6th December 2021
Drawing the First World War to a conclusion: cartoonists and the Versailles Settlement
On Monday 6th December we welcomed Professor Alan Sharp to the branch, who delivered a fantastic lecture focusing upon cartoons and what can be learned from them about the Versailles settlement of 1919.
Professor Sharp began by describing the situation in 1919 as a laboratory, where the future of Europe and the world following the First World War was complex and unclear. There continued to be lots of ‘little wars’ in the Balkans and the former Russian Empire. Furthermore, the impact of the collapse of four empires – Austria-Hungary, Russia, Germany and the Ottoman Empire – meant that peace making would take longer.
Despite greater attention being drawn to the settlement with Germany at Versailles on 28th June 1919, there were further settlements with other countries between 1919 and 1923 – 10 September 1919 Saint-Germain-en-Laye with Austria; 27 November 1919 Neuilly with Bulgaria; 4 June Trianon with Hungary; 10 August Sevres with the Ottoman Empire; and 24 July 1923 Lausanne with Turkey.
In order to emphasise the political changes following these settlements, Professor Sharp shared two maps of Europe with the audience. The first a map of Europe before the First World War of 1914, which illustrates the expanse of European empires. The second map highlighted how these had separated, independent countries now appearing or reappearing on the map of Europe.
The lecture’s focus on cartoons began with “Reconstruction: A New Year’s Task” from Punch (Figure 1). This pessimistic image displays a broken globe with a figure who has very simple tools to ‘piece it back together’, implying that this task is not going to be easy. But what made this lecture really interesting was the differing perspectives of the peace and how these changed over time. The next example highlighted the German perspective before the peace discussions began (Figure 2). It portrays the German leader Friedrich Ebert with Germania on his arm, being welcomed back into the European hall. Germany, having replaced Wilhelmine Germany with a new democratic republic, was clearly expecting to be involved in the peace negotiations.
The French take on this position is very interesting. The French cartoon (Figure 3)that Professor Sharp shared shows how the Germans, being presented with the destruction of France by the Wilhelmine Empire respond with “Maintenant, nous sommes une amiable Republique” (one moment we are a kind republic). This highlights the French fear that Germany was trying to absolve itself of responsibility, something which fuels the French desire to enforce a war guilt clause. The French desire to punish Germany is highlighted by the carefully chosen date for the conference. – 18th June 1919, a Saturday, was the anniversary of the 1871 declaration of the German Empire at Versailles in 1871.
Professor Sharp then moved on to discuss the role of President Wilson in the peace process. He had the difficulty of needing to be at Versailles as well as dealing with domestic issues in the US. He believed in the fundamental goodness of people and had remarked as early as 1916 that “The peace of the world must henceforth depend upon a new and more wholesome diplomacy.” He was of course the most dominant character at Versailles and his approach was dominated by his 14 points, which included a League of Nations. The expectation of Wilson was therefore very high, seeing Wilson as almost ‘messiah-like’.
However, by mid-1919, this reputation had collapsed. The British cartoon “A Home from Home” (Figure 4) from Punch highlights the difficulties that Wilson faced in spinning the plates of domestic and foreign policy. The French were optimistic that if they could highlight (Figure 5) to Wilson the atrocities and damage that had been caused by the war in the regions, then he would be more likely to support French demands from the Treaty. However, Wilson feared that he could not become emotionally involved and therefore the French were left disappointed. Furthermore, in Germany Wilson’s reputation had also collapsed. Their hopes of being represented at Versailles were dashed and Wilson was now seen to be part of the attack on Germany than someone who could offer support.
Wilson’s big idea was, of course the League of Nations. The idea was to prevent war from happening in a like the rapid escalation of 1914. This was to be done through the creation of barriers before war would start. Many had little faith in it, which is expressed by the Punch cartoon, “Overweighted” (Figure 6). The major problem was that there was tremendous opposition to the League in the USA. Wilson failed to gain a two-thirds majority in congress, partly due to ill health, which meant that the US failed to join the organisation. This therefore left a declining and weakened Britain and France to lead the League. David Lloyd George remarked that “You cannot have a League of Nations without America; it would not be the least use”.
France felt ultimately it needed security and French demands and attitudes at Versailles highlight their vulnerability. The French cartoon “Comment M Clemenceau voit en réve la Conference de la Paix” (Figure 8) illustrates the perception of how Clemenceau thought the peace discussions should be undertaken. Indeed, he was keen to maintain the alliance with Britain and America, but faced pressure from the French President Poincare and Marshall Foch to take territory from Germany. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France, but the French were demanding the boundaries of 1814 and the Saar region. Britain had the Channel as a natural defence, why could the French not use the river Rhine for the same purpose? This of course led to the demilitarization of the Rhineland.
The Cartoon “En Alsace Libérée” (Figure 9) highlights issues with the reintegration of territories to the French state. The question was about the issue of the Catholic religion. In 1905 the French government had separated the Church from the State. Alsace-Lorraine had not been through this process. How could this problem be efficiently resolved?
Professor Sharp then moved onto discuss the position of Poland following the conference. In 1914 there had been no expectation of an independent Poland, then split between the German, Austrian and Russian empires. With the collapse of these empires an independent Poland became a reality. The Polish leader, Paderewski was portrayed in cartoons, usually as a pianist- due to his ability to play. The cartoon “Paderewski chez les quarte” (Figure 10) shows Paderewski playing the piano and while the ‘big four’ fall asleep.
As we moved towards the end of the lecture, Professor Sharp shared with the audience a wide range of cartoons that contextualise the Paris Conference for the main players. For example, “The new aero-gun service between London and Paris” emphasised the problem that Lloyd George faced in dividing his attention between domestic issues and the conference. This was further emphasised by “The distractions of an indispensable” (Figure 11) which shows Lloyd George attempting to ride the two diverging horses “Labour unrest” and “Paris Conference”. However, Lloyd George must have been fairly satisfied as British security was good following the conference.
The issue of reparations was a great problem. The magnitude of what Germany had to pay was highlighted by cartoons such as “The Reckoning” and the “Let’s see you collect it” (Figures 12 and 13).
Further cartoons were then used to highlight reflections on the Treaty such as “The Finishing Touch”, the “Ghosts of Versailles” and “Aprés la signature…”, all demonstrating a great dissatisfaction. It need not have been like this. The 1920s did have lots of problems caused by the treaty, including the economic collapse of 1929, and a lot of these problems originated in the lack of trust between countries. The last cartoon “Le Framage” (Figure 14) illustrated this. It illustrates how the terms of the treaty have been eroded by mice. It is clear that some mice have a German cross on their backs. However, it is also plain to see that the mice drawn with Union Jacks, indicates a divergence between Britain and France in the 1920s. Britain appears to be more sympathetic towards Germany, favouring compromise, whereas France is much more in favour of coercion; shown in their actions around the Rühr crisis of 1923.
Our next lecture will be on 10th January 2022, where Dr Fiona Pogson will be discussing “Presidency, Power and Pestilence: Thomas Wentworth’s government of the North in the 1630s.
Historical Association Bolton Branch 