Comparison Of Hughes's Argument Against The Treaty Of Versailles
On the 28th on June 1914, the world descended into chaos, forced into all-out war through hasty alliances and aggressive manoeuvres. 5 years and 37 million casualties later, a truce was made. The 28th of January in 1919 saw the Palace of Versailles play host to a meeting of the world’s superpowers. Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, and Georges Clemenceau of France were all present to re-draw the map of the world, introducing a highly controversial treaty that protected their interests, but pointed all blame to the ‘Triple Alliance,’ consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.
The Treaty of Versailles is the peace treaty that directly affects and ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. …show more content…
The Honourable Prime Minister William Hughes has represented Australia on the world stage as a strong and independent nation. Firstly, Mr Hughes argued that Australia, and indeed other British nations be privately represented in President Wilson’s proposed League of Nations. Although a strong supporter of British rule, Mr Hughes noted that Australia’s considerable war effort justified the need for our nation to be independent in this regard. The Prime Minister also argued for compensation of Australia’s war costs, stating that Germany should pay for our war expenditures. Finally Mr Hughes lobbied against the inclusion of a clause to be included in the treaty guaranteeing the “Equality of nations and equal treatment of their nationals.” (Bridge C, 2014) William Hughes felt that the White Australia Policy of 1901 was threatened by the equality of different races. His successful lobbying prevented nations such as Japan from privately joining the League of Nations. Mr Hughes’ final request was for ownership of former German New Guinea. The Prime Minister believed the portion of land to be Australia’s ‘strategic front door,’ protecting us from attack and so securing our great nation’s safety. Unfortunately Mr Hughes was strongly opposed during today’s negotiations by the American President, however, when asked by Mr Wilson “Am I to understand that Australia is prepared to defy the opinion of the whole civilised world, Mr Hughes?” William simply replied “That's about the size of it, Mr President; I represent sixty thousand dead” (Australian Government,
The Treaty of Versailles is the peace treaty that directly affects and ended the war between Germany and the Allied Powers. …show more content…
The Honourable Prime Minister William Hughes has represented Australia on the world stage as a strong and independent nation. Firstly, Mr Hughes argued that Australia, and indeed other British nations be privately represented in President Wilson’s proposed League of Nations. Although a strong supporter of British rule, Mr Hughes noted that Australia’s considerable war effort justified the need for our nation to be independent in this regard. The Prime Minister also argued for compensation of Australia’s war costs, stating that Germany should pay for our war expenditures. Finally Mr Hughes lobbied against the inclusion of a clause to be included in the treaty guaranteeing the “Equality of nations and equal treatment of their nationals.” (Bridge C, 2014) William Hughes felt that the White Australia Policy of 1901 was threatened by the equality of different races. His successful lobbying prevented nations such as Japan from privately joining the League of Nations. Mr Hughes’ final request was for ownership of former German New Guinea. The Prime Minister believed the portion of land to be Australia’s ‘strategic front door,’ protecting us from attack and so securing our great nation’s safety. Unfortunately Mr Hughes was strongly opposed during today’s negotiations by the American President, however, when asked by Mr Wilson “Am I to understand that Australia is prepared to defy the opinion of the whole civilised world, Mr Hughes?” William simply replied “That's about the size of it, Mr President; I represent sixty thousand dead” (Australian Government,