Thursday, June 30, 2016

Source Analysis: Paris Peace Conference

Self-determination of peoples was alleged to be a major cornerstone of the Paris Peace Conference that ended World War I and culminated in the Treaty of Versailles, among other treaties. Rather than countries in Central and Eastern Europe consisting of empires, the guiding principle was that of the nation-state, with each nation having its own national territory. However, while this principle seems to have been attended to in the cases of southern Slavs, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, it seems to have been largely ignored in the cases of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Particularly in the former case, the difference between the peace envisioned in the Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and the peace that ultimately arose emphasizes the ultimate victory of the desire to punish the vanquished over the establishment of a just peace. 
The principle of self-determination appears in several places in the Fourteen Points. For instance, in Point IX, Wilson writes, "A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality."[1] This principle is repeated in Point XI with regard to Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, in Point XIII with regard to Poland, and even in Point XII with regard to Turkey, one of the states on the losing side in the war.[2] With regard to Germany and Austria-Hungary, however, the terms are vague or absent entirely. Regarding Austria-Hungary, Point X reads, "The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development."[3]
However, whether these peoples include the German-speaking people is not stated. There is no individually numbered point pertaining to Germany, although it is mentioned in both the preamble to the points and the afterword. Some of the statements are conciliatory, e.g., "We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it."[4] However, others clearly finger Germany for the lion's share of the blame for the war, e.g., "The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies."[5]
Unfortunately, the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the territorial changes in Central Europe made it clear that the self-determination of peoples would come at the expense of Germany and Austria-Hungary.[6] While it is understandable that Germany would lose territory that contained a Polish-speaking population, and Austria-Hungary would lose territory peopled by Romanians, Slavs, and Italians, the actual territorial adjustments left a large number of German-speaking people, including those in areas where they were clear majorities, outside the borders of German-speaking states. For instance, areas of what became western Poland still held German-speaking majorities. Even the city of Danzig, which was 90% German-speaking, was removed from German sovereignty, although it was not rewarded to Poland either and instead was given the status of a free city. The most obvious example was the creation of Czechoslovakia, which, while it respected the self-determination of the Czechs and Slovaks, incorporated the German-majority areas of the Sudetenland so that fully 30% of the new country spoke German as its first language. Finally, the rump state of Austria and Germany were forbidden to unite into a single geopolitical unit, again demonstrating the extent to which self-determination was ignored as a principle in application to German-speaking Europeans.
However, the punishment meted out to Germany was not merely territorial. Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles makes clear that Germany would be forced to make substantial reparations. Some of these reparations are wholly justified, e.g., in the case of Belgium, the neutrality of which was overtly violated by Germany in 1914, the Treaty prescribes:
In accordance with Germany's pledges, already given, as to complete restoration for Belgium, Germany undertakes, in addition to the compensation for damage elsewhere in this Part provided for, as a consequence of the violation of the Treaty of 1839, to make reimbursement of all sums which Belgium has borrowed from the Allied and Associated Governments up to November 11, 1918, together with interest at the rate of five per cent (5%) per annum on such sums.[7]

However, other articles of Part VIII seem more sinister in intent when considered in light of the territorial changes. For instance, Germany lost territory to France in Alsace-Lorraine and lost economic control over the Saar Region; similarly, it was forced to cede territory in Silesia to Poland. On the surface, these cessions might seem moderate, particularly that in Alsace-Lorraine, given Germany's relatively recent acquisition of that territory in the Franco-Prussian War. However, when the reparations portions of the Versailles Treaty are read in light of these cessions, particularly when it is considered that much of Germany's industrial base relied on raw materials from these regions, then terms of the reparations, such as the exportation of coal to the victors,[8] building of ships for the British,[9] etc., appear impossible for Germany to fulfill, as indeed they proved. Clearly, in the struggle between Wilson’s desire for self-determination and French Prime Minister Clemenceau’s desire to punish, the latter prevailed with regard to Germany.[10]
            In conclusion, while the ideal of self-determination was meant to be embodiment in the peace process that ended World War I, the reality that emerged for the losing side was one of punishment. Several new states emerged as a result of the application of the core Wilsonian principle, including Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland. However, Germany lost significant territory, including German-speaking people, and was stripped of much of its ability to pay the reparations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. As a result, it is little wonder that Germany was both unable to pay reparations and, as time passed, increasing unwilling to honor the Treaty of Versailles at all.


