What were the 14 points?(5)
Woodrow Wilson created them in an attempt to end WW1 peacfully
-no secret treaties
-free access to the sea, in war and peace for POland (now independent)
-self-determination for eastern european countries snd colonised countries
-league of nations
Self determination(2)
democracy - a state could determine its own future with a governement
this was bad news for Britian and France, who both had over-shore colonies that were controlled by them (British empire and self-interest)
Who were the big 3?(5)
George Clemenceau
David Lloyd George
Woodrow Wilson
the key victors at the end of WW1 who made the decisions of Germany’s fate
they wrote the TOV
TOV signing
28/6/1919
attitudes of Britian for the TOV? (9)
Lloyd George himself wanted to “make Germany pay”, but didn’t want to treat them too harshly as he was worried about another war as a consequence for harsh terms
He wanted to keep them reasonably strong to continue trade between the countries
He didn’t want them to become more powerful and overtake Britian and its empire
He wanted some of GErmany’s colonies to add tot he empire - self-interest
Wanted to maintain and improve the British empire
Reduce Germany’s navy to keep the royal navy strong
Britain as a country wanted Germany to pay for the loss of life it caused
Wary of LON and the idea of self determination
could gain land through LON
reparations to pay back debt to america
attitues of France for the TOV? (10)
most fighting happened in France - wanted to make Germany pay for the loss of life and land that France saw, wanted harsh revenge
wanted Germany to be weak so war was impossible in the future
he wanted France to be the most dominating and powerful country in Europe
Weaken Germany’s army to reduce risk of attack
Force blame on Germany to humiliate them
Buffer zone - a demiliterised zone between the 2 to protect France
Border to be pushed back to Rhineland
didn’t agree with the LON and most of the 14 points - was just self interessted
Wanted Alsens-Lorain
wanted to break up Germany into states to dilute the power
attitues of USA for the TOV? (7)
Blamed Germany but didn’t want to be too harsh and cause another war
Wanted peace above all
He had no great desire to crush Germany - no fighting occured in america and as they joined late, the loss of life was less than the other victors
14 piont-plan
eager for the LON
Reparations minimal, was not struggling financialy
disarmament to prevent further war and alow america to continue to be isolationist
was Britain successful with its terms of TOV?(3)
gained some o fGErmany’s colonies
Got reparations
Geprge was worried terms were too steep and another war would be the outcome
was France successful with its terms of TOV? (3)
a very harsh treaty was recieved, meeting the harsh objectives
thought it could be harsher
gained land back, colonies and a buffer zone
was USA successful with its terms of TOV? (4)
he gained the LON
lots of his 14 points (posen for poland)
congress voted against USA joining LON
Scared the treaty was too harsh
terms of the treaty?(6)
Guilt- germnay had to accept all guilt and blame for WW1, humiliating a patriotic country
Armed forces - armed forces of germany massivl reduced - no tanks, submarines or air force; only 6 battle ships and an army of only 100000. Furtherly humiliating
Reparations - Germany was forced to pay an impossible amount of £6.6 billion to the victors
Germany lost land - France gained: Saar coalfields(for 15 years, very economically benifiting for France, not so for Germany), Alsace-Lorraine. Poland gained: Posen (a corridor to the sea, cutting of east Prussia). Germany also lost: German east Africa, German NEw Ginuea
League of Nations - Germany was prevented from joining
Extra points - Anschluss with Austria was forbidden
Dawes plan(4)
August 1924
USA lent Germany money to pay for reparations
800 million gold marks
LON did nothing despite Germany’s obvious debt and helplessness
reaction to the TOV: France (7)
gained Alsance-Lorraine and a demiliterised Rhineland
Happy Germany was no longer a threat due to its armed forces
Saar helped France financialy recover
It could be harsher - the suffering in France was far worse than the terms of the treaty
Germany could still have an army, even if it was too small
reparations wern’t enough
Saar could be perminent, Rhineland could be taken fully
reaction to the TOV: USA (6)
got the LON (as WIlson wanted) but senate wouldn’t ratify joining
Densig was formed and Poland became a seperate state with Posen(14 points)
reparations allowed victors to repay debt to USA
self-determination in eastern europe was passed (14 ponts)
USA wouldn’t ratify TOV as it didn’t contain all 14 points
too harsh, would cause WW2
reaction to the TOV: Britain (6)
expanded empire
maintained strong navy compared to germany’s now weak one
didn’t agree with LON and scared of self-determination
overall, reasonably fair, but the public wanted it harsher
loss of land and people to poland could caue future problems
reparations too harsh - trade lost, future war
reaction to the TOV: Germany (10)+(5)
had no choice to sign, even if it was impossibly harsh, due to collapsing economy, loss of the war and hope it would lead to a better future
was it too harsh? What about Brest-Litovsk
too harsh, forced on them like “Diktat”, impossible
they felt they had been “stabbed in the back” by the governement
humiliated when accepting blame, previously proud and patriotic country (clause 231)
armed forces had been huge source of pride; humiliation
lost 16% of coal, 48% steal and 13% of land
6 million citizens displaced
coulnd’t afford reparations - impossible
Germany had also lost 763000 civilians
a new government (Weimar republic) set up, but it was not strong - many revolts broke out: 1918 october - food shortage revolt, 1918 january - communist revolt, 1919 August - weimar governemnt formed, 1920 march - Kapp Putsch naraly defeated, 1923 january - Germany misses reparation payment, France invades Ruhr but government pay people to strike so there are no goods to steal)
washington naval conference(4)
1921-22
USA held and organised it, major counties (GB, FR, JP) discussed navy sizes
GB and USA could have the same size, and for every 5 tonnes worth of ship they had, JP could have 3
LON not invloved - what does this say about the council’s attitude
rapallo treaty(6)
1922
reversed Brest-Litovosk (1918)
representetives of Germany and Russia met in Italy to discuss and reverse it
Germany repayed reparations
more cooperative future
no LON - neither country was allowed to join
Brest-Litovosk(8)
1918
Russia wanted to leave WW1 due to a rebelion and rapid decreasing strength, so Germany forced upon it the harsh treaty
reparations
32% agricultural land
34% population
54% industry
26% railway
89% coal mines
Locarno treaty (6)
1925
German and french foreign ministers met and signed to agree to be more work together and be more peacful in the future, signing 7 treaties in total
GB,CS,IT,BL also signed to agree to be more peacful and not go to war
acceptance of GErmany of the TOV
no LON?
