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!
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!
I think that many of the causes of WWII can be traced back to the Soviet Union and the spread of Communism. Hitler gained much of his support from the anti-communist fear in Germany, because he was strictly against anything communist. Also, appeasement was largely a result of the western (Europe and US) fear of the spread of communism. Had communism not been a factor, more focus would have been placed on Hitler. Many saw Hitler as less of a problem because he kept communism out, but without this the politicians would not have been so quick to write of the actions of Hitler and his violent supporters. Maybe not for the reasons shown in the question, but the Soviet Union played a very large role in the situation that became WWII.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "Hitler Factor" was most significant; from what I have read, I believe that he was the main culprit in creating instability in Europe and the World during the 1930s and 1940s. There are clearly many other causes, but when you boil Europe down during that period, much of these causes (ie. chamberlain's appeasment, the Soviet Union's pacts, etc. were tied directly to Hitler's Germany.)
ReplyDeleteI believe that WWII was caused by Hitler's aggression (Orthodox View); but that aggression came about because he took advantage of political, social, and economic events that came about during the period before WWII (Revisionist). So, in my opinion, they can both be attributed to the start of WWII; because without events and conditions to manipulate, Hitler would never have come to power, and would likely not have been able to implement his aggressive policies effectively.
I think that it was Hitler's agression that caused the war as it was what asparked the war. To be more precise, it was the aggression of fascist and Nazi rulers that were put into power in responce to the Great Depression and Red Scare. If not Hitler, then it would be some one else. Appeasement, while allowing agressive powers to grow, would not have caused any wars so long as both the agressors and the appeasers were content with the process. The Nazi-Soviet Pact only quickened the coming of the war because if it had not been signed, Hitler would have just waited for the right moment to strike.
ReplyDeleteI agree most with the Revisionist view of the Hitler Factor. Hitler manipulated the Great Depression, the internal dissent and the failure of the democracy in Germany to take power and militarize Germany to prepare for war. Hitler also used the want to avoid conflict in Europe to convince other countries that parts of Austria and Czechoslovakia belonged to Germany because there were ethnic Germans living there. Also, Hitler manipulated the other countries and militarized Germany. With this militarized country, Hitler would be able to invade Poland and/or other nations that he needed to conquer to make Germany a stronger nation.
ReplyDeleteI think Hitler, and his manipulation of political, social and economic events are the most significant factors in causing World War II. I say this because both appeasement and the Soviet factor link to Hitler in one way or another. Without Hitler, the appeasement of Hitler wouldn't have happened and the Nazi-Soviet Pact wouldn't have been put in place. While another radical leader could have came to power in Germany, I doubt that the circumstances would have been the same as they were with Hitler. Many causes of World War II link back to Hitler. However, if Hitler wasn't in the situation, the next biggest factor would be the Soviet Union Factor. I say this because much of the world was afraid of Communism and the spread of Communism in the 1930s. When the Soviet Union began spreading Communism in China during the Japanese invasions, nations such as Britain, France and the United States weren't too happy. The tension between the U.S. and Japan in the Pacific was also a contributer to World War II.
