Health and Economic Effects
Casualties of War: In total the number of casualties in WWI was over 37 million there were over 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded making this one of the deadliest conflicts in human history, over 10 million military deaths and over 7 million civilian death. Graph Shown:
Economic Changes: After World War I America was receiving income from the Germans and looked at as the backbone of all military might. But politicians were tinkering with economy and mainly relying on German income. Furthermore, the United States was a great continental power, with great population and resources. The war stimulated the U.S. economy, increased employment and wages, and brought great profit to industry. The United States emerged from the war as clearly the greatest power in the world as well as the creditor nation of the world.
These circumstances thrust the United States into a position as world leaders, while the American people still assumed that Europe had little to do with America. President Wilson had a vision that would have involved the United States extensively in world affairs through the League of Nations, but he was unable to find popular support.
Economic Growth from 1829-1920:
These circumstances thrust the United States into a position as world leaders, while the American people still assumed that Europe had little to do with America. President Wilson had a vision that would have involved the United States extensively in world affairs through the League of Nations, but he was unable to find popular support.
Economic Growth from 1829-1920:
Disease Takes it toll: Diseases was a big killer in World War 1 because of the little medicine and medical knowledge. The Anzacs would have experienced many diseases such as influenza, typhoid, trench foot and trench fever.
Trench foot is a disease which makes your foot turn blue or red and makes your foot very numb. It often involves blisters and open sores which allows fungal infections to enter. If the foot is untreated it can result into gangrene. Trench foot is caused by exposure to damp and wet conditions. In this case it was the soldiers walking bare foot in the wet trenches. This was bad for the soldiers because it delayed the time in which they could fight. Trench fever was a serious disease. It resulted in high fever, severe head aches and serious pains in the legs and back. It takes about 5 days for the disease to start taking affect. Recovery takes about a month or two. It was transmitted by body lice. This disease was bad, because of the time that it took to recover. In rare cases people could die from this disease.
Typhoid was a deadly disease that Jim Martin died from. As it quotes in solider boy “Gallipoli’s flies and disease are worse than the Turkish bullets”. Early symptom’s that Jim Martin would have had was a temperature as high as 40 degrees Celsius, sweating and diarrhea. Later on Jim Martin experienced coughing and severe headaches. He would have got this disease from bad hygiene and filthy flies. In solider boy it states “every friggen fly in the world has to come to Gallipoli”. Dying from typhoid is an agonizing death. As you get closer to death your body cannot take in any food or water. Victims get very dehydrated. Death occurs 10 to 30% of infected people.
Lastly influenza killed 40 million people worldwide. The symptoms of influenza are sore throats, headaches, loss of appetite and blood poisoning. A large percentage of people died from this disease, once infected. It takes 3 days for the person to die. Influenza was transmitted by air. It was very bad for all the armies and nations because many people died especially India where 16 million people died.
Trench foot, trench fever, typhoid and influenza are the diseases that were around in World War 1. Most diseases made the soldiers very sick. However influenza and typhoid proved to be the deadliest diseases.
Trench foot:
Trench foot is a disease which makes your foot turn blue or red and makes your foot very numb. It often involves blisters and open sores which allows fungal infections to enter. If the foot is untreated it can result into gangrene. Trench foot is caused by exposure to damp and wet conditions. In this case it was the soldiers walking bare foot in the wet trenches. This was bad for the soldiers because it delayed the time in which they could fight. Trench fever was a serious disease. It resulted in high fever, severe head aches and serious pains in the legs and back. It takes about 5 days for the disease to start taking affect. Recovery takes about a month or two. It was transmitted by body lice. This disease was bad, because of the time that it took to recover. In rare cases people could die from this disease.
Typhoid was a deadly disease that Jim Martin died from. As it quotes in solider boy “Gallipoli’s flies and disease are worse than the Turkish bullets”. Early symptom’s that Jim Martin would have had was a temperature as high as 40 degrees Celsius, sweating and diarrhea. Later on Jim Martin experienced coughing and severe headaches. He would have got this disease from bad hygiene and filthy flies. In solider boy it states “every friggen fly in the world has to come to Gallipoli”. Dying from typhoid is an agonizing death. As you get closer to death your body cannot take in any food or water. Victims get very dehydrated. Death occurs 10 to 30% of infected people.
Lastly influenza killed 40 million people worldwide. The symptoms of influenza are sore throats, headaches, loss of appetite and blood poisoning. A large percentage of people died from this disease, once infected. It takes 3 days for the person to die. Influenza was transmitted by air. It was very bad for all the armies and nations because many people died especially India where 16 million people died.
Trench foot, trench fever, typhoid and influenza are the diseases that were around in World War 1. Most diseases made the soldiers very sick. However influenza and typhoid proved to be the deadliest diseases.
Trench foot:
Production during WWI: When the war began, the U.S. economy was in recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they would be needed once the U.S. entered the war.
Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.
Rockoff estimates the total cost of World War I to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national product at the time. He breaks down the financing of the U.S. war effort as follows: 22 percent in taxes, 58 percent through borrowings from the public, and 20 percent in money creation. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxed "excess profits" -- profits exceeding an amount determined by the rate of return on capital in a base period -- by some 20 to 60 percent, and the tax rate on income starting at $50,000 rose from 1.5 percent in 1913-15 to more than 18 percent in 1918. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo crisscrossed the country peddling war bonds, even enlisting the help of Hollywood stars and Boy Scouts. The prevalence of patriotic themes created social pressure to purchase the "Liberty bonds" (and, after the armistice, the "Victory bonds"), but in practice the new bondholders did not make a tangible personal sacrifice in buying war bonds, since the yields on the se debt instruments were comparable to those on standard municipal bonds at the time. As Rockoff notes, "patriotic motives were not sufficient to alter market prices of assets during the war."
Production Boom:
Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.
Rockoff estimates the total cost of World War I to the United States at approximately $32 billion, or 52 percent of gross national product at the time. He breaks down the financing of the U.S. war effort as follows: 22 percent in taxes, 58 percent through borrowings from the public, and 20 percent in money creation. The War Revenue Act of 1917 taxed "excess profits" -- profits exceeding an amount determined by the rate of return on capital in a base period -- by some 20 to 60 percent, and the tax rate on income starting at $50,000 rose from 1.5 percent in 1913-15 to more than 18 percent in 1918. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo crisscrossed the country peddling war bonds, even enlisting the help of Hollywood stars and Boy Scouts. The prevalence of patriotic themes created social pressure to purchase the "Liberty bonds" (and, after the armistice, the "Victory bonds"), but in practice the new bondholders did not make a tangible personal sacrifice in buying war bonds, since the yields on the se debt instruments were comparable to those on standard municipal bonds at the time. As Rockoff notes, "patriotic motives were not sufficient to alter market prices of assets during the war."
Production Boom:
Role of the Government: The home front of the United States in World War I saw a systematic mobilization of the entire population and the entire economy to produce the soldiers, food supplies, munitions and money needed to win the war. Although the United States entered the war in April 1917, there had been very little planning, or even recognition of the problems that the British and other Allies had to solve on their home fronts As a result, the level of confusion was high in the first 12 months, then efficiency took control.The war came in the midst of the Progressive Era, when efficiency and expertise were highly valued. Therefore the federal government (and states as well) set up a multitude of temporary agencies to bring together the expertise necessary to redirect the economy and society into the production of munitions and food necessary for the war, as well as the production of ideas necessary to motivate the people.
Congress authorized President Woodrow Wilson to create a bureaucracy of 500,000 to 1 million new jobs in five thousand new federal agencies. To solve the labor crisis the Employment Service of the Department of Labor attracted workers from the South and Midwest to war industries in the East.
In April 1917, the Wilson Administration created the Committee on Public Information (CPI), known as the Creel Committee, to control war information and provide pro-war propaganda. Employing talented writers and scholars, it issued anti-German pamphlets and films. It organized thousands of "Four-Minute Men" to deliver brief speeches at movie theaters, schools and churches to promote patriotism and participation in the war effort.
In 1917 the administration decided to rely primarily on conscription, rather than voluntary enlistment, to raise military manpower for World War I. The Selective Service Act of 1917 was carefully drawn to remedy the defects in the Civil War system and—by allowing exemptions for dependency, essential occupations, and religious scruples—to place each man in his proper niche in a national war effort. The act established a "liability for military service of all male citizens"; authorized a selective draft of all those between twenty-one and thirty-one years of age (later from eighteen to forty-five); and prohibited all forms of bounties, substitutions, or purchase of exemptions. Administration was entrusted to local boards composed of leading civilians in each community. These boards issued draft calls in order of numbers drawn in a national lottery and determined exemptions. In 1917 and 1918 some 24 million men were registered and nearly 3 million inducted into the military services, with little of the resistance that characterized the Civil War.
Propaganda:
Congress authorized President Woodrow Wilson to create a bureaucracy of 500,000 to 1 million new jobs in five thousand new federal agencies. To solve the labor crisis the Employment Service of the Department of Labor attracted workers from the South and Midwest to war industries in the East.
In April 1917, the Wilson Administration created the Committee on Public Information (CPI), known as the Creel Committee, to control war information and provide pro-war propaganda. Employing talented writers and scholars, it issued anti-German pamphlets and films. It organized thousands of "Four-Minute Men" to deliver brief speeches at movie theaters, schools and churches to promote patriotism and participation in the war effort.
In 1917 the administration decided to rely primarily on conscription, rather than voluntary enlistment, to raise military manpower for World War I. The Selective Service Act of 1917 was carefully drawn to remedy the defects in the Civil War system and—by allowing exemptions for dependency, essential occupations, and religious scruples—to place each man in his proper niche in a national war effort. The act established a "liability for military service of all male citizens"; authorized a selective draft of all those between twenty-one and thirty-one years of age (later from eighteen to forty-five); and prohibited all forms of bounties, substitutions, or purchase of exemptions. Administration was entrusted to local boards composed of leading civilians in each community. These boards issued draft calls in order of numbers drawn in a national lottery and determined exemptions. In 1917 and 1918 some 24 million men were registered and nearly 3 million inducted into the military services, with little of the resistance that characterized the Civil War.
