Russia’s annexation of Crimea, by leader Vladimir Putin, draws many historical comparisons to Adolf Hitler’s annexation of Sudetenland almost 76 years ago. Vladimir Putin, three term President of Russia, signed a document that officially acknowledged the "reunification" of the Ukrainian region of Crimea with Russia, after recently invading the region. He claims not only to have been invading the area for the good of the ethnic minority, but to also have been amending the historical blunder that gave Crimea to Ukraine, in the first place. Although he alleged pure intentions, they were undermined by the fact that they resembled Hitler’s tactic of entering adjoining countries under the pretense of protecting its citizens. Even though there exists no evidence that Putin wants to mirror Hitler’s exact actions; his desire for dictatorship and his means of ruling, parallel that of Hitler’s, in that he mimicked his invasion tactics. However, clear lessons should have been learned from Hitler’s occupation that can be applied to the current situation with Crimea, which could help prevent another disaster and another fascist regime.
After Germany’s takeover of Austria, Hitler focused on the Germans residing in Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland. First, he ordered Sudetenland’s surrender to Germany, with full compliance from the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. Hitler, then, promptly changed his orders so that the German military could seize the area. Regarding the issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing” (Crimea), he ended it with the signing of the Munich Agreement. In signing this agreement, Chamberlain not only strengthened Germany, but he also fed Hitler’s desire for more power and en...
... middle of paper ...
...rmed by actual objectives, not just threats or unsupported allegations. Additionally, the West should stop responding to Putin with “shock and awe,” shock that he can act with complete freedom, and awe at his diplomatic genius.
Both Europe and the US have Europe and the US have larger influence and assets than Russia, with its emaciated political system and tired economic model. They seem to not comprehend the economic and political costs of protecting the morals that they allege to uphold. Lastly, Western leaders must acknowledge that appeasement does not necessarily guarantee peace and stability in Europe. When encountering a leader whose ideologies are that the weak can be beaten, western governments must show their determination, without giving up their resilience. Only then can the Ukraine issue be tackled without essentially endangering transatlantic security.
International politics as one may imagine includes foreign affairs. This is why the topic and focus of this paper revolves around the current event within Eastern Europe. It will focus on both Russia, Ukraine, and the world, and from it, it will be analyzed by using the resources provided within class. After all it is a International Politics course, and one of the best ways to effectively put the skills and knowledge to use is to focus on an event or current event. The paper will attempt to go over in a chronological order of the events that has happened, and what is happening currently over in Ukraine. Afterwards, an analyzed input will be implemented providing reasoning behind Russia's actions, and actions of the world, and potentially some solutions.
Politics. Politics control this world, and sometimes for the worst. Politicians can be deceiving, and lie right to you, with no signs of remorse. They can be the worst type of human being, manipulating you for their own cause. They can be evil. In America, the next presidential election is approaching, and we have many of these politicians trying to become our next president. Although there are many, I 'm going to concentrate on one. Donald Trump. He is a corrupt politician, and a cancer to our society. This man is so malevolent, he is drawing comparisons to one of the most barbarous men of all time, Adolf Hitler. These men are eerily similar, and I am uneasy knowing that someone that could be our next president is showing similarities to a mass murderer. These are not erroneous claims. Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are similar because of their rhetorical abilities, hating of
With the fall of the pro-Russian government Russia had lost basically a very important ally to the European Union and NATO. President Vladimir Putin took a great risk and invaded Crimea that resulted in strong reactions from the West. Even Russia’s closest allies supported the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, these two men have forever changed the history of the world. Josef Stalin or Uncle Joe Stalin as his country knew him, was seen to the Russian people as a savior and a heroic leader. Adolf Hitler was known as the `Father of the Final Solution', which killed nearly six million of the sick, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and handicapped. Stalin and Hitler were both evil men who gained their power by manipulating others to get what they wanted. Both men were cold and calculating when it came to getting what they wanted. These two men had no respect for human life and did not have a problem killing people who stood in their way. They promised the people of their country a new world with a bright future; however, these faithful people never saw a bright future.
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both atrocious people because of what they did, but despite that, they accomplished a great deal of achievements. Accomplishments put aside, I think that Joseph Stalin was worse than Hitler. They both worked hard to get to what they were back in the time of their rule. They both committed endless crimes against humanity, but they accomplished most of what they did with incredible military might and willpower.
