The war to end all wars.

That had been the purpose for the existence of the Treaty of
Versailles; to ensure that the first world war was the first and last war the world had to
experience. The peace treaty was negotiated during the Paris Peace Conference held in
Versailles beginning January 18, 1919 and was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Hall of
Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles near Paris, between the Allied powers and Germany
Within the Treaty of Versailles there existed many clauses and articles. Article 156
particularly, demonstrated how a nation need not be directly involved in the war to be
affected by the Treaty, which makes it important for us to examine. The article elaborated on
the authority of Shandong peninsula that is situated within China, and thus China had been
affected by it. Upon losing the War, Germanys punishment was decided by the Allied
powers, in the form of the treaty. While an easy and straightforward way to resolve the issue
of authority of Shandong Peninsula would be to give it to one of the allied powers, the
complexity of the situation involves the coming forth of China in protecting the land that laid
within their nation. China, being a relatively young independent state back in 1919,
understood the importance of Shandong as means to assert and protect their sovereignty.
Therefore, they aligned themselves with the allied powers. In the process of fighting and
negotiating for the authority of Shandong, China experienced a period of uncertainty and
difficulty that even prolonged to the 1960s. This came in the experience of a social revolt, an
invasion, being trapped in the ideological confrontation of superpowers in the 1930s, and
even the experiences of famine.

To begin with, French(2014) postulates that the mishandling of the Shandong Peninsula by
the allied powers had brewed anti-Japanese sentiments, where students took the
dissatisfaction to the streets, disrupting the domestic peace of China. The issue of the
concession of the Shandong Peninsula can be found in Article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles
where the decision of the allied powers was to give the land to Japan instead of China. China
is supposedly the rightful owner of the land as Shandong had been the birthplace of
Confucius, back in 551 B.C. Therefore, it becomes unsurprising that the Chinese were upset,
since they lost an important piece of land. (Wassestrom, 1999). One of Chinas motivation in
supporting the Allied nations in World War I had been due to the promise of Shandong
Peninsula being returned to China (French, 2014). However, being part of the allied nations,
Japan had imposed an ultimatum of Twenty-One demand which included having Japanese
control of former German holdings, which included Shandong. In appeasement towards the
Japanese as a member of the allied powers, Britain and France promised Japan that it could
keep these holdings. The article officially transferred Shandong to Japan rather than returning
authority to China. This therefore led to the May 4th movement where strikes were conducted
by students, which included reformist banners, and acts of boycotting of Japanese products as
it is seen to be a form of humiliation to the Chinese that they were unable to protect the
important piece of land (Chen, 1971). As the impact of the mishandling of the Shandong
Peninsula spiralled into causing the first movement faced by modern China, it depicts the
great influence that Article 156 had imposed on Chinas stability. As a result of this, it serves
to further emphasize Pauls argument, that indeed, the mishandling of the Shandong
Peninsula in Article 156 had disrupted stability within China.

On contrary, Jack (2000) believes that instability in China had existed prior to 1919,
portrayed in various revolutions, thus illustrating how the May 4th movement as an impact of
the mishandling of Shandong Peninsula was not the very first event that disrupted the
stability within China. The existence of the May 4th movement in retaliation against the
unjust Peace Treaty can therefore be classified as more of a continuation in Chinas
revolution towards greater self-independence. One of the prominent revolts in China had
been The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 which had the purpose of eliminating Christian threats
towards their culture (Taylor & Francis, 2008). The existence of this rebellion 19 years
before the existence of the Treaty of Versailles already serves to justify the existence of
domestic instability within China. As much as there is truth in Grays argument, it is
undeniable that the Treaty of Versailles had intensified the nature of revolutions that China
faces. While the Boxer rebellion was cultural in nature where the Chinese sought to prevent
the influence of Christianity in their region, the May 4th movement signified a change
towards political mobilization where the revolt had been to protect Chinas interest (Chow,
1960). While Grays point carries validity, Chows point should not be dismissed because
they both illustrate the inaugural changing nature of revolts in China, which in turn affects
the stability through the street revolts.

