Treaty of Versailles: DBQ Essay

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Subject and Background

The Rhineland, located at Germany’s borders with France, Belgium, and the Netherlands is a demilitarized zone as implemented under the Treaty of Versailles as well as its enforcement, the 1925 Treaty of Locarno. Under the power of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, the area was compromised by his sudden attack, challenging the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. Claiming that the treaty was hostile to Germany, Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland in March 1936, disobeying the terms of both the Versailles and Locarno treaties.

As a meeting of the Cabinet is called upon to assess policy options and suitable actions on Britain’s part, it is imperative to decide if intervention in the Rhineland is practicable and if it is worth a potentially dangerous conflict with Germany.

Objectives

The main objectives of the Home Office are to prevent war and to not intervene militarily. The primary focus of the Home Office has traditionally been to protect national interests, as well as to maintain law and order, national security, and immigration in the territory.

By going to war, Britain potentially risks order in the country and could suffer economically and risk entering into another Great Depression. In World War 1, Britain’s expensive and inefficient wartime financial policy led to a huge national debt that rose up to 26 percent of the GDP (Daunton, 2002). Public finances were dislocated, and labor unrest grew in the 1920s. There was a political requirement that interest groups were to remain equal in efforts to resolve the debt burden (Godden, 2017). The export trade collapsed, more than 1 million British soldiers lost their lives, and 2 million were left wounded or disabled (McDonough, year)

Social problems also arose because of the debt Britain was handicapped to fulfill, and three instances of actual and attempted industrial action including the threat of industrial action by the trade unions in April 1921 (“Black Friday”), in July 1925, and the collapse of negotiations between the government and unions over wages and labor hours in the mining industry (Godden, 2017). The rise of industrial disputes and union strikes jeopardized national security, and also caused a stir in the Home Office’s maintenance of order in the country.

The ongoing policing of the empire also means that Britain cannot afford major rearmament to go to war with Germany. Support would be weak, given that France, Britain’s main ally, had been seriously weakened after the First World War and contributed to an onslaught of domestic problems that are waiting to be tackled one by one.

The instability of the region could also lead to an increased number of illegal entries into Britain, as well as a surge of refugees that Britain may not be able to accommodate post-Great War. The Aliens Order of 1920 was implemented post World War 1 in order to contain widespread unemployment bypassing restrictions on foreigners within Britain. This act alone, meant for safeguarding jobs, has created another social and political issue for Britain as it had impacted foreign seamen working on British ships.

Home Affairs’ main stance is to stay true to the appeasement strategy and avoid war at all costs for the sake of stabilizing and rebuilding domestically.

Options and Analysis

A. No military intervention, utilize appeasement strategy

The Home Office states that Britain should primarily focus on rebuilding its economy and national security post-Great War, and no military intervention should be carried out with regard to the Rhineland crisis. Britain should continue to utilize the League of Nations to resolve ongoing conflict and speak with the German ambassador to make proposals to end the crisis without retaliating with force.

This option moving forward is feasible as the defense policy was based on two propositions that war will not occur for the next ten years, the ‘Ten Year Rule’ would be jeopardized if Britain once again goes to war (Dunbabin, 1975, n.p.). Existing military capabilities have been greatly reduced (Bond, n.p.), and heavy losses in the Great War have made it highly questionable to extend security commitments to the rest of the region given its instability and the likelihood of Britain’s potential involvement in the war.

Staying true to the appeasement strategy would be vital to ensure Britain’s national security and law and order within the country. Britain cannot afford to be a part of yet another war while still rebuilding losses incurred from the previous war, and Commonwealth support is not guaranteed (Taylor, 2018, n.p.). Military spending has been reduced to a minimum to make way for foreign trade, which is the main income for Britain.

By not going into a war or intervening militarily, Britain seeks to save military expenditure and costs that would be taken out of other areas of national expenditure in order to rearm. The people of Britain would also be able to gradually rebuild their losses without the threat of another war should Britain intervene, and The Home Office prioritizes the matter of domestic national security and interest before the needs of other neighboring countries.

Alternatively, utilizing the appeasement strategy could also buy time for Britain to re-arm should a war arise. The delaying of confrontation by appeasement can also allow Britain to nationally prepare for war (Ripsman and Levy, 2008, p. 151).

However, it is important to consider that Germany, similar to their surprise attack on the Rhineland and betrayal of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles could easily turn against any verbal and physical commitments made, putting Britain in a position whereby concessions are made but promises are unfulfilled. Germany continues to pose a risk of attack against its neighbors despite concessions.

