World From The War example essay topic

After World War One there was a great concern among the society how to keep the peace that was established in Versailles in June 1919. To ban war as a means of achieving political aims, at the request of France, a Briand- Kellogg Pact was signed (by 1939 by 75 countries) in 1928. This was to ensure that only diplomatic ways can be used to achieve a country's aims, but it was not obeyed (only once it came in as a ground for a peaceful settlement between the USSR and China over the Manchurian railway in 1929). There were strong pressures on the governments of the European countries which lead to the popularity of the 'appeasement policy', which proved to be faulty. The First World War threw Europe into instability, all economic, social and political. When Adolf Hitler, who came to power in 1933, revised the Treaty of Versailles, ignoring its assumptions (by, for example, bringing back the German army to the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland), the Great Britain and France, instead of requiring the fulfillment of the Treaty by the Nazi leader, agreed for his rising demands, just to save the world from the next war.

They believed that Hitler could be contained if he was given what he wanted. And finally, instead containing Hitler, the appeasement policy contributed significantly to the outburst of World War Two. As sir Winston S. Churchill mentioned in his book The Second World War, when asked by the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt what the war should be called, he retorted "The Unnecessary War". In volume I, The Gathering Storm, Churchill describes his efforts to show to the European leaders, that the appeasement policy will not save the world from the war, but rather will make the Revisionist theory followers more daring, and make them decide to rearm. However, this book war written after the war, and is more of an autobiography of sir Churchill, who was always right, his ever-right policy and infallible strategy. Of course, the books are full of primary source documents, however, the way they are put in the book may lead the reader to biased conclusions.

Sir Churchill did comment on the appeasement policy, he even made a reference to it in the main thought- introduction, where he mentioned the inborn kindness of the Anglo-Saxon nations, which caused the allowance for Hitler's actions, rather than any other factor that may have caused it: for example, their fear of another war, their weakness, (mainly the British and the French) society pressures to maintain the state of peace, the question of the purpose of fighting for Danzig (or any other foreign to them city / land/ country). Primarily, together with the new pacts (like the Litvinov Pact of the Briand-Kellogg Pact), the multilateral pacts were to secure the world peace- as much as one can agree with the statement, that treaties are worth only as much as the paper they are written on, it may be a lot more difficult to break a multilateral treaty than a bilateral one (especially if the country breaking or withdrawing from the pact is more powerful than the other one), as then more sides interact, and so there is a greater probability of some negative consequences of breaking of the agreement for the withdrawing country. Such pacts were to ensure that anyone, who would consider stepping out from such agreements, would have to face a number of instant, sharp reactions (this is why Hitler tended to make bilateral pacts if only he could). Even though the vivid memories of horrors of the First World War, the Great Britain did stand for Poland after the attack of the German Army on Poland September 1st, 1939. As Winston Churchill highlighted in his speech he have in the House of Commons on September 3rd, 1939, this was not a question of fighting for Danzig, but rather fighting to save the whole world from "the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defense of all that is most sacred to man [... ] this is a war to establish the rights of the individual [... ] and to revive the stature of man". Strangely enough, a war undertaken in the name of liberty requires the suspension for the time of its duration of those liberties and those rights that it is waged for.

It need be understood, however, as there is a higher good to sacrifice this for, and this sacrifice should be done. Needless to say, in war people suffer: the soldiers on the front, their families, and not only those from the "bad", attacking side. Quite on the contrary, it touches everyone, and so should be avoided if only possible. However, not always is this available. As the history shows, the appeasement policy and the diplomacy sometimes fail. Then it is a necessity to impose peace and justice- even if by force.

Of course, war should be avoided, but if the diplomatic al means have been used to no avail, then the country is in no position to back down- it has to defend its rights, its people and its good. Governments should resort to military actions as their last method of persuasion, but should the necessity occur, they should not back down or withdraw.