This time around I am giving you an option of two questions to choose from (i.e. you'd need to write an entry only with regard to one question). To address issues raised below, you would need to finish reading Paxton, chapter 13, as we hadn't had time to discuss them in the course of the previous lecture.
My first question touches upon the policy of appeasement. As we have pointed out, the large segments of the European society had emerged from the First World War not only war-weary, but war-averse, determined to preempt the repetition of the comparable apocalyptic show-down. The appeasement pursued by leading politicians of Britain and France took into account the anti-war sentiments in hope of fulfilling Hitler's demands without resorting to violence. Yet, as Churchill asserted after the Munich settlement, rather than bringing peace, the apologists of the appeasement only facilitated war.
My question then is: why did appeasement fail? Or, put it in somewhat different terms, could it have ever succeeded in its aims - which, as we know, did not consist in maintaining status quo or European balance of powers, but in preserving peace at all cost.
My second question raised the degree of responsibility of the Soviet Union in bringing about the war. Hitler, having decided to escalate its conflict with Poland over Danzig, would have probably not dared to attack that country (and risk getting into war with the Western Powers) had he not first secured Germany's eastern borders by striking a deal with Stalin. Now, given the role that the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty played in unfettering Hitler's hands - and more importantly, given the subsequent invasion of the Soviet armies into Poland on Sept 17, 1939 - could the Soviet Union be classified as an aggressor, or, as a nation placed alongside Germany as responsible for unleashing the war?
My first question touches upon the policy of appeasement. As we have pointed out, the large segments of the European society had emerged from the First World War not only war-weary, but war-averse, determined to preempt the repetition of the comparable apocalyptic show-down. The appeasement pursued by leading politicians of Britain and France took into account the anti-war sentiments in hope of fulfilling Hitler's demands without resorting to violence. Yet, as Churchill asserted after the Munich settlement, rather than bringing peace, the apologists of the appeasement only facilitated war.
My question then is: why did appeasement fail? Or, put it in somewhat different terms, could it have ever succeeded in its aims - which, as we know, did not consist in maintaining status quo or European balance of powers, but in preserving peace at all cost.
My second question raised the degree of responsibility of the Soviet Union in bringing about the war. Hitler, having decided to escalate its conflict with Poland over Danzig, would have probably not dared to attack that country (and risk getting into war with the Western Powers) had he not first secured Germany's eastern borders by striking a deal with Stalin. Now, given the role that the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression treaty played in unfettering Hitler's hands - and more importantly, given the subsequent invasion of the Soviet armies into Poland on Sept 17, 1939 - could the Soviet Union be classified as an aggressor, or, as a nation placed alongside Germany as responsible for unleashing the war?
After the defeat in First World War, Germany became an outlaw country.Treaty of Versailles weakened and infringed Germany economically and politically. Germany's position changed with the advent of Hitler.European countries such as England and France adopted a policy of appeasement.The sense of appeasement is solving problems peacefully.Namely, the full permission of Germany. Answering to the first question,why appeasement failed,in my opinion,from the outset this policy was already doomed to the failure.Man,whatever he was educated and conscious, is being insatiable.More than allowed,the more he requires.The failure of appeasement policy proved such human nature.Thus,England and France wanted to ''sate'' Hitler through weaker countries to save the peace.But, in reality, they dug a pit for themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhen in 1935 Germany officially refused to comply with the conditions of the Versailles Treaty, the spectre of new war clearly appear on the horizon. But the people of Europe, who had still remembering the recent senseless slaughter, were able to do anything to save peace and quite. Therefore there was the idea of appeasement: to return Germany the selected part after war, thereat set Hitler's mind at rest. However, appeasement failed. So the question arises: why did appeasement fail?
