Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International relations: actors dealing together. History devoted to study the evolution of societies. Relations
between actors with a particular weight in politics: govts, parties, NGOs, trade unions, political scientists,
historians etc.
This is a history that was created after the study of historical treaties, agreements. After the 20s also other
elements, apart from govts started to have a weight in international relations. International, intercultural,
intersocial and not only inter-governmental relations.
Pericentrism: concept created by Tony Smith that considers the different interests between the empires
(political centres with many relations (social, economic, cultural) with peripheries). In many cases crisis in the
peripheries affect also strongly the empire. Necessity to make confrontations with different parts of the world
(also Africa, Asia, Latin America).
• Conceptual categories: Cold War, Containment, Détente
1918: beginning of an impossibility of cooperation between the two main different blocks, competitors
(some recognize in it the beginning of the Cold War). Then they became allies in WWII, but it was an
unformal alliance, unstable, a metatypical alliance.
• Borders: a concept transformed by political activities of men. Problem to define, defend, create or
justify a border. Legal element that transform relations between states, societies, cultural approaches
etc.…
• Sources: docs, diplomatic papers, diplomats memories and writings (Thatcher, Truman…) that are
always tricky (they present their own personal povs). Documents transform opinions into facts, they
are fundamental.
Origins, Method And Definitions:
1. GEOGRAPHIC DISCOVERIES (15th and 16th) created the knowledge of the territories, laid the
foundations for globalization and colonialism (at the beginning was not considered a negative
approach, but the usual habit of civilized people). Birth of modern states (15th-17th century) led to the
birth of the first diplomacy.
2. Treaties of WESTPHALIA (1648). The states recognized themselves pairs and equal in relations
(committed to find rules for their regulation) Creation of the identity of the states. From now on it is
possible to talk about diplomacy, with ambassadors, a body of officials etc. Philosophy of international
law and history of the documentation of diplomacy.
3. 19TH CENTURY: crisis of Europe and appearance of new actors: tsarist/soviet empire, USA.
Confirmation of the “Concert of Europe” → European system of regulation of international affairs by
the Great Powers based on the balance of power. In the 1950s Europe “discovered” that it was only an
appendix, not the centre of the world. It took half a century to acknowledge the conscience of its crisis.
The consequence of this crisis was the CW (even though the crisis started way before). Diplomatic
history emerged.
Diplomatic history emerged with the publication of the first diplomatic papers, the black books, (like those
published by the Bolshevik parties in France to testify the tsarist actions) and international treaties. All the
other govts, after 1919, started to do the same, to publish all their documents and possible answers to the public
accusations in the famous “coloured book”: Italian white books, British blue books, Austrians pink books,
Germans green books; all choose a color for their books. Black book remained a bad terminology. These books
started a new process of knowledge and self-confidence.
The phases of industrial revolutions and the international companies transformed international relations.
All these new actors created also new ideas, elaborations. International and foreign politics became a topic of
discussions after the WWI (mainly in the USA and in the countries involved in the war). It was a brand new
approach by the public and newspapers. With the end of WWI a brand new society, able to discuss, criticize,
recognize different and faraway models for the building of a different social position, was created.
1
,Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
The classical study of treaties, the diplomatic history, became gradually obsolete and incomplete (in terms of
historical research), it was necessary to think also of the economic, social, cultural, ideological approach. The
History of international relations took its place in the examination of the new international scenario.
Diplomacy’s task= translate battlefield verdicts into political settlements.
PEACE-MAKING AFTER WWI
Peace is the impossibility of a conflict, the presence of agreements to avoid it, a common sense against the
war. With different instruments this can be granted, thanks to the federalism. Peace may be founded on
hegemony and deterrence or it may come with the formation of a stable security community of states which
share common values and goals.
Peace conferences are actually truce conferences because they are temporary and maintain the fundamental
power to make war, differently, a world federation would mean permanent peace.
