Why Was A Regime Was Or Was Not Democratic During The Time That World War I? Essay

The Weimar Republic would have continued to be a functional government far longer than achieved if not for the defeat of WWI, the economic burdens imposed by the Versailles Treaty, and the flawed Article 48 which all contributed to the down fall of Germany’s first attempt at a legitimate Democracy. This paper will argue that the societal, economical, and constitutional aspects all played a role in the hopeless Democracy Germany attempted which ultimately lead Germany into a totalitarian state that would further shake the world with the rise of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler.

Failure of Parliamentary Democracy in Germany and Hitler’s Rise to Power German history is seen as a ‘painful issue for thousands of Germans and other Europeans’ . However it has interested many historians over the years into inquiring how and why Hitler came to power and how much of this was to do with the failure of parliamentary democracy in Germany. To fully ascertain to what extent these events have in common and what reasons led to the fall of democracy and rise of the Nazis, each have to be looked at individually. Also it seems beneficial, to be able to evaluate these in the relevant context, to look at the situation in Germany was in prior to 1920.

Aftermath of WWI Leads to WWII 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.

Adolf Hitler Caused World War II May 1, 2012 Adolf Hitler Caused World War II As I’m sure most people know Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Germans from August 2 1934 to April 30 1945, but do you know that as Fuhrer of Germany he was the driving force behind the start of WWII. During his reign he tried to bring Germany back to the powerful country it had been before the First World War. In this paper I will prove that Hitler’s actions lead to start of WWII, and I plan to prove how his direct disregard of the Treaty of Versailles pushed the world into WWII.

Did the Treaty of Versailles make World War II inevitable? JANUARY 8, 2008 STUDENT ID: 081404078 ABSTRACT 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

The Common Factors that Led to the Establishment of Totalitarian Regimes in Italy and Germany in the Inter-War Period

Was World War II Inevitable? 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.

Introduction - It was Nationalism more than any other factor that led to the fall or the Weimar Republic and the end of democracy in Germany in 1933. The conditions of the Treaty of Versailles were extremely harsh, they caused germany to pay unthinkable amounts in reparation and give up good land that used to cause major income. The depression hit Germany hard and caused economic issues, such as major hyperinflation and the inability to pay full reparations for the Treaty of Versailles. This then led to Germany losing land that would have helped Germany pay the reparations. Then propaganda was used by the Nationalist Socialist party, or Nazi party, led to an increase in the feeling of nationalism, which in turn, led to Nazi Germany and World War Two.

World War II is generally viewed to be a moral war, or, as Howard Zinn would put it, “a good war.” This conventional impression of World War II results from American propaganda, along with misinterpretations of related events. Quite the contrary, the United States’ foreign policy, especially during World War II, was driven by imperialist goals rather than humanitarian concern. These foreign interventions are usually justified using political ideologies that advocate the spread of democracy but the United States government fails to act in the interests of the common people in other countries; instead, the US government intervened in foreign countries to protect its own needs and those of its private corporations. In addition, the

Abstract This paper will examine the claim that “war is merely a continuation of policy by other means” in regards to World War II. It will first examine the broad context in which Clausewitz constructed this theory, that “war is merely a continuation of policy”, and then move on to widen the scope of investigation to that of Clausewitz’s theory in connection with WW2. Within the scope of WW2, this paper will specifically be inspecting how Clausewitz’s theory can be seen in the United States, Britain, and German policy and war strategy during WW2 . The German perspective of this paper will examine how economy played into German policy and how consequently, this contributed to Germany’s effort and success in waging a second world war. This paper will then explore FDR (United States) and Churchill’s (Britain) approach to policy and military objectives within WW2. Finally, the United States aspect will deal with how evident Clausewitz’s theory is when dealing with policy in Japan. The end result of this paper will be that of connecting the claim that ‘war is merely a continuation of policy by other means’ to the context of WW2, specifically the countries of the United States, Britain, and Germany and their political objectives and war tactics.

b. Some of the biggest problems to foreign affairs during World War II was idealisms. America, Britain, and Russia were the big three allies. The democratic governments were not found of Marxists ideals of Russia and Stalin’s purges of the 1930s (Jones, 2008, pg. 203). This actually started prior to World War II when Russia made a pact with Nazi Germany and attacked Finland in 1939. Of course the communists Russians did not trust the

In order to capture Tuchman’s argument on Germany’s behavior, it is essential to understand that realism asserts that all states seek power and that anarchy dictates the laws of the international system. Despite the internal divisions between classical and structural realism on how anarchy leads to war, this paradigm emphasizes the enduring propensity for conflict between self-interested states due to the lack of a central authority to regulate or control nation states. States are concerned with the distribution of power and seek to ensure their own survival and security in the international system. From a realist perspective, the outbreak of the war was a result of the increasingly multi-polar nature of arrangements and the entanglement of alliances, treaties and military plans all of which were diplomatic attempts to overpower nations and prevent hegemony. Therefore, Germany entered in an alliance with Austria which made it inevitable to avoid a two-front fight but also focused its diplomatic efforts to overcome the Anglo-Japanese Treaty which was viewed “as an unnatural alliance” (p.22, p.74). Realism also emphasizes that states are willing to do anything despite public and foreign opinion to gain power and size. It suggests that since its reunification in 1870, Germany viewed its national interest in terms of power and acted aggressively to secure its means of authority. It can also explain why the “probable effect on world opinion,

Many historians argue that the reason for Germany going to war was due to the aggressive behaviour of Germany in the build up to the war. Throughout this essay I will be addressing this issue looking at whether Germany was responsible for the outbreak of a general European war in August 1914. There are many factors which contribute to the outbreak of the war from a short-term trigger such as the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to the long-term annexation aims Germany implemented in the years building up to the war, the most important reason was Germany’s aggressive foreign policy, they had provided

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

After the First World War (1914-1919), the world was faced with the questions - who was responsible and what was reason for the outbreak of the war. Ultimately it was agreed on the 28 June 1919 that “the Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage” from the First World War. However, there have been many other interpretations on whom and what was responsible for the war. On the one hand, some historians would agree with David Lloyd George’s notion of all “the nations slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war”, however, on the contrary, others would agree with Fischer in arguing that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the First World War. Whether you agree with Lloyd George or Fischer, it is important to understand some of the other possible reasons for the outbreak of the First World War – including the growth of nationalism and imperialism, the alliances within Europe and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Although this essay will argue that Germany’s aggressive foreign policy was responsible for the outbreak of the First World War, it will also illustrate why other historians have argued against that notion.