More handpicked essays just for you.
Hitler's domestic and foreign policy
Hitler's domestic and foreign policy
Hitler's domestic and foreign policy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hitler's domestic and foreign policy
In 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler met to discuss the aggressive foreign policy that Germany had. The two meetings ended in the Munich Pact, which only stood to appease Hitler. It allowed Germany to own Czechoslovakia, but no acquire additional territory. For years, it has been debated whether or not appeasement was right and if Germany should have been dealt with more firmly. On one side stands the people who believe that appeasing Germany was at least an attempt to remove the possibility of war and its causes. The other argument is that the war was inevitable, and willingly giving Czechoslovakia to Germany was turning them to a Nazi regime. Based on historical evidence and documents, it is solid that appeasement was not the correct
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.
In 19th century Italian states united to make Italy while the Germanic states united and made Germany. For Italy there were three people who had a major role in unifying Italy. They were Mazzini, Garibaldi and Cavour. For Germany it was more like one person who united the German states to make Germany and that was Bismarck. On the other hand there was a strong Austrian empire that would not tolerate any nationalist feelings to rise anywhere in Europe.
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.
“War is unorganized murder, and nothing else” (Harry Patch). In World War 1, which was first called the Great War, there were many causes of the war breaking out. The Great War started August 1st 1914 days later after the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia, when they visited Bosnia. Many soldiers went to war for no reason but to fight for their country. The Great War was not only affected by the soldiers, but also by the civilians as well. Women replaced men in factories, offices, and shops while the men were at war so that everything would be working smoothly. The main underlying causes of World War 1 were the alliances and imperialism in Europe.
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
The Potsdam Conference occurred from July 17th to August 2nd, 1945. The conference took place between US president Harry Truman, Soviet’s Joseph Stain, and England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The major goal of the Potsdam meeting was what would happen with Germany postwar. They wanted to be able to ensure the “eventual reconstruction of Germany’s democracy and peace.” At that time, the Soviet Union occupied a lot of the Eastern part of Germany and wanted a “unified, but unarmed Germany.” However, President Truman did not trust Stalin’s motives. In addition, Truman had found out that they had tested their atomic bomb and it was ready to be used in battle. Truman seeing the immense advantage the US had from a military standpoint knew he had leverage.
What started with an assassination of an Austrian prince unpopular in with royalty in Vienna and plotters in Belgrade ended in war. Four years of artillery, machine guns, and poison gas had ruined the countryside of Europe. Woodrow Wilson put the blame for dead millions at the feet of secret diplomacy, excessive armament, imperialism, and the lack of international cooperation. His plan for a lasting peace was presented to the world in the form of the Fourteen Points, some of which were present in the final plan for peace, the Treaty of Versailles, which faced internal opposition at home. It was the strength of this opposition, from self or fawning-historian labeled "progressives" to conservatives and isolationists, in conjunction with the intractability and incompetence of President Wilson that encouraged the Senate defeat of the Treaty of Versailles.
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.
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...
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.”
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.
The Olympic Games of Munich started like any other, the parade of nations, proud representatives filled with dreams of gold medals and strong finishes. A moment of glory and hopefully standing tall on the podium as their flag is raised. This is a time when nations come together in peace to show the power of human achievement through sport. It did not happen that way.
Long time ago the world had many struggles to face. Wars were later on created by the countries. Countries were choosing different sides and helping win the war. The allies of WW1 was Britain, France, Russia, Italy and the United States.These countries fought against the Central Powers which included Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria. After the war was over people blamed that Germany started WW1, so punishments by United States were faced by Germany. So now a new topic that people discuss whether the benefits of punishing Germany did or didn’t outweighed the drawbacks. My claim is that the benefits of punishing Germany did not outweighed the drawbacks.
The Tripartite Pact was created by Germany, Italy, and Japan and signed September 27, 1940. The pact was labeled with the intent to create peace between the three axis powers. The true purpose was to create an agreement between the three parties to ensure if one of the others were to get attacked by a party not currently involved in the war the others would be there to help. The main reason was that the United States were not yet involved in the war. The pact acted as a public announcement against the U.S so that they knew that they could not start war with one of the powers without fighting the other two.
Britain had adopted a policy of appeasement due to the effects of the economic depression, fear of Japanese and German expansion and fear of Communism (Durgan, 2007). The commitment to appeasement was featured heavily in British foreign policy, particularly towards Germany as appeasement aimed to limit German aggression by submitting to Hitler’s demands (Preston, 1996). Both Preston and Durgan (2007) argued that intervention in Spain would have compromised