As we get ready for May, here is a prompt from a previous test to get us thinking about how much we know and how much we don't know. As with previous entries, you should have one original post that attempts to answer the question. Then for your follow up I would like you to work with a call and response blog to develop a more coherent answer to the test prompt. This will be due in two weeks -- Feb. 24th in time for class to open up the discussion. Good luck.
"Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace." Select one peace treaty and by examining its clauses, explain how the winners treated the losers, and if you agree with the quotation.
The Treaty of Versailles was the peace agreement that was reached at the end of World War One, between the Allied Powers and Germany. Germany was not pacified or permanently weakened by the treaty, which is why the treaty proved to be a motive and factor leading to the Second World War. The Treaty of Versailles was fairly one-sided (with the Allied powers) and resulted in the annexation of land from Germany, as well as requiring Germany to pay for the damage they had done during the war. In contrast, Germany was not given anything in return...in this sense, this is not 'good peace'. My idea of 'good peace' is an instance where both sides of a dispute recieve an equal amount, and in the Treaty of Versailles, this was not true. The 'unjust' treatment from the treaty towards Germany gave rise to boiling negative sentiments towards the other European nations, and also, a reason to cause rise to conflicts in the future, as in World War Two.
ReplyDeleteLauren, you are onto the idea, but what are the details? What is Germany not given? why should they have been given anything? also good to ask the question of what makes for a good peace? Although it is Franklin who said "there has never been a good war or a bad peace." So where do you go from here?
ReplyDeleteWhile I'll agree that not all peace treaties are perfect, I don't think it's fair to say that we have to brand all peace treaties as unfair or bad. Look at the Egyptian-Israel Peace Treaty, for example. It stopped the violence between these two countries, and the peace has been held to this day.
ReplyDeleteSigned in 1979, the treaty called for:
1) mutual recognition of each country by the other
2) cessastion of the state of war that had existed since the Arab-Israeli War (1948)
3) Israel's complete withdrawl of armed forces and civilians from the Sinai Peninsula
4) free passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal
5) recognition of the Strait of Tiran, Gulf of Aqaba and the Taba-Rafah Straits as international waterways
To enforce compliance, the US, Egypt, and Israel set up the Multinational Force and Observers (1981) to make sure the countries would follow the terms of the treaty.
While the treaty didn't bring about another war, it did contribute to Anwar Sadat's (Egyptian President)assassination. On a happier note, though, some sources speculate that it led to both the Sadat's and Begin's (Israeli Prime Minister) ability to share the Nobel Peace Prize (1978) for bringing peace to the two countries. And Egypt was the first country to recognize Israel.
Look Here: a bit of relevancy, I picked the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. What made this traty workable, in my opinion, is the empasse between the two signing entities. After all, America had effectively thrown off the yolk of england, but could do little more then that. To pursue Britain outside of the american colonies, where we would lose any advantage we might have had previously, would be ridiculous.We got what we wanted (independence), and Britain was able to put the matter behind them by agreeing to peace. Neither had any particular interest in further harm against the other. Oh, and we had an ocean as a buffer too. Ultimately, I would argue that a peace enforced by a mutual disinterest in war, coupled with an inability for one power to completely dominate the other, is the only truly lasting peace available through treaties. Sure, the Colonies had officially 'won',but that didnt mean the british had completely lost. The treaty between egypt and israel required enforcement, but it was also forged between neighbors who almost certainly wiched each other ill for political and religious reasons. Israel continues to anger its neighbors, who continue to hate. Its been said before, but israel is heading for war. Long term, the peace treaty wont amount to a temporary measure. And part of that is just luck. However, note: The US and UK are now allies, and have been for a great length of time.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that is kind of ridden with errors, I didn't mean to post it just yet. Please, overlook them.