Switzerland
Kellog-Briand pact (4)
1928
65 countries met and agreed warw ouldn’t be used to solve disputes
G,FR,USA first to sign
no LON
St Germain(7)
1919
sigend by Austria after WW1, enforced by big 3 (similiar to TOV)
Austro-Hungarian empire broken into CZ, P, etc. to follow 14 points
reparations
land lost to Italy
limited armed forces
Anschluss ban
Keynes(6)
Lloyd George’s advisor
quit job when he heard the terms of the TOV
predicted it would cause and economic crash
too ahrsh and would cause WW1
made Britian wary of the TOV
wanted to punish government and not citizens, as this would cause financial collapse
14 points were only faintly resembeled - would upset Germany
TOV was fair(5)
just as bad as Brest-Litovsk
by the standard of the time, it was expected
Germany killed and effected many soldiers from GB,FR abd USA, so it must be punished
many said Germany would have done the same
the treaty had to be brought together quickly, big 3 did the best they could?
TOV was unfair(6)
Keyen’s critisisms and warns of “economic collapse” should have warned the big 3
not realistic, impossible for germnay to pay off sucha steep amount
many German citizens where forced into countries that disliked them
Germany was left vulnerable
Germany had no say on the terms - “Diktat”?
Germany thought it was based on the 14 points but wasnt’t - false pretenses
WW1 explained(7)
Austia-Hungary declared war on Serbia with support of GErmany. Serbia was supported by USSR, BR,FR.
Triple Entente - FR, GB, USSR
Triple alliance - Germnay, AH, IT
Italy switches sides in 1915
Russia leaves in 1918 with economic instability and a revolution
USA joins in 1918 but no fighting on its land
1918 - war ends, due to: harsh turnip winter casuing economic instability and a decrease in moral.
Why did Germany loose(6)
economic instability
limited trade
final attack failed
soldiers began to abandon
14-points offered peacful hope
armistice reached on 11/11/11/1918
november criminals(1)
many beleived Germany could ahve carried on fighting and won, and said those who signed the armstice “stabbed” them in the back
LON aims(5)
achieve peace and freedom
encourage disarmament
imrpve working conditions
tackle deadly disease
stop war from repeating
layout of LON(13)
42 counties
4 country coucil with 3-year term (later grew perminent)
met once a year on the 1st monday of september
USA didn’t join
Germany banned
USSR banned due to GB and FR communist suspiscions
listed powers and rules in the “covenant”
met in Genova, Switzerland, as it was seen as a peacful country
based on “collective security” - if they worked together as one, they could make sure peace was kept and the interest of every nation was upheld
permanent court of international justice setted international disputes where 15 judges would deside on none-compulsary consequences
coucil members: GB, FR, JP, IT
secretatians - civil service of LON in charge of admition
special comisions - groups put together to tackle specific issues
powers of LON(4)
met to discuss and solve disputes and help countries in need. Had 3 main powers
moral condemntation: to shame the country into stopping its harmful action
trade sanctions: countries in the league refused to trade witht the criminal, however, this didn’t help as USA and other none LON members could trade
military action:if a country refused to stop, they could impliment force.. However, as the LON didn’t have ana rmy, and FR and GB wouldn’t donate their armies due to economic loss of WW1 and self-interest, this was impossible to use
attitude of BRitian to LON(4)
didn’t want to join initialy due to fear of self-determination adn breaking apart of the empire
Fontainbleau memorandum signed declaring LOn wouldn’t distrupt the epire, so obliged
it viewed the league as a way to discuss ideas and diputes, without actually taking action
self-interest meant they didn’t care about the pther countires enough to comit to action
attitude of France to LON(1)
didn’t want to join due to self-interest
attitude of USA to LON(4)
congress wouldn’t ratify the desicion to join due to isolationsit beleifs and loss of life in WW1 wanting them to stay away from europe
trade sanctions therefore didn’t work as USA could trade if LON countries didn’t
didn’t want anything to hold back its “boom”
no USA army to help with military actions
LON - doomed?(5)
USA didn’t join - was the world’s largest economy meant trade could continue with convicted countries and trade sanctions, one of the most strong powers of the league failed (Abyssinia crisis - USA could still trade coal and oil so LON couldn’t place sanctions on these)
debt to USA - GB and FR coudn’t afford military action even if they wanted to (LON never took military action because of this - couldn’t eben use it in Manchuria crisis when their empire colonies where endangered adn the roots of their resources and economy could be damaged)
USA suffered the least out of the 3 - untouched physicaly and little economicaly, it would take the other countires on th LON many years to recover enough to comit to action (LON followed the policy of apeasment when dealing with agressive countires as other powers would have damaged economies. Suez canal not shut, no military action on Hitler for remilitierising the Rhineland)
