While tension after World War I began to fall slightly, there were still many unresolved issues among countries in Europe. Naturally, this makes sense as World War I was a war the likes of which the world had never seen before, but the attempt at peace after through the Treaty of Versailles would simply be a temporary bandage to these problems. The country that was impacted the most by the Treaty of Versailles was definitely Germany, who had their economy destroyed by the treaty. At the time, Germany was being forced to pay 132 billion gold marks in total ($33 billion) which was an impossible task for them to ask for, especially considering the amount of money they spent on the war.¹ The failure to pay said reparations would cause a crisis for the country after France occupied the Ruhr district, one of Germany’s most profitable areas, in hopes of seizing some profit from their coal mines themselves. Enter Charles G. Dawes and Owen D. Young, two lawyers who turned to economics. These two men, along with eight others, were appointed to the Dawes Plan by the Reparations Committee under the League of Nations. The committee was given the task of easing the heavy burden placed on Germany to bring stability to a very unstable Europe. The plan that these ten men came up with would be known as the “Dawes Plan” which would see noticeable success in the year after its enactment.

Treaty of Versailles

The first major misstep that allowed for the exploitation of Germany during the 1920s was the Treaty of Versailles. As Germany was a part of the Central Powers during World War I, they would be punished by the victors for their actions during the war. The Treaty of Versailles laid the groundwork for an attempt at peace throughout Europe, one that would ultimately prove unsuccessful through certain decisions involving Germany that would lead to the need for the Dawes Plan. While the Treaty of Versailles was very harsh on Germany, it goes without saying that the German narrative complicates the conversation surrounding the success of the treaty. Though there were initial attempts to sign the treaty, they were too disorganized and were not able to make progress in the signing of the treaty. During the creation process, “The Four”, or Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau, and Vittorio Orlando, would come together in an attempt to create peace. In particular, Wilson made his famous “Fourteen Points” in regards to the Treaty of Versailles, which were much too large of an undertaking for Europe, who just came out of a war.³ This lack of unity would allow for unreasonable requirements on the end of Germany to slip through, creating the problem that the Dawes Plan would attempt to fix.

Ruhr District

Upon Germany’s failure to pay the reparations placed by the Treaty of Versailles, the first action taken against Germany was by France in the Ruhr District. At the time, coal amounted to 15-16% of the annual obligation according to France, and 11% according to Germany.⁵ The Ruhr district was easily Germany’s largest producer of coal, which accounted for much of the reparations that Germany was attempting to pay. In response, France and Belgium took matters into their own hands in an attempt to seize control of Germany’s coal production to funnel the reparation funds away from the German economy as punishment.⁶ Much of this desire to occupy the district for the French was out of stubbornness. The French Premier’s Monsieur Poincare said in a speech where he stated the riches contained in the Ruhr district, including 14,000 coke furnaces that he wanted under French control, as well as saying that France did not want to exploit the district, but rather control it.”⁷ The actions from the French can be seen as exploitative in a way, but they also represent the greater flaws of the Treaty of Versailles that allowed for French occupation in the first place.

Charles Dawes and His Committee

Germany would find a light in the darkness of a recession in the form of Charles Dawes. Dawes, who was appointed to the Director of the Budget three years prior in 1920, would show his hand in efficiency and unity in the budget for the United States. His success in his position was so great that he was invited to a committee by the League of Nations to tackle the problem of German reparations.⁸ Created by the Reparations Commission in Germany, the Dawes Committee hired ten of the smartest economic minds from the United States, France, Belgium, Great Britain, and Italy, to handle how much money would need to be estimated for Germany to pay back realistically.⁹ Every member of the committee was paid in full by the Reparations Commission except for the members from the United States, likely due to United States never joining the League of Nations. One of the many goals that the committee aimed to achieve was a “restoration of confidence” in the German nation, allowing it to successfully recuperate into a secure environment in which its economy can grow.¹⁰ Another goal of the committee was to prevent Germany from lacking a fallback, considering the impossible amount in reparations it was required to pay. If Germany was unable to successfully manage its reparations after the committee’s work, then Germany would have to fix the problem itself.

