satisfy the interests of Great Britain (by denying Russia the means to extend its naval power and by maintaining the Ottoman Empire as a European power) and to satisfy the interests of Austria-Hungary (by allowing it to occupy Bosnia and Herzegovina and thereby increase its influence in the Balkans).
In acting so, however, the congress left Russia humiliated by substantially reducing the gains that it had made under the San Stefano treaty. Furthermore, the congress failed to consider adequately the aspirations of the Balkan peoples themselves and, thereby, laid the foundation for future crises in the Balkans.
Though the Berlin Congress solved Eastern Question in the Short run, it failed to do so in long run:
It revised the treaty of San Stefano not in the interest of Justice and Equity but in the interests of Austria and Britain. They were called the guarantors of the Turkish integrity but they took large portion of the Turkish spoil.
It disintegrated the Turkish Empire. The states of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania were separated from her.
It ignored the national sentiment of the Balkan peoples. Slavs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who desired union with their fellow Slavs of Serbia, were handed over to Austrian rule. The division of Bulgaria was a blow to the national inspiration of the Bulgars.
The Christians of Macedonia were left in the hand of Turkish Sultan even after the Bulgarian atrocities had shown what kind of treatment they might expect.
The policy of England remained very indefinite. She first declared herself to be the guardian of Turkish independence but she kept mum when Russia invaded her. "The Treaty of Berlin was not a final solution of the Eastern Question." Turkey had lost half of her European dominions.
The settlement reached at the Congress of Berlin had the remarkable outcome that it left each power dissatisfied and more anxious than before International tension was increased, not eased, by the events of these years.
Criticism of the Treaty of Berlin 1878 / Seeds of future war:
Holding back Russia from Balkans and encouraging Austria complicated the Eastern Question instead of solving it. Austria was allowed to commit herself to the policy of acquiring territory in the Balkans in direct opposition to Russian and Serbian national feeling. Her occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina embittered her relations with Serbia and Russia and this in the long run gave rise to the complications which directly led to the First World War.
Issue of Bosnia and Herzegovina was the chief reason of discord between Serbia and Austria.
Bismarck although he posed as 'honest leader' was obliged to take sides between Austria and Russia in the crisis. He chose Austria and alienated Russia. As a result, Russia was thrown into the arms of France. Here was the remote origin of estrangement between Russia and Germany which before long divided Europe into two rival camps, the dual Alliance between Russia and France and Bismarck's Triple Alliance.
San Stefano created enmity between Russia and Austria but the treaty of Berlin made Russia and Germany enemies of each other. Russia being alarmed and horrified at this situation concluded a treaty with France in 1894 and broke her isolation.
Failing the aspirations of Balkan people, laid the foundation of Future crisis in Balkans. People of Macedonia were not prepared to be ruled by the cruel Turkish government. The Macedonian issue later on became the chief reason of the outbreak of Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913.
Rumania began to treat Russia as her enemy because the province of Bessarabia was given to Russia which was ruled by Rumania. Principle of nationalism was violated in this treaty. The dissolution of greater Bulgaria was done in accordance with this principle
The Balkan Wars and First World Wars were caused by many other reasons like increasing armed race, imperialism, nationalism, balance of power games, secret treaties etc, but Berlin Congress gave birth to many of these reasons.
Thus, instead of bringing about the pacification of the Balkans and solving the Eastern Question, the Treaty of Berlin contributed to increase the unrest and friction among the Balkan peoples, which produced the future wars.
“The international situation that confronted the peacemakers in Paris was in the brutal realities of history, the result of a temporary redistribution of the balance of power in the world.” Comment. [1987, 60 Marks]
How far is it correct to say that the First World War was fought essentially for the preservation of the balance of power? [2015, 20 Marks]
“Any single explanation for the outbreak of the First World War likely to be too simple. An amalgam of factors intellectual, social, economic as well as political and diplomatic contributed to this horrifying conflict of monumental propositions.” – Explain. [2012, 30 Marks]
The First World War was a horrifying and terrible war which wreaked heavy destruction across the whole European continent. If we trace the causes of this horrific war, we realise that there were various events since the unification of Germany and Italy in 1871 which were preparing the grounds of war.
POLITICALLY, after 1871 there was the start of NEW IMPERIALISM. The acquisition of colonies was now being considered as a matter of national pride and prestige. The new entrants in this imperial rivalry viz. Germany and Italy threatened nations like Britain and France. Moreover, rise of Germany as the most powerful nation based on military power threatened the EUROPEAN BALANCE OF POWER. In addition to these, there were previous rivalries, like, France was resenting the national humiliation it suffered by its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and wanted to take back Alsace and Lorraine.
DIPLOMATICALLY, Bismarck's whole diplomatic policy centred on isolation of France. Due to this Bismarck courted the friendship of Austria and Italy and formed Triple Alliance in 1882. Now, France courted the friendship of Russia resulting into formation of Dual Alliance (1894). This diplomatic rivalry partitioned the whole Europe into armed camps. One more cause resulting into diplomatic alignment of Europe was pan-Slavic Nationalism. Russia was supporting national movements in Balkan Region while Austria was determined to curb Serbian nationalism. This intensified rivalry between Austria and Russia. As Bismarck supported Austria in Berlin Conference (1878), the relationship between Germany and Russia too got estranged.
ECONOMIC Causes of first world war can be traced to colonial rivalry. This colonial rivalry manifested in the paper partition of Africa and cutting of the Chinese Melon. There were many incidents during the first decade of 20th Century which precipitated wars among European Nations over colonial questions. Moroccan crisis (1905) and Agadir Crisis (1911) were reflections of this colonial rivalry. Moreover, all European countries were following protectionist economic policies during these years.
SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL causes of First World War got reflected in the love for military glory and rise of ardent nationalism. France and Germany craved for military glory and their people loved military successes. The ideal of nationalism also got a boost due to the romantic movements which spread in late 19th Century. Many German writers produced the cult of true German race and pan-Germanism. This ultra-nationalism among the masses made the war a necessity.
Thus, it can be said that the outbreak of first world war cannot be attributed to any single factor.
“By 1914, the sick man of Europe was no longer just Turkey: it was Europe itself.” Explain. [2011, 20 Marks]
In its heyday, Turkey, ruled by the Ottoman kingdom controlled the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe up to Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a consequence of the First World War, Turkey’s Ottoman kingdom disintegrated and its territories were shared by Britain, France, Italy and Greece.
<Add the pre-WW-I situation in Europe + post>
The two opposing sides in the World War I were:
The ALLIES or Entente powers | The Central powers |
|
|
Why did Central Powers lose the war? | Access why the First World War was not ‘over by Christmas’ 1914. |
Combination of military defeat and dire food shortages produced a great war-weariness leading to mutiny in the navy, destruction of morale in the army and revolution at home. | This war** was widely expected to be short, decisive affair, like other recent European wars. However, Germans failed to achieve the rapid defeat of France: although they penetrated deeply, Paris did not fall, and stalemate quickly developed on the western front, with all hope of a short war gone. Both sides dug themselves in and spent the next four years attacking and defending lines of trenches. In Eastern Europe there was more movement, with early Russian successes against the Austrians, who constantly had to be helped out by the Germans. This caused friction between Austria and Germans. But by December 1917 the Germans had captured Poland (Russian territory) and forced Russians out of the war. Britain suffering heavy losses of merchant ships through submarine attacks, and France, whose armies were paralysed by mutiny, seemed on the verge of defeat. Gradually, however the tide turned; the Allies helped by the entry of USA in April 1917, wore down the Germans whose last despairing attempt at a decisive breakthrough in France failed in the spring of 1918. The success of the British navy in blockading German ports and defeating the submarine threat by defending convoys** of merchant ships was also telling on the Germans. By late summer 1918 they were nearing exhaustion. An armistice (ceasefire) was signed on 11 November 1918, though Germany itself had hardly been invaded. A controversial peace settlement was signed at Versailles the following year. ** Convoy system – a large number of merchant ships sailed together, so they could be protected by escorting warships – this drastically reduced losses. Remarkable factor prolonging the war – propaganda – morale of general public as well as military on both sides boosted – support for war sustained by newspapers, posters, films, and advertisements. |
** WW I – balance of power: Germans anxious to protect themselves from being ‘encircled’, aimed to take territory from Poland in the East and Belgium in the west to act as buffer zones against Russian and France.
