Category: War

Introduction

The Second World War was an upheaval that involved almost every region across the world from 1939 to 1945. Having claimed the lives of over 40 million people, this conflict must have been catalyzed by numerous unresolved issues that affected different parts of Europe for many years. The biggest question is how such a war got out of hand and eventually changed the world forever. The modern-day world is largely dictated by the aftermath of this great upheaval. This causal analysis digs deeper to understand the real forces that led to the war and how it continues to affect the world today.

Thesis Statement

Having been triggered by the unresolved injustices in Europe after the Great War (also known as the First World War), the Second World War resulted in a decisive power shift away from the leading European states (such as Germany, France, and Britain) to the Soviet Union and the United States.

Analysis of the Second World War

Causes

The main cause of the Second World War is an issue that has attracted the attention of many scholars, historians, and archeologists across the world. This is the case because there are numerous factors and forces that are believed to have led to this global turmoil. The invasion of Poland by Germany is identified as the main trigger of this war (World War Two, 2018). This move forced France and Germany to declare war on Adolf Hitlers regime. However, the causes of this conflict in Europe are complicated since different unresolved concerns have been mentioned by historians.

The first cause revolves around the Treaty of Versailles (World War Two, 2018). Following the end of the Great War, France, the United States, Italy, and Britain developed a plan detailing how Germany was to pay for its role in initiating this turmoil. Although Germany decided to sign the formulated document, it remained discontented with the terms. Germany was forced to accept the blame for triggering the First World War.

It was also supposed to pay around 6,600 million pounds for every damage caused (World War II, 2009). The action was also prohibited from having tanks, submarines, and an air force. Some of its territories and lands were taken away. This issue forced many Germans to support a new leader who could address the situation and reclaim the countrys glory (Brickell, 2014). This nation was also finding it hard to pay the required amount of money due to the increasing poverty levels.

The second outstanding cause of this war was Adolf Hitler. From 1934, Hitler began to increase the size of the countrys army. This was against the Treaty of Versailles. He also made several alliances and pacts, such as the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Rome-Berlin Axis Pact. By 1938, Germany was taking back some of its territories that had been taken away. A decisive vote also saw Austria becoming part of Germany.

In 1938, the Munich Agreement was signed, whereby Hitler was allowed to retain the Sudetenland region (World War Two, 2018). However, he was requested not to occupy Czechoslovakia. In March 1939, the German army invaded the country. At this time, France and Britain were unprepared for any military action (David, 2015). In September the same year, Hitler invaded Poland. This would result in a declaration of war.

The third potential cause of this conflict was the ineffectiveness of the League of Nations established in 1919. This organization was formed to maintain global peace after the end of the First World War. From 1920 to 1934, the League imposed trade sanctions and restrictions on nations such as Italy and Japan (World War II, 2009). With many nations not involved in the organization, it was impossible to manage various global affairs. This institutions power was also limited. Since it lacked an army, it was unable to act and stop any act of aggression in Europe and beyond. These factors worked synergistically to trigger World War II.

The absence of appeasement is the fourth force that catalyzed this war. Britain and France believed that Germanys needs had been ignored in the Treaty of Versailles. Hitlers demands to have some of the nations territories given back were ignored. The Munich Agreement managed to address some of the issues raised by Hitler (World War Two, 2018). A similar approach could have been used to promote global peace instead of animosity. The failure to involve different nations and stakeholders to deal with the issues facing Europe would eventually result in this war.

Long-Term Effects

One of the outstanding long-term issues that are referenced by many scholars is the Cold War and its aftermath. The end of World War II resulted in a shift of power. With the European countries dominating the world from the Middle Ages to the 19th century, a new order had emerged characterized by the waves of capitalism and communism. After the war, the United States and the Soviet Union would put the world on a different path (Hampson, 2015).

This upheaval lasted over 40 years and reshaped global relations forever. Revolutionary approaches to militarism, aviation, international relations, and scientific inquire emerged throughout this unrest. At the same time, the economy of the United States would grow rapidly since the war had not been fought on its soil. Today, the world is still divided over the ideals of capitalism and communism.

The second undeniable effect is the peace and harmony that has been experienced in the world over the years. Following the end of the war, the United Nations (UN) was established after revising the bottlenecks associated with the League of Nations. The emerging winners of this conflict would enjoy veto power in the UN. The lessons gained from this war encouraged many people to condemn any form of upheaval that could claim lives (World War II, 2009).

Although the UN has been criticized for being following toothless unrests such as the Cold War, the Gulf War, and the emergence of radical or terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, many experts still believe that the organization has been vital in tackling conflicts and wars in different parts of the world.

The third effect is that the world has become militarized than ever before. The Second World War is believed to have led to numerous research activities in the military field. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in Japan saw a new age of nuclear weapons. As a result, the world would never be the same again (Hampson, 2015). Over the years, global society has been grappling with serious threats from dangerous weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This occurrence or challenge is attributable to the Second World War.

The fourth long-term impact of this war is that it exposed many populations and communities to conditions such as depression, diabetes, heart diseases, and poverty. Such predicaments continue to affect the world to this day (Kesternich, Siflinger, Smith, & Winter, 2014). During this period, those who were involved contracted terminal illnesses due to the absence of coordinated medical care delivery efforts. The outcome was that diseases that had been managed earlier developed to become epidemics. With increasing levels of poverty and lack of education, it was impossible for the world to transform the situation. Kesternich et al. (2014) indicate that lower and middle classes were affected the most. Today, the modern world is affected by these health and social problems. Professionals and experts in the medical field have asserted that such conditions would not affect many people today if the war had not taken place.

Conclusion

The above descriptive analysis has revealed that World War II was triggered by the unresolved disputes and injustices in Europe before and after the Great War and the League of Nations failure to implement the idea of appeasement. With many countries across the globe involved in this turmoil, it was impossible to prevent the deaths that occurred between 1939 and 1945. The Second World War resulted in a decisive power shift away from European powers (Germany, France, and Britain).

The Soviet Union and the United States would then find themselves in a new supremacy battle revolving around the notions of communism and capitalism. Although the UN has managed to maintain relative global peace, many diseases, civil unrests, regional wars, terrorism, and nuclear weapons continue to threaten the world today. In conclusion, the Second World War is relevant today because it acts as a reminder of the dangers of large-scale global conflicts and how they can affect the lives of many people for centuries.

References

Brickell, C. (2014). Networks of affect, male homoeroticism and the Second World War: A soldiers archive. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(2), 183-202. Web.

David, M. (2015). How World War II shaped modern America. Web.

Hampson, R. (2015). 70 years later: How World War II changed America. Web.

Kesternich, I., Siflinger, B., Smith, J. P., & Winter, J. K. (2014). The effects of World War II on economic and health outcomes across Europe. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), 103-118. Web.

World War II. (2009). Web.

World War Two  Causes. (2018). Web.

World War II was a global tragedy on a massive scale. That conflict lasted for six years and led to numerous losses, atrocities, and political and ideological shifts across the world. Still, like all events, it has its causes and effects, shaping the world to become the place that it is in modern days. As such, it would be beneficial to track down what has caused that conflict and what consequences it has brought.

Origins and Effects of the Second World War

Causes

The Treaty of Versailles was probably the most significant amongst all of the causes for World War II. Through this treaty, leaders of Entente and their allies tried to make sure that Germany would never become a threat again (Sharp 42). As such, it contained humiliating and harsh penalties and reparations for Germany, effectively breaking the economy of the country. One of those was the disbandment of the German military and fleet along with the prohibition of its rearmament, turning Germany into a disarmed country (Sharp 44).

Reparations were another harsh punishment for post-war Germany, as they hindered its potential to rebuild the country and had put it into deep debt to the Entente. In addition to that, Germany has lost sizeable and developed territories, including Alsace-Lorraine and Frankfurt to France, Upper Silesia to Czechoslovakia and Poland, Danzig and Poznan to Poland, Memel to the Allies (Sharp 87). Germany also ceded all of its colonies to the League of Nations (Sharp 88).

All of that, along with the War Guilt Clause putting all of the blame for the First World War on the Central Powers, especially Germany, caused a deep resentment along with revanchism among the population. Those feelings, in turn, led to the rising popularity of politicians who promised to return Germany to its former glory, opening a road to power for Hitler.

Other factors led to the Second World War, such as the growing expansionism of Japan and Italy. The Empire of Japan, being among the Allies in World War I, was planning to become a major power in South-East Asia, starting with former German colonies (Sharp 87). However, those were instead transferred to the mandate of the League of Nations, leaving the Japanese dissatisfied with the results of World War I. The United States also blocked their attempts to expand in the territory of Russia that was in the midst of civil war, which led the Japanese to mark the USA as their primary political rival in the region (Sharp 90).

Similar proceedings have happened to Italy, as it switched sides on the promise of dividing the territories of the Ottoman Empire. However, it was left out of the process as Syria, Egypt, and Iraq were shared between France and Great Britain (Sharp 96). All of that, along with the emergence of the Soviet Union and the weakening of Great Britain, France, and the USA from the economic crisis, had led the world to the volatile situation when World War II became imminent.

Consequences

Among all the consequences of the Second World War, three are the most prominent. First is the loss of life and widespread destruction across the world. World War II, unlike the First World War, was a global conflict, and almost every country suffered human losses (Lowe 380). Although the exact numbers are still unknown, modern history counts almost sixty-five million casualties, including the victims of ethnic cleansings conducted by Nazis (Lowe 382).

The results are varying for different countries, with Eastern Europe suffering the heaviest losses, leading to demographic problems. Although the cost is tremendous, the war also led to some positive outcomes, as jobs previously unavailable for women were opened due to the lack of a workforce, strengthening the feminist movements in democratic countries.

The second consequence is that of the political and national shift. As the remaining colonial empires were weakened by the war, their colonies strengthened their fight for independence. Scenarios of such have varied, from the peaceful decolonization of India to the Indochina wars between Viet Minh and France. However, in the end, most of the colonies have achieved independence, changing the political landscape of the Earth and giving the start to the new batch of conflicts that continue to this day (Lowe 275).

The third and probably the most important consequence was that the ending of the Second World War and following events led directly to the Cold War, which started to develop as early as 1947. During World War II, the Allies formed a pact of necessity with the Soviet Union to defeat the Third Reich and its allies (Steil 12). When that goal was achieved with the end of the war, it left these two political blocks competing against each other for influence over the world (Steil 36).

The confrontation between two emerging superpowers has created a new political situation in the world, as the development of weapons of mass destruction both heightened and suppressed the tensions during the Cold War, making a new conventional World War impossible (Steil 478).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be said that while World War II ended more than seventy-five years ago, processes that it has caused are still felt all over the world. Its aftermath has laid a foundation for the modern state of global society, as both positive and negative outcomes were born out of it. As such, it should be noted that the effects of the Second World War are still not complete and should be investigated further.

Works Cited

Lowe, Keith. The Fear and the Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us. St. Martins Press, 2017.

Sharp, Allan. The Consequences of the Peace: The Versailles Settlement: Aftermath and Legacy 1919-2015. 2nd ed., Haus Publishing, 2015.

Steil, Benn. The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War. Oxford University Press, 2018.

The Treaty of Versailles was the fundamental agreement which marked the end of World War 1 (WWI). However, it destabilized the German economy throughout the 1920s, and intense animosity between European powers resulted. Ordinary citizens of Germany believed that the country was betrayed by the politicians who signed what they considered to be dictated peace (Hanson, 2020). The disgruntled populace felt compelled towards embracing leaders like Adolf Hitler who saw remilitarization as the only way honor could be restored (Romano et al., 2020). The fact that a significant number of Germans failed to accept the terms of their republics surrender during WWI inevitably led to World War 2 (WWII).

Belligerents During WWI

WWI was a conflict between the Central Powers and the Allied Powers. The former included Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, and Austria-Hungary (Tampke, 2018). The latter consisted of the US (1917  1918), France, Great Britain, Russia (1914  1916), Japan, Italy, and Romania (Marcovitz, 2017). The war lasted between 28 July 1914 and 11 November 1918. Nevertheless, the state of war persisted until 28 June 1919 when the Treaty of Versailles was signed (Hanson, 2020). Instead of laying the foundation for lasting peace, the agreement caused fierce indignation in Germany.

The Impact of the Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles imposed tough conditions on Germany which included the demand to take responsibility for triggering the conflict. The Germans had to pay £6.6 billion in reparations and maintain a limited military force (Marcovitz, 2017). For instance, the country was to remain without an air force and submarines, and was only allowed to have six battleships. Conscription was disallowed, no troops were to be stationed in the Rhineland, and the entire military force was not to exceed 100,000 men (Romano et al., 2020). The Germans considered this to be an unfair punishment and felt the need to fight back.

Germany had not actually started the war, and its actions prior to the conflict were not different from those of other countries. There had always been military alliances among the powers in Europe, Russia, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire (Hanson, 2020). For a few years before 1914, the Balkan Peninsula witnessed significant political instability (Tampke, 2018). The viability of the pacts was tested when the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungarian Empire was killed in Bosnia by a Serbian nationalist. Austria-Hungary appealed to Germany for support while Serbia petitioned Russia to help its ward off an invasion by Austro-Hungarians (Marcovitz, 2017). The allies of both parties pledged their assistance, and the situation quickly escalated into a full-blown world war.

Mistakes Done During the Peace Negotiations

Besides having the same level of culpability as any other European power, Germany was also concerned that the Allied Powers were utilizing the opportunity to settle old scores. Others such as Ferdinand Foch advocated for the imposition of harsher punishment than the Treaty of Versailles required in order to prevent Germany from becoming a military superpower in the future (Hanson, 2020). Therefore, the stakeholders at the time were focused on either punishing Germany over past actions or trying to obstruct its efficiency to mobilize armed forces in the future. Ignorance of the context merely froze one stage of the conflict as it planted the seed for the next stage.

Part of the reason why the stakeholders failed in their missions is because some of the events remained unknown. Germany was excluded from the six months of negotiations which culminated into the Treaty of Versailles (Romano et al., 2020). Had the Central Powers been allowed to tell their side of the story, the Allied Powers could have had bases for interrogating the feasibility of their proposals (Tampke, 2018). The popular sentiments among the Germans were that the agreement was forced on them, and indeed, the victors threatened war if Germany declined to did not assent to the proposals.

The Impact of Adolf Hitlers Rise to Power

Hitler exploited the resentment that the Germans had towards the victors of WWI to rise to power. He was the chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 (Marcovitz, 2017). The then leader of the Nazi Party argued that Germany had what it would take to win the second stage of the global conflict. He enjoyed popular support, and the Germans supported his idea of voiding the military articles of the Treaty of Versailles between 1935 and 1936 (Hanson, 2020). The civilian population felt the genuine need for a protector, and Hitler proved to be up to the task (Romano et al., 2020). It is noteworthy, however, that Hitler was a consequence of the WWI and the Treaty of Versailles.

Conclusion

The anger that fueled the rise of Hitler to Chancellorship stemmed off the economic instability caused by the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans were also discontented over what they saw as the needless humiliation of their country. For instance, Germany supported Austria-Hungary in the same way that Russia came to the aid of Serbia. Indeed, if all the other countries had acted with restraint, it is possible that the WWI would not have broken-out. The stage for WWII would not have been set since the Applied Powers could have never had the chance to impose harsh conditions for Germany.

References

Hanson, V. D. (2020). The second world wars: How the first global conflict was fought and won. Basic Books.

Marcovitz, H. (2017). Cause & effect: World War II. ReferencePoint Press, Incorporated.

Romano, M. J., Thone, K., Streitwieser, W., & Martin, M. (2020). Regents exams and answers: Global history and geography 2020. Simon and Schuster.

Tampke, J. (2018). A perfidious distortion of history: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the success of the Nazis. Scribe Publications.

Introduction

World War II was a global war that lasted between 1939 and 1945. It was fought between two military alliances that included the Allies and the Axis. The Axis alliance comprised Japan, Italy, and Germany while the Allies alliance constituted France, the United States, Great Britain, and China. The war broke out two decades after World War I, which set the stage for another global conflict that would be more devastating.

The rise of Adolf Hitler to power created the foundation for the conflict. He became the leader at a time when Germany was economically and politically unstable. His National Sociality (Nazi) Party enhanced the nations military capacity, and Hitler entered into strategic agreements with Italy and Japan to support his world domination agenda. The conflict lasted for 16 years and led to millions of deaths and the massive destruction of property. Approximately 45-60 million people were killed, including the 6 million Jews that were murdered during the Holocaust. Despite its dire ramifications, World War II could have been avoided had the Allies stopped Hitler from expanding his empire.

The Treaty of Versailles

One of the major reasons given as a contributing factor to World War II was the Treaty of Versailles that was signed on 28 June 1919 in order to bring an end to World War I. It concluded the five-year bloody conflict between the Allied Powers and Germany and laid the foundation for what later became the Second World War (Freeman 34). Germany was viewed as a major antagonist in World War One and on the losing end.

Therefore, the Allied Powers included certain clauses in the Treaty of Versailles to punish the Germans for the atrocities that they had committed in the previous war. Moreover, the Allied Powers held the belief that Germany and its allies were responsible for the war and they would rearm their military and cause more damage if stringent measures were not implemented to avoid such an outcome (Overy 44). The terms of the treaty required Germany to give up 10 percent of its territory, undergo disarmament, pay reparation in ships, gold, securities, and commodities, and relinquish its overseas empire to the Allied powers (Freeman 35).

Germany gave up several empires and suffered a ruined economy after paying the reparations, according to the requirements of the War Guilt Clause (Overy 46). The financial depression that ensued thrust the government into chaos and the nation faced starvation as it was incapable of affording enough food for its population. Conscription was proscribed and the size of the German military was greatly limited (Freeman 35).

Clauses that demanded Germany to take responsibility for the war were included in the agreement. These clauses attained the intended objectives of their inclusion: reparations for the destructions cast Germany into a huge debt and consequent depression. As a result of the poor economic state, Germany had to find a way to revive the economy. War is a profitable endeavor, and Germany initiated a war to remedy its poor economic situation. World War II was caused by a myriad of factors. However, one of them was the Carthaginian peace that emanated from the Treaty of Versailles.

Impact of the Treaty

The treaty was aimed at ending the war and resolving the disputes that had led to the First World War. However, it prevented cooperation among European nations and intensified the underlying issues that had led to the conflict. The Germans, Austrians, Bulgarians, and the Hungarians viewed the Treaty as punishment (Overy 48). Therefore, they violated the limiting provisions of the agreement. The situation created a fertile ground for the rise of Hitler to power as his party promised the people that they would rearm the military, reclaim German territory, and gain prominence in international politics (Freeman 40). The promise to restore the economy and Germanys prominence in international politics led to the election of Hitler, whose actions contributed to World War II.

Some historians argue that had the Treaty of Versailles not been as harsh to the Germans as it had been, the Second World War could have been avoided. Hitler was against the treaty because it had crippled Germany by placing numerous restrictions that hampered its economic and military expansion. The moves to rearm Germany, sign treaties with Italy, and expand his empire originated from a need to restore Germany (Overy 51).

Many Germans were against the radical tenets that the Nazi party held. However, the promise to restore Germanys prominence among world powers motivated them to vote for Hitler. Had the Treaty of Versailles been fair to both Germany and its allies, the Second World War would never have occurred. Probably, Hitler would not have ascended to power because his election was founded on the hope of economic restoration that he offered to the people.

Adolf Hitlers Rule

Hitlers promise to restore Germany was his claim to power as the Germans wanted someone to revive the economy, empower the military, and reclaim the nations dignity. It was clear from the early days of Hitlers rule that his major goal was to conquer the world and dominate. As mentioned earlier, the Allies created the Treaty of Versailles to punish Germany for its involvement in World War I. They pushed Germany into desperation and laid a foundation for future conflicts. The Allied powers did not respond accordingly when Hitlers intentions of global domination became apparent. They should have stopped him and prevented the massive loss of lives and destruction of property that ensued from the Second World War.

Hitlers actions were planned and strategic since the beginning of his rule, and his intentions became clearer as the years passed. For example, Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles regarding military training and armament, enlarged the army, nullified the treaty, and withdrew from the Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments (Freeman 56). In 1936, Hitler invaded and demilitarized Rhineland, thus violating the Locarno Pact that had been signed in 1925 (Overy 57).

These moves should have signaled Hitlers aggression to the Allies. However, they ignored the overt violations of the treaties and overlooked his move to annex Austria into Nazi Germany. A preventive war against Hitler could have prevented the Second World War.

The Munich Agreement was another failure on the side of the Allies. It involved France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, and it allowed Germany to annex Sudetenland, without attacking Czechoslovakia (Overy 63). Hitler announced that the conquest would be his last bid to expand the German empire and the agreement was lauded as a peace milestone. However, several months later, Hitler took over Czechoslovakia, Slovakia, and the port city of Klaipeda (Freeman 58).

The Allied Powers foresaw Hitler conquering Poland because by this time, his intention of dominating the world had been made clear by his acts of aggression. However, they did not stop him as they chose to avoid a recurrence of the events of World War I. They adhered to a policy of appeasement as weaker nations suffered under the ruthless rule of Hitler. His actions were supported by the declaration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt that each nation had a right to determine its destiny (Overy 73). A war against Hitler was declared too late after he invaded Poland in 1939. ermany conquered Norway and Denmark and invaded France and Russia. During these invasions, the US ignored the conflicts but joined in later.

Anschluss in 1938

The annexation of Austria into a Greater Germany is one of the occurrences that could have been prevented, and as a result, avoided World War II. The annexation was an overt violation of the Treaty of Versailles that Hitler had unsuccessfully tried earlier, but failed because he had a weak army (Overy 77). In 1938, Hitler had a stronger army that was ready for war. Moreover, he did not meet with resistance from Italy because he had united with Mussolini and signed the Anti-Comintern Act a year earlier. Therefore, he was prepared for Anschluss. Hitler rallied the Nazi party in Austria to cause riots while demanding unity with Germany.

As the riots continued, Hitler pressured Chancellor Schuschnigg into giving in to his demands. Unsure of the decision to make, he reached out to France and Britain for assistance (Overy 91). However, the two nations made it clear that they were proponents of unity. After being ignored, the Chancellor held a vote so that the Austrian people could decide on the matter. Hitler gave the responsibility of overseeing the vote to German soldiers, whose main goal was to intimidate the voters. 99.75% of the people who participated in the practice voted to have Austria and Germany unite (Freeman 67).

The win was proof enough to Hitler that he was powerful enough to expand his empire and that the Allied powers would not oppose his moves to contravene the statutes of the Treaty of Versailles. If France and Britain had offered military assistance to Austria in order to stop the annexation, they would have stopped Hitler from advancing his agenda of conquering the world and creating tensions that caused another war. The outcome would have been different had the Allies declared war on Hitler during this moment rather than after he invaded Poland because by then, it was too late.

Hitlers invasion of Poland in 1939 was followed by a 6-month period of the Phoney War that was characterized by conflicts on a minor scale. During this period, no bombs were dropped and fighting was minimal. Hitler had successfully expanded his empire without much opposition. Therefore, he did not expect the Allies to declare war on him after invading Poland (Freeman 76). At this time, Germany was not prepared for a major war, and Hitler could have been stopped.

World War II could have been avoided had the Allied Powers declared war on Hitler at this point. He would have probably backed down and signed peace treaties because his army was not strong enough to fight a major war. The Allies should have used their power to compel Hitler to adhere to the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles. This could have led to a shorter and less disastrous war as Germany would probably fight back. The Phoney war was an indication that Germany was unwilling to fight after recovering from the aftermath of World War I. The Allies should have taken that as an indication that Germany was ready to avoid another war at all costs for purposes of self-preservation.

Conclusion

World War II was one of the most destructive global wars that could have been avoided. Millions of people were killed, including more than 6 million Jews. After the defeat of Germany in World War I, clauses were appended to the Treaty of Versailles to punish Germany as one of the main aggressors. The treaty was aimed at bringing peace. However, it treated Germany harshly, and as a result, destroyed its economy and military. The people starved and the economy disintegrated.

Hitler was elected because he gave the people hope by promising them to restore the economy and the nations former glory. The Allies could have stopped the War had they acted on Hitlers infringement of the Treaty. However, they allowed him to rearm and expand his military, as well as invade other countries. They should have opposed his agenda of conquering the world, which was evident from the actions he took during the early years of his rule. World War II could have been avoided had the Allied Powers declared war on Hitler before he had rearmed his military and gained confidence by conquering other nations. For example, the Anschluss could have been stopped by France and Britain ignored Austrias requests for assistance.

Works Cited

Freeman, Richard Z. A Concise History of the Second World War: Its Origin, Battles, and Consequences. Merriam Press, 2016.

Overy, Richard. The Origins of the Second World War. 4th ed., Routledge, 2017.

World War II was the most global war in human history. Taking place all over the world, it inflicted more casualties on humanity than any other war. During the hostilities, numerous war crimes took place on all fronts, and even now the war remains an important topic in political discussions. The reasons for the beginning of this disaster are multiple and complicated. They are also very valid and concern all of the participating countries, which makes it possible to consider the war inevitable.

The first reason should be the actions of the country that started the war: Germany under Adolf Hitler. Under this leader, the country followed the radical ideology of Nazism. An integral part of the ideology was that ethnic Germans needed to be reunited in one country. Any opposition was suppressed, so the regime had a solid position. Thus, Germany aimed at expansion, even if it meant occupying other countries.

Yet Germany was not the only dictatorship that could play a role in the future war. Soviet Unions social formation had developed under the ideology of communism and was antagonistic towards capitalism itself. Just before the beginning of the war, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had secured a non-aggression pact with Germany. An agreement to divide Poland between the two dictators was included in the pact. This ensured that Hitler would face little resistance from the east in case he attacked Poland.

However, despite obligations, the West was hesitant to oppose Hitler, too. Preventing war by peaceful means did not prove to be effective against him. By not paying enough attention to his actions, France and the United Kingdom allowed him to grow in power, both political and military. Their not stopping Hitler during the invasion of Austria, as well as concluding the Munich Agreement, assured him that the United Kingdom and France are not a threat. By September 1939, these matters were settled, allowing him to start the war.

Thus, the war was inevitable and would start sooner or later. By 1939, Germany had been expanding for some time and was expecting more expansion. The opposition in Germany was being silenced, while propaganda promised revenge after the loss in the First World War. The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Stalin, had plans of its own. Meanwhile, France and the United Kingdom had missed their chances to stop Hitler early, which led to German empowerment in Europe.

Introduction

World War I was one of the most important events in the history of the world and globalization. According to Roe (2015), The First World War was in many senses an apocalypse for the world that existed before 1914 (p. 1). It was truly the Great War, which involved more than thirty-two nations. Two powerful military blocks were created: Allies (the British and Russian Empires, France, and the United States), and the Central Powers (Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Austro-Hungary). The global conflict that lasted four years resulted in millions of human deaths and changed the map of Europe and the Middle East.

Causes of World War I

The origins and causes of World War I were complex. It is said that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the main reason for World War I. Still, the roots of its beginning lay in the political fears, and the clash of interests of the forces of imperialism, nationalism, and militarism.

It is difficult to say whether only imperialism, nationalism, or militarism led to the war, but certainly, imperialism was one of the main causes. The exacerbation of the unequal development of the capitalist countries, the contradictions between them, and a desperate fight for the worlds repartition between the two military-political groupings led to the war (Hewitson, 2014). Nationalism and militarism appeared in Germany, and later in other German-speaking countries, in response to the power of other imperialist countries. Germany sought a way to strengthen its position in continental Europe and achieve the world-power status like those of Britain and Russia. Germany rapidly increased the size of its military forces (Roe, 2015).

During that time, nationalism also picked up momentum. This was particularly evident in the case of Austria, which was afraid of Pan-Slavism proclaimed by Tsarist Russia. It affected such peoples as the Finns, Armenians, Latvians, Estonians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, and Serbians. Pan-Slavism was the threat to Austrias sovereignty and its people that led Austria to defensive nationalism. Nevertheless, what might be determined as defensive nationalism could transform into powerful, aggressive nationalism (Beckett, 2014).

Moreover, the current alliance system was also the prerequisite of war. This system assured that the European countries would receive military support in case of war. It led to the conclusion that in the case of any quarrel between the Entente and the Central Powers all members of two camps would be involved in this war (Beckett, 2014). This system directly led to World War I when after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand Austria and Serbia run into a huge conflict.

The US during World War I

The United States was a member of a military block named Allies, or the Entente. Still, firstly, America tried to maintain neutrality. US President Woodrow Wilson tried to do his best to keep America out of the conflict when in 1914 Europe started to erupt (The inflammatory telegram, 2017, para. 5). He remembered the days of the Civil War, which influenced him a lot. Troubled with that life experience, he wanted America to keep neutral. Besides, the causes of the war were obscure and not clear; in Presidents opinion, the participation in this war would not promote American foreign policy. Neutrality was Wilsons watchword. Besides, in the last decades of the 19^th century, America accepted more than 23 million immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe (Laskin, 2014, para. 2). When the war began, its influence on Americas immigrant population was complex and immediate. The American government had concerns that if America entered the war, the country might fissure on ethnic fault lines, since most of the immigrants carried their ancestry from the warring nations (Laskin, 2014, para. 2).

Nevertheless, America was pushed to enter the war. The first provocation was in May 1915 when nearly 128 Americans were killed when the passenger liner was torpedoed by a German U-boat (The inflammatory telegram, 2017, para. 8). Eventually, Wilson received a retreat from Germany, and Germany even promised not to sink passenger ships without warning. Nevertheless, on 31 January German ambassador declared that Germany was about to resume its policy of unrestricted U-boat warfare (The inflammatory telegram, 2017, para. 13). Moreover, Germany promised Mexico to provide them with financial support to reconquer its lost territories in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. It became obvious that the policy of armed neutrality failed. On 6 April 1917, after the official Presidents declaration, America joined the war (The inflammatory telegram, 2017, para. 20).

Americas contribution to the war and its end was tangible. American troops, called doughboys, were engaged in several serious combats. Americas decision to enter the war altered the fortunes of the war and the course of the 20^th century (Kazin, 2017, para. 4). Moreover, during the First World War, the largest humanitarian help came from the US. American humanitarians managed to protect small countries like Belgium (Little, 2014). Moreover, American humanitarianism helped to establish Americas position as a world power, and after that, the US was seen as the worlds policeman.

The end of World War I

After signing the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919 in Paris, the First World War officially ended (McKee, 2015, para. 11). One of the parts of this Treaty was the creation of the League of Nations. According to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was imposed with different conditions, which affected its territory, currency, and economy (The treaty of Versailles, 2017). The US was in charge of the economic recovery of Germany. The US in order to balance the German economy and stabilize the currency undertook several actions, including the Dawes Plan and the Young Plan. Through all these processes, during the 1920s and 1930s, the US kept control over European war debt that gave America influence over the global economy (Tyler, 2015). Still, the Americans reactions toward the Treaty were in most cases negative. Many Americans considered that the Treaty was unfair to Germany and that France and Britain were trying to make a profit out of this. Moreover, in America, President Wilson was not supported by the Senate. He led the Democratic Party, while his competitors in the Republican Party were in the majority in Congress. They used the Treaty as the opportunity to criticize Wilson. Moreover, Congress was also concerned about the creation of the League of Nations. They supposed that the League could entangle America into other possible military conflicts (The treaty of Versailles, 2017). As a result, the Great Depression and the Americans negative attitude caused the defeat of the Treaty and the League of Nations.

Conclusion

World War I was the first global military conflict, which consequences were indeed catastrophic. It is difficult to explain the real reasons that led to its beginning. The US played an important role in the war development. The country made a huge contribution to the end of the war. Still, the consequences of the First World War led to the beginning of World War II.

References

Beckett, I. F. W. (2014). The Great War: 1914 1918. Modern wars in perspective. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Hewitson, M. (2014). Germany and the causes of the First World War. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kazin, M. (2017). Should America have entered World War I? The New York Times. Web.

Laskin, D. (2014). Ethnic minorities at war (USA). 

Little, B. (2014). An explosion of new endeavours: Global humanitarian responses to industrialized warfare in the First World War era. First World War Studies, 5(1), 1-16.

McKee, T.S. (2015). American influence on post-World War I recovery of Germany. Web.

Roe, J. (2015). Into the abyss: The origins of the First World War. Web.

The inflammatory telegram that pushed the US into World War One. (2017).

The Treaty of Versailles. (2017). 

Introduction

War is a great disaster for mankind as it leads to numerous deaths. The world is full of different armed conflicts and local wars which are devastating. Still, looking at the history of mankind, it is possible to remember the most destructive wars, the First World War and the Second World War. Taking the lives of people, destroying their homes and the whole country, these two events were very important. People live in this modern world only because these wars took place. Considering the consequences of the Second World War, there were both positive and negative effects; the world was ruined and many people remained without relatives and homes, still, Nazism was defeated and some other positive effects were noticed.

Positive Effects of the Second World War

The main positive effect of the Second World War was freedom, as freedom was the unifying aim of the Allied nations,& a new world of equal nations and human rights (Lightbody, 2004, p. 268). After the Second World War people knew that their main aim was reached and they may be afraid of nothing. The feeling of freedom was in hearts right after the understanding of victory and people even forgot for some time about the losses they suffered during the war.

The other positive effect of the Second World War was the creation of the peace-keeping organization and giving some rights to newly liberated nations. On the first major conference in February 1945 at Yalta, the leaders of the USA, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union created a peace-keeping organization, the United Nations. Moreover, the newly liberal nations were allowed to choose the form of government they want to develop (Hatt, 2006, p. 56).

Furthermore, the other positive fact of the Second World War was the unconditional surrender of Germany. Robin Havers (2002) said that Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt following their deliberations they issued a joint ultimatum to Germany, demanding that she surrender unconditionally. This was a major development; it effectively ruled out a negotiated peace in the future (p. 91).

One more positive effect of the Second World War was the development of innovative technologies. Of course, during the war, innovative technologies were directed on mass and war needs. Still, the budget which was centered on the development of innovative technologies during the war allowed using received knowledge after the war events (Geels, 2005, p.215). So, the Second World War finished and people got great opportunities, in spite of numerous devastations.

Negative Effects of the Second World War

One of the main negative results of the Second World War is the number of deaths from both sides of the conflict. There are still no definite numbers on how many people died in that terrible war. Parker R. A. C. (2001) mentions that about 20 million people were killed in the Soviet Union and it was only citizens. This number includes about 2 million people who were prisoners and died in German camps. Still, it is noticed that according to some data the number of dead Soviet Union people was about 50 million. There are no trusted numbers of soldiers who were killed in the war. The number of dead Jews is shocking, about 80 million people. Japanese claim on 1,740,000 men lost in the war (Parker, 201, p. 283). It is impossible to enumerate all losses suffered during the war.

Peoples losses were numerous, still, the material devastations are also magnificent. Taking the USA, the enemy did not step on its land, but the costs were great. The Soviet Union suffered the most:

In the west of the country quarters of all houses in the countryside had been destroyed. Two thirds of all wealth disappeared. For mile after mile there were no houses, no roads, no bridges, no telegraph poles. Most of the livestock were dead. Industry and communications were in ruins (Ross, 2003, p.40).

The Second World War was the most devastating and ruining. It is impossible to remember any other war where such people lose can be enumerated and such territory ravages of war may be seen. Still, looking at the negative effects of the war it is impossible to say that the finish of the war is bad. Otherwise, people received what they wanted, freedom, and can just watch on the negative results of the war and do not allow its repetition in the future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Second World War had both negative and positive effects. First of all, people received desired freedom, newly liberated countries had an opportunity to choose the style of government, the peace-keeping organization appeared, and the territory problems were decided. Still, this war was the most ruining and devastating. Considering the information on dead people, those who were left without houses, the countries manufacturing and other losses it may be concluded that war is not the method of problems decision. Nazism was defeated and the desired goals were reached but still, the costs of the war are too huge, so people should remember the lessons learned out of it.

Reference List

Geels, F. W. (2005).Technological transitions and system innovations: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hatt, C. (2006). The Second World War: 1939  45. London: Evans Brothers.

Havers, R. (2002).The Second World War: Europe, 1939-1943. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.

Lightbody, B. (2004). The Second World War: ambitions to nemesis. Oxford: Routledge.

Parker, R. A. C. (2001). The Second World War: a short history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ross, S. (2003). Causes and consequences of the Second World War. London: Evans Brothers.

What were Hitlers reasons and objectives for starting down the road to war?

Hitler sought to conquer new lands for the good of the Volk or German people to expand its territory and influence. The ultimate goal was focused on establishing the Aryan race as a superior nation in the world, where vast Soviet lands would provide the nation with resources, and non-Aryan groups would serve as minions (Adolf Hitler, 2019). Therefore, the key objective was centered around making Germany a global dominator.

What steps did Hitler take to undermine and destroy the Versailles System?

Hitler undermined and destroyed the Versailles System by introducing the legislation of military conscription, which violated several points of the Treaty of Versailles. The punishing terms of the treaty allowed Hitler to capitalize on its effects by offering a radical solution to people in desperation. Hitler accentuated his attention on bolstering the German military, which also went against the Versailles System.

How did Britain and France respond to Hitlers aggression?

Britain and France were the first ones to declare war on Germany after the latter invaded Poland. Although the previous actions of Hitler already hinted towards the course of action, such as the Pact of Steel with Italy and the non-aggression pact with the USSR, the turning decisive point was the invasion itself. However, both Britain and France condemned Germanys actions before the invasion, but Hitlers inconsideration led to the fact that these two nations declared war on Germany on September 1, 1939 (Adolf Hitler, 2019).

What was the policy of appeasement?

The policy of appeasement is a foreign policy measure where one nation deliberately makes concessions for an increasingly hostile country to prevent an outbreak of war. For example, Britain appeased Germany when the latter absorbed Austria and German ethnic people from Czechoslovakia. These concessions were made to avoid the inevitable conflict, but rather it became a short-term solution, which gave Hitler more confidence.

What were Japans reasons and objectives for starting down the road to war?

Japan sought to become a superpower and economic heart of East Asia and the Pacific, which put it in direct competition against the United States. Experiencing shortages of essential resources, such as oil, Japan needed to expand and dominate these regions. At that time, the main rivals were China and the United States, where the latter had valuable resources.

What steps did the Japanese military take to launch aggression against China and expand Japans power in Asia?

To Japan from dependence on the United States oil and British rubber, Japan sought to find new territories rich with resources, such as China. Japans imperialist foreign policies towards China, where the war was initiated by the Marco Polo Bridge Incident. The following victories were mostly in favor of Japan, such as the Rape in Nanjing and the capture of Shanghai and Beijing. Before these events, the Japanese military was reluctant to invade China due to the Soviet Unions support of the latter.

What was the Rape of Nanjing?

On December 13, 1937, the Japanese Imperial Army captured the city of Nanjing, where, for six consecutive weeks, the troops committed mass rape and mass murders, which approximately resulted in a total of 300 000 rapes and 200 000 murders. The massacre is still a major barrier between Japan and China relations, which also affects Japans collaborative efforts with other nations in the region.

What lessons of history can be learned from the events of the 1930s?

The main lesson is manifested in the fact that any form of potential conflict and aggression needs to be prevented preliminarily rather than dealing with it after the outbreak. Both France and Britain should have introduced concessions before Hitlers rise to power, or not offered them at all and been more aggressive when Hitler was absorbing Austria. Similarly, the Japanese threat should not have been overlooked, and proper measured should have been taken before the war.

Reference

Adolf Hitler. (2019). Web.

Introduction

The primacy of armed conflict in the evolution of the Western world is the essential tragedy of modern history. On the one hand, war has helped create the oases of stability known as states. On the other hand, it has made the state a potential Frankenstein monster, an instrument of unconstrained force. The mass state, the regulatory state, the welfare state—in short, the collectivist state— is an offspring of total warfare.

Bruce D. Porter, War and the Rise of the State

After the USSR established a Communist government in North Korea in September 1948, that government encouraged and supported the revolution in South Korea in an effort to bring down the recognized government and gain control over the entire Korean peninsula. Not quite two years later, after the revolution showed signs of failing, the northern government undertook a direct attack, sending the North Korea People’s Army south across the 38th parallel before daylight on Sunday, June 25, 1950. The assault, in a narrow sense, marked the start of a civil war between peoples of a divided country. In a larger meaning, the cold war between the Great Power blocs had erupted in open hostilities.

The war is a conflict between South and North Korea that started on June 25, 1950, and lasted till July 27, 1953, though the official war ending was not proclaimed. This conflict of the period of Cold War is regarded as an indirect war between the USA with its allies with the forces of CPR (Chinese Peoples Republic) and the USSR. The northern coalition included the forces of North Korea and its armed forces; Chinese army (as according to official data it is considered that China did not take part in the conflict, regular Chinese forces were formally regarded as “Chinese people’s volunteers”); USSR which also did not participate in the war openly, but undertaken its financing, and also sent units of Air forces and lots of experts and specialists to the Korean peninsula.

South Korea, the USA, Great Britain, and the Philippines participated from the side of the South. Lots of countries were involved as peacemaking forces under the UNO auspices.

Main body

The North Korean army crossed the border with its southern neighbor under the coverage of artillery on June 25, 1950. The incidence of land troops, trained by soviet military experts included 135 thousand soldiers and 150 T-34 tanks. The government of North Korea announced that “Betrayer” Rhee Syngman had invaded the territory of the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). The advancement of the North Korean army in the first days of the war was rather successful. Nearly two-thirds of North Korean troops of the 40 thousand armies were not ready for war, and by the 28 of June Seoul (the capital of South Korea) had been captured. The main attack directions included also Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Nanjing. The Seoul airport Kimpho had been destroyed completely. Though the main aim – Blitz Craig had not been achieved, Rhee Syngman and most of the South Korean government managed to survive and leave the city. Mass revolt, which the North Korean leaders relied on, did not happen. However, 90% of South Korea had been captured by the DPRK army by mid-august.

The attack on South Korea became rather surprising for the USA and other western countries: a week before the invasion (June 20) Dean Acheson, from the State department in asserted in his report, that the war is unlikely. Harry Truman had been reported about the war several hours after its beginning. In spite of the after-war US army demobilization, which had weakened the US positions in the region (except the US Marine Corps, divisions sent to Korea were complimented for only 40%), the still USA had possessed a large military contingent under the command of General Douglas McArthur in Japan. Any other state did not have such great military power in the region, except the United Kingdom.

Truman ordered McArthur to provide military equipment for the South Korean army and conduct the evacuation of the USA citizens under the coverage of aviation. Truman did not consider it necessary to start air war but ordered the Seventh Fleet to arrange the defense of Taiwan, thus ceasing the policy of non-interference in the rivalry of Chinese communists and Chan Kaishi forces. Kuomintang government (now located in Taiwan), asked for military assistance, but the USA government declined the request, motivating it with the possibility of communist China interference in the conflict.

The UNO Security Council was convened in New York on June 25. The agenda included only the Korean issue. The initial resolution, proposed by the Americans, was adopted by the nine “for” votes, with the absence of “against”. The Yugoslavian plenipotentiary hold and Soviet ambassador Jacob Malik were absent. He boycotted the Security Council sessions by the direction of Moscow, because of the refusal to declare communist China instead of the nationalistic government of Chan Kaishi.

Other western countries supported the USA decision and rendered military help to American troops, which were sent to help South Korea. However, the alien troops had been driven back far to the south to the region of Pusan by the middle of august. In spite of the help from the side of UNO, American and South Korean forces could not manage to disentangle from the ring, also known as Pusan Perimeter. They could only stabilize the front line along the Naktogan river. It seemed that DPRK forces would experience no difficulties in invading the whole peninsula, but aliens managed to launch the offensive.

The most important operations of the first months of the War are the Tejong attack operation (3-25 of June) and the Naktogan operation (July 26 – August 20). Some infantry divisions, artillery regiments, and some smaller armed formations of DPRK acted in the Tejong operation. North coalition managed to conduct a forced crossing of Kimgan river, surround and separate into two parts the 24^th American infantry division, and to capture its commander major-general, Dean, as a prisoner. As a result, American forces lost 32 thousand soldiers and officers, more than 220 main guns and mine-throwers, 20 tanks, 540 machine guns, 1300 auto cars, and others.

The 25^th infantry and mechanized American divisions experience great damages during the Naktogan operation in the region of the Naktogan river. Korean People’s Army (KPA) defeated the driving back parts of the South Korean army, captured the southwestern and Southern parts of Korea, and approached Masan, thus making the 1^st American division of Marine Corps drive back to Pusan. The offense of North Korean troops was stopped on august, 20. Southern coalition reserved the Pusan springboard up to 120 kilometers along the frontline, and up to 100-120 km in-depth, and could defend it rather successfully. All the attempts by the DPRK army did not succeed.

Meanwhile, Southern coalition troops got the enforcement by the beginning of autumn and started trying to break the Pusan perimeter. The general counterattack started on September 15^th.

Overview of the conflict

The great paradox of The Korean Conflict was that at the time the North Koreans attacked South Korea, most Americans had never heard of Korea. The Korean peninsula, furthermore, was not part of an American defense perimeter in East Asia that Secretary of State Dean Acheson had illustrated in a speech to the National Press Association just six months earlier. Moreover, even though the Korean Conflict severely upped the context of the Cold War and led to twenty years of particularly bitter relations between the United States and Communist China (People’s Republic of China or the PRC), neither the Soviet Union nor the PRC had been particularly worried to have North Korea attack South Korea.

The motives for the outbreak of warfare on June 25 and the response it created are far more explainable today than they were nearly fifty or even fifteen years ago. For one thing, it is now clear that the Korean War was a piece of a long-lasting civil conflict in Korea since the end of World War II. During most of the twentieth century, Korea had been controlled by Japan as a colony, which main aim was to produce rice. Although Korea had a long, nearly 2,000 years history, the Japanese had tried to eliminate all relics of Korean national identity. But they had not succeeded. After the war, lots of groups sought to presume the mantle of leadership. Everybody believed that Korea, which, according to the achieved agreement immediately after the end of the war in August, must be occupied above the 38th parallel by the Soviet Union and below that line by the United States, should be joined up and given its sovereignty. Otherwise, they were separated ideologically and politically. On the one hand was the traditionalist elite of landowners, businessmen, and manufacturers who had enjoyed a privileged status under Japanese rule that they sought to retain. On the other were political leftists, including large numbers of peasants and workers, who expected fundamental changes in the social and political structure of Korea. Even before World War II officially ended in August 1945, conflicts had taken place between the conflicting groups as workers and peasant unions and communist strength grew.

This situation was faced by the American occupation troops under the rule of Lieutenant General John Hodge when it landed in September 1945. Hodge’s directions were to not recognize any political group as the lawful government of Korea but instead to continue with the establishment of an American military government (AMG). Disturbed by the political and social chaos he found in Korea, however, Hodge was soon working closely with rightist elements, particularly with Rhee Syngman, a stubborn Korean nationalist who had spent most of his life in the United States working for Korean autonomy. Hodge believed that Rhee stood for the best chance to restore order and stability in Korea.

By every evaluation used in public view polls, the Korean War was one of the most unpopular wars ever lead by the United States. It had a huge influence on US foreign policy and on its citizens. During the three years of warfare, this war that cost in excess of $100 billion took approximately 54,000 American lives, and about 150,000 wounded. The deaths among the Koreans and Chinese must be calculated in the millions. As George Donelson Moss notes in his book, Moving On ( 1994), the Korean War turned the cold war into a shooting one. No longer merely an ideological rivalry, the cold war became deadly for Americans, as well as others. This transformation and the victims might have been acceptable if the war had been won, but the long negotiations ended in a draw at best. Annoyance and irritation over the consequences of this “limited war” distinguished the typical American attitude toward participation in the Korean war. In August 1953, according to data saved in Hazel Erskine’s article, “The Polls: Is War a Mistake?” (1970), 62 percent agreed that the war in Korea had not been worth fighting. When did resistance to the war occur? Who was against this war, and why? What were the effects of this opposition on President Harry S. Truman and the United States?

When North Korea attacked South Korea in June 1950, President Harry Truman reacted quickly. With China which became communistic in 1949, Truman did not wish the Republicans to have an extra issue in the upcoming off-year elections. Bypassing Congress for fear that prolonged discussions might allow Kim Il-Sung’s arms to take control over the whole country, the president went to the United Nations for support to send troops to help the struggling forces of South Korea. The UN agreed because the Soviet Union, as it had been mentioned above, was boycotting the Security Council sessions. As noted in Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski For the Common Defense (1994), the UN meant to restore the 38th parallel as the border between North and South Korea, which would perform the idea of containment of communism.

Truman ultimately asked for and got congressional sanction for supplemental defense finances, draft expansions, and wartime powers for himself. Congress and the Americans supported the president’s aim of halting communist hostility. The Gallup poll in July 1950 showed 66 percent approved the result to send American troops to stop the North Koreans. John Mueller War, Presidents and Public Opinion (1973) and his articles, particularly “Trends in Popular Support for the Wars in Korea and Vietnam” (1971), reveal that Truman rode the wave of overpowering popular support into the fall of that year. With UN troops approaching the communist forces north to the border of China, many Americans saw a chance to unite all of Korea under “democratic” leadership. Despite a few Chinese border incursions in late October, General Douglas MacArthur’s mid-November promise to have the troops home by Christmas strengthened Truman’s hand. According to Mueller, as long as the public believes the war will be successful but short, public support remains high.

The Korean war itself was mainly a predictable conflict. Nuclear weapons, which displayed so dominantly in those late 1940s’ “War Tomorrow” scenarios, both official and popular, were, of course, not engaged. Very few “push-button” weapons were arranged. (Senator Brian McMahon remarked at the time that “We don’t even have the push-buttons for push-button war!”) In fact, the irresistible bulk of the arms employed in Korea were not only traditional on both sides, but most of the weapons were the lefts from the Second World War. The American GI was issued the same fine M-1 Garand semi-automatic rifle that his older brother or father had drawn in the Second World War. There were no “Flying Wings” or even the more conventional B-36 intercontinental heavy nuclear bombers over Korea. Rather, B-29s, the same bombers that had burned the heart out of Japan’s cities five or six years earlier, torched Pyongyang and Sinuiju in incendiary raids that would have been thoroughly familiar to any bombardier from the Tokyo fire raids. Even the uniforms on both sides (except for the North Koreans) were identical to those of Second World War belligerents, if not actual surplus stock. In fact, the only major new military equipment items were the latest jet fighters employed by the contending forces over “MiG Alley”, the 3.5in anti-armor “bazooka”, the 75mm recoilless rifle, some post-war model tanks — and the US armored combat vest.

This war did not just look back to the Second World War. By the summer of 1951, the fighting had hardened into a stalemate with trench lines, night raids, heavy bombardments, and limited offensives that won limited terrain. It all was in many ways reminiscent of the Western Front of the First World War.

Both the US Army and the CPV had their lessons to learn in this war, particularly those involving the power of mass attack by under-armed armies n the face of enemy firepower and the courage and quality of their opponents. It is a tribute to both armies that they came out of the Korean War as considerably better forces than when they went in.

The war rested much more easily on the United States than on China or the two Koreas, for as in both World Wars, the American homeland was spared physical ravages. This situation likely explains why Americans seemed more willing to consider the strategic bombing of civilian targets, or even to use nuclear weapons. Europeans, who had themselves been the victims of heavy city bombing in the Second World War, pointed out that most of them were under the Soviet flight path to the West.

Conclusion

Few wars in modern history have concluded with such an even distribution of gains and losses as the Korean War. The Republic of Korea and the UN side could take satisfaction in having driven the invader from most of the territory of the ROK while the Communists could rejoice that the UNC forces had been almost completely expelled from the DPRK. The armistice line itself pushed north into the former DPRK in the east, but down into previously ROK territory in the west. Both sides had initially fought for total victory and the actual destruction of their enemy’s government; both sides by 1951 had reluctantly come to accept the military fact that total victory would of necessity involve a considerably greater war than either the Chinese or the UN coalition were willing to fight. Significantly, both the governments of the ROK and the DPRK held out the longest for complete victory—and unification of Korea. And both were overruled by their more powerful allies.

References

1. Bernstein, Barton J. “Syngman Rhee: the Pawn as Rook the Struggle to End the Korean War.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 10.1 (1978): 38-50.
2. Boose, Donald W. “Rethinking the Korean War.” Parameters 33.4 (2003): 175
3. Brune, Lester H., and Robin Higham, eds. The Korean War Handbook of the Literature and Research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996.
4. Halliday, Jon. “What Happened in Korea? Rethinking Korean History 1945-1953.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars 5.3 (1973): 36-45.
5. Kaufman, Burton I. The Korean Conflict. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999.
6. Millett, Allan R. The Korean War. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
7. Pierpaoli, Paul G. Truman and Korea: The Political Culture of the Early Cold War. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.
8. Sandler, Stanley. The Korean War: No Victors, No Vanquished. London: UCL Press, 1999.
9. Stueck, William. Rethinking the Korean War: A New Diplomatic and Strategic History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
10. Wikipedia, 2007 Korean War. Web.

Leadership power-sharing and the craving for absolute power acquisition have been often the case of the horrific holocaust in various countries in the world. News of coup de tat failed coup de’ tarts and rebels are like daily occurrences worldwide (John L. Hirsch 2002 pp 23). However, these occurrences lead to major sufferings to innocent civilians who are caught in the crossfire between any two fighting groups.

Advancement in technology, civilization, and production of sophisticated arms and their distribution has lead to the free flow of arms into the wrong hands. This especially has affected the African continent and led to increased break out of civil wars. Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Sudan just to mention but a few, are some of the African countries which have witnessed in-depth and devastating civil war.

In Sierra Leone’s causes of civil war dates back to the years before independence. After independence, practical history was characterized by overnight military coups and constant government wars. The root of civil wars can to some extend is attributed to tribal lines that exist between the Mende and the West Atlantic groups (Lansana Gberie 2005 p.185). Armed struggles between the two groups would emerge after a slight provocation. Moreover, wars would break out after disputes that range from policy disagreement to an outright challenge for the then-existing central government.

Eventually, the civil war in Sierra Leone turned to be an Ethnic struggle for the control of the countries Diamond and hence control of the economic and political powers (John L. Hirsch 2002 pp26). These factors opened up Sierra Leone as the Arena for foreign intervention. The above-mentioned reasons among others eventually culminated into the horrific tragedy witnessed worldwide in the last decade.

March 1991 would mark the month of the beginning of a decade of death and suffering of Sierra Leone’s civilians. On this month fighters compromising Sierra Leonean residents, Liberians loyal to the then-president Charles Taylor, and some mercenaries from neighboring Burkina Faso invaded the Eastern part of Sierra Leon at Bomaru and Kajahan district. Another group opposed this invasion and rebelled. They crossed the Mano river bridge and launched a counterattack on Pujehan district. (Adebajo, Adekeyo 2002 pp23). This was the beginning of the civil war. Neither of the two groups fighting each other had humanity in their attacks. It was seldom for soldiers from either side to distinguish between soldiers and civilians. They behaved as if they had been possessed by the devil.

One survival interviewed by CNN news said that soldiers tortured houses, raped women, and conscripted children into the army. Anyone who resisted met instant death. One of the photos in the UN peacekeeping record journal shows an 11 old year boy who was tortured because he failed to meet the materials for one of the gorilla’s movements soldiers. They dropped burning nylon paper all over him with multiple minute but deep wounds. In the following few decades, the situation even worsened with the collapse of the already decaying economy, social and political infrastructure. Soldiers became desperate and lost patience easily. They could shoot anyone with the slightest provocation and raided villages for food, clothing, women, and child soldier (Lansana Gberie 2005 p.220).

Furthermore, cases of inhuman treatments like rapping and killing of women increased. By the end of the war after ten decades, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians had been killed. Believing that this is a democratic era and that the 21^st century calls for a multipart system of politics, it can be argued that Charles Taylor somehow contributed to the beginning of the civil war in Sierra Leone. His refusal to recognize other political parties and repeated rigging of national parliamentary and presidential elections lead to people arming themselves to fight against what they termed as neo-colonialism. Moreover, President Charles Taylor’s ruthless treatment against any opposition to his regime sparked off a war at people who resisted this inhuman treatment (John L. Hirsch 2002 pp.66).

On the contrary, no amount of aggression can justify the rate of crimes witnessed in Sierra Leone. The innocent killing of the civilians, conscripting of children into soldiers, and internal displacement caused are uncountable (Adebajo, Adekeyo 2002 pp 40). The end result of it all was more disastrous than the benefits because more people were affected negatively. Both the social, political, and economic spheres of the country collapsed causing intensified suffering to the Sierra Leone citizens. The World Bank and IMF had to step in to salvage the situation of the country.

In addition, the war led to the massive misuse of Sierra Leone’s diamonds. Most returns made from the export of the diamond were channeled towards the purchase of arms instead of economic development. This turned Sierra Leone into a depositing site for guns and a vibrant market for arm products. The result is that lethal weapons fell into the hands of the wrong people leading to massive deaths.

References

Adebajo,Adekeyo (2002). Building peace in West Africa; Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea Bissau. Boulder USA. Lynne Reinner Publishers. Pages 23 – 57.

John L. Hirsch (2002). Sierra Leone: Diamonds and the struggle for Democracy. Lynne Reinners. Pages 43-67.

Lansana Gberie (2005). A dirty war in west Africa: The RUF and the destruction of Siera Leone. Indiana University Press. Pages 185 – 220.