A mere two decades after Europe was torn apart by the artillery shells of World War I, an even deadlier conflict was to emerge. The second World War was a direct result of failed diplomacy during the first World War, and showed how the treaties and restrictions placed on the Central Powers drastically backfired. Perhaps the most fateful of these peacemaking endeavors, however, was the Treaty of Versailles. Signed in 1919 as the official document which ended the war, the harsh limitations it adopted towards an already unstable Germany guaranteed future clashes and provided only a temporary solution for Europe. The Treaty of Versailles was an ineffective settlement due to Germany’s socio political climate, its failure to adequately enforce constraints, …show more content…
Article 190 states that the German Army “must not comprise more than seven divisions of infantry and three divisions of cavalry . . . the Army must be devoted exclusively to the maintenance of order within the territory” (8 A. 160); stipulations designed to keep it weak enough that it couldn’t attack other countries. And yet, despite this, Germany started World War II in a better state than it did World War I (“Failed Peace”). The territories removed had only served to drain its resources, and over the following years the population rose (“Failed Peace”). Had Germany chosen to actually comply with the military restrictions, it wouldn’t have been able to start World War II, but it never truly intended to go through with its promises. The Weimar Republic began violating them almost immediately: hiding the German General Staff under another name, secretly training troops and developing equipment, colluding “with German military leaders to avoid the Versailles treaty restrictions” (“Failed Peace”, and even declaring that they would no longer comply before Hitler came to power (“Failed Peace”). This would have happened anyway, but the true failing of the Versailles Treaty and Allies is that they refused to enforce the conditions of the treaty and essentially allowed it to happen. America, an ocean away, refused to become involved, and Britain lost interest and fell …show more content…
The treaty was subject to each of their personal biases, rather than what would be good for Germany, thus causing the treaty to fail. Clemenceau, like many French citizens, sought revenge. Not only had Germany taken Alsace-Lorraine, a productive territory on the French border, but it had directly invaded his country, a fate not shared by Britain or America. Both of those countries were surrounded by ocean, but France shared a border with Germany. Out of a desire for revenge and self-preservation, Clemenceau advocated the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to France and harsh military restrictions, both of which angered the German people. Wilson, meanwhile, supported diplomacy. He wanted peace talks and self-determination, yet compromised and ceded much of his logic for the creation of the League of Nations, allowing the other countries to impose harsher measures. The League not only drove Japan to the Axis alliance during World War II but provided a false sense of security and was largely ineffective (“Failed Peace”). Finally, George was the moderating voice. He placated the British people with promises of revenge, but “[wanted] to protect the future against a repetition of the horrors of [the] war” (4C). Both France and Britain had sizable empires, however, and by