“Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace.” With reference to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, discuss the extent to which this is true.

“Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace.” With reference to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, discuss the extent to which this is true.
At the ending of World War I in November 1918, the Allied Powers were found victorious, while the Central Powers were defeated. The Allied Powers were Britain, France, U.S., Italy and Japan, while the Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey. Decisions were taken to officially make peace through a conference by the Allied Powers. However, “Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace.” The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which lasted for six months showed that it’s impossible for victors to make peace. The Allied Powers proved that it was difficult to do so through their emotions and disagreements that were shown during this conference.
With emotions running high after World War I, many leaders gathered in Paris to discuss peace. They didn’t want a war of that magnitude to ever happen again. This was known as the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Thirty-seven countries attended the conference but the ones who dominated the conference were the main countries that sat at the Supreme Council. They were U.S., France, Britain, Italy and Japan. Many countries, on the side of the Allied Powers, sat at the conference to discuss ways of ensuring lasting peace. However, from early in the conference, it was very clear that achieving the objective of lasting peace would be difficult. Each partaker of the conference came with different agendas that were not closely linked with achieving peace and this lead to many conflicts within the conference between many countries. They were driven more by self-interest rather that moral reflection.
Although the conference’s main objective was to create lasting peace on the heels of one of the worst wars mankind has ever seen, the conference had already defeated its purpose from the beginning. Russia and Austria-Hungary were not invited to this conference. Russia was empowered by Communist by 1917. No one wanted to be associated with Russia as communism was seen as evil. Austria- Hungary was not invited also as she was an ally of Germany. Not inviting Russia and Austria-Hungary at the Conference defeated the goal of the Conference: to ensure everlasting peace. Germany was also not at the conference as they were seen as the cause of the war and were detested by many. This questions the whole drive of the conference. Did they want to ensure lasting peace or did they want peace to a certain extent; a peace that only benefited them, the Allied Powers? Also, were they more self-centered in what they’d want the outcome of the conference to be? Or, were the all a united front and came to the conference with the same approach?
Japan, a member of the Supreme Council, wasn’t at the conference to promote lasting peace. Japan didn’t care much for lasting peace amongst Europe, especially seeing that she was not a European country. Instead, Japan’s representative Monsieur Nobuaki Makino wanted territories that belonged to China where Germany previously had rights before they lost the war. This was an opportunity for Japan to expand her empire. Also, seeing that she was not a European country and was a different race, she felt that she was not supported equally by the Allied countries and proposed Racial Equality. Italy was also an ally who came to the conference with another intention other than discussing lasting peace. Although she was European power, no one listened to her. Like Japan, she felt invisible to the stronger ally powers. She came to the conference to discuss establishing rights for herself at the Adriatic Sea. She wanted to create ports as well as use the space to store her warships.
At the conference, France mainly spoke about German guilt and reparations. Clemenceau, the representative for France as well as the chairperson for the conference, came into the meeting with old animosity. He had a strong hatred for Germany and wanted revenge. In the 1870s, Germany through Bismarck seized France’s territory Alsace and Lorraine during the Franco- Prussian War. These were France’s most important industrial provinces. France was also further humiliated by being forced to pay reparations of 15 billion francs to Germany. French pride was hurt that year, and they vowed to take revenge and get back their industrial provinces one day. The Paris Peace Conference was their day to get revenge. In addition, to strengthen her economy, France wanted Germany’s industrial land, the Saarland, as coal was a suitable trading goods. Clemenceau used the Saarland as a way to satisfy some feelings towards Germany.
As head of the conference, Clemenceau indicated that he was not questioning whether Germany was guilty or not, he was stating a fact. He made it not up for discussion. In fact, he stated that the conference was taking place only to decide how much Germany would pay the price. This led to Germany’s severe punishment. The objective of the conference from the beginning, once again, was clearly not in favour of everyone, as we see Clemenceau, the chairperson of the conference, had a different approach to the conference and what should be discussed in it. By promoting German guilt and reparations, not only was Clemenceau defeating the purpose of promoting lasting peace, he was also creating conflict that would lead to implications after the conference, which opposed the objective of it.
