The Socialist Dilemma: a Brief Study of the History of Socialism and The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Socialist Dilemma: a Brief Study of the History of Socialism and The

Title: The Socialist Dilemma: A Study of the Birth of Modern Socialism and its Impact on Allied-Soviet Relations During and After World War II Program of Study: Interdisciplinary Presentation Type: PowerPoint (remote) Mentor and Mentor e-mail: Scott Catino ([email protected]) Student name and e-mail: Kevan Keane ([email protected]) Category: Textual or Investigative Abstract: This paper examines the origins of modern socialism, and its impact on Allied-Soviet relations during and after World War II. During and after World War I, some countries turned to socialism in order to help them recover and begin to make sense of the problem of economic inequality. In particular, Germany and Russia turned to different forms of socialism. Since both of these nations fought against each other during World War II, this created a dilemma for the Allied Powers, whose prior agreements left them allies of Joseph Stalin and the Russians. At a time when world peace was strongly desired, the dictators’ burning ambitions during World War II led people to wonder how to respond. Some turned to appeasement despite the dangers of socialism as a power-hungry form of government. This ultimately led to the Cold War that followed shortly thereafter. This paper explores the rise of socialism from its modern beginnings during the events leading up to the French Revolution down to the World Wars, and the Allies’ approach in dealing with socialist states. It shows that socialism was, from its very beginnings, bent on dominating every aspect of life in a given nation, and then the world. By the time World War II broke out, the U.S.S.R. demonstrated a continuation of the pattern socialist states had followed since the French Revolution, yet Franklin Roosevelt and others believed Joseph Stalin would cooperate with them enough to ensure world peace. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Isolationism & Appeasement in Australia E. M. Andrews
> Isolationism & Appeasement ü w* in Australia C /3 Reactions to the European Grises, 1935-1939 ‘They tell me things are not too good in Europe, Dave.’ ‘What’s wrong? Drought?’ ‘Unk’ White, Bulletin, 26 July 1939 E. M. Andrews Australian foreign policy in the late 1930s has till now been a neglected topic in historical writing. In this book the author examines Australian reactions to the aggressions which led to World War II — Abyssinia, Spain, Austria, Czecho slovakia, and Poland. He describes the early support in Britain and Australia for the League of Nations, and goes on to discuss the causes of the change to a policy of appeasement, culminating in the Munich crisis of 1938, and Australian reactions to that crisis. Additionally, he compares Australian foreign policy at that time and in the sixties, when Australia again supports a powerful ally, this time in Vietnam. To those who lived through the crises of the thirties and now wish to see those years in perspective, as well as to readers of a younger generation, who seek the causes for the development of present-day attitudes to Australian foreign policy, this book will make absorbing reading. For teachers and students of the history of the period it will provide a welcome insight into the reactions of Australian politicians and people to the European crises and to Britain’s part in them. Price in Australia $6.95 This book was published by ANU Press between 1965–1991. This republication is part of the digitisation project being carried out by Scholarly Information Services/Library and ANU Press.
[Show full text]
Colonial Appeasement
Colonial Appeasement coming to power in 1933, even though the Nazi leader’s territorial ambitions focused (1935–38) on Eastern Europe, as indicated in his infa- PAUL W. DOERR mous memoir Mein Kampf.Afewsenior Acadia University, Canada Nazis also hoped for a colonial foothold in Africa, but the early years of Hitler’s regime were taken up with other, more urgent Colonial appeasement is a largely forgotten matters. aspectofBritishappeasement.Duringthe British officials and policy-makers had, years from 1935 to 1938 the British govern- throughout the 1920s, strongly rejected any ment gave serious attention to the possibility suggestion of returning colonies to Germany. of granting Germany colonial possessions But the deteriorating world economic situa- in Africa as part of a “general settlement” tion after 1929, combined with the growing with the Nazi regime. Various schemes for threat to the peace from Hitler’s Germany, transferring African territories to German forced the British to rethink their position. jurisdiction were considered, but serious Gradually the idea began to emerge that per- obstacles arose and, with the exception of haps colonies could be returned to Germany one formal proposal from the British in early as part of a much larger general settlement of 1938, talks with the Germans on the subject the situation in Europe. never moved beyond vague generalities. On March 7, 1936, Hitler sent German Prior to the First World War, Germany troops into the demilitarized zone of Ger- held four territories in Africa, namely Ger- many. He then issued a series of demands, man East Africa, German South-West Africa, oneofwhichwasacallforequalityofcolonial Kamerun, and Togoland.