ReplyDeleteAs Lauren stated, the treaty of Versailles was a peace agreement which supports the quotation that states that the victors of a war will rarely make a good peace by acknowledging that the Treaty of Versailles was very one-sided and demanded war reparations which the damaged Germany couldn’t possibly pay to the Allies. However, the quote is disproved by the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, those that followed the end of World War II. The allied powers, and in this case the victors of the war did not do the same thing they had done in the Treaty of Versailles. In the Paris Peace Treaties, the Allied powers (USA, UK, France, USSR) all came together with defeated powers such as Italy, Romania, Hungary and more. These treaties contrast the Treaty of Versailles in that the result of the negotiations was not the result of a forced Armistice. This peace treaty allowed for the defeated nations to become sovereign states as they had been before the war began, and also allowed them to join the United Nations. Though they were still required to pay war reparations, and some territorial adjustments were made, the changes were not so drastic, and were negotiated amongst defeated and victorious parties. Because of these peaceful negotiations, the Paris Peace Treaties were extremely successful in creating a ‘good peace,’ contrary to the claim made by the quote.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to take another look at the Treaty of Versailles. It seems to me, Lauren, that it was the very fact that Germany was so very crippled that allowed Hitler to take power the way he did. The Weimar Republic that immediately followed World War I was the beginning of democracy in Germany. However, the massive reparations, demilitarization, and territorial losses all required of Germany by the Treaty of Versailles made it extremely difficult for the Weimar Republic to succeed. How was the Weimar Republic supposed to thrive with the terrible load put upon it by the Treaty of Versailles? The issue of blame also made it difficult for the Republic to succeed. Many Germans held firm in the belief that Germany was not solely to blame as the Treaty declared. Thus, when the Weimar Republic accepted this guilt (even though they had no choice) much of the German population felt ostracized by the new government. The Republic inevitably began and continued to struggle economically. The country initially owed 226 billion Reichsmarks, then equivalent to about $32 billion (now the equivalent would be over $300 billion). Reparations were also due in commodities such as coal, steel, and agricultural products. This was exceedingly difficult especially since France took control of many of Germany’s coal mines. One historian has said that it would have taken Germany until 2020 to fully repay its WW 1 reparations. These variables set the stage for Hitler’s rise to power. The general public was ready for a strong leader that would bring Germany back to greatness. The Republic was easily discarded and Nazism soon reigned. Thus, we see how the Treaty of Versailles was a failure of peace. The winners seemed to treat the losers as pitiful and worthless—taking the viewpoint that if they simply severely punished them and forgot about the war everything would be alright. Peace does not come passively. The winners of WW 1 should have actively sought to support the Weimar Republic and create a new ally, not another enemy.
ReplyDeleteI picked a treaty signed in 1791 between the United States Government and the Cherokee Indians.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the treaty articles there are many interesting "regulations". Article II states that, "Cherokee nation will not hold any treaty with any foreign power, individual state, or with individuals of any state" and is now under protection of the United States, giving all the power to the US government. Further power is established in Article VI: it states, "it is agreed on the part of the Cherokees, that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating their trade," which strips away the freedom of the Native Americans. Article IV establishes a boundary between what is "Cherokee Nation" and United States property...in consequence land was taken from the natives (land that they had lived on for years). The "use of the nation" by the US government is also signed away from the natives in Article IV.
On the other hand, this was a peace treaty and the US did make certain compromises in order to appeal to the natives as negotiators. It is stated in the first clause that this is a treaty is indeed a peace treaty and was to ensure a friendship between the US and the Cherokee nation. Article IX promises the Cherokees that no harm will come to their land or animals because, “No citizen or inhabitant of the United States, shall attempt to hunt or destroy the game on the lands of the Cherokees”. There are also other articles discussing that treatment of the natives by the US citizens is equal by law; there will be no killing and stealing unpunished ect. In Article VII, the US promises the give back all ceded land.
Overall I agree with the quote. Even though this treaty is a peace treaty, it wasn’t out of selflessness; there was personal gain behind the treaty (for the United States). The Cherokee, and many Native Americans, were forced to follow the United States laws and act as “citizens” of a government that overtook their land. Even with some of these rules, the Cherokee remain somewhat imprisoned by the US government, and the government made it so the natives were dependent on us. The treaty is well written, but it still remains to be an unfair agreement in my eyes; the Cherokee had their trade controlled by the US, and boundaries on their land were put into place. Yes, there are laws protecting the people of the Cherokee nation from foreign powers and harms, but they cannot negotiate with any nation other than the US and in my opinion, they were enslaved rather than freed by this peace treaty. This peace is not “good”, it is just plainly selfish.
