DOCSLIB.ORG

"Appeasement" In: the Encyclopedia of Diplomacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appeasement of the worst kind of craven weakness, if not cowardice, in the face of aggression. Even PAUL W. DOERR dictionary definitions have been influenced Acadia University, Canada by such perceptions. For example, Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary typically Appeasement is a diplomatic strategy by defined appeasement as an effort “to buy off whichastateattemptstoconciliateapoten- (an aggressor) by concessions, usually at the tial aggressor or rival by making concessions sacrifice of principles.” Dictionary definitions through negotiations. Appeasement was a prior to 1945 carried no such moral judg- little-known and seldom commented upon ments. In mitigation to such harsh judgments, policy before the 1930s. It will, rightly or some historians have argued that appease- wrongly, probably always be associated with ment was “massively overdetermined” to such British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s an extent that the British government had no diplomacyindealingwithAdolfHitlerand viable alternatives to the Nazi challenge in Nazi Germany. Chamberlain’s policy culmi- the 1930s (Schroeder 1976: 223–43). nated in the Munich Conference of Septem- ber 1938, often cited as the supreme example ORIGINS OF APPEASEMENT of appeasement. It should not be associated exclusively with Chamberlain and Britain, There is no consensus on the origins of however, as other states practiced appease- appeasement as a policy and there has been ment in the face of the threat from Nazi no etymological study of the word. In his Germany. France participated in the Munich book The Roots of Appeasement,publishedin Conference while the USSR signed the noto- 1966, historian Martin Gilbert argued that rious Nazi–Soviet Pact of August 1939. In appeasement could be traced back to the addition, states practiced appeasement well failure of the international system to pre- before the advent of the Third Reich, and it vent the outbreak of war in 1914. “Educated has arguably figured in diplomacy since 1945, people in all walks of life, and of all political especiallyduringtheColdWar. beliefs,” according to Gilbert, thought the Generally speaking, appeasement has a war was accidental, and that neither Germany dismally poor reputation. This holds true for norBritainweretoblameexclusivelyforit. members of the informed public who think So “appeasement was created by a lack of about such issues in Western democracies, confidence in the British case, and a resolve plus individuals in the media, politicians, and never again to drift or fall unwittingly into many historians. No politician wants to be war” (Gilbert 1966: 9). By contrast, in a 1976 accused of conducting a foreign policy article, historian Paul Kennedy located the that can be characterized as “appease- origins of appeasement as far back as the ment.” Accusing a political rival of being 1860s. Kennedy argued that, beginning in an “appeaser” is a supreme political insult. 1865 British diplomacy focused on nego- Chamberlain has been ridiculed in televi- tiating settlements to resolve international sion shows as varied as Seinfeld and Monty disputes.TheBritishalsofavored“thecon- Python. Appeasement conjures up images ceptofthe‘ConcertofEurope’(asopposed The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy. Edited by Gordon Martel. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781118885154.dipl0336 2 APPEASEMENT to the Bismarckian concept of power-blocs) minister David Lloyd George resorted to … ” (Kennedy 1976: 200). By the late nine- appeasementtomitigatewhathefearedwere teenth century, the British Empire suffered overly harsh terms of the postwar Treaty from “imperial over-stretch” with defense of Versailles. Lloyd George’s Fontainbleau commitments around the globe that were Memorandum, written during the tense increasingly difficult to meet. The empire’s negotiations of the Paris Peace Conference export–import economy needed peace and in 1919, sought to provide a more generous stability to function properly. At home settlement to Germany. His efforts proved demands for domestic reform, including unsuccessful. Similarly, on May 10, 1919, C. new social programs that had to be financed P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian, at the expense of the defense budget, were called for a lenient peace