“Between 1933 and 1937, the British public’s hostility to the confrontation of foreign powers left the National Government with no alternative to a policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.” – How far do you agree with this judgement? Due to the aftermath of the First World War and the oncoming threat of further war, the general public opinion was to avoid war at all costs during the time between 1933 and 1937. It was in British interests to maintain peace because of similar reasons, and because of the state of the British economy. The British public were therefore not hostile to confrontation of foreign powers, but wanted to avoid the conflict, meaning there was a strong influence on the National Government to please the general public, and appeasement was a better option than to use violence. The public opinion of wanting to be peaceful was the main reason why the National Government felt as if there was no alternative to appeasing Hitler and Mussolini.
Treaty of Ghent – Russian Trade Interests The Treaty of Ghent, also known as the peace treaty, was an act of kindness shown from both sides of the war of 1812. The Americans and the British agreed to end the war and return all lost territory to its original owner. Czar Alexander, The emperor of Russia influenced this treaty to occur because he knew it would result positively, not for just Russia, but for both the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The Americans agreed with Russias point of view, but the British who were doing well in the war were not convinced until fall of that year. The negotiators of each nation came to discuss the possibility of ending the war, not due to a strong relationship, but due to the Russian Trade
The treaty demanded that Germany, Austria, and Hungary accept responsibility for causing the war. Under the treaty’s provisions they were to repay heavy reparations to certain countries, disarm their armies, and concede territorial claims. The treaty however, did not pacify Germany as it was thought to do. The treaty inevitably leads into WWII. Along with the treaty America, Britain, and France tried to put into place Wilson’s 14 point system.
When World War I began in the early Twentieth Century, the U.S. tried to limit their involvement to prevent the conflict from coming to America. Even after the War had ended, tensions between the European nations were still very hot. Due to the European animosity, which had stemmed from the War, the Quota Act of 1921 was passed by Congress to limit the flow of immigrants from Europe. This Act grew into the well-known Immigration Act of 1924, also known as the Johnson–Reed Act. The legislation limited Northwestern Europe and Scandinavia to 142,483 people, and Southern and Eastern Europe to 18,439 people due to their involvement in the War.
‘The advantages of enlarging the EU after the end of the cold war were significant for its member states.’ How valid is this assessment? The enlargement of the EU was positive for both member states, the worlds trading and applicant states. The EU would work to bring prosperity, peace and a unity between countries which had been involved in conflict after World War two and the cold war. Even though there were negative aspects of enlarging the EU such as divisions over NATO, the expansion bought many positive aspects. In order for the EU to achieve bringing Europe together after World War 2 they would need to expand.
“Complacent and ultimately harmful to British Interests” How far do you agree with this opinion of GB foreign policy in years 1925-1929? Between the years 1925-1929 British concerns on foreign policy were primarily on the basis of preserving peace and easing the Franco-Germany tensions, defence of Britain, maintaining the status quo, and healing the economy. The terrible losses of the First World War made both politicians and public recoil from the prospect of another war. Thus, Britain seemed to have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a major war, therefore the emphasis on preserving peace were made quite clearly throughout foreign policy as well as compromise, conciliation and concession to prevent any aggression. However some historians would say that Britain was too complacent when it came to foreign policy, and as soon as they believed they had reached satisfactory targets, they wouldn’t go any further, and so risk harming British interests.
Isolationism , the made idea in the early 1920’s was changed after the course of World War 2, and urge to engage in world affairs made America the leading power in the world. America was beginning to get through World War 1 and trying to establish better relations with world powers but their differences led America into changing its foreign policies politically. Although most of the countries joined the League of Nations, America had from the start opposed it. As president Harding says in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa on October 1920 that he completely opposes America Joining the League because it is against the constitution and what Americans had fought for. Isolationism is still the idea in Washington.
Progressives, like Wilson, sought to protect the interests of the people and they feared that war would destroy everything that they had accomplished over the years to improve the American quality of life. . The War was seen as imperialistic and imperialism led to corruption. In addition to the fear of Europe’s’ encroaching imperialism, the progressives were afraid of what would happen to the reforms and the movement were the U.S. to declare war (Wilson, 13). War destroyed the family and the family was the center of society and government in the progressive
In contrast, during World War II the war was started because Germany was upset with the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that ended World War I, not because of their commitment to their allies. Some people might argue that World War II was also started because of allies since Germany and Italy were allies but during the War these two countries acted in their own interest more then they did in World War I. When the World War I started the countries of Europe were eager to go to war because there wasn’t a war in Europe for quite along time. The men had a romanticized view of the way war was fought. They thought they were going to put on their uniforms and the girls would love them.
British poet Samuel Butler once said, “God cannot alter the past, though historians can.” This sarcastic comment accurately reflects what historians so often do with the history of their respective civilizations. They are constantly searching for why things happened the way they did. However, the sooner after the event, the more romanticized it becomes in their hypotheses. War becomes a duty to uphold honor and human rights, and peace is a proverbial olive branch, created purely for its own sake. Then, historians analyze events many decades after their spawning and discover, especially in a capitalist country like the United States, that the true causes are less wholesome.