Dawes plan The Dawes plan was an economic agreement proposed by the USA to help Germany pay their reparations after their hyperinflation crisis. The USA loaned 800 million marks to Germany and let them pay 1 billion Marks per year for the first 5 years and 2.5 billion per year after that. This was beneficial to Germany as it let them recover from their economic crisis and it was beneficial for the USA because when Germany paid their reparations to France and Britain, the two countries would use the money to pay back the USA as the USA had loaned them money and weapons during the First World War. The Dawes Plan also allowed the Ruhr to be given back to Germany as the French had taken over it and Germany had responded by passive resistance. It back to Germany and due to the European countries having to pay back the USA, they had some control over them. The USA believed the Dawes Plan would be beneficial to them as before the war, Germany was a strong, industrial power and the USA believed once the country was economically stable, they would pay the USA with interest The USA also wanted to avoid another war and they believed Germany’s harsh treatment would lead to one and this thought was also shared by British economist John Maynard Keynes who wrote a book called The Economic Consequences of the Peace on it. [10/10] International Relations Playing the leading role in negotiating the various peace treaties, President Wilson believed himself to be the mediator amongst the European nations and believed their rivalry to be a large reason behind the First World War. This led to him believing that the USA had an obligation to intervene and stop similar scenarios from happening in the future as it affected everyone, the USA included (which was seen in 1917 when President Wilson delivered an address to a joint session of Congress and called for a declaration of war against Germany as German submarine warfare had led to the sinking of several ships). Through this obligation and being the mediator, Wilson — who was known to be an idealist — had been too idealistic as he presumed that Britain, France, and the USA would support America’s involvement ( while the majority of the Democratic Party agreed with President Wilson’s argument in favour of internationalism, since the Republican Party held a majority in the Senate, the USA decided in favour of isolationism ) His presumption that everyone would adhere to his Fourteen Points ( which were too idealistic as well ) was naïve and his understanding of self-governing — which he advocated for — was too simplistic for most situations as it was mostly based off of language. This led to the idea of self-governing being confusing which was seen with Fiume. Fiume had a large majority of Italians however the country had many Slovenes and Croats which made it hard to create borders and decide if Fiume belonged to Yugoslavia or Italy ( it was promised to both through the Triple Entente and the secret Treaty of London ). This showed that the self-governing that Wilson was advocating for didn’t work in all situations. And regarding his statement on the Fiume situation, President Wilson showed his optimism and naivety as he said that America and Italy were friends — having ties that cannot be broken — and therefore trusts that Italy will “ask her to make peace”. This naivety showed that President Wilson did not understand the European side of the situation ( he had also done this with France’s fear against Germany when they were deciding her future with the Treaty of Versailles). While Wilson was not idealistic and naïve enough to believe his Fourteen Points could be completed and put to work overnight – he had little to no understanding of European politics as his views vastly differed from Britain and France’s and he made no effort to understand why they thought differently. He was too optimistic in believing his ideas would be shared by everyone and implemented. [16 or 17/20] Why did the war against Spain in 1898 lead to the USA’s adoption of a less isolationist foreign policy? The USA’s industrial and economic growth in the late nineteenth century was dependent on the domestic market. An economic downturn in 1893 alerted businessmen to the dangers of overreliance on the domestic market. They wanted to increase exports; this would require the development of a strong navy and the acquisition of overseas bases to protect US interests. Some politicians supported this expansionist idea and the war allowed them to act upon this expansionist ideal. Victory against Spain left the USA in control of former Spanish possessions, including Cuba, the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. When the Filipinos rebelled, the USA was forced to fight a lengthy and costly war to maintain control over the Philippines. These events effectively settled the debate between expansionists and isolationists. Some politicians still argued in favour of isolationism, but public opinion clearly favoured the new, imperialistic approach. This was confirmed when William Jennings Bryan, a staunch isolationist, was defeated by William McKinley in the 1900 presidential election. Following McKinley’s assassination, Theodore Roosevelt continued the USA’s new imperialistic policies. International Relations – May/June 2018 paper 23 a.) The attempt to achieve Anschluss in 1934 was unsuccessful because Mussolini, who was fearful for Italy and its security, sent Italian regiments to the Austrian border. Hitler – who had the Anschluss (which went against the Treaty of Versailles) as one of his foreign policy aims – had told Austrian Nazis to revolt (wherein Chancellor Dollfuss was murdered) and was ready to enter Austria until Italy interfered. He knew that the German military were not strong enough to defeat the Italians and therefore was forced to back down. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919, had massively weakened the German military and while Hitler was in the process of rearming, he did not had enough time by then to be able to take on the Italian regiments. Italy’s involvement in stopping the Anschluss had put Mussolini in Britain and France’s good books, strengthening their relations which helped because Italy couldn’t risk being isolated however, later, the Anschluss was a success in 1938 when Italy had become Germany’s ally. [10/10] b.) In the 1920s, Italy was at risk of being isolated which put it in a vulnerable position. In August 1923, four Italians were killed while engaged in a League of Nations attempt to resolve a border dispute between Greece and Albania. Believing that Greece was responsible for the deaths, Mussolini ordered Italian troops to bombard, and subsequently occupy, the Greek island of Corfu. The League of Nations, which instructed Italian troops to withdraw from Corfu. Mussolini refused to accept the League’s authority, and the Italian occupation continued until Greece paid a substantial amount of compensation. While Britain and France saw Mussolini as a useful ally against the threat of communism, his refusal to abide by the decisions made at the Paris Peace Conference was a cause of concern throughout Europe and It was also not in a position economically or militarily to achieve its aims so instead, Mussolini worked on strengthening his international relationships – especially with Britain and France – and he did this through things such as Locarno. At the meetings, Mussolini had begun to play an important role in securing agreements as he used a more cautious and diplomatic approach. This along with stopping the Anschluss in 1934 by sending troops to the Austrian border and forcing Hitler to back down, but Italy in Britain and France’s good books once again. Mussolini had to deal with this situation while, at the same time, satisfying the intense nationalism which his own rhetoric had inflamed. Italian actions in Fiume and Corfu (1923) had provided him with good propaganda, but he was aware that Italian security depended on maintaining good relations with Britain and France. Accordingly, he followed a successful diplomatic foreign policy prior to 1934. He gained the respect of other European diplomats by his positive contribution at the Locarno meetings and by his swift action in preventing Hitler’s attempt at Anschluss in 1934.
