How did the Versailles Peace Conference and the Treaty of Versailles affect non-European and Western Countries?

by rileydelete

Hi there! I'm a student studying to get a history degree, and I've always been fascinated by the post-Great War peace process more than the war itself. What happened in Paris of 1919 changed the world and its consequences are still being felt world-wide.

Now, what happened in Europe after the peace process is, for the most part, pretty well known. Wilson got his League of Nations, but it was more of a bargaining chip rather than something European nations really wanted. Britain and France were out for blood after Europe had been ravaged, Germany was given most of the guilt, hence, the "War-Guilt Clause" Article 231, and Russia wasn't invited.

I'm curious to hear about what happened to other countries around the world. Now I believe that, for example, Chiang Kai-Shek visited the conference, going so far as to buy a suit for it, but that's just a bit of trivia. I'm curious to hear about how the treaty and the lead-up to it affected areas like China, Arabia, Latin America, Japan and Africa.

Now there's no "right" answer here, I'd just love to get some information from fellow historians.

Thanks for your time! -Riley

CptBuck

Arabia

A lot of the final status issues in the Middle East actually ended up being put off until after Paris. In very broad strokes several frameworks for the post-war order in the Middle East had been decided during the war, but negotiators at Paris basically found them to be contradictory if not entirely inadequate.

The best-known of these agreements are Sykes-Picot (dividing the Arab Middle East between France and the UK), the Balfour Declaration (calling for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine), and the Hussein-McMahon correspondence (which called for an independent Arab Hashemite state across virtually the entirety of the former Ottoman Arab territories.) Of these, only the Balfour declaration was made publicly, although Sykes-Picot was revealed after the 1917 Russian Revolution.

(I'm ignoring here the various smaller agreements for the partition of Anatolia, as these ended up being moot anyways, but were very much in play at Paris. Basically the Turkish Independence War made those aspects of the conference irrelevant. Also, NB, if only because this a bugbear of mine, the Sykes-Picot borders did not become the final status borders, as I'll discuss below.)

This was all further complicated by Wilson's Fourteen Points, which was taken by the Arab territories as a guarantee of national self-determination.

The result was that at Paris you had Britain trying to sort itself out of the mess of promises it had made, France trying to get what had been promised, and everyone trying to pay at least lip service to Wilsonian self-determination. So in the end basically nothing got done.

At the conference, it was determined that a commission would be sent to the now-occupied formerly-Ottoman Arab territories to determine the disposition of the local peoples in Wilsonian fashion. While this was intended to be a joint commission the British and the French stonewalled, and so only the American King-Crane Commission was actually sent.

Wilson's stroke and his failure to gain US entry into the league of nations meant that while the King-Crane commission did eventually file its report (which was held back from publication until 1922, after these questions had been settled) the report ultimately played no role whatsoever in determining the borders, mandatory powers, and format of the states of the Middle East.

Rather, these questions would be handled as part of a series of later treaties, conferences, state policy documents and international agreements including the Cairo Conference (positing the "Sherifian solution" to resolve promises for Arab independence), the Chuchill White Paper attempting to elucidate British policy in Palestine, the Treaty of Lausanne establishing the final status borders with Turkey, and the passage of the League of Nations mandates for the various successor states in the Middle East (Palestine/Transjordan, Iraq, and Syria/Lebanon).

Source wise:

There are some great and easily accessible primary sources. Almost all of the agreements and treaty documents that I mentioned above are available online. As is the King-Crane commission report, the suggestions of which make for a fascinating "what if".

The US minutes of the Paris Peace Conference are available online here. Unfortunately the table of contents is terrible but specifically I'm thinking of the session of the Big Four when they discuss the competing claims which is pretty fascinating, particularly what, from my reading, looks like total French intransigence at being willing to consider other arrangements. Faisal's threat to mount an attack against the French should they attempt to occupy Syria is also included, along with Allenby's plea for a resolution. That threat was made good at the Battle of Maysalun the next year. The Arab defeat at Maysalun ended four months of independence and plays a key part in the Arab nationalist narrative across the region rolling foreign betrayal, colonial occupation, and valiant Arab resistance all into one.

In terms of secondary sources, I'm quite partial to D.K. Fieldhouse's Western Imperialism in the Middle East: 1914-1958.