1

A/CUIMUN/24/NOC

Distr.: General

2- 4 November 2018

Original: English

Europe after the Great War,

21 January 1919

Historical Crisis:

Joint-Cabinet Crisis

2

CUIMUN HISTORICAL JOINT-CABINET CRISIS

Europe after the Great War

The post-war revolutions, 21 January 1919

I. Welcome from the Directors p. 3

II. Introduction to the Topic p. 5

III. Report on the state of Germany p. 8

IV. Report on the state of the United Kingdom p. 14

V. Report on the state of Ireland p. 18

VI. Cabinet 1: German Government p. 25

VII. Cabinet 2: British Government p. 27

VIII. Cabinet 3: Irish Revolutionary Government p. 29

IX. Cabinet 4: Paris Peace Conference p. 30

X. Appendix: Maps p. 31

XI. Bibliography and Further reading p. 34

Designed to be read in complement with the additional comprehensive Study Guide on the January 1919 Paris Peace Conference for CUIMUN XXIV 2018.

CONTENTS

3

Honourable delegates,

It is our greatest pleasure to welcome you to this CUIMUN XXIV 2018 centennial simulation of the aftermath of the Great War in Europe, and to the elegance and grandeur that is CUIMUN Historical Crisis.

November 2018 will see the centenary commemorations of the 1918 Armistice and the end of the Great War, of the first elections in the UK to enjoy female suffrage (followed by the first open and democratic elections in Germany two months later), and of the beginnings of the grand system of peace conferences and treaties which set out a new world architecture to achieve and enshrine Europe’s future peace. The period of a hundred years ago also sees striking parallels with our own time: over the unease and increased polarisation of left and right in Britain and in Europe, over the role and treatment of women within politics and wider society, over the future relationship of the islands of Britain and Ireland with Europe and with each other, over the entangling and disentangling of foreign relations among the shifting great powers, and over ever-present debates over multi-party coalitions, public welfare, finance and the relief of the poor.

It seems fitting that, in looking back to the birth of the twentieth-century world in both its domestic and international politics, and in considering our own uneasy time, we should simulate the governments and key decision-makers in January 1919 who did so much to shape their own generation and those which followed.

CUIMUN is the oldest university-level Model UN conference in the United Kingdom and pioneered the UK-style directives-based approach to Crisis simulations. Taking up the reins of CUIMUN’s Historical and Crisis simulation for the first time, we are accordingly excited to build and expand on CUIMUN’s unique tradition of Historical and Crisis Committees of the highest academic standard and rigour: offering this year our joint simulation of the January 1919 governments of Weimar Germany, the United Kingdom, and Ireland, alongside the multi-committee Paris Peace Conference then ongoing in Versailles.

We look back to CUIMUN’s previous simulations, in particular those of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (CUIMUN XVII 2011), of the two 1648 Congresses of Westphalia (CUIMUN XIX 2013), and of the 1919-22 Graeco-Turkish War (CUIMUN XXI 2015). The last was innovatively the first conference on the UK circuit to integrate a standard diplomatic, deliberative, peace-making body (the League of Nations) within a wider directives-based, multi-cabinet historical Crisis: a standard which we look forward to taking further at this year’s conference than has been done in the past. Taking as our topic a CUIMUN Crisis proposal that was once turned down for being too ambitious, we expect our committee arrangement this year to bring out the nuance and subtlety of the topic with the diplomatic elegance and grandeur appropriate to a Cambridge Crisis.

Far from being the military Crisis that many simulations devolve into, our theme this year promises the full breadth and depth of domestic, electoral, and diplomatic high and low politics, all within a transformative, multifaceted, and still-relevant era. We are grateful not only for the accumulated experience and guidance of CUIMUN Crisis directors from previous years, but also for being able to assemble an exceptional backroom and chairing team, with whose support we are sure we will outdo our previous simulations.

We stress that in accordance with the best practice of Crisis committees at Model UN conferences, the development and outcome our simulation will be not be a foregone conclusion. History is as much a product of accident and of choice as it is of any other historical motive, and events are far from being socially or

I. WELCOME FROM THE DIRECTORS

4

politically predetermined. Thus, while the following Study Guide (and its accompanying Study Guide on the Paris Peace Conference) is thoroughly accurate up to its start date, we have purposefully ignored all events and developments after that point. Nor, in our case, have we been unduly influenced by what ultimately emerged by accident of history as the historical solution. We have given the delegates all the information we believe they will need to have at their disposal to navigate the world in which they find themselves, but although we certainly invite further reading on the topic, what ultimately comes of it will come down to the cumulative decisions they take and the circumstances that emerge over the course of the weekend.

More personally, as the first pair of female directors to direct a CUIMUN Historical Crisis together, we are also conscious that this year’s simulation appears to be the first Crisis team – for any UK or European conference’s Crisis of this scale – to have achieved a full gender balance in its Crisis backroom. Given the approaching centenary of women’s right to vote in Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany this academic year, this seems especially fitting.

Whatever the outcome of the weekend’s Crisis, we hope however that you will take away what this dynamic format has to offer, and above all that you will enjoy yourselves in what we expect to be a challenging and fast-paced simulation amidst some beautiful surroundings. We place ourselves entirely at your disposal.

Felicity Garvey and Helen Kwong,

Historical Crisis Lead Co-ordinators,

CUIMUN XXIV 2018

5

“NOW days are dragon-ridden, the nightmare

Rides upon sleep: a drunken soldiery

Can leave the mother, murdered at her door,

To crawl in her own blood, and go scot-free;

The night can sweat with terror as before

We pieced our thoughts into philosophy,

And planned to bring the world under a rule,

Who are but weasels fighting in a hole.

…

We, who seven years ago

Talked of honour and of truth,

Shriek with pleasure if we show

The weasel’s twist, the weasel’s tooth.”

– W.B. Yeats, ‘Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen’

When the final armistice of the Great War was declared on 11 November 1918, Europe looked back on four

years of war and approximately 20 million military and civilian casualties, as well as 21 million wounded. What H.G. Wells dubbed “The war to end all wars”, triggered by the assassination in the Balkans of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 28 June 1914, scarred the continent like no other war had before. Its wake left unprecedented domestic crises and diplomatic challenges, each demanding a response and resolution by the respective victorious Allied Powers, by the successors to the defeated Central Powers, and by rising groups which sought to use the changing political order as an opportunity for greater independence.

When Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia immediately after the assassination, a number of bilateral and multilateral treaties were triggered, dragging the continent into war. The Russian Empire mobilised its army on behalf of Serbia on 24 July 1914 and Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July. Following its Austro-Hungarian ally, the German Empire then issued an ultimatum to Russia and demanded immediate demobilisation – when Russia refused, the Germans declared war on 1 August. Russia on the other hand profited from the Triple Entente (Russia, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom), which included a Russian-French military pact.

Accordingly, Germany declared war on France on 3 August and continued to invade the neutral states Belgium and Luxembourg, which led the United Kingdom in turn to declare war on Germany on 4 August. Ultimately, Germany and Austria-Hungary were joined by the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, forming the Central Powers. The British Empire, France, Russia (until 1917), Serbia, Belgium, Montenegro, Japan, Italy (joined 1915), the United States (joined 1917), Romania (joined 1916), Portugal (joined 1916), China, Greece

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC

6

and Siam (all joined 1917) expanded the Triple Entente and together formed the Allied Powers. All in all, 60 million soldiers were mobilised over the course of the Great War.