I looked at the Munich Agreement of 1938 (which I think counts as a peace treaty...even though it kind of fell through)
ReplyDeleteThe agreement, in short, was created to meet the Hitler's territorial demands. France, Britain and Italy signed the treaty (with Germany) with the hopes of keeping Hitler's territorial expansion at bay. A portion of Czechoslovakia was given to Germany (the Sudetenland), with the agreement that Hitler would stop trying to expand into the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain gave his famous "peace of our time" speech after Hitler stated that this was the last of his territorial needs.
However, despite the constrains of the agreement on Hitler's expanding power, only 6 months after the agreement was signed, he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. In short, this proved Hitler untrustworthy and the other powers got angry at him and military alliances were formed against Germany.
Now that I am getting to the end of this explanation, I'm realizing that I don't really know how to answer the question. (Maybe this is because I was not informed that this blog post was assigned...)
Before I started writing this, I thought I agreed with this quote, but I am beginning to think that no, I do not believe this quote is true in all cases. (Although, I guess this depends on what it means to win a war "well.")
But in the case of the Munich agreement, the other powers (besides Germany) had been successful in WW1. And yet, when they attempted to secure peace with Germany, Hitler was the one who blew the opportunity for peace in Europe. So I think that no, this quote isn't necessarily true.
I am examining the San Francisco Treaty 1951-1952 (or the Treaty of Peace with Japan), which formally ended war between Japan and the Allies. Using the UN Charter, the Allies forced Japan to renounce numerous territories such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Antarctica, and many islands. Article 3 of this treaty also provided that a lot of the islands would be placed under US trusteeship. However, there was ambiguity surrounding the status of some of these islands, and this led to conflicts like the Kuril Island conflict and the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute. Also, the determination of Taiwan as a free state or part of China led to a lot of problems, showing that this treaty did not create a perfect peace.
ReplyDeleteBeyond territorial issues, the Allies decided that all overseas Japanese assets would be seized. Much of this property went to reparations and to the Red Cross as compensation for the destruction caused by Japan and the treatment of POWs. Furthermore, the treaty provided that all Allied territories occupied by Japan would be compensated for the cost of war reparations (made necessary because of Japan). Clause 14 stated that it was necessary to make “available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question” (Taiwan Document Project). These territories included the Philippines and South Vietnam. Clearly, this placed blame on Japan and by signing the country admitted to war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Japan lost imperial status and was limited to a purely defensive military. I do not think that the ramifications of this treaty were unfair in ending imperialism and having Japan pay for damage it had done. However, I do think that the fact that Japan had to atone for war crimes, while the US’s inhumane annihilation of two Japanese cities was overlooked in the treaty, is extremely unfair. Also, tensions with the Soviet Union were stirred up by this treaty, basically because the Soviets disagreed with a lot of the clauses, and conflict with Taiwan and China persisted. Despite external conflict and the unfairness, though, I think the treaty did establish a “good peace,” which goes against the quotation. Japan was able to pay for the reparations and militarism was controlled. Peace with Japan was established, even if the conditions were not fair.
I would like to look at America's civil war and the conditions of the surrender signed at Appomattox.
ReplyDeleteThe terms of the surrender were generous, the men of Lee's army could return home as long as they surrendered their arms to the union and pledge to end the fighting. They were even allowed to maintain some side arms and most of their horses. None of the men were going to be prosecuted for treason nor imprisoned.
I believe the generous terms of this peace treaty were partly the result of general Lee still possessing a sizable army. But there was another reason for the generous terms, Grant intended to make the southerners his countrymen once again. When his soldiers cheered the departure of Lee, Grant stopped the cheering, saying, "The Confederates were now our countrymen, and we did not want to exult over their downfall."
Grant was so magnanimous during the surrender that Lee would not tolerate an unkind thing said about Grant in his presence.