[Show full text]
Appeasement – Peace Or War?
Appeasement – Peace or War? NSWHTA Stage 6 History Teachers’ Day 25 March 2017 Dr Michael Molkentin Shellharbour Anglican College & University of New South Wales Canberra www.michaelmolkentin.com/resources [email protected] 1 The People, Events and Geography of Appeasement Prime Foreign Event Minister Secretary Marquess of 14 September 1930 The Nazis secure second largest vote in German Reading August-November 1931 elections 18 September 1931 Japan invades Manchuria 30 January 1933 Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany Ramsay 14 October 1933 Germany quits the Conference for the Reduction MacDonald Sir John and Limitation of Armaments and a week later leaves the League of Simon Nations June 1929- Nov. 1931- 16 March 1935 Hitler publically announces he intended to rearm June 1935 June 1935 Germany in contrivance of the Treaty of Versailles April 1935 Italy, Britain and France sign the Stresa Front to oppose the re-emergence of Germany Sir Samuel Hoare June-December 1935 June 1935 Britain and Germany sign the Anglo-German Naval Stanley Agreement Baldwin 3 October 1935 Italy invades Abyssinia June 1935- May 1937 Anthony 7 March 1936 German troops re-occupy the demilitarised Rhineland region Eden Dec. 1935- July 1936 German and Italian forces go to Spain to fight support the February 1938 Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War against a left-wing Republican government. 12 March 1938 Germany annexes Austria (‘the Anschluss’) 30 September 1938 The ‘Munich Agreement’ is signed by Germany, Neville Italy, France and Britain, permitting Germany to annex the Sudeten Chamberlain region of Czechoslovakia The 15 March 1939 Germany occupies the remainder of Czechoslovakia May 1937- Viscount May 1940 Halifax 31 March 1939 Britain and France guarantee that they will protect Feb.
[Show full text]
World War Ii, Part I Aggression, Appeasement
March 05, 2008 UNIT 5, PART 3: WORLD WAR II, PART I AGGRESSION, APPEASEMENT, AND WAR - Dictators Challenge World Peace Japan - wanted an empire equal to western powers - 1931 - Japan seized Manchuria (region of northern China rich in natural resources) - when League of Nations condemned the aggression, Japan withdrew from the organization - Japanese armies overran much of eastern China in 1937 Italy - 1935 - invaded Ethiopia - Haile Selassie (Ethiopia's king) asked for help - League of Nations voted sanctions (penalties) against Italy, but League had no power to enforce them - Italy conquered Ethiopia in 1936 Germany - Hitler challenged the Treaty of Versailles: 1. rearmed Germany 2. returned troops to the Rhineland - 1936 Reaction from Western Democracies - adopted a policy of appeasement: giving in to the demands of an aggressor in order to keep the peace - reasons for appeasement: 1. democracies didn't want another war (many supported pacifism, or opposition to all war 2. Germany was seen as a defense against Soviet communism 3. Great Depression had sapped the energies of the western democracies - U.S. - Neutrality Acts passed by U.S. Congress: forbade the sale of arms to any nation at war, outlawed loans to warring powers - U.S. policy was to avoid involvement in a European war Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis: members agreed to 1. fight Soviet communism 2. not to interfere with each other's plans for expansion The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) - From Monarchy to Republic - King Alfonso XIII forced to leave after public unrest - republic set up a new, more liberal constitution - govt. took over some Church lands, ended Church control of education, redistributed some land to peasants, allowed women's suffrage, reduced size of the military Mar 5-5:05 PM 1 March 05, 2008 - conservatives rejected change (backed by the military) Nationalists (conservatives) vs.
[Show full text]
6.3 Appeasement and the Munich Conference
Name ___________________________________ Period__________ OBJECTIVE 6.3 appeasement and the Munich conference using what you have learned, answer each of the questions below. Define “appeasement”. Who were the Sudetens and where was the Sudetenland? Soviet How did Hitler justify his demands for the annexation of the Nazi Sudetenland into the Third Reich? non-aggression pact How did Hitler and Stalin both have territorial claims to Poland? What role did Britain and France have to fill for the new democracies of eastern Europe? Despite this, why would they give in to Hitler’s demands? Who had pledged to protect Poland? Why were Britain and France eager to peacefully resolve their issues Why was Hitler eager to sign a non- with Hitler at the Munich Conference? aggression pact with Stalin over Poland? Overall, what role did a weak League of Nations play in Hitler’s drive for conquest? appeasement in CARTOONS The Appeaser (center) stands alone on a small rock in the middle of a dark pool. He is alone and without help. He is surrounded by sea monsters adorned with swastikas, who lean in and glare at him with hungry eyes. The appeaser holds lollypops with a confident smile and says: “Remember...one more lollypop and then you all go home!” Cartoonist: Dr. Seuss use the political cartoon above to answer each of the questions below. Who is “The Appeaser”? What do the sea monsters represent? Is Dr. Seuss in favor of appeasement of does he oppose it? Support your answer. What will eventually happen to the “The Appeaser”? Relate your answer to the course of appeasement in Europe leading up to World War II.