The Dawes Plan

When creating the Dawes Plan, there were a few goals and considerations that the ten experts had to work with. The first thing on the agenda for the committee was dealing with France, who were still occupying the Ruhr district of Germany at the time. While in control of the Ruhr district, France saw little increase in profit from their coal mines and instead saw a rise in inflation. This inflation led to a higher cost of living that was damaging the French economy and the franc currency. Dawes and Young planned on using this to their advantage when working out a reparation deal, as Germany was only causing problems for the French economy.¹² The other thing that came first on the agenda was ensuring that Germany accept the weight that the Dawes Plan would carry. Much of the plan to turn around Germany’s economy can be credited to Owen Young, the other U.S. member on the committee. Young’s outline of the Dawes Plan was to place reparations on Germany that were comparable to the burdens of England and France from having to pay for the war. This was to ensure that Germany would not fall behind in the economy and cause chaos for the rest of Europe, but also to ensure that Germany did not become a superpower that could control the rest of Europe. Young wanted to ensure that Germany could pay off its reparations and serve as an economic force that England and France would have to trade with to gain access to its funds.¹³ This served not only as a way to get Germany out of an endless cycle of debt, but also to get the allies to pay back their debt as well. As the plan was officialized, Germany would have a $1.25 billion mark limit on reparations until the Allies drew on a balance, then moving the limit to $5 billion marks. This ensured that Germany would pay and that the Allies would pay into Germany’s economy in a way.

Dawes Plan in Action

While the process from the rough draft into the Dawes Plan is very important, was it able to actually make an impact on German reparations at the time? The answer is unequivocally yes, though the details of the implementation are also very important. In the very beginning of the plan’s implementation, a loan totaling $200 million would be issued to Germany, $110 million of which was subscribed to by the United States. The German central bank (Reichsbank) would also be reorganized, and the plan would introduce a new monetary unit in the form of the Reichsmark. Possibly the most important action that was initially implemented was the evacuation of the Ruhr District, forcing the French out of the area.¹⁵ The immediate and future economic results from the Dawes Plan also show a great improvement to the German economy. German exports increased by twenty percent from the Dawes Plan, but the Allies did not find themselves receiving much of the expected benefits from the plan.¹⁶ While there was short-term success with the Dawes Plan, it was only a short-term measure that was attempting to solve a long-term problem for Germany.

Significance

The Dawes Plan is one of the earliest examples of how the relations changed between countries across the world. The Post World-War I environment during the 20s was the first opportunity for globalization to kick off. During the 20s, the success of the United States had the side effect of transforming them into the dominant force of globalization. Prior to World War I, there were many examples of the United States interacting with other countries, but it usually concerned trade or warfare. The 20s represented the first time that the U.S. was ahead of the rest of the world in terms of capital, allowing them to give Europe a helping hand. The Dawes Plan was also a result of a change in culture in the U.S. following World War I. There was disappointment among many Americans as a result of the violation of civil liberties, as well as disappointment over the attempt of peace that was the Treaty of Versailles and the failure of the treaty to meet up to the expectations of Wilson’s Fourteen Points.¹⁷ Much of these complaints were what resulted in the decline of pushes for reform, both in and out of the United States. The 20s, however, would change this notion to become more positive. Many aspects of the country would be reconstructed in the new post-war period, as it was seen as “the winning of a new world”.¹⁸ This new wave of progress and reform would bring about a new period in the history of the United States that brought it to its most progressive state domestically. Not only did the U.S. break its own mold domestically, but it also participated in foreign aid, something that was uncharacteristic for them to do during the time. As it stands, the Dawes Plan served as a solution that, while temporary, provided Germany with enough footing that it was able to recuperate more than it would have without the plan. While foreign aid towards Germany is the most talked about in the current day, the U.S. also provided aid to other countries such as Austria, Hungary, and Poland. The Dawes Plan is pivotal for understanding the United States’ first attempts at foreign aid and for understanding how foreign policy in the U.S. would change, going into the 20s and onward.

Map

Bibliography

“Charles G. Dawes – Biographical.” NobelPrize.org. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1925/dawes/biographical/.

“THE FRENCH IN THE RUHR.” Advocate of Peace through Justice 85, no. 3 (1923): 111–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20660241.

“One Year’s Dawes Plan” The Milwaukee Leader. September 8, 1925

Allied Experts in Berlin — Flora – Sir R. Kindersley – McFadyean – Pirelli – Allix – Parmentier – Dawes – Young – Houtart – Sir J. Stamp. Bain News Service.

Clayton, John. “Germans Killed in Ruhr.” Chicago Daily Tribune. March 6, 1923.