The war was characterised by trench warfare and more advanced and deadly technology. Advances such as more lethal artillery and guns – alongside vehicles such as tanks, zeppelins, battleships and submarines – led to more casualties than previous wars and made crossing on open ground difficult. The most serious and disastrous innovation however was the development of gas warfare. The Germans were the first that violated the Hague Convention of 1907 when using chlorine gas at the battle of Ypres in 1915. However, poison gas like tear gas, phosgene, chlorine or mustard gas was later used also by the Austrians, French, British and Americans. Other features of the war included static warfare and the genocide of populations in the east.

End of the Empire

After an increasingly complex and drawn out series of engagements, the Hundred Days Offensive, which

began at Amiens in August 1918, led to the rapid collapse of German military morale. The German High Command under its leader General Erich Ludendorff internally accepted their defeat and attempted to conclude the war. Informing the German Emperor Kaiser Wilhelm II of the situation, General Ludendorff offered his resignation, which was denied. Wilhelm II held a Crown Council meeting on 13 August 1918 where Paul von Hindenburg (Chief of the German General Staff), Erich Ludendorff (Hindenburg’s Deputy) and Paul von Hintze (Foreign Minister) agreed that the war could not be ended militarily because a victory was now impossible. Rather, they decided, Germany should attempt a political solution and start peace negotiations.

At the same time, further Allied advances at the end of August lead to the withdrawal of the German Army behind the Hindenburg Line, on 2 September. Realising that the German Army could not hold out for much longer, Hindenburg suggested peace talks to the Austrians who agreed and proposed to hold those on neutral soil. While the military leadership prepared for a political solution, news of the impending defeat spread through the German Army – feeling let down and betrayed officers and soldiers alike threatened mutiny to restore Germany’s valour and continue the fight. To ease this internal threat Ludendorff and Admiral Scheer authorised a last naval strike, knowing that it would end in disaster – and despite leading navy voices that thought this was a pointless suicide mission. Rebellion against this strike in the Kiel Mutiny led to the arrest of many navy members, but also triggered the November revolution and saw that Ludendorff was ultimately dismissed on 26 October 1918.

This change in internal dynamics lead the Kaiser change its mind and move to surrender as soon as possible. Prince Maximilian von Baden, new Chancellor of Germany, started negotiating with the Allies. He started with the Americans in the hope to get a better deal than with the French and English. The Americans demanded a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary control over Germany. However, before anything could be formally agreed, the Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann declared Germany to be a republic on 9 November. Wilhelm II fled into exile in the Netherlands, and Germany became the last central power to sign its armistice, on 11 November.

7

The future

By the war’s end, the German Empire, the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Ottoman

Empire had all ceased to exist. Borders were redrawn, monarchies disappeared, and new states were founded in their place. Germany lost 15.1% of its entire male population, France 10.5%, and Austria-Hungary 17.1%. The experience of soldiers in the trenches, the mass-killing and everyday hardship of the civilian population influenced the societies in all states involved. There was a widespread sense of disillusion in all of Europe after the war. At the same time, societal and political changes also led to a brave new world in Europe.

The first elections in the United Kingdom since the start of the war saw suffrage reforms, resulting in the first British election in which women over the age of 30, and all men over the age of 21, could vote. In Germany, the fall of the Empire and the declaration of the new republic in the November Revolution of 1918 similarly saw that country’s first open and democratic elections two months later, in January 1919. Class barriers at the political level are rapidly breaking down in postwar Europe. At the same time, the election of a landslide majority of pro-independence Sinn Féin MPs for Ireland in the UK General Election threatened the dissolution of the victorious United Kingdom, even while Germany itself was on the brink of possible civil war. Above all of this, the Paris Peace Conference of the victorious Allied and Associated Powers, which first met on 18 January 1919 in Versailles, had the monumental task of imposing an effective and judicious postwar settlement on the defeated Central Powers, potentially redrawing the map of Europe and the world for decades to come.

Now, as of 21 January 1919, the 27 parties to the Paris Peace Conference are three days into their discussions in Versailles, the German national assembly has just been elected with its new government yet to be formed, the British Parliament is about two weeks away from convening its first session at Westminster, and the Irish MPs are due to take their seats that day at a revolutionary parliament formed at the Mansion House in Dublin. With the springs wound up on the domestic and political stage of northwestern Europe, everything is still to play for in the Crisis which is about to begin.

8

Geography, society and economy

Nominally, the newly established German Republic encompasses the borders of the former German Empire.

As a formal state of war is still in effect (albeit under armistice) and the Paris Peace Conference has only just convened in Versailles, no agreement has yet been made between the new republic and the Allied victors of the Great War regarding its territorial boundaries in the postwar settlement. Nonetheless, following the armistice of 11 November and the Allied occupation of the Rhineland of 1 December 1918, much of the western front remains occupied by Allied forces, with considerable units of French and British troops stationed throughout the Rheinprovinz up to and including the Saar basin. To the east, the Brest-Litovsk Treaty with the Bolsheviks ensures that Prussian boundaries remain as they were prior to the war, sprawling several hundred miles east of Berlin to Ostpreuβen on the border with Russia.

III. REPORT ON THE STATE OF GERMANY

9

Internally, the November Revolution that began in Wilhelmshaven has spread rapidly, with all member states of the German Empire having followed Bavaria’s lead in declaring themselves as Volksstaats through the abdication of all remaining dynastic state rulers. Of the 27 constituent states that in 1871 had been unified to create the German Empire, Prussia is by far the largest, constituting some two thirds of the nation’s landmass and with Berlin located within it. After Prussia, mountainous Bavaria is the next largest state, incorporating the once affluent city of Munich. Having been economically devastated by four hard years of Allied blockade and heavy French bombing, communist factions are gaining an increased presence within the state, leading to tensions with the right-wing Thule Gesellschaft. The city of Weimar, anticipated seat of the forthcoming constitutional assembly, is in the centre of Germany in the Free State of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (formerly the Grand Duchy of Saxony).

Despite the war’s effects and the diplomatic settlement still to come, Germany remains the largest and wealthiest nation in Europe. The German population has grown rapidly since the late nineteenth century, having reached 65 million in 1910. The population of German cities in particular has grown due to migration from rural East Prussia to Berlin or west German cities, supported by economic expansion and logistical

10

improvements throughout the Empire. By the beginning of the century, Germany had transitioned from an agricultural country to an industrial one, dominated by the railway, heavy industry, chemical and electrical centres. In 1907, only 28% of the working population worked in agriculture, as opposed to 42% who worked in industrial or manual labour jobs. Another 13% worked in trade, 5% as public servants, and 3% in domestic services, with 8% either retired or unemployed.

With the industrialisation has come the ascent of the workers. The diverse group of unskilled, semiskilled and skilled workers developed through shared experiences a common self-image and movement which ultimately lead to the establishment of political parties and a voice. Nevertheless, it has hitherto been the middle classes that have been able to maintain and impose their cultural norms on German society, making Germany a centre of education and research with education as the ideal aspiration.