USA idea - lacked engagment from self-interested GB and FR, countires more interestedin recovery than leadership (moral condemnations never worked, all of the council members who had to preach ideas of peace and self-determination had empires and went against the covenant that formed the LON. huge lack of enthusiasm from GB and FR in Abyssinai and MAnchuria, and pwerful countries just ignored moral condemnation)
lack of geographical covergae- without the USA it was more of a league of europe, Japan was the only outside or europe member. highly eurocentric, it meant council members where not interested in far-off affairs that didn’t effect them, and counties outside of europe weren’t helped as much (alln the successes happened in europe, manchuria and abyssinia fails where outsude of europe. More concerened of keeping Mussilini’ as an alli than the fate of Abyssinia. 3/4 of all members were european countries
commision for refugees(3)
aim
return prisoners of war home and improve camp conditions
success
1921 - helped free nearly all of the 1/2 a million prisoners of war from WW1
failure
1933-tried to adopt a high commision for refugees who were mainly JEwish fleeing from Germany but Germany rejected this proposal
slavery comission (2)
aim
end slavery
success
organised raids at slave trader camp in Siera Leone, freeing 200000
international labour organisation(3)
aim
to improve worldwide working conditions
success
1928
77 countries agreed to set up a minimum wage
1919
tried to stop under 14s from working but members didn’t aprove
health comittee(3)
aim
to reduce deadly diseases
success
started international campaign to kill mosquitos
sent doctors to Turkey to look after refugees
organisation for comition and transport
aim
regulate transport to keep people safe
success
introduced shipping lanes to reduce risk of collision
international highway code required all drivers to follow the same rules
economic and financial committee(3)
aim
to aid countries in need through advising them financialy
success
financial experts helped Austria rebuild as to not go bankrupt
failures
when the depression hit in 1929, the committee couldn’t cope
permenant cenral opium board(3)
aim
to stop creation and distribution of oium (eventualy became permanent and aimed to tackle other drugs)
success
introduced a certification system of companies importing opium for medical purposes
failures
dome of the members were not dedicated to end the trade as they themselves earned lots from it
treaties of the LON
very few of the treaties in the 1920s involved the LON, showing a lack of commitment and dedication the countries, particularly major council members, had to the league
LON failures and successes of the 1920s (6)
Vilna 1920
Poland takes Vilna from Lithuania. LON does nothing (self interest of France wanting to keep POland as an ally, Britain not prepared to act alone). Poland wasn’t aked to withdraw, and kept Vilna. Corrupt and self-interested council FAIL
Aaland Islands 1921
Sweden and Finland both claimed the islands, so LON granted the islands to Finand, on the condition they didn’t militerise this. Both countries were happy wiht this outcome, and LON worked effectivly. However, did both countries oblige because they weren’t as powerful and were reasonably peacful - did LON have much power over powerful countries? SUCCESS
Upper Silesia 1921
Upper Silesia was part of the POland-Germnay border, and both citizens lived their. Some felt more German, others Polish. The LON held a vote observed by GB and FR and the area was divided into regions, both countries were happy with the result. Each country earned 1/2 the population, but POland felt a little let down as it only recieved 1/3 of the land and 1/4 of the mined. Hwoever, it did show the LON could work effectivly and peacfully SUCCESS
Ruhr crisis 1923
60000 Belgian and French troops invaded the German Ruhr when they missed a reparation payment, with the aim to seize goods as payment. German government payed workers to strike with money they didn’t have, resulting in printing more money and causing hyper-inflation. the LON did nothing, and allowed FR and BL to continue - FR now seemed to be the biggest threatt o peace, and also very hypocritical as it siply ignored its power on council, showing that the LON meant nothing to it, both countries openly broke the covenent, they didn’t fear the LON, and LON couldn’t effectivly solve disputes; USA had to help instead (Dawes plan 1924). FAIL
Corfu 1923
the people deciding the Greece-Albania borders were murdered. Mussilini in ITaly suspected Greece, so invaded Corfuu, killing 15. LON condemned ITaly , but being a powerful country, it did not fear the LON, so didn’t stop. LON agreed it would force Greece to pay reparations, but this only highlighted the hypocracy in the league and showed the world that strong, powerful countries could bypass the league adn its covenant. LON was underminded - corrupt and ineffective. However, Greece did pay out of fear. FAIL/SUCCESS
