World War 2 Dbq Essay

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.

Winston Churchill warned the British Parliament of Germany’s aggression. “I think of all 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.” (Document 6) Churchill believed that Hitler went too far with annexation of Austria, Rine, and Czechoslovakia. He believed that it was too late to stop Hitler’s power and his ambition was too great that it would leave other nations such as Britain and France in a poor condition like it had left Germany after the first world war. “The Munich Agreement was a ... desperate act of appeasement at the cost of the Czechoslovak state in the vain hope that it would satisfy Hitler's stormy ambition, and thus secure for Europe a peaceful future.” (Document 7) George Kennan was also a non-supporter of appeasement because he believed that it turned a blind eye to too many power struggles and encouraged his imperialism. He was also a non-supporter of Chamberlain because of his policy that didn’t stop the war, but encouraged it. It not only made Hitler stronger and he gave Hitler the means to stop the world war. Czechoslovakia defenses were strong enough to suppress weak Germany. Keith Eubank claims that Britain and France and other nations were not willing to fight in the war because Hitler’s actions were not invasive enough for it to be deemed as a threat. European nations had more pressing matters to be concerned about. (Document 9) These concerning matters could be correlated to the rising threat of Communism which acted as a window of opportunity for both Italy and Germany to grow more nationalistic and

Perhaps the greatest failure to fully grasp the true intentions of Hitler's regime was the signing of the Munich Pact. The Munich Pact or Munich Agreement was signed by the leaders of Germany, Italy, Britain, and France on September 30, 1938. The backdrop to the Munich Agreement is Adolf Hitler’s rise to power and Germany’s remilitarization. Hitler moved aggressively to jumpstart a foundering German economy and to jettison the constraints that had been imposed on the German military after World War I. European leaders nervously looked the other way as he ran roughshod over the security provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and reasserted German power in central Europe. One goal of Hitler’s policies was to create Lebensraum, or greater living

Appeasement can be sighted to the 20th Century as a controversial foreign policy. Appeasement literally means to pacify or conciliate (Hallock, Stephanie, The World in the 20th Century, 06-05-2016, p 82). It is also defined by the words of Chamberlain in September 1938, “As long as a war has not begun there is always hope that it may be prevented and you know that I am going to work for peace to the last moment” (Hallock, Stephanie, The World in the 20th Century, 06-05-2016, p 82). The words summarize the core of the ideas and thoughts behind appeasement. Although rooted in good intentions, appeasement sparked controversy in the 20th Century due to its effects on the Treaty of Versailles and political stance.

World War II is among the most significant wars in American history. Although the U.S. didn’t join the war efforts directly until after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the impact the war had on the U.S. was great. Among other causes, the Munich Agreement was one of many things that came into in existence paving the way for WWII to begin. As addressed in the Parliamentary Debate on the Munich Agreement, many in the British Parliament (Winston Churchill, Neville Chamberlain, etc.) discussed the course of action that should be taken regarding Germany and Hitler. Many, including Neville Chamberlain signed this agreement in hopes of maintaining peace, others, like Winston Churchill believed that holding for peace would ultimately lead to their downfall.

Churchill’s opinion on the appeasement and Munich were that they were a “disaster of the first magnitude.” He believed that the appeasement was another sign of weakness by Great Britain, and further emphasized that Great Britain wouldn’t take action against Germany’s behavior. Churchill also disliked that the Czechs weren’t invited to Munich, seeing that the Munich Conference dealt with the territory of Czechoslovakia. Churchill stated, “And I will say this, that I believe the Czechs, left to themselves and told they were going to get no help from the Western Powers…” Chamberlain had a more positive view of the appeasement policy and of the Munich Conference. Chamberlain believed that Germany’s control over Czechoslovakia was inevitable, and appeasement was the only way to prevent Czechoslovakia from getting obliterated by the Germans. German hostility against Czechoslovakia had already been displayed by Hitler in May as he said to his generals that he intended “to smash Czechoslovakia by military action in the near

When one chooses to take the easy path, there will always be unforeseen consequences, and this is exactly what happened in the policy concerning Hitler and Nazi Germany leading up to World War II. The Munich Agreement was signed on September 30, 1938 and it was at that moment that Hitler agreed to not take any more countries by force. Specifically, the agreement stated that Hitler would not take Sudetenland, a region in Czechoslovakia, seeing as it was given to him and force was not needed to take it. For Hitler, the Munich Agreement was a policy of appeasement towards the British and French. He signed the agreement knowing that he had no intention of abiding by it and that he would leave the rest of the allies looking ignorant to the world and even worse, to their own citizens. The appeasement was a failure and all it accomplished was leading the allies to believe that Hitler could be trusted. The events leading up to the Munich Agreement and the document itself fueled the fire for World War II and only intensified Hitler’s need for power.

After the destruction and deaths, World War II was on the brink to be settled, but the post-war roughly received more tension. With the Allies, United States, Great Britain, and Soviet Russia, were near to discuss what Germany’s punishment would be for disturbing the peace and their crimes against humanity. They wanted Germany to loss almost part of it’s land and make the Allies take parts of the land. The U.S and Britain would have the western parts of Europe and Soviet Russia would take the eastern parts of Europe. For Russia, they would do more than take the land, but alter them into communist nations and force them to be with Russia. The U.S view this as a threat to not just their nation, but almost all of the western nations wanted to become imperialists and for the eastern nations

In the history of international politics, France and Britain’s foreign policy towards Germany at the start of World War 2 was appeasement. Hitler was pushing to take over Czechoslovakia. Both France and Britain were not willing to defend Czechoslovakia and instead signed what is now known as the Munich Agreement. This gave Hitler and his armies the go ahead to completely occupy the Sudetenland.

This emphasizes with sustenance that the policy of appeasement that Britain enacted from 1935-1939 was largely justified due to the understanding that Britain was not militarily or economically capable of deterring Germany, the belief that Adolf Hitler would uphold his promise to make no further territorial claims, and the responsibility to please the national public interest of the pacifist movement.

When countries like Italy and Germany became aggressive, they began to take over their neighbors and build up their armies. Countries like as Britain and France hoped to keep peace through "calming down by giving what's asked for." This meant that they tried to make Germany and Hitler happy, versus try to stop him. They hoped that by meeting his demands, he would be made happy by meeting a need or reaching a goal and there wouldn't be any war. Unfortunately, the policy of calming down by giving what's asked for exploded and gave bad, unexpected results. It only made Hitler bolder and stronger. It also gave him time to build up his

The Munich Agreement was an agreement between the British, French, Germans, and Italians that allowed Hitler control over Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Hitler knew that France and Britain were not prepared to fight another war and would not oppose his demands. So he set forth his plan of destroying Czechoslovakia and succeeded without much resistance. The agreement allowed Hitler to complete his plan with ease. Some, like Neville Chamberlain, believed that this was a victory because it prevented war with Germany; while others, like Winston Churchill, believe that it was “a total and unmitigated defeat” (Winston Churchill 1938). Pro-appeasement views on Munich agreement were that it avoided war and that it gave Britain, France, and Italy

Mussolini proposed a meeting between Germany, France, Britain, and Italy; held on September 29, 1938; Czechs were not invited.

For some European powers at the time, The Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration was considered to have achieved a peace that was thought to be unconceivable. Unfortunately, the great claims of Neville Chamberlain did not come true. These agreements only delayed the inevitable between the great European powers and allowed Hitler to gather more territory with relative ease. This document between the powers of Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom outlined the terms and conditions under which Germany would annex a large portion of Czechoslovakia. Throughout this text, the historical context and significance of the Munich Agreement will be analyzed.