There are several instances when Germany demonstrated that it could not credibly uphold any commitments. Each example examined relates to the appeasement of Germany by France and Britain. First, when Germany annexed Austria in March of 1938, it broke the Treaty of Versailles as it exposed the rearmament of the German military as well as territorial expansion on the party of Germany. Britain and France did nothing to prevent this annexation and therefore failed to credibly uphold the treaty. This signaled a lack of intent to enforce the treaty or punish Germany – additionally reflecting how the Treaty of Versailles required complicity on the party of Germany to be effective. By allowing Germany to take Austria, Britain and France hoped to prevent
…show more content…
Territorial issues often involve secondary issues such as strategic advantage. However, the overt cause of territorial dispute and of WWII is explicitly territorial expansion by Germany into contiguous states. Territory contiguity often relates to interstate conflict based on proximity – and not always explicitly over actual territory. The argument is that contiguous states fight due increased interaction and are more likely to escalate – which is part of what occurred with Germany in WWII. The states Germany seized during the period of appeasement all bordered or had previously been part of Germany prior to 1919 and the conclusion of WWII. Germany’s continual seizure of territory prior to war is indicative of the salience territory was given in German negotiations. As demonstrated by the declaration of war by Britain and France – territory is an issue which can and will easily escalate militarized international disputes to war because it is often held as a very important issue due to grapples for power, domestic security, and strategic …show more content…
It is effectively an all or nothing approach to issues which makes it impossible to determine a method to prevent war. For WWII, it can be argued that such an indivisibility of territory is at the heart of the issues. Germany desired expansion and initially bargains were made to prevent war via appeasement – which gave Germany what it wanted with little to no costs for each actor. Germany’s pressure to expand demonstrates indivisibility when Poland is injected into the equation. Although compromise was reached with the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia – Poland served as the last straw. The invasion of Poland was the moment when the issue became truly indivisible – Germany was not willing to settle with less than the country and Britain and France were not willing to let Germany seize more territory following the former appeasements. It was an indivisible issue, because unlike in Austria and Czechoslovakia – Britain and France could not allow Poland’s sovereignty to be lost. This was particularly exacerbated by the military pacts between Britain, France, and Poland requiring military aid sixteen days after an attack on Poland. This particular issue was no longer divisible if the Allies were to credibly uphold their reputations and maintain more advantageous alliances. To fail to do so would actively harm their
Territorial issues often involve secondary issues such as strategic advantage. However, the overt cause of territorial dispute and of WWII is explicitly territorial expansion by Germany into contiguous states. Territory contiguity often relates to interstate conflict based on proximity – and not always explicitly over actual territory. The argument is that contiguous states fight due increased interaction and are more likely to escalate – which is part of what occurred with Germany in WWII. The states Germany seized during the period of appeasement all bordered or had previously been part of Germany prior to 1919 and the conclusion of WWII. Germany’s continual seizure of territory prior to war is indicative of the salience territory was given in German negotiations. As demonstrated by the declaration of war by Britain and France – territory is an issue which can and will easily escalate militarized international disputes to war because it is often held as a very important issue due to grapples for power, domestic security, and strategic …show more content…
It is effectively an all or nothing approach to issues which makes it impossible to determine a method to prevent war. For WWII, it can be argued that such an indivisibility of territory is at the heart of the issues. Germany desired expansion and initially bargains were made to prevent war via appeasement – which gave Germany what it wanted with little to no costs for each actor. Germany’s pressure to expand demonstrates indivisibility when Poland is injected into the equation. Although compromise was reached with the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia – Poland served as the last straw. The invasion of Poland was the moment when the issue became truly indivisible – Germany was not willing to settle with less than the country and Britain and France were not willing to let Germany seize more territory following the former appeasements. It was an indivisible issue, because unlike in Austria and Czechoslovakia – Britain and France could not allow Poland’s sovereignty to be lost. This was particularly exacerbated by the military pacts between Britain, France, and Poland requiring military aid sixteen days after an attack on Poland. This particular issue was no longer divisible if the Allies were to credibly uphold their reputations and maintain more advantageous alliances. To fail to do so would actively harm their