Winston Churchill once said to Neville Chamberlain, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.” After World War 1, a man by the name of Adolf Hitler slowly rose to power in Germany. He implemented tactics to win over his people, then worked to remove all opposition of his leadership and further went on to proclaim a union with Austria in 1938. After gaining control of Germany and Austria, Hitler wanted more. In September of 1938, he met with the prime minister of England, Neville Chamberlain for a negotiation about territory in Czechoslovakia. Germany claimed that the advance for the area of Czechoslovakia would be the last territorial invasion his troops would take. Chamberlain then signed the Munich Agreement along with Italy, Germany and France confirming that Sudetenland (region in Czechoslovakia) would be Hitler’s last demand. Chamberlain was strongly opposed to entering a war, and believed the deal would put an end to Hitler’s desires for expansion. …show more content…
A common position taken by Chamberlain supporters include the intention CHamberlain had to remain out of war, since the English people would not have supported a war in 1938, “... commonplace for ‘revisionist historians’ to portray Chamberlain not as a weak and ineffective leader but as a complex and able politician with a clear sighted approach to a foreign policy, who sought peace while at the same time preparing for war.” (McDonough, 2011) McDonough’s explanation why some historians support Churchill can be explained by the state that Britain was in after WW1. Even if Britain had been ready for war, the amount of damage and loss from the previous war left Britain in no place to be of aid to Czechoslovakia if they refused Hitler’s deal, claimed
As the Reconstruction Era ended, the United States became the up and coming world power. The Spanish-American war was in full swing, and the First World War was well on its way. As a result of the open-door policy, England, Germany, France, Russia, and eventually Japan experienced rapid industrial growth; the United States decided to pursue a foreign policy because of both self- interest and idealism. According to the documents, Economic self- interest, rather than idealism was more significant in driving American foreign policy from 1895 to 1920 because the United States wanted to protect their foreign trade, property and their access to recourses. While the documents also show that Nationalistic thought (idealism) was also crucial in driving American foreign policy, economic Self- interest prevailed.
“Season of Hope” happened during 1870 to 1890. “Some blacks in the South pressured plantation owners into adopting individual family farming.” Also, black men’s voting rights were guaranteed and even some office accepted black. Benjamin Singleton, a slave who escaped from his owner tried to help other move to Kansas. Those who answered him were called “Exodusters”. Singleton helped black people start their own industries, even though he sooner realized he was not strong enough to do that. From 1890 the Southern states began to enforce white supremacy through disfranchisement and segregation. They tried to remove African-American from the vote list so that they could do whatever they want. Not only the race separation, black people were also
“The best way to predict your future is to create it” (Lincoln). President states the principal of Reconstruction, where to unite the United States, there must be an authoritative action to carry it out. The Reconstruction Era (1863-1877) is a period where Lincoln sought to restore the divided nation by uniting the confederates and the union and to involve the freedmen into the American society. The main objectives were to initially restore the union, to rebuild the South and to enact progressive legislation for the rights of the freed slaves. Thus, the executive and legislature branches had enacted a series of polices to “create the future” for the United States. Although the policies tied down to the Reconstructive motive, there was controversy
It failed to produce the desired results, but rather added fuel to the fire. At the Munich Conference the Big Four discussed the demands for the territory of Czechoslovakia and ultimately gave into Hitler’s request. While many people like Neville Chamberlain argued that appeasement was the best option Winston Churchill viewed it as a consequential decision. Churchill stated that he, “thinks of all the opportunities to stop the growth of Nazi Power which have been thrown away.” No action was taken to establish the security of Czechoslovakia making the Nazi’s more powerful. Appeasement did not defer the hostility that the desire for expansion brought on, but made it escalate. When Ethiopia was invaded by the Italians the emperor, Haile Selassie, was denied assistance from the Leage of Nations. He warned them what would happened if the aggressors were not stopped and wrote, “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” Haile Selassie knew that aggressors were going to continue to seek for more land and that any nation could be attacked next. Not only was appeasement an effort to satisfy the demands of dissatisfied powers in hope of maintaining stability, but it was also the disregardance of possibly serious conflict. The League of Nations incapability to be a forceful united front allowed for the Axis Powers to become even more willing to break boundaries. Appeasement was used to be the path of least resistance, but it would never stop the
Throughout Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, nations were filled with poor and less fortunate individuals. While the nobles of countries such as France and England ruled their lands, many forgot about the underprivileged that roamed the city streets begging for alms. As a result, the opinions towards these lower class people were very differentiated. However, three main opinions stood out. All in all, the views of the poor in fifteenth – eighteenth century Europe included those who believed individuals should help the poor because it is the right thing to do, those who believed individuals should help the poor for God, and those who believed the poor were just idlers
He had a goal in his mind and he was going to do whatever it took to accomplish that goal. “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” He was driven to save the British Isles from the hand of Hitler. His internal motivation to save his country is like a bulldog they may be stubborn and arrogant, but will stop at nothing to protect his family. He was key in getting the U.S. involved in World War II and securing aid from the U.S in the lend Lease Act which provided the good need to fight a war like gun, planes, and other supplies ammunition to Britain, Russia, and China. If Winston Churchill failed in this time period, Britain would have certainly fall, but the entire World was at risk of falling. Mr. Churchill was only madly driven; he was as tough as they
Between the dates of 1 October, 1938 and 10 October, 1938 the northern and western border regions of Czechoslovakia, known as the Sudetenland, were ceded to the Third Reich of Germany via the Munich Agreement. The desire in France, the United Kingdom and Czechoslovakia to avoid war with Germany led to a policy of appeasement. Through a series of meetings a consensus was reached, led by Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which specified that Sudeten Germans had a legitimate complaint and Germany’s expansionistic intentions did not reach beyond the Sudetenland. That it was an attempt to avoid a second war with Germany is not in question; however, what is in question is whether or not the United Kingdom, France and Czechoslovakia could have prevented a German military incursion into the Sudetenland and if so would it not have been the wisest option? The answer is twofold. Not only was the United Kingdom unprepared for a Second World War at the time of the Sudeten Crisis but had they attempted to militarily prevent Germany from annexing the Sudetenland it would have greatly hindered their own ability to defend the United Kingdom itself. There were, however, other alternatives to Britain taking a leading position in a war against Germany. Had the United Kingdom stood with France in the west while Czechoslovakia stood strong on their borders in the east it is decidedly possible that the Sudetenland would have stayed under Czech control; moreover, it very well may have averted the Second World War altogether.