Propaganda:
Peace Treaties and Boudaries
Treaty of Versailles:
The Treaty of
Versailles (French: Traité de Versailles) was one
of the peace treaties at the end of World War I.
It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919,
exactly five years after the assassination
of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The other Central Powers on the German side of World War I
were dealt with in separate treaties. Although the armistice, signed on 11 November 1918, ended
the actual fighting, it took six months of negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to conclude the peace treaty. The
treaty was registered by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on 21 October 1919, and was printed
in The League of Nations Treaty Series.
Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. It liberated numerous nationalities in Central Europe from oppressive German rule. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2013). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace", and said the figure was excessive and counterproductive. However, many historians have judged the reparation figure to be lenient, a sum that was designed to look imposing but was in fact not, that had little impact on the German economy and analyzed the treaty as a whole to be quite restrained and not as harsh as it could have been.
The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left none contented: Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and the renegotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and finally the postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. The reparations were finally paid off by Germany after World War II.
Of the many provisions in the treaty, one of the most important and controversial required "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war (the other members of the Central Powers signed treaties containing similar articles). This article, Article 231, later became known as the War Guilt clause. The treaty forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. It liberated numerous nationalities in Central Europe from oppressive German rule. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at 132 billion Marks (then $31.4 billion or £6.6 billion, roughly equivalent to US $442 billion or UK £284 billion in 2013). At the time economists, notably John Maynard Keynes predicted that the treaty was too harsh—a "Carthaginian peace", and said the figure was excessive and counterproductive. However, many historians have judged the reparation figure to be lenient, a sum that was designed to look imposing but was in fact not, that had little impact on the German economy and analyzed the treaty as a whole to be quite restrained and not as harsh as it could have been.
The result of these competing and sometimes conflicting goals among the victors was a compromise that left none contented: Germany was not pacified or conciliated, nor permanently weakened. The problems that arose from the treaty would lead to the Locarno Treaties, which improved relations between Germany and the other European Powers, and the renegotiation of the reparation system resulting in the Dawes Plan, the Young Plan, and finally the postponement of reparations at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. The reparations were finally paid off by Germany after World War II.
U.S.-German Peace Treaty:
The U.S.—German Peace Treaty is
a peace treaty between the U.S. and German governments, signed in Berlin on
August 25, 1921, in the aftermath of World War I. The main
reason for the conclusion of that treaty was the fact that the U.S. Senate did
not ratify the multilateral
peace treaty signed in Versailles, thus leading to a separate
peace treaty. Ratifications were exchanged in Berlin on November 11, 1921, and
the treaty became effective on the same day. The treaty was registered in League
of Nations Treaty Series on August 12, 1922.
During World War I, the German Reich was defeated by the Allied Powers, one of which was the United States. The U.S. government declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. At the end of the war in November 1918, the German monarchy was overthrown and Germany was established as a republic.
In 1919, the victorious Allied Powers held a peace conference in Paris to formulate peace treaties with the defeated Central Powers. At the conference, a peace treaty with the German government was concluded. The U.S. government was among the signatories of that treaty, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, due in large measure to its objections to U.S. participation in the League of Nations.
As a result, the two governments started negotiations for a bilateral peace treaty not connected to the League of Nations. Such a treaty was concluded on August 25, 1921.
Article 1 obliged the German government to grant to the U.S. government all rights and privileges enjoyed by the other allied powers who had ratified the peace treaty signed in Paris. Article 2 specified which articles of the Versailles treaty shall apply to the U.S. Article 3 provided for the exchange of ratifications in Berlin.
The treaty laid the foundations for a U.S.-German cooperation not under the strict supervision of the League of Nations. As a result, the U.S. government embarked on a path of partially assisting the government of the Weimar Republic to ease the burden of War reparations imposed in the Treaty of Versailles. Following the conclusion of the peace treaty, diplomatic relations between the two governments were reestablished, and on December 10, 1921, the new U.S. ambassador—Ellis Loring Dresel—presented his credentials in Berlin.
The treaty was supplemented by a treaty signed in Berlin on August 10, 1922, which provided for the establishment of a mixed U.S.-German commission to decide amount of reparations to be paid by the German government to the U.S.
During World War I, the German Reich was defeated by the Allied Powers, one of which was the United States. The U.S. government declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. At the end of the war in November 1918, the German monarchy was overthrown and Germany was established as a republic.
In 1919, the victorious Allied Powers held a peace conference in Paris to formulate peace treaties with the defeated Central Powers. At the conference, a peace treaty with the German government was concluded. The U.S. government was among the signatories of that treaty, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the treaty, due in large measure to its objections to U.S. participation in the League of Nations.
As a result, the two governments started negotiations for a bilateral peace treaty not connected to the League of Nations. Such a treaty was concluded on August 25, 1921.
Article 1 obliged the German government to grant to the U.S. government all rights and privileges enjoyed by the other allied powers who had ratified the peace treaty signed in Paris. Article 2 specified which articles of the Versailles treaty shall apply to the U.S. Article 3 provided for the exchange of ratifications in Berlin.
The treaty laid the foundations for a U.S.-German cooperation not under the strict supervision of the League of Nations. As a result, the U.S. government embarked on a path of partially assisting the government of the Weimar Republic to ease the burden of War reparations imposed in the Treaty of Versailles. Following the conclusion of the peace treaty, diplomatic relations between the two governments were reestablished, and on December 10, 1921, the new U.S. ambassador—Ellis Loring Dresel—presented his credentials in Berlin.
The treaty was supplemented by a treaty signed in Berlin on August 10, 1922, which provided for the establishment of a mixed U.S.-German commission to decide amount of reparations to be paid by the German government to the U.S.
The US–Austrian Peace Treaty:
The US–Austrian
Peace Treaty is a peace
treaty between the United States and Austria,
signed in Vienna on August 24, 1921, in the aftermath of the First World War.
This separate peace treaty was required because the United
States Senate refused to ratify the multilateral Treaty of
Saint-Germain-en-Laye of 1919.
Ratifications were exchanged in Vienna on November 8, 1921, and the treaty became effective on the same day. The treaty was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on November 22, 1921.
During the First World War, Austria – which formed the nucleus of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – was defeated by the Allied Powers, one of which was the United States of America. The US government declared war on Austria-Hungary on December 7, 1917. At the end of the war in 1918, Austria-Hungary disintegrated and Austria was established as an independent republic.
In 1919, the victorious Allied Powers held a peace conference in Paris to formulate peace treaties with the defeated Central Powers. At the conference, a peace treaty with the Austrian government was concluded. Although the US government was among the signatories of that treaty, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty due to opposition to joining the League of Nations.
As a result, the two governments started negotiations for a bilateral peace treaty not connected to the League of Nations. Such a treaty was concluded on August 24, 1921.
Article 1 obliged the Austrian government to grant to the US government all rights and privileges enjoyed by the other Allied Powers who ratified the peace treaty signed in Paris. Article 2 specified which articles of the St. Germain treaty shall apply to the United States. Article 3 provided for the exchange of ratifications in Vienna.
The treaty laid the foundations for a US-Austrian cooperation not under the strict supervision of the League of Nations. As a result, the US government embarked on a path of partially assisting the government of the Austrian Republic to ease the burden of war reparations imposed in the Treaty of St. Germain.
The treaty was supplemented by a treaty signed in Washington on November 26, 1924, which provided for the establishment of a mixed US-Austrian-Hungarian commission to decide amount of reparations to be paid by the Austrian and Hungarian governments to the US.
Ratifications were exchanged in Vienna on November 8, 1921, and the treaty became effective on the same day. The treaty was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on November 22, 1921.
During the First World War, Austria – which formed the nucleus of the Austro-Hungarian Empire – was defeated by the Allied Powers, one of which was the United States of America. The US government declared war on Austria-Hungary on December 7, 1917. At the end of the war in 1918, Austria-Hungary disintegrated and Austria was established as an independent republic.
In 1919, the victorious Allied Powers held a peace conference in Paris to formulate peace treaties with the defeated Central Powers. At the conference, a peace treaty with the Austrian government was concluded. Although the US government was among the signatories of that treaty, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty due to opposition to joining the League of Nations.
As a result, the two governments started negotiations for a bilateral peace treaty not connected to the League of Nations. Such a treaty was concluded on August 24, 1921.
Article 1 obliged the Austrian government to grant to the US government all rights and privileges enjoyed by the other Allied Powers who ratified the peace treaty signed in Paris. Article 2 specified which articles of the St. Germain treaty shall apply to the United States. Article 3 provided for the exchange of ratifications in Vienna.
The treaty laid the foundations for a US-Austrian cooperation not under the strict supervision of the League of Nations. As a result, the US government embarked on a path of partially assisting the government of the Austrian Republic to ease the burden of war reparations imposed in the Treaty of St. Germain.
The treaty was supplemented by a treaty signed in Washington on November 26, 1924, which provided for the establishment of a mixed US-Austrian-Hungarian commission to decide amount of reparations to be paid by the Austrian and Hungarian governments to the US.
The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk:
The Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk was a peace
treaty on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Russia (the Russian
Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey), which
ended Russia's participation in World War I.
The treaty was signed at Brest-Litovsk (now Brest, Belarus)
after two months of negotiations. The treaty was forced on the Soviet
government by the threat of further advances by German and Austrian forces. By
the treaty, Soviet Russia defaulted on Imperial Russia's commitments to the Triple Entente alliance.
