Treaty Of Versailles Appeasement In The 1920's
Even though the 1920’s began with a favorable outlook for peace, towards the end of the decade and throughout the 1930’s the clouds of war were forming. Dictators arose in countries that were dissatisfied with the results of World War I. Germany, Italy, and Japan took aggressive actions, and neither the League of Nations nor the democratic countries were able or willing to stop them. British Prime Minister Chamberlain suggested the best way to deal with Hitler was the policy of appeasement. Actions were taken that moved Europe toward war. The debate over the causes of World War II provides different perspectives. There were several factors as to why the world was plunged into World War II in 1939. At the end of WWI, the Treaty of Versailles
…show more content…
European countries often thought that this was the proper actions to take. Appeasement is far from an effective way to dealing with aggressions. Appeasement has to do with the aggression of the axis nations in World War II. This took place when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Eventually to conquer and avenge the loss to Ethiopians in 1896. Haile Selassie, Ethiopian king, appeals to the League of Nations. To no avail. Which was led by Britain and France, to aid in fighting off Mussolini’s forces. The League of Nations proved ineffective. This proves that Britain and France disliked any fight. Haile wanted to stop the Italian aggression. If the aggression was not stopped, he, the aggressor, would attack others. Aggressors should not be appeased (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 2). As seen by Winston Churchill, the aggressor must be stopped, Britain, France, and the other countries must join together in a collective security to stop aggression. They should have stopped Hitler when he seized Austria or threatened Czechoslovakia, which was later taken over. The British government is to blame, as it weakened the League of Nations and did not build up their defenses leaving the state in a disaster. The British government also didn’t stop Germany from rebuilding the army. It is pointed out to us that Winston believed that Britain lost the chance to increase Nazi Germany. (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 6). (AS SEEN IN EXCERPT 7), Kennan …show more content…
France however went to the League of Nations and asked that Germany be removed from the Rhineland diplomatically or by a stronger force if seen necessary. Western democracies were adopted with the appeasement to keep the peace. The League of Nations did not take action to terminate these attacks (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 3). The Munich agreement also proves that appeasement is not the answer for peace. During the Munich Conference, Germans got the OK to occupy Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia only if to promise not to invade more countries (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 4). (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 9) Keith Eubank claims that the countries of Europe, including Britain and France, were not willing to fight because Hitler had done nothing to warrant their returning to the conditions they had suffered in WWI. All the countries had other interests and they were not willing to unite to stop Hitler. Collective security was not the route to take at this
European countries often thought that this was the proper actions to take. Appeasement is far from an effective way to dealing with aggressions. Appeasement has to do with the aggression of the axis nations in World War II. This took place when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Eventually to conquer and avenge the loss to Ethiopians in 1896. Haile Selassie, Ethiopian king, appeals to the League of Nations. To no avail. Which was led by Britain and France, to aid in fighting off Mussolini’s forces. The League of Nations proved ineffective. This proves that Britain and France disliked any fight. Haile wanted to stop the Italian aggression. If the aggression was not stopped, he, the aggressor, would attack others. Aggressors should not be appeased (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 2). As seen by Winston Churchill, the aggressor must be stopped, Britain, France, and the other countries must join together in a collective security to stop aggression. They should have stopped Hitler when he seized Austria or threatened Czechoslovakia, which was later taken over. The British government is to blame, as it weakened the League of Nations and did not build up their defenses leaving the state in a disaster. The British government also didn’t stop Germany from rebuilding the army. It is pointed out to us that Winston believed that Britain lost the chance to increase Nazi Germany. (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 6). (AS SEEN IN EXCERPT 7), Kennan …show more content…
France however went to the League of Nations and asked that Germany be removed from the Rhineland diplomatically or by a stronger force if seen necessary. Western democracies were adopted with the appeasement to keep the peace. The League of Nations did not take action to terminate these attacks (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 3). The Munich agreement also proves that appeasement is not the answer for peace. During the Munich Conference, Germans got the OK to occupy Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia only if to promise not to invade more countries (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 4). (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 9) Keith Eubank claims that the countries of Europe, including Britain and France, were not willing to fight because Hitler had done nothing to warrant their returning to the conditions they had suffered in WWI. All the countries had other interests and they were not willing to unite to stop Hitler. Collective security was not the route to take at this