More handpicked essays just for you.
Appeasement starting ww 2
Notes on appeasement igcse
To what extent was the policy of"appeasement"responsible for starting WW2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The smell of gunpowder and atrocities fill the gloomy night, enveloping the world in an eerie darkness. Screams of terror cut through that darkness making it even more daunting. The aurora of death clings to every fiber of the countryside making it seem more like the underworld than like France. He pops up in a dark uniform, rifle gleaming but it does no good, for he is shot in the head just as quick as he appeared. Why did he have to die? What could have prevented his death? What is the most effective response to aggression? Leaders before World War Two thought the answer was appeasement to Hitler, but the war still happened which means it didn’t work. Collective Security would have been a better option when dealing with Hitler’s actions pre …show more content…
Other countries mainly Britain responded to Hitler’s actions with appeasement and by not stopping him early on with collective security it directly caused World War Two. Collective Security is when multiple countries work together to strengthen a country in need. Based off of document 6 Winston Churchill suggested that Britain, France, and other nations should come together and protect Czechoslovakia from Hitler to stop the growth of Nazi power. Collective Security could have prevented Czechoslovakia from coming into German control. While in accordance with document 9 nobody could openly oppose Hitler’s massive forces he had accumulated. Which is why they didn’t use collective security to protect Czechoslovakia. Instead they used The Munich Agreement to appease to Hitler. The Munich Agreement handed over Czechoslovakia in hopes it would diminish Hitler’s need to keep taking over surrounding countries. Stated in document 7 The Munich Agreement was unnecessary because Czech defenses were relatively strong and during this time Germany wasn’t at its zenith of strength. Also Hitler’s generals were going to try to overthrow Hitler if he attacked Czechoslovakia because the Generals believed it was a foolish endeavour that would mean the downfall of …show more content…
Yet during the time appeasement seemed to be logical, as stated in document 8 only the German people could take away Hitler’s power which is why the League tried to appease to Hitler. Also the League feared that if they defeated Germany, Russia would take over most of Europe in their absence. While those are good reasons to try to appease to Hitler, the League of Nations forgot one important detail, Germany wasn’t afraid of the League. Neville Chamberlain the prime minister of Britain was an avid supporter of appeasement, yet even he said he would fight Germany if they were trying to dominate the world by fear of its force according to document 5. What Chamberlain failed to notice was that is what Germany was trying to do. Collective Security would have been a better option because even Chamberlain, a supporter of appeasement, knew that if it came down to it he would fight Germany. If he knew there was a possibility of having to fight Germany, using Collective Security to keep Hitler within his own country would have made him easier to
The Holocaust could have been avoided in many ways, the main way is, if people worked as a team to overpower Hitler than the Holocaust would have been avoided. But Hitler, being Hitler wanted power and nothing else. By working together than Hitler could have been taken down. Yet countries wanted to not to get involved with a Nazi Party capable of unimaginable dangers and did not want to start another World War, instead they wanted life to be better and peaceful. So by not helping overthrow Hitler they let him gain more and more power, which eventually lead to the Holocaust killing thousands of people, which could have been avoided if countries stepped in and stopped
The League of Nations did not prevent another World War due to numerous different reasons. First of all, the League of Nations whole identity was to maintain peace, discourage aggression from any nation, and to inspire other countries to cooperate especially in the field of trading different resources. One of the main ideas involved in the non-prevention of another war by the League of Nations was the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nation was fully responsible for the process of the treaty going through the International Court of Justice. One the treaty was signed, Germany was reprimanded unethically. The Germans soon started cheating and developed military forces like submarines in the region of the Netherlands and placed tanks in Russia.
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
World War Two was the most devastating conflict in the history of humanity. It crippled many nations and caused millions of people to die. One of the major causes of this disastrous war was the Treaty of Versailles which ended the First World War. This treaty was destructive towards the Germans. Germany had to pay large amounts of reparations to the Allied nations at the end of World War One resulting in a Great Depression in Germany. Additionally, the Treaty of Versailles’ war guilt clause forced Germans to admit full responsibility for starting the war. Furthermore, to gain the support of the German populace, Adolf Hitler adopted an effective propaganda campaign. Adolf Hitler employed a successful propaganda campaign to gain the support of the German people combined with the Treaty of Versailles harsh economic and political sanctions ignited World War Two.
Hitler got everything he wanted for so long, without even having to resort to force. Lukacs describes Hitler as ''being an amateur at generalship, but he posessed the great professional talent applicable to all human affairs: an understanding of human nature and the understanding of the weaknesses of his opponents. That was enough to carry him very far''(3). Lukacs wants to make that a point in all of his readers' minds; that Hitler could manipulate people so he could get what he wanted without resorting to violence. Of course, the threat of violence was always present but Hitler was smart enough that he could scare his enemies enough that they would not want to engage in combat.
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...