Russia ceded Baltic States to Germany, recognized the independence of Ukraine, and agreed to pay six billion German gold mark in reparations. Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator. Russian-Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests. When Germany later complained that the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was too harsh on them, the Allies (and historians favorable to the Allies) responded that it was more benign than Brest-Litovsk. The effects of the treaty meant that Baltic states would become nothing more than vassal German princedoms, Poland and Finland satellite states, and Lebensraum would be pursued in the east
The treaty was practically obsolete in November 1918, when Germany in effect surrendered to the Allies. However it did provide some relief to the Bolsheviks, already fighting the Russian Civil War, by renouncing Russia's claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
By 1917, Germany and Austria had defeated Russia on the Eastern Front of World War I, but had occupied only a small part of Russia's territory. However, Russia's economy nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. War casualties and food shortages in major cities led to the February Revolution, which overthrew the Imperial government of Tsar Nicholas II. The Provisional Government that replaced the Tsar decided to continue the war, believing that defeat was due to the incompetence of the Imperial government. Also, the new provisional government was offered a substantial amount of money to stay in the war by the United States Government.
Many patriotic Russians supported the pro-war policy of the Provisional Government, and few wanted to surrender to the invading Germans. But the army and people were exhausted, and radical socialists wanted to follow the overthrow of the Tsar with a complete socialist revolution. The radicals formed the Petrograd Soviet, and called for soldiers to ignore their officers and form their own soviet councils. Other soviets were formed throughout Russia, challenging the Provisional Government.
To destroy the Provisional Government, the Germans supported the Russian radicals, in particular the Bolshevik faction within the Socialist Party, who called for Russia's withdrawal from the war. In April 1917, Germany brought exiled Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin back to Russia, and offered financial help. Under Lenin's leadership, the Bolsheviks gained control of the radical opposition over the next seven months.
After the failure of the Provisional Government's Kerensky Offensive in July, the army disintegrated, and soviets began to wield power in many places. Finally, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government in the October Revolution.
The next day (26 October 1917 old style), Lenin signed the Decree on Peace, which was approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. The Decree called upon "all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace" and proposed an immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war. Leon Trotsky was appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs (more or less Foreign Minister). He appointed his good friend, Adolph Joffe, to represent the Bolshevik government in peace negotiations.
Russia ceded Baltic States to Germany, recognized the independence of Ukraine, and agreed to pay six billion German gold mark in reparations. Historian Spencer Tucker says, "The German General Staff had formulated extraordinarily harsh terms that shocked even the German negotiator. Russian-Poland was not mentioned in the treaty, as Germans refused to recognize existence of any Polish representatives, which in turn led to Polish protests. When Germany later complained that the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 was too harsh on them, the Allies (and historians favorable to the Allies) responded that it was more benign than Brest-Litovsk. The effects of the treaty meant that Baltic states would become nothing more than vassal German princedoms, Poland and Finland satellite states, and Lebensraum would be pursued in the east
The treaty was practically obsolete in November 1918, when Germany in effect surrendered to the Allies. However it did provide some relief to the Bolsheviks, already fighting the Russian Civil War, by renouncing Russia's claims on Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania.
By 1917, Germany and Austria had defeated Russia on the Eastern Front of World War I, but had occupied only a small part of Russia's territory. However, Russia's economy nearly collapsed under the strain of the war effort. War casualties and food shortages in major cities led to the February Revolution, which overthrew the Imperial government of Tsar Nicholas II. The Provisional Government that replaced the Tsar decided to continue the war, believing that defeat was due to the incompetence of the Imperial government. Also, the new provisional government was offered a substantial amount of money to stay in the war by the United States Government.
Many patriotic Russians supported the pro-war policy of the Provisional Government, and few wanted to surrender to the invading Germans. But the army and people were exhausted, and radical socialists wanted to follow the overthrow of the Tsar with a complete socialist revolution. The radicals formed the Petrograd Soviet, and called for soldiers to ignore their officers and form their own soviet councils. Other soviets were formed throughout Russia, challenging the Provisional Government.
To destroy the Provisional Government, the Germans supported the Russian radicals, in particular the Bolshevik faction within the Socialist Party, who called for Russia's withdrawal from the war. In April 1917, Germany brought exiled Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin back to Russia, and offered financial help. Under Lenin's leadership, the Bolsheviks gained control of the radical opposition over the next seven months.
After the failure of the Provisional Government's Kerensky Offensive in July, the army disintegrated, and soviets began to wield power in many places. Finally, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government in the October Revolution.
The next day (26 October 1917 old style), Lenin signed the Decree on Peace, which was approved by the Second Congress of the Soviet of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. The Decree called upon "all the belligerent nations and their governments to start immediate negotiations for peace" and proposed an immediate withdrawal of Russia from the war. Leon Trotsky was appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs (more or less Foreign Minister). He appointed his good friend, Adolph Joffe, to represent the Bolshevik government in peace negotiations.
The Treaty of Sèvres:
The Treaty of
Sèvres (10 August 1920) was
the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at the end of World War I.
The Treaty of Versailles was signed with the German Empire before this treaty to annul the
German concessions including the economic rights and enterprises. Also, France,
Great Britain and Italy signed a secret "Tripartite Agreement" at the
same date. The Tripartite Agreement confirmed
Britain's oil and commercial concessions and turned the former German
enterprises in the Ottoman Empire over to a Tripartite corporation. The terms
of the Treaty of Sèvres were far more severe than those imposed on the German Empire in the Treaty of Versailles. The open negotiations covered a
period of more than fifteen months, beginning at the Paris Peace Conference. The negotiations continued at the Conference of London, and took definite shape only after
the premiers' meeting at the San Remo conference in April 1920. France, Italy, and
Great Britain, however, had secretly begun the partitioning of the
Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The delay occurred
because the powers could not come to an agreement which, in turn, hinged on the
outcome of the Turkish national
movement. The Treaty
of Sèvres was annulled in the course of the Turkish War of
Independence and the parties signed and ratified
the superseding Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.
The representatives signed the treaty in an exhibition room at the famous porcelain factory in Sèvres, France.
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha, and the minister of education Reşid Halis, who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France, and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.
Among the other Allied powers, Greece did not accept the borders as drawn and never ratified it. Avetis Aharonian, the President of the Delegation of the First Republic of Armenia, which also signed the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918, was a signatory of this treaty.
The leaders of France, Britain, and the United States had stated their differing objectives with respect to the Ottoman Empire during the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The common theme was the sick man of Europe had come to his own end. However, it was a shock to the world when the treaty said the Allies were in agreement keeping the Ottoman Government of Constantinople, which remained the capital of the Ottoman Empire, though with the reservations of the conditions of the treaty. The treaty called for the expulsion of the Ottoman Empire from Europe. The treaty imposed terms so severe that British policy seemed to have succeeded in strangling the sick man of Europe in his sick-bed in Asia Minor.
The United States—having refused the Armenian mandate in the Senate—decided to have nothing to do with partition of the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. wanted a permanent peace as quickly as possible, with financial compensation for its military expenditures. However, after the American Senate rejected Wilson's Armenian mandate, its only hope was its inclusion in the Treaty by the influential Greek prime minister, Eleftherios Venizelos.
The representatives signed the treaty in an exhibition room at the famous porcelain factory in Sèvres, France.
The treaty had four signatories for the Ottoman Empire: Rıza Tevfik, the grand vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, ambassador Hadi Pasha, and the minister of education Reşid Halis, who were endorsed by Sultan Mehmed VI.
Of the Principal Allied powers it excluded the United States. Russia was also excluded because it had negotiated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Ottoman Empire in 1918. In that treaty, at the insistence of the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha, the Ottoman Empire regained the lands Russia had captured in the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), specifically Ardahan, Kars, and Batumi. Sir George Dixon Grahame signed for Great Britain, Alexandre Millerand for France, and Count Lelio Bonin Longare for Italy.
Among the other Allied powers, Greece did not accept the borders as drawn and never ratified it. Avetis Aharonian, the President of the Delegation of the First Republic of Armenia, which also signed the Treaty of Batum on 4 June 1918, was a signatory of this treaty.
The leaders of France, Britain, and the United States had stated their differing objectives with respect to the Ottoman Empire during the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. The common theme was the sick man of Europe had come to his own end. However, it was a shock to the world when the treaty said the Allies were in agreement keeping the Ottoman Government of Constantinople, which remained the capital of the Ottoman Empire, though with the reservations of the conditions of the treaty. The treaty called for the expulsion of the Ottoman Empire from Europe. The treaty imposed terms so severe that British policy seemed to have succeeded in strangling the sick man of Europe in his sick-bed in Asia Minor.
The United States—having refused the Armenian mandate in the Senate—decided to have nothing to do with partition of the Ottoman Empire. The U.S. wanted a permanent peace as quickly as possible, with financial compensation for its military expenditures. However, after the American Senate rejected Wilson's Armenian mandate, its only hope was its inclusion in the Treaty by the influential Greek prime minister, Eleftherios Venizelos.
Identities of Countries afterwards
Poland:
- With Poland's three occupying powers at war with each other, Poland becomes the main fighting ground. Because there was no official Polish state, there was no Polish army. Poles were forced into the Russian, German, and Austrian armies and forced to fight against one another. Native Poles now in America join Haller's Army in France to fight for their country.
11 November 1918
Poland becomes independent as WWI comes to an end. The country was devastated by the war. Approximately one million Poles died. All Polish institutions had to be rebuilt as the country once again formed a nation. The official boundaries are not set until 1923.
1919
The Treaty of Versailles gives Poland western Prussia, thus getting access to the Baltic Sea.
1919-20
During the Polish-Soviet War, Jozef Pilsudski's army defeats the Russians. Poland gains western Ukraine and Belarus.
1926
Pilsudski makes himself dictator of Poland. Despite the dictatorship, the economy stabilized at this time and culture continued to prosper.
1930s
Poland signs nonagression pacts with Germany and the Soviet Union. The pacts soon prove to be pointless.
23 August 1939
Germany and the Soviet Union sign a nonagression pact, with Stalin and Hitler planning to divide Poland once again.
Britain:
Vast crowds gathered in London's Trafalgar Square to celebrate the victorious end of the First World War on 11 November 1918. However, the joyous mood was short-lived. Post-war Britain, as many contemporary observers noted, did not seem like a country that had just experienced a great military triumph. Various political, economic and social problems ensured that the return to peacetime conditions was not a soft landing.
