History (Q2): Which has a bigger effect on history: the plans of the powerful or their mistakes? 2000 words.
While plans can have significant impacts, it is often the mistakes of the powerful that yield unforeseen and far-reaching consequences, causing them to have a greater effect on History. History is rife with examples of leaders who made critical errors that altered the course of events. Mistakes expose vulnerabilities, prompt societal introspection, and challenge established power structures, ultimately reshaping the trajectory of history.
The road to WWII was an amalgamation of decisions made by the global powers of the time, now classified as mistakes: the unintended consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, the failures of The League Of Nations, the overlooking because of appeasement, the neglect towards the USSR and the trust bestowed upon Hitler. The end of WW1 in 1918 saw four empires collapse, countries abolish and form, boundaries redrawn, international organizations establish, and many ideologies take hold in people’s minds[1]. Using these two decades(1919 – 1939) that led to WWII as a case study, I will be analysing how mistakes have a greater effect on History.
Why mistakes have a greater effect on History
The Treaty Of Versailles, 1919
It is important to note that the consideration of the Treaty as a mistake is subject to hindsight, the ability to judge its consequences in the present. Global powers in the past, who took calculated risks, were completely blindsided as to whether their actions would be a plan or a mistake.
The Treaty was negotiated in Paris by representatives of the victorious Allied nations [2]. It forced Germany to give up territory and its overseas colonies to countries like Belgium, Czechoslovakia and France [2]. This added to their physical hardships of starvation and lack of electricity. Additionally, it had to reduce both its armed forces and military presence [2]. This was a dent in the pride of most Germans who considered their military their biggest strength; the forces were also not enough to protect Germany. Most importantly, the ‘War Guilt Clause’ of the Treaty placed all blame for inciting the war on Germany and forced it to pay
several billion in reparations to the Allied nations [2]. For the Germans, not only did this ignite a period of economic downfall, but was also simply unacceptable to accept all blame. British economist John Maynard Keynes believed that the high reparations presented severe risks to the entire European economy [2]. In his memoir, POTUS Herbert Hoover blamed reparations for causing the Great Depression.
“You could argue that it made Europe a lesss table place,” says Michael Neiberg, professor of history at U.S. Army War College and author of The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History (2017) [3]. Consequentially, the Treaty became a symbol of German hatred towards the West, and extremist parties like Hitler’s Nazis exploited this to win over public support and establish their regime. By blaming the Treaty for their hardships, the Nazis drove a system of social and economic manipulation and derived means to use such violence globally[4].
The Policy Of Isolation, 1920
The Roaring Twenties signified an American metamorphosis to isolationism, removing themselves from any international alliances and following their own policies in self-interest. This was largely driven by the public feelings of the time, those of avoiding war and casualties, and those of hatred for the imperialist regime and European treaties.
On January 8, 1918, when POTUS Woodrow Wilson, to inspire the Allies’ will to a swift victory, presented his14-point-programme, he proposed in his last point, “a general association of nations(that) must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike[5].” The resultant ‘League of Nations’ held under its purview global membership, disarmament, conflict-resolution, peace management, and all-around redevelopment. However, his American crusade for it had been unsuccessful. During the Presidential Elections of 1920, the Republican candidate Warren Harding campaigned for a ‘return to normalcy,’ calling for “sustainment in triumphant nationality[6].” He won by a landslide victory, leaving the American chair a the League empty [7][8].
The absence of America in the League caused impacts greater than the sum of it. Without the USA, UK and France were the most influential countries in the League. However, debilitated by WWI, neither was quite the world power they had once been. More importantly, neither retained the resources, like sanctions, to replenish the gap left by the USA, adding to the structural weaknesses of the League [9]. Furthermore, they were propelled by priorities separate from the League’s mission. British politicians deemed the importance of rebuilding British trade and overseeing the Imperial empire. France’s primary apprehension was that without an army of its own, the League was too vulnerable to protect France from a German attack. This endangered them to circumvent the League if it meant bolstering their position, further driving French and British disagreements over impertinent border issues such as Vilna and Corfu. The ripple effects of these variances were more pronounced when the League suffered through the Manchurian Crisis, the Abyssinian Crisis, and the failure of the disarmament conference in the 1930s [10]. These mistakes had dire consequences for world peace, signalling to the world that the League was losing power, and the rule-breakers were triumphing.