[1] “8 January, 1918: President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points,” The World War I Primary Document Archive, accessed June 20, 2016, http://www.gwpda.org/1918/14points.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid, afterword, para. 2.
[5] Ibid, preamble, para. 7.
[6] Felix Gilbert and David Clay Large, The End of the European Era, 1890 to the Present, 6th ed. (New York: Norton, 2008), 159-60.
[7] “Peace Treaty of Versailles, Articles 231-247 and Annexes, Reparations,” The World War I Primary Document Archive, accessed June 20, 2016, http://www.gwpda.org/versa/versa7.html
[8] Ibid, Annex V.
[9] Ibid, Annex III.
[10] Gilbert and Large, 161-62.          

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Colonialism During the Belle Époque

Here's my first forum post from the next course: Modern European History.

=====

The popular militarism of the Belle Époque is broadly expressed in cultural texts from the period. For the readings for the week, this militarism is expressed within the context of colonialism, but more specifically, the readings provide hints of the conflicts that will arise for the United Kingdom, Germany, and Russia over the course of the coming decades. Britain already ruled the seas and, by extension, an enormous empire by the Belle Époque, and its military supremacy would persist until it was supplanted by the United States during World War II. Russia and Germany, as relative latecomers to the "great game," saw their imperial destines lying in the east, although the specifics were different and their interests overlapped.

A common theme uniting the imperialistic anthems of the United Kingdom is that of divineright. Repeatedly in the songs excerpted in the reading are references to the imprimatur of God on Britain's colonial endeavors. This expression is perhaps most clear in "God Save the Queen," here referring to Victoria, under whose reign the empire reached nearly its greatest extent. More explicitly, "Land of Hope and Glory" in more than one line, addressing Britain, says that God has "made thee mighty,"[1] with the direct statement that the borders of the empire will be expanded with God's approval ("Wider still and wider / shall thy bounds be set").[2] The association between the imperial enterprise and divine favoritism comes to full fruition in "Jerusalem," with the United Kingdom cast in Blake's lyrics as so good a defender of Christendom that Britain approaches Biblical Jerusalem in its holiness.

The excerpt by Prince Ukhtomskii of Russia, written when the author accompanied the future Tsar Nicholas II on a diplomatic voyage to the Far East, is no less explicit in expressing a unique place for Russia in the family of nations, although unsurprisingly, the specifics of Russia's geopolitical role are quite different. Most importantly, the militarism of Ukhtomskii's thoughts often seem directed less toward those whom he sees as potential imperial subjects and more toward the European nations that have already colonized Indonesia (the Netherlands) and Indochina (France). He excoriates the greed and racism of European colonialists: "The natives are not brothers in humanity to them; for them the land is one of voluntary exile, and the people are considered as miserable and inferior beings."[3] Russia, owing to its massive intercontinental geography is different, Ukhtomskii maintains, not only in its greater respect for the people of Asia, but more importantly also in the esteem that Asians feel for Russia and its "White Tsar."[4] Unspoken but underlying the acknowledgement of Russia's particular role in Asian imperial rule is impending conflict with Japan, hinting toward the conflict with that country that Russia would fight less than twenty years later.

Friedrich von Bernhardi's Germany and the Next War was published in 1912 and is thus the latest of the readings for the week, as well as closest to World War I. Bernhardi's point of view is the clearest expression of Social Darwinism and the military conflict necessary for the further "evolution" of European civilization: "War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow, which excludes every advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilization."[5] In referring immediately before this passage to the Hague Peace Conference, Bernhardi seems to be suggesting that European conflict must be waged within certain restrictions, unlike Germany's recent colonial endeavors in present-day Namibia.[6] Nevertheless, it is clear that Bernhardi sees war as an important aspect of European development. Within the context of both the completed division of Africa among European powers at the Berlin Conference in 1885 and Bismarck's Drang nachOsten (drive toward the east), in so far as major conflict going forward will be largely imperial in nature, Germany's conflicts will be with Russia, as the war to come would show.

