Your Views on the Historiography of the Causes of World War II

Listed below are 3 major areas of dispute held by historians regarding the causes of World War II. As you plan for your test, this historiographical overview will help you take your thinking a little deeper. Create a comment on this post which assesses what you believe to be the most significant area (Hitler, Appeasement, or the USSR), and then explain which side you agree with most closely. This should help you to form your perspective for the essay questions. If you have time, look at our previous posts, read and respond to comments on your blog, and add comments on the blogs of your classmates. It will help you and them! Lastly, this blog is focused on the war in Europe. Most of you stated that a war between the US and Japan was likely regardless of Europe, so in preparing for your test, do not neglect the power struggle (for economic benefits and military security) between the US and Japan over control of the Pacific.

The Hitler Factor:
Was World War II caused by Hitler's aggression? (Orthodox View)
Was World War II caused by political, social, and economic events that were manipulated by Hitler to create an opportunity for war? (Revisionist)

The Appeasement/Chamberlain Factor:
Was World War II caused by Chamberlain's policy of appeasement (ceding Austria and Czechoslovakia to Hitler)? (Orthodox View)
Was World War II caused by political, social, and economic events that caused Chamberlain to follow policies of appeasement (and France, as well as US isolation, for that matter)(Revisionist)

The Soviet Union Factor:
World War II was caused by Stalin's willingness to agree to a Nazi-Soviet Pact which gave Hitler the timetable necessary to conquer Europe, helping solve a key weakness of the Schlieffen Plan. (US/German View)
World War II was caused by the need for collective security, as Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact in response to French and British appeasement policies which showed the West was tolerant of Hitler as long as it contained communism and only threatened the East, thus the USSR could not rely on it's WWI allies France and Britain. As a result, it was better to establish friendly nations with the odd-man out: Germany. (Collective Security View)

Thanks to http://www.macgregorishistory.com/ for this condensed historiography!

A Real Pain in the Axis

Read below to create a post, then create 2 comments on topics other than your own.

Churchill opposed the Munich Agreement in 1938 and described Nazi Germany as having "the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleaseure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power connot be the trusted friend of the British democracy."

Kevin B, Brianna, Steve, Perri, Abby -  Create a blog post which assesses this quote. Consider British control of and atrocities in India, and elsewhere, consider US control of and atrocities in the Philippines and interventions in Latin America and consider French control of Germany territory acquired at the Paris Peace Conference. Admittely, the Nazis, Italians, and Japanese pursued terrible policies of agression, but weren't they only catching up to the other world powers of the world?

Kevin H, Rebecca, Billy, Nicole, Liz - Create a blog post which answers the following question; What matters most - intentions or results? The world did not act to prevent genocide or atrocities in Europe and in China, rather, they acted in response to uncontrolled Nazi aggression, but in doing so, defeated the Nazis and Japanese and thus put a stop to genocide and the murder of millions of innocent Chinese. When determing your perspective on the causes of World War II, was the moral disregard of the atrocities worthy of shame, or is this forgiven in light of the results of our actions? Applying this universally, do you judge our actions today by our intentions or our results? Give examples

Rory, Hannah, Emma, Josh, Travis - Create a blog post which answers the following question; Would a war between the US and Japan be likely to have broken out, even without the events of Europe? What were Japan's long-term goals, what were the long-term goals of the US, and how did this generate conflict? Was Japan really being aggressive in the Pacific, or merely acting defensively to protect against the dominant American presence in the region? Lastly, and this is a tough one, would it be in a nation's own best interest to act not in their own national self-interest but in terms of what is best for the global population? Explain with evidence.