Based on your reading of Goff 241-253, we see that the appeasement of German aggression by the League of Nations, Britain, France, Soviet Union and the United States reestablished Germany as a dominant military threat in Europe throughout the 1930's. Hitler was strategically calling the bluff of the Treaty of Versailles and continued on his path to rebuild Germany. Do you think that WWII was preventable if one of the major world powers had stepped in and intervened in Germany's revision or was the war bound to occur either way?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8n4FhG2GlA
Additionally, is this modern day appeasement??
First, add a comment that provides a response to to the questions above or to the posted comments.
Next, comment on three other classmate's posts from last time.
I think that WWII would've been preventable if one of the major world powers had interevened in Germany early on while they were still weak. In the early 1930s a world power could've interevened without starting a world war. However, later in the decade, I thing a world war still would've broken out. It might not have been of the same magnitude, but by the later part of the decade, Hitler was dead set on war. However, it is possible that World War II could've still happened even if a world power did intervene, but it is unlikely. Also, if the League of Nations had the force to stop Germany, it could've halted Germany's rearmament.
ReplyDeleteI think that Europe was headed for war either way. The benefit of stopping Germany would have been a smaller German army to deal with. Hitler would probably have carried out his plans anyway, but the rest of Europe stood by while the German army grew to a point were it was able to hold its own in a world war. If the League of Nations had stepped in earlier victory in Europe would most likely have been easier, depending how early they prevented the growth of the army. A smaller, less organized German army is much easier to defeat than a large, trained one.
ReplyDeleteI think that if a major world power stepped in early enough in the military reesablishment in Germany, WWII could have been prevented. If the Treaty of Versailles was followed to the word, and enforced, any chance of Germany regaining was very unlikely. If a world power interviened after Hitler started to gain power, and when he was declared the Feurer, I believe that WWII would have started anyways. I am not sure if Japan would still have started WWII even if Germany didn't have strong military power. I don't think it is as likely
ReplyDeleteWar was inevitable, but if one of the major powers, for example France, had stepped in to put an end Hitler's plans at the first warning signs in, say 1935, then the war would have been much quicker and much less devastating than it turned out to be.
ReplyDeleteWWI was clearly encouraged the conflicts that arose during the 1930s; and many of the conflicts that arose before WWII were reminiscent of the conflicts that arose before WWI.
ReplyDeleteIt is odd that no countries intervened in any significant way, given that they would have known that the appeasement that occured before WWI did not work. But, Britain also would have known that thier intervention in the conflict definately escalated it.
With that in mind, I don't believe that the intervention of one of the major countries would have done anything other than escalate the conflict. Perhaps a unified effort would have detered Germany temporarily; But in the end, as occured in WWI, a unified effort, or a singular effort, would have simply fueled the flames that eventually consumed the European continent and the Pacific.
There may have been a possibility that WWII could have been prevented, but this is unlikely. Stalin and Mussolini were not as vocal concerning the "take-over" of the world. However, Franco, Stalin and Mussolini were significant in Europe at the time and had a great deal of power. Also, if a power had attempted to intervene in Germany it is likely that Germany would have declared war on that nation. Due to alliances between nations the possibility of another World War is almost definite because most of the peace treaties were not upheld.
ReplyDeleteI think that if another nation stepped in to stop Germany then tensions between the nations would have heightened which could have possibly created a war. Hitler could have used the intervention as another rallying point from which to gain power and public support. Therefore, German nationalism would be stronger even though military would be weaker. War would still be a likely result of the intervention of another country.
ReplyDeleteThe cause of World War II goes back to the Treaty of Versailles, and I think that if we had used more of Wilson's fourteen points, as opposed to creating resentment and basically crippling Germany, this would have helped to prevent war. If Germany stil had some lang and resources to support their economy, they would have been able to better maintain political stability and therefore some of the reasons that Germany went towar could have been eliminated. I think that the United States, Britain or France could have helped to prevent the war by acting early to stop Germany from gaining massive amounts of power from the Nazi Party.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that war was inevitable, I think that if we didn't practice these policies of appeasment then we wouldn't have had the war.
ReplyDeleteHitler was gaining many followers on his rise to power because he was creating many jobs for the unemployed and trying to rebuild the German economy. At the time I don’t think that other nations really realized how powerful he was going to become. The book stated that many nations didn’t want to get involved with Germany because of the harsh treatment they received from the Treaty of Versailles. Even if a major world power intervened I think that some kind of war or violence would have broken out because of all the tension and economic problems Germany was in, which was a major reason Hitler was able to gain power so easily.