[Show full text]
Senior Scholars Interwar Europe Fall 2019 Week 10
11/5/19 Peace, Appeasement, War Senior Scholars: • Goal of Paris Peace Conference was “collective security” Interwar Europe: – Showpiece was League of Nations WorkinG Out Modernity in the Midst of Crisis Fall 2019 Prof. Kenneth F. Ledford [email protected] 368-4144 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY HISTORY DEPARTMENT Peace, Appeasement, War Peace, Appeasement, War • Collective security was threated by the existence of • The British public reverted to its traditional aversion to revisionism continental entanglements – Nations who rejected the legitimacy of the settlement and sought to – Britain repudiated its guarantee pledge to France revise it – Britain relied on the League of nations and multilateral action rather • Differences emerged among victors as to the meaning of than bilateral security arrangements collective security – Even with the League, Britain relied on moral suasion, opposing attempts to apply military or economic sanctions – Differences, combined with economic tensions and revisionism, weakened collective security until it proved meaningless after 1936 – Also weakened by isolationism HISTORY DEPARTMENT HISTORY DEPARTMENT Peace, Appeasement, War Peace, Appeasement, War • The French viewed things differently • So France resorted to creating a network of military alliances – Not cut off by water from German invasion outside of the League – Their recent victory was only with vast aid and great effort – September 1920: Defensive alliance with Belgium – Felt pressing need to supplement their defensive resources – February 1921:
[Show full text]
The Cultural Roots of Isolationism and Internationalism in American Foreign Policy Lane Crothers*
Journal of Transatlantic Studies Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2011, 21Á34 The cultural roots of isolationism and internationalism in American foreign policy Lane Crothers* Department of Politics and Government, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA This article examines the question: why have Americans supported both internationalist and isolationist foreign policies at various points in history? It argues that part of the answer to this question can be found in the structure and nature of American political culture. American political culture frames the terms in which the programmes and plans debated by political leaders ‘make sense’ to the ordinary people whose consent is fundamental to the making of a democratic foreign policy. The article offers an account of the central components of American political culture that are shown to frame four core cultural orientations towards foreign affairs: Liberal Internationalism, America-as-Model, Nativism and Triumphalism. Two dimensions, Liberal Internationalism and America-as- Model, are illustrated through a discussion of contemporary arguments in favour of and opposed to the 1848 MexicanÁAmerican War. The article then offers suggestions of how the four categories of American foreign policy orientations can be applied in cases beyond the MexicanÁAmerican conflict. Both isolationism and internationalism are shown to be core components of American political culture. They are, as a consequence, eternal features of American foreign policy. Keywords: isolationism; internationalism; American political culture; MexicanÁ American War Introduction This article examines the question: why have Americans supported both inter- nationalist and isolationist foreign policies at various points in history? Why do they agree to send their troops to war (or not), to allow their money to be used to subsidise foreign nations (or not), or to intervene as foreign peoples face immeasurable suffering (or not)? Part of the answer to this question can be found in the structure and nature of American political culture.
[Show full text]
Munich Agreement and Appeasement
Munich Agreement And Appeasement Leonhard maunders unskillfully. Advancing Urbain disheveled, his aglet preconditions mistreat interrogatively. Fusty Ikey grabbing offensively and wolfishly, she wimples her moniker pomades veeringly. Hitler and of the political propaganda benefits or leave subcarpathian prime minister neville chamberlain returned from compulsory to and munich agreement He had left scars that munich and an abandoned the plebiscite was speaking the best deal with our participation in czechoslovakia, entertainment and my hope for victory for professional. Hitler abused the appeasement and invited nor was. What did great britain and appeasement: munich agreement and appeasement could ever. Chamberlain that munich agreement by giving czechoslovakia could ever be exported, previously a danger to make sure, munich agreement and appeasement. Signs prohibiting passage decrease the internal border were removed, with it now allowed to cross between border freely at any point continue their choosing. Hitler had grandious ideas for appeasement with only to make here to two important defensive military force of hitler set flowing with what most notably edward viii and munich agreement appeasement? We want to bid away! You have changed this ladder to promote fertile soil bond with us and homicide have also defended it with us. Hitler and one least saved face. The appeasement and munich agreement? There it be blunt right of option into and purchase of the transferred territories, the option deed be exercised within six months from the date of man agreement. Winston Churchill was whole, in an ironic way, that the only sentence choice Britain and France had was to terrify to funnel with Germany.
