Evaluate the Successes and Failures of the Paris Peace Conference in Creating a Stable European Community in the Post WWI Era.

_______On the 18th of January, 1919 in Paris, diplomats from more than 29 countries met, discussed and came up with a series of treaties to reshape the map of Europe and the world to avoid the further outbreak of another war. This was then later to be referred to as the Paris Peace Conference. The Treaty of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Neuilly, Trianon and Sevres were all prepared at the conference in order to be considered, revised and signed. However, many argue whether or not the Treaties mentioned in the conference were truly a success. It seems, nevertheless, that both arguments can be brought up. The treaties of the Paris Peace Conference were both successful and failed in creating a stable European community in the post World War I era.

_______The Treaty of Versailles was the contract that ended war between Germany and the Allied powers. It was signed on the 28th of June in 1919, and was the first of the negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference to be signed. According to the agreement in an attempt to form peace within Europe, Germany was not pacified nor was she permanently weakened. The Allies hoped that with a more nonviolent settlement they could avoid vengeance from Germany. However, this took a lot of convincing throughout the Allies. France believed that Germany should pay for the wreck they had brought upon Europe. In order to appease all sides of the issue, only few restrictions were placed on Germany. Some of which included a limit on troops and naval forces and the prohibition of poison gas, (one of Germany’s most effective weapon during the First World War) armed aircraft, tanks and armoured cars. All in all, the Treaty of Versailles seemed to have a very promising future; Germany was weak, but not feel threatened enough to want vengeance. However, this all backfired in 1939 when the Second World War erupted. Germany indeed was in search of vengeance and certainly succeeded under the rule of Adolf Hitler.

_______The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye was signed on the 10th of September in 1919 and presented Austria with several punishments for being involved in the war. For one, in order to prevent another similar war, an alliance between Germany and Austria was strictly forbidden. This seemed like a very reasonable restriction seeing as though the First World War ultimately began because of such an alliance. The treaty presented Austria with restrictions on their army and also required them to recognize the independence of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Poland. This break up made the nation politically unstable; both a major drawback and an advantage. For one, this meant Austria was too weak to retaliate, but meant they would be one of Europe’s weak powers with only themselves to blame. Furthermore, the Treaty called for the surrender of Austrian territory to the newly created states. With this and their inability to form an alliance with the country they depended on for certain goods, Germany, Austria was severely economically weakened. This meant Europe was, with each passing treaty, growing more and more unstable; just the opposite of what the Conference was attempting to accomplish. However, a weaker nation, and a weaker army meant a weaker more preventable retaliation.

_______In November on the 27th in 1919 the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine was signed in dealing with Bulgaria for its role as one of the Central Powers in World War I. It required Bulgaria to return territories captured during the war. Politically, Bulgaria experienced the Second National Catastrophe when they were forced to recognize the existence of Yugoslavia as a nation and cede most of its Macedonian territory to this new nation. They also found themselves in a bad position economically, having to pay $400 million in reparations. By ceding Western Thrace to the Entente Bulgaria lost its direct outlet to the Aegean Sea. This severely weakened Bulgaria making them economically and politically unstable but with that preventing further outbreak of war.

_______The Treaty of Trianon was the agreement signed on June 4th in 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles in order to reprimand Hungary following the separation from Austria and the formation of a new Hungarian Empire. The treaty made it impossible for Hungary to gain self-determination by essentially removing their rights. The limitations placed on Hungary were ruthless; its territory was divided without regard to Hungary’s’ populations and were deprived of access to the sea; they had lost 72% of all its original territory. The treaty harshly placed the responsibility of restoring Italy onto Hungary. This had seemed to be a very harsh treatment of Hungary that could only lead to vengeance and another outbreak of war.

_______Finally, the Treaty of Sevres was presented on August 10th 1920 but was not signed by the Ottoman Empire. They refused to be formed into Turkey and renounce all rights over Arab Asia and North Africa. When the new Turkish nationalist regime rejects this treaty it is replaced with the Treaty of Lausanne on the 24th of July in 1923. The Treaty of Lausanne recognized Turkey as a new country and gave back some land which was taken from her by the Treaty of Sevres. At the same time, no reparations were imposed on Turkey and in return Turkey stopped its claims on former Ottoman territories. This seemed to be the most successful treaty with no fear of vengeance from the nation the treaty involved. The nation had received everything it had wanted and could walk away from the conference with their head held high.

_______The treaties of the Paris Peace Conference were not explicitly successful but neither failures in creating a stable European community in the post World War I era. Ultimately it seemed to be the same story with every treaty; the nation in question was required to pay reparations but with the attempt to not be too harsh so as to not create a vengeful sentiment from the nation. The conferences success lay in the aspect that there was certainly an attempt to make Europe a more peaceful place. However, their failure seemed to be in their tactic; it almost seemed as if the League of Nations, rather than solve the problems presented by World War I, attempted to simply avoid having to deal with them by weakening the nations to the point that they could not retaliate, even if they wanted to. The League of Nations certainly could have proposed better attempts to resolve issues. However, are they truly to blame for all the problems that resulted after the conference? Could the Second World War really be a direct result of the Leagues rash decisions?