ReplyDeletePrimarily because there was a global crisis after war and the ability of the West to take collective action against an aggressor has declined because of the exacerbation of mutual rivalry in the quest to overcome the economic crisis.The difficult economic situation distract public and politicians attention on problems within the country. They thought that solutions of domestic problems were a priority. While collective resistance to the aggressors needed more attention and various applications, including coercive methods. In those conditions, protection of world required courage , will and commitment to certain losses. However, the thought of it for people, who have just survived the war , seemed ominous . The public in England and France was set up strongly against the use of force. So, we can conclude, that countries conducted policy of appeasement passively and with excessive caution. The important mistake was that countries had not taken seriously the political changes, they just watched. While Hitler advantaged of the situation and put forward new and bolder claim: accession of Austria ("Anschluss" of Austria) and Munich agreement. Munich agreement meant the transformation of Germany to most powerful nations of Central Europe. All small states in the region have realized that neither the League of Nations nor Britain and France can not guarantee their sovereignty and went on a rapprochement with Germany. So we also conclude that the Munich agreement was a strategic defeat for Britain and France, and it had brought them the beginning of the war. So, failure of the policy of appeasement became an obvious phenomenon.
I see two reasons why the apreasement fail. First,conditions of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 forbade Germany deploy troops in the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland - western part of Germany. The agreement stipulated that otherwise conscious military - including U.S. troops , have the right to occupy the area. Flagrant violation of the treaty , March 7, 1936 , Hitler ordered the German waxes re-enter the zone. Hitler hoped that the Western powers will not intervene . His actions provoked condemnation from the United Kingdom and France , but neither one nor the other power did not intervene and ensure that the contract. Second, European states had not supported Czechoslovakia in 1938, the internal German opposition to Hitler would have overthrown him. And its clear the Germany after Czechoslovakia wanted to recieve Poland... And at the beginning the European states had to responding automaticallyby force rater than negotiting with Germany.
ReplyDeleteAfter the victory of the First World War, former allies of the Entente Britain, France and Italy have complete freedom of action in Europe. The map of the Europe has been created during the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. This Treaty of Versailles established a number of hardened rules, which caused social and political tensions within Germany. It must be noticed, that regarding a «Policy of Appeasement» an aggression of Germany may be stopped by concessions and compromises. After the Munich Agreement, it was demonstrated that the policy of appeasing Hitler did not work, and concessions only pushing the aggressor. Why? Because Hitler would not stop at nothing in order to obtain whatever he wanted. Furthermore, the events , which occured Sudetenlandб proved that nothing would help to stop Germany.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement, as we know, rent on 3 main things: predictions on number of assumption in Britain and France, less-explicit suppositions and domestic consideration on internal order. This kind of appeasement was a first step of stopping the conflict with Hitler, it was a peaceful way of negotiating with Germans, as France and Britain thought. But in fact, their solution in this way made Germans be angrier than they were, because of the rear attacks in rural areas. As Foreign minister Lord Halifax said, this movement was unfavorable for all, who has started it. Appeasement failed, because nobody supported it, nobody from the East confirmed it, not counting policy members. Finally, they acknowledged that their plan is not as well advanced as it should be to act.
ReplyDeleteI want to answer to 2nd question.
ReplyDeleteI think,Russia used to be charged at all with regard to poor.their attack on Poland was not the cause reactions Germany,it was a pretext. Actually Fascism excludes any association with non-fascists. So it seems here, Russia has played a major role. But neither provoked so thirsty war Germany, it is a fact. During that Russia bears some responsibility. But you can not say that their quilt is comparable with the guilt of Germany in the war organization.
Europe was just beginning to recover for First World War and the Great Depression and war was something that no one really wanted. And this was obvious to more than just Hitler. The league of nations was suppose to end wars through peaceable negotiation and sanctions. Part of the cause for the great depression was protectionist economic measure by many nations which hampered trade. This precipitated into the body politic and many nations took an isolationist stance, and many nations like the USA had no desire to get involved in matters that did not concern them. England and France were increasing military investment but not anywhere equal to the pace of the Germans. France's entire defense stance was set around the Marginal line. The French government was week unstable and constantly changing. Prime Minister Chamberlin was weak a politician through and through with little substance about him.
ReplyDeleteJapan believe that their involvement in First World War gave them license to continue to expand there Empire.
Benito Mussolini following the example of Franco became to expand Italy's Empire.
Hitler watched the results of these actions and made the decision that the former Alliance was weak. He had secretly rebuild the German Army right under the Europe’s nose, then he began dismantling the Treaty of
Versailles.
