Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of foreign policy
Revisionist view of appeasement
Importance of foreign policy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of foreign policy
Justifying Appeasement Appeasement was the foreign policy followed by the British and French governments in the 1930s, whereby they did not attack or confront other governments, specifically that of Germany's, when international laws were breached, but rather gave into some of the demands to keep the peace. After the horror and dramatic loss of innocent lives (amassing over 3 million) in the First World War, both the French and the British governments were keen to avoid any more blood shed and their pacifist policies meant they started to take a very lenient attitude towards breached international laws. They knew that the general public, for whom the memories of war were still rife, thought the idea of another conflict unacceptable. When the Japanese invaded Manchuria in 1931, the League of Nations were unable to enforce any effective sanctions and when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1936, the economic sanctions they managed to enforce had little effect. 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. However, Britain and France did not appear to thoroughly consider the policy and consequently, as we have seen, Hitler was allowed to go against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, increasing in military strength, reuniting with Austria, conquering the Sudetenland, all the while becoming an even stronger threat. However, during the 1930s the policy of Appeasement did allow Britain and France to rearm. Perhaps without this time to increase their military power, they may not have finally defeated Hitler and won the War.
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. There were a few reasons that these concessions were offered by European countries: none of the countries wanted another World War, the devastating effects that the Great Depression had on each country, and the European governmental chaos and political turmoil was widespread.
There is no excuse for the horrible things Nazi Germany did during World War II. But one can get a better idea how that war started by learning about how World War I ended. The Treaty of Versailles was created by the winners of World War I, like France, Great Britain, and the United States, to make peace. So how did it help contribute to an even worse war less than twenty years later? It was mainly because it was too hard on Germany’s territory, military, economy, and national pride.
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.
...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.
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. This allowed Hitler, with his soaring nationalist rhetoric, to take win a large share of the electorate in the early 1930’s. This is because Hitler appealed to their humiliation and promised to restore Germany to his past glory. Thus, the Great Depression was absolutely essential in making Germany into an aggressor. However, it was unimpacted by the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, the Great Depression originated in the United States, which did not even sign the Treaty of Versailles. It may not be clear why the Great Depression, which began in and most impacted the United States, caused Germany, and not more negat...
It is the inquisitive nature of man that is primary driving force behind the Five W’s: Who, What, When, Where and Why. Though these are all meaningful pursuits in their own right, it is the purpose of this piece to shed light on the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union’s purpose, as well as the most likely causes for its manifestation. Also in question, but not out of the scope of discussion, is whether or not non-aggression pacts truly work to preserve peace, or whether they are unintentionally one of the primary fuel sources that combust to cause war amongst the nations involved. The realist holds the key to this argument. The realist perspective sits alone as being the most concise angle from which to view the events transpired. However, without understanding a bulk of the history, a moderately concise answer cannot be delivered to the reader.
During the1930’s the Western economy was still in terrible shape from the Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash of 1929. “Evident instability – with cycles of boom and bust, expansion and recession - generated profound anxiety and threatened the livelihood of both industrial workers and those who gained a modest toehold in the middle class. Unemployment soared everywhere, and in both Germany and the United States it reached 30 percent or more by 1932. Vacant factories, soup kitchens, bread lines, shantytowns and beggars came to symbolize the human reality of this economic disaster.” (Strayer, 990) Like Germany, the Western democracies were economically in trouble and looking for stability and recovery. The United States’ response to the Great Depression, under Roosevelt, came in the form of the New Deal “which was an experimental combination of reforms seeking to restart economic growth. In Britain, France and Scandinavia, the Depression energized a democratic socialism that sought greater regulation of the economy and a more equal distribution of wealth, through peaceful means and electoral policies.” (Strayer, 993) The lack and need for restoration was clearly global. Hitler’s promise of civil peace, unity and the restoration of national pride would seem very appealing and very similar to the wants and needs of the Western democracies; but through peaceful means. No one was interested in or could afford setting off a heavily funded war by taking a stand against Hitler. Through a policy of appeasement allowing Hitler to take back land that was ordered dematerialized by the Treaty of Versailles, the British and the French tried to avoid all-out war but to no avail. Hitler continued his conquests eventually having most of Europe under Nazi control. A second war in Europe had
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.
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
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
These documents show that the League of Nations was responsible for WWII because they did not take threats seriously and did not respond to the problems quickly enough. However, instead of appeasement, collective security was the answer to quell Hitler. The League of Nations was not an effective solution to the arguing and warfare that broke out during the early 20th century. Also, appeasement did nothing for the Allied Forces, and Germany had gained a lot of both land and power than if the Allies had not chosen to try and win Hitler over. Collective security successfully defeated Hitler and the Nazi party for the Allied Forces, and also got rid of Hitler’s influences all over the European front. WWII was an overall success for the Allied Forces due to collective security methods in place, in order to obliterate the Nazi Party.
...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.
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.
Hitler had long been obsessed with attacking and controlling France. After their defeat in World War I, the German people, government, and military were humiliated by the enormous post war sanctions leveraged against them from the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to defeat and humiliate the French people in the same way that his country had to. For him, revenge was necessary. The German plan was to swing into France using a new tactic known as Blitzkrieg or “Lightning War”.
The early 1700s upsurge of capitalist economy and superior nation states armed with well-organized military provided a favorable advantage for Belgium, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, and British to role as the world’s imperial authorities. These country passed a policy that allowed a more powerful nation to take control of a weaker nation by spreading their country's authority and influence through use of military force and colonization. The name for such a policy is call Imperialism. According to Oxford Dictionaries, “Imperialism originated from the Latin word "imperium", meaning to rule over large territories. It is an unequal human and territorial relationship, usually in the form of an empire, based on ideas of superiority and practices