How peace was established (History (2028+) HL)

Wars do not just fizzle out. Someone decides, at some point, that the fighting has to stop. Historians studying how peace was established look at four things together: the military outcome, the political decisions, the social pressures, and the peace-building that follows.

This is a classic case of continuity & change concept. A ceasefire changes the guns, but it doesn't automatically change the hatred, the borders, or the economy underneath. That's why some peaces last and others don't.

The pattern to learn: How a war ends shapes the peace that follows. A crushing military victory lets the winner dictate harsh terms. A stalemate usually forces a compromise — or leaves the conflict unresolved and frozen.

Keep this four-part framework in your head. You'll use it to unpack every example in this micro, and it's exactly what a strong Paper 2 answer does — apply the pattern to real wars rather than just narrating events.

By late 1918, Germany's army was retreating and its allies (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire) had collapsed. This was not a stalemate any more — the military outcome was tipping decisively towards the Allies.

On 11 November 1918, Germany signed an armistice armistice — fighting stopped, but no peace terms were fixed yet. That came later, at Versailles.

Social factors: war-weariness pushes for peace: By 1918 Germany faced mutinies in its navy, strikes at home, and a population close to starvation from the Allied blockade. This social pressure — not just battlefield defeat — pushed German leaders to seek an armistice fast.

The political decision-making came in 1919: the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was not invited to negotiate — it was handed the terms and told to sign. This is the key perspectives concept point: Allied leaders (especially France) saw the treaty as justice for a devastating war; Germans overwhelmingly saw it as a humiliating Diktat Diktat.

Post-conflict peace-building: fragile, not lasting: The League of Nations was created to keep peace — but the USA never joined, and Germany was excluded until 1926. Resentment over Versailles fed directly into the rise of Hitler by 1933. This is why historians call 1918–1933 peace fragile: the settlement created new grievances rather than resolving old ones.

Now compare a very different military outcome. The Korean War (1950–1953) began when communist North Korea invaded the South. UN forces (led by the USA) pushed back; China then intervened for the North. By 1951 the front line had barely moved for two years — a genuine stalemate, not a victory for either side.

That stalemate shaped everything that followed. Because neither side could win outright, the political decision-making produced something weaker than a treaty: the Korean Armistice Agreement, signed on 27 July 1953.

The social factors differed too. Korean civilians endured devastating losses (millions of casualties, the peninsula divided), but there was no single exhausted nation forced to accept blame the way Germany was in 1919 — instead, families were split by a new border that still divides them.

Post-conflict peace-building: a frozen, not a lasting, peace: Because the 1953 agreement was only an armistice, North and South Korea remain technically at war. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) DMZ is one of the most militarised borders on Earth. No reconstruction-and-reconciliation process reunified the peninsula — this is peace-building that never really finished.