Costigliola, Frank. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/3113137.

Dawes, Rufus C. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929.

Dumenil, Lynn. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.

Gilbert, S. Parker. “The Meaning of the ‘Dawes Plan.’” Foreign Affairs 4, no. 3 (1926): i–xii. https://doi.org/10.2307/20028477.

Marks, Sally. “Mistakes and Myths: The Allies, Germany, and the Versailles Treaty, 1918–1921.” The Journal of Modern History 85, no. 3 (2013): 632–59. https://doi.org/10.1086/670825.

Noël Dorville. Recueil de 40 Planches de Portraits Dessinés de Sénateurs, 1902-1903. 

Patterson, Ernest Minor. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 1–6. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1015627.

Peterecz, Zoltán. “American Foreign Policy and American Financial Controllers in Europe in the 1920s.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) 18, no. 1/2 (2012): 457–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43488487.

Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 155–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2222840.

Additional Resources

Footnotes

1. Ernest Minor, Patterson. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 1 ︎
2. Noël Dorville. Recueil de 40 Planches de Portraits Dessinés de Sénateurs, 1902-1903.  ︎
3. Rufus C, Dawes. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929. P. 18-20 ︎
4. Clayton, John. “Germans Killed in Ruhr.” Chicago Daily Tribune. March 6, 1923. ︎
5. Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 155 ︎
6. Schumacher, Hermann. “The Situation in the Ruhr.” The Economic Journal 33, no. 130 (1923): 156 ︎
7. “THE FRENCH IN THE RUHR.” Advocate of Peace through Justice 85, no. 3 (1923): 111 ︎
8. “Charles G. Dawes – Biographical.” NobelPrize.org. Accessed May 3, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1925/dawes/biographical/. ︎
9. Rufus C, Dawes. The Dawes Plan in the Making, 1929. 18-20 ︎
10. Parker S, Gilbert. “The Meaning of the ‘Dawes Plan.’” Foreign Affairs 4, no. 3 (1926): vi ︎
11. Allied Experts in Berlin — Flora – Sir R. Kindersley – McFadyean – Pirelli – Allix – Parmentier – Dawes – Young – Houtart – Sir J. Stamp. Bain News Service. ︎
12. Frank, Costigliola. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. P. 486 ︎
13. Frank, Costigliola. “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s.” The Business History Review 50, no. 4 (1976): 477–502. P. 487 ︎
14. “One Year’s Dawes Plan” The Milwaukee Leader. September 8, 1925 ︎
15. Zoltán, Peterecz. “American Foreign Policy and American Financial Controllers in Europe in the 1920s.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) 18, no. 1/2 (2012): 457–85. ︎
16. Ernest Minor, Patterson. “The Dawes Plan in Operation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 120 (1925): 3-4 ︎
17. Lynn, Dumenil. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. 21 ︎
18. Lynn, Dumenil. The Modern Temper: American Culture and Society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. 21 ︎

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Noggle

               Noggle is a historiographer who wrote “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier” in 1966, which was published to the Journal of American History. In this text, Noggle demonstrates the transcendence of the idea of an isolated decade through the introduction of new avenues that historiographers looked to. To back up his titular point, Noggle points to historian John Spencer Bassett, who wrote on the context of the United States, saying that “The country craved rest” from the war. This goes along with the view being reported by historians, saying that the 20s were an isolated decade in American history due to World War I. Noggle also points to historian Fredrick Lewis Allen who classified 1919-1929 as a unique segment of American history.[1]

Noggle points readers to the historical events such as World War II and the New Deal that came after the 20s, both of which expanded on the idea of an isolated decade in interesting ways. Noggle ends the passage by quoting historian Arthur S. Link calling the 20s a frontier, saying that the 20s are now being studied with sources, rather than the memory of the decade that pervaded the minds of historians for decades. [2]

Fronc

               Fronc is a historiographer who wrote “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey” in 2018. Fronc treats the 1920s much differently from how Noggle had previously treated it, as there were many new revisions and updates to the historiography of this decade. Fronc begins by quoting Noggle on the idea of 50s historians following the idea of the 1920s as an isolated decade. Fronc turns to the modern era, where there is a multicultural approach used in the 20s, unlike what was published before. Fronc includes multiple examples of writings from the 21^st century that cover women’s suffrage, which was left out of the old historiography. Fronc includes the idea of the “new woman”, a relatively new concept that is present in all modern-day studies of the 1920s.[3]  Additionally, Fronc turns to African American history as another previously unexplored avenue during the mid-20^th century.