** Competing war aims - The French were obsessed with taking back Alsace and Lorraine, which the Germans had taken in 1871. The British would never allow Belgium, a country so near to their coast, to be controlled by a hostile power like Germany. Austria-Hungary was desperate to preserve its empire against the ambitions of Serbia.
Effects of the war:
First total war in history – involved not just armies and navies but entire population.
New methods of warfare and new weapons were introduced – tanks, submarines, bombers, machine-guns, heavy artillery and mustard gas.
With so many men away in the armed forces, women had to take their places in factories and in other jobs.
Europe’s prestige in the eyes of rest of world declined – such appalling carnage and destruction.
In Germany, hardship and defeat caused a revolution: the Kaiser Wilhelm II was compelled to abdicate and a republic was declared. **Over the next few years the Weimar Republic (as it became known) experienced severe economic, political and social problems. In 1933 it was brought to an end when Hitler became German chancellor.
The Hapsburg Empire collapsed completely. The various nationalities declared themselves independent; Austria and Hungary split into two separate states.
In Russia, the pressures of war caused two revolutions in 1917. The first (Feb-March) overthrew Tsar, Nicholas II, and the second (October-November) brought Lenin and the Bolsheviks (communists) to power.
Although Italy was on the winning side, the war had been a drain on her resources and she was heavily in debt. Mussolini took advantage of the government’s unpopularity, to take over control – Italy was the first European state after the war to allow itself to fall under a fascist dictatorship.
On the other hand, some countries outside Europe, particularly Japan, China and USA, took advantage of Europe’s pre-occupation with the war to expand their trade at Europe’s expense. ** For example, USA’ share of world trade grew from 10% in 1914 to 20% by 1919. Since they were unable to obtain European imports during the war, Japan and China began their own programmes of industrialization.
When the war started, none of the participants had any specific ideas what they hoped to achieve, except that Germany and Austria wanted to preserve the Hapsburg Empire, and thought this required them to destroy Serbia.
US stated its war aims in 14points. **abolition of secret diplomacy. Free navigation at sea for all nations in war and peace. Removal of economic barriers between states. All-round reduction of armaments.
Do you agree with the view that the Treaty of Versailles was a bad compromise between a treaty based upon force and a treaty based on ideas? [2016] Yes. Ultimately it became the cause for WW II.
“There was not only a difference of principles at Paris (Peace Conference) but a clash of personalities.” Comment. [2001, 20 Marks]
France (represented by Clemenceau) wanted a harsh peace, to ruin Germany economically and militarily so that she could never again threaten French frontiers.
Britain (Lloyd George) was in favour of a less severe settlement, enabling Germany to recover quickly so that she could resume role as major consumer of British goods.
The USA (Woodrow Wilson) was in favour of lenient peace.
JM Keynes an economic advisor, urged the Allies to take Pound 2000 million.
If Clemenceau had had his way, the Rhineland would have become an independent state, and France would have annexed Saar.
“The peace of Versailles lacked moral validity from the start.” Critically evaluate. [2011, 20 Marks]
In the treaty of Versailles the element of dictation was more apparent than in any other previous peace treaties of modern times.
The history of mankind is full of peace treaties or harsh peace treaties imposed by victor powers on defeated powers. Treaty of Paris (1763) signed after the 7 year war. Treaty of Madras imposed by Hyder on English Company. Peace treaty signed out by defeated Napoleon in 1815 by victor powers in France. Treaty of Frankfurt imposed by Bismarck on France in 1871. All of these were quite harsh but the ToV imposed by victor powers of Germany was harshest.
ToV was imposed by peacemakers of Paris on Germany. Germany was not allowed to participate in discussion process. They were not allowed to register their dissatisfaction on provisions. They were called for in last moment and asked to sign the treaty through threat of war.
ToV provisions were so harsh that entire German empire was fragmented. Territories were taken away. Germany was divided into two. Indemnity of 6600 mn pound was imposed.
Reaction: German representatives were humiliated in every possible way and as a result of this extreme nationalism emerged in Germany. Adolf Hitler was representative of the same. ToV was imposed peace. It could not bring a lasting peace in Eu.. Very soon clouds of another major conflict commenced in 1939.
“Treaty of Versailles contained the seeds of future conflicts.” Comment. [2006, 10 Marks]
Analyze the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 and examine the validity of Germany’s objections to the Treaty. [2000, 60 Marks]
Explain why the 1919 peace settlement provoked so much opposition among the Germans.
To what extent was the Paris peace settlement shaped by the principle of self-determination?
Treaty of Versailles criticized – too hard on Germans, who were bound to object so violently that another war was inevitable, sooner or later.
It was a dictated peace – Germans were not allowed into the discussions at Versailles; they were simply presented with the terms and told to sign. ** Argument used later by Hitler – because the peace was a ‘Diktat’, it should not be morally binding. **On the other hand, Germans themselves had dealt harshly with Russians at Brest-Litovsk – also a ‘Diktat’.
National Self-determination: Germans had genuine cause for protest on the question of national self-determination. Right from the start of peace conference the Allies had emphasised that all nationalities should have the right to choose which country they wanted to belong to. This principle had been applied in case of non-Germans; but the settlement left around a million Germans under Polish Rule and almost 3 million in the Sudetenland controlled by the new state of Czechoslovakia.
In addition, Austria was a completely German state with a population of some 7 million. All these Germans wanted to become part of Germany but Union (Anschluss) between Germany and Austria was specifically forbidden.
Germany had to lose territory in Europe – Alsace Lorraine to France; North Schleswig to Denmark; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which were taken over from Russia; ** Most of the German losses could be justified on ground of nationality.
Germany’s African colonies (Togoland, Cameroon, East Africa-Tanganyika, and West Africa-Namibia) were taken away and became ‘mandates’. ** A device by which Allies seized the colonies without actually admitting that they were being annexed.
Disarmament Clause: German armaments were strictly limited to a maximum of 100,000 troops and no conscription, no tanks, etc. Rhineland was to be completely demilitarized. A small state like Belgium should be superior to Germany in armament and soldiers seems absurd.
War Guilt clause fixed the blame for the outbreak of the war solely on German. It was majorly responsible but not solely responsible.
Germany had to pay war reparations (Pound 6600 million).
Germans argued many provisions were not based on the 14 points that had been promised. **Not a valid objection – never been accepted officially by any of states involved; Germans themselves had ignored them in January 1918 (when they were leading).
“The Treaty of Versailles was merely an armistice for twenty years.” Comment. [1993, 20 Marks]
The goal following the WW I was to restore European stability and maintain everlasting peace. However, these goals were recognized by all of the leaders as not easily achievable. French PM Clemenceau commented on the day the armistice was signed on 11 Nov 1918, "We have won the war: now we have to win the peace, and it may be more difficult". The French Politician Marshal Foch, as the Versailles treaty was being signed, stated rather prophetically, "THIS IS NOT PEACE; IT IS AN ARMISTICE FOR 20 YEARS".
