The Great War was one of total destruction from industrialized warfare, claiming the lives of millions, turning lush acres into wastelands, and deteriorating the moral and mental health of people all across Europe. As a result of the harsh realities and trauma of World War I, a seed of pessimism and cynicism was planted throughout a now desecrated Europe. This led to major political shifts, giving rise to various clashing ideologies of how Europe should be shaped moving forward. To try and prevent wars from ever nearing the same level of terror, supporters of the new democratic and liberal ideals sought to create a world order centered around lasting peace through different international organizations and agreements. Unfortunately, due to the pervasive reach the devastation of WWI had throughout European society, economically, politically, and culturally, lasting peace failed, and the region once again fell into bloody conflict with militarized nationalists and fascists brutally carving the way. However, if the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations were intended to guarantee that no such conflict would ever take place again, how and why did Europe slide into another war in 1939?<\/p>\n
In this essay, I will argue that Europe\u2019s political leadership, in constructing the post-WWI system of international diplomacy and peace building, sowed the seeds of conflict at its very inception. Although the Treaty of Versailles spelled out the rules for a more peaceful and cooperative international system of diplomacy, it also put the weight of the war on post-imperial Germany\u2019s proverbial shoulders, a decision the world would soon come to regret. However, the new liberal democracies were not always able to reflect the interests and needs of the communities they served, as issues of political gridlock and the collapse of the economy under the free-market capitalist system sent Europe\u2019s citizens into depression and disillusionment. In the face of these failures, various violent illiberal challengers emerged onto the political scene, marketing their movements as the \u201csolutions\u201d to the crises of democracy and capitalism, including fascist Italian leader Benito Mussolini and egocentric Nazi F\u00fchrer Adolf Hitler. Consequently, it was this combination of announcing Germany as the sole perpetrator of WWI, the political and economic failures of newly established democratic institutions, the rise in appeal for authoritarian and fascist leadership, and the lack of action by the League of Nations to protect peace and oppose illiberal political leaders, which paved the path to WWII.<\/p>\n
To understand why the proposed liberal and democratic systems for peace failed, the historical context of Europe pre-WWI is imperative. During the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, tensions between European nations were on the rise due to the second industrial revolution, as \u201cthe European powers raced each other to increase their domination of the globe.\u201d Specifically, major European countries such as Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany, were all seeking to expand their territory through imperialism to extract the raw materials necessary for industrial competition. The rapid development of new technological advancements, such as industrial machinery and automobiles, not only changed the physical world but also social and diplomatic norms. As a result, \u201cdifferent imperial rivalries [began] to organize military alliances\u201d in an attempt to peacefully keep the balance of power in check. The idea of this alliance system was similar to present-day NATO, in which, should an enemy country invade an ally, the system would be triggered, requiring allied nations to come to the aid of the invaded nation. However, due to the growing unease between European powers and their efforts to protect national interests, and the rise in the public\u2019s support of militant nationalism, this alliance system was established on shaky ground. In fact, German Baron von Holstein, accurately foreshadowed that \u201camong the Great Powers these [interests] will not necessarily coincide with the maintenance of peace, but rather with the hostile policy of enemies and rivals.\u201d Consequently, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by a Serbian nationalist gave reason for Austro-Hungary to invade Yugoslavia. Although this move was supported by Austro-Hungary\u2019s ally Germany, who invaded Russia, it knocked over the first domino of the alliance system, and in 1914 Europe fell into a bitter gruesome war.<\/p>\n
Surprisingly, the tone of the public was not one of fear but of great nationalistic pride, to be going to war. Despite the divide between the Central Powers, with Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire on one side, and the Allied Powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia, on the other, this feeling was universal. One account from French writer Roland Dorgel\u00e8s, remembers the day of mass mobilization where \u201cyoung and old, civilian and military men burned with the same excitement. It was like Brotherhood Day.\u201d The power of patriotism was overwhelming in uniting the people of all socioeconomic classes and political affiliations, into equal citizens of the state prepared to honor one’s country on the battlefield, even though death. In fact, \u201cthe supporters for the war seemed to be in great majority.\u201d However, this enthusiasm was short-lived, as the realities of industrialized warfare were grimly revealed. The use of gas had many soldiers dying painful deaths from asphyxiation, while artillery weaponry tore apart the enlisted men, their humanity, and the land. The trauma and horrors of the war were so impactful that one former soldier wrote \u201cthe old Lie: Dulce et decorum est pro Patria Mori,\u201d which translates to it is sweet and honorable to die for the fatherland.<\/p>\n
