POLS2409 - Annotated Bibliography (major essay) PDF

Preview

Summary

Bibliography for major essay regarding failure of treaty of versailles leading into WW2. Choose good scholarly resources and describe and summarise....

Description

Akash Kanesan – 45230657

POLS2409 Major Essay (Topic 2) Annotated Bibliography on “The Versailles peace settlement was not fundamentally flawed. Rather, it was the Western powers’ failure to enforce its provisions against Germany that paved the way for renewed German aggression in the 1930s.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Ewers, J. (2002). Versailles Revised. U.S. News & World Report, 133(21), 44. This source explores revisiting the Treaty of Versailles today, revolving the surrounding conflict and judgement that surrounds it as it has been a catalyst to the second world war for many. The author aims to try to re-analyse the Treaty and the stigma it had, that it crippled the German economy, started another world war, etc. He brings in MacMillans book, ‘Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World’, in which she strongly argues that the Treaty was unnecessarily criticised, and that the reparations the Germans were subjected to were on fair grounds. Upon further reading, this article did not appear to what I expected it to be, as it was titled “revisiting the treaty”, I assumed it would have some relation to how Germany has recovered since those reparations/real world implications the treaty created in contemporary society. Instead, it argues against my point, which is that the although the Treaty is not all to blame for the second war and the rise of Germany, it does have some contribution to it all. Limitations for this, is clearly that it goes against my point. Although it is a reputable source, published by U.S. News and World Report, it does not reflect the essay I want to write.

Farmer, B. 2018, The Treaty of Versailles and the Rise of Nazism, The New American, Appleton. In this article, the author (Farmer), goes into deep detail as to how the Treaty had completely failed, leading to the rapid rise of fascism and Adolf Hitler. It begins by highlighting the Treaty’s faults in pinning the blame completely on Germany, therefore condemning them through massive military and economic restraints. He then goes on to say, that this created a psychological effect on the German people, Hitler to be specific, that made them want revenge. Resulting in Hitlers rise to power and establishing the Nazi Party. He heavily believes in the fact that the Treaty directly led to Hitler’s path to power, this can lead to limitations as it does not take a larger viewpoint of things. However, I chose this paper because it highlights and portrays the heavy hit Germany had to endure post WW1. I can draw from examples in this article to demonstrate how the Allied powers were unable to cooperate between themselves to set a way to fairly distribute the damage of the war. As to the reputability of the article, it seems to be a legitimate source.

Akash Kanesan – 45230657 “Mazower, Mark. 1999. ‘Two Cheers for Versailles’. History Today 49 (7): 8–15.”

In this article, Mazower criticizes the Treaty of Versailles. He essentially highlights the Treaty’s “inefficiency” and “ineffectiveness”, as well as its contribution to the further social, economic and political problems that we currently experience today. Furthermore, he expresses how several big leaders expressed their distaste towards the Treaty, e.g., Hitler, Churchill. Mazower also noted its contribution towards the second world war, and how the Treaty was followed through, with its heavy condemnation of Germany, and because of this, the rise of Fascism and the Nazi Party escalated as Germany tried to reclaim the power it was stripped off. The author points out that Nazi ideologies creates an alternate stance than that of which the Treaty attempts to portray, which is that the targeted violence the Jews experienced during the war correlates directly to how the Treaty was structured. This is a useful source as it gives a perspective of the negative side of the Treaty, which I will be writing about. As I argue that I partially agree with the essay topics statement to an extent, this article provides insight on one of the many consequences of the Treaty (mass killings of Jews), and how certain European leaders, prior to establishing the Treaty expressed distaste of it, however still proceeding with it. Limitations for this article remain minimal, it is short and heavily critical of the Treaty.

Stevenson, D. 1986, Reading History: The Treaty of Versailles, History Today Ltd, London. Similarly, to the third article, this is sort of a in depth review of the Treaty, what the policy makers of the allied powers had decided to do and how the Treaty was interpreted by several nations. The author goes into detail on to the different perspectives each Allied power had and the strategies behind what they believed restoring economic and political power was also analysed. E.g., Woodrow Wilson believed that his fourteen-point plan should have been heavily implemented into the Treaty of Versailles as it pushed for actual peacemaking between nations, not just seeking to restore balance. This is a good piece for the essay as it brings in another perspective of the way in which the allied powers were not able to cooperate. This would be good to complement with the paper above as I could possibly relate the allied powers inability to firstly, prevent Germany from rising up to power and also to putting all the blame on them initially.

Vasquez, John A. 2014. ‘The First World War and International Relations Theory: A Review of Books on the 100th Anniversary’. International Studies Review 16 (4): 623–44. In this essay, Vasquez provides us with a list of books which contribute to the subject of the first world war and the origins as well as methods to avoiding it in the first place. He begins with analysing transnational and bureaucratic politics and provides further written pieces that have provided more information for those processes. Furthermore, he uses these article/essay examples to demonstrate how Germany was not truly to blame for the war, through explaining the Fischer thesis. He additionally adds that he believes two epicentres exist in the war – Austria-Hungary/Serbia and Germany/Russia, both of which complemented to the escalation of the war. This is a good piece because it provides me with multiple readings to futher explore in my research for this topic. Moreover, it provides a thorough review of the events of the war, as well as the many perspectives there are of its origins and conclusion. As

Akash Kanesan – 45230657 this article provides an in-depth review of the war, it will be useful to utilise this as it backs up my point regarding the German response to the war.

Word Count - 1042...