indya

The title says it all. Was the Paris Peace Conference a Success? Especially considering Versailles, how would you judge the conference? It seems to me to be that Lloyd George, Wilson, and Clemenceau had good intentions, but trying to enforce self-determination in places like the Balkans and Eastern Europe would have been near impossible.

irishcrusader95

no it wasent, the events of those days set the world on the course for war in 20 years.

Belisarius

That's the problem. Wilson was the only one interested in self-determination, but he never offered a definition of what self-determination meant, so it was used and abused by groups of nationalists for their own advantage. Lloyd George and Clemenceau were far more interested in carving up the world between Britain and France. Wilson left early and the whole process was rushed and fatally flawed.

Earl Byrhtnoth

pugsville

Actually no, the economic effects are often pretty over stated as Germany actually paid very little of this theoritcal massive payments, and in fact recieved more in US loans in the 1920s than was paid out.

The US-debts were much more of an effect on British and French economies.

The reparations payments were massively excessive, as were the US expectations of payments for their loans. In both cases the ability to reasonable pay should have been a much higher factor.

indya

What was the goal of the peace conference? To create a world which would be less likely to erupt in war in the future? To impose terms on the losers of the war (none of the central powers were involved in the discussions)? both? Obviously, it didn't create a world which was less likely to erupt in war (see wwii). Would you say that it punished to losers effectively? In my opinion, I don't think that Germany was as absolutely devastated as the Hapsburgs or the Ottomans. What would you say?

Charles Albert

Read "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" by Margaret MacMillan, it's really a well written and informative book about the intentions, points of view, and what was going on in general between the 'Big Four' and the others around the conference.

Comet

I'm actually reading about this right now. I'm reading Kissinger's Diplomacy. He points out two other important things outside of what you just mentioned (which I totally agree with):

1. Having some military backing from either Great Britain or the United States against another German attack.

or

2. Create a country out of the Rhineland area to help create a "buffer zone" against another German attack.

I think the French were so obsessed with another German attack (as well as revenge for their loss in 1871) that they really pushed Wilson to the brink. In Kissinger's view, Lloyd George spent most of his time negotiating between Wilson and Clemenceau than helping put together a logical solution to the problem.

indya

Would you say that WWII was largely caused by Versailles and the peace conference.

Comet

I would agree. I also agree with Kissinger's view point as well:

According to Kissinger, the events leading up to WWII were largely the product of two differing philosophies in trying to establish a new world order. First, you have the Wilsonian view of collective security...a concept in which Europe simply couldn't fathom (as well as distrusted). On the flip side you had Europe who spent generations believing that diplomacy meant "butting heads" with other powers in Europe (meaning going to war was a necessary means of diplomacy). This moral and ethical view of diplomacy was something Europe was having a difficult time buying into. Therefore, many of the decisions stemming from the Versailles Treaty was simply neglected and not seriously pursued as it should have been.