ReplyDeleteWorld War II was in a sense caused by Chamberlain's policy of appeasement, but I believe that WWII would have occurred with or without Chamberlain's ceding Austria and Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Japan was on a similar track as Germany in its invading other neighboring countries and its use of military force. Hitler would have nudged his way into other European countries disregarding Chamberlain's view point. Similar to a document on the test yesterday, Hitler only kept diplomatic relations for trade and to manouver around within Europe to set up his strong "empire". Mussolini was already an allie of Hitler, providing him military strength. It is possible that if Chamberlain had not appeased Hitler, WWII would have been prevented longer, but still would have occurred. WWII was definitely caused by economic policies and political as many people feared communism. All of these factors added up to appeasement and to keep diplomatic relations.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that there were many significant factors contributing to the outbreak of World War II, I think that Hitler's rise is the most significant of these factors. Without the agression of Hitler, the western nations of Britain and France would not have been forced to adopt policies of appeasement. The agreements forged in response to Hitler's agression, and need to gain more land, would not have been necessary. Agreements such as the Munich Agreement would be irrelelvant. However, Hitler's rise is a product of the times, and the situation Germany was in after World War I. I don't think Hitler's rise would have been so absolute if conditions at the time hadn't allowed for it. Therefore, I agree with the Revisionist theory regarding the Hitler factor, that World War II was caused by political, social, and economic events that were manipulated by Hitler to create an opportunity for war. Germany suffered greatly following World War I, as a severely defeated nation. Germany as a nation was defeated by the victors, and the German people found themselves defeated as well. They were shocked to learn that they were not winning the war. The people found themselves looking for strong leadership, convinced that capitalism and democracy had failed them. This, in conjunction with the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versialles, and the economic downfall Germany suffered, proved the perfect breeding ground for Hitler. He promoted the idea of a unified Germany, and provided the people with a scapegoat for all that had gone wrong for them. Without the times, Hitler would not have had as much ammunition for power. If Hitler was taken out of the picture, the powerhouses of the League of Nations would not have been forced to continually appease Germany. That would have eliminated Chamberlain's struggles, and the Soviet response to German agression.
ReplyDeleteMany nations after World War I were left with major debt and thousands of lives lost. Germany can be said to be in the worst shape after the war because of the Treaty of Versailles. It stated that they had to pay all war damages, land was taken away and restrictions on their military. Economic and social aspects after World War I left Germany vulnerable giving Hitler the perfect opportunity to start his rise to power. He gained followers by giving the people of Germany someone to blame for the war and started building his army.
ReplyDeleteHe wanted power and didn’t mind killing anyone who got in his way. Other nations for example the U.S, Britain, France, and others thought it best to not intervene on his rise to power. Form their standpoint I guess they thought they were doing what they felt was best by not causing any conflict, but this just gave Hitler more incentive to keep going. By these nations not doing anything to stop Hitler it let him continue his rise to power. The economic and social aspects of the time gave Hitler the opportunity to gain many followers and spark the beginnings of a world war.
I believe it’s a combination of Chamberlain’s appeasement policy and the fear of communism from the USSR. Chamberlain allowing Hitler to take Austria and Czechoslovakia gave him more power and showed to Stalin that the west was okay with what Hitler was doing. This probably helped Stalin decide if he wanted to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The west was okay with this because this helped stop the spread of communism and only Germany having to deal with it rather than the west so with Germany dealing with them Brittan would be better off with being friends with them rather than starting the war which also probably started the appeasement policy of Chamberlain.
ReplyDeleteWas 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)....
ReplyDeleteI believe the events that caused Chamberlain to follow policies of appeasement caused World War II. Politically, Hitler was in power in Germany, which was a threat to the entire world. The anticommunist movement led to the appeasement of Hitler, who was strictly against communism. Policies of appeasement helped Hitler gain more control by making him look successful and making him more popular among the people. As a result, Hitler quickly gained full control of Germany, and ultimately caused World War II.
All that being said, I think a different war would have broken out (regardless of the events in Europe) between the United States and Japan. The conflicts for control over the Pacific were enough to spark a war between at least those two countries.
I believe that the political, economic and social events that caused Chamberlain and other nations to try appeasement policies caused WWII. The events in Europe before WWII caused nations to fear another war, and try to solve all disputes peacefully. With the totalitarian governments becoming more prevalent in Europe after WWI and the Great Depression, leaders from these governments (such as Hitler and Mussolini) were able to use appeasement to their own advantage. Appeasement allowed these leaders to gain power, and eventually become aggressive to the point of starting war. If growing nations were stopped early on and appeasement wasn't used, and if the League of Nations or the Treaty of Versailles were actually enforced, a second world war might not have started.
ReplyDelete