Thus, the story goes, that the Treaty of Versailles made Hitler’s rise to power, and his starting of WWII, inevitable. However, this mode of explanation is a deeply flawed oversimplification. The Treaty of Versailles did not make WWII inevitable because the independent forces of the Great Depression and Japanese expansion also played key roles, and because nationalism was most likely to arise in Germany even if there were less harsh terms to the treaty. The Great Depression was among the most important factors in creating the climate that allowed for Hitler’s rise to power, and his eventual beginning of World War II. The Great Depression, in addition to losing World War I, created a German populace that was humiliated.
These ideologies maintained that democracy was effeminate and that it wasted precious time in building consensus among citizens. Totalitarian leaders’ military style made representative government and the democratic values of the United States, France, and Great Britain appear feeble- a sign that these societies were on the decline. Totalitarianism put democracies on the defensive as they aimed to restore prosperity while still upholding individual rights and the rule of law”(Hunt & Martin, 852). Many European countries had to deal with totalitarian regimes with violence and fights. Adolf Hitler was possible because he used totalitarianism in making the people of Germany believe that he would improve things but, after he was elected, he let everyone down and did things the exact way, as he wanted them.
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. There were arguments for and against the policy of appeasement. The British government wanted to avoid wars in the future, and this was demonstrated by the peace ballot in 1935. The horrors of World War 1 were still fresh in people’s mind and the effects of war were seen to be devastating. There was a general feeling that Germany had genuine grievances.
In the midst of this action, the United States attempted to prevent any association with the ongoing war. However, as Hitler rose to power and Nazi Germany became an enormous threat to the globe, the United States repealed its Neutrality Acts and slowly shed its isolationist beliefs, thus entering World War II in order to preserve world order and protect its people. It is the intention of this paper to explicate the United States’ entrance into World War II. In order to achieve current purposes, this essay will advance as follows: Section 1 will explain how Adolf Hitler defied the Treaty of Versailles and turned a depression-wracked country into a major military power, Part 2 will discuss Hitler’s strategies concerning the “Jewish problem” in Germany and his military conquests from 1936 to 1940 in his attempt to control Europe, Portion 3 will expound the provisions of the Neutrality Acts and how the United States gradually repealed the provisions as Hitler became a serious threat to the world, and finally, Section 4 will both explain the position of the United States regarding the rise and threat of the Nazi power and how the United States began to slowly shed its isolationist beliefs in the wake of Hitler’s power and will conclude this essay. Primarily, when Adolf Hitler rose to power, he transformed... ... middle of paper ... ...ever, the United States gradually shed its isolationist beliefs in the wake of Hitler’s power.
Without military threat the League of Nations had little power over countries who broke the laws and the British and French wanted to abstain from conflict, even if it meant no resolution was met. Hitler, no doubt, saw this weakness and found ways to exploit the lenience he observed throughout the early 1930s. Like the rest of the World, Britain and France were suffering the effects of the Great Depression so the financial implications of war also served as a deterrent. It was increasingly becoming accepted that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany, in particular the War Guilt Clause by which they not only accepted full responsibility for the war but also had to ... ... middle of paper ... ...f a responsibility to think through their policies thoroughly in order to have properly assessed its justification. Lord Chamberlain's trusting relationship with Hitler may have been, in part, responsible for such blind faith in expecting Hitler to stop and be satisfied when his early demands were met.
Lastly he hoped to expand east... ... middle of paper ... ...r of Great Britain. However, having the determination that Hitler did was not enough to defeat the Allied forces as the war went on. He went as far to believe that he had fought the wrong war, but why? His foreign policies were clear from the very beginning: destroy the Treaty of Versailles, unite all German-speaking nations, and racially cleanse the land he wanted to create for his new collection of German people. His statement must be made false due to the fact that even though he lost the war, Hitler had the footing and power to achieve most of his goals.
The appeasement was an unnecessary course of action as due to the weakness it imposed on the Allies, as it gave Hitler the impression they were too morally weak to oppose him. This advocated the possibility of war as the appeasement allowed Hitler to challenge the Versailles settlement with bold initiatives: withdrawing from the League of Nations (1933), canceling war debt payments (1933), beginning a program of public rearmament (1935), and moving troops into the demilitarized German Rhineland (1936). By 1931 Britain’s vengeful mood of 1919 had shifted to one of guilt for the excesses done to punish Germany.That sentiment, coupled with a loathing and fear of a repeat of the “Butcher’s Bill” of World War I, drove British politicians to the mistaken belief that “righting” the wrongs of Versailles would ameliorate the situation and restore calm. However, when Hitler reoc-cupied the Rhineland in defiance of the treaties of Versailles and Locarno (1925). The Germans could not as yet have resisted any British and French military response, but Britain did nothing and France, which mobilized 150,000 troops behind the Maginot Line, would do nothing more without British support.
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... ... middle of paper ... ...ent had given European countries the initial act of being responsible and gave them the chance to win a war by building up their armies. Appeasing Hitler had shown their loyalty and understanding of how much Germany had lost in relation to the Treaty of Versailles, and how they deserved some of what was taken given back. In the end, World War II was lost to Germany and because of that; the world today is now at peace. Appeasement was truly the right thing to do and the freedom of today reflects that.
“He also issued warnings of the threat from Nazi Germany that went unheeded, in part because of his past political and military misjudgments. When World War 2 broke out (Sept., 1939), Neville Chamberlain appointed him first lord of the admiralty. The following May, When Chamberlain was forced to resign, Churchill became Prime Minister” (Sir Winston Leonard). Winston Churchill knew that the Nazi’s were a threat, but foolishly, nobody cared what he had to say. What he did was right, and he had great reason to do it.
Is Appeasement Right or Wrong? In Britain, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had devised a policy of "appeasement" (meaning his tactic of consenting to Hitler's demands over Czechoslovakia in 1938) it aroused much controversy at the time and still does today. Germany benefited greatly from the appeasement as it allowed them to rearm. Britain and France thought that if they appeased Germany, then the Germans would become a little friendlier towards them so they cut the Germans a little 'slack'. However by appeasing Germany, they let her rearm therefore pose a threat to themselves and others.