Thursday, January 31, 2008
thoughts on the video
Why wasn't anything seriously done to keep Germany in compliance with the Treaty? There were numerous warning signs that met with weak responses. Could WW2 have been prevented, and would it be fair to blame France, Britain and other European powers for allowing Germany to become so powerful again?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think that the British along with France could have done something to stop Hitler. To see how they just sat back and did absolutely nothing while one country invaded another, killed their own citizens, etc. is unbelieveable. Perhaps WWII would have never happened if the British and other great powers stepped in sooner. All of this was happening pretty much right in their own backyard.
What could Britain and France have done? A classic flaw of international law is that while it is well-meaning, it lacks enforceability. Should Britain and/or France have removed Hitler from power? Keep in mind that Britain and France were having problems of their own after the previous world war. Resources were scarce to say the least
Britain, France, and the U.S. feared another war so much that they would have done anything to prevent another one. The lasting effects of WWI on Europe were still being felt by both Britain and France. In the U.S., isolationism was the dominant political theme up until December 7th. I do not think that anything could have prevented Hitler's rise to power or the war because WWI's conclusion left so much doubt and disillusionment.
I agree with David in the fact that nothing could've been done to stop the coming of WWII. The conclusion of the first world war was basically countries pointing fingers at other countries and of course, those blamed weren't gonna sit there and take it. Especially when they were having to pay reparations to all of Europe and the US.
While I understand that England, France and the U.S. were still recovering for WWI, it still seems that had they taken action quickly the cost and loss of lives could have stayed minimal and maybe prevented the war. Given the intelligence or lack there of it is easy to see why no one wanted to take action. However, I agree with Matt, once Hitler becomes such a threat to other countries, how could the great powers just sit back?
I don't think taking action "quickly" was really an option in the 40s. News didn't travel as fast as it does today. Troops were not as mobile as they are today. Technology was not as advanced as it is today. I think by the time the U.S. really wrapped their head around what was going on it was too late to take on preventative measures. Also remember that our country didn't really run the way it does now. The U.S. waited until they were forced to take action after being attacked. Prevention of another countrie's war was not their main concern at the time.
Economy was bad for all, Germany of course with inflation became the worst, however, Hitler brought a rather torn country together with promises and extremely persuasive speeches. with his genius tactics, it was no longer about taking out one man, but a small world that Hitler created. Hitler unveiled 12 u-boats in 1935 however did not attack until 39 with that said Hitler was not created over night but it almost seems that by some of the countries reactions to WWII that he was.
Economy was bad for all, Germany of course with inflation became the worst, however, Hitler brought a rather torn country together with promises and extremely persuasive speeches. with his genius tactics, it was no longer about taking out one man, but a small world that Hitler created. Hitler unveiled 12 u-boats in 1935 however did not attack until 39 with that said Hitler was not created over night but it almost seems that by some of the countries reactions to WWII that he was.
In order for the invasion of another country to be prevented, Hitler would have had to have been removed from power, requiring the invasion of Germany (presumably a sovereign country) by Britain and/or France. Anyone see the parallels here?
"In order for the invasion of another country to be prevented, Hitler would have had to have been removed from power, requiring the invasion of Germany (presumably a sovereign country) by Britain and/or France. Anyone see the parallels here?"
If you're talking about Iraq, no.
What option might Britain and/or France have exercised then? What options were available to contain Hitler? He'd already demonstrated a ready willingness to ignore the Treaty of Versailles, and seemed extraordinarily committed to the idea of being made stronger and more pure through struggle and/or conflict. It's well and good to say Britain and/or France could have, should have stopped Hitler...it's another to say how that should have been accomplished.
There were many things that could be done to stop many horrific things that happened during WWII, but many people did not believe that they were happening. Along with thier own problems other countries feared what would be done to them if they took on Hitler and Germany. Most likely many lives would have been saved if governments had stepped in before they did, but unfortunately they did not think that they needed to and therefore they did not.
Post a Comment