The Japanese invasion of Manchuria From:http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007...rld-war-ii-the-japanese-invasion-of-manchuria The walls of international law and order took the first heavy blow after the Peace of Versailles with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931). Following the explosion of a bomb near Mukden, along a railway the Japanese had the right to protect, the Japanese made the Chinese responsible and invaded. More significant to the breakdown of order than the actual invasion was the reaction of the League of Nations: no immediate action was taken. Instead, a commission (the “Lytton Commission”) was sent to investigate. On receiving of the “Lytton Report”, which condemned the Japanese invasion, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations (February 1933). The consequences of the League’s unwillingness to act were far-reaching: it marked the first breakdown of international law and order that the League of Nations was designed to upkeep the position of the League of Nations as a peacekeeper was severely undermined – an aggressive power had successfully resisted the League the idea of collective security was challenged as the major powers (Britain and France) were unwilling to act – this encouraged and convinced Mussolini and Hitler that their demands similarly would be tolerated.
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 Hitler withdraws Germany from the League of Nations From: http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007...-withdraws-germany-from-the-league-of-nations When Hitler became Chancellor there was no fundamental change in German foreign policy: the key factor remained the revision of the Versailles Treaty, an aim which the moderate Streseman and Hitler’s predecessor, Brüning, had already initiated What was different, though, was the pace at which Hitler proceeded. According to Alan Bullock, Hitler combined, “consistency of aim with complete opportunism in method and tactics.” Whether or not Hitler essentially desired to initiate a war remains disputed – some historians argue that the historically challenged “Hossbach Memorandum” (in which Hitler clarifies his intentions to invade Czechoslovakia and Austria, even if it means war) clearly shows that Hitler desired to ignite a full-scale war. But others, like AJP Taylor, believed it no more than, “day dreaming, unrelated to what followed in real life,” as the aim of the meeting had been to discuss the armaments programme, not foreign policy. In “Mein Kampf” he laid out his aims: To relieve Germany of the burden of the Treaty of Versailles, implying the rearmament of Germany (forbidden by the Treaty) and reclaiming her international status To unite all the German-speaking people (Sudetenland, Austria, Danzig in particular) and incorporate them into the Reich To build “Lebensraum”, that is, living space in the east, for the German people to live (this required an expansion into the Ukraine and the Soviet Union) Hitler’s first step was to demand parity with the other European players at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva. When France rejected this outright on grounds of fear of vulnerability in case of a German expansion, Hitler withdrew Germany from the Conference and the League of Nations (October 1933).
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-german-polish-non-aggression-pact On January 26, 1934, Germany and Poland signed a non-aggression pact in which the two countries committed to forgo armed conflict for a period of ten years. The pact ended the border disputes that arose in the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles and economically damaging customs war. Hitler’s motives for signing the pact were to gain time for his re-armament programme and his “Lebensraum” expansion plans into the East convince the public that his intentions were peaceful to shatter into pieces the French Eastern European security system that France had managed to build up in the 1920’s against Germany1 The pact was a success for Hitler as he fulfilled all his aims. He won time for his re-armament and expansion plans; the public was wooed into believing Hitler a man of peace; and, most importantly, the French security system, which had up until then provided a two-front protection against Germany, was ultimately destroyed. 1 The Franco-Polish Military Alliance, signed February 1921 in Paris
The Failure to Contain Hitler http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-failure-to-contain-hitler Hitler announces German rearmament In March 1935, Hitler openly defied the victors of the First of World. He bluntly declared that he had re-introduced conscription, enlarged the standing army and ordered to build an air force. Hitler was bluffing—he was testing the temperature of the water to see how the other powers would react. His bluff was not called. Although there were protests from Paris, it became clear that neither Britain nor France were prepared to risk a war, however slight the chance. Hitler’s success had a profound impact on his attitude. He had for the first time unabashedly broken the Treaty of Versailles. The meek reactions by Britain and France foreshadowed the “appeasement policy” that would follow and convinced Hitler