Ending the First World War, it was signed on June 28, 1919 in the suburbs of Paris, in the former royal residence.
The truce, which effectively ended the bloody war, was concluded on November 11, 1918, but it took the heads of the warring states about another six months to jointly develop the main provisions of the peace treaty.
The Treaty of Versailles was concluded between the victorious countries (USA, France, Great Britain) and defeated Germany. Russia, also part of the coalition of anti-German powers, had previously entered into a treaty with Germany in 1918 (according to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), and therefore did not participate in either the Paris Peace Conference or the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. It is for this reason that Russia, which suffered huge human losses, not only did not receive any compensation (indemnity), but also lost part of its original territory (some regions of Ukraine and Belarus).
Terms of the Treaty of Versailles
The main provision of the Treaty of Versailles is the unconditional recognition of “causing the war.” In other words, full responsibility for inciting the global European conflict fell on Germany. The consequence of this was sanctions of unprecedented severity. The total amount of indemnities paid by the German side to the victorious powers amounted to 132 million marks in gold (in 1919 prices).
The last payments were made in 2010, so Germany was able to fully pay off the “debts” of the First World War only after 92 years.
Germany suffered very painful territorial losses. All were divided between the countries of the Entente (anti-German coalition). Part of the original continental German lands was also lost: Lorraine and Alsace went to France, East Prussia to Poland, Gdansk (Danzig) was recognized as a free city.
The Treaty of Versailles contained detailed requirements aimed at demilitarizing Germany and preventing the re-ignition of military conflict. The German army was significantly reduced (to 100,000 people). The German military industry was actually supposed to cease to exist. In addition, a separate requirement was stated for the demilitarization of the Rhineland - Germany was prohibited from concentrating troops and military equipment there. The Treaty of Versailles included a clause on the creation of the League of Nations, an international organization similar in function to the modern UN.
Impact of the Treaty of Versailles on the German economy and society
The terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty were unjustifiably harsh and harsh, and she could not withstand them. The direct consequence of fulfilling the draconian requirements of the treaty was complete destruction, total impoverishment of the population and monstrous hyperinflation.
Moreover, the offensive peace agreement affected such a sensitive, albeit insubstantial, substance as national identity. The Germans felt not only ruined and robbed, but also wounded, unfairly punished and offended. German society readily accepted the most extreme nationalist and revanchist ideas; This is one of the reasons that a country that just 20 years ago ended one global military conflict with grief, easily got involved in the next one. But the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which was supposed to prevent potential conflicts, not only did not fulfill its purpose, but also to some extent contributed to the outbreak of World War II.
The Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended the First World War of 1914-18, was signed on June 28, 1919 in Versailles (France) by the United States of America, the British Empire (Lloyd George David - Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1916-1922), France (Clemenceau Georges) , Italy (Vittorio Emanuele Orlando - Italian politician, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Italy in 1917-1919.) and Japan, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hijaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state, Siam, Czechoslovakia and Uruguay, on the one hand, and capitulated Germany, on the other. It came into force on January 10, 1920, after ratification by Germany and the four main Allied powers - Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.
The US representative at Versailles was Wilson Thomas Woodrow.
Wilson Thomas Woodrow (1856-1924). Born on December 28, 1856 in the town of Stanton, Virginia, in the family of pastor Joseph Ruggles Wilson, he was the third child. The son was named Thomas in honor of his grandfather. Due to poor health, the boy received his primary education at home. Thomas only entered school at the age of 13. He did not shine with success. The boy's favorite pastime was playing baseball. At the end of 1873, Joseph Wilson sent his son to study at Davidson College (North Carolina), which trained ministers of the Presbyterian Church. In the summer of 1874, Wilson left college due to illness and returned to his family. He attended church and listened to his father's sermons in a wealthy parish. In 1875, Wilson entered Princeton College, where he paid special attention to government studies. In 1879, Wilson continued his education at the University of Virginia Law School. But at the end of the next year he fell ill and returned to Wilmington, where for three years he studied independently, studying law, history, and political life in the United States and England. While attending the University of Virginia, Wilson fell in love with his cousin Henrietta Woodrow. However, Henrietta, citing her close relationship with Wilson, refused to marry him. In memory of his first novel, the young man took the name Woodrow in 1882. In the summer of 1882, he arrived in Atlanta, where he soon passed the examination for the right to practice law.
Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States (1913-1921) from the Democratic Party. Initiator of the US entry into the First World War. Professor of history and political economy. In 1910 he was elected governor of one of the States. In 1912 he ran for president as a candidate of the Democratic Party. Since the beginning of the World War, when neutral America has been making billions of dollars from military orders, Wilson has been an apostle of pacifism. This did not prevent him from entering the war on the side of the Entente in 1917, when unrestricted submarine warfare declared by Germany threatened American trade with Europe. On January 18, 1918, Wilson puts forward his peace program, formulated in the famous 14 points, which speak of a democratic peace without annexations and indemnities, etc., and also comes up with a project for the League of Nations, which supposedly should pacify the world. How hypocritical his program was is shown by the fact that the United States government itself refused to join the League of Nations.
Fourteen Points of US President William Wilson
1. Open peace treaties, openly discussed, after which there will be no secret international agreements of any kind, and diplomacy will always operate openly and in full view of everyone.
2. Absolute freedom of navigation on the seas outside territorial waters, both in peacetime and in wartime, except in cases where certain seas are partially or completely closed internationally for the implementation of international treaties.
3. The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of equal terms of trade for all nations who stand for peace and unite their efforts to maintain it.
4. Fair guarantees that national armaments will be reduced to the utmost minimum consistent with national security.
5. The free, frank and absolutely impartial settlement of all colonial disputes, based on strict adherence to the principle that in the determination of all questions relating to sovereignty, the interests of the population should weigh equally against the just claims of the government whose rights are to be determined.
6. The liberation of all Russian territories and such a resolution of all issues affecting Russia that guarantees her the fullest and freest assistance from other nations in obtaining a full and unhindered opportunity to make an independent decision regarding her own political development, her national policy and providing her with a welcoming reception in the community of free nations, under the form of government that she herself chooses. And more than welcome, also all the support in everything she needs and what she desires for herself. The attitude towards Russia on the part of her sister nations in the coming months will be a touchstone of their good feelings, their understanding of her needs and ability to separate them from their own interests, as well as an indicator of their wisdom and the unselfishness of their sympathies.
7. Belgium, - the whole world will agree, - must be evacuated and restored, without attempting to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys on an equal basis with all other free nations. No other action can serve more than this to restore confidence among peoples in those laws which they themselves have established and determined as a guide for their mutual relations. Without this healing act, the entire structure and entire operation of international law will be forever defeated.
8. All French territory must be liberated and the occupied parts returned, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in relation to Alsace-Lorraine, which disturbed the world peace for almost 50 years, must be corrected so that peaceful relations can again be established in the interests of everyone.
9. The rectification of Italy's borders must be carried out on the basis of clearly distinguishable national borders.
10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place in the League of Nations we want to see protected and secured, must receive the broadest opportunity for autonomous development.
11. Romania, Serbia and Montenegro must be evacuated. Occupied territories must be returned. Serbia must be given free and reliable access to the sea. The relations of the various Balkan states must be determined in a friendly manner in accordance with the historically established principles of affiliation and nationality. International guarantees must be established for the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the various Balkan states.
12. The Turkish parts of the Ottoman Empire, in its present composition, must receive secure and lasting sovereignty, but the other nationalities now under Turkish rule must receive an unequivocal guarantee of existence and absolutely inviolable conditions for autonomous development. The Dardanelles must be constantly open to the free passage of ships and trade of all nations under international guarantees.
13. An independent Polish state must be created, which must include all territories with an undeniably Polish population, which must be provided with free and reliable access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence, as well as territorial integrity, must be guaranteed by an international treaty .
14. A general association of nations should be formed on the basis of special statutes for the purpose of creating a mutual guarantee of the political independence and territorial integrity of both large and small states.
Wilson's speech caused a mixed reaction, both in the United States and its allies. France wanted reparations from Germany because French industry and agriculture had been destroyed by the war, and Britain, as the most powerful naval power, did not want freedom of navigation. Wilson made compromises with Clemenceau, Lloyd George and other European leaders during the Paris peace negotiations, trying to ensure that Clause 14 was implemented and the League of Nations was created. In the end, the agreement on the League of Nations was defeated by Congress, and in Europe only 4 of the 14 theses were implemented.
The purpose of the Treaty of Versailles was,
firstly, the redistribution of the world in favor of the victorious powers
secondly, preventing a possible future military threat from Germany. In general, the articles of the agreement can be divided into several groups.
1. Germany lost part of its lands in Europe:
Alsace and Lorraine were returned to France (within the borders of 1870);
Belgium - the districts of Malmedy and Eupen, as well as the so-called neutral and Prussian parts of the Morenet;
Poland - Poznan, part of Pomerania and other territories of Western Prussia;
The city of Danzig (Gdansk) and its district was declared a “free city”;
The city of Memel (Klaipeda) was transferred to the jurisdiction of the victorious powers (in February 1923 it was annexed to Lithuania).
The statehood of Schleswig, the southern part of East Prussia and Upper Silesia was to be determined by a plebiscite (from the Latin plebiscitum: plebs - the common people + scitum - decision, decree - one of the types of popular vote, in international relations it is used when polling the population of a territory about its affiliation with one state or another).
Part of Schleswig passed to Denmark (1920);
Part of Upper Silesia - to Poland (1921);
Also, a small section of Silesian territory went to Czechoslovakia;
The southern part of East Prussia remained with Germany.
Germany also retained its original Polish lands - on the right bank of the Oder, Lower Silesia, most of Upper Silesia, etc. The Saarland came under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after this period the fate of the Saarland was also to be decided by a plebiscite. During this period, the coal mines of the Saar (the richest coal basin in Europe) were transferred to the ownership of France.
2. Germany lost all its colonies, which were later divided among the main victorious powers. The redistribution of the German colonies was carried out as follows:
In Africa:
Tanganyika became a British mandate;
The Ruanda-Urundi region is a Belgian mandate;
-The “Kionga Triangle” (South-East Africa) was transferred to Portugal (the named territories previously constituted German East Africa); -Great Britain and France divided Togo and Cameroon; -SA received a mandate for South-West Africa;
France received a protectorate over Morocco;
Germany refused all treaties and agreements with Liberia;
On the Pacific Ocean:
The German-owned islands north of the equator were ceded to Japan as mandated territories;
To the Commonwealth of Australia - German New Guinea; -to New Zealand -Samoan Islands.