Bulgaria 1925
“War of the stray dog” - Greek soldier shot for chasing his dog across the border into Bulgaria after GReeceinvade. LON ordered Greece to withdraw, and in fear of the powerful council, it obliged. THis set precident for the double standards of the LON - more powerful countries could undermine the league unnoticed, as shown in the Crofu crisis 1923 - Greece felt betrayed, but withdrew (slight success) FAIL/SUCCESS
why did the LON fail
facism
thsi political ideology was a far-right aproach that began becoming popular in the 1920s. Hitler/Mussilini/Franco all fasicst leaders. AFter the GD, citizens turned to an alternative power source when the previous had failed them and left the country bankrupt. authoritatrian and controlling, they completely ignored the LON, underminded it and used fear and agression to control citizens and achienve their goals, including censorship and propaganda
Great Depression 29/9/1929
the wall street crash in America, the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world that was currently supplying Europe with desperatly needed loans, caused a catastrophy in Europe. (America sneezes, the whole world catches a cold). This lead to huge unemployment and poverty around Europe - at a rate of 22/23%. IT brough up economic problems, homelessness, dispites and debt. Countries became self intressted and desperate. It became hard for the LON to help every country, and the LON was struggling financialy itself
Manchuria crisis (6)
1931-33
Muckden incident: a bomb explodes on the south Manchurian railway in China. japan, who owns the railway, claims it was Chinese rebels, and uses this as an excuse to invade China as an unstable country. Japan claims it can’t have been the Japanese workers as they were “sleeping”. Japan wanted to gain Manchuria due to its wealthy land and Japan’slimited landmass with a growing population. Russia claimed it owned Manchuria too
th Kuomintang army invade Manchuria, which was very easy to do as troops were already in China as Japan said it was unstable and ruled by dangerous rebels. Despite the government telling the army to stop, it continued to invaded - militarianism
to solve the dipute, LON sent Lord Lytton to write an sccount of the happenings so the LON could make a final desicion. It took a year for the LON to react and publish this report. The report established what everyoen already knew - it was wrong for Japan to invade, however, China was unstable, so Manchuria should be semi0independent to stop this chaos
after invading Manchuria successfully, Japan left the LON in 1933, ignoring the LON and the Lytton report, and continued to invade more of China. Manchuria was renamed MAnckukuo in 1923 and Pu Yi, a former Chinese empire became the puppet leader, controlled through Japan. In February 1933, Japan invaded Jehol. Using invaded areas as bases, they successfuly invaded the ret of China in 1937, so by 1938, most major Chinese cities were controlled by China.
Complete LON fail - Japan didn’t listen to its condemnation adn LON never enforced trade sanctions or military action due to the self interest of the council. GB and FR didn’t want to upset Japan too much as it may cause Japan to invade their empire colonies in Asia, forcing them to loose vital resources for their economy
why did Japan invade(5)
the economic boom and quick modernisation of Japan meant it wanted to expand its empire to become equal to the other powerful empire countries of the time.
Japan had a small landmass and needed more space for its growing population
the “gun boat diplomacy” of GB, USA, FR and GM caused Japan to open its borders to trade and quickly modernise
powers given by LON and TOV meant Japan felt it could get away with it, which it did. previous LON fails also showed the leauge’s weakness
money had been invested previously by Japan into Manchuria - soldiers were there already - easy
LON reaction to Manchuria(5)
slow and uncommited
self-interest of the council members - they saw it as a far-away foreign affair that didn’t concern them
Japan could veto any decision made against it as it was on the council
Lytton may have only been sent due to Britian and France’s fear of invasion of their colonies in Asia
LON went against its covenenat - after moral condemnation, it should have been trade sanctions but none apeared as coucil didn’t want to upset Japan too much
how did Manchuria highlight the LON’s weaknessess?(14)
slow reaction
lack of action
powerful countries could undermine the LON and alsways win
LON was eurocentric
strong countries got away with breaking the law
each country put tis own needs first
moral condemnation had no effect
economic sanctions couldn’t be used against powerful countries due to GD
LON had no power to use military action - false pretenses
absent powers - USSR and USA
seemed to show agression could reward countries
unanimous voting decisions were hard
GD made it hard for LON to act and made other countries desperate: Japan wanted Manchuria for economy, materials and land
league is weak!