Compared with civil wars around the world the one in the United States ended in the most agreeable way of them all. It is very rare for a civil war to only last four years and to be ended with a country coming seamlessly back together. Most civil wars last generations are end with the destruction of one side or the division of the country.
As far as evaluating this quote goes I would say the surrender signed at the end of the American civil war provides evidence against it. But the American Civil War was so atypical that it cannot be used as a good assessment for all civil wars or wars in general.
To those who spoke about the treaty of Versailles-
ReplyDeleteDoes this treaty really fit the quote? Because no side in WWI won the war 'well'. But this could be argued either way because there were still clear losers (Germany) and winners (everyone else). Also what does it mean to win a war 'well'?
Another question I have is how do you deal with conflicts that are resolved with the influence of outside power. Such as America or another large country intervening in the problems of a smaller country. Is the outside power the victor? Are they responsible for maintaining a 'good' peace? Are they good at doing this?
ReplyDeleteThis is highly unoriginal, but the Treaty of Versailles seems to be the best proof of this quote, and coincidentally, the only peace treaty that I really know about. Because it was more or less unilateral, Germany was forced to pay reparations to the victorious Allied Powers (US, UK, France, and Russia), surrender lands it had conquered in World War One, and was ordered to reduce its military. The way I see it, the Allies could have handled this ordeal a little more gracefully, but they did not want Germany to forget the consequences of its actions, and thus imposed all of the aforementioned restrictions. The Treaty of Versailles majorly afflicted Germany by reducing its pride. Because the Treaty of Versailles was so demanding, Germany did not concede to it. All of the prominent countries in the world were exhausted financially and militarily from WWI, and because of that Germany knew that it did not have to meet the demands of the Treaty if they could be prepared for yet another war. Because the Allies treated Germany so harshly after WWI, I would agree with the quote because the "peace" of the Treaty of Versailles ultimately caused Germany to begin WWII.
ReplyDeleteBecause IB has made me a permanent insomniac, yes, I am posting at this late hour.
ReplyDeleteI am going to look at the treaty of Brest-Litvosk between Russia and Germany that allowed for the Soviets to exit World War I. This treaty is particularly interesting because it was signed in 1918, with the Central Powers (namely Germany), clearly the victors, with the Treaty of Versailles following shortly after in 1919.
The Bolsheviks, especially Lenin was focused on one thing, promising peace. As Thompson put it, the Soviets were in a “no-win situation”, as if he did not obtain peace, his government could crumble, and if he did obtain peace, it was ensured that concessions would have to be made.
Of particular interest are the Articles concerning territory. Russia lost about a quarter of its territory to the Central Powers total. Included with this loss of land are economic capital, national resources, and the population necessary for economic production. Again, to cite Thompson, a “third of its industry” and “three quarters of its coal mines” were lost to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Here, we see a significant loss of Russia’s economic and industrial capabilities, and a retraction from the international arena as they lost military bases within the territory they lost as well. Clearly, since the treaty was largely pushed for by the Soviets, they were the ones that made concessions—they lost more than they gained with the peace.
No doubt this only fueled the New Economic Policy instituted by Lenin as a method of regaining economic productivity, and Stalin’s brutal Five-Year Plans afterwards. Ironically, the treaty was a factor in causing Russia to focus more internally, emerging as a industrially viable country by the time Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.
However, the outcome for the Central Powers was not long lasting, as the Treaty of Versailles inevitably carved out the map once again, but served as a reminder of how much territory they would have gained had they won WWI.
In this case, the quote does not apply as strongly, but this is an exceptional case in which a mid-war treaty was drafted.
I would have to agree with Jeff's point here that the Treaty of Versailles might not be the best example. Which side won the war? Didn't the war end with an armistice? Compared to the outcome of WWII, it doesn't seem like quite a decisive victory.