Germany's rights in relation to Jiaozhou and the entire Shandong province of China were transferred to Japan (as a result of which the Treaty of Versailles was not signed by China);
Germany also renounced all concessions and privileges in China, the rights of consular jurisdiction and all property in Siam.
Germany recognized the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914, as well as the abolition of all treaties concluded by it with the Soviet government (including the Brest-Litovsk Treaty of 1918). Germany pledged to recognize all treaties and agreements of the Allied and Associated Powers with states that were formed or are being formed in all or part of the territories of the former Russian Empire.
3. Germany recognized and pledged to strictly observe the independence of Austria, and also recognized the complete independence of Poland and Czechoslovakia. The entire German part of the left bank of the Rhine and a strip of the right bank 50 km wide were subject to demilitarization, creating the so-called Rhine demilitarized zone.
4. The German armed forces were limited to 100 thousand. land army; Compulsory military service was abolished, and the bulk of the remaining navy was to be transferred to the winners. Germany was obliged to compensate in the form of reparations for losses incurred by the governments and individual citizens of the Entente countries as a result of military actions (the determination of the amount of reparations was entrusted to a special Reparations Commission).
5. Articles relating to the establishment of the League of Nations
Of the states that signed the treaty, the United States, Hijaz and Ecuador refused to ratify it. In particular, the United States Senate refused to do this due to its reluctance to commit itself to participation in the League of Nations, the charter of which was an integral part of the Treaty of Versailles. Instead, the United States concluded a special treaty with Germany in August 1921, almost identical to Versailles, but which did not contain articles on the League of Nations.
The refusal of the American Congress to ratify the Treaty of Versailles actually meant a return of the United States to the policy of isolationism. At this time in the USA there was strong opposition to the policies of the Democratic Party and personally to President Wilson. American conservatives believed that accepting serious political and military obligations to European countries would condemn the United States to unjustified financial costs and (in case of war) human casualties. The benefits of intervention in European problems (facilitated access to the markets of European countries and mandated territories of Africa and Asia, recognition of the United States as the leading power in the world, etc.) did not seem obvious and sufficient to Wilson’s opponents.
The isolationist opposition was led by the leadership of the US Republican Party. The President was accused that the Charter of the League of Nations limited the Congress in some ways in the field of foreign policy. Particularly irritating was the provision on the adoption of collective measures in cases of aggression. Opponents of the League called it an “obligation,” an attack on American independence, and a dictate from Britain and France.
The debate in Congress about the Treaty of Versailles began on July 10, 1919 and lasted more than eight months. After the introduction of 48 amendments and 4 reservations by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the changes made to the treaty turned out to be so serious that they actually began to contradict the agreements reached in Paris. But even this did not change the situation: on March 19, 1920, despite all the amendments made, the Senate rejected the resolution to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Thus, the United States, which was turning into the strongest country in the world, legally and in many ways actually found itself outside the Versailles order. This circumstance could not but affect the prospects for international development.
Paris Peace Conference
On January 18, 1919, the Paris Peace Conference opened in Paris, convened by the victorious powers to develop and sign peace treaties with the states defeated in the First World War of 1914-18. It was held (with some interruptions) until January 21, 1920. The conference was attended by Great Britain, France, the USA, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Brazil, the British dominions (Australia, Canada, the Union of South Africa, New Zealand) and India, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hijaz, Honduras, China, Cuba, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state, Siam, Czechoslovakia, as well as states that were in a state of severance of diplomatic relations with the German bloc (Ecuador , Peru, Bolivia and Uruguay). Germany and its former allies were admitted to the Paris Peace Conference only after draft peace treaties with them had been developed. Soviet Russia was not invited to the conference. The leading role was played by Great Britain, France and the USA, whose main representatives were D. Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson resolved the main issues of the conference during secret negotiations. As a result, the following were prepared:
Also at the Paris Peace Conference, a decision was made to create the League of Nations and its Charter was approved, which became an integral part of the above-mentioned peace treaties.
Treaty of Saint Germain
It was signed on September 10, 1919. in Saint-Germain-en-Laye (near Paris) by the allied and associated powers, on the one hand, and Austria, on the other, ratified by the Austrian Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1919 and entered into force on July 16, 1920. This treaty stated the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire , which occurred after the surrender of Austria-Hungary on October 27, 1918, as a result of which the following states were formed on its territory:
Republic of Austria;
Hungary;
Czechoslovakia;
Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state (since October 1929 - Yugoslavia).
The treaty included a special article stipulating the prohibition of violating the independence of Austria.
The territory of Austria with an area of approximately 84 thousand square meters. km now consisted of Upper and Lower Austria, Salzburg, Carinthia, part of Styria, Vorarlberg, North Tyrol and Burgenland, formerly part of the Kingdom of Hungary. In the area of Klagenfurt (Slovenian Carinthia), a plebiscite was planned, after which the area became part of Austria in 1920.
As for the other lands that previously made up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, they were divided between neighboring states as follows:
Italy received South Tyrol and part of other territories of the former Austria-Hungary (Italy’s border with the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state was determined by the Treaty of Rapallo 1920);
Part of the former Duchy of Bukovina was annexed to Romania; -the borders of Bukovina were to be established subsequently (at the same time, the demand of the Bukovinian People's Council of November 3, 1918 for the annexation of Northern Bukovina to Soviet Ukraine was ignored). Austria pledged:
Recognize the full force of peace treaties and additional conventions which have been or will be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers that fought on the side of the former Austria-Hungary;
Recognize the borders of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian State and Czechoslovakia as they are established by the main allied and associated powers;
Relinquish all rights and privileges in territories outside its borders.
Demobilize the army, do not have military aviation and a navy, the number of Austrian armed forces could be no more than 30 thousand people;
Pay reparations.
Treaty of Neuilly
It was signed on November 27, 1919. in Neuilly-sur-Seine (Neuilly-sur-Seine, near Paris) by Bulgaria, on the one hand, and the allied and associated powers, on the other. The treaty came into force on August 9, 1920. Since Bulgaria was a member of the Central Powers bloc that was defeated in World War I of 1914-18, it also lost some territories:
Four districts with a total area of 2566 square meters. km with the cities of Tsaribrod, Bosilegrad and Strumica went to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (since 1929 - Yugoslavia);
The border with Romania established by the Bucharest Peace Treaty of 1913 was confirmed (Southern Dobruja remained with Romania); -Western Thrace (8.5 thousand sq. km) - and with it access to the Aegean Sea - passed to the disposal of Great Britain, Italy, France, the USA and Japan, who pledged to guarantee the freedom of Bulgaria's economic access to the Aegean Sea (however, by transferring Western Thrace Greece violated this obligation in 1920).
Bulgaria pledged:
Pay reparations of 2.25 billion gold francs;
Limit various types of weapons and the size of the army (no more than 20 thousand people), police and gendarmerie.
Its economy and finances were placed under the control of the Inter-Union Commission consisting of representatives of Great Britain, France and Italy.
Treaty of Trianon
It was signed on June 4, 1920. in the Grand Trianon Palace of Versailles by Hungary, on the one hand, and the allied and united powers, on the other, and entered into force on July 26, 1921. In fact, this treaty was the legal formalization of the situation that arose as a result of the war in the Danube basin.
Hungary, as part of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire, suffered the following territorial losses:
Transylvania and the eastern part of the Banat were annexed to Romania;
Croatia, Bačka and the western part of Banat became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes;
Slovakia and Transcarpathian Ukraine were annexed to Czechoslovakia (despite the desire expressed by the population of the latter to reunite with Soviet Ukraine);
The province of Burgenland was transferred to Austria.
Hungary renounced the rights to the port of Risca (Fiume), as well as all rights and legal grounds in the territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy that were not part of Hungary; recognized the independence of the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state and Czechoslovakia.
Hungary also pledged to respect the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire on August 1, 1914, to recognize the abolition of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and to recognize the full force of all treaties and agreements of the allied and associated powers with states that were formed or are being formed on all or part of the territory of the former Russian empires.
Hungary renounced all rights, titles or privileges in territories outside Europe that might have belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or its allies.
The maximum strength of the Hungarian army was determined at 35 thousand people.
Treaty of Sèvres
It was signed on August 10, 1920. in Sèvres (near Paris) by the Sultanic government of Turkey and the victorious allied powers in the 1st World War 1914-18 (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Hijaz , Czechoslovakia and Dashnak Armenia). By the time the treaty was signed, most of Turkey was occupied by the troops of the victorious powers. Like other states that were defeated in the war, Turkey suffered a number of territorial losses (both lands that were directly part of the state and colonies):
Palestine and Iraq were handed over as British mandates;
Syria and Lebanon were ceded to France as mandated territories;
Egypt became an English protectorate;
The Dodecanese Islands were transferred to Italy;
Eastern Thrace and Edirne (Adrianople), the Gallipoli Peninsula were transferred to Greece.
The zone of the straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles) was subject to complete disarmament and came under the control of the International Commission of the Straits created by the Entente.
Turkey renounced all claims to the Arabian Peninsula and North African countries and recognized the British annexation of Cyprus. The determination of the border between Turkey and Dashnak Armenia was left to the arbitration decision of the US President, who expected to receive a mandate for Armenia.
Kurdistan was separated from Turkey, the borders of which were to be determined by the Anglo-Franco-Italian commission.
The number of Turkish armed forces was limited to 50 thousand soldiers and officers, which included 35 thousand gendarmerie. The treaty also deprived Turkey of access to the Mediterranean Sea.
In fact, the Treaty of Sèvres gave the Entente powers the right to interfere in the internal affairs of Turkey, causing such strong indignation among the Turkish people that the government of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (established in April 1920) rejected the treaty, and even the Sultan did not dare to ratify it. In fact, a civil war was already going on in the country, during which the Kemalists (supporters of the Ankara government) gradually gained the upper hand. In May 1920, the parliament in Ankara formed the nationalist government of Kemal, which did not recognize the Treaty of Sèvres and declared that it would fight for the independence of the Turkish state within its ethnic borders.
