BORDERLANDS

V. 25, I. 03.01.25

Introduction

     Nations are big on treaties, enforcing them is another matter. 

     This paper traces some of the more recent, failed and otherwise, then takes a close look at one of the most controversial in history, The Versailles Treaty at the end of World War One. Many salient points are gleaned from the treaty, including the United States role in it, and how it may have, or not, been the root cause of World War Two. 

     (Image credit: United States president Woodrow Wilson smiles as he leads the procession that followed the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Although Wilson personally negotiated the treaty, it was never ratified.Photograph by Bettmann, Getty, Treaty of Versailles—facts and information)

Methodology

  The same format as previous will be used: a.] a social media post where applicable (not included here); b.] Capsules containing the artificial intelligence query enclosed in (Begin Perplexity) and (End Perplexity-A) with the link included c.] Newspaper Archives; d.] Congressional Record; e.] Notes related to the text, the AI queries and related material; f.] Afterword to review and conclude.

Capsules

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

components of historic peace deals

Historic peace deals typically consist of several key components that address both procedural and substantive aspects of conflict resolution. These components aim to establish a framework for lasting peace and reconciliation between parties.

Procedural Components

Procedural components set out the processes that establish and maintain peace3. They include:

1. Pre-negotiation agreements: These define how peace will be negotiated, including schedules, agendas, participants, and location3.
2. Implementation schedules: Timelines for executing various aspects of the agreement.
3. Monitoring mechanisms: Processes to oversee compliance with the agreement.

Substantive Components

Substantive components define the actual changes that will occur after the peace agreement is reached3. They often include:

1. Political reforms: Changes in governance structures or power-sharing arrangements.
2. Economic provisions: Agreements on resource management and economic cooperation.
3. Security measures: Disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants.
4. Territorial issues: Border demarcations or land swaps.
5. Human rights protections: Mechanisms to address past injustices and ensure future rights.

Key Elements

Many historic peace deals incorporate the following elements:

1. Mutual recognition: Parties acknowledging each other’s legitimacy and right to exist2.
2. Cessation of hostilities: Formal end to armed conflict or violence6.
3. Dispute resolution mechanisms: Processes for addressing future conflicts peacefully.
4. Confidence-building measures: Steps to promote trust between parties2.

Examples from Historic Agreements

1. UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967): Emphasized the exchange of land for peace in the Middle East conflict2.
2. Camp David Accords (1978): Established a framework for peace between Egypt and Israel, leading to a formal peace treaty2.
3. Oslo Accords (1993): Provided for mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO, and outlined a phased approach to Palestinian self-governance2.
4. Good Friday Agreement (1998): Addressed governance, civil and cultural rights, and decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland.

Effective peace agreements should, at a minimum, stop the violence and ideally address the root causes of conflict7. The structure and content of peace deals can vary significantly depending on the nature of the conflict, the parties involved, and the specific issues at stake.

 

What are the key elements that make a peace deal successful

Several key elements contribute to the success of a peace deal:

1. Comprehensive approach: Successful peace agreements address both procedural and substantive components12. They not only outline how peace will be negotiated and implemented but also define the specific changes that will occur after the agreement is reached.
2. Security guarantees: Ensuring the stability of peace by decreasing security threats perceived by all parties involved is crucial12. This may include provisions for both group and individual security.
3. Power-sharing arrangements: Political power-sharing helps increase the robustness of agreements by giving all groups a voice in the political system31.
4. Verification mechanisms: Provisions that allow for reporting and verification of compliance with the agreement decrease the chances of failure3.
5. Addressing root causes: Effective peace deals attempt to resolve the underlying problems that contributed to the conflict, including social, political, and economic issues12.
6. Inclusivity: Compensating various actors, including elites, fighters, and the broader population, increases the chances that no group will seek to break the agreement in the future3.
7. Implementation strategy: The sequence and steps through which the agreement is implemented 