ReplyDeleteThe treaties I want to look at are the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947. These treaties are part of the treaties that ended WWII, and they primarily involved the Allied Powers, the “winners” of WWII, negotiating peace treaties with the major allies of Germany, which were, Italy, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Mainly, these treaties included the payment of war reparations, in amounts ranging from $360,000,000 to $70,000,000 (these values are at 1938 prices, so these sums are actually a lot higher). Additionally, the terms of the treaties tried to enforce good human rights practices. One clause of the treaties states that all of the “losing” countries should, “take all measures necessary to secure to all persons under (its) jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting.” Additionally, Allied Powers tried to prevent the further rise of fascism, communism, Nazism, etc., by making the “losing” countries sign to do everything in their power to prevent the rise of groups, “whether political, military or semi-military, whose purpose it is to deprive the people of their democratic rights.”
ReplyDeleteBased on the stipulations of the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, I completely agree with the quote, "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace." First of all, I think that in order for there truly to be peace, there has to be mutual respect and equality. In the terms of this treaty, the Allied Powers were preventing equality by forcing the “losing” countries to pay them huge sums of money. How could the “losing” countries possibly desire peace or feel equal to the “winners” if they are constantly forced to pay debts to the “winners?” On the idea of respect, the Allied Powers totally lacked respect for the “losers.” The Allied powers forced their values, like acceptance of race, gender, and any religion upon the “losers.” I completely agree with the values of the Allied powers, but by forcing their values, they showed that they did not see the “losers” as their equals. Additionally, the Allied Powers tried to prevent any governmental systems that they saw as a threat from gaining power. I do not think the Allied Powers were looking for peace, I think they were looking for monetary control, social control, and intellectual security. Therefore, the “winners” of the war did not make good peace, because although the treaties were called “peace treaties,” peace was not the objective.
In response to Jeff's post about the American civil war, I wonder if the fact that the war was a “civil” war had anything to do with the success of the peace treaty. By that, I mean the fact that the war was not international, and that it was all within the same country. Are there different conditions for peace if the war is between international countries? What about between different ethnicities?
ReplyDeleteTo adress this question, one must determine what defines a "good" peace. They way I see it, a good peace is a peace that last a long time,and for a peace to last a long time the main conflicts between the warring nations must be solved. So, when I thought of this, and started thinking of a war that solved conflict,I immediately turned to the Civil War. My justification was that the Civil War ended disjointment of the United States, and we are still here on the map as a unified country. I figured that the peace treaty must have been effective due to the long amount of time that has passed since the Civil War, and where we are at as a country today. At first glance, I appeared to be correct. The terms of the treaty were very generous towards the South. After all, if they were going to rejoin under one flag once again, it would not do to create further dissention. The southerners were not imprissioned or prosecuted. They were just made to give up their weapons. These generous terms appear to have created a "good" peace between the North and South. However, there was a lot more at stake for the South thn just a few guns. They lost their slaves, which contributed to a huge portion of their income and economy. There was still much dissention between the North and the South, and the South still was forced back into the United States against its will. So, naturally, there were still great tensions between the two regions. It was still apparent during the Civil Rights movement, where racism lingered in the South. I would have to say though, as far as a long-lasting peace, the generous terms handed out by General Grant did much to stem further dissention between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteSo in answer of the question, it is difficult, no matter how generous the terms are, for the winner to create a "good" peace. This is because there is naturally going to be continued dissention between the winner and loser. War creates a rift between countries that is slow to heal. However, I think generous terms do allow a "good" peace to have a better chance, as seen with the US during the Civil War. It can also backfire, though. If the terms are too generous the loser may well use the terms and rise up again against the winner, creating no peace at all, just another war.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the Treaty of Portsmouth between Russia and Japan. Although Russia had a larger army, Japan was winning due to the modern weapons they had in comparison to Russia's outdated ones. Despite the conditions of the war, FDR had to interfere to stop the war. The two parties agreed to meet in Portsmouth, New Hampshire to make the peace treaty. The terms of the treaty included: the recognition of Japan's "special interests" in Korea and Russia gave Japan the Liaodong Peninsula, southern Manchuria, and the southern half of Sakhalin. However, Russia was not required to pay an indemnity. Soon after the treaty was signed, Manchuria was given back to China.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the Treaty, Japan was recognized as an independent nation by the west and held in higher respect than it ever had been before. However, within Japan and Russia, the people grew upset. In Japan, the people were angry an indemnity was not paid by Russia and the Russians were upset that they had to give up the southern half of Sakhalin. Despite the disgruntled people, the two befriended each other. Russia looked to expand in the Balkans rather than the far East, which allowed them to become allies. In 1907, a Russo-Japanese convention was signed that secretly divided Manchuria into Japanese and Russian spheres of influence.
