From IBDP May 2013 History PAPER 2 TZ2
Compare and Contrast
the factors that helped and hindered attempts at collective security in the 10
years after each World War
Looking at the post-war
periods (1919-1929 and 1945-1955) it becomes clear that the efforts and factors
that helped and hindered the attempts made at collective security are directly
linked to Germany. Hence, this essay shall analyse the attempts at collective
security made, ye recognizing the significance of Germany indirectly conveyed
by the given time frames within this question. Mainly economic and political
factors influenced collective security, therefore the following essay is
structured accordingly.
Beginning with attempts at
collective security as a result of the First World War, one must clearly begin
with the Paris peace treaties of 1919 and 1920. Clearly the Treaty of
Versailles, being the most known amongst these, must be dealt with in more
detail. Why is it that French Ferdinand Foch described it as: “This is not
peace. This is an armistice for 20 years.”? Its significance is due to the fact
that it dealt with Germany – the most difficult candidate to handle after the
war: Was she to blame or not? How harsh should the consequences be? These were
the questions that led to the main disagreements among the three leading discussers
(French Clemenceau, British Lloyd George and American Wilson) who were aiming
to prevent a proximate German revolt yet leaving room for it to rebuild itself,
while simultaneously establishing conditions that would help collective
security within the coming time. It is clearly the agreements of Versailles –
dealing with Germany – that were most crucial in the influence on collective
security in the coming years not the treaty of St. Germain dealing with Austria
or Neuilly dealing with Bulgaria, yet which were also attempts at helping the
establishment of conditions for collective security.
Clearly all attempts to help collective security 1919-1929 were related
to Germany. The financial aid that it was supplied with was the only effort of
the US in European aid through the Dawes Plan of 1924 and the Young plan of
1929. The political agreements also related to German such as the Rapallo
treaty, where Germany itself attempted to help collective security by improving its relationship with Russia
through releasing tension from the imposed ideas of Brest-Litovsk. Just as the
Locarno Treaty of 1925 focussing on Germany being treated equally, which is
often seen as the ‘climax of fulfilment’ and a step towards world peace. The
Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 which renounced to the use of aggression in the
solving of political conflicts was immediately signed by Germany which clearly
focussed on previous German actions such as WWI and the Franco-Prussian war.
However, one could possibly argue that the highlighted focus on Germany
was simply a result of the fact that it was blamed for the war and was forced
to pay incredible reparations (articles 231 & 232 of the Versailles Treaty)
and that these were not always the attempts to help collective security but
attempts to support Germany. The really significant events affecting collective
security were related to the League of Nations which Germany only joined in
1926! Events such as the plebiscite of the Aaland Islands of 1920 (helping
collective security) or Corfu of 1923 (hindering collective security through
showing the league’s and Europe’s weaknesses) are significant aspects of
collective security between 1919 and 1929. On the other hand French historian
André Le Breton would potentially argue that it was the Ruhr invasion of 1929
which in his words is “the key event of collective security in the interwar
period”, that must be looked at more closely. It was an event clearly hindering
collective security, but interestingly again is also directly linked to Germany
and the Treaty of Versailles. This is because Le Breton refers to the invasion
of 70,000 French and Belgian troops of the Ruhr area in January 1923 as a
result of Germany not paying its reparation fees agreed upon in Versailles. One
can certainly debate Germany’s affect on collective security yet one can see
that all the events mentioned in the above are political or economic efforts
made but frequently not aiming directly at affecting collective security,
rather than aiming at a more directed and narrow purpose. The U.S. wanting to
support the German recovery or the French wanting to punish Germany for not
paying its fees has more selfish purposes, rather than being aimed at affecting
collective security. However it can be agreed upon, that even if events affecting
collective security were not based on Germany within the given time frame, it
certainly played a very significant role in determining and affecting it.
As to collective security after WWII, the time frame therefore being
1945 to 1955 also initiates with a conference dealing with Germany – the
Potsdam Conference of July to August 1945. Throughout this period it can be
seen how Germany was seen as a “power vacuum” in Europe and how this was a
clear factor affecting collective security after the war. When looking at the
Potsdam conference, one must look at the Yalta conference of February 1945, yet
it is important – especially when answering this question which clearly
specifies that one must analyse 10 years AFTER each World War – that this
conference was still held during the war. However it is so crucial and affected
the following Potsdam conference so significantly that it must be considered as
well, especially because it is often argued that it was the perspective change
of the powers from one conference to the other, which mostly affected the
conflicting relationships in Europe afterwards, obviously affecting collective
security. The Yalta conference of February and the Potsdam conference of July
and August 1945 discussed (as at Versailles, and in fact seen by some as the
“Versailles of WWII”) the consequences Germany would have to deal with after
WWII including reparations and its division into zones. Yet what can be seen is
that within this time frame Germany was the source of a conflict between two “super
powers” with very conflicting ideologies and policies: the democratic United
States and communist Russia. The Iron Curtain Speech of March 5th
1946 in which Winston Churchill argued that “an iron curtain has descended”
among Europe, the Russians reacted by claiming he had “declared war on the
Soviet Union. Yet, meanwhile the USSR pursued its “Salami tactics” gradually
taking over Eastern European countries until 1948: Albania, Bulgaria, Poland,
Hungary, Romania, Czechoslovakia and East Germany – clearly not encouraging
collective SECURITY if not acting against it. The Truman Doctrine of March 1947
was the beginning of what the Russians called “dollar imperialism” as they
began to financially support Western countries and as a result Stalin formed
“Cominform” in October of the same year taking control over the economy of all
Communist states. Hence one can see how the conflict of treating Germany after
the war, being a significant ‘power vaccuum’, was a source of conflict
catalysing a competition for power which completely hindered the development of
collective security and led to the next war – the Cold War.
In conclusion, one can clearly see that Germany was the main source of
conflict and debate within the two given time frames and therefore was one of the
key factors helping and hindering collective security. In the first it led to efforts helping it and
therefore supporting collective security, while in the second it initiated an
increasingly heated pursuit of power as it itself was a ‘power vaccuum’ and
therefore encouraged the hindering of collective security. What one can
definitely say is that it was the main factor affecting collective security
within the two given time frames, as it affected the most of the political and
economic efforts made.