<write seeds of future of WW II in ToV>
The treaties made at the Paris Peace conference in 1919-20 were replete with unstable compromises, reflecting more materialism than idealism. Elucidate. [1990, 60 Marks]
Treaty of Versailles (discussed already).
Peace treaties with Austria-Hungary – Treaty of St Germain (1919) with Austria and Treat of Trianon (1920) dealing with Hungary – both treaties contained League of Nations covenant - ** though more people were placed under governments of their own nationality than ever before in Europe, they were not always as democratic (as Wilson would have liked especially in Hungary and Poland); 3 million Germans (in Sudetenland) were now in Czechoslovakia and million under Polish rule. Matters were further complicated when all the new states quickly introduced tariffs (import and export duties).
Settlement with Turkey – Treaty of Sevres (1920) – Turkey was to lose many Aegean islands and Smyrna to Greece; the straits were to be permanently open; Syria became a French mandate, and Palestine, Iraq and Transjordan British mandates. However, this outraged Turkish national feeling (self-determination was ignored in this case). Led by Mustafa Kemal, the Turks rejected the treaty and chased the Greeks out of Smyrna. One legacy of Treaty of Sevres - cause problems later – in the mandates.
Settlement with Bulgaria – Treaty of Neuilly (1919) – Bulgaria lost territory to Greece, Yugoslavia, Romania – at least a million Bulgars were under foreign governments.
Add other dimension here - why Italy was angry; other +++
The Peace settlement had unfortunate effect of dividing Europe into states which wanted to revise the settlement (Germany, main one) and those which wanted to preserve it. Modern historians – true that there were some mistakes, but the peacemakers at Paris cannot be blamed for Hitler’s rise to power and certainly not for the Second World War.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS: [formed as per ToV] Two main aims:
Maintain peace through collective security – if one state attacked another, member states of the League would act together, collectively.
To encourage international cooperation, in order to solve economic and social problems.
How successful was the LoN in resolving international disputes in the 1920s?
Assess the reasons why there were no major international conflicts during the 1920s.
Several political disputes were resolved. Eg: When Greeks invaded Bulgaria; When Turkey claimed the province of Mosul. The decisions of League were accepted. It is significant, that none of these disputes seriously threatened world peace, and none of the decisions went against major state that might have challenged the League’s verdict.
However, the Corfu incident made people wonder how far the League could progress.
“League of Nations is a League of Nations.” Comment. [2016]
Why did the League failed to preserve peace?
It was too closely linked with the Versailles Treaties – made the league seem like an organization for benefit of victorious powers – it had to defend the peace settlement which was far from perfect.
In March 1920, US senate rejected both the Versailles settlement and the League. Germany was not allowed to join until 1926. USSR only became a member in 1934 (when Germany left). So for the first few years of its existence the League was deprived of three of world’s most important powers.
At the time of Corfu incident (1923): boundary dispute between Greece and Albania, in which three Italian officials working on the boundary commission were killed. Mussolini blamed the Greeks, demanded huge compensation and bombarded and occupied the Greek island of Corfu. Greece applied to the League but Mussolini refused to recognize its competence to deal with the problem. He threatened to withdraw Italy from the league, whereupon the Ambassadors (in Paris) ordered Greece to pay the full amount demanded.
There were serious weaknesses in the Covenant – it was difficult to get unanimous decisions; League had no military force of its own; Each member would decide for itself whether or not to fight in a crisis – clearly made nonsense the idea of collective security.
It was very much a British / French affair – but Conservative government of British was reluctant to commit Britain and the Empire to the defence of all the 1919 frontiers. Many other league members felt the same; and so perversely, they were all basing their security on a system whose success relied on their support and commitment, but which they were not prepared to uphold.
None of these weaknesses necessarily doomed the League to Failure, however, provided all the members were prepared to refrain from aggression and accept League decisions; between 1925 and 1930 events ran smoothly.
Explain why the LoN was hailed as a success during the 1920s but was considered a failure by 1936.
The world economic crisis (1929) and the situation really began to drift out of control. Unemployment and falling living standards caused extreme right-wing governments to come to power in Japan and Germany; together with Mussolini, they refused to keep to the rules and took a series of actions which revealed the League’s weaknesses.
Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931) - Japan rejected League’s decision and withdrew from the League (1933).
World Disarmament Conference (1932-33) – German asked for equality of armaments with France, but when the French demanded that this should be postponed for at least eight years, Hitler was able to use the French attitude as an excuse to withdraw Germany from the conference and later from the League.
Italian invasion of Abyssinia (1935) – most serious blow to League’s prestige and credibility – so half-hearted sanctions that Italy completed the conquest without much inconvenience.
“The Manchurian crisis decided the fate of the league of Nations.” Comment. [1993, 20 Marks]
From its very beginning the success of LoN as a watchdog of European peace was fraught with many challenges, viz.
Despite being a brain child of Woodrow Wilson, the USA did not join the League.
Other major powers like Russia and Germany also did not join it.
The league did not have any independent military force, it was dependent on the support of member countries.
The decisions of the league had to be taken by unanimity which was hard to achieve.
Last but not the least the league was linked with the flawed Versailles treaty.
Despite these limitations the league worked well between 1920s-30 and solved a number of dispute, as dispute between Finland and Sweden over Aaland islands was amicably resolved.
But it was the attack of Japan over Manchuria (1931) which dashed all hopes of league being successful. China protested and complained to league against the aggressive's of Japan. Though, almost all the members of league condemned Japanese aggression they did not impose any political and economic sanctions. Japan flouted the league and came out of it.
This Japanese act of defiance boosted the morale of Italy and it attacked on Abyssinia in 1935. The half-hearted imposed sanctions on Italy could not stop her.
In the same way by recognising the weakness of the league Hitler flouted almost all the clauses of Versailles treaty by announcing Conscription, militarising Rhineland and uniting Austria with Germany.
Thus, it can be said that Manchuria crisis triggered the demise of flawed LoN which was completed by Abyssinia crisis and Anchluss.
How far would you agree that the LoN was ‘a complete failure, a total irrelevance in world history’?
The real explanation for the failure of League was simple: when aggressive states such as Japan, Italy and Germany defied it, the League members especially France and Britain, were not prepared to support it, either by decisive economic measures or by military action.
SUCCESS of the League – unfair to dismiss the League as a total failure:
ILO – worked to improve conditions of labour all over the world by persuading governments to fix hours, set adequate wages, introduce benefits, pensions. It collected and published vast amount of information.
The Health Organization did good amount of work in investigating the causes of epidemics. Eg: combating a typhus epidemic in Russia.
LoN was a bold step towards International cooperation which in some aims but succeeded comprehensively in others.
LoN’s creation marked an important step on the road to our contemporary global system of international organisation, coordinated through the United Nations, which was built on the foundations of the League’s experience.
The UN ICJ reproduced identically the League’s Permanent Court. The ILO is still operating today.
“The Communist international and the League of Nations both announced the end of the Balance of Power.” Comment. [1996, 20 Marks]
Balance of power, in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances.
Thus the League sought to achieve to profoundest (गम्à¤ीर) of all psychological revolutions to transform the war mentality of man into a peace mentality. Comment. [1992, 20 Marks]
The scale of war of 1914-18, the magnitude of losses which it had involved, the sufferings of the civilian population in devastated and blockaded regions, the immense financial burdens imposed on victors and vanquished alike, above all the sense of the futility of war as a means of settling national disputes. The architects of LON sought to capture a fleeting sentiment in the hearts of men. Throughout recorded history mankind has shown a blind faith in the efficacy of force, although the experience of unnumbered generations demonstrated that war, like gunpowder, destroys but cannot build, and that the liquidation of national problems by the method of coercion creates fresh problems in their place.