In terms of population distribution (see map above), the flat industrial region in the west encompassing cities such as Dortmund and Köln has one of the highest population densities, as does the region surrounding Dresden on the border with the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. It should be noted that many peoples across this border are ethnically Germanic. In terms of religion, Catholicism is prevalent throughout the south (particularly within Bavaria) with Protestantism dominant in the north (especially in Prussia), while the Jewish population (about 1.3% of the national population) is spread between two main regions – one in a band extending from south Rhineland up to near Weimar, and the other located in eastern Prussia. The religious divide also has political consequences. In Catholic areas, the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) is generally dominant, with little chance for the Social Democrats or other parties to win over voters in those parts. Progressive secularisation may see this situation change, but it is yet to early to predict its effects.

Nonetheless, German society has borne a heavy toll. The German Army has lost some 2 million soldiers, while another 250,000-350,000 civilians have perished due to Spanish Flu and food shortages. The Republic has thus been left with the unenviable task of burying many loved ones in a very short space of time.

Military situation

The aftermath of the November armistice has seen the Occupation of the Rhineland, begun on 1

December by the French, English, Belgian and American forces. The occupied area includes a demilitarised zone of a 30-kilometre radius around the cities Cologne, Mainz and Koblenz, the left bank of the river Rhine, and a 50-kilometre-wide strip east of the river. The Allied motivation of the occupation is partly to protect France against the potential threat of a new German attack, and partly to serve as a guarantee for future reparation obligation.

The terms of the armistice have additionally seen the surrender of substantial military vehicles and equipment which await the decision of the Paris Peace Conference. The German Imperial Navy’s High Seas Fleet, comprising some 72 vessels – including 16 capital ships, 8 cruisers, and 50 destroyers, manned by a skeleton crew under the command of German Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter – is currently interred at Scapa Flow in Scotland, under the watch of the UK Royal Navy’s 1st Battle Squadron and British Vice-Admiral Sydney Fremantle, until the parties of the peace conference decides how to divide, dismantle, or dispose of them. The German fleet of some 24 Zeppelin dirigible airships – those surviving from the total of 84 built during the war – have meanwhile been grounded. During the Great War, their infamous air-raids over the United Kingdom dropped some 5,806 bombs on that country alone and led to a loss of a full sixth of Britain’s normal output of munitions.

11

The German Imperial Army at the end of the war comprised some 4 million soldiers – not counting the 2 million soldiers who lost their lives during the four years of war – most of whom have been demobilised or sent home following withdrawal from the trenches. Many of these have organised into paramilitary groups of war veterans, or Freikorps, which retain their military grade equipment and ostensibly stand to support the government. Both active members and veterans of the German army are deeply concerned with German military honour, especially those at the officer level. Nonetheless, the war has had a heavy demographic impact, leaving many widows, orphans, and gravely wounded or traumatised veterans requiring the support of the new government.

While the terms of the armistice mean that there is no active fighting on Germany’s borders, the country is still faced with internal unrest and ongoing threat of strikes and uprisings, such as the communist Spartacist Uprising which tore through Berlin in January and was only finally suppressed by the Freikorps about a week ago.

Political situation

The recent domestic political situation in Germany has seen rapid and yet-unstable revolutionary change,

from Empire to Republic. Germany has endured major internal reform and a revolution in a matter of months, with far-right and far-left factions among those battling for the fate of the post-imperial nation. The October reforms which were introduced after the dismissal of Erich Ludendorff as Quartermaster General transformed

12

the German political regime into a parliamentary monarchy on 28 October 1918. This state lasted until 9 November, when Philipp Scheidemann of the Majority Social Democratic Party (MSPD or simply SPD, a social democratic party) declared the republic.

During this time, the November Revolution was started when seven workers and soldiers were shot during a protest demonstration on 1 November in Kiel. The sailors’ rebellion that ensued spread within a week to other major German cities, with workers’ and soldiers’ councils formed to implement local soviet-style forms of administration. The MSPD wanted to stop a full-scale revolution and tried to halt the political development by demanding the resignation of the Kaiser on 7 November, threatening to withdraw from government if he did not do so. However, after a vague acceptance of resignation, which was not followed through, a general strike ensured all over Berlin.

Accordingly, the MSPD left the government at 9am on 9 November, and the German Chancellor Max von Baden thereafter declared the resignation of the Kaiser – independently and without authorisation. Within a matter of hours, at 2pm, Scheidemann declared Germany a republic. Two hours after that, Karl Liebknecht declared a free socialist republic, but did not manage to gain sufficient support.

With the political situation delicate, Kaiser Wilhelm was wary of the fate which faced the Russian Tsar and his family following the Russian Revolution in 1917, and decided to flee (without formal abdication) to the Netherlands, where he remains in exile until this day. The Kaiser’s flight into exile without his formal resignation has been understood as cowardice even among conservative politicians. Until the end of the month, all twenty-two monarchs in the German Empire formally resigned and accepted the new status as a republic. The MSPD and the USPD (the socialist Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany) agreed to govern a revolutionary government in coalition to establish order again. Together with General Wilhelm Groener from the German military High Command, the two parties governed Germany until the elections in January 1919.

The revolutionary Council of the People’s Deputies (Rat der Volksbeauftragten), under the chairmanship of Chancellor Friedrich Ebert, oversaw the organisation of the armistice with the Allies on 11 November 1918, the convocation of the first General Convention (Reichsrätekongress) in December 1918, and the preparation for the elections for the National Assembly (Nationalversammlung) on 19 January 1919. In the ongoing civil war, Chancellor Ebert also manoeuvred through the socialist Christmas Crisis of 1918 (which saw the Skirmish of the Berlin Schloss) and crushed the so-called Spartacist Uprising of 4-15 January 1919, an uprising of radical communists of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in Berlin led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, by ordering the former German imperial soldiers of the Freikorps to attack the workers. With the advantage of weapons and military equipment from the Great War, some 156 insurgents and 17 Freikorps soldiers died during the fighting; Liebknecht’s body has been anonymously delivered to a morgue, while Luxemburg remains missing.

13

On 19 January 1919, elections for a constituent assembly with a proportional representation were held. For the first time in German history, women were allowed to vote. The MSPD under its party leader Hermann Müller won a plurality the elections with 37.9%, while the Catholic Centre Party (or Zentrum) under Adolf Gröber won 19.7% and the German Democratic Party (DDP) under Friedrich von Payer won 18.6%. Getting this far has been a landmark achievement for the MSPD and the young republic – but the newly elected parties must form a new coalition in order to govern, draft a constitution, and hold a new presidential election, all while striking a balance between the weakened but still powerful traditional ruling classes, the rising tide of socialism across the country, and whatever demands may be placed upon Germany by the victors of the Great War.

14

IV. REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Politics and Society

The United Kingdom comprises the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, ruled under King George V and

governed from its ancient Parliament in Westminster, and overseeing a vast empire of imperial and colonial possessions – which make it the most extensive and powerful in the world in terms of overall territory, wealth, and population.