Centuries later and the name Adolf Hitler still rings volumes till this present day: discussed in history books, talked about amongst intellects and commoners alike, and despised by many for years to come. Upon hearing his name many may think of all the negative things Hitler has done, but few fail to analyze just how one man created such controversy amongst a nation without being stopped. The question then lies how does a man reign over country and devastate it for years to come? Adolf Hitler, a man who excelled in persuasion and charisma was able to reign over Germany for years. Born in Austria April 20th 1889, Hitler grew up with many hardships in his life.
The concept of collective security was damaged by France’s unilateral actions in the Ruhr in 1923. France agreed on making the Germans pay their reparation by industrial produce and raw materials not cash but the Germans couldn’t pay all the reparations in such a small time which led the payments fall into arrears. therefore, the France government was upset to the extend it had used force upon Germany by sending its troops to Ruhr valley in January 1923. This led the Dawes plan to come and fix the two countries relationship by making Germany pay the reparation by two mortgages their railways and the industrial and Dawes sent an American supervisor there so he could see if they were paying the reparations as planed but Germany became unhappy and Britain and France wondered it this will affect their own reparation for the US. France economy gained production from the Ruhr crisis whereas Germanys economy collapsed and its employers were in strike. Thus, the tension between France and Germany increased. In addition to that Rhineland promoted that it wanted to be independent because Germany didn’t do anything for them. Therefore, the Ruhr crisis had an impact on the France breaking the rules of the league of nation and treaty of Versailles for their own benefits. Consequently the collective security failed due to the fact that France broke the rules and didn’t keep its
June 28, 1919 marks the day that World War I came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Less notably, it also marks the day that Adolf Hitler fully committed himself to strengthening Germany after it was brutally weakened by the causes within the Treaty of Versailles. Like a Phoenix rising out of its ashes, he wished to see Germany rise out of the metaphorical shackles that were locked by the victorious powers in World War I. During the interwar period, and leading up to the outbreak of WWII, Hitler presented himself as the strong, self-confident politician that Germany needed to lead the country back to its prior greatness. With a huge following both nationally and internationally, many bought into the image that Hitler presented. However, many still wondered who the real Adolf Hitler was. They wondered if they were dealing with the Hitler of Mein Kampf, lulling his opponents to sleep with fair words in order to gain time to arm his people? Or is it the Hitler who was has discovered the burden of responsible office, and wanted to extricate himself, like many an earlier tyrant, from the commitments of his irresponsible days? Thus the riddle that had to be solved (Ascher 2012, 5-6). However what part of the riddle is known to be solved are the negative parts but there is more to this man than the unfortunate events that occurred under his control of Germany such as awareness to health problems in Germany and finding ways to prevent and cure diseases.
Adolf Hitler was a horrible man that killed many Jews, because he thought it was the right thing to do. Reading, “Hitler’s Last Days” by: Bill O'Reilly, and multiple other reliable sources has made me believe and want to spread the word that the World would have been much better off if Hitler had faced the consequences of his actions. Many people of all backgrounds and opinions also strongly support this fact. Hitler knew he was going to die, either way and he decided to take his life rather than becoming a Russian prisoner. I mean just imagine all the good it would brought the world if he had faced the consequences. Hitler would have become a Russian slave and we would have gained more information through him, the World War II would’ve been won, and Hitler would’ve got his just desert.
In order to stop the fighting between countries, Europe needed to put some actions into effect because appeasement was not working. Germany proved that by disregarding the Versailles Treaty. According to Hitler after disregarding the Versailles Treaty, “I look upon this day as marking the close of the struggle for German equality status…the path is now clear for Germany’s return to European collective cooperation” (Document 3, 1936) This quote explains a vast difference between Hitler’s and the other European countries' views. With Hitler’s affirmation to make Germany equal and even more powerful than the other European countries, the other European countries would have to set up collective security because they would have very little insight on what Hitler would be planning; leading to more destruction. Now, Europe would be more prepared if Hitler decided to attack. A quote from Winston Churchill explaining why collective security is the right answer is, “…I think all of the opportunities to stop the growth of Nazi power which have been thrown away. The responsibility must rest with those who have control of our political affairs. They neither prevented Germany from rearming, nor did they rearm us in time…Thus they left us in the hour of trial without a strong national defense or system of international security” (Churchill). That quote explains how collective security is the best answer to stop war and the destruction Hitler is
...Germany was also excessive, resulting in more hatred in the minds of its people. The Germans had more enthusiasm to annul the treaty, assisting the promotion of Hitler's goals. He was able to rise within the minds of the German people, allowing him to reach absolute power. And with this power, he pointed a gun back at the Allies, not knowing that they had one more bullet than he.
Death was able to be everywhere at once, and as he said “... in all the years of Hitler’s reign, no person was able to serve the führer as loyally as me” (pg 491), his caustic tone is evident. He is an effect with the soldiers and the Führer the cause. Hitler wanted to annihilate the Jews and with an entire country behind him, he was almost impossible to stop. Although Death was the “bringer of death” it is clear that he was just doing his job. He didn’t wish for people to die, it wasn’t his fault.
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.
Hitler was able to use his countries momentum and his negotiation skills to achieve what he wanted for Germany and make 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 when 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 months 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.