By substituting collective action for individual action the League was designed to give the peoples of earth a sense of security, which would make them think in terms of peace and not as in past ages in terms of conflict. Thus the League sought, to achieve the profoundest of all psychical revolutions – to transform the war mentality of man into a peace mentality. In the light of its history the conception may appear impractical, even fantastic; but we must remember that it is the essence of the civilizing process to bring the influence of reason to bear upon the human psychology, in order to moderate the primitive instincts which if unchecked can end only in destruction.
Which one of the following events eventually pushed the United States of America to join the First World War?
Sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania which killed all Americans on board.
Resumption by Germany of its policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare.
Pressure from critics at home to right the moral wrongs being perpetrated by the Central Powers.
The proposal of Germany to Mexico to “make war together, make peace together”
Statements ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘c’ are reasons which kept provoking the USA. Eventually, it was the German Ambassador to Mexico’s telegram, proposing “military assistance to Mexico if the United States entered the war on the Allies’ side” which made the USA consider German actions as “nothing less than an act of war against the government and people of the USA”. [BBC: The inflammatory telegram that pushed the US into World War 1]
What is a Genocide? Genocide is the organized killing of a people for the express purpose of putting an end to their collective existence.
Armenian Genocide? The atrocities committed against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire during W.W.I are called the Armenian Genocide. The decision to carry out a genocide against the Armenian people was made by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (or Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti), popularly known as the Young Turks.
Did the genocide stop with end of WW-I? No. The massacres, expulsions, and further mistreatment of the Armenians between 1920 and 1923 were carried by the Turkish Nationalists, who represented a new political movement opposed to the Young Turks, but who shared a common ideology of ethnic exclusivity.
“A clever conqueror will always impose his demands on the conquered by instalments.” Comment. [2006, 10 Marks]
“The most important single factor … in the year following 1919 was the French demand for security.” Comment. [2004, 10 Marks]
The First World War ended with victory of France (along with its partner nations) mainly in opposition to Germany. However, in the years following till the advent of Second World War, It was France’s concern for its security which played a leading role in shaping up the policies and treaties concluded with the defeated nation.
The German-Franco war in 1871 was a disaster for France and it was this vengeance against Germany which increased further enmity between these countries. The policies of Bismarck to create alliances in order to separate the France further increased the suspicion and state of mistrust.
In this background, France’s concern for its security from the rise of Germany which played the most important role in the events after conclusion of the war in 1919. The treaty of Versailles was the direct manifestation of this insecurity which compelled Germany to cede all its foreign colonies, pay a huge reparation and destroy its economic activities.
However, it would be underestimating the other important and far lasting changes which were occurring apart from France’s concern for its security. The creation of League of nations, the emergence USA as a big power and naked plunder for colonies were few major events after 1919.
“The War’s (First World War’s) most permanent contribution to the spirit or the post-War years was disillusion.” Comment. [2007, 60 Marks]
** Dictatorship was outcome of Failure of league of nations. Failure of League was not outcome of Dictatorship.
Trace the rise and growth of the New European Society in the inter-war period. [1999, 60 Marks]
The history of IR in the post-First World War period is one of crisis due to the militant expansionist policies pursued by the countries under dictators on the one hand, and the collapse of collective security system on the other. Comment Critically.
The 1st WW (1914-18) was a most disastrous conflict seen by mankind till that time. This war devastated both the victors and the defeated nations. But even this massive devastation failed to convince humanity leaders that peace was good to all. The limitations of Paris Peace treaty resulted in emergence of radical nationalist forces in many parts of world.
Benito Mussolini in Italy, General Tojo in Japan and Adolf Hitler in Germany were some of these. These fascist forces continued a policy of territorial expansion because expansionism was their basic philosophy. Expansionism was considered as the basis for an indication of life of nation as it was considered an organic entity (living thing) which must grow to survive.
The policy of Expansionism pursued by these dictators destroyed the sytem created by peacemakers of Paris in 1919-20 and clouds of another war started gathering over the horizons. Mussolini - Abyssnia, Japan - Manchuria, Hitler - Austria (March 1938), Sudentenland (September 1938), Czechoslovakia (March 1939). And when he attacked Poland second World War commenced.
The peace makers of Paris adopted the principle of collective security to protect generations from devastation caused by wars and battles. The principle of Balance of Power adopted by Vienna Congress of 1815 was abandoned. LoN was manifestation of same. About LoN: Since league was inherently weak it did not have a military force of its own. It was dependent on voluntary contribution of member nations. It was largely an Anglo-French affair. It was burdened with the important responsibility of maintaining ToV. Its prestige was adversely affected by Conference of Ambassadors located in Paris. By 1932-33, League failed miserably and once the system of collective security collapsed, a break of another war in Europe became inevitable.
Manchuria - failure of league in liberating it from Japan doomed fate of league seriously, thereafter nobody took it seriously. This expansionist policy and failure of collective security were responsible for outbreak of 2nd WW and this war pushed world into great devastation once again. More than 60 million lives were lost.
“The perpetuation of the economic malaise was the main cause of the political instability of Europe during the next two decades (1919-1939).” Explain. [1994, 60 Marks]
During Inter War (1919-39) period in Europe, economic problems had political consequences. Explain.
Economy has always been closely linked with political developments. This was also reflected in post-war economic developments as they gave rise to political changes.
Immediately after the Versailles treaty as France demanded reparations from Germany it controlled the Ruhr Valley. This gave rise to hyper-inflation and the stability of newly formed Weimar Republic got a huge set-back. Rise of Communist parties in all European Countries was also the result of post-war economic crisis. The Communist Party in Germany tried to subvert Weimar Republic by inducing Spartacist uprising (left wing uprising - general strike).
In the period from 1924-29 the economy of Germany as well as whole of Europe revived. Under the Dawes Plan USA provided aid to Germany which in turn paid its debts to France. This period of economic revival reflected in political developments also. This was the period when Locarno treaties were signed between Germany, France, Poland, Czechoslovakian and Britain. Due to the stable political environment this period was called 'Locarno Honeymoon'. The Germany was admitted into the LoN (1928). Under the Young Plan the amount of reparations was also reduced to 2000 million pounds. Moreover, Kellog-Briand pact was also signed to denounce war.
However, the political stability of whole Europe got a huge setback after the Great Depression set in 1929. Due to this depression, American loans stopped coming to Germany. This resulted in severe economic problems. This economic scenario paved way for the rise of Hitler in Germany. Hitler conciliated all the sections of society by providing his economic doctrine.
The policy of appeasement which was followed by Britain and France was also an outcome of economic problems. Due to chronic economic problems Br and Fr could not risk a war against Germany and Italy. This provided ample time for Hitler to pursue his agenda.
Thus, it can be said that interwar period economic problems had political outcomes.
In the long run, the Locarno Treaty (December 1925) was descriptive both of the Treaty of Versailles and of the Covenant.[2008, 20m]
Pact of Locarno, (Dec. 1, 1925), series of agreements whereby Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy mutually guaranteed peace in Western Europe.