ReplyDeleteI think that this isn't really an example of appeasement. I feel as though Ron Paul is viewing the nuclear situation from a peaceful point of view, based on current events Iran doesn't have the power to wield any nuclear weapons with any significant force.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kevin, that the Treaty of Versialles should have been more closely followed. I think it is unreasonable to assume that if a single nation had intervened, things would have been different. I think that the only reasonable way to stop Hitler would have been for the nations involved in the League of Nations to act as a cohesive unit, ie Britain and France, and even the United States. If Hitler had seen this united front of nations willing to take military action to prevent him from rising to the power he saught, he may have taken a step back. Instead, he saw that no nation was willing to oppose him, and the Germans could easily have overwhelmed a single nation, but not a coalition of nations working together.
ReplyDeleteI think that Ron Paul is not really appeasing Iran so much as he is making a point that war is not required in every foreign conflict that we find ourselves in. I think he ideas of preventative measures makes sense in keeping us out of yet another was that we really don't want to be involved in.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs for the video, I don't think that the current situation with Iran, Senator Paul's stance is not appeasement, as Israel is nearby Iran with many nuclear weapons to ward off Iran's one (potential) nuclear weapon. It's not appeasement, it's containment. Going to war is a foolish thing to do when the problem is under control.
ReplyDeleteI think if the surrounding nations had done something to intervene in Nazi Germany's actions rather than letting them do what they wanted out of fear WWII could have been stopped. This war really did not have a reason to happen and could have discontinued if only another leader stood up to Hitler and ended his terror before it started.
ReplyDeleteThis could be viewed as an example of modern day appeasement, but in my opinion it is not. Both Ron Paul and Romney reccomend that some action be taken, whether it be negotiations or strict limitations put in place. Ron Paul may be a bit too leniant, but he does have a point, it could be dangerous to threaten Iran. But, to just enter into negotiations could be equally as dangerous. I don't think either candidate wants to appease Iran, I think they're simply trying to get rid of the threat Iran poses, rather than ignoring it. They are not chosing to ignore the threat as major powers did to Germany prior to World War II.
ReplyDeleteI feel like if one country intervened in Germany, it would have caused a domino effect, and other world powers would have joined the cause. As a result, war would have broken out anyway. I think World War II could have been preventable, but not by direct involvement by another country. I'd like to believe nothing is inevitalbe, just likely to occur. World War II falls under that category.
ReplyDeleteNot getting involved in Iran could easily be mistaken for modern day appeasement, but truly it is not. By not intervening, the US is simply avoiding war. We are doing nothing to "appease" Iran.
I think that the situation in Iran dealing with nuclear weapons can be viewed as modern day appeasement. Ron Paul has the idea of trying to solve the nuclear problem in a peaceful manor, and waiting to see if there is actually a threat in Iran. Romney on the other hand is just saying that he can "ensure" that there won't be any nuclear weapons in Iran if he is president. Not many good examples were given to how he was to do this, but I guess he would prevent it somehow... The United States is trying to prevent the creation of a nuclear weapon in a simi-unstable country that is known for acts of terrorism. I don't see how this isn't appeasement
ReplyDeleteWith Hitler in power I think World War Two was going to happen no matter what. Hitler had a plan of what he wanted to do and he would have found anyway to do it. He wanted to rebuild Germany and show it as a world power. If Brittan or France stepped in to stop it I think it would have just slowed down Hitter’s plans but with him in power I believe World War Two would have happened just at a latter date.
ReplyDeleteThe video is modern day appeasement. Ron-Paul especially, wants to avoid argument and confrontation with Iran. In doing this, Iran is able to build up nuclear armaments. This is just like the appeasement of Germany before World War II. The thing that makes this not modern day appeasement is that there are many different viewpoints on the same issue. Some people want to avoid conflict while others, like Romney, want to go in and dismantle the nuclear weapons. In the time before World War II, there was one general concensus and that was to avoid conflict with Germany. So overall, the situation of Iran has characteristics of both modern day appeasement and non-appeasement.
ReplyDeleteThe current situation involving the Iranian nuclear conflict is not a definate example of appeasement. During WWII, countries definately knew of the necessity to do something, and actively chose to do nothing. As above, that may have or may have not been the right decision (but that's another story).
ReplyDeleteI believe that appeasment is not an accurate description of the situation today, because we don't know exactly how to tackle the issue at hand, as shown by the widely different views between Congressman Paul and former Governor Mitt Romney. Perhaps we aren't doing anything not because we think that that is the way to solve the problem, but because we can't agree on a strategy.
Also, I get the impression that the future Allies knew a lot more about the issues that needed to be tackled before WWII broke out. Today, we aren't as aware of the specific developments in Iran, we don't know the specific scale of the problem and their operation. As a result, we don't know exactly what to do; so a fake-appeasement has appeared to develop because we really can't do much at this point?
WWII could have been stopped if the world powers had done something. There wasn't a need for the war if something was done much earlier to prevent the war.
ReplyDeleteWith the Iran part I think there is a way to get it done through talking and if all else fails then yes we possible have to go to war. This is also if there a large national security threat but that’s if there is nothing else we can do. War should be the last thing on our list unless there is nothing we can do and the threat is too great to risk and we have to go to war.
ReplyDelete