Nonetheless, the early twentieth century has seen a dramatic change in the political system of the United Kingdom, with a breakdown of the two-party system previously dominated by the Liberal and Conservative parties. In the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, with its expansion of populations living and working in urban areas, work by Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree showed the severity of poverty amongst the working classes, resulting in widespread discontent with the leading parties among voters. Led by a mixture of genuine concern and political expedience, the Liberal leaders David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill enacted the Liberal Reforms of 1906-1914, laying the foundation of a British welfare state. Notable accomplishments in these reforms included free school meals and the creation of pension schemes, all with the aim of comprehensively improving the living standard of the fastest growing voter demographic at the time. Despite these attempts to appease this politically active group, the Liberals were not able to effectively quell the growth of the Labour Party: having sprouted out of the labour unions, it would come to be viewed as the voice of the working class.

The second related issue to plague the two-party system was that of female suffrage. The drive for female suffrage began under Millicent Fawcett as an intellectual and peaceful system of protest which were met with a large amount of approval, but had achieved little in concrete political terms by 1903. The shift came with the foundations of the Suffragette movement under Emmeline Pankhurst, a party primarily motivated to aggressive acts of violence and terror against figures of the patriarchal establishment: most notably, when Theresa Garnett attacked Winston Churchill with a riding whip at Bristol Temple Meads Station. In the years building up to the Great War, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) grew closer to the Labour Party as they became the embodiment of the progressive ideology of Britain. The link of the female suffrage movement to the Labour Party was consolidated when the Liberal Prime Minister H.H. Asquith drew parallels between the suffragette attacks and the nationalist attacks taking place in Ireland, claiming he could not reward women without encouraging the Irish. When women ultimately gained suffrage in 1918, a large portion of their voting demographic was thus dedicated to the Labour Party despite their absence from the industrial workforce. Similarly, the first woman elected to Parliament in the 1918 General Election, Constance Markievicz, had been involved in the Irish revolution and was elected from an Irish constituency.

15

In terms of foreign policy, prior to 1914 and particularly under prime ministers such as Benjamin Disraeli, the United Kingdom enjoyed a period widely regarded as one of ‘splendid isolation’. British detachment from continental affairs theoretically allowed the United Kingdom to distinguish itself from European squabbles and to compete with their rivals in imperial conflicts alone. During this time, the greatest driver of the economy of nineteenth-century Britain was its empire. The all-encompassing nature of the Great War, however, has drawn Britain into both the problem of creating a lasting peace settlement on the continent and the wider challenges of empire. Former Central Power territories such as Mesopotamia, Palestine, Nauru and many others are likely to be distributed amongst the victorious Allied forces at the Paris Peace Conference, and the principal foreign policy challenge for the United Kingdom is to ensure a favourable settlement at Versailles.

Moreover, while the British Empire faces the potential to expand as the German and Ottoman Empires break up, maintaining control over its own empire will be more difficult than ever. The enormous contribution of the colonies was instrumental to the Allied victory – India alone contributed £146 million to the war effort – but the tapping of colonial resources has raised colonial expectations in their future postwar relationship with Britain. Colonies such as India and South Africa have expressed the desire for increased autonomy and for potential dominion over some of the contested territories acquired from the Central powers. The British Government will therefore have to make the decision as to whether they will allow such devolution to occur or if they will spend resources trying to keep them under tight control.

The aftermath of the Great War has also impacted on the British and Irish economies directly. The wartime industrial focus of Britain now requires a shift toward peacetime industry; moreover, the return of soldiers from the trenches coupled with the increasing urbanisation of the United Kingdom, in both Britain and Ireland, is the cause of housing shortages which will acquire the attention of the government.

16

The coalition

The state of the political system of the United Kingdom

after the war can be summarised almost entirely in the General Election of 1918. Over the course of the war, David Lloyd George had become the leader of the coalition government, taking over from the Liberal leader H.H. Asquith following what the media and public saw as major strategic losses in the trenches of Europe. A large proportion of the cabinet which Lloyd George led was compiled of his political opposition, the Conservative Party.

When the General Election of 1918 was called, the outcome of Lloyd George becoming the prime minister came as no surprise. Though the Conservatives won the most seats in the elections and were the largest party in the coalition, they lacked the seats necessary to form a government alone. The Liberals had capitalised in the elections on the reputation of Lloyd George as the leader who had won the Great War, and his personal public approval ratings with the electorate were huge. The leader of the Conservatives, Bonar Law, said himself that Lloyd George could be ‘dictator for life if he wishes’ – a remark made partly in jest, but with the implied conclusion that despite the impressive electoral support for the Conservative Party the party itself would be unlikely to get a prime minister.

Other issues also affected voting patterns in Great Britain. The first issue was what was going to be done with the recently surrendered German Empire and with the territories which they possessed, with particular focus on the Paris Peace Conference which opened on 18 January, 1919. Other key factors were in the promises which were made on major issues of reform in the country for the postwar period, with headlines focusing on the housing crisis, living conditions, and government plans for accommodating the newly increased workforce.

The parties were split based on the willingness of the parties and their respective members to work together in a prospective coalition. The Liberals and Conservatives distributed ‘coupons’ among their parliamentary candidates which detailed the intention of those elected to work together in a coalition. There were however members of both parties who chose not to take part in these coupons, while the Labour Party chose to stay separate from the arrangement entirely. Thus, candidates could stand as Coalition Conservatives or non-Coalition Conservatives; as Coalition Liberals or non-Coalition Liberals. Ultimately, ‘coupon’ Liberals and Conservatives proved to be the most successful electoral force, winning 459 seats out of 707 throughout the United Kingdom, earning the election its later reputation as ‘the coupon election’. Meanwhile, third parties such as the Labour Party saw major steps being made forward in their popularity, largely as a result of the expansion of the franchise to all men in the country over the age of 21 and with the inclusion of women in the ballot. The product of all of this was a Liberal-Conservative Coalition, with a Liberal leadership but with the majority of the influence coming from the Conservatives.

17

The military situation

Following the largest assembly of British soldiers in their history, the British Army are yet to release the final

tally of those who died in service or are missing. While British soldiers remain among the Allied forces in ongoing occupation of the Rhineland, the 4 million who were mobilised for the Great War are in the process of being reduced and are now in the region of 800,000 active soldiers. The British standing army is both considerable and well-equipped, but is in a state which cannot be maintained in a financially viable state and is in the process of being reduced in size even further. Though no official policy has yet been adopted, it is the advice of the leading military officials that the British military should not engage in any major military conflict with another empire for 10 years at minimum: neither the soldiers nor the economy would be prepared.

At the same time, the Royal Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world: larger than that of the United States which is second, and considerably larger than that of the third largest, that of the Empire of Japan. President Woodrow Wilson proposed the expansion of the United States navy by 50 battleships, a proposition which if followed through would have meant that the US navy would have been considerably larger than that of Great Britain. Fortunately for the United Kingdom, the US Senate disapproved of such high levels of spending, but as of right now, the two powers are still in an arms race. The United States, though not as quickly as Wilson first proposed, and the Japanese are both expanding their naval forces; in order to maintain supremacy, the British navy is also being expanded, though the main issue with this is that this is a race that none of the three parties can afford. The second issue is that no party can afford not to engage in this race as long as the other two do, particularly the British. With the state of the empire being more fickle than ever, the British are hugely reliant on the navy to maintain its control. Should the British stop having the world’s most powerful navy, there will be little to stop others infringing on their territory; while if they continue to spend on new battleships, there will not be the funds to rectify their developing housing crisis or support their economy.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) meanwhile is the largest airforce in the world, as well as being the first to be independent of the rest of the armed forces. Now that the Great War is over, however, the cost of the Air Force may be too high to justify its usefulness. Given that Britain is concerned with exercising control over an increasingly expansive empire, with planes whose range and capabilities are limited, the cabinet may have to make a decision as to whether it wishes to rule the land, air or waves.