B. Revise the Treaty of Versailles so Germany could pursue revisionism in Eastern Europe peacefully

The Home Office understands that the Treaty of Versailles had been deemed to be unfair to Germany and seeks to revise the treaty to Germany’s favor, in order to gain a favorable response and acceptance of international order. The Treaty of Versailles is a harsh punishment and had room for revision, and Germany was bound to seek treaty revision, and British foreign policy, with appeasement, was open to providing (McDonough, 2010, n.p.). By providing a platform for Germany to pursue their desires peacefully, Franco-German relations could potentially improve, eradicating the possibility of another war and greatly reducing Britain’s military involvement.

It is suggested that the leaders of the countries involved convene in a peace meeting, potentially to revise the terms of the Treaty of Versailles so as to relieve Germany of certain restrictions that may have led to the attack on the Rhineland. By exchanging certain conditions, Britain can then encourage Germany to remove their troops from Rhineland and implement clauses in the revised treaty so as to prevent Germany from ever having to launch an attack in pursuit of revisionism.

The option would be considered feasible however with limitations. Britain would seek the need to convene with other parties involved in the Treaty of Versailles and will be met with disagreement, especially France which suffered great losses post-war. The costs will be great in magnitude and allowing Germany to seek revisionism would automatically require their rearmament. This would stir unhappiness in other involved parties, who would possibly disagree with the appeasement strategy. Britain must be prepared to let go of most, if not all war losses and be ready to sacrifice some parts of national interest and repayment in order to allow Germany to seek peaceful revisionism and lower the risk of war.

The risk of war still remains, and Britain cannot ascertain Germany’s trustworthiness and obedience to the treaty, should it be revised. Hitler possessed a form of ambition that might not amount to just a revised treaty (Ferrell, 1995, n.p.). It would be a toss of the dice for Britain to assume that Hitler will abide by the new rules of the treaty, but it would be Britain’s potential way out of an incoming war. The main disadvantage of the option would be strained relationships and tension between Britain and the other involved countries, including France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, who may be at higher risk given Germany’s new revised terms in the treaty.

C. Proceed with military intervention but avoid war at all costs

The Home Office’s minimal support for military intervention still stands but provides this option as a final resort if no beneficial conclusion can be invoked. It is still important for Britain to safeguard its territories as well as its other empires and if peaceful negotiation does not come to fruition, military involvement would be necessary to safeguard national interests.

The avoidance of war will still remain a top priority for the Home Office in order to maintain order and stability domestically while still recovering from the losses incurred during the Great War.

With Germany severely disarmed based on the Treaty of Versailles, and Britain being a stronger military force despite setbacks in manpower and spending, Britain will still be able to put pressure on Germany to remove their troops with the use of military force. However, Britain will be disadvantaged if there were to be circumstances beyond control with little support from the Commonwealth and France, who have been severely disarmed after the Great War. National security and order will be compromised if the intervention results in war.

Recommendation and Justification

Option A is the most desired approach considering its possible benefits not only to Britain but to Germany and the surrounding countries as well. Firstly, by avoiding military intervention and war, Britain can continue to maintain national security and order amidst a war-torn situation that the Great War had left behind. The appeasement of Germany would also provide Britain with more time to re-arm for a potential war should it arise, and by using the appeasement strategy, Britain can delay confrontation and also avoid having to channel funds into military spending within a short amount of time. The appeasement strategy would also be a better action from the perspective of The Home Office with consideration for national security as well as domestic sentiment to avoid war (Taylor, 2018, n.p.). The Home Office prioritizes national stability and is against going to war or getting involved militarily in the Rhineland crisis, and endeavors to use a more peaceful strategy such as appeasement to resolve the ongoing issue.

The option poses a risk as Germany’s betrayal of the Treaty of Versailles’ terms is unforgivable and proves that Germany is fully capable of breaking treaties to seek revisionism. This poses a risk to Britain as concessions can be made but may still incur an unwanted attack from Germany. It will also portray Britain to be weak at the hands of a power-hungry Germany, and appeasement would significantly weaken Britain’s position as a superpower. However, as a matter of domestic interests, the Home Office advocates for stability as a nation as opposed to its position to others.

It is recommended that the Prime Minister

Do not choose to intervene militarily and avoid war at all costs by using the appeasement strategy to create a beneficial conclusion for all parties without violence.

Suggest a revision of the Treaty of Versailles to be less harsh on Germany, which can lead to their removal of troops in the Rhineland with fairer terms.

Use the time bought by appeasement to gradually rearm and gradually increase military spending to prepare for potential wars.

Convene a meeting with leaders of the involved territories and seek to resolve the matter peacefully by mutual agreement.

Click Here To Order Now!