Britain also came with a different agenda. Britain’s representative, Prime Minister Lloyd George believed that a weak Germany was just as to be fearful as a strong Germany. He warned the other countries, especially France, that Germany would want revenge someday for the injustice brought upon them, and with the help of someone, they’d rise again and strengthen their empire, destroying every country that caused them to have to rebuild themselves. Although he feared an angry Germany, nevertheless he still wanted reparations from them. Yes, he did disagree with France’s proposal, however it was the severity of it, which made him disagree. He did believe that Germany should pay reparations, just to a lesser extent. He wanted Germany to pay some reparations as he came to the conference looking to receive 300 billion dollars of reparations in order to recover Britain’s economy and repay loans they had borrowed from U.S. during the war. He also wanted to ensure that he did not anger his people as his promise of 300 billion dollars is what made persons elect him to become Prime Minister.
In addition, within the British camps, no peace and agreements could take place. While Lloyd George wanted money, British Economist John Maynard Keyes proposed that Germany pay for physical damages instead of these high reparations. This shows how impossible it was to come to a decision at the Paris Peace Conference, as even delegates from the same country couldn’t even agree upon the same end result, thus defeating the objective of peace once again, even though in this term, peace had nothing to do with the goal of the conference, but instead peace within a country. If a country can’t agree and make peace amongst itself, how is it to promote peace amongst other countries?
U.S. was the primary peacemaker with proposals of peace in terms of its fourteen points and League of Nations. However, President Wilson also found himself compromising so that he could make peace. U.S. was the only one who came with the agenda for peace, but eventually became corrupted. Wilson was making backdoor deals with small nations so that his League of Nations would be accepted. Half way through the conference, he lost focus of his goal and instead wanted to ensure that he got his money from countries that borrowed from him during the war, as well as ensure the establishment of his League of Nations.
Wilson was a supporter of Self-determination. He believed that every country had the right to govern itself and to be governed by someone of its own nationality. While this benefitted many countries that were always under the rule of someone of another nationality, such as Czechoslovakia, many other countries also did not agree with Wilson’s proposal of self-determination, as this would cause them to lose colonies. As a result, many countries did not listen to Wilson’s proposals. Knowing that self-determination was problematic as it caused many countries, who were opposed to the idea, to not agree to join the League of Nations, Wilson began to violate his own principles.
Austria wanted New Guinea as one of their colonies as well as 300 million pounds of sterling to bring income to their country and balance her books. Greece was looking for land. The Emir Feisal from the Middle East was looking for an Arab country to govern, perhaps Iraq. The Jews wanted Jewish homeland in Palestine. Wilson made backdoor deals with many of these countries in favour of their positive stance towards his League of Nations. This proved that at the end of the day, the Paris Peace Conference didn’t fulfill their mandate. With Wilson, as well as other nations, self Interest dominated the seeking of peace.
While many nations came with different agendas to the Paris Peace Conference, at the end of the day, the bigger picture was to blame Germany and to decide what their punishment should be. Amongst the discussion, stripping Germany of colonies, territorial boarders, industry, and military, was opted as Germany’s punishments. Discussing this in the conference, which was created to ensure lasting peace, defeated the objective, as it not only blamed Germany for the entire war, but it also did not allow them to negotiate the terms of their punishment, or whether they deserved to be punished. In fact, Germany was not invited to the conference. Instead, she was summoned at the end only to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Once the countries in the conference, decided upon the terms of Treaty, change was not up for discussion. The Treaty was simply a diktat. Although she opposed at first, Germany had to eventually sign as the Allied Powers threatened to bomb Germany if she did not do so. Thus, once again, defeating the purpose of peace. The Allied Powers approach to lasting peace was morally wrong. Here they were, forcing Germany to sign a Treaty created in their peace conference, to accept blame for the war and if opposed, they’d bomb her country.
Having to forcefully sign a Treaty to which they did not agree caused Germany to having seething anger. Germany was now a weak nation, and a weak and angry Germany would lead to strong implications after the conference. This led to rise of the Fascism, Nazism, as well as political unrest in Germany as many persons would not rest until Germany sought revenge against the Allied Powers and those who caused them to become a weak nation.
In conclusion, the Paris Peace Conference shows that it’s impossible for these victors to create lasting peace. They weren’t able to bring about lasting peace. Instead, their implications led to another war.