The treaty of mutual guarantee provided that the German-Belgian and Franco-German frontiers as fixed by the Treaty of Versailles were inviolable; that Germany, Belgium, and France would never attack each other except in “legitimate defense” or in consequence of a League of Nations obligation; that they would settle their disputes by pacific means; and that in case of an alleged breach of these undertakings, the signatories would come to the defense of the party adjudged by the League to be the party attacked and also in case of a “flagrant violation.” The treaties of guarantee between France and Poland or Czechoslovakia provided for mutual support against unprovoked attack. A further consequence of the pact was the evacuation of Allied troops from the Rhineland in 1930, five years ahead of schedule.
The clear meaning of Locarno was that Germany renounced the use of force to change its western frontiers but agreed only to arbitration as regards its eastern frontiers, and that Great Britain promised to defend Belgium and France but not Poland and Czechoslovakia.
In March 1936 Germany sent troops into the Rhineland, which had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, declaring that the situation envisaged at Locarno had been changed by the Franco-Soviet alliance of 1935. France regarded the German move as a “flagrant violation” of Locarno, but Great Britain declined to do so, and no action was taken. Germany made no effort to arbitrate its dispute with Czechoslovakia in 1938 or with Poland in 1939.
The Great Depression (1928 – 34) was “attended by momentous consequences in the economic as well as in the political sphere.” Comment. [1996, 20m] [2002, 20m]
The great world depression that had started with Wall Street crisis in 1929 hack a remarkable impact on the economy of world and it also affected the then political order of the world.
On the economic sphere this economic crisis had caused the problem of unemployment and poverty. In Germany where industrial development had uplifted the masses economically became unemployed as the industries stopped manufacturing of the goods. This also caused financial deficit to governments of Germany, England, France and USA.
Ultimately to cope up with the situation British government had to abandon the gold standard and to adopt the policy of devaluation of Sterling in 1931. England also adopted cheap money policy. All the countries of Europe adopted policy of protection and imperial preference. In American policy of New Deal was adopted to face the new economic challenges.
As democratic forms of government had not been able to solve the problems generated by the Economic Depression, in some of the European countries dictatorial rule emerged. Another important change that occurred on the political sphere was the fall of the Labour government in England.
People in Europe started opposing capitalism and supporting socialism as it aimed social welfare. Due to this crisis a kind of very practical nationalism emerged in Europe which lastly resulted in economic cum political rivalry which was the most important cause of the Second World War.
Critically examine the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Did he want to introduce a sort of socialism? [1987, 60 Marks]
President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal “had the wit to start the political economy in a fresh, more promising direction.” Do you agree? [1997, 60 Marks]
The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the US by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on the "3 R": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.
The new deal stabilized the banks and cleaned up the financial problems left by the Stock Market crash of 1929. It stabilized the prices for industry and agriculture by injecting huge federal spending to bolster incomes and demand.
Nearly 25% Americans were unemployed by 1933. The new deal created millions of jobs and recognized the right of workers to form unions. He built hundreds of thousands of highways, bridges, hospitals, schools, post offices and Airports etc across America.
The new deal touched every state, city and town, improving the lives of ordinary people and public sphere. People, who did work for the new deal, not only served the families but built the foundation for a great and caring society.
New Deal is a shift from America's laissez-fair philosophy to Keynesian Philosophy. Now the economic policy of the government shifted from capitalistic model to a certain degree of welfare state.
Although it doesn't succeed in eliminating the depression in totality but it certainly gives a fresh start to a new political economy.
In less than a decade, the New deal changed the face of America and laid the foundation for success in World War II and prosperity of the post-war era. The new deal, 1933-1943, inspired a civic, cultural and economic renaissance.
How did the Great Economic Depression of 1929 affect Germany?
GED of 1923-34 had a rippling effect all over the world. It aggravated the economic crisis in Germany and nearly crippled German economy.
German investments and industrial recovery leading to economic stability between 1924-28 was built on short term loans largely from USA. This support was withdrawn when the Wall Street Exchange crashed in USA in 1929.
In Germany by 1932 industrial output fell to 40% of the 1929 level.
Workers lost their jobs and were paid reduced wages. Number of unemployed touched an unprecedented 8 million.
As jobs disappeared unemployed youth took to criminal activities.
The crisis created deep anxieties among the middle class who feared destitution and proletarian-isation.
Large mass of peasantry was affected by a sharp fall in agricultural prices.
Women were severely affected and worried for their hungry children.
It was during this period that Nazi Party which was no more than a conspiratorial group became a mass movement.
The depression contributed to rise of Hitler and establishment of dictatorship on Germany.
Discuss the ideology of Nazi.
Ideologies are one of the important factor in shaping the societies. They lay down certain rules, principles and guide people in the desired directions.
Nazi ideology:- | Impact on society:- |
|
|
Discuss the main characteristics of Fascism. [2007, 60 Marks]
“Comparison of the fascist regime in Italy with the National Socialist regime of Germany is almost inevitable. The similarities are obvious, but there is one point of difference which is worth mentioning.” Comment. [1991, 20 Marks]
German Nazism and Italian Fascism had many similarities like both: | But there were significant differences between Fascism and Nazism - |
|
|
“The roots of the rise of Fascism lay in Peace Treaties.” Comment. [2003, 20 Marks]
That Italy turned to Fascism, may at first seems surprising, in view of the fact that the Italians emerged as victors after the First World War. Yet its difficulties were rooted in the problems that the war had done little to resolve. The demoralising and humiliating effects of the war gave rise to Fascism in Italy. The financial cost of Italian participation was over $ 15 billion.
Compared to Britain and France these sacrifices were far greater as Italy was a poor country. But, in the peace treaties during the division after the fighting the Italians got less than the expected. While Italy did receive most of the Austrian territories promised in the secret treaties, it was felt that these were inadequate for their valuable contributions and sacrifices made in the war.
Italy had joined the 1st WW on the side of Britain and France in 1915. She hoped to get large territories such as Terentino, Trieste, coastal regions of Dalmatia, Albania and some parts of Germany and Turkey after victory. But she received nothing from the Paris Peace Treaties. So a feeling developed among the Italians that they ‘had won the War, but lost the peace’. Italians felt cheated by their War-time Allies.
All of these factors contributed to the revolutionary mood in the country. In this situation, Mussolini leading an army of Fascist militia gained control of the Italian government. It was all the result of the humiliating effects of the peace treaties of the First World War and not because of the strength of Fascism.
The War had caused a great strain on Italy’s economy. Thousands of soldiers discharged from war were now unemployed. Steep rise in price and inflation. Food riots. It appeared as if Italy was heading towards a communist revolution, as had happened in Russia. So the capitalists in Italy gave financial support to Fascism. In the communist sponsored strikes, workers often broke machinery and captured the factories. There was a need for strong leadership to handle the crisis and Benito Mussolini provided it.
Mussolini dictatorship impact – Restoration of Law and Order (all parties except his banned). Economic Reforms and Prosperity. Boost to Italy as a great power.
“Extreme nationalism of the Fascist Variety has various faces in various countries, but it has everywhere certain common characteristics.” Comment. [1989, 20 Marks]
The origin of Fascism in Rome had changed the political discourse of the world in 20th century. With its extreme nationalism, Mussolini tried to create an army of people where everything were viewed from the prism of nationalism and every act done were related to it. Over a period of time this spread to other countries and is still relevant in today’s world after completion of 3 quarters of a century from its onset.
Hitler’s acts of nurturing Nazis, killing Jews, attacking communism etc. showed the extremeness of nationalism which other nations of the day could not match. Though Italy’s version were in other aspects like community to do agriculture, bringing rapid national development, Germany’s version were of asserting its supremacy in racial and military aspects.
