The aim of this chapter is to focus on how the negotiations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact took place and the mind-sets of both Stalin and Molotov in contrast to that of Hitler and Ribbentrop in relation to the Pact. It will go into detail about what took place after Ribbentrop arrived in Moscow, how the negotiations were dealt with and what they finally produced. ‘I hope the German-Soviet agreement of non-aggression will be a turning point towards serious improvement of political relations between our countries’- Letter written to Stalin by Hitler (Montefiore 2004, p315). 2.1 Time is running out and war is on its way. By the summer of 1939, pragmatism had taken precedence over principle for the Nazis. Whether or not this is something Stalin had realised is unknowable. Germany’s plan to invade Poland came with the question of what the Soviet’s reaction would be. If the Soviets signed an agreement with the Western Allies, Germany would be surrounded by enemies. In the summer of 1939, Germany, who obviously feared this threat, began to sound out the Soviets about a possible treaty of convenience (Rees 2009). The …show more content…
Ernst Köstring, a close colleague of Ribbentrop recalled that on the day of his arrival, he was trying to calm the Foreign Minister; however he ‘remained nervous and agitated’. Perhaps it was because of Stalin’s presence at the negotiations. Stalin rarely met with foreigners so his presence in the room was of great significance and more than likely a tactic used by Stalin to throw Ribbentrop off balance. The meeting was started with an announcement made by Ribbentrop - ‘the Führer has authorised me to propose a non-aggression agreement between our two countries that will last for a hundred years’. Stalin was quick to cut in and declare that people would not take the Pact seriously if this was the case. Thus,
Also the “appeasers’’ feared that the defeat of Germany would be followed by a Russian domination over much of Europe.” Appeasement was the logical option at the time since there was no way that the Germans would not like Hitler as they both put him in power and supported
STALIN Stalin had both positive and negative effects on the Soviet Union during his time of rule. He brought forth many great ideas, but these ideas also affected the Union in a negative way. The five year plan was a system that Stalin came up with. This meant that they would follow a plan for five years, then when that five years was up, they would follow a different plan. He believed that this would help the Soviet Union keep up at a pace that the rest of the world was moving.
The issue at hand for the U.S 77th Congress (Historical Crisis Committee) to address is the extent to which the U.S should involve itself in the second greatest war that had erupted since the first global-scale war in 1914. As Joseph H. Ball, I solemnly swear to maintain and carry out my exclusive duties in benefitting America and its citizens to the best of my ability, as a senator of the U.S. 77th Congress. P1-Past: After starting to recover from the 1930s depression, Hitler and his alliances with Italy and Japan started another war, despite the Treaty of Versailles, restricting Germany from doing any harm. In fact, the Treaty of Versailles, which had strictly reduced Germany to poverty and massive debt, caused their retaliation with the
There is immense pressure to report anything the goes against the Socialist Party’s principles, no matter the person. For example, Thomas turns his father in for defending his Jewish colleagues thus insulting Hitler, and is essentially the cause of his death. However, Peter is asked to spy on his boss at the bookstore, but after finding incriminating items he keeps it to himself. These contrasting reactions is an example of how Nazi persuasion is testing loyalties and driving friends apart.
In 1939, the world was plunged into World War II. This happened as a result of Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland, violating the Treaty of Versailles in the process, leaders in Europe assuming power through intimidation and creating laws depriving citizens of basic civil rights, German expansion into other areas of Europe, an attempt to appease Germany through the Munich Agreement, and political and economic instability in the major European countries. This conflict brought up appeasement and collective security, both of which were used before the war in an attempt to prevent it, as responses to aggression. Of the two, collective security is the most effective response to aggression because it has a great chance of ensuring the maintenance
Post WWl, Russia was still not industrialized, suffering economically and politically and in no doubt in need of a leader after Lenin’s death. “His successor, Joseph Stalin, a ruthless dictator, seized power and turned Russia into a totalitarian state where the government controls all aspects of private and public life.” Stalin showed these traits by using methods of enforcement, state control of individuals and state control of society. The journey of Stalin begins now.
Stasiland examines at the post war operations of the German Stasi after the war. It is written by Anna Funder who is an Australian journalist. Both George Orwell and Anna Funder are outsiders from liberal democracies. Neither of these authors has any experience of oppressive regimes but both feel morally outraged by the Stasi and Stalin’s rule.
The audience is living with “... barbed wire, … dog runs, and guard towers.” This compels the audience to look at their unwarranted condition and drive them to question how to resolve the situation. Furthermore, Regan reminds the audience that the Soviets are to blame. By insisting that the changes in the Soviet state” ... intended to raise false hopes?” Regan has the German people recollect who is responsible for their dire situation.
In the light of the aforementioned characteristics of totalitarianism defined, Hannah Arendt claims that totalitarianism is incomprehensible since it is not possible to judge or predict its actions through any traditional, legal, moral or common sense (Arendt, 1953 : 303). Therefore, Arendt evaluates the regimes under Hitler and Stalin rule “not only wicked but also senseless, of a kind that could not be deduced from humanly comprehensible motives” (Canovan, 1999 : 25). Arendt aims to offer an intellectual constraints for the analysis of Hitler’s
War is caused by poor, political decisions, appeasement, fight for land and power, and the conflict between countries. At the end of WWI, The Treaty of Versailles was signed to end all wars. The countries involved in WWII were the allies and axis. The allies were the US, China, Britain, and France. The axis were Germany, Japan, and Italy.
In this source analysis, I will look into the speech given by German Social Democrat, Otto Wels on March 23, 1933. It should also be mentioned that Thomas Dunlap translated this speech into English, which will be the primary source for this essay. The speech given by Wells was in protest to Hitler’s Enabling act; a law that would help provide Hitler and his followers with a legal path towards a dictatorship. The vote for the enabling act and the speech given by Wells, were held in the Reichstag on the same day, but as history has shown, Hitler’s Nazi Party prevailed, and the democratic makeup of the Weimer Republic was washed away. The significance of this speech is quite prevalent today, in retrospect to the grisly past of the Third Reich,