Internationalism
Woodrow Wilson emphasized democracy with his 8 th January 1918’s 14 points (a reformist reply to the
Bolshevik’s peace manifesto and a notice to the Entete Cordiale that their secret agreements on war aims and
spoils would have been revised) + the creation of the League of Nations, the principle of Collective security
(principle of maintaining peace between states by mobilizing international opinion to condemn aggression;
commonly seen as one of the main purposes of international organizations such as the League of Nations and
the United Nations) and that of self-determination. He was an intellectual, the only president to be also a
university professor. He can be considered an idealist, he spoke about the importance of abandoning the
secrecy in int. rel., promote the publication of its documents and a brand new way to make diplomacy
(combining realism and idealism). The traditional diplomatic system (military alliance, secret treaties, balance
of power politics) was undermined by the idea of a new diplomacy that should focus on internationalism and
transparency. Order needed stronger international laws, a world court to enforce them, the ending of the
system of international competition and sovereign states altogether. It was from the USA and Russia that came
the voice of change and not from the Europeans (Italian govt had only the concern on Mediterranean stability).
Lenin became chief proponent of the revolutionary solution to international anarchy and Wilson shared with
him the conviction that the ill effects of inter-state competition had to be alleviated. The latter advocated a
more open diplomatic system based on the rule of law, composed of free independent nation states guided by
the “organized moral force of mankind”. Both Lenin’s and Wilson’s voices revitalized “ideology” as a factor
in international relations: the former pulled out the war to save his regime and to later reshape world politics
through workers revolution from below, the latter aimed to reform the international system through the exercise
of American power at the top. The Russian revolution and the American entry in the war (1917) sharpened
the distinction between liberal and autocratic powers.
Versailles treaty 1919
The armistice (11th November 1918):
The absurdity of the international system is represented by the international conferences. In 1919 in Paris all
the states wanted to stop the war, but at the same time all of them were ready to start a new one → this paradox
was the cause of instability. It was a peace characterized by the perception of the damages of the war, the
selfishness of the participants in the agreements (the British and Americans quarreled over the “freedom of the
seas” and the Allies split on the issue of reparations) → it was a truce conference, not a peace one. The opening
procedures of the Paris Conference were marked by administrative chaos and organizational improvisation; its
settlement represented a series of trade-off and compromises between the victorious allies; there were limits
to the peacemaker’s capacity to refashion Europe. This conference wanted to create a peaceful system with an
impossibility of conflict. But this idea in order to be granted required the building of specific instruments.
There were two type of meetings in the conference: the Council of Four (the 4 winners: France, Britain, Italy,
USA) that held restricted meetings; the Council of ten, with Japan (never considered a full winner) that held
2
,Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
general meetings. During the latter the Japanese requested the right of being recognized as racial equal partners
in order to arrange a new international system; this was rejected (by everyone except Italy) and provoked a
harsh reaction by the Japanese, that, however, obtained audience only in Japan. This was a symbol of the
supremacist vision.
Its inconsistencies:
- The losers (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey) did not participate in the conference, they
did not have the possibility to say anything → until justice had been done, Germany must be treated
as moral inferior and banned from the League. Differently, after the WWII during the second great
conference in Paris the losers had been invited to present their positions (not Germany but Italy).
- The disappearance of same of the losers’ empires (German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian) also
represented a big international problem. The situation was extremely complicated.
It’s therefore very hard to speak about peace in this context, it is more accurate to define it a selfish conference.
The role of the USA:
The USA played the major role in it. Wilson was the chief on an anticolonial country. After the 1898 war
against Spain the US had gained an empire outside of their continent: control upon Cuba and Philippines. They
presented the war as one for human rights, equality, the possibility of the just development (against the Spanish
colonizers). They presented themselves as savors, good friends showing new models of society to the
Philippines, that accepted their regime. They created a colony in the Philippines → Wilson had a peculiar
position: he was against a colonial regime, but shared with Europe the position of imperial state. In the Peace
Conference he played the role of the good guy, rejecting colonialism, and trying to convince the Europeans of
the need of the creation of a new system based on policies of self-determination of peoples (each national
group has the right to establish its own national territory; for the territories freed by the war). However he still
was responsible for an empire (Philippines, pacific islands, Cuba).
3 kinds (A,B,C) of mandates (poisonous instrument for international politics): compromise to unite the
American vision (no more colonialism) with the British and French’s one (maintain colonialism and show
Americans their idealistic vision).
Another incoherent aspect was that, if the sole responsible nation was considered to be Germany (Art 231:
War Guilt clause, of paramount importance for the following years), there were actually 5 treaties, and not a
single one for all the losers → second mistake of the Paris Conference.