The Policy Of Appeasement, 1930
Additionally, the American dearth from the League was paramount in the Policy of Appeasement. Hitler was appointed as the German Chancellor in January 1933. Harnessing his powers, he began the overturning of the Treaty Of Versailles. To evade possibilities of war, the Allies appeased him in continuance—a catastrophic choice in retrospect [12]. In 1933, it authorized Hitler to rearm [10][13]. In 1935, overlooking French disapproval, Britain allowed Hitler to match their navy by 35%. In 1936, appeasement allowed the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, even without an adequately trained German army lacking integral air support [10][13]. Many in Britain were already sympathetic towards Germany, and on the cusp of elections, assuming responsibility for another German war was unlikely in France. This fostered Hitler to gamble more thereafter. Similarly, Britain and France did not intercede during the German Anschluss with Austria [10][13].
However, the effects were most blatant when Hitler threatened war over the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia, where numerous displaced Germans resided, in 1938 [11]. Without consulting Czechoslovakia or USSR, Britain, France and Italy voted to give Sudetenland to Hitler under the Munich Agreement on 29th September [11]. However, the succeeding German takeover of Czechoslovakia couldn’t be justified, because it was a clear invasion. Such continued appeasement incited Hitler’s carefree attitude at the time, thereupon ushering him to invade Poland despite continued Allied warnings, aided by the
Nazi-Soviet Pact [12].
In August 1938, Germany and USSR signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact, forsaking an armed attack on one another [14]. Privately, they acquiesced to dividing Poland between them [14]. Operating after his successes in Czechoslovakia, the Pact empowered Hitler to confound resistance from the eastern USSR and annexe [14]. However, Britain and France were explicit about declaring another World War if Germany acted in a way of compromising Poland. In his address to the House of Commons on 1st September 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said, “The time has come when action rather than speech is required [15].” The signing of the Pact subsequently led to a German invasion of Poland and the declaration of WWII [13]. A war, which documented the historical occurrence of the use of nuclear weaponry, and completely recast the path of history.
Thus, the appeasement from Britain and France resulted in war in 1939 [13].
How do we separate plans and mistakes?
Often it is hard to distinguish between plans and mistakes.
First, plans and mistakes have a tendency to intersect with one another. The Nazi-Soviet pact, although conferred as a plan, had disastrous consequences leading to WWII. By this perception, it can be viewed as a mistake. Similarly, the policies of Isolation and Appeasement commenced as logical plans devised by the world powers, that in their view, would bring peace. Although they had negative consequences, making them a mistake, they also identify as plans of the powerful.
Second, it is noteworthy to regard that even the greatest of plans lead to mistakes, and even the strongest of mistakes lead to a plan. The Allies originally made the Treaty of Versailles a plan to condemn Germany’s contribution to WWI. However, the Treaty caused economic hardships in Germany, along with the loss of land, population, and important raw materials. It became an emblem of German hatred and was used by The Nazis to rise to power. Thus, the Treaty, which started out as a plan, ultimately led to mistakes. Similarly, when Hitler tried to invade Austria in 1934, he was stopped by Mussolini; the flapping of the wing. This mistake led him to make Italy a German ally. Ultimately, they, along with Japan, created the Axis Alliance, a united plan to defeat the Western and the Communist front; the resultant typhoon. Thus, Hitler’s failure, which started out as a mistake, led to the creation of a plan.
Third, the categorization largely depends on the perspective of the Historian. As E.H. Carr expresses in his renowned novella ‘What is History?’, History never has a single truth. Everyone who views History is entitled to their own truth, for a historian growing up in Nazi Germany will not have the same truth as a Historian growing up in isolationist America. This empowers Historians with their own view of whether a plan was more impactful, or a mistake.
Psychology in History
The extent to which mistakes or plans impact history, depends on one whether humans learn from their failures or successes. Scientists have long known that mistakes are conducive to learning [16]. Activity in the brain increases immediately after sensing a mistake, forcing conscious consideration before we carry out the same action again [16].
However, through a historical perspective, which events can be considered successes, and which can be considered failures? The League as a plan, had both successes and failures. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was successful for the USSR in a way that it allowed them time to prepare for a German invasion, effectively saving millions of Soviet lives during the war. The Pact was a failure for Britain in the way that it encouraged another German invasion. The Isolationist Policy was a success for America in a way that allowed them to economically grow, but it was a failure for Britain and France in a way that weakened their authority and guidance. The Policy of Appeasement was a success for the Germans in a way that it allowed
them to follow through with Lebensraum and the Anti-Comintern mission, but ended up being a failure for Britain which ultimately had to go to war.
