Impact of the treaty and wider settlement

Model answer

One problem was the large German minority. Germans made up about 23% of the population - more than the Slovaks - and most lived in the Sudetenland. They had wanted to join Austria or Germany in 1918-19 and resented being ruled by Czechs, so they were not loyal to the new state, a grievance that Hitler later exploited in 1938.

Model answer

Source A opposes the Treaty of Trianon because it shows how much land Hungary lost. The small area left to Hungary is shown in the national colours, while the much larger areas taken away are black, as if in mourning, with chains hanging from them as though their people were prisoners. The slogan 'No, no, never!' shows that Hungarians refused to accept the losses. The Treaty of Trianon in 1920 took about two-thirds of Hungary's territory: Transylvania went to Romania, Slovakia to Czechoslovakia and lands in the south to Yugoslavia, leaving over 3 million Hungarians living in other states.

The provenance also shows its opposition. It was produced in Hungary in 1920, just after the Treaty was signed, to unite the nation in rejecting it. Hungarians felt that self-determination had been ignored for them, and winning back the lost lands became the main aim of Hungary's government in the years that followed.

Model answer

Source B is useful because it shows the most influential British criticism of the Treaty. Keynes argued that Clemenceau had aimed at a 'Carthaginian peace' designed to crush Germany, and that the Treaty, especially its reparations, would ruin Europe's economy. The provenance makes it valuable: Keynes was an economist and a senior Treasury official at the conference, so he had expert, inside knowledge. His book became a bestseller, and it helped to change British opinion, so that during the 1920s many people came to believe Germany had been treated unfairly, which later encouraged support for appeasement. However, Keynes had resigned in protest, so he was strongly committed to one side, and in 1919 his view was that of a minority, shared mainly by people on the left such as the Labour Party and the Daily Herald.

Source C is useful because it shows the majority reaction in 1919. The MP says the Treaty gives voters what they asked for in the December 1918 election: German guilt, security and reparations. This matches the election campaign, when politicians promised to 'make Germany pay', and the Treaty's terms: Article 231, the end of the German navy at Scapa Flow and reparations, of which Britain was later to receive 22%. Parliament approved the Treaty by a large majority, and Lloyd George was welcomed home by cheering crowds, so the speech is probably typical of British opinion at the time. However, it is a political speech designed to persuade, and its emotional appeal to widows shows it is one-sided. His mention of 'clever gentlemen' who call the Treaty too harsh is itself useful evidence that criticism was already being heard.

Overall, Source C is more useful for showing how most British people reacted in 1919, while Source B is more useful for understanding the criticism that grew in importance over time. Together they show that British reactions were divided, and that the balance between them shifted during the 1920s.

Model answer

The minorities in the new states were certainly a serious weakness of the peace settlement. The peoples of central and eastern Europe were so mixed that no borders could match nationalities exactly. Czechoslovakia contained about 3 million Germans, around 23% of its population, mainly in the Sudetenland, as well as Hungarians and Ruthenians, and many Slovaks resented rule from Prague. About a third of Poland's people were not Polish, including Ukrainians, Jews, Belarusians and Germans. Yugoslavia was divided by tensions between Serbs and Croats. Over 3 million Hungarians were left in Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. These minorities weakened the new states from within and gave their neighbours grievances: Hungary refused to accept Trianon, and Germany resented the Germans placed under Polish and Czech rule. The minority treaties supervised by the League gave little real protection. Above all, in 1938 Hitler used the Sudeten Germans as his excuse to dismember Czechoslovakia.

However, there were other weaknesses that were arguably more important. The most dangerous was German resentment of the Treaty of Versailles. Germans saw it as a Diktat, rejected the war guilt clause, and resented reparations, the loss of territory and the limits on their armed forces. Because Germany remained united, with the largest population in central Europe and most of its industry, this resentment was a threat to the whole settlement. It weakened the Weimar Republic and was exploited by Hitler.

A second major weakness was that the settlement lacked the support of two great powers. The US Senate rejected the Treaty and the USA never joined the League, while Soviet Russia was excluded from the settlement. This left enforcement to Britain and France, who disagreed: France wanted strict enforcement and occupied the Ruhr in 1923, while Britain increasingly thought the Treaty too harsh. Dissatisfied victors, such as Italy with its 'mutilated victory', and the success of Turkey in overturning the Treaty of Sèvres by force, showed that the settlement could be challenged.

These weaknesses were linked. The minorities problem was dangerous mainly because powerful, resentful states such as Germany could exploit it, and because Britain and France were unwilling to enforce the settlement.

Overall, I disagree that minorities were the main weakness, although they were a serious one that no settlement could have avoided. The main weakness was that the settlement left Germany both resentful and potentially powerful, while the absence of the USA and the divisions between Britain and France meant there was no one prepared to defend it. Minorities only became a fatal problem when a strong and determined Germany decided to exploit them.