However, this treaty, almost immediately after its signing, ceased to suit some of the victorious powers, since France, as well as Italy and the United States, considered that preserving the Treaty of Sèvres did not meet their interests, since Great Britain, using Greece and the Sultan’s government, sought to transform Turkey to its primary zone of influence. Under pressure from these powers, a conference was held in London in February-March 1921, with the goal of softening the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres, but the victorious powers were unable to agree. This freed the hands of France and Italy. On October 20, 1921, a separate Franco-Turkish treaty was signed in Ankara, according to which France not only recognized the Ankara government and renounced its claims to Cilicia, but also transferred military reserves of the French occupation forces to the Turks in the amount of 200 million francs.
All this allowed the Kemalists to take the military initiative into their own hands, and in August 1922, Turkish troops went on the offensive, which ended in the complete defeat of the Greek army. Greece was withdrawn from the war; King Constantine abdicated the throne, the pro-British government fell, the Greek generals responsible for the defeat were handed over to a military tribunal and, according to its verdict, were shot.
On October 15, 1922, an armistice agreement was signed, according to which Greek troops were to leave both the Asian and European parts of Turkish territory within 30 days. However, the troops of the Entente powers continued to remain in Istanbul and the Straits zone until the peace conference, which opened in Lausanne (Switzerland) on November 20, 1922 and continued with a break until July 24, 1923. Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Romania participated in its work , Yugoslavia, Japan, USA, Turkey. A number of specific issues, mainly economic, were considered with the participation of delegates from Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the USSR. The main objectives of the conference were to prepare a peace treaty with Turkey and determine the regime of the Black Sea straits.
Treaty of Lausanne
The Treaty of Lausanne differed significantly from the Treaty of Sèvres. Turkey gave up its non-Turkish possessions, maintaining mostly its ethnic borders and state sovereignty. All clauses of the Treaty of Sèvres relating to zones of influence of powers in Anatolia were canceled. Eastern Thrace on the European side of the Aegean Sea was returned to Turkey. The powers abandoned their claims to control Turkey's domestic and financial-economic policies. The text lacked provisions demanding self-determination for the Kurds and Armenian population of Turkey. All privileges for foreigners in Turkey were abolished.
Türkiye recognized part of the old debts of the Sultan's government. She renounced rights to all Arab territories, recognized the British protectorate over Egypt, the British annexation of Cyprus and Italian rights to the Dodecanese Islands and Libya.
The Charter of the League of Nations was not included in the text of the Lausanne Peace Treaty (accordingly, its obligations did not extend to Turkey). Simultaneously with the peace treaty, a convention on the regime of the Black Sea Straits was signed in Lausanne. As in the Treaty of Sèvres, the straits zone was subject to demilitarization and came under the control of a special international commission. In peacetime, trade and military ships of any state could freely pass through it (limitations were established on their number and total displacement). Any non-Black Sea power had the right to send its fleet to the Black Sea and even permanently keep it there - however, on the condition that the number of ships of non-coastal powers would not exceed the fleet of the strongest of the coastal states. In wartime, passage through the straits was allowed only to warships of neutral countries. The Convention on the Regime of the Straits was signed on July 24, 1923 by Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Turkey. The representative of the USSR signed this convention on August 1, 1923. The USSR government, however, did not ratify it, since it provided for free passage through the Bosporus and Dardanelles not only for commercial vessels, but also for military vessels.
In 1936, the convention on the regime of the straits was replaced by the convention developed at the Montreux conference in 1936.
The remaining documents signed at the conference dealt with the issues of the return of prisoners, the mutual exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations, etc.
The League of nations
The question of the structure and powers of the proposed League of Nations caused much disagreement at the Paris Conference. The purpose of its creation was to develop international cooperation and prevent world tragedies like the World War of 1914-1919. Even during World War I, the US President and the British Prime Minister approved the idea of creating an international organization that could prevent the recurrence of wars on a global scale.
At the Paris Conference it became clear that there were several projects of the League of Nations.
The French League project had an anti-German orientation. Germany itself should not have been part of this organization. Under the League, it was proposed to form an international armed force and an international general staff. This turned out to be the only project that provided for the formation of any real mechanisms that could ensure the implementation of the organization’s decisions.
Such a project did not suit either England or the United States - they were both against the creation of international armed forces, since they would inevitably fall under the control of France as the strongest land military power. In addition, each of them had its own project.
The English project contained only a scheme for arbitration between major powers, which united in an alliance, the purpose of which was to prevent a surprise attack by one of the members of the alliance on another. The British government believed that this would preserve its huge colonial empire.
The American project, unlike the English one, did not limit membership in the League only to major powers. The principle of mutual guarantees of territorial integrity and political independence of all members of the League was established. However, the possibility of revising existing state entities and their boundaries was allowed, provided that three-quarters of the League delegations recognized them as not corresponding to the changed national conditions and principles of self-determination of nations.
Already in Paris, Wilson drew up a new draft charter, including clauses on the transfer of the German colonies and former possessions of the Ottoman Empire to the disposal of the League, so that it would issue mandates to manage these territories to small countries.
By proposing to admit Germany and small countries into the League, the Americans hoped that they would become economically dependent on the United States. This, coupled with the interference in territorial disputes provided for by the League's charter, was supposed to weaken the positions of England and France.
Ultimately, the League's charter became a compromise between the British and American projects. Work on the Charter, after lengthy disputes and agreements, was completed on April 11, 1919. On April 28, the Charter was approved by the conference and was included as an integral part in all peace treaties with Germany and its European allies - Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon and Neuilly.
The Charter of the League envisaged the transformation of the League of Nations into the main instrument for establishing and regulating a new world order. The introductory part of the Charter proclaimed the basic principles of international cooperation to achieve peace and security:
Opposition to war;
Development of open and fair relations based on recognition of the principles of international law, strict respect and fulfillment of all obligations arising from international treaties.
The first article of the Charter determined membership in the organization. Three types of states were represented in the League.
The first group consisted of the founding states that signed the Charter as part of the peace treaty and were listed in the annex to the Treaty of Versailles. These were the allied and affiliated powers.
The second category consisted of countries that did not participate in the First World War and were therefore not included in the list of signatories of the peace treaties. Six European, six Latin American countries and Persia were invited to join the League of Nations (if they agreed to accept the Charter).
The third group included all other states. To join the League, they had to go through a special voting procedure and obtain the consent of at least two-thirds of the states represented at the Assembly.
Any state, dominion or “self-governing” territory, including colonies, had the right to apply for membership in the League (this condition was introduced at the suggestion of Britain specifically to simplify the admission of British India to the League.)
The procedure for leaving the League provided for advance (two years) notification of this to all other League participants. At the same time, the seceding state was obliged to continue to fulfill all the requirements of the Charter and other international obligations previously accepted to the League during these two years.
The main bodies of the League of Nations were the Assembly, the Council and the permanent Secretariat.
The Assembly was a meeting consisting of representatives of all members of the League, and was convened, as a rule, once a year, in September, or, if necessary, whenever a threat to the peace arose. The Assembly could consider any issues relating to "world peace" and compliance with treaties. At meetings of the Assembly, country delegations were required to have no more than three representatives, and each country had one vote.
The Council of the League consisted of permanent representatives of the initially five main allied and affiliated powers (Great Britain, Italy, USA, France, Japan) and four non-permanent ones, elected from the members
Leagues at the Assembly. The Council was to meet at least once a year and consider a wide range of issues within the purview of the League or affecting the maintenance of world peace and compliance with treaties. Any member state of the League could participate in meetings of the Council if an issue affecting its interests was discussed. The rules for making decisions in the League were regulated by the fifth article of the Charter. Except for specially stated cases, all decisions made at the Assembly and Council required consensus, that is, unanimous voting.
The international secretariat, according to the sixth article of the Charter, was located in Geneva. It consisted of a general secretary and "such secretaries and staff as may be required." The Council appointed the Secretary General with his subsequent approval by the Assembly.
The member states of the League recognized that the maintenance of peace required the reduction of national armaments to the lowest possible level consistent with national security and international obligations (Article 8). An arms reduction plan was drawn up by the Council and proposed to the respective governments for consideration. Such plans were to be reviewed every five years. League members also pledged to exchange “full and honest” information about weapons levels, military programs and military production.
One of the key articles was to be the tenth article of the Charter. It stated that the member states of the League undertake obligations to “counter aggression, respect the territorial integrity and existing political independence of the members of the League.” In the event of any aggression or danger of its occurrence, the Council of the League was to determine the means and collective action by which the above obligations could be fulfilled. However, the article did not provide clear guarantees or procedures for action in the event of a threat of aggression; the document did not even contain a definition of aggression.
Any war or threat thereof against a member of the League or any other country was to be the subject of discussion by the entire international organization, which was to take measures to preserve peace (Article 11). In the event of such a danger, the Secretary General of the League was obliged to assemble a Council at the request of one of the League members. Any member country of the organization had the right to draw the attention of the Assembly or Council to any violations of normal international relations that threaten peace and good mutual understanding of peoples.
Members of the League of Nations (Articles 12, 13, 14) were obliged to submit controversial issues that threaten the outbreak of military conflicts to an international arbitration court or for consideration by the Council. At least three months had to pass from the announcement of the decision of the arbitration bodies to the declaration of war. For its part, the arbitration court had to make decisions as quickly as possible, and the Council was obliged to study the situation and submit a corresponding report to the Assembly within six months after one or both parties to the conflict approached it. To resolve conflicts and disputes between states, the International Court of Justice was created in The Hague.
In the event of a war being launched by a member state of the League, such actions were to be considered by the remaining members of the League as an act of war against all of them. In this case, all states had to stop all relations with the aggressor. The Council had the power to make recommendations to the governments of interested states regarding military measures necessary to implement the principles of the Charter of the League.
The same article included a paragraph on the conditions for expulsion from the League of Nations of states that violated the Charter. A decision on expulsion required a majority vote of the Council members, provided that this decision was subsequently confirmed by all other members of the organization.
The Charter (Articles 23, 24, 25) for the first time established the rules of international humanitarian cooperation and general standards of labor relations. Members of the League agreed to provide just and humane conditions of work for all men, women and children, both in their own countries and in all other countries and territories affected by their industrial and commercial activities. The International Labor Organization (ILO) was created to monitor compliance with this obligation.
In addition, the League of Nations received control rights over the trade in opium and other dangerous drugs, as well as the arms trade with countries in respect of which “such control is necessary in the general interest.” The League was also supposed to strive for freedom of trade routes and fair treatment of trade on the part of all members of the organization.