As an Austrian born soldier-turned-politician, Hitler was fascinated with the concept of the racial supremacy of the German people. He was also a very bitter, very evil little man. In addition, having lost the war, the humiliated Germans were forced by the Allies to sign the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 that officially ended World War I. According to the harsh terms of the treaty, Germany had to hand over many of its richest industrial territories to the victors, and was made to pay reparations to the Allied countries it devastated during the war. Germany lost its pride, prestige, wealth, power, and the status of being one of Europe's greatest nations.
Appeasing Hitler was primarily done for one goal; to avoid war and the many terrible things that came along with it. When World War I finally ended in 1918, millions of lives and dollars were lost. As a result, discussing problems seemed to be in everyone’s best interest. No one should ever be blamed for not wanting war because it’s very serious and not something that should be dealt with lightly. With saying that, appeasement was simply a negotiation, a way to solve problems without fighting, and nobody had a way of knowing what Hitler planned to do in the future. As Mackenzie King stated “Hitler appeared to be ‘a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot” (King, 1937) meaning that he seemed like the type of person who could obey rules and negotiate his problems, without causing conflict. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said, “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging t...
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
A major point of contention between the states in the United States during the early 1800s was the topic of abolition. An issue since the first days of America’s founding, the problem grew with both proponents and opponents of abolition developing arguments for and against the abolition of slavery. The abolitionists cited the Declaration of Independence, the nature of man, and Christianity as reasons for the abolition of slavery at the state level and the end of the slave trade at the federal level. The proponents of slavery argued that the condition the African slaves were kept in was better than the living conditions of northern factory workers, that Africans are an inferior race, and they used Christianity as support for their maintenance
... of a driven man, full of a blinkered determination for peace such as Chamberlain, for he held such a powerful influence in parliament and government. They had to wait for the policy to prove itself foolish, or to fail if not foolish, for the chance for them to take over and implicate a stronger policy against Hitler, by this time war had already began however, and they had limited options. Perhaps if these men were in power before Munich, Hitler might have been deterred from going to war and Britain better prepared, with greater munitions and allied agreements to face the German armed forces. The tremendous unity against Nazi Germany during the Second World War owes more to the critics of appeasement, then it does to the supporters, for these men took over Chamberlains helm, where he had failed to keep peace, and bravely stood up and faced Hitler's war machine.
After the First World War that led to death of millions of people, many countries decided to put measures to avoid any future conflict. The League of Nations in the 1920s came up with the idea of collective security where countries acting together would discourage aggression and act to stop the aggressor. This did not work out well as countries failed to agree on common policies. As a result, appeasement was considered. It was a policy that was adopted by the British government in the1930s. It was formulated from the belief that some countries such as Germany were unfairly treated in the Versailles treaty of 1918-1919. Adolf Hitler came into power in Germany on January 1933 after exploiting the depression-afflicted economy and the vehement popular resentment against Versailles treaty. The Nazi leader started by alarming the diplomats on his hatred towards the parliamentary system of governance and democratic government. The policy of appeasement had good intentions, but failed to put measures against aggression by the Germany government, which eventually led to World War 2.
This statement was backed up by a British historian G.A. Craig who was under the belief that “Germany was far from ready to fight a war on two fronts”( P.g 155) thus suggesting that Chamberlain wasn’t entirely to blame for stating world war two. Contradictory to Craig’s statements about the Germany, source E (p.g 149) a speech made by Churchill about how Europe is faced with a programme of aggression and that the Britain like many other countries were faced with only had two options “submit like Austria or to take effective measure while time remains” (149) reflecting on the British and French appeasement of Hitler. Stalin Radio Broadcast doesn’t support the proposition in that Stalin had stated that “we secured peace for our country” implying that the British appeasement of Hitler did benefit Russia, based off Stalin statement “this was definite gain for Russia and loss for Germany”. Source C which is a cartoon by David Low and is a visual of how incapable the League of Nation were in creating peace between
Meanwhile, Fuhrer Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this, England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the ‘Munich Pact’. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history of the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not.