German Aggression Dbq
Within two years of consolidating power over Germany, Hitler and the Nazi Party had commenced operations to reverse the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which had treated the German people in an unfair manner. Among these reversals included foreign diplomatic measures which would ensure that Germany would annex the territories it had lost at the conclusion of World War One. In September of 1938, with Europe on the brink of yet another major war, Great Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain called the four powers – Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain – to convene in Munich and address German aggression against Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland. Among Neville Chamberlain’s goals for the conference was the notion to avoid
…show more content…
He also points out that his policy served to repair the damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain further states: “Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czecho-Slovakia from invasion and destruction.” There existed no other solution to German aggression against Czechoslovakia. With the Munich Agreement signed, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, without an Agreement, it still would have been likely that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Thus, Chamberlain remains blameless for German aggression because the German Empire would have invaded Czechoslovakia in either case. After establishing his innocence, Chamberlain states the inevitability of war against the German Empire: “Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?” How can any of the European powers trust the German Empire after the Munich Agreement was so abruptly ripped up? Any further peace talks will not produce satisfying results because there will always be doubt regarding the German intent to expand its territory. Chamberlain
He also points out that his policy served to repair the damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain further states: “Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czecho-Slovakia from invasion and destruction.” There existed no other solution to German aggression against Czechoslovakia. With the Munich Agreement signed, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, without an Agreement, it still would have been likely that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Thus, Chamberlain remains blameless for German aggression because the German Empire would have invaded Czechoslovakia in either case. After establishing his innocence, Chamberlain states the inevitability of war against the German Empire: “Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?” How can any of the European powers trust the German Empire after the Munich Agreement was so abruptly ripped up? Any further peace talks will not produce satisfying results because there will always be doubt regarding the German intent to expand its territory. Chamberlain