History Optional (World between two world wars) by Shivlal Gupta

Model Answer

Question #1. Do you agree that the Treaty of Versailles was a compromise between a treaty of force and a treaty of ideas?  10 marks (150 words)

Approach:

• Briefly introduce the Treaty of Versailles. 
• Discuss how the Treaty of Versailles was a compromise between a treaty of force and a treaty of ideas.
• Conclusion

Hints:

The Treaty of Versailles was the most important of the peace treaties of World War I. It ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919 in the Palace of Versailles.

The Treaty of Versailles was a compromise between a treaty of force and a treaty of ideas:

• The conference was dominated by the national leaders known as the "Big Four"-David Lloyd George, the prime minister of the United Kingdom; Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France; Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United States; and Vittorio Orlando, the prime minister of The first three in particular made the important decisions.
• None of the defeated nations had any say in shaping the treaty, and even the associated Allied powers played only a minor The German delegates were presented with a fait accompli. They were shocked at the severity of the terms and protested the contradictions between the assurances made when the armistice was negotiated and the actual treaty. Accepting the "war guilt" clause and the reparation terms was especially odious to them.
• Clemenceau intended to ensure the security of France, by weakening Germany economically, militarily, territorially and by supplanting Germany as the leading producer of steel in British economist and Versailles negotiator John Maynard Keynes summarized this position as attempting to "set the clock back and undo what, since 1870, the progress of Germany had accomplished."
• n private Lloyd George opposed revenge and attempted to compromise between Clemenceau's demands and the Fourteen Points, because Europe would eventually have to reconcile with Lloyd George wanted terms of reparation that would not cripple the German economy, so that Germany would remain a viable economic power and trading partner.By arguing that British war pensions and widows' allowances should be included  in  the  German  reparation sum, Lloyd George ensured that a large amount would go to the British Empire.

• Wilson delivered a speech (known as the Fourteen Points) that declared the American peace objectives: the rebuilding of the European economy, self-determination of European and Middle Eastern ethnic groups, the promotion of free trade, the creation of appropriate mandates for former colonies, and above all, the creation of a powerful League of Nations that would ensure the The aim of the latter was to provide a forum to revise the peace treaties as needed, and deal with problems that arose as a result of the peace and the rise of new states.

In conclusion, it has to be said that this collection of peace treaties was not a conspicuous success. It had the unfortunate effect of dividing Europe into the states which wanted to revise the settlement (Germany being the main one), and those which wanted to preserve it. On  the  whole  the  latter turned out to be only lukewarm in their support. The USA failed to ratify the settlement and never joined the League of Nations.

Question #2. Fascism as an ideology did not evolve but saw a mushroom growth during the inter-war period. Evaluate the above statement. 15 marks (250 words)

Approach:

• Focus: The importance of interwar period on the growth of fascism and if fascism lacks a clear evolutionary trend.
• Intro: The definition and basic features of fascism.
• Body: Evaluate the interwar period’s impact on the growth of fascism.
• Conclusion: Along with supporting statements by thinkers, we mention criticism of this proposition and alternative view points by scholars like Fromm.

William Ebenstein says that stripped to its essentials, fascism is the totalitarian organisation of government and society by a single party dictatorship which is intensely nationalist, militarist and imperialist. According to him although it lacks a coherent philosophy, the core principles can be said to be 1. Anti-rationalism 2.Struggle 3.Leadership and elitism 4.Socialism 5.Ultranationalism

Whereas liberalism, conservatism and socialism are nineteenth-century ideologies, fascism is a child of the twentieth century, specifically of the period between the two world wars. Fascism emerged very much as a revolt against modernity, against the ideas and values of the Enlightenment. The Nazis in Germany proclaimed that ‘1789 is Abolished’. In Fascist Italy slogans such as ‘Believe, Obey, Fight’ and ‘Order, Authority, Justice’ replaced the more familiar principles of the French Revolution, ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’. According to O’Sullivan, fascism came not only as a ‘bolt from the blue’, but also attempted to make the political world anew, quite literally to root out and destroy the inheritance of conventional political thought.

Fascist movements drew their membership and support largely from such lower middle-class elements. Lipset hence referred to fascism an ‘extremism of the centre’ a revolt of the lower middle classes, a fact that helps to explain the hostility of fascism to both capitalism and communism. Fascist regimes were not overthrown by popular revolt or protest but by defeat in the Second World War. Since 1945, fascist movements have achieved only marginal success, encouraging some to believe that fascism was a specifically interwar phenomenon (according to Ernst Nolte), linked to the unique combination of historical circumstances that characterized that period. Others, however, regard fascism as an ever-present danger, seeing its roots in human psychology.

Arguments in favour of fascism as inter-war phenomenon:

• Treaty of Versailles: Versailles Peace Treaty had disappointed the Italians since it could not obtain any share in the German overseas territories which the other alliedpowers had secured. The military leaders in Italy were disappointed as the victory had not benefitted their country in any way.
• Socio-economic conditions of Italy: The economic structure had collapsed due to war and natural resources were scarce. It was argued by the supporters of fascism that Italy, under such terrible conditions, will be saved by the Fascist revolution.
• Socialism and Nationalism: These two forces were particularly more prominent in Italy than in any other country in Europe. Italians were disgruntled elements for loss of spoils of victory. At this juncture, Mussolini appeared on the scene with claims to reconcile the seemingly conflicting forces of socialism and nationalism. His new political party suggested a happy union of nationalism and socialism.
• Rise of Communism: Mussolini claimed that the post-war labour unrest and discontent in Italy were leading the country towards communism and his party, Fascisiti, alone could save the society from the danger of communism.
• False Aspirations of Italians: The feeling of disappointment owing to the Rise of Fascism and Nazism marginalization and subsequent loss in the Peace Settlement of 1919 left a feeling among Italians that though Italy had won the war, it had lost the peace. The disappointments and frustrations of the Italians were fully exploited by Mussolini.

But others questioned the proposition that fascism was merely a product of a specific time in history. Erich Fromm traces the emergence of fascism to human psychology. Fromm suggest that it is an ever-present threat as it is based on political opportunism that exploits collective human insecurity and fear. Hannah Arendt also says that fascism is rooted in cultural problem.

The rise in ultranationalist governments across the world in the present day where the political leaders are able to manipulate people by targeting their vulnerabilities indeed raises questions about the possibility of emergence of fascism in the 21^st century in conditions that are far different from the interwar period.