Members of the League pledged to maintain and develop cooperation with national Red Cross organizations in order to help improve health care, limit epidemics and "reduce suffering throughout the world."
During the 1920s, the League's membership grew steadily. She did manage to resolve some local disputes. Unfortunately, the League of Nations never reached a serious international level; its decisions would simply have been ignored. The most important area of the League's activities was the prevention of interstate aggression and the preservation of the post-war world order. However, in the 1930s, countries that suffered from the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles began to recover from the blow and began to increase their military potential, to which there was no serious reaction from the leading states of the world. And since the League of Nations could not do more than the participating countries, its protests were simply ignored.
The agreements adopted in the post-war period were a whole set of agreements aimed at resolving contradictions in Western Europe, Africa, the Middle and Far East and the Pacific Ocean. In this sense, Washington was both a continuation of Versailles and the beginning of its revision. Although the Versailles-Washington system very quickly revealed its incapacity, it nevertheless completed the process of peaceful settlement and contributed, albeit temporarily, to stabilization.
PEACE TREATY OF VERSAILLES 1919
Formally ended the First World War 1914-18; signed on 28.VI, on the one hand, by Germany and, on the other, by the “allied and associated powers”: the United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala , Haiti, Hejaz, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian State, Siam, Czechoslovakia and Uruguay. Some of these states were only formally belligerents who did not actually take part in the war (Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, etc.). Three states were formed only in the period between the capitulation of Germany and the signing of the V.M.D. (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian state). Of the states listed on the title page of the V.M.D., China refused to sign the treaty because of its provisions regarding the transfer of Shandong to Japan. Hijaz and Ecuador, having signed the V.M.D., refused to ratify it. The US Senate, under the influence of isolationists, also refused to ratify it, in particular due to the reluctance of the United States to join League of Nations(see), the charter of which was an integral part of the V. m. d. In exchange for the V. m. d., the United States concluded a special treaty with Germany in August 1921, the contents of which were almost identical to the V. m. d., but did not contain articles about the League of Nations.
The V.M.D. came into force on January 10, 1920, after it was ratified by Germany and the four main Allied powers (Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan). After Germany joined the League of Nations (1926), the instruments of ratification of the V.M.D., stored in Paris, were transferred to the General Secretariat of the League of Nations. The history of V. m. d. went through the following stages:
Truce negotiations. For the first time, the political conditions of the future world were formulated in a collective note of the allies addressed to President Wilson dated 10.1 1917. This note was a response to the American note of 18.12 1916, in which President Wilson invited the allies to speak out on the conditions of the future world. In a note dated January 10, 1917, the Allies demanded that Germany's responsibility for the war be recognized and compensation for their losses ensured. They demanded the restoration of Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro, the clearing by Germany of the occupied areas of France, Russia and Romania, the return of areas that had previously been “forcibly taken away against the will of the population”, the liberation of Italians, South Slavs, Romanians, Czechs and Slovaks “from foreign domination”, the liberation of peoples subject to the “bloody tyranny of the Turks” and the “expulsion of the Ottoman Empire from Europe.”
The next document in the history of peace negotiations is the declaration of President Wilson, the so-called. ". Wilson's fourteen points"(cm.). This peace program was outlined by Wilson in his message to the US Congress of 8. I 1918.
Official attempts on the part of the powers of the quadruple bloc (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey and Bulgaria) to achieve the opening of peace negotiations began with a note from the Austro-Hungarian government dated 14.9.1918 to all the warring powers with a proposal to begin direct peace negotiations. Before this note, Germany made repeated unofficial attempts to achieve a separate peace with France (negotiations between Baron Lanquin through the Countess de Merode and Coppe with Briand), with Russia (negotiations between Lucius and Protopopov); Austria-Hungary also tried to achieve a separate peace with the allies (mission of Sixtus of Bourbon). All these attempts ended in failure.
The Austrian note of 14.IX 1918, which received the approval of the other participants in the quadruple bloc, was rejected by the Allies.
On the day this note was sent, the Allied forces broke through the Bulgarian front. Bulgaria had to capitulate and signed an armistice agreement on IX 29, 1918 in Thessaloniki. 5. X 1918, the German Reich Chancellor Prince Max of Baden turned to President Wilson with a proposal to take the cause of peace into his own hands. While (between October 5 and November 5, 1918) the German government corresponded with President Wilson about the conditions for starting armistice negotiations, Turkey (X 30, 1918) and Austria-Hungary (XI 3, 1918) capitulated.
Truce of Compiègne. 11. XI 1918 in the Compiègne forest in the carriage of Marshal Foch, the German peace delegation led by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Germany Erzberger signed the terms of the truce proposed by the allied military command. The armistice agreement contained 34 articles, and the armistice period was set at 36 days with the right to extend. The main conditions of the truce were the following: the evacuation of the German-occupied territories of Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine within 15 days, the transfer by the German army of military equipment according to a special list, the cleansing of the left bank of the Rhine, the creation of a neutral zone on the right bank of the Rhine, the transfer of 5 thousand to the allies steam locomotives, 150 thousand wagons and 5 thousand trucks, the immediate return to their homeland (without reciprocity) of all allied prisoners of war, the immediate return to Germany of all its troops from Austria-Hungary, Romania and Turkey, the cleansing of Russian territories within a time limit that will be indicated by the allies, Germany's refusal of the Bucharest (7. V 1918) and Breit-Litovsk (3. III 1918) treaties, the evacuation of German military forces from East Africa, the immediate return of cash from the Belgian National Bank, as well as Russian and Romanian gold captured Germany, the surrender of all German submarines to the Allies, immediate disarmament and internment of German surface warships, the evacuation by Germany of all Black Sea ports and the transfer to the Allies of all Russian ships captured by the Germans in the Black Sea.
The armistice agreement was extended on December 13, 1918, January 16, 1919 and January 16, 1919.
Preparation for a peace conference. After the armistice was signed, Allied delegates began to gather in Paris for preliminary negotiations on a future peace treaty. US President Wilson sent his immediate assistant and friend, Colonel House. Most of the prime ministers and foreign ministers of the allied countries came to Paris, including British Prime Minister Lloyd George. Wilson arrived on December 13, 1918. Until 18. I 1919, continuous meetings took place between the allied delegations. It was decided to invite German delegates only after the full text of the peace treaty had been worked out.
Conference bodies. 18. I 1919 the official opening of the Paris Peace Conference took place. For the first four months, negotiations were conducted exclusively between the allies. There were 26 commissions on individual problems of the treaty and the general scheme of the post-war world order. Meetings of various bodies created by the conference took place continuously. The plenary sessions of the conference (before the signing of the V.M.D. there were only 10 of them) were reduced to a discussion of general declarative statements of individual participants. But such bodies as the “Council of Ten”, composed of representatives of the five main participants of the Paris Conference (USA, UK, France, Italy and Japan), two from each country, and the “Council of Five”, composed of the foreign ministers of the same states, worked intensively , and finally, the "Council of Four", or "Big Four", represented by President Wilson, French Prime Minister Clemenceau, British Prime Minister Lloyd George and Italian Prime Minister Orlando.
Position of the German delegation. Only by 7. V 1919, after a series of conflicts, the allies managed to agree on the text of the Peace Treaty. On the same day, the German delegation was admitted to the peace conference for the first time and received the text of the peace treaty from the hands of its chairman Clemenceau.
The German delegation, led by Foreign Minister Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, counted on the possibility of an open discussion about peace conditions. This was denied to her. She could only make her objections to certain articles of the agreement in writing. Taking advantage of this, she flooded the conference with her memoranda, objections and memos. The vast majority of German counterproposals were rejected without any discussion. Only on minor and unimportant issues did Germany achieve some concessions.
Brockdorff-Rantzau refused to sign the peace treaty, saying that “the allies are offering us suicide.” After leaving Paris, he went to Weimar, where the German National Assembly met. Brockdorff-Rantzau tried to convince the National Assembly that it was impossible to sign the proposed text of the treaty. Brockdorff-Rantzau's point of view was rejected, and he retired. The National Assembly adopted a resolution on the need to sign a peace treaty, excluding from it the article that established Germany's sole responsibility for the world war (German politicians tried to create a loophole that in the future would allow them to escape the consequences arising from responsibility for the war). This attempt failed. The Allies demanded either unconditional acceptance of the entire text of the treaty or refusal to sign it. The German National Assembly had to capitulate, and on June 28, 1919, in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles, where in January 1871 Bismarck proclaimed the creation of the German Empire, the V. M. D. was signed.
Anglo-French disagreements. All meetings of the peace conference were characterized by a stubborn struggle between the allied delegations, mainly between the French delegation (Clemenceau), on the one hand, and the British (Lloyd George) and American (Wilson) on the other. While France demanded the maximum weakening of Germany in territorial, military, political and economic relations, Great Britain, with the support of the United States, opposed it. Not wanting to encourage French hegemony on the continent of Europe, Great Britain sought to maintain a stronghold in Germany to counter French influence. Thus, England adhered to its traditional policy of the balance of power in Europe, which in this case also promised it the preservation of the German sales market.
Territorial issues. The struggle at the conference between France and Great Britain over territorial questions concerned mainly the following two problems:
1) The problem of the territorial division of Germany. France tried, first of all, to achieve separation of the left bank of the Rhine from Germany in order to create an “autonomous state” in this territory under its influence. The French delegation argued that the separation of the left bank of the Rhine from Germany is one of the most important conditions for the security of France, since it will deprive Germany of the opportunity to carry out a sudden military aggression against it in the future. The British, with the support of Wilson, put up decisive resistance to France (British Foreign Minister Balfour, back in 1917, in two consecutive speeches, categorically rejected the idea of an autonomous Rhineland state). The French delegation, having secured the support of Tsarist Russia back in February 1917, continued to persistently strive for the implementation of its program. Russia's consent was recorded in a secret Russian-French agreement signed during the inter-allied conference in Petrograd.
The French delegation, despite persistent solicitations, failed to carry out its program. She was forced to agree to a compromise: the left bank of the Rhine and a 50-kilometer strip on the right bank of the Rhine are demilitarized, but remain part of Germany and under its sovereignty. For 15 years, a number of points in this zone must be under the occupation of allied forces. Great Britain, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, conclude special treaties with France, by virtue of which both states come to the aid of France in the event of an attack by Germany. If, after 15 years, the reparations commission finds that Germany has not fulfilled its obligations, the occupation may last longer.