French(2014) asserts that the appeasement of the Japanese during the Peace treaty had
incurred a psychological impact which encouraged the Japanese expansionism acts, thereby
leading to the eventual invasion of Manchuria, disrupting the peace and stability within
China. In the Versailles Treaty, Britain and France had appeased Japan by agreeing to satisfy
the Twenty-One demands in order to protect their interest in the Far East Holdings and to
contain the rise of Japanese influence in the region (Noriko, 1997). The Twenty-One
demands was an ultimatum given by the Japanese during the treaty, which included the
demands of having control over the Shandong Peninsula, which was initially promised to be
returned to the Chinese. For the Japanese, the concept of militarism and imperialism had
already been perpetuated within them since their victory during the 1905 Russo-Japanese
War (Burkman, 2008) which broke the myth of western invincibility and with the ambition of
being a nation that is on par with the allied powers. Therefore, with the allied powers further
giving in to the demands of the Japanese, it generated a psychological impact of
empowerment which further fuelled expansionistic thoughts of the Japanese (French, 2014).
Though some scholars would argue that the invasion of Manchuria was independent to the
Treaty because the intention of invasion was for the recovery of their economy as a result of
the Great Depression, the economic recovery they hoped to achieve was to build their
military strength in order to be able to expand their ideologies and territories. Given this
premise, it makes it highly likely that the appeasement did prove to be a spur for Japanese
invasion of Manchuria.The deterministic character of Japan, which was further aggravated by
the led to the pursuit of the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese. That invasion had caused
chaos within China and further humiliation and panic as they lost another portion of their
land to the Pacific.

Additionally, Elleman(2002) postulates that the betrayal during the Treaty of Versailles had
resulted in mistrust between America and China. This thus illustrates the effect on Chinas
relations with America which will affect the ideologies and the domestic policies that they
are to implement domestically. The betrayal that China faced was in how Shandong was
given to Japan instead of them, despite them being the rightful owner. As explained in the
first paragraph with regard to the significance of China, its loss proved to be a form of
humiliation to the sovereignty and pride of China. This humiliation had prevented China
from pursuing a Westernized national identity (Wei & Liu, 2001). According to Lee (1978)
too, the treaty was one of the last chain of blows which made Chinas president in 1919, to
doubt Western ideals and to sympathize with the Communist Soviets who was the only party
resisting the imperialist powers, the same power who had betrayed China during the treaty of
Versailles. This later influenced China to be Communist, making them involved in the
ideological disparity tensions between Democracy and Communism during the Cold War era,
specifically in the late 1940s.

Though many scholars like Pollard (2014) assert and believe that Communism only came to
light in China only in the 1940s which resulted in the establishment of the Peoples Republic
of China under Mao Zedong in 1949, the elements of Communism had already existed as a
result of the Betrayal in the Treaty of Versailles. Due credit still has to be given to the Treaty
as it was the trigger that made China decide to move away from democratic ideals (Merson,
1990). The negative effects of taking on the Communist principle could be seen during the
1966 Cultural Revolution where Mao removed Capitalism ideals which resulted in the Great
Famine and a revolution to reinstate capitalism (Walder, 2015). With such sufferings and
discontent, it illustrated how the choice of turning to Communism had caused havoc within
the state from 1966 to 1976. Such was possible due to the rejection of Western ideals, during
the stage of 1919 as a result of the Betrayal in Paris.

While I have argued that the Treaty of Versailles had greatly impacted the domestic stability
of China, it is important to note that the domestic instability faced by China in the period of
1919 and after had not been solely due to this treaty. Many other factors, be it internal or
external, and even in the time period of 1919, had probably caused a snowball in the
instability within China. The role of the Treaty of Versailles here is as a direct trigger to
disruptions and instabilities that are marked to be crucial and important in Chinas history,
that being the experience of a social revolt, an invasion, being trapped in the ideological
confrontation of superpowers in the 1930s, and even the experience of famine. As argued by
Chow, it is the changing nature of the revolts that made the impact of the treaty crucial to
China, and not the revolt itself. The changing nature to being one that is more nationalistic
could possibly set foundations for future nationalistic revolts to happen within the state. To
every nation, an invasion clearly disrupts the peace of the country, as postulated by French.
The Cold War that begun in the 1930s, marked the period of tension in the world and to be
part of that illustrates the difficulty in terms of international relations that China faced,
especially since how international relations are crucial in the survival of a nation, clearly
argued by Elleman. Social issues like famine is definitely sufficient to prove the
ineffectiveness of the government and their ideology in ruling a nation, as what Pollard had
mentioned. Ultimately, having understand the indirect implications of wars and treaties, the
decision of world leaders today and the effort that is taken in maintaining good relations can
clearly be understood. Having lived in a decade and timeframe of the 20th century where
wars have been absent, we may not be able to see the great importance of cohesion and
having good bilateral relation with other nations. However, with the existence of history, it
serves to remind us of the possible outcomes of taking the stability we have for granted.