Collective security notes IB History HL


Published on

This is my no

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Collective security notes IB History HL

  1. 1. Collective SecurityContext - League Covenant  Article X, “all members undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of all members of the League”, this was the basis of concept security - This also means that all League members should assist in resistance to aggression even if it is not of concern to their interests, it reverses the traditional European attitude towards diplomacy - Absence of the defeated states, these states had no desire to support the League and its principles and ToV, it also pronounced the death of disarmament provisions as Russia and Germany signed the Treaty of Rapallo - Absence of America  challenges to status quo established at Versailles would meet limited resistance from a collection of small states, also its rejection of the principle of collective security undermined LoNs credibility and its fundamental principles - Absence of major powers meant that LoNs could not effectively deter aggression and negotiate peaceful settlements of their grievances as collective security is based on collective action - Particular dispute between France and Britain as to how Germany should be treated  France wanted the heaviest restrictions upon Germany but Britain did not support that, it wanted to rebuild the German economy to improve British trade and also act as a counterweight to French ambitions What is collective security? - Cornerstone of LoNs - New departure in diplomacy whereby the old alliance systems and the balance of power would be left aside in favor of collective security - Old alliance system: alliances made between nations with mutual interests and were aimed to protect against specific threats or nations, they contain clear terms of their duties are and what their national interests, thus they had a clear mind when formulating foreign policy - On the contrary, collective security is an abstract concept, it does not specify the threats and what responses should be made under the respective circumstances
  2. 2. - Requires a level of altruism (concern to the welfare of others) that was not in line with the world in 1920s, as it demands nations to give up their national interests for matters that are not of concern to their core aims- Inbred weakness with the absence of three major powersWeaknesses of collective security- Few members of LoNs were willing to take on the open-ended commitments that collective security required- Prospect of armed intervention was not favored in many nations after WWI as there was widespread opposition towards the use of military force to resolve disputes between nations- Uncertain economic situation further undermined the concept of armed interventionEarly attempts at peacekeeping 1920-25- Mandate called on to intervene in a number of disputes between nations- Success: the Aaland Islands, Upper Silesia, the Greco-Bulgarian War of 1925- Failure: the seizure of Fiume by D’Annunzio, Vilna, the Russo-Polish War, the Corfu incident and the Ruhr invasion- Success? Involving nations that were small or medium powers who were unwilling to resort to violence, allowed the League to negotiate and enforce a settlement that both parties would accept- Failure? Involving major powers who refused to submit to the League or those that were determined to resort to violence- Corfu incident  diplomatic crisis between Italy and Greece in 1923, LoN’s suggestion that 50 million lire to be paid and an enquiry to be set up was turned down by Mussolini who claimed the League had no right to intervene, had to rely on Britain to resolve the crisis- Problems: absence of America, which subsequently increased the reluctance of successive British governments in the 1920s to underwrite in any tangible way the European territorial settlementThe Ruhr Crisis – early failure of LoNs and the concept ofcollective security- French were anxious to enforce reparations settlement as they owed money to the United States, they also hoped that it would continue to weaken Germany by
  3. 3. collecting the reparations and thus limiting the speed and extent of German economic recovery- Growing sympathy towards the treatment of Germany in UK and USA, especially in UK as it hoped that by allowing Germany to recover economically as a way to promote general European recovery- French were convinced that Germany was trying to avoid her obligations and should be made to pay- 11 January 1923 French and Belgian troops invaded the Ruhr as Germany was unable to deliver timber as part of her payments, French objective was to collect reparations through seizing the output of mines and factories of the Ruhr and shipping them to France- German workers refused to co-operate and went on strike while engaging in acts of sabotage to prevent the French from obtaining any materials, this led to violence and the imprisonment of leaders of the resistance movements- Catastrophic inflation happened as Weimar government printed more money to support the workers’ actions- Middle class was hit the hardest, many turned to extreme ideology such as the Nazis- Clear signal to the Allies that German was in danger of complete collapse and that a state of anarchy might well develop, also made Germany vulnerable to communism, it also meant that they would not be receiving reparations payments which would prevent general European economic recovery- Crisis resolved when Stresemann called off the passive resistance in the Ruhr and announced that Germany would comply with her obligations under the treaty of Versailles, French called off the invasion“Policy of Fulfillment”- Key player was America who approved the Dawes Plan to allow Germany reschedule her reparations payments so that the total amount was reduced and the deadlines were extended, while allowing extensive foreign loans and foreign investments to flow into Germany  League was not a key player and collective security did not resolve the crisisLocarno Treaty 1925- Signed in Oct 1925, guaranteed by Italy and Britain, Germany would accept its borders with France and Belgium as permanent, it would also join the LoNs- Genuine breakthrough, but Germany seek to revise her Eastern borders with Poland and Czechoslovakia, Britain refused to guarantee the countries to the east of Germany which allowed Germany to assume that her Eastern borders could be changed with little objection  Collective security abandoned