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/components-of-historic-peace-d-Yd2x_K2PS5mJzy.3mxte.Q

disastrous peace agreements

Several peace agreements have been criticized for their disastrous consequences, often exacerbating conflicts or failing to address underlying issues:

Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020 to normalize relations between Israel and some Arab states, have been criticized for:

• Sidelining the Palestinian issue, which remains a source of tension1
• Failing to halt Israeli settlement expansion and annexation plans1
• Potentially contributing to the October 2023 Israel-Gaza conflict1
• Ignoring widespread opposition from populations in Arab countries1

Trump’s Taliban Deal

The 2020 Doha Agreement between the U.S. and Taliban has been described as a “complete disaster” because:

• It gave concessions to the Taliban without effective accountability mechanisms2
• The Taliban quickly reneged on their commitments2
• It constrained subsequent U.S. actions in Afghanistan2

Dayton Agreement

The 1995 Dayton Agreement, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is considered problematic as a model for Ukraine because:

• It allowed for “special rights” for certain groups and autonomous regions3
• Such arrangements can be used by aggressors to maintain control without direct occupation3

Potential Ukraine-Russia Agreement

Experts warn that a rushed or Putin-friendly peace deal for Ukraine could be disastrous because it might:

• Legitimize international aggression4
• Set a dangerous precedent for global security4
• Accept territorial losses, undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty5

Oslo Accords

The 1993-1995 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization are viewed by many as a historic tragedy due to:

• Failure to achieve lasting peace8
• Inability to resolve core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict8

These examples highlight the importance of carefully crafted peace agreements that address root causes of conflicts and include robust implementation mechanisms to prevent future hostilities.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/disastrous-peace-agreements-L0T0RhQRSHOEv6IaZu206Q

treaty of versailles as disastrous peace agreement

The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, to formally end World War I, is often viewed as a disastrous peace agreement that laid the foundation for World War II3. However, this perspective is not entirely accurate and has been challenged by historians.

Punitive Measures

The treaty imposed harsh conditions on Germany:

1. Territory loss: Germany lost 13% of its territory and 10% of its population3.
2. Military restrictions: The German army was reduced to 100,000 men, and the country was forbidden to draft soldiers or possess certain weapons3.
3. Reparations: Germany was required to pay 132 billion marks in war reparations1.
4. War guilt clause: Germany was forced to accept sole blame for the war13.

These punitive measures were seen as humiliating and economically crippling by many Germans, fueling resentment and nationalist sentiment3.

Challenging the Traditional Narrative

Recent historical analysis suggests that the treaty’s reputation as a disastrous agreement may be overstated:

1. Reparations myth: The claim that reparations destroyed Germany’s economy is largely false. The reparations were based on Germany’s ability to pay and not the actual cost of damages1.
2. Historical context: Requiring defeated nations to pay reparations was a common practice in European treaties1.
3. Comparison to other treaties: The 1945 settlement after World War II was far more severe, yet it did not lead to another world war2.

Unintended Consequences

Despite attempts at creating a lasting peace, the treaty had several unintended consequences:

1. Political ammunition: Right-wing German politicians used the treaty as a nationalist rallying point3.
2. Economic instability: The reparations, combined with other factors, contributed to Germany’s economic troubles in the 1920s3.
3. Dissatisfaction among signatories: Even Allied nations were unhappy with various aspects of the treaty3.

While the Treaty of Versailles did contribute to the conditions that led to World War II, it is an oversimplification to claim it was solely responsible for the conflict. The treaty’s failure to create a lasting peace was due to a complex interplay of factors, including its implementation and the global political climate of the interwar period5

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/treaty-of-versailles-as-disast-hTewikFNRDuAK_KdhZHIyw

how did the treaty of versailles lead to world war two

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919 to formally end World War I, played a significant role in setting the stage for World War II. Several key factors contributed to this outcome:

Harsh Punishments for Germany

The treaty imposed severe penalties on Germany, which fostered resentment and economic hardship:

1. Territorial losses: Germany lost 13% of its territory and 10% of its population7.
2. Military restrictions: The German army was limited to 100,000 men, conscription was forbidden, and the navy and air force were severely restricted7.
3. Economic burden: Germany was forced to pay massive war reparations, initially set at 269 billion gold marks (equivalent to $37 billion at the time)3.