Even though the Russo-Japanese war did not have an inevitably clear winner, Japan had fewer casualties (41,000 as to 50,000 in Russia) and won more of the fights, the war lasted for one year, which is a long time when there is an evident winner. Unequivocally, the treaty benefitted Japan more than Russia because they were given a large amount of Russian territory. However, Russia was never actually required to pay Japan any sort of fee for the war. Even so, the treaty eventually brought more than peace between the two nations when they befriended each other. Japan's defeat of Russia showed the rest of Western Europe that Japan was stronger than they would expect.
I do not agree with the quotation. This peace treaty illustrates how the winner can still take advantage of the loser, though a friendly and peaceful relationship can exist between the two. However, this treaty might be viewed as an exception because FDR moderated the making and signing of the treaty, so peace was kept then. Also, Japan's status during the time made the upholding of their stature imperative so they would be recognized and upheld by other western countries. This might have been why they accepted no payment from Russia. Is there one peace treaty that could be considered not an "exception" between civil wars, world wars, and ones like the Portmouth Treaty?
I would like to examine the treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Both Japan and Russia agreed to return the sovereignty of Manchuria to China through a full-scale evacuation which was a major focus for Japan in the war. However Japan, the declared “winner”, received strategic land including a peninsula with warm water ports, half of an island, and a Russian rail system under the treaty’s clauses. I believe this treaty illustrates the quote perfectly as while Japan won almost every battle in the war against Russia, the peace treaty of Portsmouth left the Japanese public severely disappointed. Never content with what was negotiated and looking back to the initial proposal, the public desired the entire island and a monetary indemnity as well. This “peace” even caused the Hibiya riots eventually culminating in the collapse of Katsura Taro’s cabinet.
ReplyDeleteI too looked at the Treaty of Portsmouth. As Ali said before, this treaty ended the Russo-Japanese war. At the time, Russia had experienced large defeats and Japan was experiencing economic problems, so both nations involved were ready for peace. However peace was not reached until the United States interfered. Both Russia and Japan agreed to evacuate Manchuria and return it to China. Japan received the Liaodong Peninsula and the Russian rail system in southern Manchuria. Japan also got the southern portion of Sakhalin. Russia received much more than Japan was expecting. I agree with Ali in saying that Japan received the better hand because they got more land and valuable resources from Russia. However the treaty was pretty fair because Russia did not have to repay Japan. Although this war did not have a clear winner and loser i think that the peace made between the two countries was as fair as it could be.
ReplyDeleteEven though this treaty showed to be pretty fair I think that in general this quote is true. I personally believe that there can never be a treaty that brings absolute peace. Treaties come about because of a war and the winner of said war will have bias towards the loser and therefore the cannot make good peace. I think that good peace can only be accomplished from an objective view- which can rarely happen. The loser will always be unhappy with the winners decisions.
With all of this information, it is important to turn attention back to the prompt. "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace." Relevant examples must include nations who have won a war "well," which we can define in this case as clearly or efficiently. Keeping in mind what Peter addressed earlier (that a "good peace" is difficult or impossible to fully acheive in any given case), the prompt can be answered by weighing these relevant examples in terms of which show that a "good peace" was made, and which do not.
ReplyDeleteAs some have said, the Allies may not have won very well at the end of WWI, but I believe this is still relevant. This example clearly shows that the winning side of the war failed to impose a good peace, as Germany was torn apart due to the Treaty of Versailles. It is true that the Allies felt the need to pinpoint the blame, but the actions taken would lead to an unstable Germany. This prevented not only a good peace, but peace in general.