The compromise turned out to be clearly unfavorable for France. The US Senate, having rejected the ratification of the V.M.D., simultaneously refused to ratify the Franco-American guarantee treaty. Referring to this, Lloyd George did not submit the Franco-English guarantee agreement for ratification by Parliament.
Thus, France, having conceded on the issue of the left bank of the Rhine, did not receive compensating guarantees against possible German aggression.
2) The problem of the Saar basin. The French delegation, pointing to the destruction of the coal mines of northern France by German troops, demanded the annexation of the Saar coal basin to France as compensation. The French referred to the fact that according to the treaty of 1814 (after Napoleon’s first abdication), the Saar basin was left to France. France's demand was met with a categorical refusal from the United States and Great Britain. “Never in any official document,” said Wilson, “France demanded the border of 1814. The principles of peace it accepted speak of compensation for the injustice to which it was subjected in 1871, and not in 1815” (according to the treaty of 1815, after “one hundred days ", the Saar basin was annexed and annexed to Prussia). The discussion on the Saar issue was extremely heated and often took on a dramatic character. So, for example, on April 7, 1919, due to the persistence of the French delegation, President Wilson threatened to leave the conference.
In the plans of French imperialism, the annexation of the Saar region pursued mainly the hidden goal of creating an economic base for French hegemony on the continent of Europe. From the very beginning of the First World War, the influential French press emphasized the economic importance for France of Lorraine ore in conjunction with the coal mines of the Saar Basin.
The determined opposition of Lloyd George and Wilson forced Clemenceau to compromise on the Saar issue. France took possession of the Saar coal basin (more precisely, the coal mines of this basin) for 15 years. During this period, the Saar Basin was to be governed by a League of Nations commission with a French chairman at its head. After 15 years (in 1935), a popular plebiscite was to decide the further statehood of the Saar basin.
Reparations issue. The issue of reparations occupied a very large place in the discussion between the allies and repeatedly threatened to disrupt the Paris Conference. The French thesis on the reparation issue was as follows; Germany must pay for all losses caused by the war. To do this, it is necessary that Germany assume in advance a blanket obligation to pay the amount that will subsequently be established by a special reparations commission. The Anglo-American thesis was different: Germany cannot be forced to sign a blanket obligation. Calculating the amount of damages is a difficult and controversial matter. Therefore, it is necessary to establish some kind of global (total) amount of reparations and include it in the agreement. The main struggle took place between Clemenceau and Lloyd George, who was supported by Wilson. It was, of course, not a matter of the technique of calculating reparations. Lloyd George's position was dictated by a reluctance to weaken Germany too much and thereby strengthen France too much, as well as the fear that Germany, as a result of the excessive amount of reparations obligations, would be forced to increase its exports. The complexity of the reparations issue increased due to the problem of transfer, that is, the transfer of German currency into foreign currency, since Germany had to pay most of the reparations not in kind, but in money. “In order for it (Germany),” said Lloyd George, “to be able to pay what we want... it is necessary that it occupy an even more significant place in the market than the one it occupied before the war. Is this in our interests? ?" These words reflected Lloyd George's understanding of the problem of German competition, which very soon after the Paris Conference faced England in full force.
The long struggle on the reparation issue ended in the victory of the French thesis. The appointment of a French representative as chairman of the reparations commission also represented a victory for Clemenceau in this matter. The very fact of creating a special reparations commission headed by a French representative meant the establishment of permanent French control over the entire economic body of Germany.
Poland. Significant disagreements between the allies were caused by the question of the borders of Poland and especially its eastern borders. Having not yet been born as a sovereign state, having not yet taken possession of its own territories, Poland laid claim to “rights” to non-Polish lands. The Polish National Committee in Paris (recognized by the allies) on 12.X. 1918, on the eve of the surrender of Germany, handed over a memorandum to the allied governments demanding the occupation by Polish troops (the army of General Haller, formed in France) of the districts: Kamenets-Podolsk, Brest-Litovsk and Kovno. “This occupation,” the memorandum read, “would guarantee Poland’s security in the east and could serve as a future base for Allied military operations in Russia.” The demand of the Polish National Committee to send Haller's army to Poland served as the basis for discussing the Polish issue at the meeting of the allies on November 2, 1918, before the signing of the armistice with Germany. At this meeting, French Foreign Minister Pichon outlined the French program regarding the borders of the future Poland. “I would like,” he said, “to insist that the evacuated territories be understood as all the territories that constituted the Kingdom of Poland before the first partition of 1772.” In response to this, British Foreign Secretary Balfour said: “I heard this proposal with concern. Poland 1772, you say, should be Poland 1918. This is not what we aspired to and what we committed ourselves to. We committed ourselves to revive Poland, populated by Poles. Poland of 1772 does not meet this goal: it did not consist exclusively of Poles. Non-Polish territories were included in it, while Polish territories constituted only one part of it. Thus, this formula sins both due to its insufficiency and "due to my exaggeration. The exact delimitation of the borders of the new Poland is such a complex subject that I beg you not to include it in the terms of the truce."
Colonel House, on behalf of President Wilson, declared that he fully associated himself with Balfour's proposal. Pichon had to retreat. The thesis about the Polish borders of 1772 was not accepted for inclusion in the terms of the truce. The struggle, however, resumed at the peace conference itself. The dispute between France, on the one hand, and Great Britain and the United States, on the other, concerned the western and eastern borders of Poland, Upper Silesia and Danzig.
France sought to create a strong Polish state, which could play the role of its ally in eastern Europe both against Germany and against the Soviet Republic. A military-political Franco-Polish alliance built on these foundations would, in the view of French politicians, be one of the main pillars of French hegemony on the continent of Europe. It was for this reason that France's Polish program aroused determined and stubborn resistance from Great Britain. France, despite Clemenceau’s insistence, failed to carry out its program of “restoring Poland within the borders of 1772.” Instead of transferring all of Upper Silesia to Poland, France had to agree to a plebiscite, which subsequently ended in the division of Upper Silesia between Poland and Germany. Contrary to Clemenceau’s insistence on the transfer of Danzig to Poland, he had to retreat on this issue and agree to Lloyd George’s proposal to create a “Free City” under the control of a Commissioner of the League of Nations. But Clemenceau still managed to achieve the transfer of the Free City’s foreign policy into the hands of Poland. Although, at the insistence of France, the Paris Peace Conference on June 26, 1919 authorized Poland to occupy eastern Galicia, the question of the statehood of eastern Galicia was not resolved, and the eastern borders of Poland were not fixed by either the Treaties of Versailles or Saint-Germain. The latter established only Austria's refusal of any rights to eastern Galicia. An attempt to determine the eastern borders of Poland was made after the signing of the V. M. D. by a resolution of the Supreme Council of the Allies on December 8, 1919 (see. Curzon line). Only on 14.3.1923 the conference of ambassadors, under direct pressure from France, made a decision on the eastern borders of Poland and, in particular, on the transfer of eastern Galicia to it.
Italian question. Italy came to the conference with two documents in which its claims were formulated. One of these documents was the secret London Treaty of 26.IV 1915, and the second was the exchange of notes between Rome, London and Paris in August 1917, which recorded the conditions reached at the conference in Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne. The Italian claims presented at the peace conference did not correspond, however, to the military situation in which Italy was at the end of the First World War. The defeat of the Italian army at Caporetto almost caused the surrender of Italy to the Austro-German bloc. The extreme weakness of Italy, both militarily and economically, predetermined the decisions of the V.M.D. on the Italian question.
In Art. 5 of the London Treaty of 1915 stated that “Italy will also be given the province of Dalmatia within its current administrative boundaries.” At the peace conference, the Italian delegation demanded that not only Dalmatia, but also Fiume be transferred to it. Both leaders of the Italian delegation - Prime Minister Orlando and Foreign Minister Baron Sonnino - insistently argued that the issue of Fiume was a condition for Italy to sign a peace treaty. Orlando's pathos on this issue reached its extreme limits. At one of the meetings of the “Council of Four”, during a debate about Fiume, Orlando burst into tears. The tears of the Italian Prime Minister, however, had no effect on the fate of this demand. By the very raising of the issue of Fiume, Italian diplomacy made it easier for the allies not to comply with other demands of Italy, which stemmed from the text of the Treaty of London. Clemenceau very cleverly played on this tactical mistake of Italian diplomacy. “You demand fulfillment of the London Treaty,” he told the Italian delegation, “and you yourself put forward claims about which the London Treaty knows nothing. I,” Clemenceau added, “stand in the viewpoint of the need to fulfill the London Treaty, but in this case I cannot give Fiume to you." When it came to the obligations of the same treaty (London) in relation to Dalmatia, Clemenceau, without embarrassment, declared: “I have obligations in relation to Italy - this is the Treaty of London. But Dalmatia is inhabited not by Italians, but by Slavs, and I have the same obligations in relation to the Slavs - obligations that arose after the Treaty of London was concluded and which could not be provided for by this treaty." (Clemenceau meant an obligation towards Serbia).
Insisting on the implementation of Art. 5 of the London Treaty and demanding Fiume, Italian diplomacy received neither one nor the other. The demonstrative departure of the Italian delegation from the conference in April 1919 did not help either. Saying goodbye to the departing Orlando, Clemenceau said that the allies would greatly regret the departure of the Italian delegation, but that he was afraid that the Italian delegation would regret it even more. Indeed, the departure of the Italian delegation led to the fact that, taking advantage of its absence, the allies violated not only the Treaty of London, but also the resolutions of the conference in Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne concerning Italian claims to Izmir (Smyrna). 6. V 1919, Greek Prime Minister Venizelos received consent from Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Wilson for the occupation of Izmir by Greek troops. This act was part of the plans of Lloyd George, who saw Greece as an instrument of English influence in the Middle East, which was especially affected during the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres and the Greco-Turkish War. Having received a message about the transfer of Izmir to Greece, the Italian delegation was forced to hastily return to Paris and agree to the conditions that were dictated to it by the allies. However, Italy still managed to establish a border on the Brenner and thus obtain South Tyrol.
