• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain how the failure of collective security and German foreign policy goals and achievements can be seen as the cause of World War II?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐Explain how the failure of collective security and German foreign policy goals and achievements can be seen as the cause of World War II? The Paris Peace Conference oversaw the peace process of the First World War?s ending in 1919. The world witnessed what was thought to be a surreal mayhem. The horrors of World War I shifted the public?s view over war psychologically and politically. In result, ambitious President Wilson of America introduced the League of Nations, an intergovernmental organization aimed to maintain world peace. It ambitiously emerged to sustain peace and order through civilized diplomacy instead of barbaric wars. The League of Nations had its contribution and its failures though. The failures are significant in the study of history, as they are strongly considered responsible for the start of World War II. Historians analyze what impurity of the League caused it to collapse as it failed its sole purpose miserably, preventing another Great War. Factors such as the League?s structure, membership, or failure of collective security are the main decays of the League. The main decays discussed in this essay will be the failure of collective security, though, in addition to Hitler?s concurrent aggressive foreign policy. ...read more.


The result was that the International Relations became less serious. The reputation of the League became a very powerless, ineffective, and irrelevant in case of political intervention. In result, aggressors such as Hitler understood the weakness of the League of Nations and decided to take advantage as he saw the time perfectly appropriate. This is the next greater factor of failure within the League, stopping Hitler. Hitler?s foreign policy is known to be very aggressive and militaristic, similar to Kaiser Wilhelm?s Weltpolitik. History repeats itself as both German leaders, Hitler and the Kaiser, are bared the blame of starting both world wars, respectively, due to the similar foreign policies or ideologies. In contrast, Hitler?s policy seemed to be more intentional of sparking the war as he himself saw war as inevitable. ?Germany must either be a world power or there will be no Germany" was stated in Mein Kampf (1923). Hitler initially focused on domestic policies such as reviving the German economy out of the Great Depression through attaining Autarky. In 1936, Hitler shifted his political play, which was coincidently the year of the invasion of Abyssinia. Later on, the initiation of the Four Year Plan, which was meant for 1936-1939, was the first primary militaristic action taken. ...read more.


The Hossbach memorandum was handcrafted in 1937, outlining Hitler?s main aims of his new aggressive foreign policy. It included 1938?s Anschluss, Hitler?s annexation of Austria. It was an offence to international law. The Treaty of Versailles restricted from Germany to unite with Austria. The French made no official comment on it. Then, the Nazi army occupies Sudetenland with the Munich Agreement. The western and northern regions of Czechoslovakia were annexed without any political intervention. Britain felt that Hitler was reasonable since the Treaty was already too harsh and additionally feared communism more than Hitler?s Imperialism. This is more evidence of appeasement from the League. After two offensive takes against the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, Hitler basically feared no one and shortly after invading the Polish Corridor, Britain and France inevitably declared war on Germany. Historians understand that the League of Nations incapability to previously deal with the Abyssinian and Manchurian Crisis gave Hitler confidence to act shamelessly. Therefore, this confidence is what gave Hitler to display his militaristic threat. As Britain and France were incapable of intervening due to: first, the financial incapability because of recovering from the Great Depression and secondly, the political demotivation of starting a war, and thirdly, the fear of communism. This thus created the attitude of appeasement, an additional contribution of starting WWII. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. "Was the treaty of Versailles fair?"

    Whereas Britain and France were only interested in punishing Germany for supposedly starting the war. Germany would have been happy about the Treaty being based on the fourteen-point plan and sort of expected it, so when it came to when Germany was given the Treaty they were very angry.

  2. Was WWII Inevitable?

    The League lacked its own military and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, keep to economic sanctions that the League ordered, or provide an army, when needed, for the League to use.

  1. Was Hitler the cause of WW2? A.J.P Taylor wrote the controversial The origins ...

    Germany as a whole, was angry at the Allies due to the unfairness at the Treaty Of Versailles, and hated France in particular that goes back even further, at least as far as Germany's war against Napoleon. As for Hitler himself, his biggest contribution was probably the idea of "lebensraum", or "living room".

  2. Why was the Abyssinian crisis a death blow to the league when the Manchurian ...

    However, in the Abyssinian crisis they didn't condemn Italy in fact they came to an agreement with them that basically gave them what they wanted. So they were seen to be giving into the demands of the aggressor. Not only did they give into Italy but the two main powers

  1. How far did Bismarckachieve his foreign policy aims in 1870-1878?

    Additionally, Bismarck also wanted to avoid having to choose between Austria-Hungary and Russia who had continuous disputes over the Balkan issue. The Dreikaiserbund allowed him to do this because by creating an alliance which consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia, Bismarck was able to fight against socialism at the same

  2. How successful was Bismarckas Chancellor in his foreign policies between 1871-1890?

    In fact, the Balkan region - a region of the decaying Ottoman Empire - was a ripe for conquest between Russia and Austria-Hungary, in the case of Russia it was due to ethnic reasons and for Austria-Hungary it was simply because they represented a threat to the stability of the regime.

  1. Mao Gandhi Compare Contrast Essay

    Unlike Gandhi, he considered all landlords/warlords, businessmen, Western Powers, and Imperialism as his enemies. Mao rose to power, with an army of peasants that was nothing compared to the military of the Nationalist government (funded by the US). Mao used violent methods to protest the corrupt and unruly ways of

  2. The League of Nations: Its achievements and its failures

    So Britain and France produced the Geneva Protocol in 1924, which in general said that if two member states had a dispute, they were to bring it up with the League, and they were to accept the verdict given to them.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work