Lesson 11
The Interwar Years:
Preparing for the Next War
Lesson Objectives
• Understand the major military lessons that each of the
major combatants (Britain, France, US, Germany and
Russia) took from World War I.
• Be able to describe and discuss the steps that each major
combatant took to "prepare for the next war."
• Understand the military revolution that occurred during
the interwar years.
• Be able to recount the major events in the 1930's that lead
to war in Europe and the Pacific.
Germany After the Armistice
(26:52-28:57)
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013
the Next
War
Seeds of World
War
II
Review
Versailles Treaty
Great Depression
Lessons of World War I
4
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Extremely harsh conditions
• Significant territorial concessions
Treaty of Versailles
Territorial Concessions
Lithuania
Danzig
Saar Basin
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Extremely harsh conditions
• Significant territorial concessions
• Huge reparations
Treaty of Versailles
Reparations
• 269 billion gold marks ($64 B then, $834 B today)*
• Later reduced to 112 B gold marks ( $26.6 B) (1929)
• Equivalent to $360 B today *
Many feel this led to the economic collapse of
the 1920’s that sewed the seeds of Fascism
* Based on CPI, 2012
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Extremely harsh conditions
• Significant territorial concessions
• Huge reparations
• German admission of responsibility for war
Treaty of Versailles
War Guilt Clause
''The Allied and Associated Governments affirm, and
Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and
her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which
the Allied and Associated Governments and their
nationals have been subjected as a consequence of
the war imposed upon them by the aggression of
Germany and her allies.''
Article 231
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Extremely harsh conditions
• Significant territorial concessions
• Huge reparations
• German admission of responsibility for war
• Severe limitations on military
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Military Provisions
• German army restricted to 100,000 men (long term contracts)
• No conscription or training
• No tanks or heavy artillery
• Navy limited to 15,000 men
• 6 small battleships, 6 cruisers, 12 destroyers, no U-boats
• No air force
Treaty of Versailles
Review
Extremely harsh conditions
• Significant territorial concessions
• Huge reparations
• German admission of responsibility for war
• Severe limitations on military
The Versailles Peace Conference
1919
( 31:46 - 37:31 )
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013
Seeds of World War II
Review
Versailles Treaty
Great Depression
15
Treaty of Versailles
Reparations Cycle
Germany Pays Reparations
To Britain & France
of 1929
GreatCrash
Depression
US Banks
Loan Money to Germany
Britain, France
Pay War Debts to US Banks
Seeds of World War II
Review
Versailles Treaty
Great Depression
Lessons of World War I
17
Lessons of World War I
France: Defense!
• Maginot Line: static defense
Maginot Line
André Maginot (1877-1932)
French Minister of War
(1922–1924, 1929–1930, 1931–1932)
"We could hardly dream of building a
kind of Great Wall of France, which
would in any case be far too costly.
Instead we have foreseen powerful
but flexible means of organizing
defense, based on the dual principle
of taking full advantage of the terrain
and establishing a continuous line of
fire everywhere."—December 10, 1929
Maginot Line
"Whatever conception one can make of a
future war, there is a necessity that remains
imperious, it's to protect the territory
from invasion. We know what disasters
can accumulate so that victory itself isn't
"Concrete is better … and is
able to compensate for the irreparable
cheaper
than
a wallorganization
of chests..."
damages. The
defensive
on
the borders that we want to realize doesn't
have any other goal than to block the way
of a still possible invasion. Concrete is
better in this way and is cheaper than a
wall of chests..."
André Maginot (1877-1932)
French Minister of War
(1922–1924, 1929–1930, 1931–1932)
To the French Parliament, 1929
Maginot Line
Rationale:
• To avoid a surprise attack and to give alarm (trip wire)
• To cover the mobilization of the French Army (2 and 3 weeks).
• To make better use of scarce manpower:
France 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000
• To protect Alsace and Lorraine and their industrial infrastructure
• To be used as a basis for a counter-offensive.
Maginot Line
Defense in depth … but not everywhere
Maginot Line
Localized Defense in Depth
Maginot Line
Above and Below
Maginot Line
Available on
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013
Lessons of World War I
France: Defense!
• Maginot Line: static defense
• Huge expenditure
• Repeated mistake of 1914:
• assumed Belgian neutrality would be honored
• Had good armored forces
French Armor
Char B Heavy Tank
47 mm cannon
75 mm cannon
French Armor
French Char B
German PzKpfw II *
Larger guns, heavier armor
Faster, better suspension, more range
Slow
Radios
Superior Tactics
* Panzerkampfwagen
Lessons of World War I
France: Defense!