to continue his line. The Stresa Front Although the victors of World War I failed to call Hitler’s bluff, they did not sit idle. Shocked into action by the pace of Hitler’s rearmament, Britain, France and Italy signed the Stresa Front1 in which they condemned German rearmament and agreed to resist future German breaches of the Treaty of Versailles. Although the “Stresa Front” marked the first real attempt to stop and contain Hitler, it was soon rendered ineffective, first by the Anglo-German Naval Agreement only to be fully destroyed by the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (TODO: cross reference). Alliance between France and the Soviet Union In fear of the German expansion, the Soviet Union become more involved in European affairs: in 1934, she joined the League of Nations and in May 1935 signed a defensive alliance with France, guaranteeing mutual assistance (for five years) in case of an unprovoked attack. The Treaty marked an attempt by both parties to isolate Germany and keep her in check. Anglo-German Naval Agreement Hitler, after the “Stresa Front”, was eager to convince the other powers of his peaceful intentions and proposed a naval agreement to Britain, designed to guarantee British naval superiority by fixing the ratio of the German navy to the British navy at of 35:1002. British hopes in the agreement were to keep the German navy in check and to avoid a repeat of the Anglo-German naval race that contributed it’s part to the First World War. To Hitler, the agreement brought two advantages: it a) meant a next step to re-armament and the re-gaining of German strength, and this in accord with Britain, and b) concluded a further revision of Versailles, which had severely reduced Germany’s navy. As Hitler had hoped, the agreement resulted in a) the Treaty of Versailles to be further revised in Germany’s favour – meaning also French fears that German re-armament would be further encouraged, and, more significantly, b) a severe breach of the recently created “Stresa Front” and thus an attempt to contain Germany had been undermined (the French had not been consulted prior!). Re-militarisation of the Rhineland When Hitler ordered the re-militarisation of the Rhineland (1936), which had been made a de-militarised zone by the Treaty of Versailles, he was bluffing again. He banked on the French on over-estimating his troop strength but gave secret orders to retreat in case of a French attack. He also tested the waters carefully be sending in only light troops at first. Why re-militarise? To Hitler, re-militarising the Rhineland a) provided the next step to revise Versailles and b) secured that France could no longer back her Eastern European allies (Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union) by invading the Rhineland and thus crippling Germany. Why did the British and French not intervene? Public opinion in Britain was very much in favour of Hitler undoing the “wrongs” of Versailles – after all, it was believed, he was simply walking into his “back garden”. France was unwilling, and unable, to act without British support. Apart from being a clear violation of the Locarno Treaty3, the re-militarisation encouraged Hitler further to revise the Treaty of Versailles. Once again, his bluff was not called. The policy of appeasement continued to steer the continent into a war. 1 April 1935 2 June 1935 3 Signed in 1925 in which Germany confirmed the de-militarised Rhineland agreed by the Treaty of Versailles
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Italian Invasion of Abyssinia http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-italian-invasion-of-abyssinia The true breakdown of international law and order1, and hence the credibility of the League of Nations came with the long-expected Italian invasion of Abyssinia2. The League of Nations reacted by issuing sanctions, but was unwilling to include the decisive sanction on oil (which would have forced Mussolini to retreat!) in fear of driving Mussolini into Hitler arms. Also, Hoare and Laval (the British and French prime ministers), formed the “Hoare-Laval Plan” which would have granted two-thirds of Abyssinia to Italy. The problem, however, was that the League of Nations was not informed, which resulted in a public outcry when it leaked through, especially in Britain, where Hoare was forced to resign. The invasion of Abyssinia was perhaps the turning point in international relations before the Second World War. On a level of international and collective security it meant that the League of Nations was finally totally discredited in her role as a peacekeeper and Hitler was given further evidence that Britain and France were unwilling to act the recently created “Stresa Front”, and with it the attempt to collectively contain Hitler, was destroyed showed Mussolini’s preparedness (as later Hitler) to use force in order to achieve foreign policy aims, and the reluctance of Britain and France to thwart an aggressor In the aftermath of the invasion Mussolini felt increasingly isolated. Whether this feeling was justified or unfounded, Hitler scented the occasion and exploited Mussolini’s feeling of isolation to align Italy with his own plans. This would lead to the Rome-Berlin Axis and later the war-time alliance between Germany and Italy2. Italy also consequently abandoned her resistance of German domination over Austria as she had done after the assasination of Dollfuss. The stage was set for a German annexation of Austria. 1 The walls of international law and order had already started crumbling after the Japanese invasion of Manchuria 1 October 1935 2 The Pact of Steel
