The treaty of Versailles that closed the First World War was set up as a way to ensure peace. It was hoped that the treaty would ensure that the first world was had been the war to end all warshowever this was not to be and the treaty became the subject of much scrutiny pretty much from the get-go. Many of the youthful insiders from the American and British delegations claimed immediately after the conference that Wilson had abandoned his earlier plans and had in effect betrayed his supporters. Others felt that Wilson had kept his main objective in mind; peace while others had tirelessly sought other benefits from the treaty, mostly revenge and money. The level of hostility towards the treaty by many historians and veterans of the conference set a standard that was to continue of heightened emotion where the treaty was concerned. The unsympathetic ruling of the treaty against Germany and the strongly different opinions that emerged after it was finished set the scene for the abundance of hostile debate that was to follow for some years to come on the various issues surrounding the treaty.
The first and most famous critic of the Versailles peace treaty was John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was the senior treasury official sent as a member of the British group to the Versailles peace conference. Keynes did not agree with the terms laid out in the conference especially those related to the reparations payments that Germany was expected to begin paying. After his later resignation and possibly due in part to his annoyance at his suggestions for the reparations repayments being ignored he wrote an extremely controversial book entitled The economic consequences of the War within which he outlined his disagreements with the treaty and claimed that not only was it not possible for Germany to pay the reparations given their economic situation but and even more controversially that the issue of reparations would eventually cause further conflict in Europe and possibly the outbreak of another war. Keylor in his article A re-evaluation of the Versailles Peace reflected that Keynes strong opinions on the peace settlement may have been due to his personal sense of guilt at having served in government during the war while his pacifist friends objected to it and regularly expressed disapproval at his position. This, Keylor believed may have given him feelings of guilt thus giving him something to prove later. Whatever his motivations were in writing his works, his book was one of the more influential books of his time and its popularity reflects the public interest in the issue. Given the ferocity of the attack by Keynes on America and most importantly on Wilsons motives in his book it is not at all surprising that Wilsons supporters were not long in penning their rebuttals to his claims. The most well-known of these and the first to be published was that of Ray Stannard Baker, a journalist who had served during the conference himself as a press representative for Wilson.
The Term Paper on Treaty Of Versailles Chamberlain War Hitler
Appeasement was the policy adopted by Neville Chamberlain and his fellow politicians in the 1930 s, in order to avoid war with Hitler. This policy culminated in three trips to meet Hitler in Munich, although these meetings ultimately ended in failure, resulting in the outbreak of war in September 1939, the policy itself is a contentiously debated issue. Especially in the latter part of the ...
His close role during the conference gave him access to a variety of resources with which he built a well informed attack on Keynes claims. Where Keynes had painted Wilson as a weak ruler who had been easily manipulated by his European Allies, Baker portrayed him as a quiet hero, alone and unwavering in his quest for total peace. Baker placed all of the blame for the lack of success and popularity of the treaty on the European Allies and had a lot of specific hostility towards the French. Although the writings of Keynes and Baker were mostly preoccupied with laying blame for the treaties and at the same time distancing their respective countries from its lack of popularity as much as possible the public interest in the writings by Keynes and Baker (they both became bestsellers) indicates an interest and a public hostility towards the treaty out of which grew a tendency to regard it as a failure. Keynes and Baker were also not alone in their opinions. There were a host of attacks on various aspects of the treaty that were similar to theirs. One such attack came from Harold Nicholson who wrote the book Peacemaking 1919.
The Term Paper on History according to the Male Historian
Gender plays a very important role in the definition of history. Male historians are often presented as scientific thinkers. But the truth is that they merely perpetuate religious, ethnocentric or class-based versions of the past under the guise of neutrality. Female historians, on the other hand, are usually dismissed as propagators of amateur or irrelevant historical accounts. This observation ...
Nicholson was another young member of the British delagation and was equally if not more negative about the treaty than Keynes; The historian, with every justification will come to the conclusion that we were very stupid menwe arrived determined that a peace of justice and wisdom should be negotiated; we left the conference conscious that that treaties imposed upon our enemies were neither just nor wise Interestingly, the historian William Keylor has since suggested that Nicholsons ideas were hindered by the fact that he had, at the time recently learned that his wife was having a lesbian affair which would have been a huge cause of embarrassment at the time and may have caused Nicholsons opinions to be more negative. This might under normal circumstances give reason to argue the validity of his comments were they not so similar to the comments of so many others at the time. There was a significant change in the types of attitudes that were put forward during the cold war era most notably by the Princeton graduate Arno Mayer. His writings indicated a shift in the public perception of the treaty not as dramatic as the one experienced today but a significant one nonetheless. Mayer quoted Thorstein Veblen who had stated that ‘Anti-Bolshevism was not visible in the clauses of the Treaty, but it was the very parchment on which the Treaty was written’ This gave rise to a perception that the treaty had done more than influence European future history but soviet history also. More recently, historical debate on the treaty has become more sympathetic to the circumstances of the time.
The Review on Country of origin, consumer’s Perception and Brand Image
Introduction The impact of country of origin (COO) on the consumer’s perception of products has been one of the most widely studied areas of international marketing. Increasing globalization of today’s business has resulted in unprecedented problems for manufacturers, marketers, and consumers (L. Y. Lin & Chen, 2006). The country of origin (where a product is made) touches both ...
Also, in hindsight and with the perspective and experience of the Germans might seem quite fair considering their action during the war. While the treaty was largely condemned during its own time and for some time afterwards by historians and interestingly by others as well. Including Lenin who said: What then is the treaty of Versailles? It is an unparalleled and predatory peace, which had made slaves of tens of millions of people including the most civilized. This is no peace, including the most civilized. This is no peace, but terms dictated to defenceless victim by armed robbers It has since begun to receive a softer reaction whereby historian have notably begun to suggest that it is unwise to criticise the treaty in modern terms when circumstances at the time would have been so different to today, and they have also begun to appreciate that the participants of the Versailles treaty would have been under immense pressure by their own governments and publics to achieve revenge and relief from the immense financial burden they were under. The treaty from the outset was and has been the subject of much debate among historical and indeed general circles.
The jeremiad of John Maynard Keynes set a standard of criticism that has been followed through until quite recently and has been supported and argued with since its first publishing. Nicholson, despite Keylors attempts to disrepute his writings also put forward his own strong opinions on the treaty. His comments indicate a feeling of exasperation and exhaustion with regard to the treaty and discussions on the treaty. A slight shift in the perception of the treaty came about in the work of Mayer who, by using thought provoking quotations from Thorstein Veblen suggested that the treaty had paved the way for not just the Second World War but for Bolshevism as well. Finally, today the perception of the treaty is generally given due credit by historians there is considerably less debate on its pros and cons. When considered in terms of the environment within which it was drafted the treaty may be thanked for the creation of an often forgotten short term of peace and also for some valuable lessons in World treaties..
The Term Paper on Victorian Period – a Time of Change (1837 -1901)
“All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their own peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their own peril.”–by Oscar Wilde, Preface, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” The Victorian Period revolves around the political career of Queen Victoria. She was crowned in 1837 and died in 1901 (which put a definite end to her political ...
