Quote of the day

It will be interesting to see exactly which customs the Vatican is going to allow from the past rich five centuries of Anglican worship, life and thought.

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Demotix witness*upload*share

Recent comments

Navigation


View 3 comments

Versailles, 1919-2009: a new world order’s legacy

David A Andelman, 29 - 06 - 2009

The treaty concluded on 28 June 1918 reverberates today across a huge area from Iran and Iraq to the Balkans and even beyond, says David A Andelman.


The real roots of many major recent and current political events - the convulsions surrounding Iran's Islamic regime, the bloody troubles in neighbouring Iraq, the ethnic cleansing and mass murders in the Balkans, even numerous wars and uprisings from Palestine to Indochina - lie in a ceremony that occurred ninety years ago. This was the gathering in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles, outside Paris, on 28 June 1919, when the representatives of the victors in the first world war dictated the terms of peace to the quivering representatives of Germany's Kaiser.

David A Andelman is the editor of World Policy Journal and the author of A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today (Wiley, 2007)

"The stillest three minutes ever lived through were those in which the German delegates signed the Peace Treaty", the New York Times correspondent Charles A Selden reported in next morning's newspaper. As American delegate George Louis Beer wrote in his diary, "Two German delegates [were] led like felons into the room to sign their doom. It was like the execution of a sentence."

But it was no less an execution for the billion or more innocent people in territories whose borders were so cavalierly rearranged by the delegates in the fraught months of negotiation that preceded this signing. For the document called the Treaty of Versailles dramatically transformed the world and set the stage for so many contemporary problems (see A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today [Wiley, 2007]). 

This treaty, largely forgotten even as the world has so frequently been forced to cope with its consequences, set up a new system of global governance. The victors in what was then known as the Great War were effectively empowered to maintain, indeed expand, a series of entrenched, though already fading global empires.

When the Allied powers arrived in Paris at the end of 1918, barely days after the Armistice that brought an end to hostilities was signed on 11 November, they proclaimed themselves "the world's government" for the period they were assembled in Paris. So for the next six months, the statesmen of the victorious powers -  America's Woodrow Wilson, France's Georges Clemenceau, Britain's David Lloyd George, Italy's Vittorio Orlando, even Japan's Viscount Sutemi Chinda - proceeded to redraw the map of vast stretches of the planet. They created a host of new nations with little understanding - and barely a nod to the wishes or desires, prejudices or fears - of the people who lived within the new boundaries they were marking with blurry blue pencils, often in the wee hours of the morning.

A legacy and a lesson

Also in openDemocracy on war and peace legacies:

Carl Bildt, "Europe's future in the mirror of the Balkans" (3 April 2003)

Patrice de Beer, "Versailles to al-Qaida: tunnels of history" (9 November 2007)

Dan Todman, "How we remember them: the 1914-18 war today" (11 November 2008)

Dejan Djokic, "Versailles and Yugoslavia: ninety years on" (26 June 2009)

As the peacemakers sought to dismantle the great empires that had challenged them on the battlefields - the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, and especially the Ottomans - they established a new world order with little real understanding of the consequences.

So Yugoslavia was created from a kaleidoscope of hostile religions, alphabets, languages and tribal passions in the most volatile corner of Europe (see Dejan Djokic, "Versailles and Yugoslavia: ninety years on", 26 June 2009) .

Germany was effectively pillaged by a reparations system, part of a Carthaginian peace; Japan was given free reign to do as it pleased in China, Korea and much of Asia. Both decisions set the stage for militarist resurgence in these defeated nations and, ultimately, for the second world war.

The mandate system awarded Britain control of Palestine, echoing the Balfour declaration's recognition of a Jewish right to a homeland in the entire territory of Palestine, with barely a nod to the native Arabs. A swathe of other nations was established in the middle east - from Iraq, Syria and Jordan (carved out of Mesopotamia), to a greater Lebanon seized upon by the French as its booty from the spoils of war.

Indeed it was the British - and their determined efforts to to break apart the Ottoman empire and cement control over vast stretches of the middle east - who were the most successful in forcing their will on their Allies in Paris. The efforts of Lloyd George and his most adroit team of diplomats and statesmen were designed to secure trade and military routes to their vast Indian empire, not to mention the rights to the newest strategic commodity, oil.

The Ottomans had played an important, and at the time little understood, role in the middle east. The Sunnis who ruled from the Sultan's palace in Constantinople (Istanbul) were a critical counterweight to the Shi'a of the Persian empire or indeed the Shi'a of much of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. With the Sunnis' power curbed, their ability to act as a restraining force on British, and eventually American, activities, especially in Iran, was effectively neutralised.