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Spanish Civil War http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-spanish-civil-war Foreign involvement Germany sent in planes (“Condor Legion”) and some 6,000 troops – these significantly helped Franco in shifting his troops onto Spanish mainland (the sea route had been blocked by the Republicans) Mussolini sent in some 70,000 troops (surprisingly not very effective, though) France and Britain decided on a policy of “non-intervention” Stalin sent in supplies and arms to the Republicans Why did Hitler get involved? German motives Hitler profited from Germany’s involvement in more than one way: it distracted international attention from his re-armament programme he hoped to gain valuable resources from Spain in return – possibly even be allowed to station submarines in Spain during war time it provided the opportunity to test his “Luftwaffe” (viz. the bombing of Guernica) it would commit Mussolini to mutual assistance, binding him closer to Germany. Why did Mussolini get involved? Italian motives Mussolini essentially aimed to find a new ally in Franco and Spain and to show Italian might and strengthen her international position. Why did France and Britain not get involved? For France and Britain, where the public was anyhow already polarised between left and right support, the policy of “non-intervention” was the only possibility to avoid domestic chaos. Also, they feared that, through an intervention, the war might spread onto Europe – a war they were not prepared for – and they did not want Mussolini to be further pushed into Hitler’s arms. Consequences Foreign (non-)involvement in the Spanish Civil War diverted attention from Hitler’s re-armament programme divided Europe into two camps – left and right convinced Stalin that the Western democracies were too weak to act (which was, amongst others, a reason why Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Rome-Berlin Axis From:http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-rome-berlin-axis The Rome-Berlin Axis1 was not a military agreement. Rather, it was a mutual condemnation of the League of Nations and an understanding over common foreign policies, covering Austria, Abyssinia and Spain. Mussolini’s motives Italy was politically isolated after a) her invasion of Abyssinia and b) her involvement with Nazi Germany in the Spanish Civil War. The latter had also weakened her until then good relations with the Soviet Union. With the agreement Mussolini hoped to steer Italy out of political isolation. Hitler’s motives Mussolini’s resistance of Hitler’s invasion of Austria following the assasination of Dollfuss convinced Hitler that he needed Italian support for his plans to annex Austria. Also Hitler was in need of an ally in Europe to keep his back free from Britain and France. Mussolini and his Fascist Italy were a natural ideological ally and Hitler wanted to draw Mussolini closer to Nazi Germany and align him with German policies. Consequences With Italian blessing, Hitler was now free to annex Austria. With Italian backing, he could now do so without worrying about international resistance—Britian and France as he guessed rightly would yet again be unwilling to act. In addition, it meant a reverse of Italian-German relations. Up until then it was Hitler that following Mussolini, for example when he tried to emulate Mussolini’s coup d’état with his “Beer Hall Putsch”, or when he backed down under Mussolini’s pressure after the assasination of Dollfuss. Roles were now reversed: from now on Hitler would lead and Mussolini follow. This manifested itself in continued Italian intervention in the Spanish Civil War Italy joining the “Anti-Comintern Pact” (with Japan, 1937) and her departure from the League of Nations (1937) Also, the “Rome-Berlin Axis” paved the way for the “Pact of Steel” – the military understanding that eventually resulted in the wartime alliance. 1 October 1936
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Anschluss of Austria From: http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-anschluss-of-austria Alarmed by recent activities of Austrian Nazis in early 1938, the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg1, requested a meeting with Hitler. Knowing he could score an easy diplomatic victory, Hitler coerced Schuschnigg to include Nazis into his cabinet and to align Austrian foreign policy closer to his own. Feeling the rope tighten around Austria’s neck, Schuschnigg attempted to dislodge himself from Hitler and regain control. In a speech to the Bundestag he urged to put an end to the concessions “where we must call a halt and say: This far and no further”. Schuschnigg called for a plebiscite to vote on Austria’s autonomy. In a well-coordinated move, Austrian Nazis seized state institutions in Vienna on March 11. Hitler acted swiftly and invaded Austria the next day. Hitler’s motives Hitler