Chamberlain confronted the threat to peace posed by Germany and Italy. Seeking to appease Adolf HITLER and Benito MUSSOLINI, he first negotiated a treaty with Italy accepting the conquest of Ethiopia on condition that Italy withdraw from the Spanish Civil War. Turning to the Czech question, Chamberlain conferred with Hitler and Mussolini. The Munich pact was signed on September 29, 1938, by Chamberlain, along with Germany, Italy, France. The agreement accepted Hitler's territorial claims to predominantly German areas of Czechoslovakia. Though Chamberlain assured Britain that his concession had brought "peace in our time, Hitler soon broke his agreement and marched into Czecho-Slovakia and subsequently made most of the country a German protectorate.
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.
This enabled Hitler to rise to power in this country in the years after World War I and leading up to World War II. France and Britain still had the memory of World War I when Hitler started to rise to power and take over new lands. Because they did not want to enter another conflict with Germany France and Britain hoped that taking an approach of “appeasement” with Germany would prevent another World War. It was this philosophy of appeasement, which led them to sign the “Munich Agreement” in which France and Britain agreed to allow Germany to take over portions of Czechoslovakia. Those who Neville Chamberlin argued in defense of appeasement, “….if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted”(379). He clearly felt that the threat of Nazi Germany was not as serious as it would ultimately become. “As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented”(379). France and Britain hoped desperately that by appeasing Germany they could prevent a total war. However, by giving Germany land and power France and Britain strengthened Germany and weakened themselves for when they would eventually have to fight
It is possible that with no other country in the twentieth century clearly on the inevitable road to war has there been as much unpreparedness and complete lack of all comprehension than that of Russia prior to World War I. For the few years before 1914 and the start of the war, especially following the embarrassing loss to Japan, Russia recognized its eminent clash with Germany. The way with which it conducted its international relations and internal affairs is puzzling to say the least.
The results were fixed and said that 99% of Austrian people wanted an alliance with Germany. The Austrian leader asked Britain, France and Italy for help. Hitler did not want to start war with other countries. But six months later he wanted a region of Czechoslovakia be given to Germany. Neville Chamberlain, PM of Britain met with Hitler three times during 1938 to settle an agreement that would stop war. The Agreement was that Hitler could have the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia but only if he promised not to invade the rest of Czechoslovakia.
Jack Donnelly states that “Theories are beacons, lenses of filters that direct us to what, according to the theory, is essential for understanding some part of the world.” These various theories, or lenses for viewing the world help us understand the way in which countries interact and why things occur in the field of international relations. The two main schools of thought in the field are Realism and Liberalism. One must understand these theories in order to be able to understand what is happening in the world. Understanding the filters that are Liberalism and Realism, one can look to make some sort of understanding as to what is happening right now between the Ukraine and Russia. The subsequent annexation of the province of Crimea by Russia is of paramount importance to multi governmental organisations like the United Nations and the European Union who are looking to understand this event from the Realist perspective as well as the Liberal paradigm.
...en dealt with in a firm manor. Hitler was able to use his countries momentum and his negotiation skills to achieve what he wanted for Germany and made a deal he knew that he was not going to honor and eventually lead to WWII. Prime Minister Chamberlain also needed to be aware of possible deception that he was likely going to face with dealing with Germany. “When German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1929, Hitler’s promise that Sudetenland was his ‘last territorial demand’ was revealed for the lie it has always been. At best Chamberlain’s summit diplomacy has bought Britain another 11 month to prepare for war at the considerable expense of Czechoslovakia’s freedom”(Rathbone 19). In fairness, Chamberlin had avoided war for a period of time, but the consequences were much greater in the sense that war was inevitable and his people’s lack of faith.
In a Post soviet environment World has evovled around a unipolar system with united states having a preponderance in international matters. The remanants of the cold war still haunting europe. Most of the Eastern European nations formally allied with soviet union are now turing away from russia towards European union. The Reasons for this paradigm shift owes a lot to the democratic ways of the liberal western world and the economic ties and stability being offered to its allies. Hitherto Ukraine was in a dilemma whether to join the western block or to to under the patronage and shadow of Russia. The Multi ethnic population of Ukraine has different opinions. Some favour Russia and others favour European union. Their choices seems to be motivated by geographic and cultural proximity. The Immediate cause of the current crisis traces its origin to the Ukrainian presidents descision to forfeit an agreement with the european union. And Endorsing the russian aid in terms of a bail out plan and an added gas price reduction. So the current crisis has far reaching political and economic ramifications. If russia pulls out of the economic bail out package there needs to be an alternative. European union has a responsibility to ensure the regional peace. A military action in Ukraine would further deteriorate the situation and may escalate it to a multiparty conflict.
Furthermore, the Ukraine and Russia have always shared a history; as both states are embodiments of the process of transformation, that have risen from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War. The Ukraine’s material legacy is demographically and territorially close to Russia, thereby, tying the Ukraine to Russia.