Economic Consequences

The treaty’s economic provisions severely impacted Germany’s recovery:

1. Hyperinflation: When Germany defaulted on reparation payments in 1923, it led to currency printing and hyperinflation, wiping out middle-class savings2.
2. Industrial losses: Germany lost 48% of its iron production and a large proportion of its coal resources5.

Political Instability

The treaty’s terms contributed to political unrest in Germany:

1. Weimar Republic struggles: The new democratic government faced difficulties managing popular dissatisfaction and economic challenges2.
2. Rise of extremism: Resentment over the treaty’s terms fueled the growth of nationalist and extremist movements, including the Nazi Party10.

Hitler’s Rise to Power

The treaty’s aftermath created conditions that Hitler exploited:

1. “War Guilt” clause: Article 231, which blamed Germany for the war, was seen as humiliating and became a rallying point for nationalists7.
2. Revisionist agenda: Hitler’s Nazi Party gained support by promising to overturn the treaty’s terms and restore German pride10.

Appeasement Policy

The harsh nature of the treaty influenced later foreign policy decisions:

1. Reluctance to enforce: Allied powers were hesitant to strictly enforce the treaty’s terms, leading to a policy of appeasement10.
2. German rearmament: Hitler’s government violated the treaty by rearming and remilitarizing the Rhineland with little resistance from other nations10.

The Treaty of Versailles, while intended to prevent future conflicts, instead created conditions of economic hardship, political instability, and nationalist resentment in Germany. These factors, combined with the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, ultimately contributed to the outbreak of World War II in 193910

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-did-the-treaty-of-versaill-Rsac77YvTEqH42hOeDs98Q

use the treaty of versailles to show how a bad peace agreement between russia and ukraine could cause world war three

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I, provides a cautionary tale for how a poorly constructed peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine could potentially lead to World War III.

Harsh Terms and Resentment

The Treaty of Versailles imposed severe penalties on Germany, including:

1. Territorial losses: Germany lost 13% of its territory and 10% of its population37.
2. Military restrictions: The German army was limited to 100,000 men, and conscription was forbidden3.
3. Economic burdens: Germany was forced to pay enormous reparations to Allied countries35.

These harsh terms led to widespread resentment in Germany, creating conditions that contributed to the rise of extremist ideologies and ultimately, World War II5.

Parallels with Russia-Ukraine Conflict

A bad peace deal between Russia and Ukraine could similarly sow the seeds for future conflict:

1. Territorial disputes: If Ukraine is forced to cede territories to Russia, it could lead to long-term resentment and future attempts to reclaim lost land24.
2. Economic consequences: Harsh economic penalties or reparations could cripple either country’s economy, potentially leading to political instability2.
3. Military restrictions: Severe limitations on Ukraine’s military capabilities could leave it vulnerable to future aggression4.

Global Security Implications

A flawed peace agreement could have far-reaching consequences:

1. Undermining international law: Legitimizing Russia’s territorial gains could set a dangerous precedent for other potential aggressors2.
2. Nuclear proliferation: Ukraine’s experience might encourage other countries to pursue nuclear weapons for security2.
3. Geopolitical realignment: A perceived betrayal of Ukraine could strain relationships between Western allies, potentially fracturing NATO68.

Escalation Risks

The current geopolitical landscape presents additional risks:

1. Great power competition: Tensions between the U.S., Europe, and Russia could intensify, potentially leading to a larger conflict8.
2. Regional instability: Other conflicts, such as China-Taiwan or Middle East tensions, could intersect with the Russia-Ukraine situation8.