The Harlem Renaissance is the focus of Fronc, including examples from texts such as When Harlem was in Vogue and Black Women and the Re-Construction of American History.[4] Lastly, Fronc moves to immigration history, where much of the marginalization of immigrants was left out of the historiography previously. One common theme among the topics in Fronc’s paper is their controversial nature, as representation of marginalized groups had made little progress during the writings of historians like Noggle.

Conclusion

               There is a clear difference between the writings of historians from the 20^th and 21^st centuries. Probably the most important distinction between the two is the approach of the two, with historians from Noggle’s writing covering the mystified culture of the 20s, while the writings from Fronc’s writing covering marginalized groups.

[1] Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 300

[2] Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 314

[3] Jennifer Fronc. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 17

[4] Jennifer Fronc. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 18-19

Bibliography:

Fronc, Jennifer. “The 1920s—A Historiographical Survey.” 15-24

Noggle, Burl. “The Twenties: A New Historiographical Frontier.” The Journal of American History 53, no. 2 (1966): 299–314. https://doi.org/10.2307/1894201.

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

               My topic, the Dawes Plan, relates to some of the topics covered throughout chapters four through six of the book. In particular, the Lost Generation resonates with the topic in some way due to the Dawes Plan revolving around fixing the economy of Germany after World War I, which was hit the hardest out of all of the remaining countries after World War I. Another way in which the Dawes Plan relates to the book is its connection with internationalism and its effect on the world due to the Unites States’s involvement in foreign affairs, which became prevalent after World War I. Lastly, religion has some importance with the Dawes Plan due to the state of the Weimar Republic and the future of Germany concerning religion.

               The Dawes Plan shows a slight change in the way that the U.S. interacted with other countries, at least in comparison to how they treated immigrants from said countries. Prior to their involvement in World War I, the U.S was a country that had begun to get involved in international affairs, but there had not been a need for the country to aid other countries in this way until the 20s. What stayed the same was the way that the country treated those who immigrated from Europe. The United States was very nativist during the late 1800s, with many people believing that immigrants were a threat to the order of American society.[1] Another factor that came into the 20s that was prevalent in the U.S. and Germany was the introduction of extremist groups. There were many groups that were gaining popularity during the 20s that promoted xenophobia.[2]

               Fitting the Dawes Plan into the context of the 1920s helps to give a better understanding of the topic by looking at it from a cultural perspective, not just a political one. By looking into the context of the 1920s, you can figure out how Americans and Germans at the time would have reacted to the Dawes Plan as well as similarities that they may have had. One example of this could be the rising antisemitism at the time and looking at things like the International Jew to see how populations reacted to these ideas.[3] Another perspective that can give a better understanding of the topic from the 20s is the lost generation, who began to subscribe to ideas of individualism and freedom in response to their life experiences at such a young age.[4]

[1] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. P. 211

[2] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.  P. 211

[3] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.  P. 220

[4] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.  P. 162

Bibliography

Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024.

“Nobel Peace Prize 1925.” NobelPrize.org. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1925/dawes/speedread/.

Wikimedia Commons. Accessed April 2, 2025. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Weimar_Republic_c._1919.png.

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

               My topic, the Geneva Protocol, does not directly relate to the topics included in the first three chapters of the book but can be indirectly connected to the book. The Geneva Protocol was signed in 1925 as an attempt by the League of Nations to remove asphyxiating and poisonous gases from warfare due to the suffering they inflicted. Chapter 1 of the book covers the relationship between public and private power and the rise of progressivism in the United States.[1] Part of the reason for the rise in progressivism in the U.S. was due to World War I. In particular, the negative reaction by the population over the U.S.’s involvement in World War I was heavily criticized, especially considering the brutality that World War I contained in comparison to prior wars.[2][DT1]  The general population’s disagreement over Wilson’s involvement in World War I becomes exponentially greater when considering the weapons that both sides used to turn the trenches into a hellscape. The creation of the Geneva Protocol itself also falls into the context of the growing number of people that were being hurt at the hands of those with power. Progressives prided themselves on reforming the food industry and trust busting, both of which caused great harm to the common people, while those at the top benefitted from them in some way.[3]

               The Geneva Protocol shows a change in the way that weapons have been viewed at any point in history. Previously, there were no cases of weapons that caused so much damage to people so easily, leading to a generation against the idea of war. The lost generation that came out of World War I as fresh adults were now representative of a large amount of the population that was impacted by the gas weapons that the Geneva Protocol attempted to ban. The Geneva Protocol was also a steppingstone for human rights that had not been seen before due to the unique context at the time that brought about its existence.

