In the last post, Looking back to the future, I looked at the way ‘modernism’ and ‘modernity’ have been used to determine the difference between life then and life now. There are plenty of disagreements about when the ‘modern’ world began, and for some historians the term itself has become so clouded as to render it useless. Others use the term as a way of denoting change, even though there is little consensus as to whether there is any beginning or ending to it as a description for the life we live. Are we living in a modern world, or a post-modern world? Does it even matter?

Social historians study the past as well as the present, and look to the future, in the hope that we can learn from experience, to avoid repeating past mistakes and ultimately bring about improvement. So, after the First World War, some countries looked to ways of strengthening their populations, with the aim of forging a ‘strong nation’.

Turkey, for example, had emerged from centuries as part of the powerful Ottoman Empire, an empire that was respected and feared. But by the end of the First World War, the Turkish Republic, led by Ataturk, had more pressing problems, namely unification and re-creating itself into a modern state. Unfortunately, this immense task required scapegoats. The state needed to show the populace which segment of society was not to be emulated. A body of medics, particularly neuro-psychiatrists, convinced Turkish leaders the only way to ensure a powerful nation was to ensure the weak were excluded, even through eugenics. Fighting diseases among groups classed as ‘uncivilized’ and ‘unhygienic peasants’ became the pretext for ensuring a ‘civilized’ nation could look toward ‘modernity’ as the way to ensure a strong and powerful nation.

The health of the individual came to be associated with the health of the nation. It was argued by some that to be ‘modern’ was to be ‘civilised’. The West (seen as both modern and civilised) was seen as powerful and as Turkey wanted to be seen as a ‘powerful military nation’, the medics argued modern and civilised was the only route to take.  

Ironic, of course. Because there was little or nothing that could be described as ‘civilised’ in either the First or Second World Wars. There was nothing civilised about the agreements drawn up in the years straight after the First World War, when many countries were ‘carved up’, with the ‘winners’ choosing which territories they would control, while the ‘losers’ lost their national identity and indigenous rights.

At that time, politicians argued that change would bring about improvement for the people, while in reality leaders of nations who deemed themselves to be ‘great’ were driven by the desire for increased power.

Following the end of the First World War, six months of negotiations between the Allied Powers at the Paris Peace Conference resulted in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty led to the League of Nations mandates system and US President Woodrow Wilson’s call for ‘self-determination’.

The concept of self-determination – the ‘natural right’ of peoples to determine their political fate – was originally discussed by a range of philosophers and politicians, from Immanuel Kant and Thomas Jefferson, in the 19^th century, and later by Karl Marx, Frederich Engels and Vladimir Lenin in the early years of the 20th century.

In his January 8, 1918, speech on War Aims and Peace Terms, President Wilson set down 14 points as a blueprint for world peace, to be used for peace negotiations after World War I.

‘In the speech, Wilson directly addressed what he perceived as the causes for the world war by calling for the abolition of secret treaties, a reduction in armaments, an adjustment in colonial claims in the interests of both native peoples and colonists, and freedom of the seas. Wilson also made proposals that he believed would ensure world peace in the future. For example, he proposed the removal of economic barriers between nations, the promise of “self-determination” for oppressed minorities, and a world organization that would provide a system of collective security for all nations.’

If all Wilson’s 14 points could have been followed through in the final peace treaty, perhaps much of disagreements and conflict that has followed over the subsequent hundred years might have been avoided.

But it was not to be.

On the face of it, the League of Nations mandate system was designed to give a voice to indigenous and colonised populations through a system of petitions. Frequently, however, the petition process resulted in voices being ‘muted, ventriloquized, and distorted’. Despite the right to petition being upheld, of the thousands of appeals presented, barely ten percent had their complaints upheld and even this rarely meant the mandatory power remedied the situation. Those trying to live under colonial rule might have argued it is one thing to be heard, another to be listened to. While in the global south where whole swathes of land were carved up to denote ownership, indigenous peoples who were used to moving across the land for food, for trade, and for religious purposes found their way of life disrupted.

The treaty also required Germany to compensate the Allied powers for the destruction resulting from the war years. Germans of all political shades denounced the treaty. They argued that the so-called ‘War Guilt Clause’ which blamed Germany for starting the war was an insult to the nation’s honour. 

Some historians suggest the ‘great powers’ justified their decision to remake the world order by saying it was the best way to avoid future wars. Did might make right? Sadly, not. In the end, the ‘new order’,  led to a second world war ‘even more radical than the last’.

And so we return to the concept of change. Is new always better? Are there some changes that can be justified in order to take the world in a new and different direction, or does human nature result in us merely duplicating past mistakes?

In Flashes of Doubt, the third story in the Mountfield Road Mysteries, we learn how William Arnold, a veteran of the Great War, viewed the changes that were happening around him in 1962…

‘Young people were in a rush. And in their rush, it seemed they were ready to surge forward, stepping over those who had helped to create their future. A future that looked increasingly bright for a generation who knew little of war and loss. Teenagers born just as the war ended, had a world of opportunities opening up before them, combined with the knowledge they would no longer be called up for National Service. They enjoyed higher wages, achieved by brave workers who stood their ground, striking until employers went at least some way to meeting their demands. Derelict bomb sites and slums were steadily being replaced by newly built homes offering central heating and an indoor bathroom.

It seemed to William that young folk had an expectation, a sense of entitlement to a better life, with little thought about the struggles their predecessors endured to reach this point.’

Again and again, when we examine the 1960s – a decade that many have argued was socially defining for many countries across the world – we can see the threads of past events which came together to affect politics, economics, and family life on every level.

Look out for next week’s post – Finding a voice – that explores some of the significant changes which occurred as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, leading to the rise of nationalism and anti-colonialism.

Just click on ‘subscribe’ on the home page to follow my website, to ensure you don’t miss out on forthcoming articles.

To continuing exploring the topic of the changes that took place after the First World War,  take a look at:

• Yucel Yanikdag, Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 19141939.
• Jay Winter, Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History
• Susan Pedersen, The Guardians: the League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire.
• Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War and the Remaking of the World Order, 1916-1931
• National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-woodrow-wilsons-14-points