"Russian Question". Despite the fact that the Soviet Republic was not represented at the Paris Peace Conference, the “Russian question” occupied a primary place in its work and at times even pushed into the background its main problem - the German one. The Paris Peace Conference opened at a time when the Entente countries, in implementation of the Anglo-French agreement of December 23, 1917 “on the division of zones of influence in Russia,” carried out active military intervention within the Soviet state. In accordance with this agreement, France contributed to the seizure of Bessarabia by Romania, began intervention in Crimea and Ukraine, and Great Britain, together with France and the United States, landed its troops (in March 1918) in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk. From the end of May 1918, England and France led the uprising of the Czechoslovak legions, stretching from the Volga to Siberia and the Far East. In April 1918, Japan began intervention in the Far East, and in August 1918, Great Britain, the USA and France joined Japan. The Entente states supported the counter-revolutionary "governments" of Kolchak in Siberia and the Far East, Denikin in the south of Russia, Tchaikovsky in the north and Yudenich in the northwest. They also supported Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Romania in their struggle against the Soviet state. This was the position of the “Russian question” at the opening of the Paris Peace Conference. The main leaders of the conference and in particular the Big Four, who set themselves the task of rebuilding the world and redrawing the map of Europe, were aware that without resolving the “Russian question” it would not be possible to stabilize the post-war world order. So, for example, on the eve of the opening of the conference, rejecting the French draft program of its work, the British delegation stated that, in its opinion, problems should be dealt with in order of their urgency. “From this point of view,” the British said, “we should first deal with the question of Russia.”
Although all members of the Big Four believed that the “Russian question” needed to be resolved and, moreover, first of all, they differed sharply on how to resolve this problem. Clemenceau was the most consistent supporter of not only the continuation, but also the all-round strengthening of armed intervention in the Soviet state. He excluded any possibility of an agreement with the Soviet government and demanded the establishment of a “cordon sanitaire” around the Soviet Republic. Clemenceau's program was supported by Foreign Minister Sonnino, who replaced Italian Prime Minister Orlando (who was much more persistent on the issue of armed intervention than Orlando). Lloyd George, who was supported by President Wilson, fought against Clemenceau's concept. Already at the end of December 1918, sharp differences emerged between Lloyd George, on the one hand, and Clemenceau, on the other. During this period, Lloyd George was perhaps the only major statesman in Western Europe who was aware of the hopelessness of military methods of combating the “communist danger” and who put forward the idea of negotiations with the Soviet government. In December 1918, Lloyd George addressed Clemenceau with a note, proposing to invite delegates of the Soviet government to the Paris Peace Conference. Clemenceau sharply rejected this proposal. After a series of meetings, at the insistence of Lloyd George, supported by Wilson, and with the fierce resistance of Clemenceau, supported by Sonnino, in January 1919 it was decided to convene a conference in the Princes' Islands, where representatives of all the actual governments formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire would be invited. The Soviet government agreed to this invitation from the Supreme Council of the Allies. Forced to agree to convening a conference, Clemenceau, behind the backs of Lloyd George and Wilson, through the mediation of French representatives to the White Guard governments, suggested that the latter refuse to send their delegates to the Princes' Islands. In disrupting the conference, Clemenceau also relied on the conservative members of the British government, and in particular on Lord Curzon and Churchill. The conference on the Princes' Islands did not take place. At the beginning of March 1919, Wilson, by agreement with Lloyd George, sent State Department official Bullitt to Moscow (see. Bullitt mission) to probe and discuss with the Soviet government the contours of a possible agreement. When Bullitt returned from Moscow in mid-March with a draft agreement, the situation in the “Russian question” had changed significantly. In Lloyd George's coalition government, the conservative part won, insisting on continuing and intensifying armed intervention. Under these conditions, Lloyd George not only refused to accept the project brought by Bullitt, but in a public parliamentary statement denied his involvement in his trip. Soon after this, the so-called the first campaign of the Entente against the Soviet Republic.
Throughout its work, the Paris Peace Conference repeatedly dealt with the “Russian question.” This took place during the discussion of the issue of the eastern borders of Poland, of sending the army of General. Haller, about the cleansing of the Baltic territory by German troops, etc. When discussing the “Russian question,” the Big Four invited and heard representatives of the so-called. “political meeting” (represented by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.D. Sazonov, the former ambassador of the Provisional Government in Paris V.A. Maklakov and the former chairman of the “Northern Government” N.V. Tchaikovsky).
However, the Paris Conference turned out to be powerless not only to resolve the “Russian question”, but even to outline possible ways for this resolution. Yet on this issue Clemenceau undoubtedly defeated Lloyd George and Wilson and turned the conference into the central headquarters of armed intervention against the Soviet Republic.
The League of nations. An exceptionally stubborn struggle at the Paris Conference took place around the idea put forward by President Wilson to create a League of Nations. Wilson sought to create an effective League of Nations, which could be something like a supranational organization. Clemenceau and Lloyd George wanted, however, to first consolidate the results of the war in the form of a peace treaty and did not attach much importance to the League of Nations. In addition, they feared that the League projected by Wilson would be dominated by US influence. Wilson's struggle with Lloyd George and Clemenceau on this issue continued until April 25, 1919, when the charter of the League of Nations was adopted by the plenum of the conference and included as part I of the V.M.D.
Versailles system. The V.M.D. was an attempt to fix the balance of forces established in Europe as a result of the First World War of 1914-18. Along with those who followed him Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly And Treaties of Sèvres(see) he created an entire political and economic system, known as “Versailles”. This system created the conditions for French hegemony on the continent of Europe, British dominance in the Middle East and on the seas, while simultaneously providing Japan with enormous advantages in the Far East. As for the United States, the latter did not acquire (which, however, they did not lay claim to) any new territories. Nevertheless, the United States occupied a prominent place in the balance of world power established at the time of the Paris Peace Conference. Having predetermined the victory of the Allies and the defeat of Germany by its participation in the war (especially after the withdrawal of Soviet Russia from the war), the United States at the end of the war turned out to be the main creditor of the Entente countries, to which it provided $11 billion. Having accumulated enormous military and economic resources, the United States during The signing of the V.M.D. was undoubtedly the strongest of all the warring powers. However, due to a number of conditions, the United States recorded and realized its victory not in V. m.d., but a little later - in Washington Conference 1921-22 (cm.). On the contrary, at the Paris Conference itself, the American delegation showed a certain passivity, yielding, for example, to the insistence of Japan, which seized the Shandong Peninsula in China, which clearly contradicted the interests of the United States.
The political hegemony of France on the continent of Europe was determined primarily by the facts of the military defeat and disarmament of its most dangerous rival - Germany, the occupation of the Rhineland, the creation of independent Poland, the creation of new states (Czechoslovakia) at the expense of the former Austria-Hungary and the increase in the territories of such states as Yugoslavia and Romania. Thanks to this, the hegemony of France in continental Europe was based not only on its armed forces (with the simultaneous disarmament of Germany), but also on constant cooperation with Poland and the states Little Entente(see), interested in preserving both V. m. d. and the agreements accompanying it.
The political value of English acquisitions according to the V.M.D. lay mainly outside Europe. In Europe itself, England achieved the elimination of German competition in the world market for a certain period. In Asia, Great Britain received a significant part of the inheritance of the Ottoman Empire, establishing its dominance over Iraq with its oil wealth, over Palestine and Transjordan, establishing itself in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea and ensuring a direct connection with India. While France, thanks to its land army, became the most powerful state on the continent of Europe as a result of the war, England received a predominant role in the Mediterranean Sea and in communications to India and the English dominions. In addition, England, together with France, divided the German colonies in Africa (Togo and Cameroon), receiving them as mandated territories from the League of Nations. This was the main distribution between England and France of the benefits that V. m.d. gave them.
Part I (Articles 1-26) contains the statute of the League of Nations.
Part II (art. 27-30) is devoted to the description and outline of Germany's borders with Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Denmark.
Part III concerns the political situation of Europe. This part is divided into the following sections:
Section 1 (art. 31-39) about Belgium. According to the meaning of these articles, Germany "obliges henceforth to recognize and observe all any agreements that the main allied and associated powers or some of them may conclude with the governments of Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of replacing the treaties of 1839" establishing Belgian neutrality. Germany recognizes the transfer to Belgium of the districts of Eupen and Malmedy (Article 34) and the territory of Morena (Article 32).
Section 2 (Articles 40-41) on Luxembourg. According to these articles, Luxembourg left the German Customs Union on January 1, 1919, and thus Germany recognizes its full independence.
Section 3 (Articles 42-44) on the demilitarization of the Rhineland. The main provision of this section is the prohibition of Germany from maintaining or building on either the left or right bank of the Rhine, west of the line drawn at 50 km east of this river, military installations, as well as to maintain any military units in the specified zone.
Section 4 (Articles 45-50 with appendices) on the Saar Basin. The main article of this section (45) provides that "as compensation for the destruction of the coal mines in the north of France... Germany cedes to France full and unlimited ownership... of the coal mines located in the Saar Basin." In Art. 49 establishes a 15-year validity period for the Statute of the Saar Basin, i.e. the management of the League of Nations commission. After this period, a plebiscite of the population of the Saar Basin should decide whether to maintain the established one. V. M. D. Statute, whether to annex the Saar Basin to France or return it to Germany.
Section 5 (Articles 51-79 with annex) on Alsace-Lorraine. The main article of this section (51) stipulates that “the territories ceded to Germany by virtue of the preliminary peace signed at Versailles on 26.2.1871, and the Treaty of Frankfurt of 10.5.1871, return to French sovereignty from the date of the armistice on 11.11.1918.” .
Section 6 (Article 80) on Austria. This article stipulates that "Germany recognizes and will strictly respect the independence of Austria within the limits to be established by the treaty concluded between that State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers" (implemented by the Treaty of Saint-Germain, signed in September 1919).
Section 7 (Articles 81-86) on Czechoslovakia. Germany recognizes the complete independence of the Czechoslovak State within the boundaries established by the main Allied and Associated Powers. According to Art. 82 the border between Germany and Czechoslovakia will be the old border between Austria-Hungary and.
The German Empire as it existed on 3. VIII 1914.
Section 8 (Articles 87-93) on Poland. Germany undertakes to recognize the complete independence of Poland and renounce part of Upper Silesia in its favor. The question of the rest of Upper Silesia must be decided by popular vote. According to Art. 88 defines the eastern border of Germany (western border of Poland). As for the eastern borders of Poland, the V.M.D. leaves the question of them open. According to Art. 93 Poland undertakes to conclude a special treaty with the main allied and associated powers (signed on June 28, 1919), which will include regulations “necessary to protect in Poland the interests of residents who differ from the majority of the population in race, language or religion.”