               Fitting the Geneva Protocol into the context of the 1920s helps to bring out the rising tensions between governments and people, as well as war tension. While the Geneva Protocol was a landmark attempt at the removal of gas weapons from war, it was born out of an era that saw the worst of humanity and wanted to prevent it from occurring in the future. More specific to the 20s, its creation was one of a few other movements, such as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, that aimed to prevent the horrors that were seen a decade earlier, as populations began to revolt, and new political powers came into place in Europe.

[1] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. P. 11

[2] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper. P. 11

[3] Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper. P. 13

 [DT1]The Modern Temper page 11 (I think)

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

Going into the 1920s, the world had been shocked by the horrors of World War I due to the gruesome and horrifying nature of the weapons used. This includes the use of chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gases, all of which were used heavily by both sides during the war and were responsible for an estimated 100,000 deaths and 1.3 million injuries.¹ In response, many countries were looking for a solution to prevent further suffering in conflicts. On June 17, 1925, the Geneva Protocol was signed, prohibiting the use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, Bacteriological, and other dangerous gases. ²The Geneva Protocol and its effects on the 1920s and future decades, while seldom studied, provides a look into how the impact of the “Great War” was felt in the years following it. The Geneva Protocol as a response to World War I also provides an insight into how those at the forefront of the war, both diplomatically and physically, were able to shape its creation and set a standard for anti-war sentiment in the 1920s. This article analyzes the contents of the Geneva Protocol, as well as its effect on the 1920s and its importance in the future Geneva Convention.

Background of Chemical Weapons Used in World War I

The context of the time period that led to the creation of the Geneva Protocol is a reaction to the damage caused by World War I as a whole and specifically the use of chemical weapons. World War I differed from any war that had arose before it, partially due to new inventions. While new vehicles such as tanks and planes were being implemented in war for the first time, one of the most dangerous weapons for a soldier on the battlefield was the many new chemical weapons, such as the infamous mustard gas, which would quickly and efficiently put an end to a soldier’s life, given they did not have a gas mask. These gases would seep into the soldier’s lungs and burn them until they were unable to breathe, all the while causing immense pain the moment, they breathed in even a small amount of it.³

History Prior to the Geneva Protocol

After World War I and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, many countries began to turn their attention to other aspects of the war that made it so horrifying. In the case of the U.S., the Conference on the Limitation of Armament was held in Washington D.C., which confirmed many of the sentiments that the U.S. government felt came out of the war. The conference showed that most of the American people were strongly against the use of poisonous gases in war, with 385,170 of Americans voting in favor of gas warfare abolition, and only 169 in favor of allowing it. The voices of the people were so prominent that the U.S. decided to ignore the advice of a chairman representing the country in the Subcommittee of Chemical Warfare and ratified the treaty⁵. While the U.S. had ratified the In the United States, France, who also had two members in the committee, declined to ratify the treaty due to its provisions on submarine use.⁶ The idea of ratifying a treaty that banned chemical weapons would lay dormant for three years until 1925. Prior to this, the League of Nations would classify chemical agents into three categories: toxic agents, asphyxiating gases, and irritant gases, and would also study their effects on plant life, but no talk of ratifying anything yet.⁷ In 1925, there were talks about implementing a treaty that would ban the use of chemical weapons in war. At the Conference for the Supervision of International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, the Geneva Protocol was first drafted. The first draft would not include certain details, like the control of exports of chemical weapons, but these details would be added into future iterations.⁸