The British military position is complicated however, not least in Ireland, where there are independently-operating paramilitary groups such as the Ulster Volunteers and military officers of unionist persuasions – both opposed to any concessions to Irish nationalists, including the Home Rule Act passed by the British Parliament at Westminster in 1914 (see below). The British Government may accordingly find difficulties for example in imposing a Home Rule settlement on Ulster by military means, as doing so will require moving against the Ulster Volunteers in addition to the tactical challenges involved: the last time this was proposed, it led to the resignation of several senior British military officials in the infamous Curragh Incident of 1914.

18

V. REPORT ON THE STATE OF IRELAND

Political background

The history of Ireland’s fraught relationship with the island of Britain began with the Cambro-Norman

invasion of Ireland in 1169 – the celebrated start of the so-called ‘eight-hundred years’ of occupation, although the island’s actual history is more complex. Ireland remained divided between native Gaelic lords and the descendants of the first wave of English conquerors, and was first brought firmly under royal English control under Queen Elizabeth I. The early modern plantations of English and Scottish settlers in the provinces of Leinster, Munster and Ulster consolidated English and subsequently British control in the island, while the religious changes of the sixteenth century resulted in a Catholic Irish underclass dominated by a minority Protestant Ascendancy.

Thereafter, the island was dominated by British interests, to the point of being fully absorbed into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland following the unsuccessful United Irishmen Rebellion in 1798. The Act of Union which formalised this in 1801 was passed thanks to a campaign of corruption, bribery, and the promise of Catholic Emancipation. Before this, Ireland had had its own parliament in Dublin and had been seen as a hotbed of almost generational political dissent and rebellion. Following the Act of Union, Ireland began sending parliamentary representatives instead to a central government at Westminster. This constitutional change led to several key developments in Irish nationalism throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

THE DRIVE TO CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION AND IRISH HOME RULE

Prior to Catholic Emancipation, there was significant legislative discrimination against the majority Roman

Catholic population of Ireland, epitomised by the so-called Penal Laws which enshrined the privileges of the Protestant ruling classes. A key aspect of public support for the Act of Union in Ireland was the promise of these laws’ abolishment. Following lobbying by Daniel O’Connell and the Anglo-Irish War Hero and Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley, penal legislation such as the Test Act was removed while new legislation such as the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 was passed, allowing O’Connell to be the first Catholic member of parliament (MP) since 1689. These solid advancements, intended to give the broader Irish populace greater say in their governance, and to hopefully placate them by doing so, were however followed by the Reform Act of 1832. The principal condition of this act was to remove the poorer British and Irish freeholders from the electoral franchise, thereby weakening the control the common people had over their governance. At this time various minor outbreaks of violence occurred, in spite of the peaceful methods that O’Connell encouraged. None of this unrest amounted to the scale of previous open rebellions, and it was quickly put down by local forces. A consequence of this was the development of the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC), the primary police force in Ireland.

While there was always a small political elite who were concerned with the repeal of the Act of Union, public support for its abolishment did not come about until the Great Irish Famine in the 1840s. Severe structural inequalities within society meant that at a time when Ireland was producing a surplus of food, this surplus was concentrated in the hands of landowners and reserved for export; when the potato crop failed, the tenant farmers were unable both to provide their rents and provide for themselves. This, coupled with the trenchant belief of the British government that any support for the populace would lead to a reliance on handouts, meant

19

that over a million people died, and a million more emigrated during the years of famine. The two enduring consequences of the Famine were the growth of discontent with the British government, leading to the surge in support for Isaac Butt’s Home Rule Party (or Irish Parliamentary Party) and other nationalist groups, and the development of a large Irish Diaspora that was able to gather resources and promote the cause of Irish nationalism abroad.

After the 1885 UK General Election produced no clear majority for any party, the Home Rule Party was able to gain control of the balance of power in the British Hung Parliament, allowing them to put the cause of self-government via an autonomous Irish parliament – ‘Home Rule’ – on the government’s agenda. Under their new leader Charles Stuart Parnell, the party was able to bring two Home Rule bills before the Parliament. Though neither of these bills passed, due to firm opposition from the conservative House of Lords, the fact that they were brought before the Parliament at all was enough to give a great sense of validation to the cause of Home Rule and to Irish nationalism as a whole. At the same time in Ireland, the Land League was set up to protect tenants who were being abused by landlords without legal recourse, via new methods of protest of which the most famous was the boycott. The Land League became a vehicle for the mobilisation of support for the Home Rule Party, which allowed the two to push together for legal protection of tenants via the passing of several Land Acts. By showing the meaningful changes achieved through protest and collective action, the Home Rule Party and the Land League galvanised the Irish public to the cause of Home Rule.

At the same time as the Home Rule Party was achieving significant gains through constitutional means, other groups such as the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), a revolutionary fraternal secret-society, pursued the goal of nationalism via more paramilitary means. These two groups were not entirely disconnected: men such as Michael Davitt held positions of power within both the Home Rule Party and the IRB, leading to both groups unofficially encouraging some degree of agrarian unrest and violence.

Meanwhile, cultural groups such as the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association advanced the cultural aspects of the Gaelic Revival by promoting the Irish language and sport. These associations became focal points for romantic nationalism as well as recruiting grounds for nationalist groups, being able to expand throughout the country easily and with limited suspicion, while providing a massive network during later stages in the drive to Irish nationalism.

THE FINAL DECADE: MILITANCY, NATIONALISM AND UNIONISM

After the death of Parnell, John Redmond became the next leader of the Home Rule Party. Redmond was

the driving force behind the final Home Rule bill, culminating in the passing of the Government of Ireland Act in 1914. The act was possible due to recent reforms which had diminished power of the House of Lords: where the House of Lords had previously been able to veto bills from the House of Commons, now they could only delay such bills for two years. Thus, the Third Home Rule Bill, introduced in 1912, would become law in 1914. Just as the act was due to be signed into law, however, Europe was convulsed by the outbreak of the Great War. The act was postponed. Parliament delayed its implementation until after the crisis, which was expected to be over within a year.

As it began to look like Ireland might finally be granted Home Rule, the situation in Ireland began to deteriorate. The rise of nationalism had bred its political rival in the guise of unionism, the movement opposing greater autonomy from the United Kingdom. The unionists, primarily Protestant and concentrated in Ulster in the north, feared the loss of cultural and political ties to Britain as well as the prospect of being ruled by a Catholic-dominated parliament in Dublin. Prior to the outbreak of war, Edward Carson led the foundation of the Ulster Volunteer Forces (UVF), 100,000 unionists who pledged to fight against Home Rule.