After the World War 2, the Bolsheviks had shown another form of nationalism with different ideological aspects which had workers as its national identity. From defeating Germany to building satellite states around them, the extreme form of nationalism is evidently fuelled by the assertion of supremacy of the west, resulting in Cold War.
The Great Leap of Mao in China were also a form of nationalism where the communes wanted to elevate the country’s status and put it along with other powers and showed the aggressiveness in their work. This was an attempt using labour and in the process led to coercion and disastrous consequences.
The growth of RSS in post independent India is also an evidence of nationalism through religious aspirations.
Everywhere nationalism existed in extreme forms but its moderation to release the energies in a channelled way like a nuclear reactor would do greater benefit than sudden explosive activities.
Common Characteristics everywhere–
It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community.
Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.
Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.
To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community.
‘Corporate State’ was Mussolini’s answer to socio-political problems of his country. Elucidate. [1995, 60 Marks]
How Successful Was Mussolini In Solving The Social And Economic Problems He Inherited?
Corporations (a total of 13, 6 of them for businesses of different branches, 6 for workers of different branches, one for people of independent professions) were established by the decrees of the Minister for Corporations (Mussolini appointed himself as Minister for this position).
Fascist party promoted an economic approach called syndicalism, nominally private property was devoted to state purposes.
The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.
It is opposed to classical liberalism [or libertarianism, as it’s also called] that denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State...If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.
Mahatma Gandhi called Mussolini “one of the great statesmen of our time.” In the mid-1920s, Winston Churchill met Mussolini and said: “If I had been Italian, I am sure I would have been with you from the beginning.”
WW-I we know created economic crisis for Italy. Something had to be done quickly to restore stability in economy and for Mussolini to stay in power. Lenin’s war communism ruined what was left of the Russian economy, so Mussolini didn’t want to go down that road. Mussolini appointed Alberto De’ Stefani, a man with free market economic views, as his Minister of Finance. De’ Stefani simplified the tax code, cut taxes, curbed spending, liberalized trade restrictions and abolished rent controls. These policies provided a powerful stimulus. Between 1921 and 1925, the Italian economy grew more than 20 percent. Unemployment fell 77 percent.
What specifically is economic fascism?
Mussolini is credited with originating the totalitarian formula: “all is for the state, nothing is outside the state, nothing and no one are against the state.” Politicians know better than private citizens what should be done.
The government’s responsibility is to determine how much money is invested, how and where it should be invested and how the results will be judged. In Italy after 1925, all this was done through government-controlled cartels, such as the National Fascist Confederation of Industry, the National Fascist Confederation of Agriculture, the National Fascist Confederation of Commerce and the National Fascist Confederation of Banking.
Mussolini seemed to admire the German statesman Otto von Bismarck who famously remarked, “Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided, but by blood and iron.”
What was the impact of economic fascism?
Mussolini’s massive public works spending created government jobs and the illusion of prosperity, paid for with debt that skyrocketed. “On a table of European states, Italy lay 18th in caloric intake, perhaps the starkest of all indices of well-being. The most wretched conditions were to be found in rural Italy” – where most of the people lived.”
Hitler was “a creature flung to the top by the tides of revolutionary change, or the embodiment of the collective unconsciousness of a people obsessed with violence and death.” [1984, 20 Marks]
Like Lenin and Mussolini, Hitler came out of the blood and chaos of 1914-18, but of the three he was the strangest phenomenon. Lenin, while not know to the general public, had for many years before the Russian Revolution occupied a prominent place as leader and theoretician, of the Bolshevist party. Mussolini was a widely known Socialist editor, orator and politician before making his bid for power. Hitler was nothing, and from nothing he became everything to most Germans. Hitler was nothing in himself, only a symbol of the restless ambition of the German nation to dominate Europe.
Sixty-five million Germans yielded to the blandishments and magnetism of this slender man of medium height, with little black mustache and shock of dark hair, whose fervor and demagogy swept everything before him with outstretched arms as the savior and regenerator of the Fatherland.
It may be true that a mass movement, strongly nationalist, anti-Semitic, and radical, would have sprung up in Germany without Hitler. But so far as what actually happened is concerned - not what might have happened - the evidence seems to leave no doubt that no other man played a role in the Nazi revolution or in the history of the Third Reich remotely comparable with that of Adolf Hitler.
The conception of the Nazi Party, the propaganda with which it must appeal to the German people, and the tactics by which it would come to power - these were unquestionably Hitler's. After 1934 there were no rivals left and by 1938 he had removed the last checks on his freedom of action.
At the same time, from the re-militarization of the Rhineland to the invasion of Russia, he won a series of successes in diplomacy and war which established a hegemony over the continent of Europe comparable with that of Napoleon at the height of his fame. While these could not have been won without a people and an Army willing to serve him, it was Hitler who provided the indispensable leadership, the flair for grasping opportunities, the boldness in using them.
While it is true that a majority of the German people never voted for Hitler, it is also true that thirteen million did. Both facts need to be remembered.
Hitler, indeed, was a European, no less than a German phenomenon. The conditions and the state of mind which he exploited, the malaise of which he was the symptom, were not confined to one country, although they were more strongly marked in Germany than anywhere else. Hitler's idiom was German, but the thoughts and emotions to which he gave expression have a more universal currency.
The truth, seen only through a glass darkly, lies somewhere between the two schools of thought with a definite bias towards the former viewpoint. Hitler's role and his centrality were pivotal for the events that unfolded during the short-lived Third Reich, though it must be admitted that German culture provided fertile ground for its Führer.
Germany was thrice a united "empire" (Reich): 1st = Holy Roman Empire * (962-1806) 2nd = German Empire (1871-1918) 3rd = (Greater) German Empire ** (1933-1945).
Andreas Fritz Hillgruber (1925 – 1989) was a conservative German historian. For Hillgruber, there were many elements of continuity in German foreign policy in the 1871–1945 period, especially with regard to Eastern Europe.
What were the weaknesses and difficulties of the Weimer Republic? How did Hitler succeed in establishing his dictatorship? [2004, 60 Marks]
People did not have a preference for democracy. Democracy had only arrived in Germany in 1918 and it was immediately blamed for losing WWI (the first act of the democratic government was to sign the disastrous Versailles Treaty) as well as the hyperinflation of 1921-1923 and the mass unemployment of the beginning 30s.
The Weimar democracy was a poor example of democracy. There were so many splinter groups in parliament that nobody could ever agree on anything. Parties would ally in order to depose a government but then were unable to agree on an alternative candidate, leading to 5 general elections between 1930-1933. People were tired of voting. Also, the elections were not free, in the sense that Hitler's SA routinely positioned themselves outside polling places, preventing access or beating up people who might vote for other parties. There had been open street fights between Nazis and Communists since 1931 with at least 130 dead.
Since 1931, conservatives in the cabinet and the president, Hindenburg, had conspired to subvert the constitution and govern by decree, ignoring the will of parliament. The legislature was dead.
Some of the main factors that contributed to the failure and fall of the Weimar state –
Among the German people there was a consensus that Germany had been treated unfairly by the Treaty of Versailles – and that the Weimar government had meekly obeyed the will of foreign powers.
Reparations remained a divisive issue for the duration of the Weimar Republic.
Germany’s post-war constitution has shouldered much of the blame for the political instability of the 1920s. The men who drafted the constitution in 1919 created an executive presidency who had considerable emergency powers, allowing him to bypass or override the elected Reichstag.
Weimar’s electoral system and problems of minority government = Proportional voting filled the Reichstag with a number of smaller parties, many with membership and policies that were wholly sectional or regional. Hindered debate in the chamber and made passing legislation difficult.