• Maginot Line: static defense
• Huge expenditure
• Repeated mistake of 1914:
• Assumed Belgian neutrality would be honored
• Had good armored forces
• Not enough funds to develop properly
• Neglected innovations in tactics
Lessons of World War I
Germany: Offense!
Size of army limited by Versailles Treaty
• Not enough to defend against attack
• Strategy: “Best defense is good offense”
Capitalized on tactics under development in WW I
• Stormtrooper tactics + Armor = Blitzkreige
Lightning War!
Ten Military Revolutions
Infantry Revolution
Artillery Revolution
Revolution of Sail and Shot
Fortress Revolution
Interwar Revolutions
in Mechanization,
Gunpowder Revolution
Napoleonic
Revolution
Aviation,
and
Information
Land Warfare Revolution
Naval Revolution
 Interwar Revolutions in Mechanization,
Aviation, and Information
Nuclear Revolution
Andrew F. Krepinevich
“Cavalry to computer: the pattern of military revolutions”
The National Interest, Fall 1994
Interwar Revolutions
1920’s – ’30’s
Perfected concepts introduced in WW I
• Mechanized warfare
• Aerial warfare
• Carrier aviation
• Amphibious warfare
• Radio-based command & control
Proliferation of new organizations
• Armored units (battalions, divisions, corps)
• Strategic bombardment wings
• Carrier battle groups
Development of Mechanized War
(0 – 4:26)
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013
German Armor
Encyclopedia Britannica
Idealism
Reality of World War I
“Only
the dead
of war”
“The
Warhave
to seen
Endthe
Allend
War”
Reality
Hope of World War I
Renewed
efforthave
to limit
war
asend
an option
“Only
the dead
seen
the
of war”
New focus on the Laws of War
Arms Control and the Laws of War
Lesson Objectives
• Begin to understand the history of efforts to place
limits on warfare.
• Understand the meaning of the concept of "Laws
of War".
• Be able to describe the genesis of the current Law
of War, particularly in the 20th century.
• Begin to understand the history of arms limitation
as a tool for reducing the threat and impact of war.
World War I
“The War to End All War”
Law of War
The Ultimate Oxymoron?
Law of War
Roots:
• Religious texts and doctrine
• Codes and rules of armies
• Precedent
• Reciprocity
An attempt to bring order and restraint to chaos and brutality
Law of War
Modern Considerations:
• Hague Conventions
• Geneva Conventions
• UN Charter
Law of War
Two Distinct Strata
Jus ad bellum (“law to war”)
Jus in bello (“law in war”)
Schaun Groves
Just War Part 7: Jus Ad Bellum & Jus In Bello
http://readshlog.blogspot.com/2005/10/just-war-part-7-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in.html
Law of War
Two Distinct Strata
Jus ad bellum (“law to war”)
• Deals with the reasons and justification for
the use of force (for going “to” war)
Traditional considerations:
• Declared by a "legitimate" authority.
• Initiated for a good (just) reason
• Employed as a last resort
Schaun Groves
Just War Part 7: Jus Ad Bellum & Jus In Bello
http://readshlog.blogspot.com/2005/10/just-war-part-7-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in.html
Law of War
Two Distinct Strata
Jus ad bellum (“law to war”)
• Deals with the reasons and justification for the
use of force (for going “to” war)
Jus in bello (“law in war”)
• The real “Laws of War”
• Deals with the conduct of war once joined
Schaun Groves
Just War Part 7: Jus Ad Bellum & Jus In Bello
http://readshlog.blogspot.com/2005/10/just-war-part-7-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in.html
Law of War
Definition
The laws of war (Jus in bello) define the conduct
and responsibilities of belligerent nations, neutral
nations and individuals engaged in warfare, in
relation to each other and to protected persons,
usually meaning civilians.
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_War
Law of War
General Principles
• Force should be use to restrain & restrict adversaries, not kill
• Soldiers who surrendered should not be killed.
• Non-combatants (unarmed civilians) should not be targeted
• Indiscriminate (no specific target) force & weaponry prohibited
• Unnecessary suffering prohibited.