20

In response, the nationalist Irish Volunteer Forces (IVF) were founded, and both sides were quick to arm themselves. Thus, before the outbreak of war in Europe, Ireland itself seemed to be on the verge of a civil war. Conflict within Ireland was averted by the imminent distraction of the Great War, in which large numbers of the unionist UVF and nationalist IVF joined the British army as volunteers in the hope that their show of loyalty to the Crown would win support in Britain for their respective causes. A significant group of IVF members bitterly disagreed with this decision, however, and elected to remain home instead. The members of this group largely overlapped the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and later would go on to form the revolutionary Irish Republican Army (IRA)a while war was raging in Europe.

THE EASTER RISING AND ITS AFTERMATH

It was the Irish Republican Brotherhood that would

provide the bulk of the forces for the pivotal Easter Rising in 1916, the event that pushed forward the final stages of the drive to Irish Independence. The Rising itself was a military failure: although the rebels captured prominent positions such as the General Post Office and the Four Courts and had support from the German Empire, they were completely outgunned by the British army who shelled their positions and had suppressed the rising within six days. The rising itself did not even have the full support of the IVF, being primarily instead an Irish Republican Brotherhood operation. Nonetheless, the summary execution of the main leaders of the rebellion meant that the Rising was a major factor in the swing of public support away from the British. In response to the rising, the UK Parliament at Westminster attempted to push forward another Home Rule bill, but was unable to reach a compromise with the various parties in the country.

While these events were still in train, Sinn Féin, hitherto a minor political party founded by Arthur Griffith under the principles of establishing a dual monarchy between Britain and Ireland similar to that in Austria-Hungary, was hijacked by members of the IRB and began to advance a much more militantly nationalist agenda. Sinn Féin also took credit for the Easter Rising, and acted as the political face of the IRB as it was slowly turned into the IRA. Sinn Féin and the Home Rule Party became the two main political rivals for the heart of Irish nationalism and fought bitter battles in various by-elections, with both sides winning some and losing others.

The turning point came in response to the German Spring Offensive of 1918, when the British Government put forward its intention to introduce conscription as a precondition for the implementation of Home Rule. With many Irish volunteers already serving in the war, and with trenchant opposition to conscription led by trade unions, nationalist parties, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy, the public turned away from the British Government. In the first postwar UK General Election, held on 14 December 1918, Sinn Féin achieved a

a Historically, the revolutionary military organisation known as the Irish Republican Army existed from 1917-22. It is to be

distinguished from subsequent paramilitary groups, of which over half a dozen have used the same name.

21

landslide victory, winning 73 out of 105 parliamentary seats on a nationalist manifesto. Of these, 47 were elected while in prison: adding fuel to the anti-British fire which burned in Ireland. The result was an almost total swing in seats from the Home Rule Party to Sinn Féin. In comparison, the Irish Unionist Party won 22 seats, the Home Rule Party won a mere 6, and the Labour Party won only 3.

As per their mandate of abstentionism, these MPs refused to take their seats at Westminster, and instead founded their own secessionist revolutionary parliament of Dáil Eireann, styling themselves as ‘Teachta Dála’ (lit. ‘Deputy to the Dáil’, or TD). At its first meeting on 21 January, 1919, in the Round Room of the Mansion House in Dublin, the First Dáil met in order to proclaim an Irish Republic: adopting a provisional Dáil Constitution, a Declaration of Independence, a Message to the Free Nations of the World, and a Democratic Programme.

In doing so, there are now two bodies claiming parliamentary jurisdiction over the island of Ireland: a revolutionary parliament in Dublin, and a British parliament at Westminster. With the explicit subversion of the legitimacy of British rule in Ireland, and the possibility of a coming conflict, it falls to governments across Europe – in Dublin, in Westminster, and in Weimar – to decide how respectively to respond to the coming Crisis.

22

The situation at present

Dáil Éireann theoretically commands the support of Irish nationalists, who represent up to four-fifths of

the country, and prospectively the even more enthusiastic support of the Irish Diaspora, who are often extremely patriotic and have found wealth in new lands such as the United States in particular. The remaining fifth of the national population consists of Irish unionists loyal to the Crown, primarily in Ulster and in the major cities of Dublin, Cork and Belfast, and who are among the wealthiest in the country owning most of the land and business. The geographical division is most visible at the electoral level: unionist MPs dominate in Ulster while nationalist MPs hold all but two seats in the south. The split between nationalists and unionists is partly, though not entirely, religious: a majority of nationalists are Catholic, and a majority of unionists are Protestant, though there are notable exceptions on both sides. Due to the historical issue of religious discrimination on the island, both sides are respectively wary of the implications of either a Catholic-dominated Parliament in Dublin, or of a resurgence of Protestant control over more areas of the country if nationalist movements fail.

Nonetheless, the Irish independence movement is very divided on what it actually wants. A majority of Irish people desire self-determination without British rule. A sizeable minority wish for the new republic to be a socialist republic, where wealth is divided amongst the people and that the British systems of class and land ownership are torn down, but unsurprisingly many wealthy supporters of the Irish Republic are against this socialist redistribution of wealth as it affects their interests. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church, which is the most powerful religious institution in Ireland and the largest religious affiliation, is supportive of the rights of self-determination but firmly against bloodshed. While officially the Church supports Ireland’s right to self-determination through constitutionalist means, unofficially members of the hierarchy are in open dialogue with the Republican leadership.

In military terms, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) is the main military force that is under the control the Republican leadership. The head of the Army is the IRA Army Council under the leadership of the Chief of Staff. The Army is broken into ‘flying columns’ by county and region within a county. Each flying column has an individual battalion commander who is elected by the men of the column. The columns are under the command of local commanders that have been elected by the men in the column. The leadership of the Army is highly fractionalised. Many individual members of the Army Council hold command over flying columns that are personally loyal to them. This is a case for dispute between members of the Dáil and the Army Council.

Each flying column is equipped with a consignment of rifles of various sorts varying from the standard Lee-Enfield .303 rifle issued to the British Army, to an assignment of shotguns and hunting rifles of various calibre. Officers in the flying columns have a wide assortment of pistols. Ammunition is in constant shortage and the majority of ammunition has been seized in raids on Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) Barracks. A small amount of explosives are available to the IRA which has been robbed from farms and mines. The acquiring of a constant supply of arms and ammunition is key to the republican cause.

23

VI. CABINET 1: GERMAN GOVERNMENT

The German Cabinet is the coalition government

formed following the first German federal election in January 1919 and successor to the revolutionary Council of the People’s Deputies (Rat der Volksbeauftragten), both under the Chancellorship of Friedrich Ebert. The Government leads the newly elected National Assembly, or Nationalversammlung. In composition, the government is expected to be formed through a balance of the moderates of the Majority Social Democratic Party (MSPD or simply SPD, a social democratic party) and two so-called ‘bourgeois’ parties, the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrum) and the German Democratic Party (DDP).

Issues which the cabinet needs to resolve

The first objective which the new government needs to achieve is to set the transition from Empire to

Republic on a firm and clear political and constitutional footing. The Council of People’s Deputies has already proclaimed a lifting of the state of emergency, the repeal of conscription, the removal of censorship (along with a promise of freedom of speech), the unrestricted right of assembly and association, and the restoration of workers’ rights and protections from before the war. These proclamations and the broader programme of the republic will have to be affirmed by the new government. The new government additionally must convene the first National Assembly and direct it toward the drafting of a new constitution, and decide how it is to elect its new president, a post which has yet to be created.