Lingering militarism, nationalism and authoritarian political values. Military leaders like Paul von Hindenburg, who should have been disgraced into retirement by the defeat of 1918, remained as heroes and important political players in the new society.
The role of the German Army played a crucial role in the way that Germany was being run and controlled. With the new constitution the army was not revolutionised and therefore many of the army members were anti-Weimar and this showed in the way that they served the country, they would selectively 'choose' when to support the Weimar with violent situations. They mostly only acted against the left wing communist and they would turn a blind eye to the right winged attacks.
However, the weak Weimar was not the only reason for Hitler's rise to power.
The propaganda, Hitler's personal hobby and perhaps his strongest point". His use of fear and terror in the German population through groups such as SS, SA and Gestapo's all lead to the ultimate goal. Brainwashing of the German population.
The impact of the Great Depression and Hitler using it to serve purpose. He provided the reason for all problems of Germany –Allies, ToV, Communists, Jews. Hitler's philosophy of extreme German Nationalism was translated into the creation of the Nazi Movement whereby Hitler galvanised people into following his views and beliefs.
Article 48 (allowed curtailment of civil liberties, like the one in Reichstag fire used by Hitler against Communists) and Enabling Act led to fall of Republic and Rise of Dictatorship.
“There was an element of system in Hitler’s foreign policy. His outlook was continental.” Comment. [1995, 20 Marks] [AJP Taylor]
There was one element of system in Hitler’s foreign policy, though it was not new. His outlook was “continental”, as Stresemann’s had been before him.
Hitler did not attempt to revive the “World Policy” which Germany had pursued before 1914; he made no plans for a great battle-feet;
He did not parade a grievance over the lost colonies, except as a device for embarrassing the British;
He was not even interested in the Middle East – hence his blindness to the great opportunity in 1940 after the defeat of France..
He did not wish to destroy the British Empire, nor even to deprive the French of Alsace and Lorraine.
In return, he wanted the Allies to accept the verdict of January 1918; to abandon the artificial undoing of this verdict after November 1918; and to acknowledge that Germany had been victorious in the East. This was not a preposterous program. Many Englishmen, to say nothing of Milner and Smuts, agreed with it even in 1918; many more did so later;
Critically examine the main features of the foreign policy of Nazi Germany. [1982, 60 marks]
1933 - Germany left the League of Nations.
1934 - Attempted Nazi coup in Austria crushed. Poland and Germany sign alliance.
1935 - Germany broke the military clauses of the Treaty of Versailles
1936 - German troops reoccupied the Rhineland. Rome-Berlin Axis signed
1938 - Anschluss with Austria. Sudetenland handed to Germany as a result of the Munich conference.
1939 - Rest of the Czech lands occupied by the Germans. Germany invaded Poland. WWII began.
Analysis:
Hitler’s new foreign policy was influenced by belief in ‘Aryan Supremacy’. It aimed at driving out the ‘racially inferior’ people east of the Urals or enslave and exterminate them. It aimed at the acquisition of a vast new empire of "living space" (Lebensraum) in eastern Europe for Aryan Germans.
Germany followed a revisionist policy to overcome the restrictions and sanctions imposed on Germany by the Allied countries under treaty of Versailles. Germany withdrew from the League of Nations; began rapid Armament, signed non-aggression pact with Poland; re-acquired the Saar territory through the plebiscite and re-militarized the Rhineland.
Germany strengthened its ties to Fascist Italy and to Japan by signing the Anti-Comintern Pact, which aimed to combat international communism.
Expansionist Policy: Nazi under the leadership of Hitler used their full strength to acquire new territories around the Germany and took the benefits of ‘appeasement policy’ of Britain and France. They showed aggression to each enemy and opposed Communism openly. Hitler signed non-aggression pact with the Soviet and this gave him the opportunity to annex Austria, Sudetenland and ultimately invasion of Poland, which resulted in World War II.
How did the policy of appeasement escalate the problem of Nazi aggrandizement (अतिकथन)? [2011, 30 Marks]
The Nazi problem traces its root when in 1934, Hitler formally took over the command of Germany as its President and Chancellor. He openly defied the League of Nations and remilitarized the Rhine area despite clearly forbidden by the treaty of Versailles and ‘Locarno peace pact’. He withdrew from the disarmament conference of Geneva and started raising its army strength vigorously.
The Great Britain and France however could not stop the Nazi aggrandizement at this early stage due to their own differences on Germany. The France on one hand wanted Germany to be completely destroyed by treaty of Versailles and wanted no economic recovery for it, whereas Britain was interested in revival of her trade for which Germany was her best customer. The diametrically opposite views of Germany neutralized them towards the aggression of Hitler. Also, Stalinist Russia was on the rise, so appeasement was thought to be pertinent to check spread of communism.
The policy of appeasement further continued when Hitler along with Mussolini supported the fascist government in Spain with their military might. The appeasement was at its height when even after Hitler’s annexation of Austria and major parts of Czecho-Slovakia, Britain through the treaty of Munich, allowed him to annexation.
The chief reasons cited for this inactive politics and diplomacy was the inability of France and Britain to again going to the battlefield after the disaster of the First World War. The rearmament was not yet completed and certain internal problems in France were keeping it aloof to the Nazi aggression.
Hence, the economic and military compulsions along with the desire to prevent the world from another disaster of World War, compelled the Victors of First World War to pursue the policy of appeasement towards Nazi aggrandizement. However, with the Hitler’s attack on Poland, the policy was reversed and full scale war began.
Added to it, Anglo German Naval Pact, Anti-Comintern Pact and Rome Berlin Axis also fuelled Nazi aggrandizement.
“Hitler did not really want a world War. His intention was only a short war with Poland.” (A. J. P. Taylar). Comment. [2009, 20 Marks]
The invasion of Poland was likely not intended to start a major war. Of course we can never be sure of what anybody thinks, but not only did Hitler claim not to want a major war, wanting a major war is in itself a quite strange thing to do.
Most likely Hitler wanted to just annex half of Poland undisturbed.
He had already annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, and met only feeble protests. He probably thought he had a good chance for that happening with Poland as well. He also saw Britain and France as weak and unprepared and therefore probably thought they would not declare war.
The worst case scenario for him was that France and Britain would declare war, but he thought he could win such a war fairly easily. And up until his attempt to get air superiority over Britain failed, it looked like he was right.
So he probably thought, or at least hoped, that Britain and France would not declare war. And he thought that even if they did, he could beat them. That was the extent to which he expected a war when he invaded Poland in 1939. I don't think anyone expected that invasion to snowball into the huge war that it did.
Now, what his intention with attacking the Soviet Union was is another matter.
“Until December 1941 the battlefield of the Second World War was exclusively European and Atlantic; thereafter it became also Asiatic and Pacific.” Comment. [2000, 20 Marks]
The December of 1941 radically altered America and its global role.
The Japanese military faced a particular tactical problem [1930s] in that certain critical raw materials — especially oil and rubber — were not available within the Japanese sphere of influence. Instead, Japan received most of its oil from the United States and rubber from British Malaya, the very two Western nations trying to restrict Japan's expansion.
The Americans were angry at the Japanese for their invasions of first Manchuria (1931), then China (1937), and later French Indochina (1940). After the Japanese moved into Indochina, President Roosevelt ordered a trade embargo on American scrap steel and oil, on which the Japanese military depended. But the American people felt that Asia was far away, and a large majority of voters did not want to go to war to stop Japan. The surprise attack on the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 changed this, outraging the whole U.S. nation and convincing it that it must stop the Japanese army and navy.