Conclusion
Both the plans of the powerful and their mistakes can have a significant effect on history, and often it can be difficult to determine which has a greater impact. This is because of limitations such as distinguishing between plans and mistakes and determining the impact through categorisation as successes or failures.
Historically, mistakes tend to be more influential. A wrong decision by a leader or a group of decision-makers can lead to military defeats, economic downturns, or social unrest. In some cases, even lead to the downfall of a powerful individual or group, as seen before in many political and business scandals. These characteristics were prevalent during the build-up to WWII, where mistakes led to
populations losing the right to self-determination or democracy, mass extremism, death, destruction and another world war.
Ultimately, plans may be successful or unsuccessful, mistakes may have unforeseen consequences or lead to unexpected opportunities. The impact of history is often shaped by a complex interplay of factors that are difficult to disentangle. Exploring this also prompts, how might a deeper understanding of this interplay inform our perspectives on the present and future. Because plans and problems of the past have inevitably affected the present and the trendsthey present further influence the future.
References
- “The Origins Of The Second World War Reconsidered : The A.J.P. Taylor Debate After Twenty-Five Years: Martel, Gordon : Free Download, Borrow, And Streaming : Internet Archive”. 2023. Internet Archive.
https://archive.org/details/originsofsecondw00gord/page/271/mode/2up - “How The Treaty Of Versailles And German Guilt Led To World War II | HISTORY”. 2023. HISTORY.
https://www.history.com/news/treaty-of-versailles-world-war-ii-german-guilt-effects. - “The Treaty Of Versailles”. 2023. Global.Oup.Com.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-treaty-of-versailles-9780190659189?cc=us&lang=en&2023 - Digitalcommons.Wou.Edu.
https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=honors_theses - “President Woodrow Wilson’s14 Points(1918)”. 2021. National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points - “Warren G. Harding And The “Return To Normalcy” (1920) | The American Yawp Reader”. 2023.
Americanyawp.Com.
https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/22-the-new-era/warren-g-harding-and-the-return-to-normalcy-1920/ - “Presidential Election Of 1920 | From War To Normalcy: An Introduction To The Nation’s Forum
Collection | Articles And Essays | American Leaders Speak: Recordings From World War I | Digital Collections | Library Of Congress “. 2023. The Library Of Congress.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/world-war-i-and-1920-election-recordings/articles-and-essays/from-war-to-normalcy/presidential-election-of-1920/ - “Why Didn’t the US Join the League of Nations?”. 2023. The Collector.
https://www.thecollector.com/why-didnt-the-us-join-the-league-of-nations/ - “The Impact Of The First World War And ItsImplications For Europe Today | Heinrich Böll Stiftung | Brussels Office – European Union”. 2023. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung.
https://eu.boell.org/en/2014/06/02/impact-first-world-war-and-its-implications-europe-today - “How Britain Hoped To Avoid War With Germany In The 1930S”. 2023. Imperial War Museums.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-hoped-to-avoid-war-with-germany-in-the-1930s. - “Nazi Germany – Sudetenland – History”. 2014. History.
https://www.historyonthenet.com/nazi-germany-sudetenland. - “Appeasement: Did Chamberlain’s Appeasement Policy Cause WW2? | Historyextra”. 2023.
Historyextra.Com. https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/did-appeasement-cause-second-world-war-policy-how-why/ - “The absence of the United States wasthe most important reason for the failure of the League of
Nationsin the 1930s”. How far do you agree with thisstatement?”.
https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/53351/GCSE/History/The-absence-of-the-United-States-was-the-most-important-reason-for-the-failure-of-the-League-of-Nations-in-the-1930s-How-far-do-you-agree-with-this-statement/. 2023. The Tutor. - “GERMAN-SOVIET PACT”. Holocaust Encyclopedia.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/german-soviet-pact - “The Avalon Project : Address By Neville Chamberlain – September 1, 1939”. 2023. Avalon.Law.Yale.Edu. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gb1.asp
- “Study Reveals Why We Learn From Mistakes”. 2007. Livescience.Com.
https://www.livescience.com/7312-study-reveals-learn-mistakes.html.
Leave a Reply