[Show full text]
Link to Causes Of
Title: Why did World War Two begin? Lesson objectives: GREEN Explain which event you think -Describe the causes S helped to start WWII. of WWII. YELLOW Explain at least two reasons -Explain why WWII S happened. why WWII started. -Rank the most BLUES Explain at least two reasons important causes of why WWII started and why WWII. some reasons may be linked to other reasons. Civil Wars / conflicts around the world today. Eg, Syria. What might cause WWIII today? Think Pair Share End1011121314151617181920123456789 End101112131415161718192021222324252627282930123456789 End101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960123456789 What problems have we studied that you think might have caused WWII? Think Pair Share End1011121314151617181920123456789 End101112131415161718192021222324252627282930123456789 End101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960123456789 What problems Hitler rise have we studied to dictator in Germany that you think Treaty of Versailles- might have Reparations charges caused WWII? and war guilt League of Nations/ Chamberlain Treaty of policy of Versailles appeasement against and (isolating) Czechoslovakia Germany WWII had 4 main Around the room there are causes: information sheets about the causes of WWII. • Hitler’s Hope Use the information sheets to help you fill in you worksheet on the • Appeasement causes of WWII. Accident Greens- use the green worksheets. • League of Nations Yellows- you can use the green but challenge yourself to add detail Loses from the blue. • Six Slippery Steps Blues- only use the blue information. Challenge: Rank the 4 reasons. Which one do you think most caused a war? Explain your answer in your book. Hitler’s Hope Appeasement Accident What were Hitler’s three aims? What was wrong with appeasement? Give one example of appeasement in action. Why might they cause war? Why did appeasement lead to war? WWII Causes League of Nations Loses Six Slippery Steps Give three reasons the League of Nations failed.
[Show full text]
When States Appease: British Appeasement in the 1930S
Trubowitz, Peter and Harris, Peter When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s. Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Trubowitz, Peter and Harris, Peter (2015) When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s. Review of International Studies, 41 (02). pp. 289-311. ISSN 0260-2105 DOI: 10.1017/S0260210514000278 © 2014 Cambridge This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/61659/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. When states appease: British appeasement in the 1930s Peter Trubowitz London School of Economics and Political Science Peter Harris University of Texas at Austin Few grand strategies puzzle international relations scholars more than appeasement. Scholars have debated why states put their hopes in seemingly risky attempts to “buy off” foreign challengers ever since Neville Chamberlain unsuccessfully sought to mollify Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.1 Today, few analysts subscribe to the once-popular “guilty men” theory, which attributes appeasement to leaders’ personal failings.2 Instead, two general approaches delineate the contemporary study of appeasement.
[Show full text]
A Sheffield Hallam University Thesis
The Sheffield peace movement 1934-1940. STEVENSON, David Anthony Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/3916/ A Sheffield Hallam University thesis This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/3916/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions. REFERENCE ProQuest Number: 10701051 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10701051 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 The Sheffield Peace Movement 1934 -1940 David Anthony Stevenson A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2001 Abstract: The object of the thesis was to build a portrait of a local peace movement in order to contrast and compare it with existing descriptions of the peace movement written from a national perspective.
[Show full text]
British Appeasement 1936-1939: the Debate Between Parliament and the Public
University Libraries Lance and Elena Calvert Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards Award for Undergraduate Research 2017 British Appeasement 1936-1939: The Debate between Parliament and the Public Kylie D. Johnson College of Liberal Arts- History and Political Science, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, European History Commons, Military History Commons, Political History Commons, and the Public History Commons Repository Citation Johnson, K. D. (2017). British Appeasement 1936-1939: The Debate between Parliament and the Public. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/award/31 This Research Paper is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Research Paper in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Research Paper has been accepted for inclusion in Calvert Undergraduate Research Awards by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. British Appeasement 1936-1939: The Debate between Parliament and the Public Kylie Johnson Dr. Michelle Tusan Johnson 2 Following the Great War, the countries in Europe were wary of another devastating war plaguing the world. The years of fighting and the immense loss of life permeated the minds of the people of the world for decades.
[Show full text]