  4. 4. - A sense of euphoria, spirit of Locarno- League was not strengthened and the principle of collective security remained uncertain- Largely dependent on the economic health of Europe in the 1920s, and American supportThe Great Depression 1929 and its effects- Nations were longer willing to co-operate through trade and exchange, international co-operation was replaced by an exclusionary, bomb-shelter mentality where they cut off contact with their neighbors, raised tariffs and ceased to care much about the world beyond their own borders- Domestic hardship was the focus not armaments to control aggressive foreign states  death of collective security and beginning of appeasement- Produced aggressive states who saw war and conquest as a solution to their problems- Brought Hitler to power  Lebensraum  greatly undermined the concept of collective security and attempts to prevent war- Created reasons for aggression in Manchuria and robbed nations of the physical ability and motivation to co-operate to preserve peace- LoNs and the concept of collective security exposed as hollow and impotentManchurian Crisis 1931-33 – latter failure of LoNs and theconcept of collective security- Exposed British and French weakness, encouraged further aggression in the form of Abyssinian Crisis- Japan suffered greatly under Great Depression as it depended on the export of manufactured goods primarily to America- Demands for actions by radical nationalist groups to take over the Chinese province of Manchuria which held a vast wealth of natural resources of all kinds- Japan invaded Manchuria using the excuse that Chinese troops attacked its citizens and property, Chinese were rapidly defeated and in 1932 the puppet state of Manchukuo was established- China was a member of LoNs, appealed for support against Japan- UK and USA followed a policy of appeasement, hoped that by accommodating the demands of the revisionist powers in the hopes that they would become less aggressive and not create conditions for another global conflict  blow in the face of collective security
  5. 5. - Absence of motivation to undertake a military mission from Britain and France, also lacked the bases in the Far East to counter Japanese forces- USA supported China’s Open Door Policy and suspicious of Japanese rivalry in the Pacific but did not take action due to isolationism mentality and the Great Depression- Also, UK and USA had extensive trading networks and investments in China and Far East, any serious attempt to oppose the Japanese might result in these being severely threatened- League was largely ineffective as it lacked forces of its own, moral condemnation and disapproval were useless- Lytton Commission set up as a fact finding mission on the Manchurian Crisis, but it did no more than recognizing some of Japanese justifiable grievances and suggesting the independence of Manchuria and withdrawal of Japanese forces- Japan refused to accept the criticism and withdrew from the league  authority of league was undermined and collective security was nowhere to be seenAbyssinian Crisis 1935-36 – last blow to the collapse ofcollective security pre WWII- Italy’s role as a defender of the ToV and a key player in central Europe was weakened by German resurgence, encouraged Mussolini to look elsewhere for territory, empire and a sense of importance diplomatically, which was also in line with national strength and pride emphasized in the Fascist ideology- Stresa Front 1935, an initial agreement between Italy, France and Britain to deter German attempt to modify ToV, seems like a guarantee of collective security, most importantly France and Britain conceded that Abyssinia lay within Italian sphere of interest  principles of collective security and self- determination abandoned- Mussolini wanted to satisfy his dreams of a “new Roman Empire”- Abyssinia was the only African territory available, it was also located next to two existing Italian colonies- Large oil deposits in the region, potential outlet for the surplus Italian population, these factors also encouraged Mussolini to invade Abyssinia- Dispute referred to the League for arbitration in September 1935, the invasion began in October 1935, 7 October Italy declared as the aggressor and on 18 November 51 states voted to impose economic sanctions against Italy (did not include oil and steel) League was not seen as a genuine force for peace and
  6. 6. the Allies were unable to appease Italy in order to maintain the Stresa front against Hitler, again, collective security was not practiced- Hoare-Laval Pact devised to settle the crisis and avoid losing Italy as an ally, the proposal was leaked and thus failed due to the lack of public support and Mussolini’s refusal to accept only part of Abyssinia- No way to stop Italy after Hoare-Laval Pact’s failure, but neither UK or France was prepared to use force  death of collective security- May 1936 war ended and Italy had the whole of Abyssinia- As leading powers were unwilling to apply military intervention, the concept of collective security was exposed as entirely hollow, so was the LoNs as these major powers denounced the aggressors but did not prevent their course of actions- Mussolini allied with Hitler as a result, which ensured the total elimination of collective security as a viable possibility in the later years of 1930s