Hitler and the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement was the final policy of appeasement that showed Hitler he could take over Europe.
Question 4: The Munich Agreement In the 1920s and 1930s, Adolf Hitler began his rise to power. Intent on making Germany become a major national power, Hitler had to overcome the terms that limited Germany's power in the Treaty of Versailles. Knowing that he could not overcome them through negotiation, Hitler deviously and subtly began to violate the terms of the Treaty of Versailles to restore Germany's glory. One of the most effective ways Hitler achieved this was by utilizing the antiwar sentiments of the other nations of Europe; countries such as Great Britain and France were devastated by World War 1 and would try to avoid another war at any cost. In 1938, Hitler made an aggressive claim to the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia. Leaders from Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain met in Munich to discuss Hitler's radical claim, and the Munich Agreement was the result of this conference. As Churchill stated, the Munich Agreement was "a disaster of the first magnitude" (Source D); through the policy of appeasement, the nations of Europe helped Hitler succeed in his quest for dominance, further increasing German ambition and paving the road for World War 2. Fearful of starting another war, Great Britain and the other nations of Western Europe engaged in the policy of appeasement. Appeasement is when one nation pacifies another by giving in to the other one's
Hitler's rise to Chancellor in 1933.
History Coursework Hitler's rise to Chancellor in 1933 There were many reasons why Hitler was able to take power in 1933. Many of the reasons were either long-term or short-term. Germany was unstable at this time and after the formation of the Weimar republic, the constitution became weak. The Weimar republic was successful for some time but people always felt resentment towards the republic due to the Long-term implications of the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles. The reparations that Germany had to pay through the Treaty meant that it was in economic crisis. This helped to cause weakness in the democracy and although the Weimar Republic did have a period of recovery between 1924 and 1929 the death of Stresseman and the Wall Street Crash helped to bring it down again. The republic was weak, crises in a country do happen as they did in Germany but the government has to be able to survive. If it can't survive it leaves the way open for people such as Hitler to work their way to power. The German people didn't want communism, which was the other option so they turned to Nazism, as it was the only alternative. People feared that, since they had established themselves from the lower or skilled working classes and they now had a small stake in the world, economic chaos brought about by Communism would drag them back down the ladder. The wall street crash had led
How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution? First of all to understand how the Tsarist regime survived in 1905 it is necessary to answer the question what happened in 1905. Then it is possible to see how the Tsar combated these problems. In the years before 1905 there was increasing social turmoil caused by rapid industrialisation: There was no legal way of expressing political views (no Parliament), there was a discontented and oppressed working class, and a desperate and poverty stricken peasantry. The middle classes were discontent because of the absence of a political voice for the vast population. The peasants were poor because they owned no land for themselves and of poor harvests and heavy taxing by the Tsar to pay for industrialisation. The working classes had to work in very poor working conditions, for very long hours and for very little pay. Therefore most sectors of Russian society were in opposition to the state. Only the gentry, the state-dependant industrialists and the army supported the regime. It is not surprising, therefore, that three illegal, political parties stemmed from the situation. One such party was the Social Democrats (1895), which followed the teachings of Marx, believing in a proletarian revolution. In 1903 the Social Democrats split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks believing in a small well organised
How did the Spartacist Uprising, the Weimar Constitution, the Treaty of Versailles, the Kapp Putsch, hyperinflation and the invasion of Ruhr cause problems for the new Weimar Republic?
How did the Spartacist Uprising, the Weimar Constitution, the Treaty of Versailles, the Kapp Putsch, hyperinflation and the invasion of Ruhr cause problems for the new Weimar Republic? The Weimar Constitution was published in 1919 and was praised as one of the most advanced democracies in Europe, the people voted the leaders into office and proportional representation was used to determine the number of seats each party was allocated. The Spartacist uprising made it impossible for the new government to meet in Berlin. The Spartacists organised strikes and riots in Berlin and therefore it was not believed to be safe for the new leaders to meet in the capital so they chose the quiet town of Weimar and drew up what is now known as the Weimar Constitution. Due to the Spartacist uprising the republic appeared weak and defenceless when under attack and this meant support was hard to gain from the working class members of Germany who had once supported the Spartacists. The army also gave little support to the republic as Ebert promised not to change the army, it therefore remained as it had under the rule of the Kaiser, this made the republic appear weaker still to the German people. In June 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed, its terms horrified both the German people and the government. The vast majority of the German people felt the treaty was much too harsh and
Failures of the League
'By failing to resist aggression in the 1930s, the League of Nations made Hitler's work easy.' How fair is this judgement on the League in the 1930s? I think that the statement is partially fair. The League was too slow when making decisions and were prepared to give large portions of land (Abyssinia) to other countries to keep the peace. The League made some very big mistakes, but the conditions the League was in were very bad. The Leagues' main members were Britain and France; both had just fought a big war and were in not much position to stop countries invading other countries. The Manchuria crisis was the first biggest problem the League experienced. The 1929 Depression hit Japan hard. The civilian government found that it had no solutions to the problems presented by the world-wide depression and to the army the civilian government looked weak. Many people admired the more robust response of the army. The unemployed of Japan looked to the strength of the army to assist their plight rather than to what weak politicians were doing. The voices of senior army generals were heard and they argued for a campaign to win new colonies abroad so that the industries there could be exploited for Japan. The most obvious target was a full-scale invasion of Manchuria. Japan was becoming increasingly crowded due to its limited size as a nation and its rapidly increasing population.