- Treaty of Saint Germain → Austria (10 September 1919); it prohibited the union of Austria and
Germany (Anschluss)
- Treaty of Neuilly → Bulgaria (27 November 1919)
- Treaty of Trianon → Hungary (4 June 1920)
- Treaty of Sevres → Turkey (10 August 1920)
Each of them included provisions for the protection of ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities.
+ Treaty of Riga → between Poland and Russia (1921)
Art 231 pushed and partly allowed the rise of Hitler ("Deutschland erwatch”), it was to become a mean of Nazi
propaganda, and one of the many mistakes of the Versailles treaty.
London pact stated that in case of victories the signatories of the pact would make arrangements to give Italy
some territorial compensation if France and Britain would gain something (more territories) from the colonies
of the German Empire → Italy was actually considered a minor victor.
All of these arrangements had consequences also outside Europe: Middle East (divided between France and
UK), Africa and Pacific (where Japan had fought).
3
, Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
The League of Nations - “The idealistic dimension of peace”
This was not a new idea: the league of nations had been proposed for the USA well before WWI (after war of
1821) to defend themselves from the Europeans and reorganize the American continent, making it stronger.
After the WWI Wilson recovered the idea of this league of nation, enlarging it to involve all the nations of the
world. The League, based in Geneva, would consist of a Council and an Assembly, supported by a permanent
secretariat.
American main political doctrine = Principle of cooperation → cooperate together in a juridical way. He only
proposed the evolution of an idea of cooperation, considering common rules, regulations and laws. This league
of nations should have a base of common cooperation, arbitrates; a system of control of international systems,
to observe the rule of law, reduce armaments and prevent territorial integrity and independence of member
states. But this did not work; the USA invented it but did not participate in it + Germany was admitted only
after 1926. This showed the impossibility to create a working international system while excluding one of its
massive blocks. It was a compromise between the aspirations of liberal internationalists and the inescapable
limitations of any voluntary associations of sovereign states. The League was the idealistic dimension of peace
and the German settlement the punitive one.
The USA were the only country in the world where public opinion heavily defined foreign and internal policies.
The American Senate refused the treaty and Wilson was unable to change the Senate’ idea and consequently
unable to let America enter in the League of Nations. With this rejection they were forced to conclude a
separate treaty with Germany (1921). However Americans did not entirely retreat from the international stage,
their status as world’s largest creditor meant that they could not entirely cut themselves off from the outside
world. Even the most isolationist Republican administrations did not shy away from pulling the financial levers
to promote stability in Europe.
Also the SU remained isolated, Lenin’s world revolution failed to materialize (the experience of civil war,
Allied intervention, loss of Finland, Bessarabia and Baltic states warned the dangers of survival in a world
dominated by capitalism and imperialism). The SU promoted the overthrow of capitalism through the support
of the international community and the building of “socialism in one country”. The result of this diplomatic
position was a rapprochement with Germany, the other Great Power alienated from the Paris Peace → Rapallo
treaty (1922) expanded economic co-operation (Russia helped Germany to evade disarmament, and Germany
provided Russia with technical know-how).
Territorial consequences
Article 232 imposed Germany compensation for civilian damage. After 1925 the victors agreed on the total
sum and imposed Germany to continue to pay until 1988 (meaning involving at least 4 generations in the
resolutions of a conflict). This is the only time in history where a war ended with the imposition of economic
reparations + surrender of colonies + army denied of heavy weapons and aircraft and very small navy.
American tight fistedness in 1919 ensured that the allies burdened the Weimar Republic with reparations.
The struggle over reparations was primarily a political one and it also generated frictions within the Entete.
Paris insisted on enforcement before leniency, London pressed for the latter in the hope that a German
economic recovery would fuel a European one and revive British markets. In 1922 Germany was declared in
default of reparations payments → French and Belgium troops occupied the Rhineland, alienating Anglo-
American opinion and causing a wave of hyperinflation; from this point forward Britain planted itself between
France and Germany as a mediator, not anymore a French ally.
Later, with the 1924 Dawes Plan (American loan to Germany and France) reparations were scaled down and
France ended the 1923 occupation.
No matter how sharp the pencil to redraw the map borders was, the peacemakers’ lines cut across the
ethnographical patchwork of Eastern Europe, leaving 30 million people on the wrong side of contestable
frontiers.