Simultaneously, Japan initiated the Southern Expansion, launching massive invasion aimed at the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, Malaya, Hong Kong, Thailand, and Midway Island.
Japan's military invasions of other Asian countries, however, brought resistance from not only the European colonial powers, but also the Asian people themselves, and finally, the United States.
In a way it could be said that Japan actually defeated itself.
Could Adolf Hitler have been deterred from Launching WWII?
Viewpoint: Yes, Great Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States could have successfully contained Adolf Hitler by military and political means
While treaties at the end of World War I for the most part limited the defeated powers to the European mainland, Britain and France maintained global empires, leading to conflict between the two.
The United States did not enter into the League of Nations, raising serious doubts about the legitimacy of that body.
Similarly, the Soviet Union exhibited isolationist tendencies, as Soviet premier Joseph Stalin labored to solidify his control over the country.
Viewpoint: No, Adolf Hitler could not have been stopped from initiating World War II because neither France nor Great Britain had the commitment or capability to thwart him
During the 1930s the British military had a twofold problem: first, it remained small and relatively weak in comparison to Germany; and second, its primary duty was to protect the empire. Having no conscription system, the British government used volunteers to fill its army, and as a result, was unable to raise large numbers.
The French military situation was just as dire (low military conscripts and low birth rates).
German military strength increased exponentially from 1933 to 1939.
What led to the formation of the Berlin-Rome Tokyo axis? Indicate its impact on international politics. [1986, 60 Marks]
A most important step in the military features of the German plan was the signing on 25 and 26 October, 1936, of a treaty with protocols, between Germany and Italy, which together formed the origin of the now famous Rome-Berlin Axis. Prior to 1935, Italy had sided politically with Great Britain and France. As late as 1934 she was hostile to German expansion in Austria. A change occurred in 1935, caused by Italy engaging in a war to conquer Ethiopia. Unexpectedly, the British at once showed great displeasure. For Italy, the alliance promised support in case of a major war, and an end to her then political isolation. For Germany it meant that her south boundary was protected. It thereby released German troops for use in other theatres of operation.
Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact on November 25, 1936. The Anti-Comintern Pact was directed toward the activities of the Communist International. The two signatories promised to "keep each other informed concerning the activities of the Communist International," to "confer upon the necessary measures for defence," and to "carry out such measures in close cooperation." One year later Italy adhered to the Anti-Comintern Pact. This event in effect extended the already-established Rome-Berlin Axis to Tokyo, and signalized the alliance of the three totalitarian powers.
This pact emphasized the ideological union of Germany, Italy and Japan against the spread of communism.
The "Rome–Berlin Axis" became a military alliance in 1939 under the so-called "Pact of Steel", with the Tripartite Pact of 1940 leading to the integration of the military aims of Germany, Italy and Japan.
What led to the Tripartite Pact in 1940? What was the weakness of Japan-Germany alliance compared to strength of the Allied?
Hitler, who was hardly known for his qualms of conscience or honesty, suddenly ripped up the Anti-Comintern Pact and concluded a surprise treaty with Russia. For Japan it was the worst diplomatic kick in the teeth she had experienced in her modern history. Japan's chief fear was that if Russia were relieved of anxiety in Europe, she would strengthen her East Asia front and would thus be a new and greater threat to Japan in the Orient.
On 22 May 1939, the German Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and his Italian counterpart, Count Galeazzo Ciano, signed the Pact of Friendship and Alliance, more commonly known as the "Pact of Steel." The world perceived this, Pact of Steel to be an alliance bent on dominating its neighbors.
This totalitarian menace saw its ultimate expression with the signing of the Tripartite Pact in 1940 between Germany, Italy, and Japan -- known as the Axis powers. On the surface, the Axis appeared to be an alliance bent on world conquest.
But Japan and Germany very largely fought their own wars and joined forces to a minor degree. Germany, determined to conquer all of Europe and adjacent areas, wanted to get Japan into the war as a means of further weakening Great Britain (and subsequently the Soviet Union), and of diverting American attention to the Pacific. Germany did not have immediate ambitions in the Far East, so had nothing to lose by drawing Japan into the conflict. She hoped, moreover, that Japanese conquest of British and Dutch territories in the Far East would open up supplies of rubber and other raw materials, at that time denied to her. Japan had no ambitions in Europe and did not expect to participate in the war in that area, but she did wish to take advantage of Britain's plight to satisfy her own designs in East.
The Allied on other hand had similar interests, were geographically closer, and fought war on same front.
Show how the Spanish Civil War a prelude to World War II. [1991, 60 Marks]
The Spanish Civil War was fought between the fascist Francisco Franco and his supporters and the already-established republic, which was a left-leaning government. The fascists and conservatives [Nationalists] were funded with cash and supplies by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy while the republic [Coalition ~ anti-Catholic and anti-Monarchist] was supported by the United States and the USSR.
It was called a "Proxy War", because it was the first time there was armed conflict between fascists and communists/democratic nations. It was also considered a proxy war because for the first time, the weapons of the 20th century were used in a real combat situation. It was the first time that tanks and covered airplanes (non-open cockpit aircraft) were used. Finally, the last reason why it is called a proxy war is because the conflict caused much tension in Europe between the different nations funding various factions. It also decreased US-Spanish relations since many Americans had gone overseas to fight on both sides.
Germany basically gives the Nationalists, led by Generalissimo Francisco Franco, everything they need to win, from Aeroplanes to Tanks to loans, whereas the Soviet Union bleeds the Republicans dry for all the assistance they buy from them—unsurprisingly, The Nationalists win.
Afterwards, Hitler begins making territory demands, including reuniting Germany with Austria and annexing the Sudentenland (part of Czechoslovakia). Initially, the Allies gave him what he wanted, but after breaking a promise to not annex the rest of Czechoslovakia and making further claims on Poland, they warned him that continuing would mean war. When Germany declares war on Poland, Britain declares war on Germany and France makes an uninspiring declaration of war on Germany as well.
Someday or the other anger will vent out: Spain’s 2008 debt crisis = that moment.
Under the military government of Francisco Franco, from 1939-1975, Catalan culture was suppressed. Symbols of Catalan identity such as the castells, or human towers, were prohibited and parents were forced to choose Spanish names for their children. The Catalan language was also restricted.
One of the most important consequences of the Second World War was “division of Europe”, eastern and western. Comment. [1998, 20m] [2002, 20 Marks]
The end of WW-II gave rise to two superpowers that is, USA and USSR. As these two superpowers were having two entirely different political and economic systems viz. capitalism and socialism, the whole Europe was also divided along these lines.
The division of Europe into eastern and western zones started with Yalta and Potsdam conferences which divided Germany and Austria into four zones each. As the cold war rivalry intensified communist governments were established by USSR in all eastern European Countries. The Western European countries came under the influence of USA after it initiated Truman doctrine and Marshall Plan.
Later on, in 1949 three west controlled zones of Germany united and declared themselves as a new nation 'West Germany'. The Russian controlled zone also declared itself as a new nation after few months called 'East Germany'.
To challenge the economic policy of USA the USSR started its economic plan known as Molotov Plan to support economic development of east European Countries. A political Union Cominform was also formed to support communist movements in other countries of Europe.
This cold war rivalry got further intensified after Berlin Blockade (1949). To protect West European countries from Russian Aggression, USA formed a military organisation called NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). All west European countries joined it. To counter this military challenge USSR formed a military pact with east European countries known as Warsaw Pact (1955).
The final Culmination of European division reflected in erection of Berlin War in 1962.
Thus, it can be said that the division of Europe into Eastern and Western was the most important consequence of the end of Second World War.
0 Comments