Clemenceau resented Wilson’s generous attitude towards Germany and Lloyd George’s desire to not treat Germany too harshly. He said “if they British are so anxious to appease Germany they should look overseas and make colonial, naval or commercial concessions”. These disagreements left the big three unsatisfied and ultimately left them with a weak mere shadow of a perhaps great treaty due to their own arrogance and. It contained many faults and weaknesses. The treaty of Versailles greatly humiliated Germany forcing it to accept soul responsibility for the war.
Collective security had a better response towards aggression rather than appeasement. This is because a lot more European countries didn’t approve of the decision made during the Munich Conference. Winston Churchill was one person who strong didn’t approve with this decision. He was a British politician who thought, “keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor” (Document 6). Churchill believed that in order to guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia, Europe should have held Germany back and Britain and France should have worked together as an alliance.
This allowed the far right to exploit the Germans hate of the treaty of Versailles and connect the treaty to democracy, so the people wouldn’t blame the loss of ww1 on the army but the democratic politician’s. This led to an increase in public support for a more authoritarian dictatorial system the strengthening the far-right. The other main reason the loss
USA is powerful because of our isolationism from other foreign countries and if we joined the League, it would mean that we would be under control of Britain and France and we would be like dummies; doing whatever the puppet master told us to do. That would be like signing a blank cheque to Britain and France and that would mean we would have to do anything they told us to do. Many of the Americans are recent immigrants and are opposed to the Treaty of Versailles. The Legislative doesn’t want to do anything that the US population is against. Also, the Congress believes that the Treaty is unfair and
“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.
To Germans at the time, Hitler made sense; he united everyone by providing explanations for Germany's problems. People in Germany were tired of their poor quality of life. Hitler promised to make Germany proud again - it was exactly what people wanted to hear. Hitler pledged something for every part of Germany society. To all Germans he promised to restore German honour by tearing up the hated Treaty of Versailles and by making Germany great again.
the “bad guys” (Germany and their allies). This has officially removed every obstacle in front of President Wilson’s way to join the war because as he had said before, he did not want to be sided with a tyrant, Russia. All he has to do is say the words and in a second we would be in the War, helping not only our own country, but our long good friends Britain as well. It is not difficult to realize that we don’t have the best army and navy, and that we mobilize slowly, but this is yet another reason for why we should start right here, right now. If we are successful to mobilizing quickly and having a military draft, our army would be almost unstoppable to other nations.
I disagree with the statement “ Increased militarism was the main cause of the second world war.” Due to the fact that it was one of the many reasons why the second world war started. I think that Appeasement was the main cause of the start of the second world war. Firstly , Britain and France followed the policy of appeasement. Appeasement was by chamberlain to satisfy Hitler’s demands. This gave Hitler confidence that Britain and France would not stop him when he invaded other countries.
To avoid war in the years 1935 to 1938, Britain and France turned a blind eye to small acts of aggression and expansion, the United States went along with this policy. Even though Roosevelt knew of the threat the Fascist proposed he was still worried about the majority of the isolationist throughout the country. Testing the waters in 1937 he spoke about the democracies teaming up and trying to “quarantine” the problem. The public did not take to well on this idea, and he quickly dropped the subject. Even though that speech failed Roosevelt somehow managed to argue for neutrality but at the same time convince Congress to start building up the arms and increase the military and naval budget by nearly two-thirds in 1938.
This agreement said that Hitler was free to invade a portion of Czechoslovakia, as long as he went no further. While the British and French saw it as a peace agreement, the Soviet Union started to grow suspicious, and though that what these two countries were really trying to achieve was a Nazi-Soviet war, since they expected that the