Abyssina crisis(8)
Italy first tried to attack Abyssinia in 1896, but failed. this was a drastic source of humiliation for Italy, and as Mussilini wanted to recreat the Roman empire, he wanted to re-invade and be victorious to show Italy’s new strength with him as a leader. He wanted to restore pride. Very determined
Invaded Abyssinia in 1934, due to the Wal Wal crisis. This was when Italian troops advanced into Abyssinia, and Abyssinian troops intended to destroy the for the Italian soldiers had built. This sparked an invasion, and so the fighting began. It was hard to stop Italy as Mussilini was so determined. This resulted in 150 deaths of soldiers
Italy quicly leveled up its battle tequniques, using chemical weapons, hurting not only soldiers but civilians too. Mussilini was showing no Mercy - he had many weapons compared to only 1/4 of AByssinian army being trained, with very few guns, some in barely usable condition
Britian and France were very self interested, influencing the league as they were on the coucil. They didn’t want to cause a conflict with Mussilini as they wanted to keep him as n ally against Hitler’s growing strengths. THey were already unified by the STresa pact of 1935, siging as allies against Hitler
due to theis, the lON was very slow to react, but eventualy agreed on trade sanctions with both Abyssinia and Italy. They didn’t want to include coal and oil for 2 reasons - 1 being America could supply it anyway and 2 being they both neede Italy as a powerful trader. Britain desperatly wanted to continue coal trade - they were still heavily affected by the depression, and needed to recover
LON refused to shut the SUez canal - a shortcut through Egypt Mussilinin took to deliver troops and weapons to AByssinina, saving a long journey around Africa. They didn’t shut it, again because BR and FR didnt want to annoyu Italy and wanted him as an ally against HItler. Instead of this, the Hoare-LAval plan was suggested in 1935 - GB and FR suggested Mussilini could have 2/3 of the land in AByssinia, the most fertile land. This was a secret treaty, which was previoulsy deemed wrong by the no sectret treaties act of the 1920s. THis highlighted the corruption of the league. Italy egreed but broke it instantly by continuing the invasion
Haile-Selassie asked for help from the league in 1935, but they very slowly responded by sanctions. SO, in an effort to stop the attack, Selassie called upon all men to take up arms and bring their wives to carry food and supplies. Howveer, despite this attempt, in June 1936, Italy arrived im Addis Ababa after winning the final battle. Italy now controlled Abyssinia
Italy left the league of nations in 1937 and signed the ROme-Berlin axis in 1937 - GB and FR had lost a powerful ally, foreshadowing the start of WW2. Hitler used this crisis as a sitraction and invaded the Rhineland in 1936, foreshadowing the future of nationwide remiliterisation of Germany
Abyssina: where GB and FR to blame?
Agree:
they felt the crissi didn’t concern them, and was a far-away, foreign affiar - eurocentric, self-interested
controlled the Suez canal at this point, yet didn’t close it as they were self-interestedin not loosing Italy as an ally. THis could have made it much harder for ITaly to invade
as they were on the council, they could have quicly stopepd Mussilini, but didn’t want to annohy im
coal sanctions woul dhave severly affected Italy, but Britian was too self-interessted
they didn’t want to upset ITaly - self-interest
Disagree
Mussilini was determined, even if the SUez canal had been closed, he would have gone round
USA would have continued to trade if the trade sanctions were harsher
Italy was council LON member so could veto any desicion
hoare-LAval plan was an attempt to stop him
Sanction were eventually put in place
AByssinia: was LON to blame?(20)
AGree
moral condemnation had not wokred in MAnchuria, so clearly wouldn’t work now, yet the league persisted
didn’t comit to sanctions, could have imposed more
indecisive, and slow
didn’t shur Suez canal, would have delayed attack, Mussilini would have found it ahrd to stand up to Britian and France if they acted together
militry action should have been used by br and fr but wasn’t due to self interest
Manchuria crisis fail should have showed the lON what to do and what not to do, shoul dhave learnt from mistakes to use force
LON used USA’s absence as an excuse not to employ harsher sanctions, lack of commitment
council should have played a bigger part in foreign affairs, as it promised it would
council members self interested and showed lack of comitment, “real-politik” - usign only sanctions they wanted
LON showed deep hipocracy, members didn’t follow self-determination and stayed armed despite the disarmemmnt conference of 1933
Hoare-LAval plan was immoral and didn’t include AByssinia’s opinions
apeasment misguided - didn’t wprk here, won’t wprk for Hitler
Disagree
Mussilini was a powerful, fascist, violent and determined leader
did put sanctions in plave
GD brought much self interest of all members in the LON, argubly ITaly did the same thing as Britan and France, just protected its empire. Hipocracy if htey condemmed ITaly
Hoare-LAval plan - some effort
stopping coal trade would unemploy 30000 British miners
rearmenment of Rhineland in 1936 would ahve distracted LON. To keep Mussilini as an alli in order to defent the growing powers of Hitler meant apeasment for him
Due to WW1 (war to end all wars), didn’t think this would lead to great war
USA absent, JApan and Germany had left - absent powers of important members
Hitler: who was he(5)
fought in world war 2 and agreed with many Germans - the november criminals, stabbed in the back etc.
his new ideas seemed hopeful for german people, an alternative way after GD
he became interested in politics in 1920s, and in 1923, was imprisoned for trying to invade mUnich - Muich Putsch
wrote Mein Kampf in prison, giving clear indicaters for his plans for the future of GErmany (Lebensraum etc.)
