The document discusses several questions related to the aftermath of World War 1 and the Paris Peace Settlement. It provides context and analysis for each question. Question 1 discusses Germany imposing harsh terms on Russia in 1918, contradicting Wilson's 14 Points. It notes the peacemakers faced contradictory demands and the instability of successor states. Question 2 examines German objections to the Treaty of Versailles and whether they were justified. It discusses security concerns, territorial losses, and reparations while noting the treaty could have been worse. Question 3 analyzes two sources critical of the treaty, arguing it would lead to future war, and discusses evaluating their provenance as coming from German and British perspectives.

1. CAMBRIDGEAS
HISTORYREVISION
AGEOFUNCERTAINTY
QUESTIONSANDANSWERS

2. QUESTION1PAG52
Germany, realising that Lenin’s Russia was desperate to end its
involvement in the First World War, imposed extremely harsh terms in
March 1918. This contradicted Point 6 of Wilson’s Fourteen Points
(‘Russia to be welcomed into the society of nations and all its land
restored’).
When victory seemed likely in the war, Germany was prepared to
ignore Wilson’s proposals. (see pages 42–4)

3. Criticisms levelled against the settlement include:
• imposing overly harsh terms on Germany and the other defeated nations
• creating ‘successor states’, which were economically and politically unstable
and vulnerable
• leaving some 30 million people living in minority groups under foreign rule,
making future conflict almost inevitable.
The problems faced by the peacemakers included:
• the contradictory demands of the victorious nations
• the ongoing disintegration of Habsburg, Turkish and Russian empires
• the need to make decisions quickly.
Answers need to provide a clear, consistent and balanced argument,
supported by accurate and appropriate factual content. (pages 44–52)
QUESTION2PAG52

4. Answers should first explain what the German objections were:
• concerns about security as a result of disarmament
• loss of colonies to other European nations
• ‘German’ people were forced to live under foreign rule (e.g. in Poland and
Czechoslovakia); Germany split by Polish Corridor
• the War Guilt clause
• high reparations.
However, while the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were harsh, they were
not as bad as France had wanted, and they left Germany with the potential
to recover economically. Moreover, Germany had no right to expect the
Treaty to follow Wilson’s Fourteen Points when it had ignored them in March
1918 in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Answers need to be clearly focused on the requirements of the actual
question, with a clear argument about how justified German objections
were. (see pages 49–50)
QUESTION3PAG52

5. Source A is heavily critical of the treaty, arguing that it imposes
unreasonably harsh terms on Germany (‘thinly-veiled slavery’) and that
it will lead to future war. Source B is equally critical, arguing that it will
lead to future war – the weeping child represents the future generation
that will suffer as a result of the treaty.
Answers should include analysis/evaluation of source provenance.
Source A is a speech by a German politician to a German audience – it
is heavily nationalistic in tone. Source B is a British cartoon designed for
a largely British audience – it argues that the terms of the treaty were
too harsh on Germany and is critical of Lloyd George for allowing
France to get too much of its own way at Versailles. Clemenceau (‘The
Tiger’) is depicted as the main instigator of the treaty, with Wilson and
Orlando behind him. Lloyd George is shown in the shadows at the rear,
implying that he played a relatively insignificant part in determining the
terms of the treaty. (see pages 42–52)
QUESTION4PAG52

6. Answers should be balanced, demonstrating a clear understanding of
both sides of the issue.
However, there needs to be a clear and consistent argument, either
agreeing or disagreeing with the statement in the question
(hypothesis).
• In support of the statement, it could be argued that the USA’s failure
to ratify the peace settlement added to French feelings of insecurity –
the USA no longer guaranteed to support France in the event of an
attack by Germany. It also undermined the effectiveness of the League
of Nations.
QUESTION1PAG58

7. In challenging the statement, it could be argued that there were other,
more serious, issues that caused tension: Britain’s desire to withdraw
from European affairs added to French insecurity; the USA’s decision to
demand full repayment of war debts, which imposed economic
problems on Britain and France; Germany’s failure to pay full
reparations, which undermined the ability of France and Britain to
repay war debts to the USA; the French occupation of the Ruhr; while
France wanted to keep Germany economically weak, Britain wanted
the German economy to revive quickly; border disputes (e.g. Turkey
taking some land from Greece); growing tension between the USA and
Japan. (see pages 53–5)
QUESTION1PAG58

8. Answers should cover the Washington Naval Conference (1921–22),
the Genoa Conference (1922), the Dawes Plan (1924), the Locarno
Treaties (1925), the Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928) and the Young Plan
(1929). For each, it is necessary to explain what it was intended to
achieve in order to provide ‘success criteria’. For example, the Genoa
Conference, suggested by Lloyd George, aimed to settle the issue of
reparations in order to improve relations between France and
Germany. It was unsuccessful because France refused to compromise
and Germany withdrew. (see pages 54–8)
QUESTION2PAG58

9. The key point is that the issue of reparations caused tension between France
and Germany. France was determined to keep Germany as weak as possible,
and therefore insisted that full payments were made. Given the economic
problems facing European countries in the postwar period, Germany had
difficulty in meeting payments, which in turn made it difficult for France and
Britain to repay war debts to the USA. The failure of the Genoa Conference
clearly indicated both the hostility that existed between France and Germany
and the different attitudes of France and Britain (France wanted to keep
Germany weak, Britain wanted a revival of the German economy). The
French occupation of the Ruhr was a clear threat to peace.
Despite its declared isolationism, the USA became directly involved in
European affairs over the issue of reparations – the Dawes Plan and the
Young Plan were US-inspired attempts to overcome the problems caused by
reparations. The Young Plan finally accepted that the figure set for
reparations by the Paris peace settlement was too high. Good answers will
be based on the careful selection of appropriate material and clear
understanding of cause and effect. (see pages 54–8)
QUESTION2PAG58