It failed because Hitler had no intention of being appeased. He was going to take what he wanted and if the allies wanted to give it to him rather than fight to defend it then he would gladly shake there hands and take the lands he wanted. He called their bluff. Do not threaten what you are not prepared to delivery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to answer 2nd question. I think the Soviet Union has some kind of responsibility for 2nd world war. In 1919 there was signed the Treaty of Versailles by Germany without considering its terms. The Treaty was composed on Peace Conference in paris in 1919. And German delegates were invited there only for signing this Treaty. Their attempt to obtain a review of the text presented to them caused ultimatum allies. Germany lost its eighth former territory with 1/12 of the population. In March 1935 Germany finally ceased to comply with military articles of Versailles peace treaty 1919. The country was introduced universal conscription and began re- army, but it is not met with no anti- on the part of the western powers, guarantors of Versailles of the world. I think, that was one of the causes of 2nd world war. So if there was agreement and Germany knew the terms of Treaty, maybe there would be another consequences...
ReplyDeleteI find it a bit difficult to answer, and I do not know am I right ... but I still think that Germany is in any case was going to open war on the USSR. because the Soviet Union was all that was needed to win the war all over the world, Hitler believed that if he will win over the Soviet Union, he could conquer the world. And to be honest, I still do not understand why Germany wanted to the Soviet Union sign a treaty of appeasement.
ReplyDeleteI would like to answer to the second question.
ReplyDeleteAfter making a pact with Hitler, the Soviet Union was accused in beginning the Second World War.
Honestly, it`s ridiculous. Hitler had protected Germany from Soviet Union after making a pact. But France and England were main opposing forces. If they launched a war against Hitler directly after his attack on Poland, the war wouldn`t happen. These real culprits had opportunity to prevent it, but they did not do this and with Hitler are responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War. Because of their inaction, the gates of the Second World War were opened. On the other hand, they found a clever way of solving the problem.Responsibility was shift to the Soviet Union by France and England. The main aim of two given powers was to destroy the Soviet Union with help of Germany. Also I can add that Poland is partly responsible for it, because she refused participating in anti coolist parties with the Soviet Union and fully relied on the help of France and UK. But the Soviet Union, in any way, is not responsible for the outbreak of the war!!! He was protecting and taking measures in order to save himself.
Appeasement rested on assumptions and on several less-explicit suppositions. As we know, Neville Chamberlain was the dominant figure in the appeasement policy. He had an enmity for Hitler and Nazism. Chamberlain saw appeasement as exertion to locate the sources of Germany’s frustrations and control them from errors of 1914. The Versailles Treaty caused a political disease, which was Nazism. Then appeasers realized that new war could provoke the long way of revolutions. The time showed that the Munich settlement completed none of the goals that the appeasement policy had been intended to achieve. Appeasement was abandoned, because there was too much guarantees, which were denied, and wrong notion that all problems were negotiable.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement was neither a policy of drift nor an absence of policy. Appeasement rested on a number of assumptions. Perhaps its basic foundation was the conviction among the survivors of the First World War that Europe could not survive another such bloodletting. The proponents of appeasement hoped to woo Mussolini away from the Axis, and offered substantial concessions to Hitler in the effort to avoid a war that could only benefit the revolutionary left. They began to regard a war to block Hitler as “Stalin’s War.” They drew on elements of the traditional admirers of armies and empires.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement failed for a number reasons. One big reason was that war reparations that crippled Germany. It put Germany into an economic wasteland. That set the stage for Hitler to rise. Since Hitler was more interested in Aryan dominance than appeasement, appeasement was doomed to fail.
The policy of appeasement had failed because of the lack of strict control on compliance of the Versailles Treaty. Germany was imposed by many limitations including the demilitarization of the German part of the Rhine and the limitation of the armed forces of Germany to 100,000 ground troops. However, Germany had violated these terms. In March 1935, Hitler announced the formation of the army of 500,000 men, and in March 1936 decided to produce a re-militarization of the Rhine. Here rises a question why did France and Britain allow Germany to do it? I think that was due to their difficult position and lack of power to suppress the Germany. "No mobile force was available for immediate, limited action. Even if one had existed, moreover, the political obstacles were even greater. Mobi lization of reserves would have been political suicide in March 1936, on the eve of elections. The Ruhr occupation of 1923 had not been an encouraging precedent Economically, France was in the trough of the depression: Austerity budgets limited military preparation, and the economy’s effects on morale were severe." Also Britain and France justified themselves by Locarno Pact of 1925, according to that pact they must use powers in terms of "flagrant violation", without defining what it constitutes. It was clear that no one was prepared to enforce the letter of the Versailles system; the way was open to whatever new arrangements could be worked out by pressure and negotiation.
