The Consequences Of World War II

1024 Words 5 Pages
There appears to be two different ways of looking at the above statement. It can be argued that World War II was a continuation of World War I. Or, it could also be argued that World War II was not a continuation, but that World War I merely "set the stage" for World War II. After much consideration, there really is a fine line between these two situations. As there were many ways in which World War I actually led to World War II, this argument will take the position that "World War II was a continuation of World War I". In fact, it could be claimed that World War II was actually "Act II" of the Great War. Nevertheless, World War I definitely did set up many of the conflicts, alliances, and grievances that led to World War II.

Firstly, it appears that the severe terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which was led by the leaders of Britain, the United States, France, and Italy, may have been a major cause of World War II. The Treaty of Versailles meetings did not include the Central Powers. The Allied
…show more content…
The end of World War I did not lead to peace but led to constant upheavals because the final conclusion was not satisfactory to many of the nations, and perhaps the Allied nations did not take into consideration the actual effects on the treaties on the people of the Central Powers. The Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash in the US also greatly effected the economy of Germany, as well as other European countries. Unfortunately, some of the countries whom were suffering gradually turned to build up their militaries to improve their economies, which led to the rise of more fascism and dictatorships. It is hoped that governments learned from the results of World War I and II, and now conclude that it is better to develop treaties that are mutually beneficial and that treaties should not harshly punish the people for so long that they inevitably fight

Related Documents