What reasons did the H.S.C.A have in 1979 for suggesting that president Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy in 1963
Question 3 Thomas Boddington What reasons did the H.S.C.A have in 1979 for suggesting that president Kenndy was the victim of a conspiracy in 1963 There are many the theories of how President Kennedy was assassinated and there are many people who still don't believe the Warren Commission's report. Unlike the Warren Commission the H.S.C.A were able to conduct a more thorough investigation, most likely because they had more time to come to a verdict. In this essay I cant say who really did kill Americas youngest president but I can say why the H.S.C.A and many other people don't believe the Warren Commission. In the Warren Commission report probably their biggest mistake was disregarding key eyewitnesses who they considered to be incompatible and inconsistent. Although they rely on witnesses saying that they saw a rifle being fried from the Texas schoolbook depository to locate the position of the assassin. Out of 500 witnesses at the event, only 90 were questioned and 58 of those said that they saw smoke and heard gun shot sounds from the grassy knoll. These reports didn't collaborate with the Warren Commission. They said all 58 witnesses were mistaken This might just have something to do with the fact that they don't collaborate with there single assassin theory. Many witnesses weren't even
Source based work on Prohibition.
Prohibition Question F Some of sources A to J do not suggest an inevitable failure of Prohibition where as some of them you cannot use as evidence because they were published after or during Prohibition. I think that sources A, B, E, I and J all suggest that Prohibition was inevitably going to fail where as sources C, D, F, G and H all do not suggest that inevitably Prohibition was going to fail. Source A is a historian talking about Prohibition in 1973. It says firstly about the causes of Prohibition, which make it seem that Prohibition was not going to fail. By saying things like 'The bad influence of saloons' and 'Most important of all was the moral fervour inspired by the War to Make The World Safe for Democracy'' make it sound that this article would have been strongly for the introduction of Prohibition. However in the second paragraph he uses hindsight to try and prove that it would have been inevitable with lines such as 'For no earlier law had gone against the daily customs, habits and desires of so many Americans.' Therefore I believe that this source suggests that the failure or Prohibition was inevitable. Source B is a historian talking about Prohibition in 1979. The first paragraph is about the causes and events of Prohibition so, as with Source A, this paragraph is saying that Prohibition was not going to fail. Quotations such as '...great evils of the times -
Analysis of main Nazi leaders.
History Homework Mrs. Marilyn Ray By S M Hartfield Assignment- Analysis of main Nazi leaders. . Common personality characteristics 2. Early career paths 3. Role in party 4. Nicknames 5. Relationship with Hitler 6. Fate 7. Quotes Rudolph Hess . He was a devoted follower and showed promising talents as a leader (he became deputy leader). He was seen as very loyal, someone who could be trusted. 2. Hess fought in World War 1 with a unit from Bavaria. He fought at the Battle of Ypres and then enrolled for the German air force. After, he joined Munich University, where he met Hitler. 3. Hess was Hitler's deputy leader and acted as Hitler's secretary in prison where as Hitler dictated he wrote down 'Mein kampf'. He was later appointed second in succession to the position of Head of State. 4. None. 5. Very good relationship with Hitler, worked very closely. Had faith and great trust within each other. 6. On May 10th, Hess boarded a Messerschmidt 110 aircraft and flew to Scotland where he crash landed the plane. He was arrested and stripped of all ranks he held in the Nazi party. He was sent to prison for life in Spandau prison and died either by his frailness or suicide which still remains a mystery. 7. ' The Party is Hitler, and Hitler is Germany.' ' Hitler is
Gallipoli - source related study
History: Gallipoli Assignment . How useful are the views of Anzac soldiers at Gallipoli suggested in Sources A, B and C. Explain your answer. Source A seems to tell us that the Anzac soldiers were unprofessional and lazy in their duties. The first cartoon portrays a soldier unprofessionally dressed, also the soldier is yawning, which gives me the impression that he is lazy. Furthermore at the top of the cartoon it says 'The Hopeless Dawn', this suggests that the artist believes the Anzac soldiers are unprofessional in their duties. At the bottom of the cartoon it says 'Standing Tall 4.30 am', even though these are the early hours of the morning this would not be acceptable for a soldier to do. Overall the first cartoon depicts the Anzac soldiers as 'Hopeless', hence I believe that according to this source the views of the Anzac soldiers at Gallipoli were not very useful. The cartoon could possibly have been biased or it could have been propaganda. The second cartoon is unclear about what it is representing, the cartoon shows an Anzac soldier smoking. The soldier looks scruffy, hence maybe the aim of the artist was to give us the message that the Anzac soldiers were young, inexperienced and scruffy. However surely this cannot be accurate for each Anzac soldier, as there must have been some well trained Anzac soldiers. My first impression of this cartoon would be
Analyse the shifting balance of power in German affairs in the 1850's.
Analyse the shifting balance of power in German affairs in the 1850's Between 1851 and 1853, Austrian statesmen sought to consolidate and exploit the position of supremacy in German affairs that had been manifested at Olmutz. Prussia had been discredited politically in what was basically the end of their hopes of dominating a united German nation and, more importantly, a surrender to Austria, its main opponent for control of Germany. However, this was really one of few areas in which Austria had managed to establish an advantage over Prussia, as the 1850's were a time of Prussian ascendancy and Austrian descendancy. The Prussian government became a dominant force economically. The Prussian government worked via the zollverein toward the perpetuation of the free trade area. The majority of industries expanded and the Prussian economy benefited as a result. The Austrian foreign minister, Count von Buol, believed that Austria should conclude an alliance with the western powers as a safety net against nationalist uprisings and sentiment in Italy. This policy required an understanding with Prussia. However, Prussian opinion was deeply divided, with conservatives following a pro-Russian policy, while the liberals favoured France and Britain. In the end, neither of the German powers played any military role in the Crimean war, although Austria did maintain a friendly attitude