GERMANY:
4
HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International relations: actors dealing together. History devoted to study the evolution of societies. Relations
between actors with a particular weight in politics: govts, parties, NGOs, trade unions, political scientists,
historians etc.
This is a history that was created after the study of historical treaties, agreements. After the 20s also other
elements, apart from govts started to have a weight in international relations. International, intercultural,
intersocial and not only inter-governmental relations.
Pericentrism: concept created by Tony Smith that considers the different interests between the empires
(political centres with many relations (social, economic, cultural) with peripheries). In many cases crisis in the
peripheries affect also strongly the empire. Necessity to make confrontations with different parts of the world
(also Africa, Asia, Latin America).
• Conceptual categories: Cold War, Containment, Détente
1918: beginning of an impossibility of cooperation between the two main different blocks, competitors
(some recognize in it the beginning of the Cold War). Then they became allies in WWII, but it was an
unformal alliance, unstable, a metatypical alliance.
• Borders: a concept transformed by political activities of men. Problem to define, defend, create or
justify a border. Legal element that transform relations between states, societies, cultural approaches
etc.…
• Sources: docs, diplomatic papers, diplomats memories and writings (Thatcher, Truman…) that are
always tricky (they present their own personal povs). Documents transform opinions into facts, they
are fundamental.
Origins, Method And Definitions:
1. GEOGRAPHIC DISCOVERIES (15th and 16th) created the knowledge of the territories, laid the
foundations for globalization and colonialism (at the beginning was not considered a negative
approach, but the usual habit of civilized people). Birth of modern states (15th-17th century) led to the
birth of the first diplomacy.
2. Treaties of WESTPHALIA (1648). The states recognized themselves pairs and equal in relations
(committed to find rules for their regulation) Creation of the identity of the states. From now on it is
possible to talk about diplomacy, with ambassadors, a body of officials etc. Philosophy of international
law and history of the documentation of diplomacy.
3. 19TH CENTURY: crisis of Europe and appearance of new actors: tsarist/soviet empire, USA.
Confirmation of the “Concert of Europe” → European system of regulation of international affairs by
the Great Powers based on the balance of power. In the 1950s Europe “discovered” that it was only an
appendix, not the centre of the world. It took half a century to acknowledge the conscience of its crisis.
The consequence of this crisis was the CW (even though the crisis started way before). Diplomatic
history emerged.
Diplomatic history emerged with the publication of the first diplomatic papers, the black books, (like those
published by the Bolshevik parties in France to testify the tsarist actions) and international treaties. All the
other govts, after 1919, started to do the same, to publish all their documents and possible answers to the public
accusations in the famous “coloured book”: Italian white books, British blue books, Austrians pink books,
Germans green books; all choose a color for their books. Black book remained a bad terminology. These books
started a new process of knowledge and self-confidence.
The phases of industrial revolutions and the international companies transformed international relations.
All these new actors created also new ideas, elaborations. International and foreign politics became a topic of
discussions after the WWI (mainly in the USA and in the countries involved in the war). It was a brand new
approach by the public and newspapers. With the end of WWI a brand new society, able to discuss, criticize,
recognize different and faraway models for the building of a different social position, was created.
1
,Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
The classical study of treaties, the diplomatic history, became gradually obsolete and incomplete (in terms of
historical research), it was necessary to think also of the economic, social, cultural, ideological approach. The
History of international relations took its place in the examination of the new international scenario.
Diplomacy’s task= translate battlefield verdicts into political settlements.
PEACE-MAKING AFTER WWI
Peace is the impossibility of a conflict, the presence of agreements to avoid it, a common sense against the
war. With different instruments this can be granted, thanks to the federalism. Peace may be founded on
hegemony and deterrence or it may come with the formation of a stable security community of states which
share common values and goals.
Peace conferences are actually truce conferences because they are temporary and maintain the fundamental
power to make war, differently, a world federation would mean permanent peace.