Party politics The Representation of the People Act (June 1918) gave the vote for the first time to all men over the age of 21 (subject to a six-month residency qualification) and to women over the age of 30. As a result, it almost trebled the franchise in Britain, from 7.7 million to 21.4 million. Historians have long debated the relative impact of this and the war itself on the dramatic reconfiguration of party politics after 1918.
The Liberal Party - divided between supporters of the Lloyd George coalition that regained power in the 'coupon election' (December 1918) and supporters of the former prime minister Asquith - went into steep electoral decline during the 1920s and never recovered. Its status as Britain's 'second' party of government was taken by the Labour Party, a development confirmed when the first-ever Labour government - a coalition led by Ramsay MacDonald - took office in January 1924.
Amid these radical changes, the success of the Conservative Party, which dominated government during the inter-war years, constituted the major remaining link to the pre-war British political map.
During the First World War, Britain incurred debts equivalent to 136% of its gross national product, and its major creditor, the USA, began to emerge as the world's strongest economy.Although demobilisation was relatively unproblematic, the end of the war did not witness a swift return to pre-war 'normality' for the British economy. More British than German workers were involved in strikes in 1919. Unemployment in 1921 reached its highest point (11.3%) since records had begun. Staple wartime industries - such as coal, ship-building and steel - contracted. Working women were forced to cede their jobs to returning soldiers.
Swingeing cuts in public spending were introduced in 1922 to ward off inflation. The ambitious reform programme drawn up by the minister of reconstruction, Christopher Addison, in February 1918 - which included major public housing and health schemes - was sacrificed on the altar of deflation and debt-servicing. Nonetheless, though successive governments failed to create a 'land fit for heroes', living standards and productivity levels in inter-war Britain generally improved.
Society How was post-war British society different from the society that had entered the First World War in August 1914? It was indubitably more democratic. Previously under-represented groups such as women and, in particular, the working class became better organised and more powerful during the war. This, in turn, encouraged the growth of less deferential attitudes, as did the cross-class experiences of the trenches. There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes, and the strict class hierarchy of Edwardian Britain disappeared for good in the immediate post-war years.
Yet, though the working class became a more powerful political force, it shrank numerically. Growing numbers of the working population in inter-war Britain were employed in 'white collar' jobs. The First World War thus marked an important staging post on the road to 'modern' British society.
Further researchThe following references give an idea of the sources held by the The National Archives on the subject of this chapter. These documents can be seen on site at the The National Archives.
Party politics The Representation of the People Act (June 1918) gave the vote for the first time to all men over the age of 21 (subject to a six-month residency qualification) and to women over the age of 30. As a result, it almost trebled the franchise in Britain, from 7.7 million to 21.4 million. Historians have long debated the relative impact of this and the war itself on the dramatic reconfiguration of party politics after 1918.
The Liberal Party - divided between supporters of the Lloyd George coalition that regained power in the 'coupon election' (December 1918) and supporters of the former prime minister Asquith - went into steep electoral decline during the 1920s and never recovered. Its status as Britain's 'second' party of government was taken by the Labour Party, a development confirmed when the first-ever Labour government - a coalition led by Ramsay MacDonald - took office in January 1924.
Amid these radical changes, the success of the Conservative Party, which dominated government during the inter-war years, constituted the major remaining link to the pre-war British political map.
During the First World War, Britain incurred debts equivalent to 136% of its gross national product, and its major creditor, the USA, began to emerge as the world's strongest economy.Although demobilisation was relatively unproblematic, the end of the war did not witness a swift return to pre-war 'normality' for the British economy. More British than German workers were involved in strikes in 1919. Unemployment in 1921 reached its highest point (11.3%) since records had begun. Staple wartime industries - such as coal, ship-building and steel - contracted. Working women were forced to cede their jobs to returning soldiers.
Swingeing cuts in public spending were introduced in 1922 to ward off inflation. The ambitious reform programme drawn up by the minister of reconstruction, Christopher Addison, in February 1918 - which included major public housing and health schemes - was sacrificed on the altar of deflation and debt-servicing. Nonetheless, though successive governments failed to create a 'land fit for heroes', living standards and productivity levels in inter-war Britain generally improved.
Society How was post-war British society different from the society that had entered the First World War in August 1914? It was indubitably more democratic. Previously under-represented groups such as women and, in particular, the working class became better organised and more powerful during the war. This, in turn, encouraged the growth of less deferential attitudes, as did the cross-class experiences of the trenches. There had been a disproportionately high percentage of casualties among the landed classes, and the strict class hierarchy of Edwardian Britain disappeared for good in the immediate post-war years.
Yet, though the working class became a more powerful political force, it shrank numerically. Growing numbers of the working population in inter-war Britain were employed in 'white collar' jobs. The First World War thus marked an important staging post on the road to 'modern' British society.
Further researchThe following references give an idea of the sources held by the The National Archives on the subject of this chapter. These documents can be seen on site at the The National Archives.
Canada:
The War's Impact on CanadaCanada emerged from the First World War a proud, victorious nation with newfound standing in the world. It also emerged grieving and divided, forever changed by the war's unprecedented exertions and horrific costs.
A Country Fundamentally ChangedThe war united most Canadians in a common cause even as the extremity of national effort nearly tore the country apart. Few had expected the long struggle or heavy death toll. A war fought supposedly for liberal freedoms against Prussian militarism had exposed uneasy contradictions, including compulsory military service, broken promises to farmers and organized labour, high inflation, deep social and linguistic divisions, and the suspension of many civil liberties. Some women had received the right to vote, but other Canadians - recent immigrants associated with enemy countries - had seen this right rescinded.
Government had intervened in the lives of Canadians to an unprecedented degree, introducing policies that would eventually mature into a fully fledged system of social welfare. But it had not prevented wartime profiteering, strikes, or economic disasters, leading many to question the extent to which rich Canadians had sacrificed at all. A massive and unprecedented voluntary effort had supported the troops overseas and loaned Ottawa the money it needed to fight the war. The resulting post-war debt of some $2 billion was owed mostly to other Canadians, a fact which fundamentally altered the nature of the post-war economy.
Politically, the war was also a watershed. Borden's efforts to win the 1917 election and carry the nation to victory succeeded in the short term, but fractured the country along regional, cultural, linguistic, and class lines. English and French relations were never lower, and accusations of French traitors and English militarists were not soon forgotten. Quebec would be a wasteland for federal Conservative politicians for most of the next 40 years. Laurier's forlorn stand against conscription lost him the election and divided his party, but helped ensure the Liberals' national credibility, with a firm basis in French Canada, for decades to come.
Labour, newly empowered by its important role in supporting the war effort, pushed for more rights, first through negotiations, and then through strikes. Farmers seethed over agricultural policies and Ottawa's broken promise on conscription. In the post-war period, both groups would form powerful new political and regional parties.
Autonomy and Foreign PolicyThe war accelerated the transformation of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth and demonstrated Great Britain's military and economic reliance on the self-governing dominions. Most of the principal Commonwealth heads of government recognized this, and saw clearly in their wartime contributions the route to greater independence and standing within imperial counsels.
Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden orchestrated a massive national effort in support of the mother country, but also demanded that Great Britain recognize Canada's wartime sacrifices with greater post-war autonomy. Canada signed independently the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that formally ended the war, and assumed a cautious, non-committal role in the newly established League of Nations. London's wartime agreement to re-evaluate the constitutional arrangements between Great Britain and its dominions culminated in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which formalized the dominions' full control over their own foreign policy. Canada's determination to do so regardless had already been made evident during the 1922 Chanak Crisis, when Ottawa insisted on a Parliamentary debate before considering possible support to Great Britain in a military confrontation with Turkey.
Unprecedented StatusDespite the social and political challenges of the post-war, most Canadians also emerged from the struggle believing they had done important and difficult things together. Their primary fighting force at the front, the Canadian Corps, had achieved a first-class reputation as one of the most effective formations on the Western Front. Their generals and politicians had played an obvious role in victory, and the country itself enjoyed an international standing that few observers in 1914 could have predicted.
A Country Fundamentally ChangedThe war united most Canadians in a common cause even as the extremity of national effort nearly tore the country apart. Few had expected the long struggle or heavy death toll. A war fought supposedly for liberal freedoms against Prussian militarism had exposed uneasy contradictions, including compulsory military service, broken promises to farmers and organized labour, high inflation, deep social and linguistic divisions, and the suspension of many civil liberties. Some women had received the right to vote, but other Canadians - recent immigrants associated with enemy countries - had seen this right rescinded.
Government had intervened in the lives of Canadians to an unprecedented degree, introducing policies that would eventually mature into a fully fledged system of social welfare. But it had not prevented wartime profiteering, strikes, or economic disasters, leading many to question the extent to which rich Canadians had sacrificed at all. A massive and unprecedented voluntary effort had supported the troops overseas and loaned Ottawa the money it needed to fight the war. The resulting post-war debt of some $2 billion was owed mostly to other Canadians, a fact which fundamentally altered the nature of the post-war economy.
Politically, the war was also a watershed. Borden's efforts to win the 1917 election and carry the nation to victory succeeded in the short term, but fractured the country along regional, cultural, linguistic, and class lines. English and French relations were never lower, and accusations of French traitors and English militarists were not soon forgotten. Quebec would be a wasteland for federal Conservative politicians for most of the next 40 years. Laurier's forlorn stand against conscription lost him the election and divided his party, but helped ensure the Liberals' national credibility, with a firm basis in French Canada, for decades to come.
Labour, newly empowered by its important role in supporting the war effort, pushed for more rights, first through negotiations, and then through strikes. Farmers seethed over agricultural policies and Ottawa's broken promise on conscription. In the post-war period, both groups would form powerful new political and regional parties.
Autonomy and Foreign PolicyThe war accelerated the transformation of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth and demonstrated Great Britain's military and economic reliance on the self-governing dominions. Most of the principal Commonwealth heads of government recognized this, and saw clearly in their wartime contributions the route to greater independence and standing within imperial counsels.
Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden orchestrated a massive national effort in support of the mother country, but also demanded that Great Britain recognize Canada's wartime sacrifices with greater post-war autonomy. Canada signed independently the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that formally ended the war, and assumed a cautious, non-committal role in the newly established League of Nations. London's wartime agreement to re-evaluate the constitutional arrangements between Great Britain and its dominions culminated in the Statute of Westminster (1931), which formalized the dominions' full control over their own foreign policy. Canada's determination to do so regardless had already been made evident during the 1922 Chanak Crisis, when Ottawa insisted on a Parliamentary debate before considering possible support to Great Britain in a military confrontation with Turkey.
Unprecedented StatusDespite the social and political challenges of the post-war, most Canadians also emerged from the struggle believing they had done important and difficult things together. Their primary fighting force at the front, the Canadian Corps, had achieved a first-class reputation as one of the most effective formations on the Western Front. Their generals and politicians had played an obvious role in victory, and the country itself enjoyed an international standing that few observers in 1914 could have predicted.
Israel Establishment:
What is now called the state of Israel belonged to the Ottoman empire, HOWEVER, most of what is now called Israel, during the time of the Ottoman empire, was basically private property. In fact the whole entire country was private property; from, ABOUT the early 19th century, over a period of 100 years, wealthy Ashkenazim bought lands in "Palestine" piece by piece, over time having bought up so much land, so much private property, it could all become a country.
This is not impossible; there are corporations, farm corporations whose total land holdings are nearly the size of New England, the WHOLE of New England, which, geographically is larger than Israel. After WWI, the Ottoman empire was destroyed by the British. During WWI the Arabs had a hand in it too, the history having been romanticized in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia," starring Peter O'Toole, Sir Alec Guiness, Omar Sharif, and Anthony Quinn, all Hollywood royalty. No joke; that was quite a cast.
See, in the strictest terms, legally, that land was bought lock, stock and Arab, from the Turks. Problem is, the Ottoman empire no longer existed, and the Arabs did not recognize them as a country. On the Israeli side of things, many ashkenazi land owners were abusive towards their workers, causing many Arabs to riot. The reason the state of Israel was viewed as European colonialism, was because it did indeed ressemble a colonial operation, a bunch of European Jews bossing around their olive skin, nonwhite local workers (the Arabs).
Very much so, the foundations of Israel had all the qualities of a colonialist operation, a bunch of whites bossing around brown people. See, Ottoman rule was notoriously cruel, and oppressive, so their authority was only recognized only from the force and power they wielded, not command of respect. That meant, that the Arabs viewed all financial transactions of the Ottoman empire as criminal activity. Furthermore the Arab tribes were squabling among themselves, as centuries of illiteracy had taken a once largely well-educated and civilized people, to a people, that had degenerated to a midieval existence.
I am not exagerating when I say this, but, the truth is, the Arabs of 1,000 A.D. were more educated and sophisticated, than the Arabs from the early 20th century. The collapse of the Arab Caliphates, basically undid everything. The Arabs started out primitive and stupid, but then they became smart, civilized and sophisticated thanks to Islam, however, mistreating the Turks, basically screwing their women while the men bled for them in battle, made the Turks want revenge by taking away their power, so, the Arabs were reduced to "primitive and stupid" status again. For most of the 20th century, they struggled to become sophisticated again.
What I'm trying to say is that due to the widespread ignorance and illiteracy they were extremely easy to exploit, cheat, and take advantage of, and many Arabs did not understand the whole notion of a legal contract. The Arabs were either Beduin, or primitive town dwellers eeking out a midieval, miserable existence; gone was the culture and sophistication of the golden era of the Islamic empire of the Arabs (the caliphates). Again most of the 20th century, was a struggle to get that back, many Arab academics argue that they are still struggling to get it back.
The wars against Israel were unsuccessful, because the early state of Israel was slightly better organized than they were. Remember that between the lack of education, the widespread illiteracy, the British seeking to exploit them and on top of that the tribal blood feuds, there wasn't exactly any unity, or sense of order. The bitterness between different alliances of Beduin nomads, caused the division of the Arabian peninsula; the tribal alliances of the north called themselves "Iraq," the Beduin tribal alliances of the Levant called themselves "Syria" and "Jordan" respectively, and because the Beduin were under forced unification by the Al-Saud, the defacto hitmen of the British empire in the Arabian peninsula, once all tribes were successfully unified, the Beduin of the deep desert called themselves Saudi Arabia, the tribes with no power, the weaker ones got the scraps, and called themselves "Beduin," "Oman," "Qatar" and "Kuwait."
Saudi, Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian Arabs, generally look down on Persian Gulf, Omani and Yemeni Arabs. Gulf, Omani, and Yemeni Arabs are the "losers" of the Arabian peninsula; those Arabs, descend from Beduin tribes that were "weaklings" and "couldn't fight worth a damn" so they "got the left overs," lands that no one wanted. In the end as we all know the Persian Gulf Arabs got the last laugh (because of the oil), however Omani and Yemeni Arabs weren't so lucky.
In some ways, the state of Israel was a direct result of the political chaos that followed the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. There was no law, order, or respect, everyone scrambled for the lands they wanted (or were powerful enough to hold on to), and, the true losers of the squable, in the end, were the Gulf Arabs, and Yemenis and Omanis. See the "Palestinians" are in fact part of the tribal alliance that makes up the modern country of Jordan.
Arab history 101;
You have Ishmael, and his 12 sons, and the first 12 Arab tribes. Whereas among the Hebrews, only the patriarchs were allowed to start their own tribes, and no future male descendants were allowed to do the same, the descendants of Ishmael caused a horrible mess.
How can I explain this? Jacob had 12 sons, one of them named Judah. All male children born to Judah from his wives and concubines, belong to the family of Judah, and then, the male grand children of Judah, grand children born from the various wives of Judah's children, become the CLAN of Judah. Pretty soon there are so many they are not a family, or a clan, but a TRIBE. The 12 tribes together, formed the nation of Israel. However, only the 12 patriarchs, were allowed to give their name to a group of people.
With the Ishmaelites it was different; every man from the line of Ishmael who fathered enough sons started calling himself a "tribe."
King David fathered hundreds of children, but there is no "Tribe of David." David, was a direct descendant of Judah, a member of the tribe of Judah, however as I said the Hebrews never allowed the tribes to branch off the way the Ishmaelites did. So why did the Ishmaelite tribes branch off? It had something to do with constant squabling among the brothers; bitterness and or arrogance on the part of one brother made him say to his other brother "screw you; you're not the Sheikh! I'm starting my own tribe!"
See, the ancient Hebrews never did that, although plenty of men within a given tribe, be it the tribe of Levi, or Manasseh, or Benjamin, or Judah, or Naphtali, whoever, all may have had more than one wife, and fathered many children, branching off was strictly forbiden by Hebrew law. The patriarchs, and ONLY the 12 patriarchs, had the honor of having tribes of their own.
A side effect, a beneficial side effect of the squabling and the chaos though, is that the greed, the ambition of many Arabs, the need to start their own tribes, led to them becoming very numerous. Say you have a Sheikh named Omar, and he beats his son Abdullah on a daily basis while laughing really hard, Abdullah gets angry and he thinks to himself "when I am old enough, I'll show him!" He leaves, with the help of a bunch of similarly dissafected and powerless Arabs, he steals some women, and starts fathering kids. Fifty years later he is the head of a tribe 5,000 fighting men strong, so he then proceeds to attack his father and say "see! and you called me a failure! screw you!"
Stories such as those, are common throughout Arab history, and because that pattern of behavior occured ever since, well, basically Ishmael, pretty soon the Arabs became extremely numerous, the descendants of Ishmael I mean. The ancient Hebrews had a greater sense of unity, the monotheism, giving them a sense of "obligation," even if there was abuse within a given family "obligation" forced them to "suck it up" for the "sake of the nation of Israel." However bitter a son, brother, or cousin may have been towards a relative, to the ancient Hebrews branching off into another tribe was unthinkable, whereas with the Arabs it happened practically all the time.
As we all know this created problems, as the tendency for men to wish to branch off into their own tribe, is one of the root causes of the messed up politics of the Arabian peninsula. The last king of Saudi Arabia, the one before this one, got in a huge fight with his family, and he became so angry, he thought about starting his own tribe (true story). The idea never materialized; the whole Al-Saud clan has so much money, they've got a corrupt version of "checks and balances."
The United States has not had a government collapse, because of the checks and balances triangle; congress can't do some things without the president's approval, while the president can't do something without the supreme court, while the supreme court can't do anything without congress and so on. In Saudi Arabia, there is a sort of "checks and balances" power triangle within the Al-Saud; they WANT to kill each other, trust me, they hate one another, problem is each branch of the Al-Saud is so powerful, inter tribal war would be catastrophic both to their personal fortunes, not to mention the world's oil supply.
To make sure, they don't kill each other, the U.S. military is stationed there.
This is not impossible; there are corporations, farm corporations whose total land holdings are nearly the size of New England, the WHOLE of New England, which, geographically is larger than Israel. After WWI, the Ottoman empire was destroyed by the British. During WWI the Arabs had a hand in it too, the history having been romanticized in the movie "Lawrence of Arabia," starring Peter O'Toole, Sir Alec Guiness, Omar Sharif, and Anthony Quinn, all Hollywood royalty. No joke; that was quite a cast.
See, in the strictest terms, legally, that land was bought lock, stock and Arab, from the Turks. Problem is, the Ottoman empire no longer existed, and the Arabs did not recognize them as a country. On the Israeli side of things, many ashkenazi land owners were abusive towards their workers, causing many Arabs to riot. The reason the state of Israel was viewed as European colonialism, was because it did indeed ressemble a colonial operation, a bunch of European Jews bossing around their olive skin, nonwhite local workers (the Arabs).
Very much so, the foundations of Israel had all the qualities of a colonialist operation, a bunch of whites bossing around brown people. See, Ottoman rule was notoriously cruel, and oppressive, so their authority was only recognized only from the force and power they wielded, not command of respect. That meant, that the Arabs viewed all financial transactions of the Ottoman empire as criminal activity. Furthermore the Arab tribes were squabling among themselves, as centuries of illiteracy had taken a once largely well-educated and civilized people, to a people, that had degenerated to a midieval existence.