10. Following the Franco–Prussian War and the First World War, it is
understandable that France feared a German revival in the 1920s,
especially since the French had no guarantee of US or British help if
Germany attacked. Prior to 1924, France showed an uncompromising
stance towards Germany, in particular demanding full payment of
reparations, leading to the occupation of the Ruhr. After 1924,
however, France adopted a more conciliatory attitude towards
Germany – agreeing to the Dawes Plan and enjoying improved relations
at and after Locarno. This might suggest that France no longer feared
Germany.
However, this apparent change of policy was partly because of the
failure of the Ruhr occupation, an action that had been condemned by
France’s potential allies, such as Britain. In reality, France remained
wary of Germany and developed a series of alliances with countries in
Eastern Europe. (see pages 59–60)
QUESTION1PAG61

11. The French occupation of the Ruhr had not only failed but also led to
condemnation from France’s potential allies. This added to France’s
sense of isolation and vulnerability. The Dawes Plan offered a potential
solution to the issue of reparations. The good relations between Briand
and Stresemann following the Locarno Conference eased tension
between France and Germany.
The most effective answers will show that, despite this apparent easing
of tensions, France remained wary of Germany. (see pages 59–60)
QUESTION2PAG61

12. Revolution in Russia had caused concern amongst the other major
European countries, which feared the spread of communism
(encouraged by the Russian organisation Comintern). There was also
resentment at Lenin’s decision to pull out of the First World War – an
action that gave Germany a major advantage. Lenin’s Bolsheviks were
not recognised as the legal government of Russia and, indeed, Western
countries were helping Lenin’s enemies in the Russian Civil War. It was
largely at French insistence that Russia did not attend the conferences
in Paris. (see pages 60–1)
QUESTION3PAG61

13. Lenin’s realisation that the worldwide revolution was not going to take place
led to the USSR seeking peaceful coexistence and economic co-operation
with other countries. This was most successful with Germany – a trade treaty
was signed in 1921 followed by the Treaty of Rapallo (1922). Both countries
used this to end their isolation in Europe. Although formal diplomatic
relations were established with France in 1924, tensions remained between
the two countries.
Britain formally recognised the Bolshevik government in 1921 and there was
a series of trade agreements between the two countries – however, these
were often temporary and dependent on which political party was in power
in Britain.
Answers must be fully focused on the actual question, making a judgement
about how successful the USSR’s attempts to establish better relations were
rather than merely writing about the attempts in a narrative/descriptive
manner. (see pages 60–1)
QUESTION4PAG61

14. Reasons include:
• a return to isolationism
• the fear of becoming involved in another war
• the rejection of Wilson’s idealism
• a determination to avoid becoming involved in European affairs, which were
seen as the cause of the First World War
• concern that the idea of a League of Nations would require the USA to
become involved in other countries’ affairs and allow other countries to
interfere in the USA. (see page 62)
QUESTION1PAG66

15. The prosperity of many countries was entirely dependent on US loans,
which ended abruptly following the Wall Street Crash in 1929. Germany
could no longer afford its reparations commitments, which, in turn,
affected Britain, France and Italy. International trade declined, affecting
all industrialised countries. This led to deflation and high
unemployment. (see pages 63–5)
QUESTION2PAG66

16. Wilson believed in internationalism, arguing that the USA had an
obligation to work with the rest of the world to ensure future peace.
Cabot Lodge clearly opposes this (‘internationalism is to me repulsive’).
He argues that Wilson’s ideas will destroy the independence of the
USA, using emotive words such as ‘fetter’.
Unlike Wilson, Cabot Lodge argues that the USA should not become
involved in international organisations, such as the League of Nations,
which would simply involve the USA in ‘meddling and muddling in
every quarrel which afflicts the world’. The extract is politically
motivated and is part of the debate leading up to post-First World War
US elections. Cabot Lodge reflects the view that the USA must, at all
costs, avoid involvement in another major war. (see pages 62–3)
QUESTION3PAG66

17. Answers should be both balanced and contain a clear and consistent
argument, supported by appropriate factual evidence. (see page 65)
QUESTION1PAG67

18. Possible answers include the following:
• It removed much of the settlement’s credibility, not least because the US
president, Woodrow Wilson, was seen as the prime mover in Paris.
• By making a separate treaty with Germany, the USA was no longer
guaranteeing support to France in the event of future German aggression. This
increased French concerns and led to greater tension between France and
Germany.
• Russia and Germany had not been involved at Paris at all – with the USA’s
rejection of the settlement, it looked even more like Britain and France were
exacting revenge on Germany following its defeat in the war.
• Wilson had been one of the strongest advocates of the League of Nations –
the USA’s refusal to join clearly weakened the authority of the League and its
potential for maintaining future peace and security. (see pages 62–3)
QUESTION2PAG67

19. The question clearly requires a value judgement. The phrase ‘a bad peace’
can be interpreted in many different ways, so it is necessary to establish how
it will be defined. The most effective answers are likely to begin by outlining
the factors that could lead to the interpretation that the Paris peace
settlement was, indeed, a bad peace (e.g. excessively harsh terms imposed
on Germany, establishing successor states that were politically and
economically unviable). This establishes a definition on which a judgement
can be made and an argument developed.
The argument itself must be balanced (showing an understanding of both
sides of the issue), clear and consistent. Common weaknesses in answers to
this type of question include:
• a focus on the Treaty of Versailles rather than the peace settlement in its entirety
• a focus solely on the settlement itself without analysing its short- and long-term
repercussions
• a significant lack of balance – dealing with the ‘bad’ elements of the settlement,
without reference to an alternative interpretation. (see pages 41–66)
QUESTION3PAG67