Once out of prison, he campaigned and gained support, once voted in in 1933 through propaganda, he destroyed democracy, silencing opponents. He became “Fuhrer”
What was Hitler’s foreign policy?(6) VET CEP
unite Volkdeutche - 10% of GErman population not in Germany anymore, and he wanted to return them to were he thought they were meant to be
make GErmany “great again” - wanted to trade with more countries, rebuild economy after WW1 and TOV and GD, earn more money an dhave moe power
TOV - he wanted to completely destroy it,, he wanted to stop reparations, wanted lost land returned (and Rhineland), he wanted Anchluss and BR and FR to grow apart
Empire - he wanted to build up a new ampire for Germany, expaning it eatward to create “Lebensraum” (Living room) for GErmany and the growing GErman population
destroy communism - he wanted to colonise Russia, stop Bulsheviks and destroy communism everywhere, especialy in Germany
he wanted to BR and FR to grow apart - he knew they were powerful countries, so wanted to start by invading east, not wanting a repaeat of WW1. Hew wanted to avoid war with them but distance them from each other to dilute power. He wasinpired by the British empire
Germany and the LON(5)
allowed to join in 1926
at disarmament conference in 1933-34, Hitler left the LON as he saw the hipocracy within in, as GB and FR didn’t disarm
No longer had to keep to covenent, could invade other countries
didn’t have to listen to LON
one step closer to getting rid of TOV
disarmament conference(2)
1933-34
LON decided all members should disarm or limit armeis so not to use war to solve disputes
why did Hitler want to invade POland?
He planed to go East so not to invade powerful countries liek FR and GB and repeat WW1. He began his plan by siging the non-agression pact with POland, in 1934, so Poland let their guard down and didn’t invade GErmany. Poland now trusted him, and it gave him time to plan his invasion
NOn-agression pact
1934
between POland and Germany
false sense of security for POland, gave Hitler tiem to plan
Why did Hitler want the Saar?
It was a tich industrial area given to France for 15 years after the TOV. After these years were over, a plebiside was held in 1935, and 95% of people wnated to rejoinm Germany. However, this was only achienved by NAtzi intimidation, violence, propaganda and threatinig. IT gave Hitler coal, steal and factories to build weapoms to remilitirise Germany. He was a step closer to destroying the TOV, achienving his foreign policy and building confidence and support from GErmany
Why did the LON fail?
F rench and BRitish self interest 0 they showed a lack of commitment and much hipocracy in the leuge. They were more focused on rebuilding and protecting there empire and economies after GD and WW1. ABysssinia - no closure of Suez canal, Hoare-Laval plan - went against 14 points which were soemwhat included in the TOV, nerever any military action, mot trade sanctions in MAnchuria. No effort in Vilna 1920
A bsent POwers - Japan left in 1933, along with Germany in 34, no USA and no USSR until 1934. THis meant the coucil members showed lack of commitment
I nefectuve sanctions - MAnchuria: none AByssinia: limmited. Moral condemnation never worked and a slow and limited response. No military, no army, very limited
L ack of army - military force never worked, could have stopped Italy
U nfair and unpopular TOV - the LON was based on the TOV, no response to Ruhr crisis 1923. Hyper infaltion - did nothing, USA had to help
Re aching decisions very slowly - Abyssiona, slow and limited treaties, no Suez canal, slow response in MAncuria. Only met once a year, very limited
Other reasons - great depression (25% unemployment rates), self-imterest caused by this promoted fascism. Fascism - violent dictators became popular due to lack of hoep after GD
Rhineland
Hitler was determined to end the TOV, and regain power. Annoyed by the hypocracy of the league and wanting to expand his empire, he needed to rearm to have the power to do this, would help power against france
Rhineland was a key industrail area fro Germany, he neede to remilitirise to protect his area from France and make more weapons, needed weaopns to protect West Germany whilst expanding east for LEbensraum
He sent troops to in march 1936, despite not being as powerful as france or britian and having a limited army, he was gambling with lcuk that he wouldn’t be stopeped, so prdered troops to withdraw if France attacked
He knew the powers would disagree, so used an excuse saying he was a “hedghog”, only protecting himself ebtween USSR and FRance, 2 powerful countries that intimidated him. THey had recently signed an alliance, so were allied against him
GB sympathy grew as they were anoyed at FRance for this allieance, and they thought the TOV was too harsh. Only sending troops into “their own back garden”
ANglo-German naval agreement signed, beginging apeasment in 1935
France distracted, by both AByssinia crisis and a referendum. French people didn’t want a war
in 1936, the ROme-BErlin axis was signed so Italy supported GErmany after it jsd supported them in Abyssinia. Mussilini didn’t apose ANchluss, and Britian and France had no power to stop
seigfreid line was buildt to stop French tanks after Rhineland demiliterised. Protected Rhine as Hitler invaded the east
Anglo-German naval agreemennt
1935
GB and Gaermany agreed Germany could have a navy 1/3 the size of BRitians, brekaing the TOV of only having 6 battleships/no submarines
