The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928 I found this today, and while understanding the pretenses, and that something similar still seems to be in existence, what went wrong? Was it hopeless optimism at its worst? It didn't take long for it's signatories to march off to war. I believe this pact was invoked also in the trials of some top Nazi officials at Nuremberg. What is everyones thoughts (on the pact, not Nuremberg)?
My own feeling about treaties to "outlaw war" are worthless. Evil will always exist in the world, and if signing treaties to give some nations some extra time to prepare for war, there are sure to be such nations eager to sign! Disarming a nation is no way to gain a lasting peace; prepared for war is a better way to ensure peace. Just MHO.
Mike, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, like many of the agreements reached among the nations of the world in the 1920s and 1930s, was a direct result of the horrors of WW 1. The League of Nations, the Washington Naval Conference, the attempted Geneva Conference of 1927 were all aimed at trying to prevent another conflict of the nature of the Great War. Unfortunately, each of these attempts depended upon the willingness of the signatories to abide by the rules set forth. Since nations tend to act in their own self-interest, it often was at odds with the intent of the pacts and agreements. As for the K-B Pact, here are some reasons it was not successful: No enforcement mechanism was provided for changing the behavior of warring signatories. The agreement was interpreted by most of the signatories to permit “defensive” war. No expiration date was provided. No provision existed for amending the agreement was included. Kellogg-Briand Pact Here's more on the ultimate failure: "The first major test of the pact came just a few years later in 1931, when the Mukden Incident led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Though Japan had signed the pact, the combination of the worldwide depression and a limited desire to go to war to preserve China prevented the League of Nations or the United States from taking any action to enforce it. Further threats to the Peace Agreement also came from fellow signatories Germany, Austria and Italy. It soon became clear that there was no way to enforce the pact or sanction those who broke it; it also never fully defined what constituted "self-defense," so there were many ways around its terms. In the end, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did little to prevent World War II or any of the conflicts that followed. Its legacy remains as a statement of the idealism expressed by advocates for peace in the interwar period. Frank Kellogg earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 for his work on the Peace Pact." The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928
Tex, I do not read this as a disarmament treaty. I'm not sure where you got that from. I fully agree about the evil in the world. No one was forced to sign the treaty. I realize that Hitler had yet to come to power, and that Spain had not yet had their Civil War, but Japan signed, and seemed to attempt to justify their position in China with claims that it was a defensive operation coupled with calling it a "incident" rather than a war. Thanks for the reply Lou. It seems to me from the descriptions that many nations were truely trying to prevent a second world war. It's shocking to me that so much work would go into such a proposition, and be signed by so many nations, only to be remembered as a hopeless example of optimism. Of course it does help in understanding the roots for the policy of appeasment towards Hitler in the mid-late 30's