I think Juliana's example of the peace treaty with the Cherokee Indians proves very well that when a nation has absolute control over the future of a weaker nation or group, the more powerful nation will often act out of self-interest. The gap in power between the Cherokee and the US government is important, as the US was in complete control of the situation and outcome. Though a peace was created, it was more in the interest of the US, and was not very "good."
As Alex showed, the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 also proved the quote in the prompt correct. Though it is not clear as to what is a "good peace," it has become overwhelmingly clear through relevant examples like the Treaty of Versailles, the US-Cherokee Indian Peace Agreement, and the Paris Peace Treaties, that those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace.
I looked at the Treaty of Paris of 1898, signed by the United States and Spain and being the treaty that ended the Spanish-American War.
ReplyDeleteAs a background, the Spanish-American War was a conflict between Spain and the United States dealing with struggles within Spanish colonies. In the war, the US fought to remove Spain from longstanding colonial outposts in both the Caribbean and the South Pacific. The war lasted four months.
Towards the end of the war, the US had defeated Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. Additionally, the US incapacitated both of the Spanish fleets. This pushed the Spanish to sue for peace and led to a peace negotiation. Before the peace negotiations, President McKinley sent secret written instructions to his emissaries with lines that included: "The victor should be magnanimous in her treatment of the fallen foe... excessive demand...[referring there only to Cuba...]" etc. This text shows the acknowlegment that because the US had the upper hand, McKinley wanted to use it to his best advantage.
In the treaty provisions, Cuba became independent from Spain and instead moved to US control. Additionally, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. Cuba was to be occupied by the United States after the evacuation of Spain; additionally, the United States acquired Puerto Rico and other islands then under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, as well as Guam and the Philippine Islands.
All of these provisions indicate a great loss to Spain. These colonies were an important aspect of Spanish rule, as the loss of these islands meant the end of the Spanish Empire in America. However, because the US had the upper hand and was in a better negotiating position by defeating the Spanish fleets, and Spain had little choice but to listen to the United States. This is shown through the reply of Queen Maria Christina: "The Government... will not assume the responsibility of again bringing upon Spain all the horrors of war. In order to avoid them, it resigns itself to the painful task of submitting to the law of the victor, however harsh it may be... she accepts the only terms the United States offers her for the concluding of the treaty of peace." This resignation reflects the lack of choice that Spain had when trying to get out of the war, and reflects the advantageous attitude of the US when going into negotiations. They saw this coming, as shown by McKinley's telegram, and therefore demanded as much as they could without truly considering the fairness of the issue.
Therefore, I agree with the quote. Because the US was winning the war, they could not just simply make peace; they pushed Spain into relinquishing much of their territory by putting them into a bad negotiating spot.
Ya I'm posting in class. I looked at the Waziristan Accord, which was a peace treaty between the Pakistani government and tribal residents of the Waziristan area. The agreement basically agreed to mutually end hostilities between the two parties. The treaty was signed in September of 2006 and had 16 clauses. While the treaty was beneficial for both parties, it can be argued that the Pakistani government "won" this war since the fighting against their government stopped and they were still able to effectively regulate a tribe that was able to enter and exit the country without notice (which increased the risk of pro-Taliban militants entering the state).
ReplyDelete1. The government agreed to stop air and ground attacks against the militants in Waziristan.
This was beneficial for both countries. Pakistan had been draining money into this war which inevitable culminated in over $30 billion in expenses. Additionally, the Waziristani people had suffered numerous casualties due to these ground and air strikes.
2. Militants are to cease cross-border movement into and out of Afghanistan.
This was one of the main reasons political analysts believe that the Pakistani government emerged victorious in this war. The militants were easily able to enter and exit Pakistan and were highly susceptible to joining the Taliban. This provided an avenue for pro-Taliban militants to enter Pakistan which risked regime collapse and increase military budget strains.
3. International law regarding foreigners within Pakistan would be respected.
Small win for the Pakistani government because it showed that the government could respect human rights/international law (This was offset by numerous other human rights violations that inevitably caused Musharraf to lose reelection).
4. Tribesmen wouldn't carry heavy weapons.
Functionally another disarmament clause.