So it was not surprising that British interests would move with dispatch into the oilfields of the Persian Gulf, where they would eventually be challenged by American entrepreneurs as well. And Iran, especially its ruler Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, even before he assumed the throne in December 1925, would find a foreign power he was little able to control and on whose high-handed actions there was little restraint. By then, the Ottoman empire - that once stretched cross the middle east and north Africa, up through the Balkans, nearly to the gates of Vienna - was reduced to the small, rather powerless nation of Turkey. Britain was the force to reckon with across the middle east. So it should come as little surprise if today's rulers of Iran have replaced the United States with Britain as "the most evil" of Iran's enemies, as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proclaimed during his Friday prayer message in Tehran on 19 June 2009.

The legacy of Versailles extends far beyond Iran, or Iraq, even the Balkans. It is a legacy of greed and hubris, ignorance and selfishness that should serve as a lesson for all governments, all statesmen who seek to impose their blinkered vision on other nations and other peoples.

Average rating
(5 votes)
read on

Treaty of Versailles 

David A Andelman, A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today (Wiley, 2007)

A Shattered Peace  

World Policy Journal

Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World (Random House, 2002)

1918 armistice, 90th anniversary exhibition (Imperial War Museum)

 
This article is published by David A Andelman, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

AnonA (not verified) said:



Thu, 2009-09-17 14:12

Just about everything in your article is wrong.

Germany was not "pillaged by a reparations system." In fact Germany never paid a dime in reparations see Sally Marks. "The Myths of Reparations," Central European History 11 (1978) and Stephen Schucker, American "reparations" to Germany, 1919-33 (1988).

The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires were not dismantled at Versailles. Home grown revolutionaries had already carved out homelands by the end of the war. The drafters were merely rubber-stamping what had already happened on the ground.

You misrepresent Djokic. Yugoslavia was NOT "created from a kaleidoscope of hostile religions, alphabets, languages and tribal passions" - in fact it was created by various intellectual movements dedicated to the idea of Yugoslavism. But I like how you reveal your prejudices by talking about tribalism.

Japan was NOT "given free reign to do as it pleased in China, Korea and much of Asia." Where is the evidence for this? If anything Japan was given too little at Versailles (the Americans shot down the famous Japanese racial equality proposal)

Seeing as the French had long acted as guardians for the Christian groups in Lebanon and Syria I cannot understand why represent their presence in that area as anything but a continuation of that role. You offer no proof that French expansion in the Middle East was economically motivated.

Likewise British expansion into Palestine was chiefly concerned with further securing the Suez canal.

In any case much of the recent historiography (see Susan Pederson's work) on the mandates reveals that the system was geared towards transitioning to full fledged nationhood (not to empire).

I'm not sure how you manage to call the Attaturk's country "the small, rather powerless nation of Turkey." - we're talking about the most modernized country in the greater middle east at the time.

It's charming how you skip over decades of Cold War history to present the ridiculous theory that if only the men at Versailles had maintained the Ottoman empire our problems with Iran would not exist. It's an old saw of Tory historiography - if only we had maintained the old order of things at Versailles everything would have stayed neatly in place. Bollocks! The first thing people need to understand about the First World War is that nothing was in place during the summer of 1914. The system of empires was already falling apart.

There's also an interesting contradiction running through this historiography regarding self-determination. On the one hand, the men at Versailles are chastised for condemning millions of people to the mandate system. On the other hand, where these diplomats recognize existing national movements (in Eastern Europe) they are attacked for letting loose nationalism (as if they had any choice in it). So which is it? You can't simultaneously praise the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires for clamping down (rather unsuccessfully I might add) on nationalism and at the same time vilify the mandate system (which certainly was an improvement on the imperial system) .

Academic historians working on the topic of the Versailles Treaty have been in agreement for more than thirty years that it was the best possible result given the number of obstacles faced by the drafters. You also neglect to mention any of the salutary features of the Treaty.

In short, David A Andelman would be well advised to brush up on his history before writing about the treaty.

Dieter Heymann (not verified) said:



Sun, 2009-07-05 17:06

Palestine was a British Mandate under the League of Nations.

I firmly think that the United Nations inherited the responsibility for developing Palestine into a self-governing independent unified state.

I have never understood where the UN got the justification/power for dividing Palestine. Could you tell me?

Not logged in (not verified) said:



Mon, 2009-06-29 14:52

As any fule nose it was not the Treaty of Versailles which addressed the fate of the Ottoman empire and the non-Ottoman Balkans : it was the Treaties of Sevres, Neuilly and St. Germain, the first of which was superceded by Lausanne.

This article is really rather poor in that it conflates all the consequences of the various treaties but subsumes all their different content and purposes under the one treaty, the Treaty of Versailles, dealing with Germany.

Even the stylistic modification of referring to the "Paris peace treaties" would have corrected this basic confusion.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options