Thus, the readings from British, Russian, and German writers all engage the topics of militarism via colonialism, but the dimensions of the topics are country-specific. Britain envisions continued military supremacy and an ever-growing empire. Russia sees a manifest destiny of hegemony over Asia, with the realization that such supremacy must be maintained, if not imposed, militarily. Germany believes that militarism and the war that it engenders is a positive process and an innate human need, and its recent geopolitical posturing indicates that it sees its imperial and colonial future in Eastern Europe, under the concept of Lebensraum (living space). That these three countries' paths would greatly diverge in the coming decades is clear, but perhaps the readings will provide some indication of why they did.

======

     [1] "British Imperialistic Anthems: Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory, and more," Modern History Sourcebook, accessed June 12, 2016, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rulebritannia.asp
     [2] Ibid.
     [3] E.E. Ukhtomsky, "Prince Ukhtomskii: Russia's Imperial Destiny, 1891," Modern History Sourcebook, accessed June 12, 2016, http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891ukhtomskii.asp, para. 6.
     [4] Ibid, para. 7.
     [5] Friedrich von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War, translated by Allen H. Powles, accessed June 12, 2016, http://www.gwpda.org/comment/bernhardi.html, chapter 1, para 7.
     [6] George Steinmetz, "The First Genocide of the 20th Century and its Postcolonial Afterlives: Germany and the Namibian Ovaherero," Journal of the International Institute 12, no. 2 (Winter 2005): http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jii/4750978.0012.201/--first-genocide-of-the-20th-century-and-its-postcolonial?rgn=main;view=fulltext;q1=Race+and+Ethnicity

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Yeltsin and Putin

Last discussion post for Modern Russia. On deck is Modern Europe, beginning June 11.

=====

In assessing the two major leaders of Russia since the end of the Soviet era – Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin – it's difficult not to see Yeltsin as a failure in his goals and Putin as a success in achieving his. In the first case, Yeltsin attempted to shepherd Russian toward a capitalist system, and to some extent, he was successful in having done so. The command economy in place under the Soviet system was rapidly dismantled. However, the end result seems to perhaps be worse than the conditions in the USSR. There are essentially two reasons why the resulting capitalism in Russia is a failure: (1) the overly rapid pace of privatization; and (2) the inherent flaws of capitalism itself.

On the first point, rather than attempting to manage the transition from statism to a free market, Yeltsin merely removed government controls and let the chips fall where they might. As a result, gross domestic product in Russia fell to record low levels. In addition, inflation and a lack of price controls resulted in even greater need on the part of average people. At the same time, because a small proportion of the population had means more than others, these people were able to exploit the new system to acquire massive wealth, resulting in an extraordinarily wide divided between the rich and poor. This last matter is partially a result of the second point above, i.e., that capitalism tends to concentrate wealth upward. As the French economist Thomas Piketty has noted, what can ameliorate that situation is a greater government investment in education and training,[1] but in a rabidly capitalist environment like post-Soviet Russia, such investment was lacking.

Regarding Putin's desire to return Russia to great-power status, this goal has largely been met, with Russia now engaging in power politics and intrigues with the west, just like in the "good old days." The problem here is not only that this achievement brings with it all of the ills to the West that it did when the Soviets had superpower status, but also that Putin actually seems to exceed the Soviet leaders (with the exception of Stalin) in terms of sheer ruthlessness. Whether it is the targeting for assassination of politically active journalists, the scapegoating of LGBT Russians, or neo-Stalinist irredentism expressed in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and most recently eastern Ukraine, Putin's Russia seems every bit as dystopian as the Brezhnev era. Finally, given his apparent desire to hold onto power permanently, Russia seems heading for dictatorship, if it is not there already. If that's success in achieving one's goals, then so be it, but I wonder whether reasserting a global role for Russia truly required all of that.

=====

     [1] Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 2014).