2K International Relations and Global Conflict, c1890–1941 (A-level only) – Second World War, 1917–1941 The end of the First World War and the peace settlement, 1917–1923 — AQA A-Level History

The end of the First World War and the subsequent peace settlements of 1919 to 1923 dismantled major empires and established a fragile international order. Dominated by the conflicting priorities of the 'Big Three' at Paris, the treaties imposed severe territorial and financial terms on the defeated powers, establishing structural grievances that destabilised global relations throughout the interwar years.

This topic covers the diplomatic, military, and political events surrounding the end of the First World War and the subsequent peace settlements negotiated between 1917 and 1923. It explores the collapse of autocratic empires, the entry of the United States, the ideological clash between Wilsonian idealism and European realpolitik, and the formulation of the treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sèvres, and Lausanne.

Understanding this settlement is fundamental to the study of 20th-century international history. The structural weaknesses, economic disruptions, and nationalist grievances embedded in the Paris peace treaties created the geopolitical landscape that facilitated the rise of authoritarian regimes and ultimately set the course for global conflict in the 1930s.

• →Wilsonian Idealism vs. European Security: Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points emphasized collective security, open diplomacy, and national self-determination, which sharply conflicted with Georges Clemenceau's objective of crushing German power to guarantee French territorial integrity.
• →The Diktat and War Guilt: The imposition of Article 231 (the 'War Guilt Clause') and the denial of German representation at Paris branded the Treaty of Versailles as an illegitimate, dictated peace across the German political spectrum.
• →Imperial Collapse and Successor States: The disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires created economically weak and ethnically fragmented successor states in Central and Eastern Europe that lacked the military strength to balance regional powers.
• →Revisionism vs. Status Quo: The peace settlements divided Europe into status quo beneficiaries (Britain, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia) and revisionist powers (Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Soviet Union) committed to overturning the treaties.

• Identify the specific causes and nature of the collapse for each empire, such as the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and military defeat in Germany.
• Explain how the disintegration of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire created power vacuums filled by competing nationalist movements.
• Analyse the impact of nationalist ambitions on the peace-making process, specifically the challenge of applying Wilson's principle of self-determination.
• Evaluate how the collapse of these empires altered international relations, such as the ideological isolation of Soviet Russia and the instability of new Eastern European states.
• Compare and contrast the specific aims of Clemenceau (security and punishment), Wilson (idealism and the League), and Lloyd George (balance of power and empire).
• Detail the key terms of the Treaty of Versailles, including territorial losses, military restrictions, reparations, and Article 231, explaining how they reflected compromises.
• Analyse the East and Southern European settlements (Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly) and their role in redrawing the map of the former Austro-Hungarian empire.
• Evaluate the failure of the Treaty of Sèvres and the significance of the Treaty of Lausanne in establishing the modern Turkish state.
• Explain the impact of the US Senate's rejection of the Versailles Treaty on the League of Nations' authority and resources.
• Analyse French insecurity and their consequent demand for the strict execution of the Versailles terms, particularly regarding reparations.
• Evaluate Britain's shifting attitude towards Germany, prioritising trade and a balance of power over punitive measures.
• Assess the German domestic reaction to the 'Diktat', focusing on the psychological and political impact of the War Guilt Clause.
• Assess the impact of the USA's political isolationism and reliance on economic diplomacy on global stability.
• Explain Russia's diplomatic isolation and its strategic response, such as the Treaty of Rapallo with Germany.
• Identify and evaluate the significance of unresolved border disputes in Eastern Europe, such as Vilna or the Polish-Soviet conflicts.
• Analyse the causes of the Ruhr occupation, specifically French frustration over German reparation defaults.
• Evaluate the consequences of the Ruhr occupation, including German hyperinflation and the subsequent need for the Dawes Plan.

• 💡When discussing the peace treaties, explicitly link the terms back to the geopolitical vacuum left by the collapsed empires.
• 💡Use specific examples of nationalist ambitions, such as the creation of Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia, to illustrate the challenges faced by the peacemakers.
• 💡Contrast the ideological threat posed by the collapsed Russian Empire with the territorial challenges posed by the Austro-Hungarian collapse.
• 💡Use the specific names of the minor treaties (Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sèvres, Lausanne) to demonstrate precise chronological and geographical knowledge.
• 💡When evaluating the success of the peace-making process, assess it against the original, often contradictory, aims of Clemenceau, Wilson, and Lloyd George.
• 💡Highlight the Treaty of Lausanne as a unique example of a defeated power successfully challenging and renegotiating the post-war settlement.
• 💡Use the term 'Diktat' when discussing the German response to demonstrate understanding of their perception of the dictated peace.
• 💡Contrast the foreign policy aims of Britain and France to explain the lack of a unified Allied front in the early 1920s.
• 💡Link the USA's isolationism directly to the structural weakness of the League of Nations when evaluating challenges to the peace settlement.
• 💡Use the Treaty of Rapallo as a key example of how pariah states (Russia and Germany) bypassed the post-war settlement.
• 💡Link the occupation of the Ruhr directly to the ensuing hyperinflation crisis in Germany to demonstrate cause and effect.
• 💡When discussing border disputes, mention specific examples like Vilna or Memel to ground your argument in concrete historical evidence.
• 💡Avoid descriptive narratives of the Treaty terms; always evaluate terms in relation to the conflicting strategic aims of the powers involved and their long-term viability.
• 💡Incorporate the renegotiation of the Treaty of Sèvres into the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) to demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of how military resistance actively revised the Allied post-war settlement.
• 💡Anchor essays in contemporary historical debate, contrasting traditionalist views of Versailles as excessively harsh with revisionist arguments (such as Sally Marks) that the treaty was relatively moderate but inadequately enforced.