Section 9 (Articles 94-98) on East Prussia. Establishes the boundaries of those districts of East Prussia in which a popular vote should be held in order to decide the question of the future ownership of this territory by Poland or Germany. Thus, the final solution to the question of East Prussia was postponed until the outcome of the plebiscite. The plebiscitary area separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany.
Section 10 (Article 99) about Memel (Klaipeda). According to this article, Germany renounces in favor of the main allied and united powers all rights and title to the territory of Memel (Klaipeda). Thus, the V.M.D. only separated Memel from Germany, but did not establish its state affiliation. (The transfer of Memel to Lithuania was made in 1923.)
Section 11 (Articles 100-108) about the Free City of Danzig. According to Art. 100 Germany renounces rights and title to the territory of Danzig and its district. The boundaries of this district were clearly marked. The city of Danzig and the district are declared a Free City under the protection of the League of Nations; its constitution should be subsequently worked out by representatives of Danzig in agreement with the High Commissioner of the League of Nations. Art. 104 lists Poland's rights in relation to the Free City, the most important of which are the inclusion of Danzig within the customs border of Poland and the granting of Poland the right to conduct Danzig's foreign relations and protect its citizens in foreign countries.
Section 12 (art. 109-114) about Schleswig. Establishes a new border between Germany and Denmark. The fate of the territories taken by Prussia from Denmark as a result of the War of 1864 must be decided by a plebiscite.
Section 13 (Article 115) decides that Germany undertakes to demolish all the fortifications of the islands of Heligoland and Dune.
Section 14 (Articles 116-117). "Russia and Russian states." According to Art. 116 Germany recognizes “the independence of all territories that were part of the former Russian Empire by August 1, 1914,” as well as the abolition of both Brest-Litovsk and all other treaties concluded by it with the Soviet government. According to Art. 117 Germany recognizes all treaties and agreements that the Allied and Associated Powers conclude with states that were and are being formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire.
Part IV of the V.M.D. concerns German rights and interests outside Germany.
Section 1 of Part IV (Articles 118-127) develops the regulations proclaimed in Art. 119, that “Germany renounces in favor of the main allied and associated powers all its rights and title to its overseas possessions.” Thus, this department deprives Germany of all its colonies.
Section 2 (Articles 128-134) regulates the issue of German rights in China. Germany renounces in favor of China all the privileges and advantages that arose for it from previous German-Chinese treaties. Germany renounces its property in the British concession in Canton in favor of Great Britain and its concessions in favor of China.
Section 3 (art. 135-137) is dedicated to Siam. Germany renounces the rights of consular jurisdiction and all property of the German Empire in Siam in favor of the Siamese government.
Section 4 (Articles 138-140) regulates the issue of German rights in Liberia. Germany recognizes as invalid all treaties and agreements it concluded with Liberia before the war.
Section 5 (arts. 141-146) is devoted to the issue of Morocco. Germany renounces all rights and privileges arising for it from the Algeciras General Act of 7.IV. 1906 and from the Franco-German agreements of 9.II. 1909 and 4.XI 1911. Germany recognizes the French protectorate in Morocco and renounces the regime of capitulations.
Section 6 (Articles 147-154) treats the rights of Germany in Egypt. Germany undertakes to recognize the protectorate proclaimed by Great Britain over Egypt on December 18, 1914, and renounces the regime of capitulations in Egypt and all treaties with it concluded before the war. Finally, Germany renounces in favor of the Egyptian government all property that was the property of the German government in Egypt.
Section 7 (Article 155) on Germany’s relations with Turkey and Bulgaria. Germany undertakes to recognize any agreements which the Allied and Associated Powers may make with Turkey and Bulgaria concerning any rights, interests and privileges which Germany or German citizens may claim in Turkey and Bulgaria.
Section 8 (Articles 156-158) about Shandong. The main article of this section (156) establishes the renunciation of Germany in favor of Japan from all rights and privileges to the territory of Jiaozhou, from railways, mines and submarine cables, which Germany acquired by virtue of the treaty with China of 6.Sh 1898, and from all other acts concerning Shandong Province. Likewise, all German rights to the railway from Qingdao to Jinanfu pass to Japan.
Part V of the V.M.D. is devoted to military, naval and air provisions. It begins with a special introduction, which reads: "In order to make possible the preparation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes to strictly observe the provisions laid down below - military, naval or air." Thus, according to this introduction, the complete disarmament of Germany was to be a prerequisite for a general limitation of the armaments of all countries. This introduction subsequently made it possible for Germany to refer to the Allies’ failure to fulfill their own promises and to rely on this circumstance as an argument allowing Germany to abandon the military regulations of the V.M.D. Part V is divided into the following sections:
Section 1 (Articles 159-180) on martial law.
Division 2 (Articles 181-197) on maritime provisions.
Division 3 (Articles 198-202) on provisions relating to military and naval aviation.
Section 4 (Articles 203-210) is devoted to inter-union control commissions.
Section 5 (Articles 211-213) on general provisions.
The disarmament of Germany comes down to the following: the German army should not exceed 100 thousand people. and serves solely to maintain order within the country. The number of officers in this army should not exceed 4 thousand people. The Great General Staff is disbanded and its creation is prohibited in the future. The number and types of weapons for this army are firmly established. The production of weapons (according to a strictly developed nomenclature) can only take place at certain factories under the control of the Allies. The importation of weapons and military materials of any kind into Germany is prohibited. Universal conscription in Germany is abolished, and the German army must be recruited through voluntary recruitment, with non-commissioned officers and soldiers serving for 12 years, and officers for up to 45 years (Articles 173-175). Any mobilization activities are prohibited in Germany (Article 178). Most of the fortifications, fortresses, etc. on the borders of Germany must be disarmed and demolished (Article 180). The possession of heavy artillery above the established caliber and tanks is prohibited. The German navy is interned in the English harbor of Scapa Flow (it was sunk by its own crew in the summer of 1919). Germany is permitted in the future to have a navy of 6 battleships, 6 light cruisers, 12 counter-destroyers and 12 torpedo boats (Article 181). Tonnage standards are established for each type of authorized vessel, and for battleships this standard should not exceed 10 thousand. m(Art. 190). The construction and acquisition of submarines is prohibited (Article 191). The German military forces must not include any military or naval aviation (Article 198). All military restrictions imposed on Germany must be controlled by special inter-allied commissions, which will have their branches and separate representatives in various localities of Germany.
Part VI (Articles 214-226) is devoted to the issue of German prisoners of war and the graves of German soldiers and officers.
Part VII (Articles 227-230) is called sanctions. This part contains a resolution on the international trial of William II, as well as on the prosecution of persons “accused of committing acts contrary to the laws and customs of war.” The German government undertakes to assist such a court in every possible way and, in particular, to extradite its citizens accused of these crimes.
Part VIII (Articles 231-247) is devoted to the issue of reparations Art. 231 establishes the guilt of Germany and its allies for starting the war of 1914-18. The main article of this part (233) states that the amount of losses caused by the attack of Germany and its allies, “which Germany is obliged to compensate, will be established between the Allied Commission, which will take the name of the Reparations Commission.”
In the World War II itself, the size of German reparations remained unfixed. Thus, Germany had to accept a blanket obligation to pay the amount of reparations that the Allies would subsequently establish.
Part IX (Articles 248-263) deals with financial provisions. These provisions, in particular, provide for Germany's obligation to transfer to its allies the gold and other valuables it received during the war from Turkey, Avetro-Hungary (as security for loans), as well as from Russia (by virtue of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty) and Romania (by virtue of the Bucharest Treaty). agreement). Other articles in this part regulate the issue of debts falling on territories that were ceded from Germany by virtue of the World War II. As a rule, Germany was exempt from paying such debts, with the exception of the debt falling on Alsace-Lorraine (since in 1871 Germany refused to assume part of the French debt falling on Alsace-Lorraine).
Part X (Articles 264-312) regulates economic provisions in detail. Germany undertakes not to impose any prohibitions or restrictions on the import into Germany of any goods from the Allied countries and to apply the most favored nation principle to the trade and navigation (fishing and cabotage) of the Allied and Associated Powers. Germany must cancel all agreements and treaties of an economic nature that it concluded during the war with Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, as well as with Romania and Russia. A number of other articles in this part regulate issues of private contracts, court decisions, industrial property, etc.
Part XI (Articles 313-320) is devoted to issues of aeronautics. The main article of this part (Article 313) establishes that “aircraft belonging to the Allied or Associated Powers will have complete freedom of flight and landing in the territory and territorial waters of Germany.” Likewise, all German airfields will be open to Allied aircraft.
Part XII (Articles 321-386) regulates the issue of ports, waterways and railways. According to Art. 321 “Germany undertakes to provide freedom of transit through its territory” for goods, ships, vessels, wagons and persons coming from allied and associated countries. Art. 327 provides citizens, ships and vessels of allied and associated countries in all ports and on inland waterways of Germany the same treatment as German citizens, ships and ships. Art. 331 declares the rivers international, i.e. free for foreign navigation: the Elbe from the confluence of the Vltava and the Vltava from Prague, the Oder from the confluence of the Opta, the Neman from Grodno and the Danube from Ulm. Navigation on the Elbe is transferred to the control of an international commission, which includes representatives of Czechoslovakia, Great Britain, France, Italy and Belgium, as well as four representatives of the coastal German states. Navigation on the Oder is placed under the control of an international commission, which includes representatives of Poland, Prussia, Czechoslovakia, Great Britain, France, Denmark and Sweden.
Germany is excluded from the European Danube Commission, created even before the war. According to Art. 363 Germany undertakes to lease free zones in the ports of Hamburg and Stettin to Czechoslovakia for 99 years.
According to Art. 380 "The Kiel Canal and the access to it will always be free and open on a completely equal footing to the warships and merchant ships of all nations at peace with Germany."
Part XIII (Articles 387-427) is devoted to international labor regulation and the creation of the International Labor Office. This part of V. m. d. has no relation to Germany.
Part XIV (Articles 428-433) establishes guarantees for the performance of the contract on the part of Germany. According to Art. The 428 German territories located to the west of the Rhine (left bank) will be occupied by the troops of the Allied and Associated Powers for a period of 15 years, counting from the moment the World War II comes into force.