Despite the total destruction of the war, some members of the international community remained engendered to search for rays of hope. In fact, on January 8th, 1918, then President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson delivered his infamous Fourteen Point speech, proposing for peace without victory to a joint session of Congress, which would become \u201cthe blueprint for European peace implicit in the Treaty of Versailles.\u201d In this speech \u201cfree trade, open covenants of peace, democracy, and the self-determination of all nations,\u201d were foundational points of Wilson\u2019s vision for a new system of international order. The implementation of these ideals was to guarantee peace and prevent wars like the Great War from ever taking place again. In addition, the establishment of a global diplomatic organization, known as the League of Nations, was to maintain that peace. Although the Treaty of Versailles outlined the League of Nation\u2019s alliance system, in Article 11, where any threat of war on a member state would trigger all members of the League to respond with action, and agreed to handle disputes between member states diplomatically in Article 12, the Treaty veered off course from what Wilson\u2019s speech outlined.<\/p>\n
Whereas Wilson\u2019s speech centered around the importance of sovereignty, freedom, and international cooperation through economics for a more peaceful Europe, the Treaty of Versailles blamed Germany as the sole aggressor for the entirety of the war and imposed extremely harsh consequences. In fact, Article 231 explicitly said Germany was to \u201caccept the responsibility \u2026for causing all the loss and damage\u2026of the war\u2026.\u201d Additionally, Germany was excluded from joining the League of Nations, was required to renounce all territories claimed during the war, was to reduce their military, and \u201cmake compensation for all damage[s],\u201d which cost 132 billion German marks. While this treaty was intended to establish the foundations for lasting peace, the \u201cwar guilt\u201d clause paradoxically precipitated the flames of anger and bitterness which would eventually engulf Germany and the world.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this was the first of many failures to arise within democratic and liberal institutions in the 1920s and 30s. Liberal democratic governments were a novelty to Europe since, before the early 20th century, monarchies ruled over the region both politically and economically. The sudden change in the political system, where people of all socioeconomic backgrounds had an equal voice in shaping the future of a nation, gave rise to an excessive number of political parties. Consequently, the combination of the innumerable parties and their opposing socio-political beliefs, led to the immobilization of political gridlock, \u201cmagnifying rather than resolving the bitter social, national, and economic tensions in society at large.\u201d All of these cracks in the democratic systems were then compounded by the crash of the liberal capitalist system\u2019s stock market and onset of the Great Depression in 1929. This hit Germany especially hard since the nation was already struggling with its own costs of the war, and the global bill the Treaty of Versailles imposed upon Germany only added to its economic instability and expedited the disillusionment of the public. The destruction, destitution, and grief of the war had an inexorable impact on the minds and morale of the people, leaving them to believe that \u201cthere is no thinking man\u2026who can hope to dominate this anxiety, to escape from this impression of darkness.\u201d This disillusionment was not a feeling confined to Germany but was felt throughout Europe. People were living in a \u201cperiod when the vital relations of humanity [were] disturbed profoundly,\u201d and had therefore lost faith in the liberal democratic and capitalistic systems which were supposed to pull them out of despair through stability and hope. It was from this weakness and desperation that illiberal political groups were able to take root across Europe because they were shrewdly advertised as the only solution.<\/p>\n
Although the rise of illiberal political movements spread throughout all of Europe, they were the most successful in Italy and Germany. In Italy, former soldier Benito Mussolini believed the liberal institutions, led by the \u201cold windbags,\u201d were fracturing the domestic sphere, and argued the need for the rebirth and reunification of Italy under fascism. Mussolini asserted that \u201cthe Fascist State is unique\u2026it is not reactionary, but revolutionary, in that it anticipates the solution of the universal political problems which elsewhere have to be settled in the political field by the rivalry of parties, the successive power of the Parliamentary regime and the irresponsibility of political assemblies.\u201d The promise to alleviate the economic and social struggles of the people through militant nationalism, collectivism, syndicalism, and imperialism, influenced the people of Italy to accept fascism and reject democracy, even if it meant following the lead of a violent dictator. Consequently, in front of Parliament, and after murdering political rival Giacomo Matteotti a few months earlier, Mussolini declared himself the dictator of Italy on January 3, 1924.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in Germany, the economic conditions during the Great Depression were in such shambles, with hyperinflation reaching 4.2 billion German marks for every US dollar, that the people were completely demoralized and desperate for a solution. This imminently led to the rejection of democracy and rise of nationalism within Germany, specifically Adolf Hitler\u2019s national socialist Nazi Party. This form of nationalism, argued that \u201cthe supposed will of the people in a parliamentary democracy, merely reflects the conflict of the various social interests, [whereas] the true will of the people in the F\u00fchrer-state, [is where] the collective will of the real political unit is manifested.\u201d Although, Germany took protecting its national interests further than Italy by incorporating Hitler\u2019s propaganda of the \u201cbig lie\u201d: the absurd claim that the global Jewish population was responsible for Germany\u2019s hardships and economic destitution, and therefore required retribution through extermination. By providing a scapegoat for which the German public could place total blame, and mesmerizing the public through his captivating speeches, Hitler quickly rose to power as the F\u00fchrer, the supreme authority of Germany.<\/p>\n
In addition to this disillusionment of the public\u2019s view of democracy, both Mussolini and Hitler were furious at how the liberal international community treated their respective nations regarding territory lost post-WWI during the Treaty of Versailles. Even though Italy fought alongside the winners, the Allied Forces, and was promised territories as spoils from the war, the Treaty of Versailles denied Italy the right to incorporate Dalmatia. In Italy\u2019s eyes, this was a backhanded decision that greatly \u201cangered nationalists and irredentists, who believed Italy was \u201cowed\u201d these territories.\u201d As a result, Italy regarded WWI as a mutilated victory. As for Germany, the punishment for aligning with the Central Powers was much more severe. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was required to relinquish the territories of Poland, Czecho-Slovak, and Austria, and recognize them as sovereign states, as well as return Alsace and Lorraine to France. This was a humiliating blow to Germany\u2019s position within the global hierarchy. As a result, the decisions of the Versailles Treaty to deny territorial claims to both Italy and Germany inevitably placed a strain on the liberal views of peace in the League of Nations.<\/p>\n
Consequently, in a bid to regain international status as a great power and restore Italy\u2019s honor, Mussolini sent troops to invade fellow League member Ethiopia, in 1935, to expand Italy\u2019s colonial empire. This blatant violation of the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations\u2019 rules should have resulted in immediate action from other League members to come to the aid of Ethiopia. However, as the traumas of WWI were still fresh, League nations wanted to avoid violent confrontations. Instead, the League imposed economic sanctions on Italy, although not all members complied. The League\u2019s failure to protect the liberal democratic world order sent a blatant message to dictators, that the international organization was reluctant to militarily enforce its agreements. To test this assumption and unify a \u201cGreater Germany,\u201d Hitler invaded and then annexed Austria in 1938, believing that \u201cpeople of the same blood should be in the same Reich.\u201d Although this was in clear violation of the Versailles Treaty, Hitler was met without much opposition from the liberal democracies of Britain and France, and invaded Czechoslovakia\u2019s German-speaking territory, Sudetenland, next. Again, the League failed to take forceful action against the belligerent Germany. Instead, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain chose appeasement, arguing that it was the \u201cbest hope for peace in our time,\u201d believing Germany would stop it\u2019s territorial expansion. However, this consistent lack of action only reinforced Hitler\u2019s resolve to continue his violent pursuit of acquiring European territories. It wasn\u2019t until Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, that the democratic nations finally took a stand, and the world fell into war once again.<\/p>\n
From the immense loss, grief, and destruction that WWI had on all of Europe, it is understandable why initial steps were taken to reshape the world order in 1918, through the Treaty of Versailles and creation of the League of Nations as an attempt to guarantee peace. However, major mistakes were made within those liberal democratic agreements and institutions. Firstly, Germany should not have been blamed as the sole perpetrator of WWI, because many belligerent nations were involved, and it only worsened Germany\u2019s economic and social instability. As a result, it planted the first seed of cynicism towards democratic institutions and was left to fester. Additionally, the dramatic failure of the capitalist system which led to the Great Depression, further infected the European public with doubt and disillusionment, slowly breaking down the Versailles order. This allowed illiberal political parties to fill the holes left by the insufficiency of liberal democratic institutions, giving rise to militant nationalism and fascism. However, it was the idleness of the League of Nations against these violent political leaderships and its willingness to compromise on its own founding principles, which caused the democratic global order to crumble, and forced the world into war for a second time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Great War was one of total destruction from industrialized warfare, claiming the lives of millions, turning lush acres into wastelands, and deteriorating the moral […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2112,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[359],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-chapter-3-defying-versailles"],"yoast_head":"\n