Schaun Groves
Just War Part 7: Jus Ad Bellum & Jus In Bello
http://readshlog.blogspot.com/2005/10/just-war-part-7-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in.html
Declaration of War
• One of the criteria for a just (legal) war
• Recognizes that a state of hostility exists
• Usually declared by the national sovereign
• Evokes a series of legal considerations
• Relations with other (neutral) nations
• Law of War
• International treaties
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Declaration of Paris (1856)
• Maritime warfare (outlawed privateering)
General Order No. 100 (Lieber’s Code – 1863)
• Code of conduct for soldiers on the battlefield
Geneva Convention (1864)
• Condition of wounded on the battlefield
Hague Convention (1899)
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Hague Convention (1899)
• Hague I: Settlement of Pacific Disputes
• Hague II: Laws & Customs of War on Land
• Hague III: Adopted to Land Warfare Principles of
Geneva Convention of 1864 (Treatment of Wounded)
• Hague IV: Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and
Explosives From Balloons
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Hague Convention (1907)
• Hague I: Pacific Settlement of Disputes
• Hague II: Limitation of Employment of Force for
Recovery of Contract Debts
• Hague III: Opening of Hostilities
• Hague IV: Laws and Customs of War on Land
• Hague V: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and
Persons in Case of War on Land
• Hague VI: Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the
Outbreak of Hostilities
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Hague Convention (1907)
(continued)
• Hague VII: Conversion of Merchant Ships into War Ships
• Hague VIII: Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines
• Hague IX: Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War
Hague X: Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of
the Geneva Convention
• Hague XI: Restrictions With Regard to the Exercise of the
Right of Capture in Naval War
• Hague XII: International Prize Court
• Hague XIII: Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval
War
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Kellogg – Briand Pact (1928)
• Renounced war as an instrument of national policy
• Negotiated between
• Fran B. Kellogg – US Secretary of State
• Aristide Briand – French Foreign Minister
• Ultimately 62 nations signed the agreement
• Failed in goal of preventing war
• First Violation: Japan in Manchuria (1931)
• Served as basis for concept of crime against peace
• Nuremburg Trails (1945-1949)
• Still in force
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Geneva Convention (1928)
• Prohibit Use of Gas and Biological Methods of War
Geneva Convention (1929)
• Treatment of Prisoners of War
Geneva Convention (1949)
• I: Care of Sick and Wounded in the Field
• II: Care of Sick, Wounded and Shipwreck at Sea
• III: Treatment of Prisoners of War
• IV: Protection of Civilians in War
Treaties & Protocols
Precedents for the Law of War
Geneva Convention (1975)
• Prohibition of the Development, Production and
Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin
Weapons and on Their Destruction
Arms Limitation
Can be considered almost a separate
branch of the Law of War
Attempts to limit or ban entirely certain weapons
First Arms Limitation?
Crossbow
By 11th & 12th centuries, crossbows could penetrate armor of knights.
Threaten to upset the balance of power:
• Semi-skilled peasants could anonymously kill gentlemen
First Arms Limitation?
Crossbow
Banned by Pope Innocent II for use in killing Christians.
• Second Lateran Council 1139
First Arms Limitation
Second Lateran Council
Canon 29
“We prohibit under anathema that
murderous art of crossbowmen and
archers, which is hateful to God, to
be employed against Christians and
Catholics from now on.”
Pope Innocent II
EWTN: The Global Catholic Network
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN2.HTM
Arms Limitation
Interest in arms limitation increased as
war has become come mechanized and
weapons more deadly and expensive
Arms Limitation
Early Attempt
St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868
“ … an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to
examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized
nations, … the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as
follows:
Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as
possible the calamities of war:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to
weaken the military forces of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the
sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity; “
Arms Limitation
Early Attempt
St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868
“ … an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to
examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized
nations, … the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as
follows:
Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much
as possible the calamities of war:
That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is
to weaken the military forces of the enemy;
That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;
That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate
the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;
That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity; “
Arms Limitation
Early Attempt
St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868
“The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war
among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of
any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either
explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances. “
Intent: Ban the use of fragmentation, explosive, or incendiary small
arms ammunition. (Wikipedia)
Signatories: Austria-Hungary, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the United
Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, the North German
Confederation (i.e., Greater Prussia), Russia, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland,
Turkey (i.e.,the Ottoman Empire), and Württemberg.
Only binding during war between signatories.
U.S. not a signatory.
Arms Limitation
Modern Controversy
Just because you are not a signatory, should you
still abide by a humanitarian arms limitation treaty?