apeasment
conscriptions
1935
these compulsary conscriptions meant hat by 1939, his army was 950000, 850000 over the agreed TOV amount, furtherly meeting his policy and destroying the TOV
IN 1935 he held a big march in Berlin to show of his new army
anti-comitern pact
1937
Germany and Italy, Spain and JApan all signed this to agree to destroy communism
Germany hekped Franco bomb Gurneca, and test Hitler’s “luftwafe”in 1937
Franco-Russioan allinince
1937
France was worried about naval agreement, so signed it to show this
Germany saw as France and Britain grew apart
Anchluss
after a failed first attempt in 1934, Hitler was determined to overturn the TOV and complete Anchluss. During the 1934 attempt, Dolfuss had tried to crack down on Nazis, so banned them. However, Hitler ordered Austrian Natzis to create havoc in Austria and they attempted to overthrow the government. Dolfuss was murdered but the attempt failed. Italy had an agreement with Austria to protect it from agression , so Mussilini moved troops along the Austria-Italian border to intimidate and deter Hitler away
the new new chancellor Schluchnigg tried to prevent German invasion and tried to give Hitler no attempt to invade. The German-Austrian agreement was signed in 1936, reconising the independence of Austria. It allowed Natzis to hold official posts, in attempt to apease Hitler
HOwever, this agreement was undermined by the Rome-Berlin axis of 1936, Hitler was now an ally with Italy, so there was nothing stopping his invasion
in 1938, Schlushnigg visited visited Hitler in his house in BErchtesgaden, near the Austrian border, were Hitler demanded NAzis could have important governmenttal posts. Scnuchnigg compramised, allowing Seyss-Inquart to be ministry of the interior, holding power over the police. Hitler demanded this within 3 days, else he would invade
Hitler then ordered Nazis to make as much chaos as possible; pressuring Schuchnigg; Hitler could now use the excuse Austria was in mortal chaos, so could validify invading, despite the reason he was to blame
Desperate to stop this invasion, in March 1938, Schnuchnig demanded a plebiscide. Howevr her receaved no support from GB and FR as they were apeasing Hitler, so he called it off, so not to anno Hitler and cause further harm
Seyss-Inquart was asked to call for help from Germany, so German troops marched into Austria unaposed in MArch 1938.
A month later, Hitler held a lebiscide to proove his point, and won 99% due to propaganda and intimidation from NAzis forcing people to agree to Anchluss
Germnay and Austria were now united, Hitler held a speach on Heldplatz and his foreign policy was being achieved, building confidence
why did Hitler want Anchluss(6)
Austria and Germany had previously been united for 600 years, so had similair languages and cultures
they fought together in WW1
Hitler was Austrian
Anchluss got him closer to achieving his foreign policy, building confidence and support fr him as a leader
he thought BR and FR wouldn’t appose him and Mussalinin was now his ally
determined after his fail in 1934
consequences of Anchluss
Austria would help Germany finincialy and prepare for invasion of the east
many Austrians and GErmnas both like Anchluss, feeling they were meant to be united,
Hitler had achieved part of his Foreign policy, and gained more support and confidence from his followers
lots of propaganda in Germany showed chaos in Austria, so they felt austria needed to be “saved”
GB saw Austria and GErmany as meerly the same country, so saw no opposition to thi. THey wanted to apease GErmany, toprevent war, but Churchill felt that they should have negotiated first
France’s whole governement had just resigned, so they were struggling with there own isues and distrated
Czechlosvakia felt great fear, Germany was getting closer. However, Hitler (fakely) reasurred them in 1938
hitler now had access to new resources and a path to the east
army of 100000 added to the Erman army
austrian resoures liek fuel and steal helped rearmement
hitler could plan his invasion into Czekoslovakia
Poland
after the Nazi Soviet pact of August 1939, HItler felt secure and powerful enough to invade POland - he knew Mussilini nor Stalin would oppose him, adn thought, due to appeasment, he could get away with it from GB and FR
On the 1st September 1939, he invaded POland, and on the 3rd September 1939, britian finaly declred war on Germany, begining WW2
why was the Rhineland significatn
key part of TOV, so to oppsoe it destroyed the TOV
key part of his foreign policy
felt more confident, no one had opposed, BR and FR wouldn’t apose his Lebenraum
popularity increased
controlled Rhineland so had new powers
better place to defend himself
apeasment began, giving him leway
what was apeasment
allowing hitler leway - he could have some of the land he waned to please him in the short term. It was used to try and revent war, but merely delayed it; war was inevitable, but it did give time for Britian and France to rearm and prepare
who supported apeasment
chamberlin and Daladier supported this deay of war
Hitler supported it as it allowed him to rearm too, and expand his empire to become more powerful
czeckslovakia wasn’t involved when the policy began, ti wasn’t involved in the process of allowing Hitler to have the Sudetnland and felt isolated and aienated
USSR also wasn’t invloved, so felt allienated anf feared Hitler now had enough power to travel east
