Thursday, February 7, 2008
Stance
I know that the U.K and France both didn't want another war after the first world war. They also had a critical economy which they believed couldn't handle another war. But after learning more about Germany acquired more and more land from eastern Europe, I wonder if they could have been stopped and if WWII would have been so devastating. If the British and the French took a stance against Hitler in Chezocoslavakia, or even Austria, would the death toll have been so high? They should've took a stance and put a stop to them even if it meant fighting. I know its easier to say this now than back then, but it still makes me wonder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have the same question. This is something I have wondered about for a while. I would like to know what the world's leaders were thinking when they heard/saw Hitler advancing further and further outside of Germany. I don't believe that no one outside of Germany heard about the horrible things that were going on inside the countries. I think this is one of the questions that makes WWW II so fascinating to people today.
I thought it was interesting in the readings that France ignored its prewar pledge to Poland to attack the Germans on the west. The commander in chief of the French army continually lied to the Poles by saying his army was in contact with the Germans, when in fact it was not. It was as if Great Britain and France both thought that the best action was no action. No doubt they were afraid of the strength of the Axis. However, it does seem odd that at the same time they refused to take action against Germany, they were gearing up to take military action against the Soviet Union for invading Poland. I am not sure I understand why they avoided one but were willing to take on another.
Post a Comment