Notes on World War I and Pre-Emptive Military Action

Original notes from March 10, 2003. Updated March 18, 2006.

The United States and Great Britain were prime drafters of this statement in 1919 at the End of World War I:

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles

The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies.

- I believe this clause is crucial to understanding the diplomatic positions today of Germany, Belgium, and France as they pertain to the Iraq crisis. The dawn of World War I, while long ago, has not been forgotton.

On August 2, 1914, General Helmuth von Moltke, "acting under a dicate of self-preservation," demanded that Belgium permit German armies to pass through it's territory. Belgium refused. Germany invaded France by way of Belgium on August 3.

It is not a coincidence that the three NATO countries to veto a recent Iraq-related initiative were Belgium, Germany and France. In 1919, Germany had been an invader, and the other two nations were the invaded. In addition, Germany, from the beginning of this crisis, stated that it would not participate in a pre-emptive military action under the rationale of self defense. France's position is different, in that it has not ruled out the possibility.

I believe the positions are rooted in the Treaty of Versailles.

We in America should be concerned and cautious about this proposed action against Iraq, in that the United States has gone on record as stating that World War I began as a result of a pre-emptive military action.

- Gary Santoro

Appendix

The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Paragraph 2 states:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Appendix II

(May 29, 2003) I've done some fact checking on a legal analysis I made of the war on Iraq. My statement was that this war violated US law according to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles. While the US played a large part in drafting the treaty, the Congress, with a Republican majority, refused to ratify it. Therefore it did not become the law of the land under the Constitution.

I do find this disappointing. A US treaty seems like a much stronger case than violating international law.

While it wasn't illegal (according to my hypothesis), I still think the war was morally wrong. The Treaty of Versailles does provide historical context. The US co-authored it, other countries implemented it, but the US Congress did not ratify it.

Appendix III

(March 18, 2006) The war in Iraq began three years ago. The context of Versailles still seems to be a valid lens through which we view the decision to go to war.

Polls across the U.S. have shown a majority of people think that invading Iraq was not a sound decision.

Additional links from Mediaburn 2003:

Versailles, Legal Judgement, Appeasement

with http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/treaty_of_versailles5.htm

The Context of Versailles, 1919

with http://www.johndclare.net/peace_treaties6.htm