consequences of apeasment
Hitler achieved some of his goals - he got what he wanted anf felt powerful; he could convince other countries to let him do anything
Stalin and USSR felt betrayed, so in 1939, the Nazi-soviet pact was formed
WW2
Hitler became stronger, and gained confindence and support
gave GB and FR time to rearm and prepare
humiliated BRitian - no country would trust them again if apeasment didn’t work
abandoned millions of people in the fascist dictatorship of Nazis
encouraged Hitler’s egoistic attitude
gave Britian moral highground - they at least attempted to stop, so perhaps whouldn’t be blames
would bever have stopped HItler - he was determined
it was attempt to dealy war, and try to stop it
Nazi_soviet Pact
Non-agression pact signed between USSR and Germany - a secret policy to divide Poalnd and give them both land
foreign ministers signed it - they disliked each other that much
Stalin and Hitler signed this in August 1939
highly unusual, one of Hitler’s forign policies was to destroy comunins, and he had just signed the ant-commitern pact in 1937 - it was just a way for both of them to gain land
assured Hitler Stalin wouldn’t invade Germany if he invaded Poland
gave USSR and GErmany security to build an army
now Hitler only had to fight 2 powerful countries
in Moscow on 23/8/1939
Hitler and stalin had similair policies and both wanted to expand their empires
Hitler wanted LEbensraum
allowed Hitler to invade POland
STalin felt allienated - as if he couldn’t trust his old allies
Poland was former land of both countries
complete shock - comunists anf fascists?!
was apeasment good or bad
for
prevented war in the short time, giving time for GB and FR to prepare
many felt TOV was too harsh, so just allowed Hitler some leniance after the harsh £6.6 billion - he was just protecting himslef
no one wanted a war after the war to end all wars
many people actually wanted Anchluss
Britian didn’t want a war after the 1934 peace ballot (90% in favour)
after GD, GB and FR couldn’t afford to rearm
threat from USSR meant Hitler needed much longer to build up an army
bad
misjudged Hitler -s hould never have trusted him
poeple missed oppurtunities to stop him (France could have defended Rhineland)
Hitler grew more confident - he wouldn’t take no
morally wrong - didn’t consult the countries it affected most (Czekoslovakia, Austria)
forced a strong and growing country of Czeckoslovakia backwards
allienated USSR and CS
GB and FR giving HItler what he wanted, now power over him
USSR and GB and FR’s relationship became strained because of it, and USSR would be a powerful component
Sudetendland
Czeckoslovakia was a new country created by the TOV and LON after WW1 in 1920. THe Sudetenland was part of it bordering GErmany, and was taken from GErmnay included in the 13% of land they lost in due to the TOV, meaning it had 3 million german speaking people. As a minority, (20%), they calimed they were being percicuted, so Hitler used this as an excuse to invade and “save” them
Hitler wanted to destroy the TOV as part of his foreign policy (VET CEP). He also wanted to unite “Volkdeutsch” - all GErman speaking people and needed “Lebensraum” for his new empire. It also had rich land and industry that would be useful when building weopons, he could use it as a base to invade the rest and further east
NAzis in the Sudetenland heald demonstrations and pressurised the government and weaken them. So by 1938, Hitler needed to come and “protect” the German poeple in the Sudetenland. GB and FR didn’t interfere, as was their policy of apeaspent
on 15’9’1938, Chamberlin flew to Hitler’s house in BEchtesgaden, were Hitler told him the crisis in Czeckoslovakia would only be resolved if he could have the Sudetendland, as Chamberlin was desperate to avoid war, he agreed as longer Hitler acted peacfully. Chamberlin met with Czeckoslovakian governement, forcing them to agree, so Hitler could have it by his demanded date of 1/10/1938
on 29/9/38, Germany, Britain and France met atMunich to discuss Hitler’s demands. Czeckoslovakia was no tivtited, neother was the USSR, leaving them allienated. Hitler demanded that Czeckoslovakian soldiers must leave and the land be handed to him, in return for peace in Europe. FR and GB obliged, on the terms that he kept peace, but Czeckoslovakia was not notified, yet on the 10/10 people found themselves living in Germany.
Inspite of HItler getting what he wanted, Chamberline claimed it was a great success and war would never happen - he said “peace in our time”. he secretly met again with Germnay 2 days after the conference, and they signed another agreement to say they would never go to war with won another. Britain saw this as a victory depite the emmense power and land Hitler now had. Hwoevrer, this naivity lost him support when Hitler broke the agreement quickly afterwards
on the 10/10 Hitler invaded and this was a monumental event as it was the first time he had invaded land that wasn’t all previouslt in German teritory - it showed apeasment was working in favour of him
Czeckoslovakia was a strong country - with support from powers like GB and FR it could have stopped the invasion, eyt their self interest prevented this
Hitler broke the agreemenr as by the end of 1939, Hitler had invaed the rest of the country, breaking the agreement at the mucih conference and the anglo-german agreement. Chamberlin had to admit appeasment had failed