Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
UTSC (30,000)
History (700)
Lecture 20

Lecture 20


Department
History
Course Code
HISB31H3
Professor
Neville Panthaki
Lecture
20

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
L20
League of Nations
Realism Æ Liberalism
- based on Bismarckian idea that force and power is the motive of diplomacy & only thing
that matters
- as of first world war, resulting carnage/psychological damage to the people who had
constructed the 19th century system -- led to want to try to create an alternate shift
* based on balance of power (that no Æ arbitration (diplomacy should not revolve around
one nation would be stronger than force and power, but collectivism)
another)
- trying to ensure that the problem won't arise in the first place
- liberalism = arbitration on the idea that it will lead
to a succession on hostilities or provide a security
based on collectivism
* web/bloc alliances Æ collective security
- after WWI, more dependence on collective security
toward what Wilson wanted (move away from big
power politics towards idea of working together)
- block alliances, security was kept on the basis of threat
* arms build up Æ disarmament
- safeguard was supposed to be equal disadvantage - not advantage
- no state was allowed to build up arms
- realism was modelled/based on the
ideology that humanity is corrupt,
power is natural, force keeps
everything in check
* is anarchial model of state system Æ state relations based
- only arms can keep the balance, bloc can keep against, balance of power is worthy of holding
peace
- states used to only listen to force, - based on moralities/ethics
only thing to overpower them
- based more on the reconstruction/re-
understanding of diplomacy on the idea that it could
work -- ethics and morality should be the basis of
diplomacy, not force and power
- became obvious that great power only listened to their own interests as they did prior
WWI
- though nations formed diplomacy under these conditions/ideals - great powers began to
pursue their own interests irrespective of joint objectives
Locarno Treaty - 1925 - Stresemann
Æ Stresemann reintroduced Germany into the European system
- shrewd in attempting to achieve what he wanted to
- successfully reincorporated Germany into the diplomatic system as Versailles kept
Germany out of the new system
- saddle Germany with reparations, things that made Germany the ferriferous state of
Europe
- Stresemann acknowledged that Germany would act as another responsible state and an
agreement was made between Germany and the nations of
Æ Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany [great powers of the days]
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

- Britain and France concluded a treaty to bring Germany back into the league
Æ Germans willing to be acknowledged as a responsible state to take part in League of
Nations [but did not admit wrongs] - guaranteed them Western borders
[- =/= Eastern German borders & Eastern European security ignored]
- Germany did not want to rewrite Versailles, redefine borders
- did not promise anything about the Eastern border
- did not take long for Hitler to expand in Eastern Europe
- Locarno did not include the guarantee Eastern nations - their interests were ignored
- have a problem with Eastern ideologies
- as long as Western borders were secure, everything was fine
Washington Naval Agreement (1921-1922) - to whom naval properties mattered
- of how large powers did not allow the League to function in terms of collective security
- Washington, London, Tokyo - 3 powers who concluded the treaty
London Naval Treaty (1930) - follow up regarding power of Japanese
- Pacific region was a region of imperialism (British, Americans, Japanese)
- restatement and updating the treaty
- pledged to regulate naval naval/submarine warfare in the Pacific, submarines, quotas,
where to place them, what to do with them
- ratio of 5:5:3 (British, USA, Japan) - what they could have
- realism is about anarchy but not how the world should function -- but how it did function
and continued to function (looked after own interests through bloc alliances)
Interwar crises of the 30s
- coinciding with rise of Fascism and Communism
1. Pacifism
- as a result of the First World War experience
- led to demographic problem, etc
- mostly in Britain and France, a shy away from militarism (military power)
- try to be something different, conflict resolution based on something more civil, not war
- aggression was blatantly regression
- democratic governments were more responsible for civilians
- affected governments to see whether aggression could be solved not by response but by
collective measure
- don't want this to happen again - but is happening and probably going to continue
happening
2. no solidarity between Western powers
- all wanted something differently regarding the Germans
- security
3. No cooperation or league action
- league was not allowed to function by the great power - exercised veto or powers
disregarded the league
- Japanese vs. Chinese 1931, Italians vs. Ethiopians Æ aggression but security did not
impose collective measures - did not believe in it and left
4. Allied distrust of the Soviet Union (collective security)
- Germany gotten out by a lot of clauses, good relations of great powers
- Soviet Union distrusted until French allowed them to come back by sponsoring
membership into the League
5. Toleration of Fascism
- potential fascism that was arising or surge of communism
- in only collective foreign policy
www.notesolution.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version