The second, and equally pressing, objective is the need to restore political order within Germany. The country is currently facing considerable internal unrest. Attempted socialist uprisings have plagued the country through December and January, and soviet governments have been established without challenge in cities such as Bremen (the ‘Bremen Soviet Republic’), Leipzig, Hamburg, Chemnitz, and Gotha. Ethnic nationalism within the former German territories has fuelled the Greater Poland Uprising, ongoing in the eastern province of Wielkopolska since late December and with much of the province having already fallen to Polish nationalists. There additionally exists a threat of right-wing putsches by monarchists and other conservative factions with no strong sympathies for the idea of an egalitarian republic. The city of Berlin where the Government has hitherto based itself has proved to be especially vulnerable to socialist unrest. The Government must face off the risk of threats which could overthrow the government while reining in the uncontrolled forces which could tear the country apart.

The third, and perhaps ultimately most important, objective of the German Government is to ensure a favourable outcome in the postwar settlement at the Paris Peace Conference. As the German Government has not initially been invited to the Conference, this objective will involve lobbying the governments directly to ensure a favourable representation by the Allies and their Associated Powers. While the Americans can be expected to be the most favourable and the French and Italians the most punitive, the German Government

24

may be able to find common cause through concession or negotiation with other members of the diplomatic congress, or to advance their objectives through non-diplomatic means if necessary. Ultimately, it will fall to the German Government to decide whether to accept the terms decided at the Conference or to risk the resumption of the conflict with the Allied Powers currently occupying the Rhineland.

25

VII. CABINET 2: BRITISH GOVERNMENT

The British Cabinet is the coalition government of

Prime Minister David Lloyd George, drawn from the Liberal-Conservative Coalition returned to power following the General Election of 1918. Although the Conservative Party are the dominant party in the parliament and in the coalition, the prime minister is a member of the Liberal Party – a result of the electoral politics which immediately followed the Great War.

Issues which the cabinet needs to resolve

The most pressing and important issue which the cabinet needs to deal with is the issue of the peace

negotiations with the Germans, having just opened the Paris Peace Conference. In the minds of the British people this is an open and shut case, but that is the main issue. After four years of anti-German propaganda, the British public (though considerably less so than those on mainland Europe) want to see large-scale repercussions against the Germans: most importantly they want the Germans to assume ultimate responsibility for the war and to have a suitable punishment imposed on them. The cabinet will have to extract a good enough deal to be able to convince both its citizens and the colonies that they distinctly won the war and reaped the benefits, should they want the government to continue in the bliss of being viewed by the public as war heroes. At the same time, the cabinet will have to be persuasive enough in Paris to deter the French and the Italians from the destruction of Germany – both industrially and culturally – that would not serve to benefit either the United Kingdom or, in the eyes of the Britain, the rest of Europe. Depending on how well the cabinet is able to perform in the negotiations, there is also the possibility that the United Kingdom will be able to expand their imperial influence as a result of the war, which would be fruitful in the rehabilitation of the post war economy.

The second major issue which the cabinet will have to address is the ongoing public disapproval of British rule in Ireland. This has been an ongoing issue since before the Great War. The support for this movement has only grown over the course of the war, and the formal abstentionism of the Sinn Féin MPs from the British Parliament at Westminster is widely known. Ongoing unrest or outright independence will prove problematic both for public support for the coalition and for the maintenance of the empire. If the Irish break away completely this will mean the loss of what was historically the first overseas subject of the Britain and what is geographically the closest territory to Great Britain. This would be a highly symbolic move which will in all likelihood inspire similar secessionist movements and revolts in colonies which should be much harder to hold such as India and those in Africa, a large number of which are already questioning British rule following the toll of their involvement in the Great War. The cabinet are however struck with a number of issues in dealing with the issue of the Irish problem – not least among them being that the British public favour oppressive and aggressive action in order to suppress the Irish rebels, but that this is exactly the type of action which will rally support to the nationalist cause. Given that a large proportion of the Sinn Fein are already imprisoned, any action which the Irish public are likely to see as oppressive will prove the point which the Sinn

26

Féin have been trying to make: that the Government of the United Kingdom does not have the interests of the Irish at heart.

The third major issue which the British cabinet will have to address is the issue of internal living standards in the United Kingdom and the effective demobilisation of the troops from the Great War. The issue of living conditions in the urban areas of the UK were highlighted in the general elections of 1918, having already been prominent political issues before the Great War. The most important among these issues are: living conditions in the cities and in the countryside, education, healthcare and insurance. The resolution of these issues will be imperative in maintaining the support of the public, and will need to be successfully achieved if the cabinet intends to maintain their public support and not have their coalition questioned by other major leaders such as Asquith.

27

VIII. CABINET 3: IRISH REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT

Dáil Éireann is the unicameral parliament formed

by the 73 abstentionist members of the radical pro-independence Sinn Féin political party elected in the 1918 United Kingdom General Election. The main goal of Dáil Éireann is to achieve a sovereign and independent, 32-county Irish Republic. They wish to achieve this by two means: first, by setting up an independent judiciary and local government in open defiance of the existing British institutions; and second, by waging an armed conflict of self-determination to turn the weight on national and international opinion against the British Empire.

Issues which the cabinet needs to resolve

The first objective the Dáil needs to address is one of revenue and state-building. The Irish Republic needs

to set up recognised and respected judicial and administrative institutions of government, raise finances and revenues, and secure public support. Arguably the biggest challenge here is the issue of finances. The British Government still holds the key revenue-gathering apparatus in the state. It is important that the Irish Revolutionary Government creates a strong revenue system not just for the legitimacy of the Irish state but to also fund their political and military campaigns. In terms of public support, four-fifths of the population are of nationalist sympathy while about a fifth are unionist, with sharp divide between the unionists of Ulster and the wealthier urban areas and the nationalists of the rest of the country. The members of Dáil Éireann will want to win the support of both to their side to be successful if they are to secure independence for the entire island, in particular assuaging historically-grounded Protestant unionist fears of potential alienation in a Catholic-majority republic. The Irish press are also split between support for the nationalist and unionist causes, meaning that the revolutionary government must be careful to maintain the support of the papers they have, while winning over some of the papers they do not currently have supporting them.

The second objective is one of military and intelligence. In terms of intelligence, the British administration based in Dublin Castle has a large net of informants that feed it information about the Irish Republicans. This network, run through bribery and intimidation of sources, has been the key reason that all previous Irish risings against British rule have failed. On the other side, the lack of viable Irish intelligence on the British forces has also been a key factor that has resulted in regular arrests of the Irish leadership. Setting up a strong intelligence and counter-intelligence community is key to the Irish cause. Most of the administrative staff in Dublin Castle are Irish which may be a possible foothold.

In military terms, there is division over the appropriate tactics for use in the coming conflict. The proposed military tactics of the IRA vary between the city and the country. In the city, the proposed tactics of the IRA are assassination of key figures in the British administration and bombings targeting establishment buildings. In the countryside, the flying columns have adapted a Boer Commando-style of attack, being highly mobile and striking at will in familiar territory and taking advantage of the enemy’s unfamiliarity with the terrain. These

28

tactics are controversial in the Dáil, with many members of the Dáil adamant that the military must behave like a legitimate army and engage in large-scale uniformed manoeuvres rather than guerrilla warfare. Discomfort arises partly from the fact that hit-and-run style attacks and assassinations have at least two significant negative outcomes: first, that innocent bystanders could be killed; and second, that British and Irish public opinion will turn against the IRA and the Dáil directing it. Solving this argument is a key decision that has to be done quickly in the Dáil, but the decentralised nature of the IRA (see above) may complicate the situation.