To avoid these pitfalls, any peace agreement must address the root causes of the conflict, ensure long-term security guarantees for Ukraine, and maintain the integrity of the international order26. Failure to do so could create conditions ripe for escalation into a broader, potentially global conflict.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/use-the-treaty-of-versailles-t-7q9HLqDAS8SndrM.0Wbcnw

the treaty of versailles involved way too many self-interests

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919 to end World War I, indeed involved numerous self-interests that complicated its implementation and long-term effects. The treaty was primarily shaped by the conflicting goals of the victorious Allied powers, particularly France, Britain, and the United States16.

France, having suffered significant losses during the war, aimed to weaken Germany economically, militarily, and territorially1. The French sought to ensure their security by demanding a frontier on the Rhine and reparations from Germany1. Britain, while supporting some punitive measures, was concerned about maintaining a balance of power in Europe1.

The United States, represented by President Woodrow Wilson, advocated for a more lenient approach, promoting his “Fourteen Points” for a just and sustainable peace5. However, Wilson was often outmaneuvered by other Allied leaders, particularly French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau4.

These competing interests resulted in a compromise that satisfied no one:

1. Germany was subjected to harsh terms, including territorial losses, military restrictions, and heavy reparations47.

2. The controversial “War Guilt” clause explicitly blamed Germany for the war4.

3. The reparations amount was set at an infeasible level, contributing to Germany’s economic struggles3.

The treaty’s self-interested nature led to several negative consequences:

1. It fueled resentment in Germany, which was exploited by nationalist politicians6.

2. The economic burden imposed on Germany contributed to the country’s financial instability6.

3. The treaty failed to create a stable postwar order, as it was neither lenient enough to promote reconciliation nor harsh enough to permanently weaken Germany3.

In hindsight, the Treaty of Versailles demonstrates the challenges of balancing national interests with the need for a sustainable peace agreement. Its flaws contributed to the instability of the interwar period and have been cited as factors in the rise of Nazi Germany, although this interpretation is debated among historians458

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-treaty-of-versailles-invol-N1MBLTp_R6agarUevwBg1w

 

(End Perplexity-AI)

Newspaper Archives

     From the outset, the Treaty of Versailles faced criticism, and not just from the loser, Germany. The Allies all had separate self-interests that needed to be settled. In 1921, the war correspondent Frank H. Simonds wrote in detail the differences in Allied perspective on how the treaty needed to be interpreted, rewritten, or scrapped. Below are some of the arguments presented by Simonds.

(Begin Newspaper Archive)

BY FRANK IL SIMONDS. [Special Correspondence of the News –Copyright 1919 by the McClure Newspaper Syndicate.) Washington, April 23.—Will the Treaty of Versailles be revised by a conference held at Washington or by a treaty made at Berlin? This is the question raised now, when the first declarations of the Harding administration and the subsequent indication of French policy serve to reopen the whole discussion of European affairs…

     It may be assumed as axiomatic that the French, the Belgians and the Italians. and probably the British, will nit consent to any reduction at their expense of the sum of German reparations. merely because such a reduction by restoring European markets would benefit the United States. If we are going to set up such claims, we ran only maintain them by entering into a new transaction. And it was transactions, after till, which ruined Mr. Wilson at Paris.

     If France Rejects the Treaty.

     Moreover, and this point is capital, since we have decided to reject all of the Treaty of Versailles which is not of benefit to us, is it unreasonable to expect that a similar policy may presently be adopted by one or more European powers? This brings me to the ‘ alternative I have mentioned in my opening paragraph. If the Treaty of Versailles is mainly rejected by the United States, why should it not be rejected by France? Certainly the objections are no more than technical and the way of escape not fraught with too many legal difficulties.