Contents of the Geneva Protocol

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the “Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare”, contains simple yet important declarations and demands for the world. ¹⁰The Geneva Protocol calls for the prohibition of asphyxiating and poisonous gases, as well as any other gas or liquid that “has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world.¹¹ Also written in the Geneva Protocol is a request for its demands to become accepted as international law, and to be upheld as such in the future.¹² The implementation of the Geneva Protocol as “International Law” is very interesting, as the idea of international programs such as the League of Nations was new, making this one of the earliest attempts at trying to enforce something internationally. The Geneva Protocol could have been a landmark event in the history of international law, had it had been followed in World War II. An important point to note is that the prohibition of all chemical weapons only applies during war, and the use of chemical weapons outside of war is allowed by the Geneva Protocol. The Geneva Protocol also outlined how it would deal with international conflict come a situation where two or more countries were to wage war, if there were signs of conflict. Article 12 of the Geneva Protocol states that countries in a dispute that may lead to a war “will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council” and are only allowed to fight each other as long as they have an award from the arbitrators or from the council that allows them to fight.¹³ In Article 15 of the Geneva Protocol, it states that two countries that do not reach out to arbitration who are on the verge of a war will have a full investigation of their situation performed.¹⁴ The Geneva Protocol extended past a simple ban of chemical weapons and also acted as a system to prevent wars between countries that signed off on the Geneva Protocol, all of which were also in the League of Nations.

While there were many fewer countries that ratified the Geneva Protocol in the 1920s, the ones that did were at the center of global conflict at the time. Countries who signed the Geneva Protocol had to meet a few requirements before they were able to sign it. Firstly, any country that wanted to sign the Geneva Protocol had to be a member of the League of Nations, as it would be impossible for a country not to agree with and be a member of the League of Nations while also agreeing with the Geneva Protocol. If the Geneva Protocol were to pass, then countries would be split into three groups: members of the League of Nations who signed the Geneva Protocol, members of the League of Nations who have not signed it, and countries who are not members of the League of Nations.¹⁵ The majority of the ratifications come from Europe, with major countries such as Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Finland, Italy, Russia, and Turkey ratifying during the 1920s. There are also a few ratifications from countries outside of Europe, such as the U.S., Egypt, Liberia, and Venezuela. () There was a collective consensus from countries across the world to set some limit on the weapons that are used during war to prevent the suffering of soldiers to some degree, though the restrictions that came along with said agreement may have been too much for some countries at first, as it took a while for many countries to be in agreement with the terms of the Geneva Protocol.

The Importance of the “Lost Generation” to the Geneva Protocol

The Lost Generation is the youth that had to fight in World War I. The way of life of the Lost Generation was completely altered after World War I, and this can be seen through the writings and ideas that began to gain traction among the new generation. One example of this among the Lost Generation is the interest that they took in the writings of Sigmund Freud, an author whose ideas on concepts such as the unconscious brought him to popularity to the point where he became a household name.¹⁷ There was also an increase of popularity in certain forms of psychology, one of which being behaviorism, or the study of human behavior, which claimed that humans were shells that were molded from their environment.¹⁸ The connection between a generation that was torn apart by chemical weapons in warfare and ideas of humans being formed by their environment is very sound, though these ideas were unpopular among the older generations. Lastly, the acceptance of science by this generation was at an all-time high, with Einstein’s theory of relativity being published and positively received, even though it was a reality-changing theory that would reshape the way humans looked at the world around them.¹⁹ This new “Lost Generation” was very interested in ideas that were seen as troubling to previous generations due to the horrific circumstances that World War I brought about.

Not only was the Lost Generation more interested in sciences and psychology more than any generation before them, but they were also very vocal against the implementation of chemical weapons in war. Both those from the Lost Generation and those from other generations gave their thoughts on chemical weapons in warfare during the previously mentioned Washington Conference, which was a big motivator for the creation of the Geneva Protocol. The people also reacted very positively to announcements on the creation of the Geneva Protocol, with multiple newspaper issues being published with articles stressing the importance of the Geneva Protocol and giving updates on the countries that wanted to sign it.²¹ While the lack of proper implementation of the Geneva Protocol itself makes gathering reactions from people hard, it can be assumed that the those affected by the chemical weapons of World War I would have reacted positively, had the Geneva Protocol been put into action, it would have definitely been received positively.

Significance

The Geneva Protocol served not only as the first attempt at implementing a ban on weapons of war but also served as one of the first forms of international law. The Geneva Protocol represents the initial response to the shock that World War I brought to the world, and even though the Geneva Protocol did not hold up, it acted as a steppingstone to future implementations of international law. The Geneva Protocol also contains many declarations hidden in the lines of its many articles that justify its standing as one of the earliest attempts at international law. While the Geneva Protocol acted as a treaty to ban the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, and bacteriological gases, it also contained many restrictions on those who signed that resemble modern forms of international governing systems such as the United Nations (UN). Ideas such as having a council to deal with conflicts being written into a treaty on the banning of chemical weapons in war is very interesting, as it is a form of international law that was, and still is, ahead of its time. While these ideas were ahead of their time, they would have proved to be unsustainable if there was any attempt to implement the Geneva Protocol, especially during World War II.