treaty. For Scott, “the escalating. All these factors motivated British fundamental question is whether we desire a statesmen to pursue a foreign policy that peace of appeasement or a peace of violence” avoided confrontation. “Appeasing” poten- (Gilbert 1966: 54). Lloyd George’s successors tial rivals became the logical foreign policy. as prime minister, especially Ramsay Mac- Those involved in the events of the late 1930s Donald and Stanley Baldwin, likewise used took a less historical approach and placed appeasement to resolve disputes with Ger- the origins of appeasement to a later date. many. Concessions were made to Germany Anthony Eden, British foreign secretary on the reparations burden in 1924 and 1929 from 1935 to 1938, recalled using the word andadmissiontotheLeagueofNationsin appeasement in speeches or Foreign Office 1926. Some observers would point to events documents “occasionally” by 1936 (Eden in Asia as marking the beginning of appease- 1962: 324). By contrast the Foreign Office, ment. In 1931 the Japanese conquered the which began serious internal debates on how ChineseregionofManchuria.Theinabilityof to handle Hitler in 1934, eschewed use of the the League of Nations to formulate a response word and instead preferred the term “general toablatantactofaggressioncanbeviewed settlement,” as did Chamberlain. asthebeginningofadownwardspiralin the 1930s. The league was not yet crippled though, as it was still seen as a primarily EARLY APPEASEMENT PRIOR TO 1933 European organization. The rise of Adolf The British followed a policy of appeasement Hitler to power in 1933 lent renewed urgency vis-à-vis the United States in the late nine- to appeasement policies. teenth century, giving way in disputes over Panama, Venezuela, and Alaska, rather than APPEASEMENT FROM 1933 TO 1937 risk alienating Washington. Efforts to appease Germany prior to 1914 can be found as well. Hitler’s first round of challenges to the Ver- The British frequently tried to cool down sailles order began in the early months of the naval race by proposing compromises to 1935. In rapid succession in March of that theGermans.ThefailedvisitoftheBritish year the Germans announced the existence war minister, Lord Haldane, to Germany in of an air force (the Luftwaffe),reintroduced 1912 has been seen as a foretaste of things conscription and expanded the German army to come in the 1930s (Kennedy 1976: 202). to a strength of thirty-five divisions. All these The British made colonial concessions to steps took place days before the visit of the France and Russia in the period from 1904 British foreign secretary, Sir John Simon, to to 1907. Following the war, British prime Berlin. The British, along with the French, APPEASEMENT 3 were left without an adequate response. Pub- April 1935, in which Britain, France, and lic support for a war with Germany at this ItalywarnedHitlertostayoutofAustria. time was minimal, as demonstrated later The attack on Ethiopia, however, now meant that year by the results of the Peace Ballot. therealpossibilityofItalianisolationanda Sponsored by the League of Nations Union, defection to Hitler’s camp. For his part Hitler a powerful pro-league lobby group, over 11.6 saw Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia as a million British voters turned out to “vote” for means to distract Italian interest away from league principles and opposition to British Austria. He went so far as to order a shipment rearmament. German rearmament could of Mauser rifles to be sent to the Ethiopians to be easily rationalized as appropriate for any stiffen their resistance and embroil Mussolini sovereign state, and a revision of the overly on distant battlefields. The British believed punitive terms of the Versailles treaty. The they could defeat Italy if it came to war, but response of the British government was to only at the cost of weakening the Royal Navy attempttomanagethechallengeofGerman in the case of future conflict with Japan, and, rearmament through compromise and nego- especially,Germany.Again,acompromise tiation. The upshot was the Anglo-German negotiation was attempted. The Hoare–Laval Naval Agreement of June 18, 1935. Under the Plan, named after the foreign ministers terms of the agreement the Germans were responsible (Samuel Hoare of Britain and allowedtobuildafleetupto35percentthe Pierre Laval of France), would have given tonnageoftheRoyalNavyandasubmarine Italy effective control over Ethiopia while fleetequaltothatofBritain’s.Theagreement preserving the fiction of Ethiopian indepen- promised to head off a resumption of a naval dence. The plan was stillborn when it was race with Germany, easing pressure on the leaked to the press and public outrage forced British economy, while allowing the British Hoare’s resignation. Mussolini’s armies went to focus on the emerging Japanese threat in on to conquer and annex Ethiopia by the the Pacific. following spring. Another serious challenge emerged when The Rhineland Crisis of March 1936 Italy invaded Ethiopia, a member of the brought Germany back into the limelight. league, on October 3, 1935. The league The Treaty of Versailles called for the branded Italy an aggressor and some sanc- Rhineland to be occupied by Allied troops tions were eventually imposed. However, for fifteen
Load more

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]
  • Peace Treaty Between the Republic of Finland and the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic, Signed at Dorpat, October 14, 1920
    PEACE TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND AND THE RUSSIAN SOCIALIST FEDERAL SOVIET REPUBLIC, SIGNED AT DORPAT, OCTOBER 14, 1920 Whereas Finland declared its independence in 1917, and Russia has recognised the independence and the sovereignty of Finland within the frontiers of the Grand Duchy of Finland, The Government of the Republic of Finland, and the Government of the Federal Socialist Republic of Soviet Russia, Actuated by a desire to put an end to the war which has since arisen between their States, to establish mutual and lasting peace relations, and to confirm the situation which springs from the ancient political union of Finland and Russia, Have resolved to conclude a Treaty with this object in view, and have selected as their representatives for this purpose, the following: For the Government of the Republic of Finland: M. JUHO KUSTI PAASIKIVI, M. JUHO HEIKKI VENNOLA, M. ALEXANDER FREY, M. KARL RUDOLF WALDEN, M. VÄINÖ TANNER, M. VÄINÖ VOIONMAA, M. VÄINÖ GABRIEL KIVILINNA. For the Federal Socialist Republic of Soviet Russia: M. JEAN ANTONOVITCH BERZINE, M. PLATON MIKHAJLOVITCH KERGENTSEFF, M. NICOLAS SERGUEJEVITCH TIKHMENEFF. Who, after meeting at the town of Dorpat and exchanging their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed to the following provisions: Article 1. From the date upon which this Treaty shall come into force, a state of war shall cease to exist between the Contracting Powers, and the two Powers shall mutually undertake to maintain, for the future, an attitude of peace and goodwill towards one another. Article 2. The frontier between the States of Russia and of Finland shall be as follows: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacifist War
    arts Article From Horrors Past to Horrors Future: Pacifist War Art (1919–1939) Lauren Jannette Department of History, The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA; [email protected] Received: 22 April 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2020; Published: 13 July 2020 Abstract: In this paper, I argue that interwar pacifists working in France presented an evolving narrative of what the First World War represented in order to maintain support for their movement and a continued peace in Europe. Utilizing posters, photographs, pamphlets, and art instillations created by pacifist organizations, I interject in ongoing debates over the First World War as a moment of rupture in art and pacifism in France, arguing that the moment of rupture occurred a decade after the conflict had ended with the failure of the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments of 1932–1934 and the election of Hitler as the leader of a remilitarized Germany. Pacifist art of the 1920s saw a return to traditional motifs and styles of art that remembered the horrors of the past war. This return to tradition aimed to inspire adherence to the new pacifist organizations in the hopes of creating a new peace-filled world. The era of optimism and tradition ended with the economic and political crisis of the early 1930s, forcing pacifists to reconceptualize the images and styles of art that they utilized. Instead of relying on depictions of the horrors of the past war, these images shifted the focus to the mass civilian casualties future wars would bring in a desperate struggle to prevent the outbreak of another world war.
