Appeasement in Europe

My mistake! I posted that forgetting that I had a specific topic.

Okay so appeasement. In this chapter, there is  considerate focus on British appeasement. Reasons stated include a lack of enthusiasm for war because of the horrors of WWI and tight economic situations due to the depression, a desire to revise Versailles upon the opinion that it may have been too harsh, other worries including Japan and Italy, and Hitler's convincing argument that he, had few ambitions. Personally I think these are excuses. Hitler was very vocal in Germany regarding his goals, and anyone who heard him speak would know him to be ambitious. Additionally, the League of Nations was created as an international powerhouse dedicated to the promotion of peace, so Britain was acting alone. Any action they would have taken would have been supported by the League. Finally without actually revising Versailles, letting Hitler take any action he chose gave him power. The decision to lighten up was a fine one, but it needed to be done as an International pardon, not Hitler testing his boundaries. So tell me what you guys think, were British reasons for appeasing good or just excuses?

American Action, or Lack There of In Japan

A commonality in American history is a supposed stance of disapproval that is never quite followed through upon. We saw it in WWI, with a neutrality marked by immense economic and material-based support of the allies, and we see it again in the early makings of WWII. Though highly against Japanese actions in Asia we continued to support them heavily. Until 1941 we continued to provide Japan with war time essentials. This was accompanied by America protesting Japanese action, and threats of military build up. What I don't understand is why our nation seems so unlikely to ever truly stand against an action we disagree with. True we might protest or publicly resent a nation's decisions, but it's our trade that ultimately supports the action.

On top of that our discussion in class got me thinking. We talked about whether or not the president should make decisions for the people, and there was an argument about Americans being uninformed. I wonder what you guys think, just because someone is uninformed does that make what they want any less important? Our government is supposed to actualize what the people want, but is it okay to ignore them if their wishes are unbacked by knowledge?

The Other Victims

My book report was on a collection of personal WWII stories of the victims of genocide by the Nazi regime. I know that it seems pretty cliche to go with the Holocaust on a WWII project, but the book was about victims other than the Jews. I think the biggest realization I had during this book was how interconnected Europe was prior to either World War. The victims in these stories often fled from country to country seeking relatives and friends in each. One vicitm had a Nazi general tell him that under different circumstances his work in physics would have been very inspiring. I think there's a huge focus on individual nations during wartime, but the book made me realize how dependent on one another they are during peacetime.

Failure to Uphold Versaille

The interwar years saw incredible hardship that didn't end with WWI. Initially America seemed to be in good shape. The homefront was stable and wasn't ravaged like Europe, the economy seemed to be in a good place, there were many countires that owed money,  everything was going to be fine. The problems started when countries couldn't pay what they owed, the Depression followed shortly after.

In Europe the Depression hit as well, at this point Germany couldn't pay the extensive reparations they owed, so the Allies decreased their payments. This pattern continued until the reparations were entirely erased, and Germany was off the hook.

Later, when Hitler rose to power and began rebuilding Germany's military, clearly violating Versaille, no one said a thing. One could argue that economic factors were the cause of the allies not backing Versaille, but the poor light shed on these powers seems undeserved when the punishments they gave were entirely withdrawn.

Wartime Actions vs. Normal Standards

There was an Irish organization that was looking to form an uprising during World War One. Its motives were found out, and its leaders executed or jailed for the remainder of the war. I find it interesting that such drastic measures were taken. It is logical that during a war anyone who is against you is an enemy that should be treated as opposing militia, but it seems contradictory of diplomatic values to react so violently. The group hadn't received any form of weaponry, they were not trained, they hadn't attacked anyone. In essence they were still civilians, and yet because of the war they were attacked and treated as an armed force. I think that perhaps the action was necessary, though in a peacetime situation I wonder, would Britain have earned the disapproval of the rest of the democratic world for an attack on civilians merely trying to voice an opinion?

Was World War One Truly Amidst an Era of Advancement?

Technological advancements leading to WWI made war on an international scale possible. Communication allowed nations to forge alliances, it also allowed growing armies to stay united and organized. Advances in machinery had the possibility of taking 20th century militia into a new era of warfare, but they didn't. Why with all the technological improvements didn't military planning change? The war proved static because incredible new weaponry was coupled with outdated and ineffective tactics.

This provokes the question, Why? There were many renouned military planners during this time and none of them was innovative enough to come up with a solution. It's hard to discern an explanation for this, perhaps the vigor of world war came as a surprise, or planners didn't want to believe times were changing, in either case a lack of adaptation in battle plans lengthened an extremely deadly war.