I am not exagerating when I say this, but, the truth is, the Arabs of 1,000 A.D. were more educated and sophisticated, than the Arabs from the early 20th century. The collapse of the Arab Caliphates, basically undid everything. The Arabs started out primitive and stupid, but then they became smart, civilized and sophisticated thanks to Islam, however, mistreating the Turks, basically screwing their women while the men bled for them in battle, made the Turks want revenge by taking away their power, so, the Arabs were reduced to "primitive and stupid" status again. For most of the 20th century, they struggled to become sophisticated again.
What I'm trying to say is that due to the widespread ignorance and illiteracy they were extremely easy to exploit, cheat, and take advantage of, and many Arabs did not understand the whole notion of a legal contract. The Arabs were either Beduin, or primitive town dwellers eeking out a midieval, miserable existence; gone was the culture and sophistication of the golden era of the Islamic empire of the Arabs (the caliphates). Again most of the 20th century, was a struggle to get that back, many Arab academics argue that they are still struggling to get it back.
The wars against Israel were unsuccessful, because the early state of Israel was slightly better organized than they were. Remember that between the lack of education, the widespread illiteracy, the British seeking to exploit them and on top of that the tribal blood feuds, there wasn't exactly any unity, or sense of order. The bitterness between different alliances of Beduin nomads, caused the division of the Arabian peninsula; the tribal alliances of the north called themselves "Iraq," the Beduin tribal alliances of the Levant called themselves "Syria" and "Jordan" respectively, and because the Beduin were under forced unification by the Al-Saud, the defacto hitmen of the British empire in the Arabian peninsula, once all tribes were successfully unified, the Beduin of the deep desert called themselves Saudi Arabia, the tribes with no power, the weaker ones got the scraps, and called themselves "Beduin," "Oman," "Qatar" and "Kuwait."
Saudi, Iraqi, Syrian and Jordanian Arabs, generally look down on Persian Gulf, Omani and Yemeni Arabs. Gulf, Omani, and Yemeni Arabs are the "losers" of the Arabian peninsula; those Arabs, descend from Beduin tribes that were "weaklings" and "couldn't fight worth a damn" so they "got the left overs," lands that no one wanted. In the end as we all know the Persian Gulf Arabs got the last laugh (because of the oil), however Omani and Yemeni Arabs weren't so lucky.
In some ways, the state of Israel was a direct result of the political chaos that followed the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. There was no law, order, or respect, everyone scrambled for the lands they wanted (or were powerful enough to hold on to), and, the true losers of the squable, in the end, were the Gulf Arabs, and Yemenis and Omanis. See the "Palestinians" are in fact part of the tribal alliance that makes up the modern country of Jordan.
Arab history 101;
You have Ishmael, and his 12 sons, and the first 12 Arab tribes. Whereas among the Hebrews, only the patriarchs were allowed to start their own tribes, and no future male descendants were allowed to do the same, the descendants of Ishmael caused a horrible mess.
How can I explain this? Jacob had 12 sons, one of them named Judah. All male children born to Judah from his wives and concubines, belong to the family of Judah, and then, the male grand children of Judah, grand children born from the various wives of Judah's children, become the CLAN of Judah. Pretty soon there are so many they are not a family, or a clan, but a TRIBE. The 12 tribes together, formed the nation of Israel. However, only the 12 patriarchs, were allowed to give their name to a group of people.
With the Ishmaelites it was different; every man from the line of Ishmael who fathered enough sons started calling himself a "tribe."
King David fathered hundreds of children, but there is no "Tribe of David." David, was a direct descendant of Judah, a member of the tribe of Judah, however as I said the Hebrews never allowed the tribes to branch off the way the Ishmaelites did. So why did the Ishmaelite tribes branch off? It had something to do with constant squabling among the brothers; bitterness and or arrogance on the part of one brother made him say to his other brother "screw you; you're not the Sheikh! I'm starting my own tribe!"
See, the ancient Hebrews never did that, although plenty of men within a given tribe, be it the tribe of Levi, or Manasseh, or Benjamin, or Judah, or Naphtali, whoever, all may have had more than one wife, and fathered many children, branching off was strictly forbiden by Hebrew law. The patriarchs, and ONLY the 12 patriarchs, had the honor of having tribes of their own.
A side effect, a beneficial side effect of the squabling and the chaos though, is that the greed, the ambition of many Arabs, the need to start their own tribes, led to them becoming very numerous. Say you have a Sheikh named Omar, and he beats his son Abdullah on a daily basis while laughing really hard, Abdullah gets angry and he thinks to himself "when I am old enough, I'll show him!" He leaves, with the help of a bunch of similarly dissafected and powerless Arabs, he steals some women, and starts fathering kids. Fifty years later he is the head of a tribe 5,000 fighting men strong, so he then proceeds to attack his father and say "see! and you called me a failure! screw you!"
Stories such as those, are common throughout Arab history, and because that pattern of behavior occured ever since, well, basically Ishmael, pretty soon the Arabs became extremely numerous, the descendants of Ishmael I mean. The ancient Hebrews had a greater sense of unity, the monotheism, giving them a sense of "obligation," even if there was abuse within a given family "obligation" forced them to "suck it up" for the "sake of the nation of Israel." However bitter a son, brother, or cousin may have been towards a relative, to the ancient Hebrews branching off into another tribe was unthinkable, whereas with the Arabs it happened practically all the time.
As we all know this created problems, as the tendency for men to wish to branch off into their own tribe, is one of the root causes of the messed up politics of the Arabian peninsula. The last king of Saudi Arabia, the one before this one, got in a huge fight with his family, and he became so angry, he thought about starting his own tribe (true story). The idea never materialized; the whole Al-Saud clan has so much money, they've got a corrupt version of "checks and balances."
The United States has not had a government collapse, because of the checks and balances triangle; congress can't do some things without the president's approval, while the president can't do something without the supreme court, while the supreme court can't do anything without congress and so on. In Saudi Arabia, there is a sort of "checks and balances" power triangle within the Al-Saud; they WANT to kill each other, trust me, they hate one another, problem is each branch of the Al-Saud is so powerful, inter tribal war would be catastrophic both to their personal fortunes, not to mention the world's oil supply.
To make sure, they don't kill each other, the U.S. military is stationed there.
Middle East:
Since some of the earliest years of Islam, much of the Middle East, including parts of the Arabian Peninsula, had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. By the time World War I, a war that is generally thought of as a primarily European affair, had ended and the Ottoman Empire had come to an end, the social and political aspects of the region had changed drastically, posting World War I as one of the most significant events in shaping the Middle East, as it "brought about the creation of the current state system.The war had many effects on the Middle East in addition to new boundaries and political changes, including the rise of various nationalist movements and independence as well as neocolonialism.The Ottoman Empire joined World War I on the side of the Central Powers, the side opposite of its rival, Russia. Even as the long, gruesome war was far from over, the Allied Powers were looking toward carving up the Ottoman Empire after the war, ambitions that would change the political identity of the Middle East should it come under European colonialism. Russia wanted a port in the Turkish straits, as many Russian ports are ice-covered through winter, and Russia also had interests in Palestine for, not surprisingly, religious reasons. France wanted claims in Syria and Lebanon, and Great Britain practiced its diplomacy based on wanting to protect the "crown jewel," India. Protecting India also meant being active politically in Persia and later Iran, because of its proximity to India, and Egypt because of the Suez Canal.
The Constantinople Agreement confirmed these Allied ambitions, with Russian claims to the Turkish Straits being recognized by Great Britain and France, France was recognized as claiming Syria, and Great Britain would have claims to Persia, a territory close to its crown jewel. Though the ambitions highlighted by the Constantinople Agreement were not fully recognized, it showed the intentions of European colonial powers in the Middle East, and with this secret treaty followed many more, including the Sykes-Picot Agreement. What followed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the mandate period, was a "polite disguise for what a couple of decades earlier had been unabashedly called colonialism.
After the war France received the mandate over Lebanon and Syria, even though U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's King-Crane Commission to the Middle East found that Syria preferred and American mandate over Syria, and it found that Syria even preferred Great Britain over France. Great Britain, after the war, received mandates for the territories that include modern-day Palestine, Israel, Transjordan, and Iraq. These mandates directly conflicted with Woodrow Wilson's ideas and the League of Nation's ideals that included the right to determination, as consultation of the indigenous people were never seriously considered. These mandates were granted to Great Britain and France to prepare the people under their mandate for self-rule. It was under these powers that borders were drawn, resembling the modern Middle East.
The San Remo Conference began to shape the international boundaries in the Middle East., shaped by negotiators from England and France. These European powers were less concerned about the economic and political well-being of the indigenous people but more so about their own agendas. Lebanon was originally a part of the French mandate over Syria before being separated into its own nation, and the borders of Jordan were drawn by Great Britain, but Jordan quickly became a nation that had to rely on other nations, including Great Britain, for revenue because it had no economic resources.
With the borders come some inherit problems that persist even to the present day. Different countries have different problems, whether it is Jordan being drawn into existence with almost no economic resources or Iraq being made up of a population of significant, rigid ethnic and religious distinctions.Problems in Iraq were made worse when the ruling elites were the minority, the Sunni Arabs, ruling the religious majority, the Shi'i Arabs, in Iraq. With the development of new borders and neocolonialism in the Middle East came the rise of nationalist movements and national identities as well as the quest for the true independence those in the Middle East felt was promised to them after World War I.
Nationalism was a powerful drive to many of those in the Middle East, including the shaping of contemporary identities. Nationalist movements that defined modern nations occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, taking place through and after the Second World War, with the characteristics that nations can be identified by being "linguistic, ethnic, religious, or historical traditions that make a nation distinctive,"[20] though many nationalist movements of the Middle East had overlapping or complimenting qualities.
