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

Which Had A greater impact on the Second World War

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Which had a greater impact on the start of the Second World War? * The Treaty Of Versailles * Chamberlains Policy of Appeasement After the First World War moods in Europe weren't very happy as the majority of countries were left damaged by the scale of the war. Germany was forced to surrender therefore for victory was achieved for the French and British. After the Great War a settlement was made which was The Treaty of Versailles which was aimed at Germany, some critics say that it was very severe and harsh towards Germany as they were left segregated and weak without any power, the treaty had dented Germany which all of the European countries wanted. This treaty was the only way to stop Germany and most people in Britain and France wanted revenge. Germany lost most of its empire and was now called Mandates as they were now run by the LON. They also forced to pay �6.6 billion in reparations for the damaged it caused. When the treaty was put into action no one new how it would affect the future of Europe in a drastic way when Adolph Hitler would come into action. He wanted to reverse the results of Treaty of Versailles and put Germany back on the map. However the British prime Minster tried to appease him and give him what he wanted like land and an army but this still didn't work and Germany grew bigger and stronger until it leaded to the Second World War. ...read more.

Middle

As Hitler built up his foundations and security it created tensions around Europe as many countries thought that war was going to break out again. However other countries were also building up there armed forces to prepare if another war broke out, and as we know it did as it was expected, it could be said here that Germany could've been stopped when it was building up its forces however all the nation and countries were cowards therefore they let Hitler do what they wanted. The treaty just made matters worse as Hitler wanted what belonged to him however it was taken away from him by the treaty therefore he would go to any length to get it back and restore power and glory in Germany. Due to the treaty a lot of land and colonies were lost, in total it lost 10% of its land in Europe, along with 12.5% of it population and !6% of it coalfields and also 50% of it iron and steel industries. Won of it major losses were Alsace-Lorraine West Prussia (Polish Corridor). In contest Hitler wanted to regain the lost territories and land such as the Polish Corridor and the Sudetenland which was apart of Czechoslovakia now. First his main aim was to get back the Sudetenland as the majority of people living there were German, he would eventually want the whole of Czechoslovakia. ...read more.

Conclusion

Chamberlains policy of appeasement and the treaty of Versailles were to big impacts on the start of the Second World War. In my eyes I think that the Treaty was the bigger impact than appeasement because if this wasn't put into action appeasement would have never been used and the Second World War wouldn't have begun. The treaty was harsh on the Germans therefore they wanted revenge and Hitler was there to do o and restore Germany's glory. However even so if Britain and France tried to stop him breaking the terms of the treaty then there would be no need for appeasement anyway and WW2. However on the other hand appeasement had been working in the eyes of the public as they thought that Hitler had no intention of war. It came to a point were Hitler couldn't be appeased as he just took control and advantage when crossed the line. The treaty of Versailles to some critics was to harsh and unfair as it left the Germans weak and resentful, this is why it lead to anger and a Second World War this was predicted even when the treaty clauses were released and it became true. This is why Hitler took revenge and tried to restore Germany and its belongings. However there was some advantage in appeasement as it bought time for Britain and France to prepare for the outbreak of war. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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. To what extent was Hitler to blame for WW2?

    For example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR permitted both Hitler and Stalin to invade Poland without risking retaliation from the other.

  2. "Was the treaty of Versailles fair?"

    This happened. Germany could not afford battleships in the aftermath of the war and most navies were now moving to smaller (by degrees), faster ships that could also carry weapons that carried a punch - such as cruisers. Aircraft carriers were also being developed with greater commitment.

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

    peace within Europe, and there would not have been a Second World War. However, because it failed to keep its promise to protect member states, countries broke the rules to get what they wanted. H.A.L Fisher said 'If the nations want peace, the League gives them the way by which peace can be kept.

  2. Was the Policy of Appeasement correct?

    Nonetheless, appeasement may have been the correct policy with some of Hitler's actions, such as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Rhineland was an industrial area with the majority of Germany's industry. It was also used as a buffer zone between France and Germany, as stated in the Treaty of Versailles.

  1. Questions on World War One.

    This internal success was the main driving force that led to a vigorous policy abroad, which had more direct contribution to the debacle of 1914. Outwardly, it seems that Bismarck's external policy contributed more to the debacle of 1914. In fact, his external policy was related with his internal policy.

  2. To what extent did nationalism within the Austria-Hungarian Empire contribute to the outbreak of ...

    Britain was forced to commit herself to the alliance system. Europe's diplomatic flexibility was greatly reduced. When the pre-war alliance system was complete - 3 Vs 3. Germany alone was threatened on two sides. But he could not back down.

  1. History Revision notes - International Relations: Why did WW2 break out? 1929-1939

    To please Hitler, Schuschnigg appointed Seyss-Inquart, a leading Nazi, to become minister of interior. However, Schuschnigg held a plebiscite asking the Austrian public if they wished to join with Germany. Hitler was worried whether the votes would go against Germany joining Austria, therefore he demanded Schuschnigg to resign and instead

  2. How fair is Louise Shaw's Interpretation on Chamberlain? The interpretation revolves around the idea ...

    in his policy, he failed to realise the weight these concessions would bring if war was to break out. Interpretation A was written towards the end of the Academic revisionist movement where the line of thought still followed ideals that rehabilitated Chaimberlain.

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