Cases where a particular side won a war and imposed a peace settlement but was subsequently unwilling to actually enforce this settlement?

Jan 2017
1,308
Durham
No but they were the ones that crafted most of it in regards to Germany, America had little real interest in what happened to Germany.
And allowed them to absorb half of Europe because of it, makes Munich pale by comparison.
I don't think that's the case at all.

The United States was in the war because they cared about what was happening in other parts of the world.

The United States saw it not too dissimilarly to Britain in that both nations wanted a strong German economy to trade with but neither wanted a Germany capable of turning Europe upside down.

France was different because she shared a border with Germany and was first in the firing line and had history with them, which is why they were more concerned with security than trade.

The idea for the United States, as it was with Britain, was Germany recovering to be a source of revenue while settling down to a peaceful existence. The United States was very concerned with breaking up the old way of doing things, which included secret, binding alliances; because they, quite rightly, felt there was more to the outbreak of WW1 than German aggression.

As for allowing Germany to absorb half of Europe, the problem was that Britain and France didn't want war in continental Europe. They were colonial powers who had a vested interest in maintaining both peace at home and colonial possessions. It was always going to be a wrench to use up their resources fighting for land that had no strategic interest for them. Add to that parts of France being smashed to bits during WW1 and you can see why the French weren't overly keen on a re-run. On the other hand, you had the Germans who felt they had something to prove, strategically very interested in continental European land and driven by a body of people who were highly committed to war in Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,626
U.S.A.
I don't think that's the case at all.

The United States was in the war because they cared about what was happening in other parts of the world.

The United States saw it not too dissimilarly to Britain in that both nations wanted a strong German economy to trade with but neither wanted a Germany capable of turning Europe upside down.

France was different because she shared a border with Germany and was first in the firing line and had history with them, which is why they were more concerned with security than trade.

The idea for the United States, as it was with Britain, was Germany recovering to be a source of revenue while settling down to a peaceful existence. The United States was very concerned with breaking up the old way of doing things, which included secret, binding alliances; because they, quite rightly, felt there was more to the outbreak of WW1 than German aggression.

As for allowing Germany to absorb half of Europe, the problem was that Britain and France didn't want war in continental Europe. They were colonial powers who had a vested interest in maintaining both peace at home and colonial possessions. It was always going to be a wrench to use up their resources fighting for land that had no strategic interest for them. Add to that parts of France being smashed to bits during WW1 and you can see why the French weren't overly keen on a re-run. On the other hand, you had the Germans who felt they had something to prove, strategically very interested in continental European land and driven by a body of people who were highly committed to war in Europe.
America got involved in ww1 because Germany was sinking ships with americans on them, that was the main justification. There were many other reasons but the primary reason average americans supported the war was because Germany was viewed as a threat to America. Everything else was secondary.
Yes, everyone wanted a well off Germany so they could pay the reparations. When that didn't happen, the reparations were eventually dropped.
America was largely uninterested in foreign affairs outside of the western hemisphere, which well evidenced by the isolationist policies between the wars. That doesn't mean americans didn't care at all, we put embargoes on fascist powers and pressured them to be less threatening (such as Japan in China) but ultimately refused to intervene militarily until the war was brought to us directly. Exceptions being Wilson's policies, which were unpopular.
The absorbing half of Europe was in reference to the Soviet takeover of eastern Europe at the end of ww2.
 
Feb 2019
848
Serbia
Peace of Amiens and Malta. It was favourable to France with Britain having to restore the island to the Knights, however Britain didn't do this and France couldn't get them to abide.

After the Congress of Vienna Spain didn't return Olivenca to Portugal, though I don't know if this counts since both were on the winning side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist