International Response To German and Italian Expansionism

International Response – 1920s During the 1920s there had been some promising developments in terms of upholding the peace treaties of 1919-1920 and in maintaining the peace in Europe 1. Locarno Treaty (1925) 2. Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) Britain was prepared to work with France to ensure that the borders established in Western Europe during the peace process were retained. Italy was willing (even after becoming fascist) to uphold collective security during this time. It seemed as though the League was strengthened by the addition of Germany in 1926. Yet, most of the diplomatic agreements made in the 1920s were done outside of the League of Nations and the League had no army with which to effectively impose its decisions on aggressive nations.

International Response – 1930s The lack of League response to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria paved the way for German and Italian aggression – they knew the League wouldn’t attempt military action. This undermined both its power and prestige internationally. By 1933, the impact of the Great Depression affected European countries and Britain and France began to increasingly follow national self- interests, making it increasingly difficult for the League to operate in a cohesive way. It became increasingly irrelevant in terms of European diplomacy.

International Response – 1930s Britain and France could not agree on how to react to the increasingly violations of the peace treaties. Britain: appeasement became the main diplomatic approach to Italy, then Germany, in the second half of the 1930s Despite several attempts to agree to peaceful revisions of the peace treaties, both Italy and Germany resorted to increasingly aggressive actions post-1935. - each time Britain and France took no real action (even though they had made earlier promises to countries like Czechoslovakia that they would be protected) - this allowed Italy and Germany to feel secure in their expansion after 1936 (Munich Conference) - by 1939 neither Germany or Italy thought Britain and France would protect Polish independence and felt confident progressing with invasion

Appeasement and the Road to War Alternative #1: the formation of a grand anti-fascist alliance. The problem was that the only country capable of fending off Germany was the SU, but most western politicians rejected idea of having Stalin as a potential ally. Stalin had purged many military leaders, reducing the capabilities of the Red Army western nations were anti-communist Alternative #2: reviving the collective security of the League of Nations. Seemed unrealistic given their failure to act effectively since 1929 League was weak and discredited by late 1930s Despite the roles of the US and the Soviet Union, the policy of appeasement is often seen as the international ‘response’ which was most responsible for leading Europe into WWII. Historical criticism: seen as short-sighted, as an encouragement to Hitler to continue his aggressive policies, Chamberlain was incompetent and deliberately misled British public

Dr. Seuss’ Cartoon Commentary on WWII Theodore Geisel (Dr. Seuss) was very outspoken about the rise of fascism and the ‘non-interventionists’ , who opposed US entry into World War II. Dr. Seuss Goes to War is a collection of over 400 of his 1930s-1940s era political cartoons – many criticizing Hitler, Mussolini, communists and Japanese-Americans (“fifth columnists”).

Historical Debate over Appeasement Orthodox (1940s and 1950s) Chamberlain was guilty of deliberate deception of British public Claims he was an incompetent leader and lacking in both diplomacy and military planning Revisionist (Late 1960s) Chamberlain had a good grasp of Britain’s economic and military weaknesses Claims he was trying to maintain peace while preparing for war Post-Revisionists (1980s - ) Chamberlain was warned by British Intelligence Reports about Hitler’s ambitions Claims that he was trying to mislead British public and rejected viable alternatives

Map of German Territorial Expansion 1933-1939