You have taken a look at two documents, each of which was designed as the blueprint of the world order to be established in the wake of the First World War. The 14 Points of President Wilson were publicized while the war was still raging, its outcome being far from determined. The Treaty of Versailles, with the articles of which you had a chance to familiarize yourselves, was signed with Germany defeated and its allies (Bulgaria being the exception) fully erased from the European map.
Which of the two blueprints seemed, in your opinion, as embowering an opportunity for achieving a goal it set for itself - presumably, one of the lasting peace? Here you have to distinguish the issue of fairness from that of feasibility - i.e. treatment deemed as fair does not necessarily appear among the available options, as states (just as people) find themselves often moved and motivated by considerations other than justice (vengeance, for instance).
You might decide that none of the documents contained provisions for the lasting peace. In that case you are free to offer your own arrangement which might have indeed worked better than the solutions stemming from the seasoned diplomats.
What principle difference between these speech and these contract?
ReplyDeleteI find difference only in concept, not in content. Both document call up fairness and justice. However, in both document only one have real point for the lasting peace – it is reduction of armaments.
All points in really is not justice, because for one country further position is fairness, when at the same time the same position for another country is breach of his fairness. My opinion is that these contracts were only a temporary arrangement for the purpose to everybody calmed down for a short time. As a result, it received only temporary calm.
…
Firstly, I wanted to say that it was necessary to prevent the autonomy of Germany, but I forgot, that Germany would require investments and care. Moreover, this country would be resisted! Thus, I change position and agree with both documents. Suddenly. However, these documents are not for the lasting peace. Both were preparing for future action, and the consolidation of peace must be realized after these actions.
My conclusion is funny: It was not the World War I and the World War II. It was the first part of World War of the XX century and the second part of World War of the XX century.
I cannot help noticing the bias in Wilson's Fourteen Points in favour of USA self-seeking economic purposes. The provisions relating to the freedom of the seas and removal of economic barriers could not accidentially appear at the begging of the proposal. Recollect how US had entered the war: several ships of her navy had been demolished by Germans. Secondly, the first provision about the open diplomacy and the last one which trumpeted the US' intention of supporting the creation of an Association of Nations were not kept afterwards: US refused to involve in the League of Nations. Actually, the motives behind the first five provisions seem to be referring to the fair conceptions, meanwhile lacking details in terms of feasibility. OK, assume for an instant that we have aggregated sufficient determination to unfold open democracy and to reduce the armaments. How specifically do we go about putting these plans into being? In this sense one could scarcely conceive of Wilson's proposal as a comprehensive blueprint which would succeed in the establishment of an enduring armistice. The rest items of the proposal are somewhat more interesting and detailed but I deem them as those which would natually have occured to the sound diplomatic mind, for they exactly represent issues which were responsible for the outbreak of WWI in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFeasibility of the agenda offered by the Treaty of Versailles is beyond doubt, for the treaty was signed and came into play, but, I think, it was unjust as regards the magnitude of the punitive measures imposed upon Germany. It is indeed indisputable that Germany was the major military agency on the side of the Central Powers, but it does not follow that she alone must be held responsible for all the casualties resulted from the war. Obliging Germany to pay humongous reparations, annexing portions of her territory delivered a resounding blow to the German nationalist pride, devastated the state economically, brought poverty and the feeling of resentment to the German people, setting up the environment for the ensuing creation and rise of the Nazi party. Substantially curtailing the German armament contributed to the drive for seeking an alternative and far more formidable weaponry, such as rocket-powered ballistic missiles V-2, of which no mention was made in the Treaty. These humiliations introduced by the Treaty were difficult to swallow. It is pretty questionable, but, in my opinion, if it had been possible to change the provisions of the Treaty so that they would imply the restoration of the Germany condition prior to war, the appearance of Hitler and the outburst of WWII would have been avoided.
Firstly I have to say that both documents by my opinion, they cannot become a guarantor of peace.
ReplyDeleteThe Treaty of Versailles made too limited rights Germans can even say almost made them enemies all over the world (Articles 228-230 announce many other German war criminals). And how then can exist peace between the countries if one country for earlier deprived of rights and in the eyes of the whole world looks like a villain.
The 14 Points of President Wilson was written a little better but this project leaves many questions (For example: Points 9 and 11). I think these unpleasant moments can be manipulated or interpreted in different ways in the year you are one of the sides.
It is difficult to say how look should like a peace treaty. But I think that not one of them does not fit, but on the other hand, I think if they could find golden mean in both projects we could find a way to keep the peace. But if there should be a mechanism for the maintenance of peace it must based on three pillars:
First back the boundaries to their rightful owners, and then to find a peaceful way to preserve neutrality and borders
Second try not to infringe on the rights of the losers
Thirdly provide full support to war-affected countries (both economically and materially)
I believe that punishment declared by the Treaty of Versailles is too much for Germany. If our task is to use such categories as 'fairness' or 'justice', then I must say that making Germany the responsible one, for all damage and destruction, is not fair at all. Europe as a whole should be guilty, that would be fair, and I don't see that in this treaty, I don't see an attempt to bring peace to Europe. I don't really find myself qualified enough to decide what would serve as a better way for establishing peace in Europe, but I think it is certainly not the Treaty of Versailles.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the idea, that "Treaty of Versailles" was not the blueprint of the world order or lasting peace. As said Ferdinand Foch "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". And we know, that his words were prophetic. Or not? Can we tell, that some of the reason, why ultra-right have become popular in Germany, is "Treaty of Versailles"?
ReplyDeleteAnd the biggest problem of Speech of Wilson or "Treaty of Versailles" is their goal is to get the maximum benefit, but not a justice. I'm not trying to justify Germany, but the peace treaty, should not be the solution of personal goals winners. Moreover, it seems to me, the very concept of "treaty" in the case of winners and losers is not a peace treaty, it is the justification of the aggressor through punishment. And a notion of justice in this case very conditional.