Internationalism
Woodrow Wilson emphasized democracy with his 8 th January 1918’s 14 points (a reformist reply to the
Bolshevik’s peace manifesto and a notice to the Entete Cordiale that their secret agreements on war aims and
spoils would have been revised) + the creation of the League of Nations, the principle of Collective security
(principle of maintaining peace between states by mobilizing international opinion to condemn aggression;
commonly seen as one of the main purposes of international organizations such as the League of Nations and
the United Nations) and that of self-determination. He was an intellectual, the only president to be also a
university professor. He can be considered an idealist, he spoke about the importance of abandoning the
secrecy in int. rel., promote the publication of its documents and a brand new way to make diplomacy
(combining realism and idealism). The traditional diplomatic system (military alliance, secret treaties, balance
of power politics) was undermined by the idea of a new diplomacy that should focus on internationalism and
transparency. Order needed stronger international laws, a world court to enforce them, the ending of the
system of international competition and sovereign states altogether. It was from the USA and Russia that came
the voice of change and not from the Europeans (Italian govt had only the concern on Mediterranean stability).
Lenin became chief proponent of the revolutionary solution to international anarchy and Wilson shared with
him the conviction that the ill effects of inter-state competition had to be alleviated. The latter advocated a
more open diplomatic system based on the rule of law, composed of free independent nation states guided by
the “organized moral force of mankind”. Both Lenin’s and Wilson’s voices revitalized “ideology” as a factor
in international relations: the former pulled out the war to save his regime and to later reshape world politics
through workers revolution from below, the latter aimed to reform the international system through the exercise
of American power at the top. The Russian revolution and the American entry in the war (1917) sharpened
the distinction between liberal and autocratic powers.
Versailles treaty 1919
The armistice (11th November 1918):
The absurdity of the international system is represented by the international conferences. In 1919 in Paris all
the states wanted to stop the war, but at the same time all of them were ready to start a new one → this paradox
was the cause of instability. It was a peace characterized by the perception of the damages of the war, the
selfishness of the participants in the agreements (the British and Americans quarreled over the “freedom of the
seas” and the Allies split on the issue of reparations) → it was a truce conference, not a peace one. The opening
procedures of the Paris Conference were marked by administrative chaos and organizational improvisation; its
settlement represented a series of trade-off and compromises between the victorious allies; there were limits
to the peacemaker’s capacity to refashion Europe. This conference wanted to create a peaceful system with an
impossibility of conflict. But this idea in order to be granted required the building of specific instruments.
There were two type of meetings in the conference: the Council of Four (the 4 winners: France, Britain, Italy,
USA) that held restricted meetings; the Council of ten, with Japan (never considered a full winner) that held
2
,Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
general meetings. During the latter the Japanese requested the right of being recognized as racial equal partners
in order to arrange a new international system; this was rejected (by everyone except Italy) and provoked a
harsh reaction by the Japanese, that, however, obtained audience only in Japan. This was a symbol of the
supremacist vision.
Its inconsistencies:
- The losers (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey) did not participate in the conference, they
did not have the possibility to say anything → until justice had been done, Germany must be treated
as moral inferior and banned from the League. Differently, after the WWII during the second great
conference in Paris the losers had been invited to present their positions (not Germany but Italy).
- The disappearance of same of the losers’ empires (German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian) also
represented a big international problem. The situation was extremely complicated.
It’s therefore very hard to speak about peace in this context, it is more accurate to define it a selfish conference.
The role of the USA:
The USA played the major role in it. Wilson was the chief on an anticolonial country. After the 1898 war
against Spain the US had gained an empire outside of their continent: control upon Cuba and Philippines. They
presented the war as one for human rights, equality, the possibility of the just development (against the Spanish
colonizers). They presented themselves as savors, good friends showing new models of society to the
Philippines, that accepted their regime. They created a colony in the Philippines → Wilson had a peculiar
position: he was against a colonial regime, but shared with Europe the position of imperial state. In the Peace
Conference he played the role of the good guy, rejecting colonialism, and trying to convince the Europeans of
the need of the creation of a new system based on policies of self-determination of peoples (each national
group has the right to establish its own national territory; for the territories freed by the war). However he still
was responsible for an empire (Philippines, pacific islands, Cuba).
3 kinds (A,B,C) of mandates (poisonous instrument for international politics): compromise to unite the
American vision (no more colonialism) with the British and French’s one (maintain colonialism and show
Americans their idealistic vision).
Another incoherent aspect was that, if the sole responsible nation was considered to be Germany (Art 231:
War Guilt clause, of paramount importance for the following years), there were actually 5 treaties, and not a
single one for all the losers → second mistake of the Paris Conference.