A third and crucial objective for becoming an internationally recognised state is that the 32-county Irish Republic must be recognised by foreign governments. Although Irish independence was opportunistically backed by the German Empire in its support for the Easter Rising in 1916, gaining international recognition now is a major problem for the Irish Revolutionary Government, as the British Empire is the foremost world power and has defeated Germany in the Great War. Nonetheless, the Paris Peace Conference (and in particular the proposed Wilsonian points of self-determination advocated by the American legation) offers a rare opportunity for recognition. It is in the interest of the representatives of Dáil Éireann both to directly lobby foreign governments through its agents and diaspora networks, and to lobby the members of the Peace Conference. With the United Kingdom facing external issues arising from border disputes throughout its empire, one may recall the old nationalist observation that ‘England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity’.

29

IX. CABINET 4: PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Paris Peace Conference is the comprehensive diplomatic congress convened by the Allied Powers to

decide the postwar settlement in Europe and the wider world. The Great War has left perhaps the greatest challenge to rebuild the international order since the time of Napoleon. The Allied and Associated Powers which have convened at Versailles since 18 January are tasked with the key decisions as to how to apportion responsibility for the war and to punish the Central Powers; how to divide up territories which have passed between nations in the last century or which are clamouring for their independence amidst the breakup of the great empires of Central Europe; how to rebuild the world economic system to ensure the recovered prosperity of Europe; and above all, how to regulate the new military technologies which have emerged from the conflict, and how to ensure a new international system to make future conflicts unlikely and make good on the Great War’s claim to be a “war to end all wars”. For the duration of the congress, Versailles is the de facto centre of world government – no question of international recognition, concession, treaty, or negotiation is off the table for the Conference.

Altogether, the Conference comprises some 27 nations, including the ‘Big Four’ of the French Republic, the Kingdom of Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, along with smaller nations and representatives each lobbying for recognition of their respective interests. The terms of the peace and the future international system will be driven by the competing claims of those present, many with widely contrasting objectives – some driven by a sense of justice or political grievance, some by pragmatism and self-interest, and some by higher yet untested idealism. On the question of Germany, it is expected that the governments of France and Italy will push for terms most punitive toward Germany, that the United States will push for terms most favourable, and that the United Kingdom will steer something of a middle course. All other issues are yet open questions, however.

Of the three government cabinets being simulated at CUIMUN’s Historical Crisis, only the United Kingdom has official recognition and representation from the outset of the Conference. The British Ambassador to the Conference will accordingly answer to his cabinet while representing its positions and conducting negotiations on its behalf. The Government of Germany (as with the other Central Powers) has been deliberately not invited by the powers directing the Conference, as it awaits the terms agreed by the Allies to be presented to it as the treaty for signing and ratifying. The self-declared Irish Republic has not been invited as it did not yet exist when the Conference was first convened. It will however be up to the members of the Conference to

30

decide whether to admit observer representatives from Ireland or from Germany to present their views as the Conference progresses.

In terms of procedure, the Conference will be a self-defining and self-amending simulation – operating both through general plenary sessions according to parliamentary procedures with all delegates represented (with the power to draft and approve any number of treaties which affect its represented nations and the Central Powers), and through special ad-hoc commissions of approximately 6-12 delegates (convening separately to prepare reports on more specific issues). The Conference will thus be empowered to discuss multiple issues simultaneously and to divide its work among affected delegates, before presenting its work to the plenary session for consideration or approval.

For further comprehensive information regarding the parties, procedures and topics for discussion at the Paris Peace Conference, please refer to the separate Paris Peace Conference Guide for CUIMUN XXIV 2018.

31

X. APPENDIX: MAPS

32

33

Figure 1: The electoral map of Ireland Figure 2: The counties of Ireland. Figure 3: The key cities of Ireland. Figure 4: The physical geography of Ireland.

34

XI. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING

The Great War and the Peace Conference

1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/home.html

‘The Great War and its Aftermath. the Shock of World War I’, Encyclopaedia Britannica, online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/history-of-Europe/The-Great-War-and-its-aftermath

G. Hirschfeld, Enzyklopädie Erster Weltkrieg (Munich, 2004).

E. House and C. Seymour, What Really Happened at Paris (New York, 1921).

M. Howard, The First World War (Oxford, 2002).

M. MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (New York, 2002).

S.C. Tucker, World War I: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2014).

N. Werber, Erster Weltkrieg: Kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch (Stuttgart, 2014).

Germany

M. Anderson, Practicing Democracy: Elections and Political Culture in Imperial Germany (Princeton, 2000).

E.J. Feuchtwanger, Prussia: Myth and Reality: The Role of Prussia in German History (Chicago, 1970).

R. Gerwarth, ‘The Central European Counter-Revolution: Paramilitary Violence in Germany, Austria and Hungary after the Great War’, Past & Present 200 (2008), pp. 175-209.

F-L. Kroll, Geburt der Moderne: Politik, Gesellschaft und Kultur vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg (Berlin 2013).

T. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1866–1918 (Munich, 2013).

G.A. Ritter and K. Tenfelde, Arbeiter im Deutschen Kaiserreich 1871 bis 1914 (Bonn 1992).

‘Wahlen in Deutschland bis 1918, Reichstagswahlen (Ergebnisse reichsweit)’, online: http://www.wahlen-in-deutschland.de/krtw.htm

Britain and Ireland

T. Barry, Guerilla Days in Ireland (Dublin, 1962).

P. Cottrell, The War for Ireland: 1913-1923 (Oxford, 2009).

P. Hart, The I.R.A. at War 1916-1923 (Oxford, 2003).

35

K. Jeffery, The British Army and the Crisis of Empire, 1918-22 (Manchester, 1984).

J.J. Lee, Ireland 1912-1985: Politics and Society (Cambridge, 1989).

Documentaries

R. Kee, Ireland – A Television History, Part 9 of 13, ‘Terror, 1919-1921’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj7vWhD4CUY

F. Keane, BBC Story of Ireland, Parts 4 and 5 of 5: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbOD1fi8omw - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO2J70RLzA8

Key reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1919

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_1918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_1918

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_1st_Dáil

Credits

Writing by Saskia Millman, Alex Eaton, Sasha Sternik, Richard Harrington, and Ana Harrington, with additional writing based on earlier work by Jesse Harrington and Gavin Lynch-Frahill, and further writing and editing by the Crisis Team and Secretariat for CUIMUN XXIV 2018.

Based on a concept by Jesse Harrington in association with Felicity Garvey and Helen Kwong. Additional consulting provided by Gavin Lynch-Frahill and Joe Dale.

Map of German population density taken from Meyers Konversationslexikon, 5th edition (1897).

All other images from wikimedia.commons.org, licensed under Creative Commons, except where otherwise stated.

Written in conjunction with the complementary comprehensive Study Guide on the January 1919 Paris Peace Conference for CUIMUN XXIV 2018.