5. The government would release captured militants.
A win for the Waziristan tribe. One of the main reason fighting was sustained for many years was due to captured fighters that both sides were leveraging against each other.
6. The government would pay compensation for property damage and innocent citizens' death.
This was the biggest win for the Waziristan tribe because it offered just (kind of) compensation for the war. In a sense the government "took the blame" for some of the war and was able to effectively stifle violent oppositions from arising (again, kind of).
These are just the main points that the treaty covered.
In a sense, the Waziristan Accord worked for a short period of time. Peace had occurred between the government and the people while internationally, Pakistan was perceived to have won the war. This didn't end up lasting for long because a recent attack by pro-Taliban militants killed numerous military members and functionally restarted the war. The treaty was a short term fix which didn't truly address the root cause of the problem/didn't fulfill enough of the treaty's clauses effectively and efficiently. Thus, I agree with the quotation.
I totally spaced this deadline. My bad. I chose the Treaty of Frankfurt that ended the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. The war was between the Second French Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia, whose victory brought about the unification of Germany. The German Empire took the regions of Alsace and Lorraine from France (which most predominantly people of German descent, but contained 80% of French iron ore and machine shops) and demanded 5 million francs from the French within 3 years and would occupy parts of the nation until this was repaid. The treaty also clarified the use of navigable waterways to Alsace-Lorraine, trade between the two countries, and the return of prisoners of war. France didn't care as much about the money or trade or POW's as they did about those territories. I mean the French were pissed off. The stereotype of French people being mean probably comes from this very event because this was a huge motive for France in WWI. It's kind of like when I put my brother's hat in the toilet because I was older than him and then he flipped out and went ape on me. However, this being said, I don't know if a peace treaty is supposed to be fair. If you win the war, you have the upper hand and can demand almost anything that you want because if they don't agree, you can keep the war going until the don't have any more people left to sign the peace treaty. So, I guess I would say that it isn't Germany, or any wining nation's ability, at making peace treaties, but rather that nature of the peace treaties themselves.
ReplyDeleteWell, Jeff kind of took my idea, but oh well. I too want to look at the treaty which ended the American Civil War.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, we should remember that the treaty was originally mostly unofficial. General Grant did not have the authority to take formal surrender. He himself wrote, "I have not authority to treat on the subject of peace. The meeting proposed for 10 A.M. to-day could lead to no good." The meeting, of course, was the famous conference, and it clearly did lead to good, notably the end of the war. However, I feel that Grant's insistence that he did not have the authority to accept peace seriously changed the dynamics of the conference. Whereas most peace treaties are drafted with the intent to bring honor to all parties involved and to lose as little as possible, this meeting was only to bring about peace. Thus, it allowed for both sides to be more accepting and less rigid than they might otherwise have been.
Additionally, we do have to ask whether the Union forces truly won the war "well." In the end, the primary reason the Union was able to defeat the Confederacy was superiority in numbers. Most people agree that the Confederates had superior leadership for much of the war and, indeed, they won battles right up until the end. In the words of a Professor I happen to know, "The Union kept losing battles until they won the war." Though it sounds truly inhuman to think of it that way, the Union generals knew that they could afford to keep losing men, while the Confederates could not and, eventually, the Confederates would run out of soldiers and have to surrender. Thankfully, peace was reached before that point, but it was coming.
So, we do have to wonder if this really is winning the war "well." To me, winning a war "well" means doing it through effectiveness of leadership or tactics. In my mind, the American Revolution was won "well," and certainly there were tensions long after it, eventually leading to the War of 1812, among other things. Winning a war through sheer strength seems less like winning a war "well." Effectively, perhaps, but not "well." This would explain why treaties like that at Appomattox or that ending the war between the US and Japan seem to have worked. The end result was more total obliteration than victory, and a crushed opponent is easier to deal with.
Thus, I agree that those who can win wars "well" seem to be unable to craft good treaties. However, those who win wars through strength in numbers or better technology have a better time of it, perhaps because, having so soundly trounced the enemy already, they can afford to be generous in peace.
--anne
p.s. sorry that this is late. I kind of forgot about it.