- Treaty of Saint Germain → Austria (10 September 1919); it prohibited the union of Austria and
Germany (Anschluss)
- Treaty of Neuilly → Bulgaria (27 November 1919)
- Treaty of Trianon → Hungary (4 June 1920)
- Treaty of Sevres → Turkey (10 August 1920)
Each of them included provisions for the protection of ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities.
+ Treaty of Riga → between Poland and Russia (1921)
Art 231 pushed and partly allowed the rise of Hitler ("Deutschland erwatch”), it was to become a mean of Nazi
propaganda, and one of the many mistakes of the Versailles treaty.
London pact stated that in case of victories the signatories of the pact would make arrangements to give Italy
some territorial compensation if France and Britain would gain something (more territories) from the colonies
of the German Empire → Italy was actually considered a minor victor.
All of these arrangements had consequences also outside Europe: Middle East (divided between France and
UK), Africa and Pacific (where Japan had fought).
3
, Ostoni Monica 2022/2023 IPLE, Unimi
The League of Nations - “The idealistic dimension of peace”
This was not a new idea: the league of nations had been proposed for the USA well before WWI (after war of
1821) to defend themselves from the Europeans and reorganize the American continent, making it stronger.
After the WWI Wilson recovered the idea of this league of nation, enlarging it to involve all the nations of the
world. The League, based in Geneva, would consist of a Council and an Assembly, supported by a permanent
secretariat.
American main political doctrine = Principle of cooperation → cooperate together in a juridical way. He only
proposed the evolution of an idea of cooperation, considering common rules, regulations and laws. This league
of nations should have a base of common cooperation, arbitrates; a system of control of international systems,
to observe the rule of law, reduce armaments and prevent territorial integrity and independence of member
states. But this did not work; the USA invented it but did not participate in it + Germany was admitted only
after 1926. This showed the impossibility to create a working international system while excluding one of its
massive blocks. It was a compromise between the aspirations of liberal internationalists and the inescapable
limitations of any voluntary associations of sovereign states. The League was the idealistic dimension of peace
and the German settlement the punitive one.
The USA were the only country in the world where public opinion heavily defined foreign and internal policies.
The American Senate refused the treaty and Wilson was unable to change the Senate’ idea and consequently
unable to let America enter in the League of Nations. With this rejection they were forced to conclude a
separate treaty with Germany (1921). However Americans did not entirely retreat from the international stage,
their status as world’s largest creditor meant that they could not entirely cut themselves off from the outside
world. Even the most isolationist Republican administrations did not shy away from pulling the financial levers
to promote stability in Europe.
Also the SU remained isolated, Lenin’s world revolution failed to materialize (the experience of civil war,
Allied intervention, loss of Finland, Bessarabia and Baltic states warned the dangers of survival in a world
dominated by capitalism and imperialism). The SU promoted the overthrow of capitalism through the support
of the international community and the building of “socialism in one country”. The result of this diplomatic
position was a rapprochement with Germany, the other Great Power alienated from the Paris Peace → Rapallo
treaty (1922) expanded economic co-operation (Russia helped Germany to evade disarmament, and Germany
provided Russia with technical know-how).
Territorial consequences
Article 232 imposed Germany compensation for civilian damage. After 1925 the victors agreed on the total
sum and imposed Germany to continue to pay until 1988 (meaning involving at least 4 generations in the
resolutions of a conflict). This is the only time in history where a war ended with the imposition of economic
reparations + surrender of colonies + army denied of heavy weapons and aircraft and very small navy.
American tight fistedness in 1919 ensured that the allies burdened the Weimar Republic with reparations.
The struggle over reparations was primarily a political one and it also generated frictions within the Entete.
Paris insisted on enforcement before leniency, London pressed for the latter in the hope that a German
economic recovery would fuel a European one and revive British markets. In 1922 Germany was declared in
default of reparations payments → French and Belgium troops occupied the Rhineland, alienating Anglo-
American opinion and causing a wave of hyperinflation; from this point forward Britain planted itself between
France and Germany as a mediator, not anymore a French ally.
Later, with the 1924 Dawes Plan (American loan to Germany and France) reparations were scaled down and
France ended the 1923 occupation.
No matter how sharp the pencil to redraw the map borders was, the peacemakers’ lines cut across the
ethnographical patchwork of Eastern Europe, leaving 30 million people on the wrong side of contestable
frontiers.
GERMANY:
4