    [Show full text]
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [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]
  • Anatomy of a Crisis
    Page 7 Chapter 2 Munich: Anatomy of A Crisis eptember 28, 1938, “Black Wednesday,” dawned on a frightened Europe. Since the spring Adolf Hitler had spoken often about the Sudetenland, the western part of Czechoslovakia. Many of the 3 Smillion German-speaking people who lived there had complained that they were being badly mistreated by the Czechs and Slovaks. Cooperating closely with Sudeten Nazis, Hitler at first simply demanded that the Czechs give the German-speakers within their borders self-government. Then, he upped the ante. If the Czechs did not hand the Sudetenland to him by October 1, 1938, he would order his well-armed and trained soldiers to attack Czechoslovakia, destroy its army, and seize the Sudetenland. The Strategic Location of the Sudetenland Germany’s demand quickly reverberated throughout the European continent. Many countries, tied down by various commitments and alliances, pondered whether—and how—to respond to Hitler’s latest threat. France had signed a treaty to defend the Czechs and Britain had a treaty with France; the USSR had promised to defend Czechoslovakia against a German attack. Britain, in particular, found itself in an awkward position. To back the French and their Czech allies would almost guarantee the outbreak of an unpredictable and potentially ruinous continental war; yet to refrain from confronting Hitler over the Sudetenland would mean victory for the Germans. In an effort to avert the frightening possibilities, a group of European leaders converged at Munich Background to the Crisis The clash between Germany and Czechoslovakia over the Sudetenland had its origins in the Versailles Treaty of 1919.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Three at the Paris Peace Conference: Questions and Answers
    The Big Three at the Paris Peace Conference – Questions and Answers These questions and answers are taken from the Big Three at the Paris Peace Conference podcast at www.mrallsophistory.com. Scan the QR code or visit https://goo.gl/0L9Gjp to listen. You might find it useful to cover the answers and then write them in as you listen to the podcast. Where did the Big Three meet to discuss the fate of The Palace of Versailles outside Germany? Paris Who was the British Prime Minister? David Lloyd George Who was the President of the USA? Woodrow Wilson Who was the Prime Minister of France? Georges Clemenceau What is the name of the treaty that Germany signed Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Russia? The British public pressured David Lloyd George to Lemon ‘squeeze Germany like a…’ what? What were Lloyd George’s two key priorities at Peace and trade Versailles? Take some of Germany’s overseas What did Lloyd George hope to do Germany’s Empire? colonies and add them to the British Empire Downloaded from www.mrallsophistory.com In which previous war had France been invaded by - Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) and lost land to - Germany? Roughly what fraction of French soldiers who had served in the French army had been killed or injured in Over two-thirds the war? Make France safe from any possible What was Georges Clemenceau’s primary aim at German attack in the future - to Versailles? weaken Germany as much as possible What kinds of peace did Woodrow Wilson hope for? A just and lasting peace What did he fear might happen if Germany was treated In the
    [Show full text]
  • The Buildup of the German War Economy: the Importance of the Nazi-Soviet Economic Agreements of 1939 and 1940 by Samantha Carl I
    The Buildup of the German War Economy: The Importance of the Nazi-Soviet Economic Agreements of 1939 and 1940 By Samantha Carl INTRODUCTION German-Soviet relations in the early half of the twentieth century have been marked by periods of rapprochement followed by increasing tensions. After World War I, where the nations fought on opposite sides, Germany and the Soviet Union focused on their respective domestic problems and tensions began to ease. During the 1920s, Germany and the Soviet Union moved toward normal relations with the signing of the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922.(1) Tensions were once again apparent after 1933, when Adolf Hitler gained power in Germany. Using propaganda and anti-Bolshevik rhetoric, Hitler depicted the Soviet Union as Germany's true enemy.(2) Despite the animosity between the two nations, the benefits of trade enabled them to maintain economic relations throughout the inter-war period. It was this very relationship that paved the way for the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 and the subsequent outbreak of World War II. Nazi-Soviet relations on the eve of the war were vital to the war movement of each respective nation. In essence, the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on August 23, 1939 allowed Germany to augment its war effort while diminishing the Soviet fear of a German invasion.(3) The betterment of relations was a carefully planned program in which Hitler sought to achieve two important goals. First, he sought to prevent a two-front war from developing upon the invasion of Poland. Second, he sought to gain valuable raw materials that were necessary for the war movement.(4) The only way to meet these goals was to pursue the completion of two pacts with the Soviet Union: an economic agreement as well as a political one.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher's Guide
    Winston Churchill Jeopardy Teacher Guide The following is a hard copy of the Jeopardy game you can download off our website. After most of the questions, you will find additional information. Please use this information as a starting point for discussion amongst your students. This is a great post- visit activity in order to see what your students learned while at the Museum. Most importantly, have fun with it! Museum Exhibits (Church, Wall, and Exhibit) $100 Q: From 1965 to 1967, this church was deconstructed into 7000 stones, shipped to Fulton, and rebuilt as a memorial to Winston Churchill’s visit. A: What is the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury - Please see additional information on the Church of St. Mary by going to our website and clicking on School Programs. $200 Q: In ‘The Gathering Storm’ exhibit, Churchill referred to this political leader as “…a maniac of ferocious genius of the most virulent hatred that has ever corroded the human breast…” A: Who is Adolf Hitler? $300 Q: In ‘The Sinews of Peace’ exhibit, what world leader influenced Churchill’s visit to Westminster College? A: Who is Harry S. Truman? $400 Q: These two items made regular appearances on Churchill’s desk. A: What are the cigar and whiskey? $500 Q: Churchill’s granddaughter, Edwina Sandys, created this sculpture as a representation and symbol of the end of the Cold War. It stands next to the Churchill Museum. A: What is “Breakthrough”? - This sculpture is made of eight sections of the Berlin Wall. Please see additional information on the Berlin Wall by going to our website and clicking on School Programs.