was Austrian by birth. His aim to incorporate Austria into the Third Reich he had set down as early as 1924 in “Mein Kampf”. Furthermore, German strength could be further increased and the Versailles Treaty likewise be revised, as the “Anschluss” with Austria of any kind was forbidden. Why did the invasion succeed? The major difference between 1938 and 1934 was that Mussolini did this time not intervene in Germany’s invasion. The turning of the tide came with the Rome-Berlin Axis after which Mussolini succumbed to Hitler’s influence. Britain and France continued their policy of appeasement and were not prepared to go to war over Austria. Britain especially convinced itself that after all it contained German-speaking people and that they were entitled to self-determination. Consequences For Hitler, his successful invasion of Austrian without international objection further revised the Treaty of Versailles was further in Germany’s favour convinced Hitler that Britain and France would not stop him in his efforts On an international level, Hitler had used force for the first time against an, independent, sovereign state, and was now in a position to threaten Czechoslovakia (TODO: cross reference) 1 He followed Dollfuss after his assasination
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Invasion of Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia was one of the many newly created states after Versailles, formed from parts of the former Habsburg and Romanov Empires. However, it was nevertheless a state of minority groups – in particular three million German speaking people, who no longer enjoyed the privileges as under the Habsburg rule. This area, the “Sudetenland”, was given to Czechoslovakia after Versailles as it provided a natural, defensive frontier and vital for the countries industry. Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten Party, set unacceptable demands to Czechoslovakia and provoked unsuccessful uprisings – this provoked Britain and France to act. What did Hitler want, and why? Hitler hated Czechoslovakia because it was born out of Versailles; he believed that Czechoslovakia was in the way of his eastward expansion – especially the natural and easily defendable frontiers, the well-equipped army and the fact that she enjoyed diplomatic treaties with France and the Soviet Union (a problem, though, was that neither of these countries bordered her). In addition, he desired to united the German-speaking people into the Reich, gain the valuable resources in that area and to revise Versailles even further. The annexation of the Sudetenland Meetings before Munich During the meetings at Berchtesgarden (September 15) and Bad Godesberg (September 22), Hitler clarified his intention of annexing the Sudetenland to Chamberlain. He also threatened with military occupation. At five minutes to twelve, literally speaking, Mussolini proposed a four-power meeting at Munich – with him as the arbitrator. Should Hitler be granted his demands? Arguments for appeasement Although in retrospect “appeasement” has often been heavily criticised, there were arguments in favour of this policy: the wide-spread horror of war British understanding of Germany undoing the “wrongs” of Versailles the belief that Germany could act as a bulwark against communism economic considerations – the uncertainty of US financial support and the concerning the costs of war strategic considerations – could the British Empire survive a major war? After all, Italy and Japan were counted as enemies too). The Munich Conference Without the consultation of Czechoslovakia, who had no choice but to accept the demands or else fight alone, the following agreements were reached at the Munich Conference1 Germany was allowed to annex the Sudetenland, the occupation would occur within ten days Czechoslovakia had to cede large industrial areas, vital fortifications and communications to Germany “Peace in our Time” – Hitler agreed that this had been his last demand and that, in future, force would no longer be used to solve disputes between two countries Arguments that justified the Munich Agreement Firstly, it was supported by public opinion, especially in Britain. Secondly, Britain was unprepared for a major war – with this concession, she was able to gain more time (significant time, in hindsight) to re-arm. Lastly, it was the “last chance” for Hitler, any further demands would result in a world-wide condemnation. Arguments brought forward by the anti-appeaser “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last,” commented Winston Churchill. Against the Munich agreement spoke that a) the natures of Nazism and Hitler were such that they would continue to conquest, b) Munich would encourage Hitler to take further risks (as with the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland), c) militarily Hitler could have been resisted, and d) it meant a major betrayal of Czechoslovakia. Consequences The most profound effect on Hitler was that he was more than ever convinced that Britain and France were unwilling to act – this encouraged him to take further risks, as later, the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia and Poland. Yet also, it gave Britain and France the literally speaking “air to breath”, that is, time for