With the end of any sort of Ottoman identity, or osmanlilik, in the early 1920s, the emergence of states was accompanied by the emergence of nationalist movements, whether it was Turkish nationalism replacing osmanlilik Ottomanism or any number of Arab identities that emerged. Zionism was a Jewish national identity that gained notoriety in 1917, when the British issued the Balfour Declaration in favor of a Jewish national homeland. When the Zionist homeland became Israel, encompassing parts of then-Palestine, a Palestinian national identity began to develop in opposition to Zionism. Palestinian nationalism and Zionism would continue to be influenced by one another, because these identities were "largely formulated in the context of denial of the other, resulting in an abundance of nationalist-inspired violence.
Arab nationalist sentiments began to grow in response to the European colonial. After the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, in which the Arab armies were defeated with relative ease, doubt was cast on the leaders of the Arab nations who were involved in the war, as they were seen as incompetent and corrupt.[26] One after another the governments of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq gave way to coups between 1949 and 1958. Nationalism in Egypt began to develop after the Free Officers took over Egypt, and after Nasser came to power, "the president was to reach the pinnacle of his power and popularity due to the Suez Canal crisis. He was an advocate of strong nationalism, which included a strong military, as well as the Non-Alignment Movement at a time of intense military and diplomatic competition between the communist bloc and the West.
In keeping with his nonalignment mindset and nationalization sentiments, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, then owned by Great Britain, as well as attempting to receive massive economic and military aid from the Soviet Union. Though the ensuing invasion of Egypt ended in disaster, it was, perhaps, "just what an increasingly, dictatorial, charismatic leader like Nasser needed.Many Egyptians and Arab nationalists outside of Egypt were receptive of the idea that Nasser had "however imaginary... stared down imperialism."[33] In an attempt to rise above the imperialist influences and borders drawn on their region, Pan-Arabism gained momentum in Nasser's wake.
With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the face of the Middle East went through rough and tumultuous changes. Mandates given to Great Britain and France by the League of Nations that drew contemporary borders also drew contemporary problems, such as Jordan's resource problem, and brought questions of national identities to places such as multi-ethnic Iraq. The quest for independence formulated in different nationalist movements, such as the Zionist and Palestinian nationalist identities that came to grew in opposite of one another, or Nasser's nationalism for Egypt that took the shape of standing up to imperial powers and growing into more broad Pan-Arabism. World War I was one of the most significant events in the history of the Middle East because of its effects, whether mandated by the League of Nations or otherwise.
The Constantinople Agreement confirmed these Allied ambitions, with Russian claims to the Turkish Straits being recognized by Great Britain and France, France was recognized as claiming Syria, and Great Britain would have claims to Persia, a territory close to its crown jewel. Though the ambitions highlighted by the Constantinople Agreement were not fully recognized, it showed the intentions of European colonial powers in the Middle East, and with this secret treaty followed many more, including the Sykes-Picot Agreement. What followed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the mandate period, was a "polite disguise for what a couple of decades earlier had been unabashedly called colonialism.
After the war France received the mandate over Lebanon and Syria, even though U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's King-Crane Commission to the Middle East found that Syria preferred and American mandate over Syria, and it found that Syria even preferred Great Britain over France. Great Britain, after the war, received mandates for the territories that include modern-day Palestine, Israel, Transjordan, and Iraq. These mandates directly conflicted with Woodrow Wilson's ideas and the League of Nation's ideals that included the right to determination, as consultation of the indigenous people were never seriously considered. These mandates were granted to Great Britain and France to prepare the people under their mandate for self-rule. It was under these powers that borders were drawn, resembling the modern Middle East.
The San Remo Conference began to shape the international boundaries in the Middle East., shaped by negotiators from England and France. These European powers were less concerned about the economic and political well-being of the indigenous people but more so about their own agendas. Lebanon was originally a part of the French mandate over Syria before being separated into its own nation, and the borders of Jordan were drawn by Great Britain, but Jordan quickly became a nation that had to rely on other nations, including Great Britain, for revenue because it had no economic resources.
With the borders come some inherit problems that persist even to the present day. Different countries have different problems, whether it is Jordan being drawn into existence with almost no economic resources or Iraq being made up of a population of significant, rigid ethnic and religious distinctions.Problems in Iraq were made worse when the ruling elites were the minority, the Sunni Arabs, ruling the religious majority, the Shi'i Arabs, in Iraq. With the development of new borders and neocolonialism in the Middle East came the rise of nationalist movements and national identities as well as the quest for the true independence those in the Middle East felt was promised to them after World War I.
Nationalism was a powerful drive to many of those in the Middle East, including the shaping of contemporary identities. Nationalist movements that defined modern nations occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, taking place through and after the Second World War, with the characteristics that nations can be identified by being "linguistic, ethnic, religious, or historical traditions that make a nation distinctive,"[20] though many nationalist movements of the Middle East had overlapping or complimenting qualities.
With the end of any sort of Ottoman identity, or osmanlilik, in the early 1920s, the emergence of states was accompanied by the emergence of nationalist movements, whether it was Turkish nationalism replacing osmanlilik Ottomanism or any number of Arab identities that emerged. Zionism was a Jewish national identity that gained notoriety in 1917, when the British issued the Balfour Declaration in favor of a Jewish national homeland. When the Zionist homeland became Israel, encompassing parts of then-Palestine, a Palestinian national identity began to develop in opposition to Zionism. Palestinian nationalism and Zionism would continue to be influenced by one another, because these identities were "largely formulated in the context of denial of the other, resulting in an abundance of nationalist-inspired violence.
Arab nationalist sentiments began to grow in response to the European colonial. After the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, in which the Arab armies were defeated with relative ease, doubt was cast on the leaders of the Arab nations who were involved in the war, as they were seen as incompetent and corrupt.[26] One after another the governments of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq gave way to coups between 1949 and 1958. Nationalism in Egypt began to develop after the Free Officers took over Egypt, and after Nasser came to power, "the president was to reach the pinnacle of his power and popularity due to the Suez Canal crisis. He was an advocate of strong nationalism, which included a strong military, as well as the Non-Alignment Movement at a time of intense military and diplomatic competition between the communist bloc and the West.
In keeping with his nonalignment mindset and nationalization sentiments, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal Company, then owned by Great Britain, as well as attempting to receive massive economic and military aid from the Soviet Union. Though the ensuing invasion of Egypt ended in disaster, it was, perhaps, "just what an increasingly, dictatorial, charismatic leader like Nasser needed.Many Egyptians and Arab nationalists outside of Egypt were receptive of the idea that Nasser had "however imaginary... stared down imperialism."[33] In an attempt to rise above the imperialist influences and borders drawn on their region, Pan-Arabism gained momentum in Nasser's wake.
With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the face of the Middle East went through rough and tumultuous changes. Mandates given to Great Britain and France by the League of Nations that drew contemporary borders also drew contemporary problems, such as Jordan's resource problem, and brought questions of national identities to places such as multi-ethnic Iraq. The quest for independence formulated in different nationalist movements, such as the Zionist and Palestinian nationalist identities that came to grew in opposite of one another, or Nasser's nationalism for Egypt that took the shape of standing up to imperial powers and growing into more broad Pan-Arabism. World War I was one of the most significant events in the history of the Middle East because of its effects, whether mandated by the League of Nations or otherwise.
League of Nations:
The League of Nations came into being after the end of World War One. The League of Nation's task was simple - to ensure that war never broke out again. After the turmoil caused by the Versailles Treaty, many looked to the League to bring stability to the world.
America entered World War One in 1917. The country as a whole and the president - Woodrow Wilson in particular - was horrified by the slaughter that had taken place in what was meant to be a civilised part of the world. The only way to avoid a repetition of such a disaster, was to create an international body whose sole purpose was to maintain world peace and which would sort out international disputes as and when they occurred. This would be the task of the League of Nations.
After the devastation of the war, support for such a good idea was great (except in America where isolationism was taking root).
The organisation of the League of Nations
The League of Nations was to be based in Geneva, Switzerland. This choice was natural as Switzerland was a neutral country and had not fought in World War One. No one could dispute this choice especially as an international organisation such as the Red Cross was already based in Switzerland.
If a dispute did occur, the League, under its Covenant, could do three things - these were known as its sanctions:
It could call on the states in dispute to sit down and discuss the problem in an orderly and peaceful manner. This would be done in the League’s Assembly - which was essentially the League’s parliament which would listen to disputes and come to a decision on how to proceed. If one nation was seen to be the offender, the League could introduce verbal sanctions - warning an aggressor nation that she would need to leave another nation's territory or face the consequences.
If the states in dispute failed to listen to the Assembly’s decision, the League could introduce economic sanctions. This would be arranged by the League’s Council. The purpose of this sanction was to financially hit the aggressor nation so that she would have to do as the League required. The logic behind it was to push an aggressor nation towards bankruptcy, so that the people in that state would take out their anger on their government forcing them to accept the League’s decision. The League could order League members not to do any trade with an aggressor nation in an effort to bring that aggressor nation to heel.
if this failed, the League could introduce physical sanctions. This meant that military force would be used to put into place the League’s decision. However, the League did not have a military force at its disposal and no member of the League had to provide one under the terms of joining - unlike the current United Nations. Therefore, it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness. The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War One and could not provide the League with the backing it needed. Also both Britain and France were not in a position to use their finances to pay for an expanded army as both were financially hit very hard by World War One.The League also had other weaknesses :
The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world’s most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America’s refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world.
Germany was not allowed to join the League in 1919. As Germany had started the war, according to the Treaty of Versailles, one of her punishments was that she was not considered to be a member of the international community and, therefore, she was not invited to join. This was a great blow to Germany but it also meant that the League could not use whatever strength Germany had to support its campaign against aggressor nations.
Russia was also not allowed to join as in 1917, she had a communist government that generated fear in western Europe, and in 1918, the Russian royal family - the Romanovs - was murdered. Such a country could not be allowed to take its place in the League.
Therefore, three of the world’s most powerful nations (potentially for Russia and Germany) played no part in supporting the League. The two most powerful members were Britain and France - both had suffered financially and militarily during the war - and neither was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect western Europe.