    [Show full text]
  • November 1939 Survey of Current Business
    NOVEMBER 1939 SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE WASHINGTON VOLUME 19 NUMBER It A WORLD TRADE N in N D ENTAL U and N SURGICAL N GOODS A NEW PUBLICATION Trade Promotion Series No. 204 • This new report, world-wide in its scope, aims to assist American manufacturers and exporters of dental and surgical goods in promoting the sale of their prod- ucts in foreign lands. • The report covers all important foreign countries with the exception of Japan, China, and Spain, and minor countries and dependencies. • Here is presented a comprehensive survey of general health conditions, promotion and protection of public health by governmental and private organizations, and trade in dental, surgical, and hospital instruments, equip- ment, and supplies. PRICE 25 CENTS BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Copies may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C, or through any District Office of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce located in commercial centers throughout the United States. Volume 19 Number 11 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HARRY L. HOPKINS, Secretary BUREAU OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC COMMERCE JAMES W. YOUNG, Director SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS NOVEMBER 1939 A publication of the DIVISION OF BUSINESS REVIEW M. JOSEPH MEEHAN, Chief MILTON GILBERT, Editor TABLE OF CONTENTS New or revised series: Page SUMMARIES Page Figure 5.—Wholesale price indexes of basic commodities, September Business situation summarized. 3 Commodity prices and October 1939 7 6 Figure 6.—Sterling exchange in New York by weeks and net gold Employment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine in World War II
    Ukraine in World War II. — Kyiv, Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance, 2015. — 28 p., ill. Ukrainians in the World War II. Facts, figures, persons. A complex pattern of world confrontation in our land and Ukrainians on the all fronts of the global conflict. Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance Address: 16, Lypska str., Kyiv, 01021, Ukraine. Phone: +38 (044) 253-15-63 Fax: +38 (044) 254-05-85 Е-mail: [email protected] www.memory.gov.ua Printed by ПП «Друк щоденно» 251 Zelena str. Lviv Order N30-04-2015/2в 30.04.2015 © UINR, texts and design, 2015. UKRAINIAN INSTITUTE OF NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE www.memory.gov.ua UKRAINE IN WORLD WAR II Reference book The 70th anniversary of victory over Nazism in World War II Kyiv, 2015 Victims and heroes VICTIMS AND HEROES Ukrainians – the Heroes of Second World War During the Second World War, Ukraine lost more people than the combined losses Ivan Kozhedub Peter Dmytruk Nicholas Oresko of Great Britain, Canada, Poland, the USA and France. The total Ukrainian losses during the war is an estimated 8-10 million lives. The number of Ukrainian victims Soviet fighter pilot. The most Canadian military pilot. Master Sergeant U.S. Army. effective Allied ace. Had 64 air He was shot down and For a daring attack on the can be compared to the modern population of Austria. victories. Awarded the Hero joined the French enemy’s fortified position of the Soviet Union three Resistance. Saved civilians in Germany, he was awarded times. from German repression. the highest American The Ukrainians in the Transcarpathia were the first during the interwar period, who Awarded the Cross of War.
    [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]