World History – 0470

Depth study B: Germany, 1918–45

Compiled Notes

Contents:
• Was the Weimar Republic doomed from the start?
• Why was Hitler able to dominate Germany by 1934?
• The Nazi regime

Compiled & Generated by Muhammad

©️ Copyright Muhammad – All Rights Reserved Fair use Only

Chapter 1
Were the peace treaties of 1919-23 fair?
This is a complex and controversial question that has been debated by historians and politicians for decades. There is no
definitive answer, as different perspectives and criteria may lead to different judgments. However, based on the web
search results, here are some possible arguments for and against the fairness of the peace treaties of 1919-23:

For:

• The treaties were a response to the unprecedented destruction and suffering caused by the First World War,
which was largely blamed on the aggression and militarism of the Central Powers, especially Germany12.

• The treaties aimed to prevent future wars by creating a new international order based on the principles of self-
determination, democracy, disarmament, and collective security, as proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson
in his Fourteen Points13.

• The treaties reflected the balance of power and the interests of the victorious Allies, who had the right to
impose their terms on the defeated enemies, as was customary in previous wars2.

Against:

• The treaties were unfair and hypocritical, as they violated some of the ideals that they claimed to uphold, such
as self-determination and equality of nations. For example, the Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh and
humiliating conditions on Germany, such as the war guilt clause, the reparations, the loss of territory and
colonies, and the military restrictions12.

• The treaties were ineffective and short-sighted, as they created resentment and instability among the defeated
and aggrieved nations, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, who felt betrayed and humiliated by the Allies. This
paved the way for the rise of fascism and militarism, and ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World
War12.

• The treaties were unjust and unequal, as they ignored the voices and aspirations of many peoples and regions,
such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, who were subjected to the imperialist and colonial ambitions of the
Allies, especially Britain and France13.

What were the aimes of big three at the treaty of Versailles?

The Big Three were the leaders of the three main Allied powers who negotiated the Treaty of Versailles after the First
World War. They were:

• Woodrow Wilson, the president of the United States, who wanted to create a lasting peace based on
his Fourteen Points, which included self-determination, democracy, disarmament, and a League of
Nations1.
• David Lloyd George, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, who wanted to balance the interests of
his country, such as securing colonies and trade, with the need to prevent future wars and maintain a
strong Germany1.
• Georges Clemenceau, the prime minister of France, who wanted to punish Germany for the damage
and suffering it had caused to France, and to ensure its security by weakening Germany’s military and
economic power1.
The Big Three had different and sometimes conflicting aims, and they had to compromise on many issues to
reach an agreement. The Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, and it imposed harsh terms on
Germany, such as accepting the war guilt, paying reparations, losing territory and colonies, and reducing its
army and navy2. The Treaty also created new countries and borders in Europe and the Middle East, based on
the principle of self-determination3.
The Treaty of Versailles was controversial and unpopular among many people, especially in Germany, who felt
it was unfair and humiliating. Some historians argue that the Treaty of Versailles was one of the causes of the
Second World War, as it created resentment and instability among the defeated and dissatisfied nations 2.
Others argue that the Treaty of Versailles was a necessary and reasonable response to the unprecedented
destruction and suffering caused by the First World War, and that it aimed to prevent future wars by creating
a new international order13.
Why did all the victors did not get everything they wanted?

Different victors had different aims and interests, so they could not all have everything they wanted. For example,
France wanted to punish and weaken Germany, while the US wanted to promote peace and democracy. Britain wanted
to protect its empire and trade, while Italy and Japan wanted to gain more colonies and territories. These conflicting
goals made it hard to reach a satisfactory agreement for all parties12.

Moreover, the victors had to compromise with each other and with the defeated nations, who also had their own
demands and grievances. For instance, Germany protested against the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, such as
the war guilt clause, the reparations, and the loss of land and population. The victors had to modify some of the terms to
appease Germany and prevent a possible revolt3. Similarly, the victors had to adjust their plans for the Middle East and
Asia, as they faced resistance and opposition from the local peoples and movements, who wanted independence and
self-determination4.

Therefore, the peace treaties of 1919-23 were the result of complex and difficult negotiations, where the victors had to
balance their own interests with the realities and challenges of the post-war world. The treaties were not fair or perfect,
and they left many issues unresolved and many people dissatisfied. Some historians argue that the treaties were one of
the causes of the Second World War, as they created resentment and instability among the defeated and dissatisfied
nations2. Others argue that the treaties were a necessary and reasonable response to the unprecedented destruction
and suffering caused by the First World War, and that they aimed to prevent future wars by creating a new international
order14.