re-armament. The destruction of Czechoslovakia – German occupation (March 1939) Although Hitler had managed to gain the Sudetenland, he had failed to destroy Czechoslovakia altogether, as he had aimed to do. When the Czechs, however, sent in their army to suppress a Slovakian uprising (which was, not surprisingly, stirred up by Nazis), it gave the necessary justification for Hitler to act – he invaded Czechoslovakia under the pretext of restoring order. Consequences The invasion of Czechoslovakia was a turning point. Hitler could no longer claim to be undoing a wrong of Versailles, neither was it an integration of German-speaking people into the Reich – rather, the occupation represented an aggressive expansion into the East (“Lebensraum”). France and Britain were now convinced that Hitler could not be trusted and that he planned to dominate Eastern Europe. They reaslised that appeasement had failed. They could no longer aside and watch. Any further concessions to Hilter would titl the European power balance, and military preparations were hastily made. Significantly, Britain introduced conscription for the first time ever during times of peace. Britain and France knew that the next obvious target for Hitler was Poland, and gave immediate guarantees to Poland in case of an attack in March 1939. Mussolini, impressed by Hitler’s success in invading Czechoslovakia, followed suit and invaded Albania2. The most likely next targets were Greece and Romania, and Britain and France extended their guarantees to these two countries in April 1939. Britain and France realised that appeasement had failed. They could no longer stand aside and watch the balance of power tilt any further towards the Fascist powers. Further expansions had to be contained. 1 September 29-30, 1938 2 April 1939 From: http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-invasion-of-czechoslovakia
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Pact of Steel From: http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-pact-of-steel Unlike the Rome-Berlin Axis, the Pact of Steel was an offensive, military alliance, in which Hitler and Mussolini committed to fight together in case of war. Italy, though, would not have to fight before 1942. As a result, the military lines were drawn. Europe was divided into two camps. The Pact of Steel set down the war time alliance. The Soviet Union was now the critical power. It was not yet in any of the camps and was in a position to tip the scales of power in either direction. Hitler was once again swift to act and pushed for the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact—the alliance between Germany and Russian that made war with Poland inevitable.
These are the steps that led to the outbreak of World War 2 The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact From: http://wheremydogs.at/articles/2007/01/20/the-road-to-world-war-ii-the-molotov-ribbentrop-pact In August 1939, Germany and Russia shocked the Western powers by signing an agreement that finally swayed the balance of power in Germany’s favour. The agreement, known as the “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”,[1] set down the following terms: In the official terms the parties agreed on a 10-year non-aggression pact – benevolent neutrality in the case of war In the secret clauses Poland was to be divided into spheres of influence between the two countries Stalin’s motives Although the Pact surprised many, Stalin felt it in many way to be his only choice in securing the Soviet Union: he distrusted the Western democracies just as much as he did Hitler, but their handling of the Munich agreement and the Czech crisis convinced him that they were to weak to offer any security the negotiations by these powers with the Soviet Union were only half-hearted (inexperienced junior officials were sent) it gave Stalin the vital time to prepare re-armament and re-organise the army, which had suffered under the purges, and it avoided a two-front war with Japan, which was growing more and more a threat. Hitler’s motives Whether Hitler would attack Poland was dependent on the role the Soviet Union would take. He thus required Soviet neutrality, which the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact offered. With the pact he also avoided a two-front war with France and Britain in the West and the Soviet Union in the East. Consequences The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact effectively made an attack on Poland inevitable, as Hitler was now convinced that, with the Soviet Union remaining neutral, Britain and France would not risk a general war. 1 Respectively named after the Soviet and German foreign ministers that negotiated the deal
Evil succeeds when good people do nothing. The USA did not join the League Of Nations till much later. It had also espoused an non-interventionist policy. It was like saying "we don't care if Hitler tramples Europe or Tojo rips up China as long as we are OK". In fact, the period between the wars was called "peace time" in the USA and its territories and people were more concerned on getting whiskey than some hundreds of Czechs, Ethiopians or Spaniards dying.
Unchecked power allowed this to happen in my opinion. Thanks for the post. Was long but totally worth it!