               The existence of the Geneva Protocol itself stands as a signifier of just how much the times had changed from the previous century, as the concept of something like the Geneva Protocol would have been very fringe in the late 19^th century, and non-existent at any time before that. The change from weapons that were meant to kill, to weapons that were meant to efficiently incapacitate and kill soldiers in the most painful way imaginable was one that the entire world was not ready for. While the finer details of the Geneva Protocol may have seemed extreme for a treaty meant to ban chemical weapons, it was an attempt by international law to ensure a better future for the next generation.

Timeline

Bibliography

Footnotes

1. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare: A Legal and Political Analysis.” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 430. ︎
2. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2. ︎
3. “Gas Warfare.” The British Medical Journal 1, no. 3828 (1934): p. 903 ︎
4. “Types of Gas Masks Used by the Various Armies During the World War.” Bulletin of the United States Chemical Warfare Association, April 15, 1925, No. 10. ︎
5. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 428 ︎
6. Jones, Daniel P. “American Chemists and the Geneva Protocol.” Isis 71, no. 3 (1980): p. 429 ︎
7. Moore, John Norton. “Ratification of the Geneva Protocol on Gas and Bacteriological Warfare” Virginia Law Review 58, no. 3 (1972): p. 456, 465 ︎
8. Baxter, R. R., and Thomas Buergenthal. “Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925.” The American Journal of International Law 64, no. 5 (1970): p. 2 ︎
9. Ewing, Harris &. “[The Conference on Limitation of Armaments, Washington, D.C.].” Library of Congress, January 1, 1970. ︎
10. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
11. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
12. U.S. Department of State. Accessed March 26, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/4784.htm. ︎
13. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 18 ︎
14. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 19 ︎
15. Miller, David Hunter. The Geneva Protocol. Miami, FL: Hardpress Publishing, 2016. p. 13 ︎
16. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎
17. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
18. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 146 ︎
19. Dumenil, Lynn. The modern temper: American culture and society in the 1920s. United States: Hill and Wang, 2024. p. 147 ︎
20. Martin, William. “Geneva Protocol Success Declared in Hands of U.S.” The Evening Star. March 10, 1928. ︎
21. Associated Press. “Geneva Protocol Issue Is Raised.” The Evening Star. February 17, 1925. ︎

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.

               Overseas, the twenties were categorized by tension. While the U.S. was thriving due to only getting involved at the end of World War I, the rest of Europe was hit hard by the war. The economies of European countries, especially those of Central Powers, were destroyed from their defeat. The treaty of Versailles also aided in the destruction of these countries. I usually think of economic depression when I think of the 1920s in Europe because of the fact that Europe was in poor economic conditions.

When I searched for “The 1920s” in Google, these were the two images that stuck out to me the most from my results:

I found that there was much more mention of women’s involvement in the culture at the time based off of the images than what I remember. Almost half of the images I found were of flappers and models. Another aspect that I overlooked before looking into the images was the fashion of the 1920s. The fashion in the U.S. was very important to the culture at the time, with suits and dresses comprising most of what was considered fashion for the middle and upper class. Fashion in this sense, especially as an expression of wealth, was very culturally significant at the time, as it became culturally relevant due to stories like The Great Gatsby emphasizing the new fashion that came about during the time, especially with the “new money” being thrown around the market, making more people rich than ever. On the other hand, there is a deeper look into the 1920s that cannot be overstated. Women had to fight tooth and nail for the right to vote and immigration was prohibited from those in Eastern Europe and Asia, allowing only Protestants into the country. There were many tells of unrest that would eventually lead to the Great Depression and the fall of the Roaring 20’s that can be seen from the pictures.

Bibliography

Glamourdaze. “What Flappers Really Wore in the 1920’s.” Glamour Daze, January 23, 2025. https://glamourdaze.com/2019/03/what-flappers-really-wore-in-the-1920s.html.
Richardson, Gary. “Stock Market Crash of 1929.” Federal Reserve History. Accessed January 29, 2025. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929.

dthomson

Duncan Thomson is a History Major and Museum and Exhibition Studies minor at Ramapo College of New Jersey.