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

Jan 2017
1,307
Durham
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.
The sinking of ships reason was for public consumption, an appeal to fear and pride which is the tool governments use to garner support for their entry into a war on which they decided long ago and invariably for different reasons.

The United States government entered the war for four reasons. Firstly, the United States was well on the way to being a world power and by entering the war they were well aware they would take their seat among the world powers, thus reinforcing world power status. Secondly, the United States could not afford Britain to lose that war given the money we had borrowed from them. Thirdly, the United States government wanted to change world politics according to their view of how it should work: chiefly a more democratic approach to international politics which included national sovereignty within and among nations. Fourthly, the United States wanted Europe powerful like-minded friends in Europe and this would aid their inevitable move to being the world's first power, and that meant Britain winning that war.

All of these reasons amounted to one thing: the United States becoming the world's first power.

As for Germany being viewed as a threat to the United States, not a direct military or economic threat, they were only a threat in the sense they had the power to cause problems for like-minded European nations who in the future would support them. They were looking 20 years ahead, and the United States obviously needs like minded friends in Europe so that European policy is more or less aligned with US policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,593
U.S.A.
The sinking of ships reason was for public consumption, an appeal to fear and pride which is the tool governments use to garner support for their entry into a war on which they decided long ago and invariably for different reasons.

The United States government entered the war for four reasons. Firstly, the United States was well on the way to being a world power and by entering the war they were well aware they would take their seat among the world powers, thus reinforcing world power status. Secondly, the United States could not afford Britain to lose that war given the money we had borrowed from them. Thirdly, the United States government wanted to change world politics according to their view of how it should work: chiefly a more democratic approach to international politics which included national sovereignty within and among nations. Fourthly, the United States wanted Europe powerful like-minded friends in Europe and this would aid their inevitable move to being the world's first power, and that meant Britain winning that war.

All of these reasons amounted to one thing: the United States becoming the world's first power.

As for Germany being viewed as a threat to the United States, not a direct military or economic threat, they were only a threat in the sense they had the power to cause problems for like-minded European nations who in the future would support them. They were looking 20 years ahead, and the United States obviously needs like minded friends in Europe so that European policy is more or less aligned with US policy.
In the elections before America got involved in the war both candidates said they didn't want to get involved in the war, because doing so was very unpopular. The only one who wanted to get involved was Wilson and a handful of his supporters. Everyone else had little interest in the war aside from guaranteeing American security. America already entered the major world power club with the Spanish American war and Teddy Roosevelt's foreign involvements. We didn't need or want to enter ww1 to gain influence in the world. Only Wilson wanted to use ww1 for these purposes and it largely failed.
As for America becoming the world's first power, that only arguably happened during ww2.
Germany was viewed as a threat, the submarine warfare, their attempts to expand into the Caribbean (which is partly why we bought the Danish Virgin islands), the Zimmerman note (even though it had little chance of doing anything) were all hostile acts against America. America did want friendly Europe but only Wilson wanted to dictate policy on how to do it.
So to summarize, only Wilson was interested in European events aside from things related to American security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,631
SoCal
In the elections before America got involved in the war both candidates said they didn't want to get involved in the war, because doing so was very unpopular. The only one who wanted to get involved was Wilson and a handful of his supporters. Everyone else had little interest in the war aside from guaranteeing American security. America already entered the major world power club with the Spanish American war and Teddy Roosevelt's foreign involvements. We didn't need or want to enter ww1 to gain influence in the world. Only Wilson wanted to use ww1 for these purposes and it largely failed.
As for America becoming the world's first power, that only arguably happened during ww2.
Germany was viewed as a threat, the submarine warfare, their attempts to expand into the Caribbean (which is partly why we bought the Danish Virgin islands), the Zimmerman note (even though it had little chance of doing anything) were all hostile acts against America. America did want friendly Europe but only Wilson wanted to dictate policy on how to do it.
So to summarize, only Wilson was interested in European events aside from things related to American security.
FWIW, the US declaration of war on Germany in early 1917 was a bipartisan affair that received overwhelming support in both houses of the US Congress. Whether most of the Congressmen who voted in favor of US entry into WWI actually understood that it would result in millions of US troops being sent to Europe in order to fight Germany, well, that's a separate question to which I actually don't have a solid answer.
 
Sep 2019
35
Turkey
Which cases were there where a particular side won a war and imposed a peace settlement but was subsequently unwilling to actually enforce this settlement? So far, I could think of:

1. The Russo-Persian War of 1722-1723. Russia initially stripped Persia (Iran) of its Caspian Sea coastline as a result of this war but a decade later gave this territory back to Persia in order to establish an anti-Ottoman alliance with the Persians.
2. Turkey after the end of World War I. The victorious Allies initially imposed the severe 1920 Treaty of Sevres on Turkey but subsequently lacked the will to enforce it and thus allowed the Turks to recapture some of their lost territories and to create a new post-WWI settlement for Turkey with the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne.
3. The US after the end of World War I. While playing a significant role in the Allies' World War I victory and in shaping the post-WWI peace settlement, the US subsequently retreated back into isolationism and proved itself extremely unwilling to actually enforce the post-WWI peace settlement that it helped shape. This was true to some extent of Britain and France as well (as evidenced by their actions during the 1936 Rhineland Crisis and the 1938 Czechoslovak crisis), but at least Britain and France declared war on Nazi Germany over its invasion of Poland in 1939 while the US simply sat on the sidelines and continued to do so until Pearl Harbor (albeit with providing significant aid to the Allies in the form of Lend-Lease).

Anyway, what other examples of this are there?
about 1923 yeah , it was a great defeat for allies .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2017
1,593
U.S.A.
FWIW, the US declaration of war on Germany in early 1917 was a bipartisan affair that received overwhelming support in both houses of the US Congress. Whether most of the Congressmen who voted in favor of US entry into WWI actually understood that it would result in millions of US troops being sent to Europe in order to fight Germany, well, that's a separate question to which I actually don't have a solid answer.
Yes, this was after Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare; which meant the public and government of America had come to view Germany as a threat to American security. Before the elections Germany wasn't viewed as much in this manner and most Americans wanted to stay uninvolved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist