Most of these questions appear in your packet. Remember to
upload to turnitin.com!
- How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
- Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
- Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
- What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
- Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
- What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
- Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
- Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
William Reis
ReplyDeleteIB History
Ms.Noce
1/23/14
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
From my View it seems like Gustav Stresemann was a very successful man politically wise, he was an outstanding businessman and he became a politician in 1907. Stresemann seemed to have lots of pride for Germany because in his mind he thought that Germany could not reach its objective by using violence and all this meant that he would accept any treaties or negotiations that came into Germanys way for example the Treaty of Versailles, Dawes plan and Locarno negotiations. Stresemann was even granted an Nobel Peace Prize for the Locarno negotiations. Stresemann’s point of view was that by accepting deals and negotiations with other nations was the key to create better relationship with other nations.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
As I was reading the documents A-D, The Locarno Pact gave out people different sets of views/attitude on Locarno. Sources A and B talked about how effective the Locarno Pact was and how smart Stresemann was to accept it. It talks about how this Pact could create peace between various nations not only throughout in Europe but in the United States too. It would make the reparations ‘bill’ more manageable to pay for Germany. Sources C and D explains how the Locarno Pact was just another step to an total World peace.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan wanted to take over Manchuria because in the 19th century, Japan was on a road towards Industrial innovation and eventually they did! becoming the most powerful industrial based nation in Asia, although Japan industries only depended on trades with other nations especially the United States. When the United States entered into great depression the trades between Japan and the United States began to fall and this meant industries in Japan could fail completely. Japan’s goal was to stay away from breakdown of industries, and all of this led to invade Manchuria because the land there contained various amount of reliable and richful sources which was all Japan needed.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The invasion of Manchuria happened a little while after the World War One and after the Great war League of Nations was created to stop any major conflicts between allies and this included to the major nations that fought in the war. The United States had a friendship with China but the U.S. never did anything to protect China from Japan. The league of nations commands that no nation should maintain major military power, the only nations that had a decent military was Great Britain and France, but the Manchurian take over never changed these nations mind on helping China, they thought it would cause another great war and this would meant lots of money spent military wise. At that time nations in Europe were going down hill with the economy and no money was to be spent.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan's Invasion of Manchuria)?
With the invasion of Manchuria, it didn't really have an impact worldwide because the nations that were just out of war and getting into the great depression and this meant that nations didn't want to get themselves involved in a war again specially because of the league of nations that was created after the world war which was to stop any more conflicts that could happen, nations did not want to spend any more money with military. So at the end the invasion of Manchuria was primarily between China and Japan
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDeleteI think the League of Nations did not work hard enough to keep countries out of any more conflicts that would lead to a world wide conflict. I think the League should of not only focused on stopping conflicts but focus more on creating ideas or negotiations for nations, for example Japan and China (Invasion of Manchuria). Some nations trusted the League of nations for no more conflicts.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
I think the Manchurian invasion had its good and bad side to it. The good side to it was that no European nations was involved in this conflict meaning this conflict stayed between China and Japan and no more nations was involved to make this a world wide conflict. The bad side to it was that the Japan was in the League of Nations but they removed themselves, also I think this led to the take over of Abyssinia land by Mussolini, maybe he thought that Since Japan took over Manchuria and the League of Nations never stopped them, taking over Abyssinia would be no major issue.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to give two-thirds of Abyssinia to Mussolini which was a very richful land to grow resources. I think the Hoare-Laval pact is being referenced as an example of Realpolitik because of the decision made by the French prime minister. Realpolitik means: “political realism or practical politics, especially policy based on power rather than on ideals.”(Dictionary.com) This means that the decision made was base on political power and not on other solutions that could've been made, the power i say is because of Mussolini fascism ideology in which he wished to expand Italy’s land for more resources and Abyssinia was the perfect land for resources.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
The Stresa Front made up the relationship between Italy, France and UK, the Abyssinia land was already in the list for Italy’s government. Its basically saying that Italy did not care about the Relationship with France and the UK, also if Mussolini took over Abyssinia this would give Mussolini more chance to ally with Adolf Hitler but at the same time France and UK would lose respect for Italy.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible fulfill.
This statement is stating that the taking over of Abyssinia proved that the League of Nation was a complete failure. During the take over of the Abyssinian it created a little war between the Italians and Somaliland. The whole purpose for the League of Nations was to stop any conflicts that nations would cause, but even with the League of Nations, the take over happened regardless. The League of nations was a complete failure into stopping any more conflicts, any more deaths and spending money with military power.
WORK CITED:
Packet #19
"Realpolitik." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
Victor Harris
ReplyDelete1/25/13
Ms.Noce
I.B History 11
1.How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925 ?
-Reading the Source A and a little of B, Gustav viewed the Locarno Treaty as a good thing for paying back loans and reparations that nations owed. Germany was paying back what they owed since she was the cause of World War One, USA getting money backed that she loaned to allies which was alot. Gustav with the Locarno treaty " was in a postion to claim success". With this treaty he thought this would make everything that happened in the war much better.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout(Source A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitude towards the outcome of Locarno does sources A-D demonstrate ?
- In source A, there is more of a positive theme which talks about the treaty. Source A talks about the loans and reparation that are being made. This was to build Germany back up and get on her feet. Source B is saying don't forget the issue we once had before. Yes, Austin and Gustav got an Nobel Peace Prize but this could lead right back where they were with another battle. Source C was a picture by David Low, and what I got from this picture was a "What Now". You can see in the picture how there are three stones but it appears to be one missing. To me it's a picture showing were do we go from here now, the next step. Last source D was saying about the peace of the Locarno Treaty of 1925. This is taken the time to give each nation a new beginning to start over with. Also looks for peace, and "friendship with the enemies of a few years ago". As you can see all the sources have a different appeals to the treaty.
3.Why did Japan embark on this course of action(invasion of Manchuria)?
-The Japanese said "without Manchuria they would starve". There are a lot of reasons of why Japan invaded Manchuria, reason like Japans economy being down. Since the Great Depression came other nations couldn't really do anything, and Japan took a bad hit because she depended on the USA exports. It was an easy decision for Japan to invade because of "economic investments" since the Russo-Japanese war. The Japanese was trying to take over China for a long time.
4. What response did the international community make to this Flagrant act of aggression(Japan's invasion of Manchuria)
-Reading the packet the short answer "was is that nothing would or could be done". Reason why because Japan and Manchuria wasn't really a concern to the Europeans. Most of there issues may had to be down local then global. The USA and UK couldn't react because of the policy and the appeasement. This was to avoid with Germany because Japan was an ally to them. If the USA or UK would of tried to help will mess up the Treaty of Versailles.
5.Discuss the impact their action or inaction had an international relations in subsequent years(Japans invasion of Manchuria).
-Well the lack of action which is inaction already briefly talked about a little in question 4. The league of Nations couldn't help because of the policy, Manchuria wasn't in there distract to fight or protect them. Even so, if they tried to help "substantial military" that they had were had was the UK and France. Plus none of there military was in the far east which was vital. Also because the Great Depression was in full affect, nobody couldn't pay for another battle, everybody's economic was down.
6.Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to uonomic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn't this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the rested interests of the League and non-league member.
ReplyDelete-Economic sanctions were basically barriers, for example of "trade barriers". To me this was a realistic option because of the Great Depression. Even though nations were struggling they could got into a group to help each other. But then again wasn't a realistic option because every body was in the drought. The League of Nations wanted peace, that was the main reason they were built for, but the Leagues army was down and not as strong. One non-league member was Japan, and Japan really didn't have nothing from the start. This is what lead to the Manchuria invasion.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states ? Create pro's and Con's to the resolution that "self-defence" is the only justification for war.
- For the Manchuria crisis showed the true colors of nations that were really bad because of the Great Depression. One con was even though Japan was trying to take over China,and nobody couldn't help. One powerful ally the U.S couldn't really do anything because of the appeasement which can also be a con for Japan. Another pro and also can be a con is Japan getting out the League of Nations, which also tells me when nations get under the pressure they break down. The League of Nation"no longer played an important role in world affair". This is a con because the League was to defend not be weak.
8.What was the purpose of the Hoare-Lavar pact ? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik ?
- The purpose of the Hoare-Lavar Act " was to give Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia including the most fertile regions and leave the rest as an independent state". This was made by the french and British. But this pact failed because of little support they had. Looking at the word realpolitik means "a system of politics or principles based on practical rather then moral or ideological considerations". The Hoare Pact can be referred as to realpolitik because it relies on power and really didn't have an "explicit ideological". This is why the Hoare never took fall affect.
9. Discuss the pro's and con's to the following statement:sacrifing Abyssinia was less important than mainting the Stresa Front.
-Basically what this statement meaning really didn't care about the Abyssinia getting took over, it was in the Germans hands anyway's. With the Stresa Front there was an agreement with the the UK and France. Italy wasn't very concerned with the respect of the UK and France, but wanted more of an Alliance with Germany. In this the pro was Italy was gaining a powerful, ruthless ally and the con was the respect and trust of the UK and France.
10.Use source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible fulfill.
-Reading page 75, source C the whole part of creating the League of Nations was to protect people and Nations. Basically they believed in the League of Nation, put faith in them in which they couldn't with the Abyssinian crisis. The statement is saying maybe the League of Nations is not what they really thought. The League wasn't as powerful as people thought and the main reason was because of military problems.
Work Cited:
Www.merrian-webster.com/.../Realpolitic
Packet 19
Samantha Foster
ReplyDeleteIB History
Ms. Noce
1-25-14
Ruhr, Locarno, Manchuria, and Abyssinia
1.How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty of 1925 as a way to put an end to disputes between Germany and the Allies. Through the Locarno treaties, Germany accepted its borders with France and Belgium as permanent borders. Germany became a member of the League of Nations as well. It was through the Locarno treaties that Germany was able to get back on its feet from WW1.
2.Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
-Sources A and D show the attitudes of Britain and France’s towards the Locarno Treaties. Source A shows France’s reluctance to let to let Germany rehabilitate and gain power. However, France would rather have a Germany that was capable of paying reparations than a Germany who couldn’t pay at all so France had no other choice but to let Germany replenish its strength with the help of American loans. Source D shows Austen Chamberlain, a British statesman, and his take on the Locarno Treaties. He believed that all nations had wanted a clean slate in international relations and humbly requests for the House’s approval to ratify the Locarno Treaties. To sum it up, source D shows Britain’s willingness to accept the Locarno Treaties to prevent further conflicts in Britain and the rest of Europe.
3.Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
-The Industrial Revolution had hit Japan in the late 19th century and as a result Japan became the largest industrial power in Asia. This was able to happen due to the success of Japan’s exported goods. Japan depended on the export of goods to countries like the US in order to keep her prosperity. When the depression came, Japan was hit hard because the market crashes in America and higher US tariffs made things difficult for Japan and caused major unemployment and starvation. The fact that Japan didn’t have much natural resources of her own did not help with Japan’s situation at all. Japan saw the Chinese province of Manchuria as an area with an abundance of wealth and resources and the solution to all their problems. The Japanese decided to invade Manchuria seeing how they had put economic investments in the region ever since the Russo-Japanese war. Manchuria was in close proximity to Japan so invading the region posed few risks.
4.What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
-The League of Nations had no response to Japan’s act of aggression on Manchuria because it was an issue that was irrelevant to European powers. The interests of Europeans weren’t being put on the line, so therefore it posed no threat to them. The Manchurian crisis also happened in the 1930s, a time in which many nations were closed-minded and isolated themselves from the rest of the world because of the Great Depression. It was every nation for itself back then. The League of Nations also couldn’t address the situation properly. Although China was a member of the League of Nations and appealed for collective security against Japan, it ended up being a complete failure. The reason why is because the UK was the only member of the League with a large navy and since China was 5000 miles away, it made it impossible to establish warships in the Far East.
6.Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDelete–The economic sanctions against Italy weren’t a realistic option because the League wanted to protect the Stresa Front from Hitler. The sanctions against Italy proved to be nothing more than a little nuisance. The sanctions did not include important materials such as oil and steel and big nations such as the US and Germany were not affected by it.
7.Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
-I think that the Manchurian crisis encouraged aggressive action in neighboring states such as Italy because Italy went on to occupy Abyssinia in 1935-6. A pro to “self-defense is the only justification for war” was that it made war very unlikely to happen. Many people were anti war pacifists and no one would risk starting a war when there were many that were hungry and unemployed. I honestly can’t find a con to “self-defense is the only justification for war” because to me, it seems like an effective way to stop unnecessary wars from happening.
8.What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
-Realpolitik is German for “real politics” which refers to “a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong”( merriam-webster.com). The Hoare-Laval pact can be considered an example of Realpolitik because it was a proposal created by French and British foreign ministers that would “give Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia including the fertile regions and leave the rest as an independent state” (packet 19). France and Britain created the Hoare-Laval pact because they didn’t want the League of Nations to look weak. France and Britain were in no position to stop Italy using force so they chose to compromise even it meant giving Mussolini part of Abyssinia.
9.Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
-A con for the statement “sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front” is that it showed Mussolini how France and Britain were unwilling to support his expansion goals which made him side with Germany. Another con for this statement is that it made it clear that the League of Nations no longer had any significance in world affairs. I see no pros for this statement because sacrificing Abyssinia had destroyed the Stresa Front and the League of Nation’s reputation.
10.Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
-Based on source C and my own knowledge, the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed the League of Nations that was impossible to fulfill because it defied the League’s policy of collective security. Collective security failed to protect Abyssinia from Italy and let the Italian invasion continue until Abyssinia was completely conquered by Italy in 1936. The League of Nations also had no official army of its own so it was impossible to send troops to stop Mussolini. Even if the League of Nations had the power to do so, they didn’t want to risk starting a war so the League was at a complete loss on how to handle the Abyssinian crisis.
Works Cited:
Packet 19
Merriam-webster.com(n.d.) Realpolitik accessed January 25, 2014 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik
Junior FanFan
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
IB History
January 26,2014
1. How does Gustav stresemann view the treaty of 1925? Gustav stresemann viewed the Locarno treaty as a good one because he was the one who proposed the idea to the allies of Germany. Stresemann said that the treaty would make sur Germany knew where their boundaries where with France and Belgium. The treaty also said that there obligated to pay their debts were enforced even more. For example packet 19 " Germany would be prepared to accept its current boundaries with France and Belgium and their obligations enforce by international treaty."
2. What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does sources A-D demonstrate? In document A they talk about how Germany had a happy attitude towards the Locarno treaty because America was paying for everything. America was paying for reparations and they were paying for the debt the owed other countries. In source B was worry because the people felt like the three foreign ministers didn't think about how Locarno pacified didn't affect Europe and did affect the other countries. The attitude in source C is perseverance because they had already got two treaty's or plans accomplished and the nations agreed so they tried to her another one going across Europe like the disarmament treaty. The attitude of source D is accomplished because they have created peace with Germany and all the other nations and that was a good thing to do for the world.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action(invasion of Manchuria)? Japan invaded Manchuria for many reasons Japan felt that there population was growing rapidly and they just went threw an industrial revolution and they felt that they needed more land. Also Japan didn't like the Chinese and the Chinese also invaded Manchuria before Japan. So Japan went in Manchuria and defeated the Chinese. Also Manchuria had rich and natural resources of all kind that was useful to Japan.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression(Japan's invasion of Manchuria)? The international community said they Manchuria and Japan were not central concerns so they overlooked the problem. They also said that the Europeans had nothing to do with Manchuria. For example " Japan and Manchuria were not central concerns to European powers, and the issue may as well have been treated as a local one." They also thought that this act that Japan did didn't cause world conflict so it was okay.
5. Discuss the impact their action of inaction had on international relations in subsequent years(Japan's invasion of Manchuria)? The League of Nations didn't care about the invasion of Manchuria because it didn't start a world conflict but the job of the league of nation was to keep peace between countries and deal with any problems that countries brought to them. The invasion of Manchuria was basically between China and Japan and they were the ones that had to deal with the problem.
6. Why wasn't this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-league members?
ReplyDeleteThe members of the League of Nations didn't really solve many problems they just tried to create peace. When the League of Nations tried to solve the problem with the invasion of Manchuria. They wanted to give independence to the people but Japan refused and left the League of Nations. For example " it suggested that China granted independence to Manchuria and that Japan withdrew its forces.... Japan refused to accept such criticism and withdrew from the League of Nations".
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pros and cons to the resolution that " self-defense is the only justification for war? The pros of Japan invading Manchuria was that it didn't involve any European country so that wasn't going to start a world war again. The cons of the invasion was that the League of Nations totally ignored the problem because it didn't have to do with and European country. That was bad because it made the League of Nations look like they couldn't do their job.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-laval pact? Why was it referred to as an example of realpolitik? The purpose of the Hoare-laval pact was to make a deal with Mussolini that he gets two-thirds of Abyssinia and he gets the fertile region. The second part to the act was that the rest of Abyssinia would be left as an independent state. The Hoare-laval was referred as a realpolitik because it needs power to help the act stay in place and France and Britain didn't have enough power so the Hoare-laval pact failed.
9. Discuss the pros and cons to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa front? There was a good relationship with Italy,France,and the United Kingdom and that was because of the Stresa Front. The Abyssinia was already on Italy mind to take over. So Italy really didn't care about the relationship France and the United Kingdom had built together. The pros of this was that Italy was gaining a good piece of land. The cons was that France and the United Kingdom thought that they could trust Italy.
10. Use source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task to imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill? Taking control of the Abyssinia was easy and that the league of nation was a complete fail because they weren't able to do their purpose and the purpose was to keep peace and stop wars. Many things happened and the league wasn't able to stop it or they just didn't care. For example the invasion of Manchuria when Japan invaded Manchuria the league of nation didn't do anything because it didn't involve the Europeans.
Work cited: packet 19
https://www.dictionary.com
1). How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
ReplyDeleteThe Locarno Treaty of 1925 was an agreement signed by Belgium, Germany, France, and UK. The agreement these four countries agree upon was "to accept Germany's western borders as determined at the Versailles settlement." The Locarno Treaty was a really smart way to create peace in Europe.
Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty as a really great idea. He himself went up to the allies and told them that Germany will follow with this treaty 100%. Stresemann went 100% with this treaty because Germany would be able to rebuild their country without anyone trying to come in and wreak their country. Another reason why Stresemann agreed with this treaty was because most importantly it was create peace between Germany, Belgium, France and UK.
2). Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
SOURCE A: In source A I believe that the attitude is very cheerful. I think this because it is saying that France choose to help Germany. This is a very good thing because they could have choose to keep Germany weak but they didn't. I also thought the attitude was cheerful because in the last sentence it says "Stresemann was in a position to claim some success." This means that he was happy.
SOURCE B: In source B I think the attitude is serious. I think the attitude is serious because in the beginning it talks about how yes, the treaty was successful but there was a part of the treaty that wasn't met. This example shows that the attitude is serious because in source an all it talked about was how good the treaty was and was trying to be positive. However, in source B it said yes the treaty was successful but, there was still a problem.
SOURCE C: In source C I think attitude is determined. I think this because the "Dawes" and the "Locarno" rock are right next to each other; meaning that it was easy for the woman to walk over them, the rock "Disarmament" (which means the withdrawal of military forces and weapons) is far from the other rocks; meaning that it will be hard to get to that rock, but the woman said "and now the next step. With the woman saying "and now the next step" it means that she is determined to get to "disarmament".
SOURCE D: In source D I think the attitude is a believer. I think this because this little passage is all about Joll's, the author, beliefs about how they thought the treat went and what they thought could have been better throughout the treaty.
3). Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
There are many reasons why Japan invaded Manchuria. Some on the many reasons are: Japan was going downhill, she didn't have any natural resources and many people died of starvation, also because of the failure of the American markets Japan was left jobless. They knew that Manchuria had a lot of natural recourses and was doing good, so they decided to invaded them and take everything. It was easy for Japan to invade Manchuria because a while back Japan made some investment in Manchuria and they had troops in the city of Port Arthur protecting their investments. With that being said, since the Japan's troops where already there and they could have easily just invaded Manchuria.
4). what response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The response that the international community made to the flagrant act of aggression, Japan's invasion of Manchuria, was that there was nothing they could do about it. This situation was out of their hands and what happens happen.
5). Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
ReplyDeleteThere was no impact on the international relations. All of the nation’s made a clear agreement which said they would not start any wars with another nation; the Treaty of Versailles. So with all of the nation sticking to this agreement, none of the nations got involved with the invasion of Manchuria. It was only between Japan and China.
6). Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
This wasn't a realistic option because the countries who participated in the League of Nations all agreed on not starting a war unless its self-defense. For example, Manchuria tried to get Great Britain, France, and the U.S to help them get back on track but Great Britain and France stayed with the agreement and didn't help them. Although, the U.S helped them but only to an extent. They created a policy call the Open Door Policy, equal access for all countries to trade, which helped Manchuria. The U.S refused to help by invading Japan they only helped by creating this policy. This is why it wasn't a realistic option.
7). did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
From my understanding of this reading yes, Manchuria did encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states. I think this because in the reading it kept talking about how Manchuria wanted help and Great Britain and France refused to help them. The reading also talked about how countries where only supposed to start war if it was self-defense. So from my understanding the reading was connecting Manchuria to the paragraph about self-defense.
PRO's and CON's Chart
PRO:
1) There will be an enormous decrease in conflicts.
2) The population in the countries will increase.
CON:
1) Countries will hold grudges.
2) One day a country will explode and invade another country.
8) What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The Hoare-Laval Pact was named after the French Prime Minister (Hoare) and the British foreign secretary (Laval). The purpose of this pact was to give Mussolini 2/3 of Abyssinia. With the 1/3 of Mussolini they would leave that as an independent state. As a result, the pact was stopped because Mussolini refused to take 2/3 of Abyssinia. They wanted all of it but it just wasn't happening.
The Hoare-Laval pact was referred to as an example of Realpolitik, a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations, because Mussolini didn't come up with any ideas relating to what they would do if they got all of Abyssinia. The whole point of an ideology is to have many ideas relating to what you want to do. Mussolini didn't have any all they wanted was to gain power.
9). discuss the pros and cons to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
ReplyDeletePRO:
Mussolini would be allies with Hitler
CON:
It could came to a clear thought for Mussolini that France and Britain was allies with Germany.
10) Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
I strongly believes that the League of Nations failed at everything. They failed to prevent war and failed to save countries under aggression. The president of the League of Nations said that "if we were to pursue the policy of sanctions and even intensify it, it was still possible to preserve the independents of Abyssinia. Chamberlain, person giving the speech, and I both believe that if we do what the president of the League of Nations said "it would only lead to further misfortunes."
WORK CITED
Packet #19
Germairy Roman
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB History 11
1/26/14
Ruhr, Locarno, Manchuria, and Abyssinia
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustavo Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty of 1925 as a solution to creating peace between the Allies and Germany. It was stated in the Locarno Treaty that Germany accepted its borders with France and Belgium. Germany also joined the League of Nations.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
Source A talks about Germany's reparation problems. Germany was loaned $2 billion from America and she used it for reparations as well as for making the country better economically and military wise. France didn't know whether to to chose a weak Germany and a Germany capable of paying reparations. Source B talks more of a joyful occasion due to the fact that the three foreign ministers (Aristide Briand of France, Austen chamberlain of Great Britain, and Gustav Stresemann of Germany) were presented with the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe Source C which is a cartoon by David Low shows that to get to the next step you need to find the solution to the previous step. Without figuring out the last step you can't get to the next step. In Source D it talks about Austen Chamberlain's views on the Locarno Treaty which I would say are positive.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan mainly decided to invade Manchuria because their economy was suffering by the decline of world trade. Japan was the largest industrial power in Asia because of an industrial revolution she had undergone in the late 19th century. Japan depended on the export of manufactured goods which would go to the US but that became impossible due to the fact that American markets collapsed. Manchuria which is a Chinese province had all kinds of natural resources and immense wealth and Japan planned on invading it. Ultimately if Japan doesn't invade Manchuria then she would starve.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
I believe that the response of the international community wasn't outrageous as it could have been because of all the wrong Japan did. The Europeans didn't pay much mind to Japan's invasion. The packet stated that Japan and Manchuria weren't central concerns to European powers.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan's action of invading Manchuria surprisingly didn't spark an international dispute. For example the USA and the UK had a policy of appeasement which was a policy in the late 1930s that avoided war with Germany by revisiting the Treaty of Versailles.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn't a realistic option because there were nations that had international disputes. All nations couldn't participate because there were resources that benefited one country but not the other. There wouldn't be common ground between the nations.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
A pro can be that Japan didn't collapse and was able to survive because she invaded Manchuria. Invading Manchuria helped Japan gain wealth and resources. A con was that Japan's trading with America was cut off. American markets collapsed so Japan was unable to receive goods. Another pro was that Japan left the League of Nations. The goal of the League of Nations was to create peace but in the long run the League of Nations failed and was no longer important an important role in world affairs.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The Hoare-Laval pact was a plan created by French and British foreign ministers so that they won't lose Italy as an ally against Hitler. The pact proposed to give Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia including the most fertile regions and leaving the rest as an independent state. The plan failed because of lack of public support and also because Mussolini refused to only accept part of Abyssinia. Realpolitik means real politics or practical politics in German. The pact is referred as an Example of realpolitik because the foreign ministers didn't have an ideology but they did think practically on what would be beneficial to them and their countries.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
A con was that if all the energy was going to go towards maintaining the Stresa Front then nobody would pay attention to Abyssinia. Maintaining the Stresa Front means that Abyssinia can be easily taken over by Mussolini who wanted all of Abyssinia because nobody would be protecting Abyssinia. A pro was that the French and British foreign ministers had land that other powers were vying for.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
The Whole purpose of the League of Nations was to create peace and that failed because it wasn't able to prevent certain things. The Abyssinian crisis was not able to be handled by the League of Nations. It proved impossible to prevent war and to stop war and that was too great a task for the League of Nations leading to failure.
Work Cited - Packet #19
Miladys Florentino
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB World History
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
- Gustav Stresemann was a successful businessman in Germany, whom entered politics in 1907. Stresemann do you the Locarno treaty, an agreement signed in 1925 the UK, France, Germany and Belgium that requires Germany to agree to undertake her western borders just how the Treaty of Versailles stated, as a successful agreement since the League of Nations were weak and they couldn't be able to successfully meet Europe's long-term security which they required. Stresemann wanted to help Germany gain her goals and therefore, accepted the Dawes Plan which will reduce relations which Germany was held responsible. Stresemann knew if the Allies were involved it could all be accomplished.
2.Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
- Sources A through D all talk about the Locarno Treaty of 1925 but yet they all have different attitudes towards the outcome. Source A, states the Locarno Treaty outcomes as well as declaring how the U.S was paying Germany’s reparations since they loaned money to them while on the other hand, Germany was also modernizing its industry. Source B, it’s way different, not supporting the Locarno Treaty. Basically, source B feels like the foreign ministers didn’t really focus on the real issues such as “ Locarno had not so much pacified Europe as it had defined the next battlefield” (Source B). Ministers should’ve had this in mind. Source C, is a lady which represents Europe as a she who stepped on the rocks of Dawes Plan and the Locarno Treaty which are connected since both men agreed towards each others plans. Source D, agrees with the Locarno Treaty in a way where it would be a brand new start within the nations. As well as stating, if nations didn’t come together it probably wouldn’t have been successful.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
- Japan decided to invade Manchuria for several reasons but they held off for a few reasons. First, the Great Depression weakened Britain and France as for further cuts in army expenses and many countries didn’t intervene. Due to the Great Depression, goods a higher tariffs in which Japan depended on and which created starvation in many urban areas.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
ReplyDelete-The International communities respond towards the act of aggression, Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, they didn’t intervene due to not having money for the troops and therefore, didn’t join. None of the international communities were in any shape for an invasion. As well as the British navy having it’s own crisis due to the cuts. Since, most nations weren’t stabled they couldn’t really do anything.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- The aftermath from Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. Later came the Open Door Policy which assist equal access for countries to trade and economic circumstances. Yet, it was against political trades and investments. Therefore, if Japan decided to do anything in which would go against the policy it would result in immediate revenge.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
- “Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor” Which meant, nations would have to participate in this activity. I believe this wasn’t a realistic option due to the fact that nations during the Great Depression weren’t in good shape at all, army wise no one was prepared for any altercations especially since there were no resources in which they could’ve depended on in case anything was to occur.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
- Manchuria did not encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states. On the night of September 18 1931, a bomb was blasted on the track of the Japanese-owned South Manchuria Railway. The Kwantung immediately blamed chinese terrorist and without hesitation invaded the Manchurian city of Mukden. “Self defense is the only justification for war”. There’s pro’s and con’s towards this statement such pro’ can be self-defense towards the country itself just as defending themselves from an attack as well as any severe cases. A con’ could be defending for a wrong purpose which could result of violating other countries as well as the people.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
ReplyDelete- The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to keep a relationship with Mussolini as well as ending any disputes with Britain and France. Basically,a secret plan which was made for needs which will help Mussolini as well as avoiding a war. Yet, it failed once it hit the public. The Hoare- Laval Pact was referred as an example of Realpolitik, because the plan was based on what the Ministers needed instead of the real issue.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
-The statement: “sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front” had many pro’s and con’s. This statement had more con’s than pro’s which were the oil deposit within the region which would’ve been helpful to the Italians as well as most of the land were already claimed. On the other hand, a pro would’ve been having a relationship with Britain, France and Italy which would be helpful towards the goals that he wanted to accomplish.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
- The following statement, I will be analyzing using source C from packet 19. “ The Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill”. In other hands, the policy was unsuccessful and therefore, it couldn’t have been recovered which meant it was all senseless.
Sources:
Packet #19
Jerilys Santiago
ReplyDeleteIB World History
Ms.Noce
#1) How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
- Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty of 1925 as a good and positive treaty. He thought this because he hoped that the Treaty was going to end the issues between Germany and the Allies. In addition, he hoped that the Treaty would helped Germany would recover from the huge debts left from the war.
#2) Refer to pages 64-65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: what different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
- Sources A had a positive attitude towards the outcome of Locarno because it claimed that Stresemann skillfully proposed international arbitration for a new schedule of reparations due to the Treaty. Source B also had a good positive attitude towards the outcome of Locarno Pact because it states that it brought peace to the world. The attitude towards the outcome of Locarno on Source C is also positive. This gave people strength and determination to take the next step towards success. Lastly, the attitude on Source D towards the Locarno is also good and positive because peace was accomplished. In conclusion, sources A-D had the same attitude but for different reasons.
#3) Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
-Japan embarked on this course of action because they felt that without Manchuria they would starve. Japan needed Manchuria for their own economic system to improve and to be a strong nation again.
#4) What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria?
- The League of Nations had no response to the flagrant of aggression because Japan and Manchuria were not central concerns to European powers. This issue was treated as bad as a local one. In addition, np European interest had been at stake in Manchuria.
#5) Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years? (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria) ?
- There was no impact on international relations. Nations did not want to waste money on war when they had people starving and unemployed. They could not afford it. They were in too much debt and needed to come up with a solution for their economy to improve, that they did not want to waste time on war.
#6) Economic santics depended on the willingness of nation to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate.Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-league members.
- This was not a realistic option because all nations were taking care of themselves. By this I mean that they got themselves in the debt they were in. The aggressor was nobody but themselves. Therefore, they were basically on their own to figure what was best for their nation.
#7) Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
ReplyDelete- The resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war,” was totally a good resolution. I say this because no nations would get involved in other nations’ issues. In other words, they were minding their own business. This is good because when people did not mind their own business major conflicts came up and that lead to war.
#8) What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
- The purpose of the Hoare-Laval Pact was to settle the Abyssinian crisis and to prevent losing Italy. It was referred to as an example of Realpolitik because it was based on power rather than on ideals.
#9) Discuss pro’s and con’s to the following statement:sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
- “Sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front,” made sense because after the war, it was all about achieving world peace. The Stresa Front brought many nations together which made world peace more reachable.
#10) Use Source C on pg 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian Crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that is impossible to fulfill.
- The statement, “the Abyssinian Crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it is impossible to fulfill,” was true because the league failed to prevent war, failed to create peace and failed to demonstrate that working together would lead to success.
Work cited :
- packet 19.
Dimas A. Amezquita
ReplyDeleteIB History
Ms. Noce
January 26, 2014
Ruhr, Locarno, Manchuria, and Abyssinia Questions:
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustav Stresemann expected that the Locarno Treaty of 1925 will put the end of disputes that was happening between Germany and the Allies. The Locarno Treaty made Germany to accept France and Belgium as permanent borders. The treaty also made Germany to become a member of the League of Nations. The Locarno Treaty really helped Germany to get back on track from the situations that happened after World War 1 and become a respected nation again.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
On Sources A and D, it shows different attitudes of Britain and France towards the Locarno Treaty of 1925. Source A explains France’s unwillingness to let Germany restore and gain its power back, but France really wanted Germany to be able to pay its reparations than having Germany not paying any reparations. There was no choice, but France had to let Germany gain their power with the help of American loans. On Source D, it explains a British statesman named Austen Chamberlain and his believes on the Locarno Treaty. He believed that mostly all the nations that wanted a good plan of the international relations and he requested that the House would have an approval on ratifying the Locarno Treaties. Source D mostly explains Britain accepting the Locarno Treaty, so there won’t be any conflicts that could occur between Britain and the other countries in Europe.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
When the Industrial Revolution hit Japan in the late 19th century, Japan after the Industrial Revolution became the largest industrial power in Asia. It was because Japan was very successful on their exported goods. Japan really depended on their export of goods to many important countries like the United States to be able to keep their success. When the Great Depression hit the whole nation, Japan was hit hard by the Depression because the market crashed the United States and with high U.S. tariffs, it made it difficult for Japan that caused them unemployment and starvation. Japan really did not have many natural resources and it really did not help Japan’s situations. Then Japan saw an area in the Chinese province of Manchuria that had a large quality of wealth and resources that would help on their economic situation. So Japan did was invaded Manchuria, with Japan putting their economic investments in the region since the Russo-Japanese war. Invading Manchuria was close to Japan’s region that the invasion of Manchuria had few risks for Japan.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The League of Nations did not had no response to the act of aggression that Japan put on Manchuria because the invasion of Manchuria was irrelevant to the European Powers, and with the interests of the European Powers was not on the line, it was not a threat for them to ignore the situation of Manchuria. The Manchurian crisis started in the 1930’s, which was the time when many other nations ignored and only cared about their own nation from others around the world because of the Great Depression. The League of Nations could not even address the situation between Japan and Manchuria discordantly. Even though China was part of the League of Nations and requested for security against Japan, the request never happened from the League of Nations and became a failure. The reason was that the United Kingdom was the only nation from the League to have a large navy and China was far away from UK, it was impossible for warships to be established in the Far East.
1.How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
ReplyDelete- Stresemann was kind of the reason the Locarno Treaty was a result from a signing in October 1925. Stresemann had told the allies that Germany would be prepared to accept its current boundaries with France and Belgium. So I believe that Gustav Stresemann respected the Locarno Treaty because it removed men from Germany and it was believed to have tensions from World War one had been resolved and also that there was new progress towards peace. Reason why I believe Gustav Stresemann was comfortable with the Locarno Treaty.
2.What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does sources A – D demonstrate?
- Source A is talking about how Germany was using the loans that they were receiving from the U.S. It spoke of how they received 2 billion dollars but only used 1 billion to pay for war reparations and the other half to modernize Germany’s economy. Source A didn’t really speak of the Locarno treaty. But source B talked about how the Treaty was being claimed as “the dawning of new world order.” It sort of also mentioned a few things about the Treaty of Versailles and how Germany was given an option to view them and confirm them. Source C is a political cartoon. It’s a woman holding a cloth that reads “Europa” and I believe she’s suppose to represent Germany (since countries are referred to as a “she” or “her”). She is taking one step at a time and she went from a rock with the word “Dawes” written on it to another rock with the word “Locarno” written on it. She is about to take one last step onto another tock that says “Disarmament” and she is saying “and now the next step!” I’m guessing that she (she being Germany) is slowly taking out restrictions given to her by the Treaty of Versailles. Source D is somewhat saying that the Locarno Treaty was needed to improve international relations. It also said that it wasn’t going to happen if Germany never sacrificed agreeing to the terms set in the Treaty of Versailles.
3.Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
- During the 19th century Japan had a revolution similar to those of the UK and it became the biggest industrial power in Asia. But Japan had little natural resources so it depended on exports from the United States. But when the world undergone the Depression, America started to put high tariffs on exported goods in an attempt to gain more money to get out the depression. This greatly affected Japan by creating a lot of hardship and large amounts of unemployment and in some rural areas it was heard there was starvation. So when your country is suffering like this, you’re going to try and help your people by taking over a location (this location being Manchuria) in attempts to gain more natural resources.
4.What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- Since Japan had decided to invade Manchuria in attempt to keep their country standing during the great depression, I can see why they did it. But it still does not justify the fact they were so aggressive during the invasion. You cannot forget that other countries such as Britain and France were also struggling from the depression so they didn’t have the substantial military force to react to such a challenge. Britain’s navy was also in a crisis so they could not send their navy to respond. So the international community did nothing when Japan invaded Manchuria.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
ReplyDeleteThe invasion of Manchuria really did not impacted the world because there were many nations that just got out of war, nations were affected by the Great Depression, many nations did not want to get into another war because the League of Nations was created after the World War for these types of situations of stopping conflicts that could lead up to another war, and many nations did not want to spend more of their money on military. So the invasion of Manchuria was between China and Japan, with no other nations help.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
The reason of the economic sanctions against Italy was not a realistic option because the League of Nations wanted the Stresa Front to be protected from Hitler. The sanctions against Italy just showed of nothing more than a small of trouble. The sanctions did not put on important materials like oil and steel and important nations like the United States and Germany was not affected by the sanctions.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pros and cons to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
The Manchurian crisis encouraged aggressive action in neighboring states like Italy because Italy was able to occupy Abyssinia. The pro of the quote is that no European nation wanted to be involved into another conflict, which made the Invasion of Manchuria between China and Japan. No other nation wanted to be involved in the conflict with it could maybe start another world wide conflict like the World Wars. The con of the quote is that Japan was in the League of Nations at first but they removed themselves out of the League. I think this made Mussolini invade Abyssinia because maybe Mussolini thought that since Japan invaded Manchuria and the League of Nations did not do anything about it from invading, why not him invade Abyssinia which would not be an issue for Mussolini.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
Realpolitik is a German word which could be referred as a, “system of politics that is based on a country’s situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is right and wrong.” An example of Realpolitik is the Hoare-Laval Pact because it was a plan that was created by foreign ministers from France and Britain. The plan gave Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia and fertile regions, but Mussolini has to leave the rest as independent states. The reason of France and Britain created the Hoare-Laval Pact was because they did not want the League of Nations to become weak nation group.
9. Discuss the pros and cons to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
The Stresa Front made up the relationship between Italy, France and the United Kingdom. The Abyssinia land was on the lands that Italy wanted to govern. The statement says that Italy really did not care of having a strong relationship with France and UK and if Mussolini took over Abyssinia, it would have given him a better chance of allaying with Germany and Adolf Hitler, which would made Italy a powerful nation, but Italy would have lost respect from France and UK.
5.Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria).
ReplyDelete- The League responded to the crisis by sending a “fact-finding mission under Lord Lytton.” The report was issued in 1932 and it recognized the Japans justifiable reasons for the invasions but thinks that Japan should have resorted to other options before invading Manchuria. It had suggested that China make Manchuria an independent state and that Japan remove their armed forces from there. Japan did not like the criticism it received and withdrew from the League of Nations and declared Manchuria part of the Japanese empire and made it Manchukuo.
6.Economic sanctions depend on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
- This wasn’t an option because all countries were going threw their own economic problems. Everyone was going through a great depression and this meant other countries didn’t have time or money to restrain a country that jumps out of line because this meant that they were getting rid of more money and this would bring them deeper into the depression. For example, members of the League wanted to stop Japan from invading Manchuria but neither of them had the money or the military force to do so. Even the United States (Non-League member) wanted to help China out because they felt as if China was one of their allies. But of course the U.S could not act upon Japans decisions to invade Manchuria because they themselves were also suffering from the depression and was trying to rise up out of it.
7.Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
- I wouldn’t really try to put the blame for other neighboring states actions on those of what Japan did to Manchuria because other states have their own intentions for things. But if I was to pick a side on whether I agree if they did encourage other states… I would agree with that statement. There is not that many pro’s when it comes to the statement “self-defense is the only justification for war.” The pro’s to that statement are that you’re going to war to keep your country or territory safe and therefore it being self-defense. Sometimes self-defense can be taking the wrong way and used as a way to get back at another country (this being a con). The self-defense can lead to another world war and maybe another depression, which is a huge con and something everyone doesn’t want.
8.What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
- The Hoare-Laval pact was named after the French prime minister and the British Foreign secretary. The Hoare-Laval pact’s purpose was to give Mussolini two-thirds of Abyssinia including the fertile regions and the other third was suppose to remain an independent state. It was looked at as a realpolitik because it was a way of just trying to evade another world war and it wasn’t moral because they were just letting Mussolini do what he want (such as take over Abyssinia). This did anger the people of Britain and the compromise had gotten abandoned.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
ReplyDeleteOn page 75 Source C, the reason of the Abyssinian crisis was a task that was imposed by the League of Nations, which was impossible to fulfill because it disobeyed the League’s policy of their collective security. The collective security really did not helped out on protecting Abyssinia from Italy and it just let Italy to continue invading Abyssinia, which Italy was able to conquer in 1936. Another thing is that the League of Nations did not have an army of its own to send troops to stop Mussolini’s invasion. Even if the League had an army and the power to stop Mussolini, they would not risk it and start another was. The League of Nations was in a complete loss of handling Mussolini and the Abyssinian crisis.
Work Cited:
Packet (#19)
Merriam-webster.com (n.d.)” Realpolitik.” accessed January 26, 2014 from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/realpolitik
9.Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
ReplyDelete- Well the pro’s are that they had already claimed Abyssinia was in an area of Italian interest. If Britain and France let this happen maybe Italy might return to the anti-Hitler coalition. Some con’s can be that if they let him do this, he wont join and might try to continue to do with what he did and keep taking over territory which can make Italy stronger and quite possibly a chance at another world war.
10.Use source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
- They tried avoiding wars many times threw out the years of depression but failed to do what they were brought together to do which was “protect the victim of aggression”. We watched this happen to Manchuria with Japan, and then to Abyssinia with Italy. But they tried to sacrifice Abyssinia in attempt to gain Italy back into the anti-Hitler coalition, which in fact failed. So you can say they tried to pull a task that they had no idea what the outcome of that would be just in a attempt to prevent a second world war from occurring.
Work cited:
Packet #19
5.Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
ReplyDelete-The only attempt made by the League of Nations to settle the Manchurian crisis was sending out a fact-finding mission under Lord Lytton. The Lytton Commission Report, issued in 1932, acknowledged that Japan had valid reasons for occupying Manchuria but could have taken care of the situation without using force and suggested that Manchuria should be given independence and Japan withdraw its forces. Japan refused and withdrew from the League of Nation and Manchuria became a part of the Japanese empire.
Stephanie Santiago
ReplyDeleteJanuary 26, 2014
IB History
Ms. Noce
Ruhr, Locarno, Manchuria, Abyssinia
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno treaty of 1925?
Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno treaty of 1925 as a way for Germany to be treated with fairness. He considered the Locarno treaty to be a way to help the Germans through their struggle. He was willing to make business to see them happy & successful as before.
2. What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does sources A-D demonstrate?
Sources A-D each demonstrate different attitudes due to the Locarno treaty. Source A mainly speaks about the reduction reparations given to Germany and how helpful the Locarno treaty was towards it. Source B was discussing about how relieving the Locarno treaty was due to the three foreign ministers which contribute peace making. Also how it caused conflicts between powers because of the two frontiers. Source C was a cartoon which showed the negative outcome after the Locarno. Lastly source D was mostly about how the country came together and created peace with one another to have a secure and protected country.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan reacted that way towards Manchuria because of the rejection led by the world trade. Soon after the economy went crazy and they felt as if they wouldn't survive without Manchuria.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japans invasion of Manchuria)?
The international community's response to the flagrant act of aggression was "nothing could or would be done". Mainly because of the conflict nationalist forcing government to support military action.
5. Discuss the impact their action/inaction had on international relations in subsequent years?
ReplyDeleteThere were several impacts upon international relations. One of them being the UK and USA, they were allowed to join a policy of appeasement to prevent future conflicts. UK along with France were lucky enough to have a significant military. Britain was less fortunate, they were a disaster due to reducing salaries. This impacted the U.S differently they supported China because of the Open Door Policy since they didn't trust Japan. And also because they felt as if they were more interested in the inner national crisis and less interest in foreign affairs which was unfair.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate.. Why wasn't this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to vested interests of the league and non-league members.
This wasn't a realistic option because they were to keep peace between eachother, yet some leagues weren't prepared with materials. They were scarred off by the criticism received by the other leagues, yet Japan didn't pay attention about criticism since they were struggling with the economy internationally.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pros and cons to the resolution that "self-defence is the only justification for war."
I believe that Manchuria did encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states because they didn't want to be cordial with the other states. The pros to "self -defence is the only justification for war" was Japan invading Manchuria alone and not having to worry about other conflicts between countries. Another was the advantages from Manchuria such as materials which were really resourceful for Japan. A con was the end of the league of nations because it was no longer important.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval Pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to give Mussolini a part of Abyssinia along with regions and leaving the rest independent. This was referred as an example of Realpolitik because its policies based on practical considerations.
9. Discuss the pro's and con's to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
The cons were no importance towards Abyssinia but all focus was put on the Stresa Front. Mussolini felt powerful enough to take control over Abyssinia since they weren't getting any recognition. A pro was Mussolini and Hitler being partners.
10. Analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the league of nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
This meant that the crisis was alot to handle involving the league of nations. They simply had failed the whole agreement of setting aside their differences and finding peace with each other.
Sources: packet #19
William Portorreal
ReplyDeleteIB history
Ms. Noce
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty of 1925 as a solution to Germany’s conflicts with other nations. During the Locarno treaty Gustav had made many negotiations in order to create peace and reduce tensions with other countries. Many positive outcomes had occurred during the treaty such as Germany paying for its reparations; Gustav’s idea for Germany’s success was the Locarno treaty.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: what different attitude towards the outcome of Locarno does sources A-D demonstrate?
Sources A talks about Germany being on the road to success by help of America. With America’s loan Germany had paid France for its reparations and had begun the process of rebuilding a stronger and bigger military/economy. Source B talks about the statesmen had missed the real issues and it was basically a warning of how the treaty of Versailles failed and how the three foreign ministers should be careful so the treaty doesn’t fail as well. I think Source C and D talks about making the right decision in the future. In source D it Sais how countries should get along regardless of what had happened in the past to make a better, neutral world.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
The Japanese had to invade Manchuria because they argued that it was there only way of getting goods. Japan had suffered mainly because they relied on world trade with countries such as the United States, and with the great depression in the way the trade between goods had declined unanimously. As a result Japan’s only solution was to invade Manchuria so they wouldn’t starve.
4. What response did the international community make to this fragrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The international community decided to stay out of the Japanese invasion because of all the previous problems that the alliances had already been through. Distance had also been a problem since it would have cost to send troops across countries to settle the dispute. Since the League of Nations had been made to prevent war, countries didn’t want to start another major war because of all the money that was lost during world war one.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
There wasn’t really an impact on the international relation because no one was willing to join the Japanese and Chinese war, the League of Nations had stayed out of it since many of the countries had been at war and wanted to recover from war instead of worsening the situation.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn’t a realistic option because the League of Nations wanted to prevent any type of war start again so they did anything they could by staying out of conflicts outside of the league.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
I think it did encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states because of what Italy did with Abyssinia. One pro is that the European countries and the United States had stayed out of conflicts between Japan and china, decreasing the chance of a world war starting again. The con was that the League of Nations lost Japan and showed them that they didn’t have their back.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to give Italy two thirds of Abyssinia which included land full of rich soil and goods, while the rest of Abyssinia would be independent. It was referred to realpolitik because the Hoare-Laval pact wasn’t really thought out well, it was basically what Hitler was doing.
9. Discuss the pros and cons to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
Maintaining the stresa front was a pro because it showed how Britain and France wanted to keep good relations with Italy, but sacrificing Abyssinia showed how France didn’t want to risk their country by helping a former alliance. Mussolini knew he couldn’t count on Britain or France since they weren’t willing to help.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
Yes it was a task that was impossible to fulfill because the League of Nations couldn’t intervene with Italy and Abyssinia, since it would have violated the terms under the league. The League of Nations couldn’t stop Italy from invading Abyssinia, resulting in a failure to stop war.
Work cited: packet #19
Erick volquez
ReplyDeleteIB History 11
Ms.Noce
1/26/14
1. Gustav Stresemann was chancellor of the Weimar republic in Germany in 1923. Being a German politician and statesman and foreign minister as well, he was present to be given the Nobel Prize in 1926. When it came down to him viewing the Locarno Treaty of 1925, he had a very particular point of view. Gustav’s thought were clearer than crystal water; he wanted to rise Germany back to power threw the Locarno negotiations (diplomacy) not by force. His determination to build Germany back up was a must do thing for him; having peace and an alliance with the allies would complete his vision in seeing Germany rise again.
2. The Locarno negotiations are looked in different perspectives from points (A-D). In point A it talks about what money was being passed around, just a general round about how Americans investigated this. In source B, The Locarno was looked as a dawning of a new world order, anything that was meant to make people pay attention and have all their eyes; it was definitely on the Macarno Treaty. This treaty was so straight forward and seemed so right that people saw this and called this the dawn of a new world order in which Germany would once again be where they were or Higher in power so that the world could see. Source C shows a political cartoon in which I interpret it as Europe playing games. Europe wanted to try out and find a way to have a better future so when the lady that is skipping the rocks which say (daws, Locarno, and disarmament) she is trying to stay safe and not fall from the river; this was Europe when it came down to finding a way to have a new dawn of world order. The writer of source D I cannot identify but what I could say is that source D shows the Treaty as a treaty in which people trusted and were happy about. The author states the peace came because the Euro-centric spirit rose back.
3. Just like the U.K having an industrial revolution and being the most advance country in Europe at the time, Japan was the most advance country in Asia. Japan had few natural sources and depended on having Export-Import relationships with few countries. The Japanese Government saw that this was going to be a problem because more natural resources would make the country rich and since they were already a big power in Asia, their direct view was Manchuria. In Manchuria, China there were riches in natural resources so since the country of Japan depended on the U.S to bring in natural resources and the economy had dropped and had issues in the United States, they went directly and invaded the providence in China of Manchuria. It was a desperate move for wealth but the Japanese government didn’t care, they went ahead to invade.
4. Japan invaded Manchuria looking for all these resources. Soon they had defeated the Chinese troops and not only take the resources but use china as their Puppet state. The international community had been impacted with the news. In 1932, Chinese troops were defeated and Manchukuo would look over as a league of security in china form the Japanese government. The international community had nothing to say, there was nothing to do and nothing could have been done.
ReplyDelete5. The impact that Japan’s invasion of Manchuria had on international relations in subsequent years wasn’t mayor. The Manchuria invasion wasn’t a European concern, no countries wanted to look at this and be responsible for taking the lead in any action what so ever. This was a moment were Japan was free do have this region of china and not worry because Europe didn’t want to make a move into finding a way to stop their trades and make them retreat from this because that wasn’t the right thing to do. The collective security put in China failed in 1931, this was a sign for Japan to realize that having china under their power wasn’t going to work out and those natural resources they need it.
6. “Economic sanctions depended on the willingness or nations to undertake a boycott or other economic actions against the aggressor. It also meant that all the nations would have to participate.” This wasn’t a realistic opinion because not all nations were in the League of Nations; when it came down to the undertake of the boycott’s and other actions against the aggressor, the League of Nations would deal with the aggressor (the country) itself. There is no point to having other countries who didn’t have the blame or that had to do with anything with a boycott or any actions that didn’t seem right be involved. The collectiveness of the League of Nations was strict; it made no sense to involve a country who wasn’t even in the problem or oppress them for boycott.
7. Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states because according to my reading, Manchuria wanted to catch the Allies attention but these countries knowing that Manchuria had no reason to be invaded blocked their views towards Asia and refused any type of allied help because they didn’t wanted to be responsible so no country stepped up to help them.
PRO’S
• Self defense would diminish any enormous and diminished conflict among countries.
• The country would know their strongest techniques and would directly attack when they decided to without having anyone stopping them.
• There would be only one government, one army and one leader that would spread the information and plans to execute them at once.
• If the country is at self-defense mode, there would be an exact amount of money they would know they’ll spend and know their limits.
CON’S
• If the country looses the war and for example the Treaty or Versailles would be implanted into them, the economy of this country would be in big trouble.
• If the country runs out of resources, there wouldn’t be an ally there to help them when they need it the most.
• If the country looses the war, not only will the economy drop but if the country has no way to pay back; land will be given to the winning side of the war and if the country isn’t big enough and it loses its region name, the country wouldn’t exist no longer.
The Hoare-Laval pact was a secret plan that was going to be present to Mussolini proposing to give him most of the African country Ethiopia (at that time known as Abyssinia) in return, to stop Mussolini from fighting in the Italo-Ethiopian War in (1935-1936). This pact was put together by the French premier Pierre Laval and the British secretary Sir Samuel Hoare. This pact was brought forward but failed because the unity of France and Italy wasn’t in Mussolini’s plans. This was news that impacted the world, since it was secret it was leaked out and France and Italy’s Unity failed.
ReplyDelete9. PRO’S
• The allies didn’t have to deal with maintaining any foreign land that was not Euro-centric
• Abyssinia was an African country that wasn’t rich in so much value so losing it instead of the stresa Front wouldn’t be a problem.
• The stresa front was Euro-centric, it was a type of border between the enemy and the allies, Abyssinia was far away
• The French Government wanted to propose a secret pact with Mussolini to keep The Anglo-French territories safe so not having Abyssinia wasn’t going to bother them. The only destiny Abyssinia had was to fall in the hands of Mussolini so that there wouldn’t be a war.
CON’S
• The Allies wouldn’t have extra land. Looking at extra information; land was considered a sign of power so less land, less power.
• If there was no external land, the allies could have lost a chance to actually have any foreign African trade.
10. Source C Directs me into an extract from a speech by Neville Chamberlain to the 1900 Club, reported in The Times, June 11th, 1936. Chamberlain states that there was no other country that Abyssinia could be given to besides Italy because they were trying to stop a conflict and given out the land wasn’t going to make any sense. Source C talks about the policy failing to impress Mussolini, failed to stop war, failed to safe the victim of aggression. The Source C ends with talking about if they had common sense then things would have been different.
WORK CITED:
#Packet 19
2014 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. "Hoare-Laval Pact (international Relations [1935])."Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
2014 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. "Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-36)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
Dianna Colon
ReplyDeleteIB History 11
Ms.Noce
January 26, 2014
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
- Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty as a way to repair Germany’s military power and economy. This treaty resulted in Germany’s acceptance on her western borders. Also, it reduced tension, rejected violence, democracy was expanding in Germany, there was a general sense of optimism controlled, and benefit was returning to Europe. Stresemann wanted an international adjustment for a new schedule of reparations.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
- Source A demonstrates that France decided to reduce its reparation claim. The outcome of this was the Dawes Plan. The Dawes Plan decreased the schedule of payments for five years. The reparations helped to repair Germany’s economy and military power. This gave Stresemann a chance to be able to claim a little bit of success. Source B demonstrates that there may be some conflicts between the nations. One reason is because Stresemann was not willing to identify Germany’s Eastern frontiers and another reason is because Britain refused to guarantee, which made the adjustment treaties give international authorization in Europe to two of its frontier classes. Source C demonstrates a picture, which I think shows that to disagree with Locarno is a really big step that may have many conflicts. Source D demonstrates that the Locarno Treaty makes the nations avoid danger from Europe, have good relations with enemies from back then, and protect peace.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
- Japan decided to embark on the invasion of Manchuria because it will help her in both issues of the economy and food. When Japan defeated an industrial revolution, she became the biggest industrial power in Asia. Since there was an expansion in population due to economic development, she was not able to feed herself. Japan depended on manufactured goods from the United States to keep up her accomplishment. Due to the breakdown of American markets and higher US tariffs, Japan had massive unemployment and a problem of starvation in rural areas. Since Manchuria had a very large wealth of natural resources, Japan invaded Manchuria in order to help with her problems.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- The response that the international community made to Japan’s invasion of Manchuria was that it did not threaten the life of the principal of collective security in use to a crisis that was more essential to Europe.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
- The invasion of Manchuria did not have an impact on the international relations. None of the other nations were involved in the conflict because they did not want to create another war.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDelete- This wasn’t a realistic option because the League of Nations was supposed to keep up peace and oppose aggression against any of its members. But, it turned out to be useless because it didn’t have any armed forces of its own. A way that a nation would be discouraged was by the disapproval by the world community and moral accusation. Japan was not expected to be concerned about moral accusations because the nations blaming her were the results of a failed international economic system and its survival was at stake.
7. Did Manchuria encourage its aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
- I do not think that Manchuria encouraged its aggressive action of neighboring states. A pro for “self-defense is the only justification for war” is that it wouldn’t create so much conflicts because their wouldn’t be allied nations. A con is that it may be hard for one nation to fight war on their own.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
- The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to resolve the Abyssinian crisis and prevent losing Italy as an ally against Hitler. It is referred to as an example of Realpolitik because it was a political consideration that was leaked to the press and caused a very large negative reaction among the public.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
- The pro of the statement “sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front” is that Mussolini would ally with Hitler, which would chase his colonial ambitions. A con of this statement is that if Mussolini did ally with Hitler than he would probably have conflicts with France and the United Kingdom.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
- I think this means that if they were to follow the midsummer of madness then it would lead to further misfortunes, which would alter their minds from searching better and other solutions.
Source: Handout #19
Dinia Clairveaux
ReplyDeleteMs.Noce
IB history
1/26/14
1.How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty as an opportunity for Germany to be on good terms with the allied powers. The treaty allowed Germany to restore its economy and itself without it being viewed as a threat to the western Europeans.Germany had agreed to permanently accept borders with France and Belgium.
2.Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
Throughout the reading the different attitudes towards the outcome of the Locarno Pact, it seem that source A and D Believed that the Locarno treaty would keep Germany and the other countries out of war or any conflicts. Meanwhile Germany rebuilds her economy and naval force. Source B was more worried about how the treaty will affect the Eastern frontiers, that hadn't been acknowledged by the Germans and the Allied Powers. And source C demonstrates the steps that had been taken by Europe and how farway it is from disarmament.
3.Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
The reason to why Japan invaded Manchuria was mostly based on the great Depression. Just like every other country,Japan was facing economic problems especially with trade, unemployment and its people were starving. Another reason was due to Japan's expeditious population growth, they decided that they needed to expand.China had already taken Manchuria, but the Japanese wanted it since they made important economic investments in its regions since the Russo-Japanese war. Which would help Japan’s economy through the great depression. So they decided to attack China during her weakened state; due to the first world war and invade Manchuria and it it for themselves.
4.What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The International Community decided to ignore the invasion with the conclusion that it wasn’t of central concerns, due to the geographical location of Japan and Manchuria. And the international community did not have an army of their own to put an end to this conflict.
5.Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
Due to the international community’s decision to overlook the Manchurian crisis, Their weaknesses were exposed and Italy noticed this and so did Germany. They saw this as an opportunity to invade other countries and expand their territorial gains. To make matters worse,due to the great depression most countries isolated themselves trying to prepare their economy and naval force.
6.Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn’t a realistic option because during this era the league lacked armed forces and stability. Other countries didn’t want to intervene in any conflicts, because they were too occupied with their own problems to even consider involvement.
7.Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
Yes Manchuria did encourage aggressive action of neighboring states. Cons:
- China economy suffered and so did its people.
- Due to this invasion the league’s weakness was exposed.
- The invasion and the lack of response to it encourage Mussolini, who wanted to expand Italy to invade Abyssinia.
-Hitler used the league’s disadvantages as an advantage to recolonize Germany and on the quest for world power.
-Japan removing itself from the league made it vulnerable.
Pro’s- This conflict stayed between the two countries and there were no involvement of others.
8.What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The purpose of the Hoare-laval pact was to resolve the Abyssinian Crisis and also to avoid Italy allying herself with Germany. The pact was consider Realpolitik because it was created to resolve the problem, not on the morality. Mussolini was getting land even though he didn't deserves it due to the fact that he was attaining it by force, not because that country wanted to give the land. And also it was created as a disguise to protect the league’s weaken state.
9.Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
Cons: -This statement displayed that Italy was alone due to the fact that She had no support from Britain or France.
-It also revealed that the League of nations weren’t qualified to be peacekeepers of the nation
-Due to the dissupport of from France and Britain, Italy went and allied herself with Germany
- there were no pros on this subject.
10.Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
This statement is saying that due to all the conflicts that occurred under league of nations watch, there was no fixing anything of it. It had already reached the point of no return and nothing could stop the war that was bound to happen, that was in the process of happening. Which is mostly due to the failure of the League's response to the Manchurian crisis and their weakened state with having no army and no stability.
Sources: packet 19
ESSAY
ReplyDelete1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
Gustav Streseman saw the Treaty as a good relief for Germany and a way to show the Allies that Germany would be cooperative regarding the Versailles Treaty and build some reputation. It was a relief in that it would alleviate a bit the hyperinflation occurring in Germany thanks to providing money to the Ruhr Resistance.
2. Refer to pages 64-65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: what different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
Source A has a more positive and cheerful tone, the author is pleased with the results of the Locarno Treaty for it made France decide to let Germany revitalize her economy so she can pay the reparations and the U.S. began loaning to Germany. Source B states that the treaty was indeed successful, but points out a flaw regarding Germany’s Easter frontier with a more serious and formal tone. Source C (the cartoon) has an optimist attitude, because the woman representing Europe is stepping on the stones (steps towards a goal) of the Dawes Plan and Locarno Treaty to finally reach Disarmament and consequently peace. Source D has a proud attitude, since it states that the Locarno Treaty is “safeguarding peace”; it also seems a bit poetical.
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan decided to invade Manchuria mainly because of economic reasons: Japan did not have many resources to feed her ever-increasing population thanks to the industrial boom that Japan experienced. Japan had some troops stationed in Manchuria already so it would be easier to invade and occupy, and they felt that Manchuria had plenty of resources to feed the population of Japan.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
Europe was too busy with their own internal economic problems, so they did not act since Japan and China was not in their interests. I think that despite their tortuous problems, the Europeans may have felt outraged that Japan took such violent measures.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The effect of the invasion of Manchuria on international entities was: none. The UK and USA were exercising a policy of appeasement so they let Japan go on their way. Other European countries were, as previously mentioned, very busy with the economic crisis so Asia was not of their concern and they did not act at all.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
This course of action was not realistic because some countries may not want to stop trading with the aggressor country due to the economic repercussions of halting trade with that nation, so that country would demand an economic compensation for performing the boycott. The crisis in Europe was too tough to stop the few economic activities that were holding together a country.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defense is the only justification for war.”
A pro form the statement is that the country that decides to go to war won’t collapse; another benefit is that a nation that is known for only going to war when it is attacked usually gains a good reputation due to being mostly peaceful. A con with the resolution is that depending on the nature of the war, sanctions could be applied to the attacking country such as Japan’s trade with America being cut due to their invasion of Manchuria.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the Hoare-Laval pact was to solve the situation in Abyssinia by giving (Benny) Mussolini 2/3rds of Abyssinia to him and leave the remaining third of Abyssinia as an independent state. It failed because Mussolini refused to be given only part of Abyssinia, and the people of Abyssinia were against the pact. The pact is called an example of Realpolitik because Italy’s reasons for taking Abyssinia were completely practical, without an ideology or moral/ethical consideration behind them.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
The pro for sacrificing Abyssinia would be that Italy would not be upset at the Allies and remain an ally to them (maintain the Stresa Front) so that Germany would be kept at bay. A con would be that letting Italy take Abyssinia would expose the weakness of the League of Nations and in turn lose support and faith in it.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
The Abyssinian crisis was an impossible mission because the League of Nations’ purpose was to maintain peace through diplomacy; and since Mussolini was seen as a great ally to keep Germany under control so they could not antagonize Mussolini or else he would turn away from the League and the Allies and eventually ally with Germany, the greatest threat to peace. Since they could not intervene completely against Mussolini, they had to put very light sanctions and had no option but to let him get his way.
SOURCES: Packet #19
Mu Ying Yu
ReplyDeleteIB World History 11
Ms. Noce
January 26, 2014
Ruhr, Locarno, Manchuria, and Abyssinia
1.How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
The Locarno Treaty of 1925 were an agreement signed by France, Belgium, Germany and UK. According to the Versailles settlement, Germany finally agreed to accept the western borders as permanent. This treaty push Europe a big step towards peace. Gustav Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty was a good idea for peace in Europe. Because Germany fully followed the treaty and hopefully will end the issues with Allies; which also made Stresemann believed it would help Germany recover from the huge debt.
2.Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout ( sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
Source A: positive attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno because Stresemann skillfully proposed international arbitration for new schedule for the reparations. Source B: positive attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno because it claims that the Pact will bring peace to the world. Source C: positive attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno because the cartoon shows that Europa is seriously choose where the next step is going to be, they went from Dawes to Locarno and the next step will be Disarmament. Source D: positive attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno because they accomplished their peace goal.
3.Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
Japan embarked on this course of action because Japan wanted to take over Manchuria’s economic system to help their own country to be stronger, so they don’t had to suffer starve.
4.What response did the international community make to this flagrant in aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The international community made no response to this flagrant in aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria) because 1st, they don’t have money to involved and join military; and 2nd they are not the European central power.
5.Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
I think there is no impact because the country are starving and out of jobs and they had debt; due to the country face economic difficulties. They can not go in war because they don’t have the money to afford all the supplies and what they really need to do was improve their economy.
6.Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
ReplyDeleteThis wasn’t a realistic option because all the countries are doing well with their own and they should keep good relationship with each other. Also the League of Nation should help keep peace but it turn out worthless because they don’t have their own army.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
Manchuria did not encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states. A pro for “self-defence is the only justification for war” was if they are not allied than there will not be that much conflicts between each other. A con was no one will help you when you run out of resources.
8.What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact was to keep relation with Mussolini but also end all the conflicts between Britain and France. It referred to as an example of Realpolitik because it go with what the Minister need but not solving what the real issues are.
9.Discuss the Pro’s and Con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
The pro was allies got no responsibility to maintain any lands that are out of Eurocentric. The con was Allies would start looking for new land to build stronger power.
10.Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
“the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nation that it was impossible to fulfill”, it meant that the plan was unsuccessful and nothing will be recovered from it.
Source:
Packet # 19
1. How does Gustav Stresemann view the Locarno Treaty of 1925?
ReplyDeleteChancellor Stresemann was one of the major initiators of the Locarno treaty and saw it as a chance for Germany to regain the pride and economic fitting she had before the Treaty of Versailles. He demands for more equal treatment and divvying up the war burden were, to France especially, extremely surprising and forward.
2. Refer to pages 64 and 65 in your handout (sources A-D) and answer the following question: What different attitudes towards the outcome of Locarno does Sources A-D demonstrate?
3. Why did Japan embark on this course of action (invasion of Manchuria)?
In an effort to assert their presence and strength, the Japanese moved their foreign policy towards a series of invasions within Asia until, in an obvious ploy to involve the U.S., Russia and various European powers, they invaded Manchuria. There was hope of a creation of a strong empire that would stem from the war mobilizations and would give them a contender’s place in a world war of the major powers. This was also seen as a chance to bring China, a long-standing rival, to her knees.
4. What response did the international community make to this flagrant act of aggression (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
The League of Nations, which did not expect the invasion by the Japanese, did not immediately make any effort to tame the unjustified. After about a year the League sent a group to report on the state in Manchuria and when they received the report, ordered the Japanese to evacuate Manchuria but for it to become a state independent from China. Japan did not concede and, along with their previous reputation, the League’s involvement ended there.
5. Discuss the impact their action or inaction had on international relations in subsequent years (Japan’s invasion of Manchuria)?
This incident proved that the League of Nations had virtually no power or influence on the greater world, especially in times of crisis. It was also shown that almost anyone could do whatever they wanted, no matter how drastic or morally unacceptable as long as they had the money and resources and chose a fairly ‘globally-irrelevant’ victim.
6. Economic sanctions depended on the willingness of nations to undertake a boycott or other economic action against the aggressor. It also meant that all nations would have to participate. Why wasn’t this a realistic option? Discuss in relation to the vested interests of the League and non-League members.
Almost all involved and who had any possible influence in this case was invested in Japan’s economy or depended on them for trade-relations. Because of this, none were wholly willing to offend or punish Japan in fear of losing their economic relationships when the Great Depression was gaining momentum.
7. Did Manchuria encourage the aggressive action of neighboring states? Create pro’s and con’s to the resolution that “self-defence is the only justification for war.”
ReplyDeleteChina instigated a war with Japan in response to the crisis, and requested aid from the League of Nations. To say that “self-defense is the only justification for war” is a controversial statement. One might fudge the meaning of “self-defense” to pre-emotive action, but it is also a good and sensible cause for action and reaction. To say that it is the only proper justification is trick however because then one would never be able to aid another country without being a direct victim. It would be positive in that it would prevent more nefarious and unnecessary wars and, if followed verbatim, no war would ever occur which I cannot see as a hardship.
8. What was the purpose of the Hoare-Laval pact? Why is it referred to as an example of Realpolitik?
The Pact was intended to soften relations between Italy and the United Kingdom and put an end to the Italo-Ethiopian War. It could be seen as a form of Realpolitik because this form of secretive catering to another nation was morally inappropriate and only benefited the U.K. and no other country. In fact, the pact seemed more aimed to giving those in power a sense of safety rather than protecting the state.
9. Discuss the pro’s and con’s to the following statement: sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintaining the Stresa Front.
When Italy invaded Ethiopia France and Britain were still optimistic about the outcomes of their alliance with Italy. They deferred on the side of Italy during the Abyssinian crisis because they thought that the possibility of a united front against Germany outweighed the moral encroachments being practiced in Ethiopia.
10. Use Source C on page 75 along with your knowledge from this reading and analyze the following statement: the Abyssinian crisis was a task imposed upon the League of Nations that it was impossible to fulfill.
As had been proven numerous times before, the League of Nations held no true power during a crisis, especially and invasion. They were reluctant to go against Italy because of her power and possible volatility. Any actions they did initiate also fell on deaf ears and their influence was nonexistent.
Works Cited
"Hoare-Laval Pact (International Relations [1935])." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
"Japan Invades Manchuria." : 1931. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
"Manchuria 1931." Manchuria 1931. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
"The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine - 1921–1936." Office of the Historian. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
"Realpolitik." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.
Stresemann and Locarno. Jonathan Wright. Contemporary European History, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jul., 1995), pp. 109-131. Cambridge University Press. JSTOR.
Jack Roberts
Naomie Bourdeau
ReplyDeleteMs. Noce
IB History
January 26, 2014
1.) Gustar Stresemann views the Locamo Treaty of 1925 as a good opportunity for Germany. Stresemann proposed that idea to the allies that “Germany would be prepared to accept its current boundaries”. After that proposal, then came the Locarno Treaty that was just basically an agreement for Germany to accept her western borders to determine the settlement for Versailles. It would have brought great peace to Europe, Stresemann believed. So that’s how Gustar Stresemann viewed the Locarno Treaty of 1925.
2.) Source A attitude of the outcome of the Locarno Treaty was that all though Germany paid off some reparations, they stilled took way to many loans off of the us. If had some success but still had some downfalls. Source B attitude of the outcome of the Locarno Treaty was that the Locarno Treaty side tracked from the real issues, the Locarno treaty defined Europe as the next battlefield. Source C attitude of the outcome of the Locarno Treaty was indicating that the treaty was leading Europe to “Disarmament”. Meaning that Europe would be less hostile, and wouldn’t be taken seriously. Source D attitude of the Locarno Treaty was that the treaty was preventing danger from the country and from Europe. Also great peace was made.
3.) Japan invaded Manchuria because they were very affected by the world trade. They pleaded that without Manchuria, they would have no food since the economic system gone really badly. The invasion was just another impact from the Great Depression.
4.) The international community responded to the flagrant act of aggression by exposing the principles of the collective security as not solid. How it lacked power and the ideas were not guaranteed and that the three was not any hope for peace in the future.
5.) The international relations were impacted greatly. Majority of the powers who supported the collective security didn’t have any more courage left, they didn’t have that desire to pledge and support it anymore. In the following years Britian was very weakend by the Great Depression. France and Britian were disheartened, they tried to Support the Versailles agreement and the League. But they just didn’t have ability to do so. There weakness was eventually exposed, because of the Manchurian Crisis. The crisis was to build up more aggression on Abyssinia. That lead to Hitler getting what he desired, because that caused the stress Front agreement to end. So that’s how their actions on the international relations impacted them in the subsequent years.
ReplyDelete6.) This wasn’t a realistic option because it would lead to retaliation against any aggressor. The League of Nation’s job was to keep the peace, and stay away from any aggression against any of its members. So if every nation would had to participate then it would of led to unwillingness because they didn’t have a choice .It was just forced upon them. The League of Nations was very huge and had no armed forces upon them. Now for the non-league member they might have disapproved the moral condemnation and that was just another way of the nation’s being deterred.
7.)Yes, I believe that it did because they encouraged the aggression action by force. It led to japan not participating in the League of Nations anymore. The pros of “self-defense is the only justification for war” are that you will gain self-confidence and would feel very strong. The Cons are that you might get to self-centered and not partake in any help from any countries, might turn into a communist aggressor.
8.) The Hoare-Laval Pact was a plan made by the French and the British foreign minister, so that Abyssinia crisis would be settled. Also avoid the loss of Italy as an ally not supporting Hitler. It was referred as an example of Realpolitik because it was not an unreasonable assumption.
9.) “Sacrificing Abyssinia was less important than maintain the Stress Front” The pros are that it expand Italy’s colonial holding that was in Africa. Also the stressa front was signed by Britain, France, and Italy to keep up with the Locarno Agreement .The cons was that Abyssinia was attacked. The crisis was a perfect example of failure of the collective security principle, which weakened that even more. It bought a peace threat to the world.
10.) I agree with the following statement that Abyssisan crisis was a task imposed upon the league of nations that it was impossible to fulfill because regardless if they were involved or not it didn’t have a positive effect.
Work Cited
Packet #19