How Did Appeasement Cause Ww2

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

This essay analyses the origins of the Second World War by briefly summarizing the events from 1919-1939. However, most emphasis is put on the amount of responsibility the Treaty of Versailles deserves for the outbreak of war. Other than analysing the Treaty of Versailles on its own, it also analyses the effects of the 1929 Wall Street Crash on the world, the rise of Fascism and Nazism, as well as the rise of Adolf Hitler, the failure of the League of Nations and the appeasement of the Fascist and Nazi regimes by Britain and France throughout the 1930s. Hence the Treaty of Versailles plays a

On June 28th 1919, in the Versailles Palace of France, the treaty of Versailles officially ended World war one. The signers of this treaty implemented certain restrictions on Germany that were to guarantee Germany would never start another world war. This begs the question, “what did the end of one war have to do with the start of World War Two?”. The evidence shows that it was this treaty’s influence on Adolf Hitler that led to the Versailles Treaty’s ultimate failure and provoked the start of the next world war. Because of this treaty Adolf Hitler’s economic plan, proposed while he was seeking political election, was focused on rebuilding and reclaiming Germany. This went hand in hand with the nationalist ideas of the Nazi party.

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

The policy of appeasement was widely pursued by Britain and France in the 1930s, when it referred to attempting to satisfy Germany's demands by negotiation and compromise, which would avoid war. However due to its failure the policy of appeasement, to a large extent was responsible for the outbreak of war in 1939. It is clear that if the Western Powers had retaliated against Hitler, war could have been avoided, it encouraged Hitler, Hitler could never be appeased, and that it prompted the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Despite large extent the policy of appeasement in the outbreak of war it is superseded by other factors such as the Treaty of Versailles.

In 1939 the world plunged into a state of depression and war, each country turning on one another. Diplomatic factors, Hitler's thirst for power, and the political and financial stand point are arrows that point directly to a future of destruction and war, all with the failure of appeasement. Collective security worked as a buffer between conflicts, and was the best response toward aggression. The weakening League of Nations failed to keep collective security intact from any wars. Hitler's leadership threatened the peace in Europe which caused Germany to stir up war around the world. The economic and political stand points were in danger and on the verge of collapsing.

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

Document 2 indirectly supports the idea that pro-appeasement ideologies towards German military expansion were also causes that led to World War II by explaining how the League of Nations believed that through appeasement treatment Germany will eventually be satisfied and seize to conquer other lands yet they were wrong therefore once Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had conquered lands all the way to Poland the allied powers, Great Britain, France, United States, and Russia, declare war on Germany with the hope of stalling Nazi expansion and eluding the possibility to falling into his power. Document 5 is a speech by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain which explains how appeasement was the only way to maintain peace in Europe after World War I and how Britain would only become involved in major conflicts not an invasion of a state. Document 5 is biased since it was written by a prime minister’s point of view that is pro-appeasement and supports the idea that such is the only way that Germany can be stopped without the need of war. Document 5 supports the idea that pro-appeasement ideologies towards German military expansion were also causes that led to World War II by listing textual evidence on how leaders such as Neville Chamberlain allowed Adolf Hitler to spread his Nazi regime through the use pro-appeasement ideals however such

Prior to the First World War, Europe was the world center of industry and capital. Massive death, destruction, and resentment after World War I left most countries unable to recover to a normal existence and damaged the world economy. The economic collapse and the political instability caused by World War I eventually led to the rise of fascism in Europe. Forceful dictators in Italy, Germany, and Japan took advantage of these problems to seize power by territorial expansion. These events caused a major repositioning of world power and influence. This paper traces a variety of significant factors and forces that contributed to the outbreak of World War II.

Appeasement was a less effective response to aggression because fewer countries agreed with the Munich Agreement. Some of Adolf Hitler’s ideas were stated in Document 1 such as needing colonies in order to enter colonial politics and that oppressed territories were not demoted to nothing by protests but by countries with stronger military forces. Haile Selassie, the emperor of Ethiopia, asked the League of Nations fro help in stopping the invasion after Italy attacked Ethiopia. When the League of Nations’ response was ineffective, Selassie stated “God and history will remember your judgment. It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” (Doc.2). This statement is like karma; because the League of Nations didn’t help Ethiopia, it would be attacked and get no help. This statement is in the point of view of Ethiopian people, but also for other European countries because when countries are without help, the country it asks will later be without help also. They will be in the same situation as the country asking for its help; “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” Document 5 is in the point of view of the British. Document 5

Taylor, wrote in The Origins of the Second World War that other countries should have become involved by armed force in 1933, to overthrow Hitler when he had come to power and was supported by a large majority of the German people. Taylor thought that if more countries became involved with this issue, Czechoslovakia would have been secure. He also believed the German people were the only ones who could turn Hitler out because they were the ones that put him in power. He stated that “the ‘appeasers’ feared that the defeat of Germany would be followed by a Russian domination over much of Europe” (Document 8) which many people did not want. By using appeasement, they only allowed Hitler to become stronger and feel more powerful by giving him what he

World War II officially racked the world from 1939 to 1944, but before any one nation actually declared war, Hitler was trying to take land. To respond with appeasement or collective security was debated by many as to which would avoid damage in the most efficient manner. Document 3, Document 4, and Document 6 show how collective security was definitely a more beneficial strategy than appeasement to respond to aggression.

Appeasement was arguably the only realistic option for British policy towards Germany between 1936 and 1938 when considering the fact that appeasement permitted Britain to rearm, thus preparing her more effectively for war, whilst also giving her the moral high ground. Nevertheless, for some “appeasement has become a dirty word, synonymous with weakness and defeatism in the face of naked aggression” since Britain’s policy of appeasement succumbed to Nazi aggression and failed to actually prevent war. Subsequently many historians argue that alternatives including a ‘Grand Alliance’ and military intervention in the Rhineland (1936) and Czechoslovakia (1938) would have been better options. However, when considering the several hindrances to these alternatives including political and public stance, financial difficulties and the depth of pacifist objection, it appears that appeasement was the only realistic option.

For quite a number of reasons, World War II was largely inevitable. In this text, I will take into consideration some arguments that have been presented in the past in an attempt to demonstrate the inevitability of the Second World War. These arguments range from the creation of the Treaty of Versailles to the conditions imposed on Germany to nationalistic issues. Many historians consider German's invasion into Poland the official commencement date of the Second World War.

The fact that A. J. P. Taylor does not utilise Mein Kampf or other memorandums as a valid source provides historians such as; Hugh Trevor-Roper and Richard Overy a means to pick apart his argument. Overy states that “the 1936 memorandum... was developed as the basis for a complex and far reaching transformation of German foreign, economic and military policy.” This in essence argues that it is apparent that Hitler had premeditated the ways in which Germany would move forward to achieve greater power in the world. When considering the part that Western statesmen played, A. J. P. Taylor believes that the policy of ‘appeasement’ was