What was the impact of the peace of the peace treaty on Germany up to 1923?
The Treaty of Versailles, which was the main peace treaty that ended the First World War, had a profound impact on
Germany up to 1923. Some of the main effects were:

• Political: Germany lost its status as a major power and was forced to accept the war guilt clause, which
blamed it for starting the war and made it responsible for paying reparations to the Allies 12. This
caused resentment and anger among the German people, who felt humiliated and betrayed by the
treaty. The Weimar Republic, which was the new democratic government that signed the treaty, faced
opposition and violence from various groups, such as the communists, the nationalists, and the Nazis,
who wanted to overthrow it and restore Germany’s glory23.
• Economic: Germany had to pay huge reparations to the Allies, which amounted to 132 billion gold
marks (about $33 billion) by 192112. This crippled Germany’s economy, which was already devastated
by the war and the loss of its industrial and agricultural lands. Germany also suffered from
hyperinflation, which made its currency worthless and prices skyrocket. For example, the price of a loaf
 of bread rose to 100 billion marks in 192345. Many Germans faced poverty and hardship as a result of
the economic crisis23.
• Social: Germany lost about 10% of its population and territory as a result of the treaty, which included
areas such as Alsace-Lorraine, the Saarland, and parts of Poland13. This meant that millions of Germans
became minorities in other countries, where they faced discrimination and persecution. Germany also
lost its colonies, which reduced its prestige and influence in the world. The treaty also imposed
restrictions on Germany’s military, which limited its ability to defend itself and maintain order. Many
Germans felt bitter and disillusioned by the treaty, which they saw as unfair and unjust 23.
The Treaty of Versailles was widely hated and criticized in Germany, and it contributed to the political,
economic, and social instability that plagued the country in the 1920s. Some historians argue that the treaty
was one of the causes of the Second World War, as it created resentment and hostility among the Germans,
who sought revenge and revision of the treaty23. Others argue that the treaty was a necessary and reasonable
response to the unprecedented destruction and suffering caused by the First World War, and that it aimed to
prevent future wars by creating a new international order14.
What were the terms of other peace treaties?
Besides the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war with Germany, there were four other peace treaties that ended
the war with the other Central Powers. They were:

• The Treaty of Saint Germain, which ended the war with Austria. It dissolved the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
created new states such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Poland. Austria also lost land to Italy and Romania,
and had to pay reparations and disarm1.
• The Treaty of Trianon, which ended the war with Hungary. It also dismantled the Austro-Hungarian Empire and
reduced Hungary’s territory and population by more than half. Hungary also had to pay reparations and disarm1.
• The Treaty of Neuilly, which ended the war with Bulgaria. It forced Bulgaria to cede land to Yugoslavia, Romania,
and Greece, and to pay reparations and disarm1.
• The Treaty of Sèvres, which ended the war with Turkey. It broke up the Ottoman Empire and gave control of its
territories in the Middle East and Africa to Britain and France. Turkey also had to pay reparations and disarm,
and to allow international control of the Dardanelles Strait2.

These treaties were similar to the Treaty of Versailles in that they imposed harsh and humiliating terms on the defeated
nations, and aimed to create a new international order based on self-determination and collective security. However,
they also faced criticism and resistance from the affected peoples and regions, and some of them were later revised or
replaced by new treaties2.

What were the terms of other peace treaties?

This is a complex and controversial question that has been debated by historians and politicians for decades. There is no
definitive answer, as different perspectives and criteria may lead to different judgments. However, based on the web
search results, here are some possible arguments for and against the justification of the treaties at the time:

For:

• The treaties were a response to the unprecedented destruction and suffering caused by the First World War,
which was largely blamed on the aggression and militarism of the Central Powers, especially Germany12.
• The treaties aimed to prevent future wars by creating a new international order based on the principles of self-
determination, democracy, disarmament, and collective security, as proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson
in his Fourteen Points13.
• The treaties reflected the balance of power and the interests of the victorious Allies, who had the right to
impose their terms on the defeated enemies, as was customary in previous wars2.
Against:

• The treaties were unfair and hypocritical, as they violated some of the ideals that they claimed to uphold, such
as self-determination and equality of nations. For example, the Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh and
humiliating conditions on Germany, such as the war guilt clause, the reparations, the loss of territory and
colonies, and the military restrictions12.
• The treaties were ineffective and short-sighted, as they created resentment and instability among the defeated
and aggrieved nations, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, who felt betrayed and humiliated by the Allies. This
paved the way for the rise of fascism and militarism, and ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World
War12.
• The treaties were unjust and unequal, as they ignored the voices and aspirations of many peoples and regions,
such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, who were subjected to the imperialist and colonial ambitions of the
Allies, especially Britain and France13.

Chapter 2
How successful was the League in the 1920s?
The League of Nations was an international organization that was established after the First World War to promote
peace and cooperation among nations. It had some successes and failures in the 1920s, depending on the issue and the
situation.

Some of the successes of the League in the 1920s were:

• It helped to settle several disputes peacefully, such as the Upper Silesia dispute between Poland and Germany,
and the Aaland Islands dispute between Sweden and Finland12.
• It provided humanitarian aid and assistance to millions of refugees, former prisoners of war, and victims of
diseases and slavery12.
• It supported international cooperation and agreements on various issues, such as disarmament, drug trafficking,
labour rights, and health12.

Some of the failures of the League in the 1920s were:

• It failed to prevent or stop some conflicts and aggressions, such as the Polish invasion of Vilna, the Italian
occupation of Corfu, and the Greek-Bulgarian border war12.
• It faced resistance and opposition from some of the major powers, such as the United States, which never joined
the League, and Germany, which left the League in 193312.
• It lacked the authority and the resources to enforce its decisions and sanctions, and depended on the willingness
and the support of its members12.

Therefore, the League of Nations had a mixed record of success and failure in the 1920s, and its impact and
effectiveness varied depending on the issue and the situation. Some historians argue that the League of Nations was a
noble but flawed experiment that tried to create a new international order based on the ideals of peace and justice13.
Others argue that the League of Nations was a doomed and irrelevant organization that failed to prevent the rise of
fascism and militarism, and the outbreak of the Second World War23.

If you want to learn more about the League of Nations in the 1920s, you can check out these web pages:

• The Successes and Failures of the League of Nations in the 1920s

• Successes and failures in the 1920s - Paris Peace Treaties and the League of Nations, to 1933
• How successful was the League of Nations in the 1920s?
How did the weakness of the League of Nation’s organization make the failure inevitable?
The League of Nations was an international organization that was established after the First World War to promote
peace and cooperation among nations. However, it failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, and many
historians argue that its failure was inevitable due to its structural weaknesses. Based on the web search results, some
of the main weaknesses of the League’s organization were:

• The lack of an army: The League had no army of its own, and depended on the cooperation and support of its
member states to enforce its decisions and sanctions. However, many states were reluctant or unable to
intervene in conflicts, especially if they involved their own interests or allies. For example, the League was
unable to stop Japan from invading Manchuria in 1931, or Italy from invading Ethiopia in 1935, because Britain
and France did not want to risk a war with them12.
• The absence of key powers: The League was weakened by the fact that some of the major powers in the world
did not join or left the League. The United States, which was the main architect of the League, never ratified the
Treaty of Versailles and remained isolated from international affairs. Germany, which was the main target of the
Treaty, left the League in 1933 after the rise of Hitler. The Soviet Union, which was a communist state, was
expelled from the League in 1939 after invading Finland. These powers pursued their own agendas and
interests, and often challenged or ignored the League’s authority12.
• The voting system: The League’s decisions were based on the principle of unanimity, which meant that all
members had to agree on a course of action. However, this made the League slow and ineffective, as any
member could veto or delay a decision. Moreover, the League was dominated by the interests of the major
powers, such as Britain and France, who often used their influence to protect their own empires and allies. The
smaller and weaker states had little voice or representation in the League, and often felt dissatisfied or betrayed
by the League’s actions13.
• The lack of power of the Permanent Court of Justice: The League had a Permanent Court of Justice, which was
supposed to settle disputes between states peacefully and legally. However, the Court had no power to enforce
its rulings, and depended on the consent and cooperation of the states involved. Many states ignored or
rejected the Court’s judgments, or refused to submit their cases to the Court. For example, the Court ruled that
Japan had violated China’s sovereignty by invading Manchuria, but Japan simply withdrew from the League and
continued its aggression14.

These weaknesses of the League’s organization made it unable to deal with the challenges and crises of the 1930s, such
as the rise of fascism, the aggression of Japan, Italy, and Germany, and the appeasement policy of Britain and France.
The League failed to maintain peace and security in the world, and eventually collapsed during the Second World War.

How far did the depression make the work of the League more difficult?
The Great Depression, which began with the Wall Street Crash in 1929, made the work of the League of Nations more
difficult in several ways. Based on the web search results, some of the main effects of the Depression on the League
were:

• It reduced the willingness of the League members to impose economic sanctions on aggressors, as they feared
losing trade and worsening their own economic situation12.
• It increased the popularity and power of extremist and militarist parties and leaders, such as the Nazis in
Germany, who rejected the League and its ideals, and pursued their own expansionist and revisionist goals13.
• It put pressure on countries to find new markets and resources, which often led to conflicts and territorial
disputes with other countries, such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria and Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia14.
• It weakened the military and diplomatic capabilities of the League members, as they had to cut spending on
their armies and weapons, and focused more on their own national interests and security12.

Therefore, the Depression created a climate of economic hardship, political instability, and international tension, which
undermined the League’s ability to maintain peace and cooperation in the world. Some historians argue that the
Depression was one of the main causes of the collapse of the League and the outbreak of the Second World War12.
How successful was the League in the 1930s?
The League of Nations was not very successful in the 1930s, as it failed to prevent the rise of fascism and militarism, and
the outbreak of the Second World War. Based on the web search results, some of the main reasons for the League’s
failure in the 1930s were:

• It faced resistance and opposition from some of the major powers, such as the United States, which never joined
the League, and Germany, which left the League in 193312.
• It lacked the authority and the resources to enforce its decisions and sanctions, and depended on the willingness
and the support of its members12.
• It failed to stop or prevent some conflicts and aggressions, such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931, Italy’s
invasion of Abyssinia in 1935, and Germany’s rearmament and expansion in Europe12.
• It was ignored and bypassed by Britain and France, the two most influential members, who pursued a policy of
appeasement towards Hitler instead of collective security12.

Therefore, the League of Nations had a poor record of success in the 1930s, and its impact and effectiveness were
greatly diminished. Some historians argue that the League of Nations was a doomed and irrelevant organization that
failed to prevent the rise of fascism and militarism, and the outbreak of the Second World War23. Others argue that the
League of Nations was a noble but flawed experiment that tried to create a new international order based on the ideals
of peace and justice14.

Chapter 3 - Why had international peace collapsed by 1939

What were the long term consequences of the failures of the peace treaties of 1919-1923?
The peace treaties of 1919-1923 were intended to bring lasting peace and stability to the world after the First World
War, but they ultimately failed to achieve their goals. Based on the web search results, some of the long term
consequences of the failures of the peace treaties were:

• They created resentment and hostility among the defeated and dissatisfied nations, such as Germany, Italy, and
Japan, who felt humiliated and betrayed by the harsh and unequal terms of the treaties. These nations sought
revenge and revision of the treaties, and pursued aggressive and expansionist policies that led to the outbreak
of the Second World War12.
• They ignored or violated the principle of self-determination, which was supposed to grant the right of peoples to
choose their own form of government and national identity. Instead, the treaties imposed arbitrary and artificial
borders and divisions on many regions, such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where the interests and
ambitions of the victorious powers prevailed over the aspirations and grievances of the local peoples. These
regions became sources of conflict and instability, and witnessed the rise of nationalist and anti-colonial
movements that challenged the imperialist and colonial domination of the West34.
• They failed to create a new international order based on the ideals of democracy, disarmament, and collective
security, as proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points. Instead, the treaties were based
on the balance of power and the interests of the victorious powers, who often ignored or bypassed the League
of Nations, the international organization that was supposed to prevent future wars and promote cooperation
among nations. The League was weakened by the absence of key powers, such as the United States and the
Soviet Union, and by the lack of authority and resources to enforce its decisions and sanctions. The League failed
to stop or prevent the aggression and violation of the treaties by Japan, Italy, and Germany, and collapsed
during the Second World War12.

Therefore, the peace treaties of 1919-1923 had negative and lasting consequences for the world, as they failed to
address the underlying causes of the First World War, and created new tensions and conflicts that led to the Second
World War and beyond.
Why had international peace collapsed by 1939?
International peace collapsed by 1939 because of the failure of the peace treaties of 1919-23, the rise of fascism and
militarism, the aggression of Japan, Italy, and Germany, and the appeasement policy of Britain and France. Based on the
web search results, here is a brief summary of the main causes of the collapse of international peace:

• The peace treaties of 1919-23: They were unfair and unequal, and created resentment and hostility among the
defeated and dissatisfied nations, who sought revenge and revision of the treaties, and pursued aggressive and
expansionist policies that violated the treaties and challenged the authority of the League of Nations12.
• The rise of fascism and militarism: They were a result of the economic and political instability caused by the
Great Depression, which affected many countries around the world. Fascist and militarist parties and leaders
rejected the League and its ideals, and pursued their own interests and ambitions, often at the expense of other
countries and peoples13.
• The aggression of Japan, Italy, and Germany: They were a manifestation of their expansionist and revisionist
goals, and a challenge to the existing international order. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and China in 1937.
Italy invaded Abyssinia in 1935, and Albania in 1939. Germany rearmament and expansion in Europe, such as the
reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936, the Anschluss with Austria in 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia
and Poland in 1938 and 193912.
• The appeasement policy of Britain and France: They were a result of their desire to avoid another war, and
their belief that some of the demands of the aggressors were justified or reasonable. They often ignored or
bypassed the League, and tried to negotiate with the aggressors, such as Hitler, in order to maintain peace and
stability. However, this policy only encouraged the aggressors to make more demands and to take more risks,
and ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War12.

These were the main causes of the collapse of international peace by 1939, which led to the Second World War, the
most destructive and devastating war in human history.

What were the consequences of the failures of the peace treaties of 1930s?
The failures of the peace treaties of 1919-23 had serious and lasting consequences for the world, as they led to the
collapse of international peace and the outbreak of the Second World War. Based on the web search results, some of
the main consequences were:

• They created resentment and hostility among the defeated and dissatisfied nations, such as Germany, Italy, and
Japan, who felt humiliated and betrayed by the harsh and unequal terms of the treaties. These nations sought
revenge and revision of the treaties, and pursued aggressive and expansionist policies that violated the treaties
and challenged the authority of the League of Nations12.
• They ignored or violated the principle of self-determination, which was supposed to grant the right of peoples to
choose their own form of government and national identity. Instead, the treaties imposed arbitrary and artificial
borders and divisions on many regions, such as the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where the interests and
ambitions of the victorious powers prevailed over the aspirations and grievances of the local peoples. These
regions became sources of conflict and instability, and witnessed the rise of nationalist and anti-colonial
movements that challenged the imperialist and colonial domination of the West34.
• They failed to create a new international order based on the ideals of democracy, disarmament, and collective
security, as proposed by US President Woodrow Wilson in his Fourteen Points. Instead, the treaties were based
on the balance of power and the interests of the victorious powers, who often ignored or bypassed the League
of Nations, the international organization that was supposed to prevent future wars and promote cooperation
among nations. The League was weakened by the absence of key powers, such as the United States and the
Soviet Union, and by the lack of authority and resources to enforce its decisions and sanctions. The League failed
to stop or prevent the aggression and violation of the treaties by Japan, Italy, and Germany, and collapsed
during the Second World War12.
How far was the Hitler's foreign policy to blame for the outbreak of war in 1939?
Hitler’s foreign policy was a major factor that contributed to the outbreak of war in 1939, but it was not the only one.
Based on the web search results, some of the other factors that also played a role were:

• The failure of the peace treaties of 1919-23, which created resentment and hostility among the defeated and
dissatisfied nations, such as Germany, Italy, and Japan, who felt humiliated and betrayed by the harsh and
unequal terms of the treaties12.

• The rise of fascism and militarism in the 1930s, which was a result of the economic and political instability
caused by the Great Depression, which affected many countries around the world. Fascist and militarist parties
and leaders rejected the League and its ideals, and pursued their own interests and ambitions, often at the
expense of other countries and peoples13.

• The appeasement policy of Britain and France in the 1930s, which was a result of their desire to avoid another
war, and their belief that some of the demands of the aggressors were justified or reasonable. They often
ignored or bypassed the League, and tried to negotiate with the aggressors, such as Hitler, in order to maintain
peace and stability. However, this policy only encouraged the aggressors to make more demands and to take
more risks, and ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War12.

Therefore, Hitler’s foreign policy was a significant cause of the war, as he pursued aggressive and expansionist policies
that violated the treaties and challenged the authority of the League of Nations. He invaded Poland in 1939, which
triggered the declaration of war by Britain and France. However, he was not the sole cause of the war, as there were
other factors that also influenced the collapse of international peace and the escalation of tensions in the 1930s.

