Treaty of Versailles

Poland regained its independence in the teaty, and its histoical boundary was shifted resulting in thousands of Geman Citizens being cut of and becoming Polish. Danzig was made a Free City under League of Nations control. It was an unhappy settlement.

World War 1 may have influenced countries to be more open to dialogue before engaging the use of military force to settle conflicts. It may have caused a shift from nationalism towards internationalism.

Treaty of Versailles :{D

im only 11 but i think it was Treaty of Versailles

it limited united states sovereignty

The disarmament conference: 1932-1934. Before Hitler became chancellor, Germany had left the disarmament conference because the other nations failed to disarm to the level that Germany had been punished with. Hitler rejoined the conference in may 1933, promising not to rearm if "in 5 years time, all other nations destroyed their arms". when they failed to do so, he left the conference in october 1933, and soon after, the league of nations.

rearmament: in 1935, he organised a military rally openly celebrating the German armed forces. in the same year, he reintroduced conscription, and announced a peacetime army of 550,000. a new air military was to train pilots and build 1,000 aircraft.

disarmament was one of the main clauses of the treaty and so i think that this was all that was done by 1935 in order to reverse the treaty. i hope it helps :)

article x

Germany

Comintern, or communist international

By the 1930's people in Britain were begining to think that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair so they let the Germans have the Rhineland back after all it was origionally their land and people, why should they not have it back. Hitler though took advantage of the situation and re-militarised right next to the border of France. This led to other things and was the spark that lit the fire of World War 2. In Britain the view that the Versailles Treaty was too harsh goes back all the way to about 1920. The hard line taken by France in 1923 when they occupied the Ruhr in response to an alleged German default on reparations led many British politicians to conclude that the French were completely unreasonable. In the 1920s there were two major changes (in Germany's favour) to the terms for paying reparations and in 1926 Germany was admitted to the League of Nations. All this was achieved by patient negotiation, not bullying or force. (Britain also helped Germany to stablize its currency in 1923 and to end inflation). However, in the 1920s Britain (and France) drew the line at territorial and defence changes. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Britain was in the throes of the Great Depression; the country was 'protecting' itself in the Empire (imperial preference and so on), and the government wasn't particularly interested in foreign affairs. (Some would say it hardly had a foreign policy). Moreover, the official policy of Britain (and France) in 1933 was multilateral disarmament. In October 1933 Hitler pulled Germany out of the disarmament talks but it took Britain and France several months to realign their policies. 1935 - Germany re-introduced conscription in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles. The moment was cleverly chosen as Britain was coming up to a General Election. As Baldwin later said, "What would people have thought if the election had been fought largely on rearmament?" 1936 - Hitler remiliarized the Rhineland. France was in the throes of internal strife that culminated in the election of the Popular Front; Britain was gripped by the abdication crisis ... 1938 - NO excuse ... ! The answer to the question is: surely a bit of both. It's also clear that Baldwin and Chamberlain had NO idea what they were really up against: they, along with many other British politicians hadn't the foggiest. It's also clear that from 1933 onwards, Britain and France never seized the initiative in foreign policy, but were constantly reacting to Hitler's agenda.

It gave Germany an extremely harsh punishment which led it to ruins. Hitler took this chance to run for chancellor promising to fix Germany's problems. Mussolini did almost the same thing to take control of Italy.

I have attached a site for you that has the entire document and photos too. See related link below.

Georges Clemenceau=France

David Lloyd George=Great Britain

Woodrow Wilson= United States

Vittorio Orlando=Italy

yes

"non-aggression".

The only one of his Fourteen Points to be accepted was his last, the creation of the League of Nations.

There is an old saying, "The French fight for glory, the British fight for land, and the Americans fight for souviners." There is truth in that saying. President Woodrow Wilson told the American people that: WE fight (in WW I) for a higher cause, not for land or glory, but for peace -- a war to end wars forever! He sumarized that thinking in what he called the "Fourteen Points." What he did, that few, if any have done, was to ask, What is the cause of wars? Then he proceeded to remove the causes. Part of the thinking that was involved was to end "The Great War" with no winners and no losers. This was such a good deal that Germany based its surrender on the thinking that the "Fourteen Points" would be the basis of the peace treaty. Wilson did not send representives to the meeting at Versailles, but personally went to the meeting himself. We Americans are isolated from the rest of the world, and often do not understand the thinking of others. We think our ways are so logical that surely everyone will join in our thinking. (This is often a mistake as the war in Iraq has shown.) Wilson failed to realize that the leaders of England (Lloyd George) and France (George Clemaceau) felt that they could not justify the deaths of so many of their people in the war, UNLESS they gained something. The idea of a war ending without any winners was NOT part of their thinking. They view Wilson as an idealist (which he was) and not one that thought in terms of the "real world." So the short answer to your question is: We got involved for the same reason as the Europeans -- to gain something -- Something for the whole world, something for many generations to come -- PEACE! Sadly Wilson was not listened to, with the result, as one French General said as he left Versailles at the end of the Peace Treaty. "Another war will start in 20 years." He was exactly right. World War II started in 1939, 20 years after the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Hope I didn't get carried away, John

The harsh conditions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles after World War 1 most directly laid the foundation to the rise of fascism in Germany.

The Treaty of Versailles. ~ See related link below .

Reparations

They were smart, they put it in writing; they didn't want them repeating World War One. Then they became "un-wise" (a diplomatic nice word) and let them do it all over again for World War Two. There's a saying, "...do it once, shame on you (meaning you're at fault); do it twice, shame on me (meaning I'm at fault for letting you do it again)." Shame on Britain (since they were the only ones fighting in Europe/Russians had things under control) for being "un-wise" (again, these are diplomatic words) after they should have learned their lesson the first time in WWI.

France sent troops into Germany to monitor every cent that came in and out of the country.

France also occupied the Ruhr. This was a vital part of Germany's economy.

Clemenceau of France was in the treaty for revenge on Germany and for the money, he wanted too much.Lloyd george was worried about losing his connection of trading with Germany so he didnt want to be too harsh but he also wanted their empire, so he was on the verge of having acceptable terms.Woodrow Wilson wanted 1 thing, pece with Germany and he also thought it would be a good idea to help rebuild Germany so that it could prevent future wars. Woodrow Wilson was too kind.

France: France wanted (really) one thing, which was revenge. They really wanted to punish Germamy for the damage and destruction WW1 had caused. They had suffered badly, as most of the fighting had been on French soil. USA: The USA contradicted France, as they didn't really want to punish Germany that much. This means that neither one could achieve what they wanted, without upsetting the other. (If USA got their way, France would be angry because they'd think Germany had got off lightly).United Kingdom: Britain had a nice, comfortable Empire in 1918, and wanted to expand (so did France). However, USA wanted to give independence to all colonies. This is another unsatisfactory compromise, which could not please all of the "Big Three"All in all, the Treaty of the Versaille is a good compromisation from all of the aims. But those aims laid down it the first place, few were met, and not one leader walked away with everything he wished for from the Conference.

Cuz you touch yourself at night