paper 3: diplomacy in europe

france sought alliances with successor states (poland, czechoslovakia)

defended british empire, liked LoN, wanted to keep Germany good for trade

weaken german military + economy, wanted alsace-lorraine, though lloyd-george was weak - “this is an armistice for 20 years”

14 point-plan, self determination, US democracy abroad, poor negotiator, wanted to set up LoN

high reperations for germany, loss of industrial land, pressure to settle fast bcs fear of revolution, political vacuum in europe, russia absent

ottoman empire dissolved, no reparations, military restrictions, sparked a war over harshness, laussane signed in 1923 (less harsh + more cooperation)

limited army, AH dissolved, 60% of land lost, hyperinflation, productive land lost, “head without a body”

treaty was too harsh economically → would lead to political instability - directly involved

treaty was not excessively harsh on germany, territorially or economically - criticised for downplaying role of ideology

austria was treated unfairly - left dependent on other nations until 1930 - (possibly biased towards austria)

laussane was “the crime of the century” because of seperation of armenians - biased as he is of armenian descent

sevres and laussane was “high point of Entente ambitions after WW1” - ended up being unreasonable - criticised for relying too much on British and French sources

aaland islands 1921, war of the stray dog 1925, health organisation (typhus 1920)

corfu 1923, manchuria 1931, abyssinia 1935 (hoare-laval pact 1935)

absence of major power (Germany, Russia, USA), unanimous voting, no army

largest successor state, ethnic and political tensions between serbs and croats, allied with france in 1920s, then allied with Axis in 1930s (germany 1936)

lost industry - relied on agriculture, civil war with private armies, economic and political issues increased tensions, dollfuss banned austrian nazis - killed in coup 1934

vulnerable to germany, ethnic tensions

LoN was hasty utopian scheme → bitter disillusionment - criticsed for downplaying ideology and ignoring small states

“the whole international atmosphere will change” - thought LoN would institutionalise collective security - only failed because of lack of commitment

LoN was important and useful for modern politics, idealism

Chamberlain underestimated Hitler, Britain wasn’t ready for war

Chamberlain not to blame - Hitler didn’t predict war so how could Chamberlain?, appeasement was rational and responsible

Marxist historian, appeasement used to maintain status quo - class system, Hitler fully responsible for WW2