ReplyDeleteAfter announcing the formation of a German air force in 1935, it was clear that appeasement had failed. Hitler openly repudiated major provisions of the Versailles Treaty. And The British and French prime ministers started to worry about the future of the world. They met Mussolini and asked some military force, but he refused to help them because he was busy with African empire in Ethiopia. But the biggest mistake was signing of an agreement between British and German governments whereby the Germans could rebuild a fleet up to one-third the size of the British navy. Thus, they helped Hitler to come close to another step towards his goal.
ReplyDeleteI would like to give my answer for the first question. Why the policy of appeasement had failed? There are several reasons. I agree with everyone, that the main reason was the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. One of the reason is Hitler wanted to have what he want. He did not have an intention of being appeased. If his allies wanted to give him what he wanted, he just shamed thei hands and lived in peace.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement failed also because people in Britain and France saw that the terms of the Treat of Versailles placed restructions on Germany. When Germany started to re-arming it was argued that Germany would prevent the rapid spread of communism to the West.
First of all, after the big loss in First World War, Germany become week and abandoned country. So, German people democratically voted for Hitler, who wanted to took out his country from such outlaw, and difficult economic and politic conditions. Hitler and Stalin in 1939, have signed to an appeasement, that two countries would not fight with each other. In my point of view the fail of this appeasement was because Hitler wanted to protect his Eastern part while he will extend his Western part. So, after the German territory have been extended, Germany attacted to USSR, and by themselves failed the appeasement. Actually, I think that an appeasement was planned to be failed. If Hitler woud not do that, Stalin or USSR would do it.
ReplyDeleteA key reason of The Second World War is covered in the Treaty of Versailles. Treaty of Versailles, which wanted to paralyze the ability of future international conflicts, in fact became a new source for these conflicts. Because it violated the terms of the armistice on November 11, 1918. It was the turning point, when there was a question about the chance of new world war. Main actors of this "performance" was Washington, London and Paris. Germany in the twenties is very similar to Russian nineties - rise in crime, the terrible poverty of the common people, the surge of social ills - alcoholism, prostitution, mass, etc. In the film of Leni Riefenstahl "Triumph of the Will", which we watched last week, the first titles began with the words: " the 20 years after World War ... 16 years after the beginning of German suffering ... 19 months after the beginning of the German renaissance." So, German revanchism, misery of the German people and rising to power of Hitler - all of this are results of Versailles Treaty decision.
ReplyDeleteTrue initiators of the world wars were sitting in London and Washington, partly in Paris and Rome (Vatican). Berlin and Tokyo became «whipping boys», which was used as an instrument in the construction of world order.
Britain and France looked the other way while Germany no longer observe the limits that was imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Because the appeasers thought Hitler was like "a barrier to Bolshevik expansion into central Europe" (Paxton, 396). Prime-minister of Britain Stanley Baldwin said, "If Hitler moves east, I shall not break my heart".
ReplyDeleteThe Munich settlement, which was on 29 September 1938, gave Germany the opportunity to add the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Poland and Hungary attended in the partition of Czechoslovakia also. So the USSR dissatisfied about the partition that was without their participation. And it led to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. The treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland between Germany and the Soviet Union. Thus the situation got out of control of Britain which thought that Britain can stop the conversion of territorial war to world war.
Apologize for not writing an answer in time. I would like to give my answer for the first question. In 1933, wave of the Great Economic crisis covered France, England and a lot of Europeans countries that have relations between each other. So, the relationships between them deteriorated sharply. Because each state had tried to save alone and, if possible, at theirs neighbors expense. And international relations, established after the First World War, were not sufficiently stable. Why the policy of appeasement had failed? Firstly, the Versailles Treaty did not provide the balance of power, because it divided the world into two parts. On the one hand, countries that won the war. And on the other hand, countries that lost the war. Secondly, the victory of Bolsheviks in Russia and fascists rose to power in Germany. As a result, Russia and Germany stayed in the position of rogue. Both of these countries had come to quarters in order to escape the international isolation. Therefore, the Soviet-German pact became a barrier to a possible rapprochement between the USSR and England and France. So, the collective struggle against aggressor had failed.
