In the interwar period, Britain and France alike other nations, feared another war. Public opinion was widespread in that war should and could be avoided through negotiation and disarmament. Britain and France had disarmed considerably since the First World War, whereas, Germany would come to remilitarise flouting the Treaty of Versailles. Morally, the majority of the public and policy makers believed in the notion of self-determination of foreign nations and for Britain in particular some hoped for a much larger defensive stance based on a more isolationist scope outside of European affairs. Leading up until the invasion of Poland 1939, no policy leader, although France had a better idea than Britain, knew what Hitler’s objectives were and perceived that once Germany had reclaimed what it had lost under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany would end its annexation, it was not understand in the lead up years that Germany desired to dominate Europe. Morality played a significant part in the adoption of appeasement in 1938. Although the Treaty of Versailles was at first seen as just, at a later date many in Britain perceived the treaty as immoral and as a way for France to cripple Germany. Not only did this create Franco phobia in Britain but it also created a pro-German stance across Britain for instance religious groups at first saw the treaty as fair but ultimately saw it as unchristian. Therefore, not only did it lessen the ties between Britain and France on a moral standing but it also allowed Britain to rationalise that the fascist Germany was only trying to regain what was lost in the treaty and at the same time safeguard themselves against economic depressions. The moral viewpoint then was further amplified by the belief at th... ... middle of paper ... ...y for Britain and France meant that appeasement was a much safer policy. The League of Nations could not be properly enforced without a strong military country such as Russia or America thus sinking Britain and France into appeasement. Moreover, the allies saw the fascist Germany as a deterrent to communism in Russia and debatably had hoped that Russia and Germany would fight each other. In this sense it made more sense for Britain and France to appease and wait for Russia and Germany to destroy each other and keep unscathed. Additionally, Britain was encompassing a stable economy whereby there was less than 5% unemployment and a housing boom. It was thought that war expenditure needed to bring in conscription would destabilise the economy. Britain had an outdated military and not nearly enough strength or men to realistically engage in warfare into at least 1939.
...onger. But a generation later, the game was on once again; the war aims were much the same. Germany felt it must defend its way of life and stand up for progress. Britain wanted to defend the status quo but it used the excuse of the invasion of another country as the immediate pretext for entry: first Belgium, later Poland. In both world wars, Germany was the innovator, morally and technologically. Britain and France were fighting previous wars while Germany led the way in technology, techniques and tactics.
These were pivotal times in the annals of world history in the 20th century. Mussolini and Hitler’s rise to power was clearly a threat to the freedoms of the United States and its Allies. Through God’s grace and omnipotence, the US alliance, industrialization and intellectual might, we have the resources required to overcome the fierce and mighty threat of Fascism in the Free World. In the 1930s, European governments found it necessary to appease Hitler and Mussolini. Appeasement is the word that clearly sums up the policies and actions that were taken by the European governments.
The Versailles Peace Treaty of 1918 was the end result of the brutal First World War. Europe was devastated, and the Allied forces were faced with the task of coming to terms with their former German enemy. It is well known that the French were determined to punish Germany; they sought revenge and made little attempt to hide their objective. At the Versailles Peace Conference the struggle between the French and Germans began a new path. The French demanded large reparations payments and several other drastic measures that would keep Germany from ever being capable of attacking them again. The agreement that was reached enacted several harsh measures against Germany. Aside from the huge reparations that they would be forced to pay, the Allied nations forced the Germans to completely demilitarize their military. Germany was also str...
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
However you also had another player in the system, Russia. Although not quite as powerful as either of the top two, but if thrown in the mix could tip the scales toward one side or the other. The United States at this time preferred to practice a policy of isolationism, and stay out of the turbulent affairs of Europe. The constant struggle between the French and the British dominated the world scene. The French who were led by Napoleon were trying to establish an empire and dominate all of Europe. This struggle had been raging since the turn of the century. The British as in any bi-polar system were dead set on preventing this from happening. With the United States only a minor player in the international system at the time there was nothing the United States could do in this affair except continue its policy of neutrality, and isolationism. With a bi-polar international system, you are always i...
Ellicia Chiu Mrs. Daly World History: Period 3 4/27/15 How Did the Versailles Treaty Help Cause World War II? The first World War is recorded as one of the “deadliest conflicts in human history”. With over 16 million dead, it was one of the first wars with a high amount of casualties. However, the one that tops the list with around 60 million deaths was World War II.
...was not to preserve peace, but to preserve the sovereignty and independence of the states of Europe against potential aggressors. The basic rule was to ally against any state threatening domination. The weaker countries would seek alliance with the other weaker states. They would thus create a balance or counterweight against the state whose ascendancy they feared.
Wars are good business. They create an immediate demand for a wide variety of materials needed by the government in order to fight the war. They create work opportunities for people that might not ordinarily be considered part of the normal work force. And, while not necessarily good for the soldiers engaged in the fighting, wars are always good for the businesses that provide the materials used in a war. The Second World War was very good for business.
The world plunged into World War II in 1939, from the unsettlement between countries. Different countries had different ideas about world affairs. Some countries preferred appeasement and other countries preferred collective securities to solve problems such as the turmoil in Germany. According to the circumstances of Europe during 1939, from economic depression and unsettlement between countries, collective security was the best answer. Appeasement was attempted, but it turned out to be a failure.
The invasion of Poland by Germany in September 1939 is regarded as the trigger that unleashed the Second World War. After an analysis and study of the causes of the conflict, from my point of view I consider that the depiction of hostilities that would trigger this great war were developed long before and were only a matter of time before this war began. I consider it this way, because Germany as the defeated nation of the World War I, in which the victorious nations, imposed conditions within which Germany ceded part of its territory and its colonies, reduce its army and pay annual compensation to the victorious nations.
Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression. 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 from 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. The Munich Pact is a perfect example of how negotiation can fail when all of the pieces do not fall correctly into place.
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
In effect, nationalism was also a contributing factor to the alliance system. No country feels comfortable being in a war alone, and with the growing militaries in almost every country, allies provide much comfort. The supreme present of militarism, "a policy of aggressive military preparedness", in this period of time gave all countries great reason to feel the heavy weight of an oncoming war. Great Britain's naval policy (to always be twice as big as the next two largest navies put together), along with the predominate feeling of war, provided countries with a strong reason to try and create an incredibly strong military force. This led to an arms race, which made the impending war seem inevitable.
France couldn't ally with Britain because Britain kept itself in "splendid isolation", so Russia was really the only real choice as they were the only other great power who was suspicious and disliked Germany.
It’s 4:30am on September 1st, 1939 and the German battleship Schleswig-Holstein awaits for the order to open fire on the Polish garrison of the Westerplatte Fort, Danzig in what was to become the first military engagement of World War II. Meanwhile, sixty two German divisions supported by 1,300 fighter planes prepared for the invasion of Poland. Fifteen minutes later the invasion would take place and spark the beginning of World War II. Two days later at 9am Great Britain would send an ultimatum to Germany, demanding that they pull from Poland or go to war with Great Britain. Four hours later the Ultimatum would expire and Great Britain would officially be at war with Germany on September 3rd, 1939. Six hours later France would also declare war on Germany.