     In my judgment, then, it would he a mistake to overlook the. fact that one consequence of the positive declarations of the Harding administration in the matter of foreign policy may be the “scrapping” of the Treaty of Versailles by the French. I do not think that there can be much debate over the assertion in French lips that France ratified the treaty under a to-tal misapprehension. She was promised certain benefits and she paid in advance. But the benefits have been withheld and cannot now be obtained under any conditions.

Greensboro, NC News and Record, 24 April 1921, page M11.

(End Newspaper Archives)

The Treaty of Versailles was never ratified by the United States. 

Capsule

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

treaty of versailles never ratified by the united states

The Treaty of Versailles, which formally ended World War I, was never ratified by the United States. This failure to ratify was the result of a complex political struggle between President Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. Senate14.

Key Events in the Ratification Process

1. On July 10, 1919, President Wilson personally delivered the treaty to the Senate, an unprecedented move at the time7.

2. The treaty faced strong opposition in the Senate, particularly from two groups: the Reservationists and the Irreconcilables3.

3. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, leading the Reservationists, proposed 14 reservations to the treaty, focusing on concerns about Article 10 and U.S. involvement in the League of Nations3.

4. Wilson embarked on a nationwide tour to rally public support for the treaty but faced mixed results2.

5. The Senate voted on the treaty multiple times:

   • In November 1919, it was rejected both with and without reservations1.

   • On March 19, 1920, in a final vote, the treaty fell short of ratification by seven votes5.

Reasons for Rejection

The primary objections to the Treaty of Versailles centered on:

1. Concerns about U.S. sovereignty and decision-making power2.

2. Opposition to Article X of the League Covenant, which called for collective security1.

3. Fear of being dragged into future conflicts due to League of Nations membership3.

Aftermath

• The United States never joined the League of Nations5.

• On August 25, 1921, the U.S. signed a separate peace treaty with Germany, known as the Treaty of Berlin5.

• This separate treaty allowed the U.S. to enjoy the benefits of the Versailles Treaty without joining the League of Nations5.

The failure to ratify the Treaty of Versailles had significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and its role in international affairs in the following decades

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/treaty-of-versailles-never-rat-xs_zLnkwT4OPagt59SKOdg

Treaty of Berlin on August 25, 1921

The Treaty of Berlin, signed on August 25, 1921, was a peace treaty between the United States and Germany that restored friendly relations between the two nations following World War I17. This treaty was necessary because the U.S. Senate had not ratified the multilateral Treaty of Versailles signed in 19197.

Key aspects of the Treaty of Berlin include:

1. It granted the United States all the rights, privileges, indemnities, reparations, and advantages specified in the July 2, 1921 Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress1.

2. The treaty incorporated approximately two-thirds of the Treaty of Versailles, including provisions related to colonies, disarmament, reparations, and responsibility for the war4.

3. It excluded significant parts of the Treaty of Versailles, such as the League of Nations, the International Labor Organization, and boundary provisions4.

The treaty was ratified by the United States on October 21, 1921, and by Germany on November 2, 19213. Ratifications were exchanged in Berlin on November 11, 1921, at which point the treaty took immediate effect35.

This treaty effectively ended the technical state of war between the United States and Germany, which had existed since April 6, 19175. It laid the foundation for American-German cooperation outside the strict supervision of the League of Nations and allowed the U.S. to partially assist the Weimar Republic in easing the burden of war reparations7.

Following the treaty’s conclusion, diplomatic relations between the two nations were reestablished, with the new U.S. chargé d’affaires presenting his credentials in Berlin on December 10, 19217.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/treaty-of-berlin-on-august-25-JQ5z72TmSVmA_iBeLmGeUg

(End Perplexity-AI)

Congressional Record

     In 1921, the debate over the ratification of the Versailles Treaty hinged not just on a technical ending to the United States’ direct participation in the conflict against Germany, but related to the admissions into the Reparations Committee, and the League of Nations. The final say over the vote rested in the Senate.