ReplyDeleteI’m terribly sorry for so late answer.
ReplyDeleteI will try to answer the second question.
I think that the Soviet Union can be classified as aggressor. There are some reasons for it. Firstly, Hitler had not attacked Poland without Nazi-Soviet Pact, which was “protection” from the USSR aggression, this was very important, if the Soviet Union considered as one of the biggest and strongest powers in the world at that time. Secondly Nazi-Soviet Pact had big attractive advantages for Stalin; Hitler made beneficial suggestions, which gave some confidence that Stalin had not made decision against German. “Soviet Russia was to get Finland; the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and most of Lithuania; the eastern part of Poland; and Bessarabia, the area northeast of the Danube mouth awarded to Romania in 1918. Germany would get the rest of Poland and Lithuania.” (Paxton, chapter 13, page 405)
So I can make conclusion that action of the Soviet Union was aggressor rather than as a nation placed alongside Germany as responsible for unleashing the war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the period of 1933-1938, the main aim of England and France was to keep the Treaty of Versailles and prevent the emergence of war. The treaty provided these countries with the opportunities to have some stability and power on the world stage. In order to pursue this goal, England and France used the policy of appeasement. By this policy, these two countries tried to solve all the existing problems by mutual concessions. In my opinion, this policy was originally destined to fail. This policy has led to a weakening of the Versailles agreement. Also, assignment of Austria and Czechoslovakia by Germany was a strategic defeat for Britain and France. Germany became stronger than it was before. The main reason of failing the policy of appeasement was misconceptions of situations of that time by England and France and underestimation of Hitler and Germany’s policy overall.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement policy is act, policy, which was directed in order to appease agressors, keeping "positive" political situation in Europe, by Great Britian and France. Appeasement polycy was based on beliefs and hopes that Hitler will keep his promises and not alter in any other countries . So most countries merely noticed to his actions, had not being recognized, how it was dangerous. While Germany remilitirised the Rhineland, altered some territory of Austria, signed Munich Agreement, where Suddets region was given to Germany, it gave to Hitler some advantages, power. Also most leaders of European countries misjuged Hitler, thinking that he would listen Britian and France, when they could say "no". After these small meaningful victories, it was very to late to stop Hitler. So I think the most meaningful argument why appeasement policy failed is because war with Hitler was unavoidable, it was like "national" united gaol.
ReplyDeleteIt was very difficult to answer to the second question, because it has different sides and only assumptions, we don' have really facts and evidences. After occupation of Сzechoslovakia in 1939 by Germany, Europe seemed that War with Hitler might not begin. Stalin and USSR had an opportunity to sign an agreement with Great Britian and France about mutual help. In this case Hitler could not begin alter nor to Poland no France, so Stalin cold annonce War to Germany, but for Stalin it was very early to start war in 1939. Hitler was afraid of Stalin joined to the war and opening east front against Germany, Hitler could not go to this risk. Having not been signed pact, Hitler could not begin war against Poland. Hitler could start war only in one case, if Stalin give obligation not opening east front and don't support France and Britian. For Germans it was necessary to subscribe a pact with Soviet Union, showing to the whole world that Germany has a powerful partner. Stalin could stop War, only if he subscribe contract with Britian and France. So he waited for when Germany start war against Poland and France and Britian announced war to Germany. After two yars Hiltler himself brokea Nazi-Soviet pact and start war with USSR.
ReplyDeleteI will try to bring 2 reasons why the appeasement fail. Firstly, German has a stronger purpose to going to the war than avoiding it. All parties was aware of that majority of the countries who tried to avoid it, because many countries had nothing to gain from it, but loses would have been enormous. At that time, Germany was building their economy because of the oil, fight for the easier access. German wanted to risk, because the former put so much effort to be competitive with West Europe. Second reason is very obvious, it is about the needed control on flexibility of Versailles Treaty, they agreed to all” despot’s “ requirements to calm down him, where he was coming closer to the Paris, as I have understood.
ReplyDelete