Arms Limitation
Modern Controversy
Weapon: .50 cal McMillan Tactical Sniper Rifle
http://www.eme421.com/50calmac.html
Bullet: Raufoss Round
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raufoss_Mk_211
Arms Limitation
Modern Controversy
Video: Canadian Snipers
Afghanistan
Video
Arms Limitation
Washington Naval Treaty (1922)
• Response to post WW I naval building programs
• Limited tonnage, armament on capital ships
and aircraft carriers
• Five major naval powers
• US, Britain, Japan, France, Italy
Arms Limitation
Washington Naval Treaty (1922)
Limits on capital ships
• US: 525,000 tons
• Britain: 525,000 tons
• Japan: 315,000 tons
Ratio 5 : 5 : 3 : 1.7 :1.7
• France: 175,000 tons
• Italy: 175,000 tons
No capital ship could exceed 35,000 tons
Armament Limitation: 16-inch guns maximum
Arms Limitation
Washington Naval Treaty (1922)
Limits on aircraft carriers
• US: 135,000 tons
• Britain: 135,000 tons
• Japan: 81,000 tons
• France: 60,000 tons
• Italy: 60,000 tons
Each nation could have two carriers up to 33,000 tons;
remaining carriers limited to 27,000 tons each.
Armament Limitations: 8-inch guns (max of 8 per ship)
Arms Limitation
Washington Naval Treaty (1922)
Other Limits:
• All other ships limited to
• 10,000 tons each (no limit on total tonnage)
• 8-inch guns or less
Arms Limitation
Washington Naval Treaty (1922)
Impact of Treaty:
• Navies modified existing capital ships
• Unusual designs evolved (treaty battleships, treaty
cruisers) to remain within tonnage restrictions
• US built no battleships 1918-1937
• US concentrated on cruisers, aircraft carriers
Treaty Battleships
HMS Nelson
Displacement: 33,950 tons
Main Armament: nine 16-inch guns
Post-Treaty:
USS North Carolina
Displacement: 35,000 tons
Main Armament: nine 16-inch guns
Treaty Cruisers
USS Northampton CA-26
Displacement: 9,000 tons
Main Armament: nine 8-inch guns
Post-Treaty:
USS Baltimore CA-68
WW II cruiser: more secondary armament
Displacement: 15,500 tons
Battle Cruisers
USS Lexington CC-1
Displacement: 43,500 tons
Main Armament: eight 16-inch guns
Aircraft Carriers
USS Lexington CV-2
Displacement: 33,000 tons
Note: 8 in. guns
USN photo
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/cv2.htm
1929
Aircraft Carriers
USS Lexington CV-2
Note: 5 in. guns
USN photo
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-l/cv2.htm
Oct 1941
Aircraft Carriers
USS Lexington CV-2
Displacement: 35,000 tons (wartime)
USS Essex CV-9
Displacement: 27,100 tons
Development of Carrier Aviation
( 5:55 - 8:15 )
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013
Significance of Treaties
Little impact on World War II : it still happened
One prohibition did stick:
• No use of poison gas
Next:
Lesson 12
WW II – Paths to Global War
Thesis
The grand scope of World War II was
determined by a battle you never heard of
fought before the war in Europe began.
Lesson Objectives
• Be able to recount the chains of events that led to the
opening of hostilities in Europe and Asia in the 1930's.
• Understand the genesis and significant features of the
strategies of each major combatant:
• Germany and Japan
• Britain, France, Soviet Union, U.S.
• Be able to recount and discuss the major events in
World War II through the end of 1941.
• Understand the role of the advances in military
technology since the end of The Great War on the events
of the first two years of World War II.
End
Other Treaties
Saint-Germain-en-Laye was signed on 10 September 1919 by the victorious Allies of World
War I on the one hand and by the Republic of German-Austria on the other. Like the Treaty
of Trianon with Hungary and the Treaty of Versailles with Germany, it contained the
Covenant of the League of Nations and as a result was not ratified by the United States but
was followed by the US–Austrian Peace Treaty of 1921.
Neuilly-sur-Seine required Bulgaria to cede various territories, after Bulgaria had been one
of the Central Powers defeated in World War I. The treaty was signed on 27 November
1919 at Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.[
Trianon was the peace agreement signed in 1920, at the end of World War I, between the
Allies of World War I and Kingdom of Hungary (one of the successor states to AustriaHungary).[ Signed 4 June 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles
Sèvres 10 August 1920 in ) was the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire and Allies at
the end of World War I. Sèvres, France
Other Treaties
The Knox–Porter Resolution (42 Stat. 105) was a joint resolution of the United
States Congress signed by President Warren G. Harding on July 2, 1921,
officially ending United States involvement in World War I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hdroUk7C_4
Video Slide
"The Circle of Modern War" and logo
© Thomas D. Pilsch 2007-2013