(Begin Congressional Record)

GPO-CRECB-1921-pt6-v61-27-1.pdf

(18 October 1921, page 6411)

Mr. (Gilbert M.) HITCHCOCK. (D-NE) I will answer the Senator briefly. If Cox had been elected President of the United States, he would have returned the Versailles treaty to the Senate for ratification; but Harding was elected, and he, under the powers entrusted to him by the people, and under the authority of the Constitution, elects to send this treaty to the Senate, and it is for us to decide between this treaty and nothing. I want to call the Senator’s attention to another thing. The Democratic Senators of this body met in conference, and the only thing they could definitely decide was that this should not be made a party question. Senators who were opposed to the treaty, and Senators who were for the treaty, concurred in the view that this should be left to the individual conscience and judgment of each Senator. So that we stand here now with that conference of the Democratic Senators behind that position…

(page 6412)

I want to call the attention of my friends to this fact, that Germany is now one of the democracies of the world. The present Government of Germany is in danger. It is confronted by the bolshevists on the one side, and by the determined, revenge-seeking program of the military party on the other. The present German Government, however, is a democracy; it depends upon the will of the people. It is developing into a republic as France has developed into a republic, and it will be for the welfare of the world if Germany can remain a democracy and not by a retrograde movement fall again into the hands of the imperialists. 

(End Congressional Record)

Capsule

(Begin Perplexity-AI)

if the us entered the ukraine-russia conflict, the senate would have to ratify a peace treaty outcome

If the United States were to formally enter the Ukraine-Russia conflict and subsequently seek a peace treaty to end its involvement, the Senate would indeed need to ratify such a treaty. The Constitution requires that two-thirds of the Senators present concur for a treaty to be ratified13. This process is established by the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2)1.

However, it’s important to note that as of March 2025, the United States has not formally entered the conflict as a direct combatant. The current situation involves diplomatic efforts and negotiations to end the war between Ukraine and Russia24. In this context, if the U.S. were to broker or participate in a peace agreement without being a formal party to the conflict, it might not necessarily require Senate ratification.

The administration could potentially use other diplomatic tools, such as executive agreements or congressional-executive agreements, which don’t require the two-thirds Senate majority9. However, the specific nature of U.S. involvement and the type of agreement reached would ultimately determine whether Senate ratification is required.

Given the current geopolitical situation, any potential peace deal would likely focus on issues such as territory, ceasefire terms, Ukraine’s future security arrangements, and stabilizing relationships between Russia, NATO, and the United States2. The exact process for finalizing such an agreement would depend on its specific terms and the extent of U.S. involvement.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-the-us-entered-the-ukraine-f.I31I91TuWHpZ_uzRAqWA

(End Perplexity-AI)

Notes

     The more the historical record is examined, the more it becomes clear not just the role of the United States as mediator, but its future in the conflict as well, as a security risk, but even more so as its ability to fall into a similar spiral presented post-World War One. As Senator Hitchcock warned about Germany in 1921, the nation was flanked by any number of interests from bolshevists to militarists. This is similar to where Ukraine stands today should it come up the loser in any peace deal cut by foreign powers, all of whom have only a proxy stake, but are united by treaties, such as NATO, also becoming less secure on the road to peace in Eastern Europe. 

Afterward

     Ironic that a deal to stand strong against the invader, which appears to have drawn on the surface a strong response from the West and NATO, might be the very catalyst to unraveling of the alliance. Now that the United States has firmly rebuked the demands of Ukraine for more assistance, and with the apparent resolve of the Europeans; it means the Brits, the French, the Germans and the rest of the bloc might decide to go its own way. 

     The question remains. The recent meeting of the Ukraine president in the Oval Office soured on the note over the fear the continuation of the conflict might lead to World War Three. Maybe a better approach would be to have the United States become a direct participant in the conflict so that the Senate could have more voice in not just where it stands, but how it might allow it to retake command of NATO, on the verge of not just mutiny, but disaster.