• Treating the collapse of all four empires as identical; correction: distinguish between the ideological revolution in Russia, the regime change in Germany, and the complete territorial disintegration of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.
• Assuming nationalist ambitions were easily resolved by the peace treaties; correction: recognise that overlapping ethnic populations made clean borders impossible, leading to ongoing minority conflicts.
• Ignoring the Ottoman Empire's collapse in European diplomacy; correction: include the Middle Eastern mandates and the Greco-Turkish conflicts as direct consequences of Ottoman disintegration.
• Focusing exclusively on the Treaty of Versailles; correction: ensure equal analytical weight is given to the East and Southern European treaties and the Turkish settlements.
• Oversimplifying Lloyd George's aims as purely moderate; correction: acknowledge his dual pressures of wanting a recovering German trading partner while satisfying a British public demanding harsh punishment.
• Confusing the treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne; correction: distinguish Sèvres (1920) as the initial punitive treaty imposed by the Allies, and Lausanne (1923) as the revised treaty negotiated after Turkish nationalist military victories.
• Claiming the USA joined the League of Nations but later withdrew. Correction: State that the USA never joined the League of Nations because the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.
• Assuming Britain and France shared identical views on enforcing the treaty. Correction: Contrast French demands for strict enforcement and security with British desires for German economic recovery and trade.
• Describing German resentment solely in economic terms. Correction: Emphasise the psychological humiliation of the 'Diktat' and the War Guilt Clause (Article 231) alongside economic grievances.
• Stating that the USA had no involvement in world affairs by 1923. Correction: Clarify that while politically isolationist, the USA remained highly influential through its economic power and war debt collection.
• Confusing the occupation of the Ruhr with the earlier occupation of the Rhineland. Correction: Specify that the Ruhr was occupied in 1923 by France and Belgium specifically to extract unpaid reparations.
• Assuming Russia was completely isolated from all European powers. Correction: Note that Russia formed a diplomatic and economic relationship with Germany through the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.
• Believing that John Maynard Keynes proved the Treaty of Versailles directly caused hyperinflation and completely destroyed the German economy in 1919. (Correction: While Keynes's 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace' (1919) popularised the critique that reparations were ruinously high, modern historians argue that Weimar Germany's own fiscal mismanagement, wartime borrowing strategies, and deliberate currency devaluation contributed far more significantly to the 1923 hyperinflation crisis.)
• Assuming that the League of Nations was entirely powerless from its inception and accomplished nothing. (Correction: Although undermined by the absence of the US, the Soviet Union, and initially Germany, the League resolved several minor border disputes successfully in the early 1920s (such as the Åland Islands in 1921 and Upper Silesia in 1921) before systemic failures occurred in the 1930s.)

1. 1Week 1, Days 1-2: Map the conflicting aims of Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando, contrasting Wilson's Fourteen Points with realistic European territorial demands.
2. 2Week 1, Days 3-4: Analyze the specific terms of the Treaty of Versailles (territorial losses, military reductions, Article 231, reparations) and unpack the domestic German reaction to the 'November Criminals' myth.
3. 3Week 1, Days 5-7: Study the other treaties: Saint-Germain, Trianon, Neuilly, Sèvres, and Lausanne. Evaluate the viability of the newly drawn borders in Central/Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
4. 4Week 2, Days 1-3: Assess the League of Nations Covenant, collective security concepts, and the profound strategic ramifications of US withdrawal and isolationism.
5. 5Week 2, Days 4-7: Write timed essay outlines evaluating the balance between Allied punitive intentions and the practical enforceability of the settlement up to the 1923 Ruhr crisis.

• 📋Source Evaluation (Compulsory Question 1): Analyzing two or three primary extracts from key figures (e.g., Lloyd George, Wilson, German delegates) regarding treaty terms, focusing on provenance, tone, purpose, and context.
• 📋Essay Questions on Peace Settlement Viability: Assessing whether the treaties were doomed to fail from the start or undermined by subsequent diplomatic and economic failures between 1919 and 1923.
• 📋Comparative Thematic Essays: Evaluating the relative responsibility of individual leaders or specific nations (e.g., the USA or France) in compromising post-war stability.