Art. 433 obliges Germany to withdraw its troops from the Baltic provinces and Lithuania “as soon as the governments of the principal Allied and Associated Powers consider the moment appropriate, in accordance with the internal situation of these territories.”
It should be noted that, according to Kautsky, who stated this at the Lucerne Congress of the Second International, Art. 433 had a secret annex that obligated Germany to temporarily detain its troops in specified territories until the Allies could replace them with their own.
Part XV (Articles 434-440) deals with “miscellaneous provisions”. This part in Art. 434 obliges Germany “to recognize the full force of peace treaties and additional conventions that will be concluded by the allied and associated powers with the powers that fought on the side of Germany”, as well as “to agree to the regulations that will be adopted regarding the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Bulgarian Kingdom and the Ottoman Empire, and recognize new states within the boundaries which will thus be established for them."
Germany's violation of the V.M.D. The system recorded by the V.M.D. turned out to be extremely unstable and very quickly showed signs of decay. The entire history of the V.M.D. from the moment of its signing until the beginning of the Second World War represents the gradual destruction of the Versailles system at an ever-accelerating pace. The first object in time was reparations. Germany's violation of reparation obligations, on the one hand, and the position taken by England, which sought to prevent too much weakening of the German national economy, on the other, led to the fact that the reparation issue underwent a radical change already in 1924 with the help of Zauns's plan(cm.). This last one operated until 1930 and was replaced by a new one plan cabin boy(cm.). The Dawes Plan deprived France of a dominant role in the reparations problem and significantly contributed to the revival of the German economy and the creation of economic preconditions for future German aggression. In 1932, Germany managed to completely free itself from reparation obligations.
In parallel with the struggle against the reparation decrees of the World War II, Germany fought against the obligations of disarmament, as well as against its military and territorial articles.
Regulations on military reserves, on the production of weapons, on the navy and air force were continuously violated by Germany, which took advantage of the weakness and insufficiency of inter-allied control. 21. V 1935 Hitler openly violated the V.M.D., announcing that he refused to implement the entire V part of the treaty (military regulations). On June 18, 1935, the Anglo-German naval treaty was signed, which legalized Germany’s refusal of the naval regulations of the V.M.D., giving it the right to a navy four times larger than the one recorded in the peace treaty .
As for the air force, Germany’s violations of the regulations of the Air Force led to the fact that already in 1935 Hitler could declare to the British Foreign Secretary Sir John Simon: “Germany currently has more airplanes than Great Britain and its dominions.” and the colonies combined." Reality subsequently confirmed this statement.
The first violation of the territorial regulations of the V.M.D. was carried out by Hitler on March 7, 1936, when German troops occupied the Rhineland demilitarized zone. The next violation of the territorial provisions of both the Versailles and Saint-Germain treaties was the seizure of Austria on March 12, 1938. Hitler, with the consent of Chamberlain and Daladier, captured the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia on September 30, 1938. On 15.3.1939 all of Czechoslovakia was captured. 22. I II 1939 Germany captured Memel (Klaipeda) from Lithuania.
Thus, by the beginning of the Second World War, most of the territorial regulations of the V.M.D. were violated.
The reason for the collapse of the V.M.D. Despite the decisions of the V.M.D., German aggression continuously increased, reaching its climax on June 22, 1941. The reasons for this can be summarized as follows:
1) The V.M.D. was concluded without the participation of the Soviet state and, moreover, in a number of its decisions it was directed against it. Already at the Paris Peace Conference, Germany was considered not only as a defeated enemy, but also as a possible weapon of anti-Soviet policy. This trend has especially intensified since the signing of the Locarno Treaty (1925), which set its main goal to involve Germany in the anti-Soviet bloc. The same goal was pursued by Germany's admission to the League of Nations in 1926.
2) Anglo-French contradictions and the desire of Great Britain to prevent French hegemony on the continent of Europe led to the fact that England systematically supported Germany and contributed to the latter’s violation of military rules.
3) The non-participation of the United States in the World War II and the policy of isolation that they pursued during the first five years after the signing of the World War also greatly contributed to Germany’s violation of this treaty and the growth of German aggression. And when the United States returned to an active European policy, the first act of this policy towards Germany was the Dawes Plan, which widely opened the gates for the investment of American-British-French capital in Germany, which allowed the Germans to reorganize their national economy and lay the economic foundations for subsequent aggression.
4) The main assistance to Hitler in violating the V.M.D. and the systematic growth of German aggression was provided by the “policy of non-intervention.” This policy allowed Hitler to annul the military articles of the Armed Forces, seize the Rhineland demilitarized zone, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel, and enabled Hitler to turn Germany into an armed camp and start a new world war in 1939.
5) The problem of German reparations in the form in which it was solved by the V.M.D. contained a number of gross contradictions. On this issue, there was never a unity of views and community of interests between the main powers that signed the V.M.D. Germany took these contradictions into account and cleverly used them.
6) The task of monitoring Germany’s implementation of the military regulations of the Military Md. was solved extremely unsatisfactorily. This control, or rather the absence of real control, made it possible for Germany, starting from the very first days after the signing of the Military Md., to violate military restrictions and secretly arm Germany.
These were the main reasons why the V.M.D., violated by Germany throughout the entire period of its existence, did not solve the problem that its authors set for themselves.
Literature: Lenin, V.I. Works. T. XIX. P. 75. T. XXIII. S. 268, 315, 446. T. XXIV. pp. 360, 389, 400-401, 545-546. T. XXV. P. 333, 338-339, 401, 417-419. T. XXVII. P. 103, 354. - Treaty of Versailles. Full translation from French original... M. 1925, 198 p. (NKID. Results of the imperial war. A series of peace treaties). - Congrès de la paix, 1919-1920. Paris. 1920. 1-2 Traités, protocoles, declarations, conventions et acts divers. 3. Protocoles des cinq séances publiques. - The treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated powers and Germany, the protocol annexed thereto, the agreement respecting the military occupation of the territories of the Rhine and the treaty between France and Great Britain respecting assistance to France in the event of unprovoked aggression by Germany. Signed at Versailles June 28th, 1919. London. 1919. XVI, 453 p. - The Treaties of peace 1919-1923. Vol. 1-2. New York. 1924. (Carnegie endowment for international peace). -The treaty of Versailles. The essential text and amendments. Ed. by H. J. Schonfield. London. 1940. 127 p.- Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States. 1919. The Paris peace conference. Vol. 1-4,11. Washington. 1942 - 1945, (U.S. Department of State). - Barthou, L. Le Traité de paix. (Rapport général fait au nom de la Commission élue par la Chambre des députés en vue d examiner le projet de loi portant approbation du Traité de paix). Paris. 1919. 249 p. -L an s in g, R. The peace negotiations; a personal narrative. London. 1921. VII, 298 p. - Riddell, F. Intimate diary of the Peace conference and after. 1918-1923. London. 1933. XII, 435 p.- House, E. M. The intimate papers of Colonel House arranged as a narrative by Ch. Seymour...Vol. 1-4. Boston - New York. 1926-1928. Translation: House, E. Archive of Colonel House. [Diaries and correspondence with President Wilson and other political figures sa period 1914-1917]. Prepared for printing by C. Seymour. T. 1-4. M. 1937-1945. -House, E. M. and Seymour, Ch. (eds.). What really happened at Paris; the story of the Peace conference, 1918-1919, by American delegates. New York. 1921. XIII, 528 p. - Shotwell. J. Th. At the Paris conference. New York. 1937. X, 444 p. - Aldrovandi Marescotti, L. Guerra diplomatica. Ricordi with frammenti di diario (1914-1919). Milano. 1938. Translation: Aldrovandi Marescotti. Memoirs and excerpts from the diary 1914-1919). M. 1944. XXXVI, 391 c-Tardieu, A. La paix. Pref. de G. Clemenceau. Paris. 1921. XXVII, 5 20 p. (Collection de mémoires, études et documents pour servir à l histoire de la guerre mondiale). Translation: Tardieu, A. Peace. Transl. With. French Ed. and with intro. article by B. E. Stein. M. 1943. XXIV, 432 p. (Ts-ka foreign policy). - Lloyd George, D. Is it peace? London.
1923. 303 p. Translations: Lloyd George, D. European Chaos. Transl. from English P. Konstantinova. L. - M. 1924. 151 p.; Lloyd-George, D. Is this the world? Transl. from English Yu. Solovyova. L. - M. 1924. 246 p. - Nitti, F. L Europa senza pace. Firenze. 1921. Translation: Nidti, F. Europe without peace. Transl. from Italian with a preface M. Pavlovich. Pg. - M. 1923. 222 pp. - History of diplomacy. T. 3. Ed. V. P. Potemkina. M. 1945. P. 12-54. Girshfeld, A. V. Versailles. "Military History Magazine". 1940. No. 8. P. 68-88. - In ourgeois, L. Le traité de paix de Versailles. 2-me ed. Paris. 1919. VI, 328 p. - Temperley, H. W. A history of the Peace conference of Paris, ed. by H. W. Temperley. Vol. 1-6. London. 1920-1924.- Angell, N. The peace treaty and the economic chaos of Europe. London. 1920. 143 p. Translation: Angel, N. The Treaty of Versailles and economic chaos in Europe. Transl. from English A. I. Hanokh. Ed. A. S. Kagan. Pg. 1922. 112 p. - Keunes, J. M. The economic consequences of the peace. London. 1924. VII, 279 p. Translation: Keynes, D. M. Economic consequences of the Treaty of Versailles. Ed. 2. M. - L.. 1924. XIV, 136 p. - Keynes, J. M. A revision of the treaty being a sequel to the economic consequences of the peace. London. 1922. VIII, 223 p. Translation: Keynes, D. M. Revision of the Peace Treaty. Continuation of the book "Economic Consequences of the Versailles Peace Treaty." Ed. 2nd. M. - L. 1924. 124 c-Novak, K. F. Versailles. Berlin. 1927.345 rub. Translation: Novak, K. F. Versailles. Transl. with him. A. V. Yudina. Preface B. E. Stein. M. - L. 1930. 205 pp. - Berger, M. et Allard, P. Les dessous du traité de Versailles d après les documents Inédits de la censure française. Paris. . 254 p. - The Treaty of Versailles and after. By F. Riddel, S. K. Webster, A. J. Toynbee)