Was the policy of appeasement justified?

The policy of appeasement was the attempt by Britain and France to avoid war with Germany and Italy in the 1930s by
making concessions and compromises to their demands. This policy has been widely debated by historians and
politicians, and there is no definitive answer to whether it was justified or not. However, based on the web search
results, here are some possible arguments for and against the policy of appeasement:

For:

• The policy of appeasement was motivated by the desire to avoid another world war, which would be costly,
bloody, and dangerous. Britain and France remembered the horrors of the First World War, and wanted to
prevent a repeat of the same tragedy12.
• The policy of appeasement was based on the belief that some of the grievances and demands of Germany and
Italy were reasonable and justified. Britain and France thought that the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the
First World War, was too harsh and unfair to Germany, and that it needed to be revised and relaxed12.
• The policy of appeasement was influenced by the economic and political situation of Britain and France, who
were not ready or willing to fight a war. Britain and France were suffering from the effects of the Great
Depression, which weakened their economies and societies. They also faced the threat of communism, which
was spreading in Europe and Asia. They hoped that by appeasing Germany and Italy, they could secure their
cooperation and friendship against the common enemy of communism13.

Against:

• The policy of appeasement was a mistake that encouraged and emboldened the aggressors, who took
advantage of the weakness and indecision of Britain and France. By giving in to their demands, Britain and
France only made them more confident and ambitious, and made them ask for more. The policy of
appeasement failed to stop or prevent the aggression and expansion of Germany and Italy, who violated the
treaties and challenged the authority of the League of Nations12.
• The policy of appeasement was a betrayal of the principles and values of democracy, justice, and collective
security, which Britain and France claimed to uphold. By appeasing Germany and Italy, Britain and France
 sacrificed the interests and rights of other countries and peoples, such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ethiopia, and
China, who were invaded and oppressed by the aggressors. The policy of appeasement also undermined the
credibility and effectiveness of the League of Nations, the international organization that was supposed to
prevent future wars and promote cooperation among nations12.
• The policy of appeasement was a short-sighted and futile attempt to avoid war, which was inevitable and
unavoidable. By appeasing Germany and Italy, Britain and France only delayed the war, not prevented it. They
also gave the aggressors more time and resources to prepare for war, while they themselves wasted their
opportunities and advantages. The policy of appeasement ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of the
Second World War, which was more destructive and devastating than the First World War12.

How important was the Nazi-Soviet Pact

The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a very important factor that contributed to the outbreak of war in 1939, as it allowed Hitler to
invade Poland without having to worry about the Soviet Union. The Pact was a secret agreement between Nazi Germany
and the Soviet Union, signed on August 23, 1939, that promised not to attack each other for ten years. The Pact also
divided Eastern Europe into spheres of influence, giving Stalin a free hand to occupy the Baltic states, Finland, and parts
of Poland and Romania12.

The Pact was a surprising and shocking move, as Hitler and Stalin were ideological enemies and rivals, and
Hitler had always planned to conquer the Soviet Union as part of his Lebensraum (living space) policy 3.
However, both leaders saw the Pact as a temporary and strategic alliance, that served their own interests and
goals. Hitler wanted to avoid a war on two fronts, and to secure vital raw materials from the Soviet Union.
Stalin wanted to gain time and territory, and to avoid a confrontation with Germany until he was ready 12.
The Pact gave Hitler the confidence and the opportunity to invade Poland on September 1, 1939, which
triggered the declaration of war by Britain and France. The Pact also enabled the Soviet Union to invade
Poland from the east on September 17, 1939, and to occupy the other territories agreed in the secret
protocol. The Pact effectively destroyed the independence and sovereignty of Poland, and marked the
beginning of the Second World War in Europe12.
The Pact lasted until June 22, 1941, when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet
Union. This was a massive betrayal and a huge mistake by Hitler, as it opened a new and deadly front in the
war, and turned the Soviet Union into an ally of Britain and France. The Pact was a short-lived and cynical
agreement, that had disastrous consequences for the world 12.
Why did Britain and France declare war on Germany in September 1939?
Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, two days after Germany invaded Poland. This was
because they had a mutual defense pact with Poland, which obliged them to come to its aid if it was attacked. They also
wanted to stop Hitler’s aggression and expansion in Europe, which threatened the balance of power and the security of
the continent12.