The Peace Settlement of 1919-20 and its Impact on Eastern Europe

The statement that the peace settlement of 1919-20 succeeded in creating political and economic stability in Eastern Europe is a complex one. While the settlement did resolve some pre-war issues and create a period of relative peace in the 1920s, it also created conditions that ultimately led to instability and conflict. This essay will argue that the peace settlement ultimately failed to create lasting stability in Eastern Europe.

Arguments Against Stability

One of the main reasons for the settlement's failure was its inability to adequately address the issue of minorities. The new borders drawn up by the victorious powers left most states with significant minority populations. For example, in Poland, roughly one-third of the population consisted of Germans, Ukrainians, Jews, and Belarussians. These groups often faced discrimination and resented their treatment, creating internal tensions and conflicts.

Furthermore, many of these newly formed states lacked a strong tradition of democratic governance and experienced leadership. This absence often led to political instability and the rise of authoritarian regimes. Poland, for example, experienced a coup in 1926 led by General Pilsudski, highlighting the fragility of its democratic system.

The peace settlement also disrupted the economic structures of Eastern Europe. Prior to World War I, the region had been dominated by large empires with integrated economies. The creation of new borders disrupted trade patterns and separated industrial centers from their sources of raw materials. Austria, for instance, was left with limited industrial resources after the war, ultimately leading to bankruptcy in 1922 and the need for League of Nations supervision.

Paradoxically, the attempt to apply Woodrow Wilson's principle of self-determination also contributed to instability. While intended to create ethnically homogenous states, the redrawing of borders led to the displacement of people and created new conflicts. For example, territorial disputes arose between Poland and Russia, and Greece and Bulgaria, further destabilizing the region.

Arguments for Stability

Despite these significant drawbacks, it is important to acknowledge some successes of the peace settlement. With minor adjustments, the boundaries established in 1919-20 remained largely stable. Some countries, like Czechoslovakia, managed to establish relatively successful governments and functioning economies during the interwar period.

The creation of Yugoslavia, while ultimately unsuccessful in the long run, did resolve some longstanding issues in the Balkans. Additionally, the League of Nations, despite its weaknesses, did play a role in resolving minor disputes, such as the Silesian Coalfields dispute. The Danzig issue also seemed manageable in the 1920s, only becoming a major point of contention in the following decade.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the peace settlement of 1919-20 did resolve some pre-existing issues and foster a period of relative calm in the 1920s, it ultimately failed to create lasting political and economic stability in Eastern Europe. The settlement's inability to address the problems of minorities, weak democratic foundations, economic disruption, and unintended consequences of self-determination ultimately outweighed its successes. The instability it created contributed to the rise of extremism and ultimately set the stage for future conflicts, culminating in the outbreak of World War II.

**Sources:**

MacMillan, M. (2001). *Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World*. Random House.
Mazower, M. (2000). *Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century*. Penguin Books.