Post-War Settlements and Self-Determinations After

Post-War Settlements and Self-Determinations

After World War I, there were several somewhat idealistic calls for self-determination and independence among the various nations of the world.

Many did achieve a sense of self-determination. In eastern Europe, Poland for example gained its independence. The degree to which actual self-determination was however realized is subject to considerable debate. The reasons for the difficulties experienced in this regard after World War I can be ascribed to the ideals of the various leaders involved. "Self-determination" was not a clearly defined term. For most nations, it meant independence from the sovereignty of outside countries, while each country retained the right to govern itself as it saw fit.

The problem was however with leadership and the way in which countries, particularly on a single continent, could not operate in isolation from each other. Conflict therefore existed not only among the various leaders who could not reach consensus on what self-determination was supposed to mean, but also among leader and their followers within the borders of each country. Leaders felt for example that self-determination was to be determined in a collective sense, with the country in general moving towards goals set by the leaders themselves. Citizens might feel that laws and determinations within the country were not conducive to self-determination, and rebel against the leader's vision.

Another problem was ideology. For communists, for example, self-determination meant a specific set of principles, while for the democrat, it might mean something entirely differently. Once again, conflicts in this regard could extend not only among leaders, but among leaders and the citizens within each respective country as well. These conflicts of ideology and interest also imply that there could hardly be stability as a result of self-determination.

Self-determination in itself is a term that, even at the best of times, implies internal conflict. This is because the ideal in self-determination is the realization of individual and collective ideals, as each specific individual or group sees fit. None of these ideals will be perfectly compatible with the ideals of other individuals or groups also attempting to realize their self-determination ideals. As such, conflicts will arise as self-determination issues clash. The world after the first World War was no exception.

One significant issue related specifically to boundaries. To some, self-determination meant not only being governed by leaders of their own choosing, but also that their boundaries would reflect either national or ethnographic divisions. In some cases, this was just not possible. In Italy, for example, the boundary shift to include a Tyrolese sector is problematic, as the latter will not be reconciled to a nation that has victimized them for centuries. To others, the self-determination term meant no more than a political tool to further their own ideologies. Neither Wilson nor Lenin intended the concept to be universally applicable. As such, many nations had the right towards self-determination in little more than name only.

It is little wonder then that some nations found this unacceptable and in some cases violently displayed their displeasure at not only being victimized and subordinated by the continent as a whole, but also by their own leaders. One example of conflict brought about by self-determination issues is Ireland, in which the battle towards self-determination has culminated in violent conflict lasting for decades.