Therefore, the League had a fine ideal - to end war for good. However, if an aggressor nation was determined enough to ignore the League’s verbal warnings, all the League could do was enforce economic sanctions and hope that these worked as it had no chance or enforcing its decisions using military might.
The successes of the League of Nations
In view of the League’s desire to end war, the only criteria that can be used to classify a success, was whether war was avoided and a peaceful settlement formulated after a crisis between two nations.
The League experienced success in:
The Aaland Islands (1921)
These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day.
Upper Silesia (1921)
The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. In this referendum, 700,000 voted for Germany and 500,000 for Poland. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. The League was asked to settle this dispute. After a six-week inquiry, the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The League’s decision was accepted y both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia.
Memel (1923)
Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and, therefore, the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. However, the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. For three years, a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an "international zone". Lithuania agreed to this decision. Though this can be seen as a League success – as the issue was settled – a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used force.
Turkey (1923)
The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.
1,400,000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent £10 million on building farms, homes etc for the refugees. Money was also invested in seeds, wells and digging tools and by 1926, work was found for 600,000 people.
A member of the League called this work "the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken."
Greece and Bulgaria (1925)
Both these nations have a common border. In 1925, sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her £45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.
The failures of the League of Nations
Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:
"Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace."
Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure.
Italy (1919)
In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the "Big Three" had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. For 15 months, Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were – so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.
Teschen (1919)
Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.
In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.
Vilna (1920)
Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.
However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.
War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921)
In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.
What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?
The answer is simple – nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this "plague from the East" was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.
The invasion of the Ruhr (1923)
The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an installment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.
In 1923, contrary to League rules, the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member – like Britain – and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.
For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticised what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.
Italy and Albania (1923)
The border between Italy and Albania was far from clear and the Treaty of Versailles had never really addressed this issue. It was a constant source of irritation between both nations.
In 1923, a mixed nationality survey team was sent out to settle the issue. Whilst travelling to the disputed area, the Italian section of the survey team, became separated from the main party. The five Italians were shot by gunmen who had been in hiding.
Italy accused Greece of planning the whole incident and demanded payment of a large fine. Greece refused to pay up. In response, the Italians sent its navy to the Greek island of Corfu and bombarded the coastline. Greece appealed to the League for help but Italy, lead by Benito Mussolini, persuaded the League via the Conference of Ambassadors, to fine Greece 50 million lire.
To follow up this success, Mussolini invited the Yugoslavian government to discuss ownership of Fiume. The Treaty of Versailles had given Fiume to Yugoslavia but with the evidence of a bombarded Corfu, the Yugoslavs handed over the port to Italy with little argument
The social successes of the League of Nations
At a social level the League did have success and most of this is easily forgotten with its failure at a political level. Many of the groups that work for the United Nations now, grew out of what was established by the League. Teams were sent to the Third World to dig fresh water wells, the Health Organisation started a campaign to wipe out leprosy. This idea - of wiping out from the world a disease - was taken up by the United Nations with its smallpox campaign.
Work was done in the Third World to improve the status of women there and child slave labour was also targeted. Drug addiction and drug smuggling were also attacked.
These problems are still with us in the C21st - so it would be wrong to criticise the League for failing to eradicate them. If we cannot do this now, the League had a far more difficult task then with more limited resources.
The greatest success the League had involving these social issues, was simply informing the world at large that these problems did exist and that they should be tackled. No organisation had done this before the League. These social problems may have continued but the fact that they were now being actively investigated by the League and were then taken onboard by the United Nations must be viewed as a success.
America entered World War One in 1917. The country as a whole and the president - Woodrow Wilson in particular - was horrified by the slaughter that had taken place in what was meant to be a civilised part of the world. The only way to avoid a repetition of such a disaster, was to create an international body whose sole purpose was to maintain world peace and which would sort out international disputes as and when they occurred. This would be the task of the League of Nations.
After the devastation of the war, support for such a good idea was great (except in America where isolationism was taking root).
The organisation of the League of Nations
The League of Nations was to be based in Geneva, Switzerland. This choice was natural as Switzerland was a neutral country and had not fought in World War One. No one could dispute this choice especially as an international organisation such as the Red Cross was already based in Switzerland.
If a dispute did occur, the League, under its Covenant, could do three things - these were known as its sanctions:
It could call on the states in dispute to sit down and discuss the problem in an orderly and peaceful manner. This would be done in the League’s Assembly - which was essentially the League’s parliament which would listen to disputes and come to a decision on how to proceed. If one nation was seen to be the offender, the League could introduce verbal sanctions - warning an aggressor nation that she would need to leave another nation's territory or face the consequences.
If the states in dispute failed to listen to the Assembly’s decision, the League could introduce economic sanctions. This would be arranged by the League’s Council. The purpose of this sanction was to financially hit the aggressor nation so that she would have to do as the League required. The logic behind it was to push an aggressor nation towards bankruptcy, so that the people in that state would take out their anger on their government forcing them to accept the League’s decision. The League could order League members not to do any trade with an aggressor nation in an effort to bring that aggressor nation to heel.
if this failed, the League could introduce physical sanctions. This meant that military force would be used to put into place the League’s decision. However, the League did not have a military force at its disposal and no member of the League had to provide one under the terms of joining - unlike the current United Nations. Therefore, it could not carry out any threats and any country defying its authority would have been very aware of this weakness. The only two countries in the League that could have provided any military might were Britain and France and both had been severely depleted strength-wise in World War One and could not provide the League with the backing it needed. Also both Britain and France were not in a position to use their finances to pay for an expanded army as both were financially hit very hard by World War One.The League also had other weaknesses :
The country, whose president, Woodrow Wilson, had dreamt up the idea of the League - America - refused to join it. As America was the world’s most powerful nation, this was a serious blow to the prestige of the League. However, America’s refusal to join the League, fitted in with her desire to have an isolationist policy throughout the world.
Germany was not allowed to join the League in 1919. As Germany had started the war, according to the Treaty of Versailles, one of her punishments was that she was not considered to be a member of the international community and, therefore, she was not invited to join. This was a great blow to Germany but it also meant that the League could not use whatever strength Germany had to support its campaign against aggressor nations.
Russia was also not allowed to join as in 1917, she had a communist government that generated fear in western Europe, and in 1918, the Russian royal family - the Romanovs - was murdered. Such a country could not be allowed to take its place in the League.
Therefore, three of the world’s most powerful nations (potentially for Russia and Germany) played no part in supporting the League. The two most powerful members were Britain and France - both had suffered financially and militarily during the war - and neither was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect western Europe.
Therefore, the League had a fine ideal - to end war for good. However, if an aggressor nation was determined enough to ignore the League’s verbal warnings, all the League could do was enforce economic sanctions and hope that these worked as it had no chance or enforcing its decisions using military might.
The successes of the League of Nations
In view of the League’s desire to end war, the only criteria that can be used to classify a success, was whether war was avoided and a peaceful settlement formulated after a crisis between two nations.
The League experienced success in:
The Aaland Islands (1921)
These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day.
Upper Silesia (1921)
The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. In this referendum, 700,000 voted for Germany and 500,000 for Poland. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. The League was asked to settle this dispute. After a six-week inquiry, the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The League’s decision was accepted y both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia.
Memel (1923)
Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and, therefore, the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. However, the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. For three years, a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an "international zone". Lithuania agreed to this decision. Though this can be seen as a League success – as the issue was settled – a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used force.
Turkey (1923)
The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.
1,400,000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent £10 million on building farms, homes etc for the refugees. Money was also invested in seeds, wells and digging tools and by 1926, work was found for 600,000 people.
A member of the League called this work "the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken."
Greece and Bulgaria (1925)
Both these nations have a common border. In 1925, sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her £45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.
The failures of the League of Nations
Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:
"Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace."
Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure.
Italy (1919)
In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the "Big Three" had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. For 15 months, Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were – so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.
Teschen (1919)
Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.
In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.
Vilna (1920)
Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.
However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.
War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921)
In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.
What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?
The answer is simple – nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this "plague from the East" was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.
The invasion of the Ruhr (1923)
The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an installment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.
In 1923, contrary to League rules, the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr – Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member – like Britain – and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.
For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticised what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.
Italy and Albania (1923)
The border between Italy and Albania was far from clear and the Treaty of Versailles had never really addressed this issue. It was a constant source of irritation between both nations.
In 1923, a mixed nationality survey team was sent out to settle the issue. Whilst travelling to the disputed area, the Italian section of the survey team, became separated from the main party. The five Italians were shot by gunmen who had been in hiding.
Italy accused Greece of planning the whole incident and demanded payment of a large fine. Greece refused to pay up. In response, the Italians sent its navy to the Greek island of Corfu and bombarded the coastline. Greece appealed to the League for help but Italy, lead by Benito Mussolini, persuaded the League via the Conference of Ambassadors, to fine Greece 50 million lire.
To follow up this success, Mussolini invited the Yugoslavian government to discuss ownership of Fiume. The Treaty of Versailles had given Fiume to Yugoslavia but with the evidence of a bombarded Corfu, the Yugoslavs handed over the port to Italy with little argument
The social successes of the League of Nations
At a social level the League did have success and most of this is easily forgotten with its failure at a political level. Many of the groups that work for the United Nations now, grew out of what was established by the League. Teams were sent to the Third World to dig fresh water wells, the Health Organisation started a campaign to wipe out leprosy. This idea - of wiping out from the world a disease - was taken up by the United Nations with its smallpox campaign.
Work was done in the Third World to improve the status of women there and child slave labour was also targeted. Drug addiction and drug smuggling were also attacked.
These problems are still with us in the C21st - so it would be wrong to criticise the League for failing to eradicate them. If we cannot do this now, the League had a far more difficult task then with more limited resources.
The greatest success the League had involving these social issues, was simply informing the world at large that these problems did exist and that they should be tackled. No organisation had done this before the League. These social problems may have continued but the fact that they were now being actively investigated by the League and were then taken onboard by the United Nations must be viewed as a success.