Why is the period after WWI considered to be a peaceful yet “uneasy” period?

Why is the period after WWI considered to be a peaceful yet “uneasy” period? 2. What are some characteristics of a totalitarian/militarist regime? How were Dictators able to gain strength throughout the world in the years prior to WWII? 3. Down below of dictators and/or militarist regimes, summarize how they were able to take control of their nations and include some of their aggressive actions: Hitler's rise to power: Stalin:Soviet leader rise to power: Mussolini rise to power: Rise of japan leading up to WWII: 4. Describe the responses to the aggressive actions by the following nations listed below: The United States: France: Great Britain: Final Question for pt. I…Use outside resources to develop a paragraph response with a clear thesis statement, evidence in support of thesis and analysis.: Why did totalitarian states rise after World War I, what did they do, and how did the world respond? PT II of the Coming of War 1. Why was it clear that Appeasing Hitler and the Nazi’s had failed? List and explain the reasons below. 2. what were the early years of the War in Europe like. 3. The different sides of the war were established early on, list down below the nations that fought for both the Axis and Allied sides. Allied powers: Axis powers The US’s official policy was one of Neutrality, but in what ways did they begin to get involved in the war without actually fighting in it? In your own words describe the US Foreign Policy in the years prior to WWII. 2. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor Americans were torn on what to do when it came to the war. Soon a debate between Interventionists (those who wanted the US to enter the war) and Isolationists (those who wanted the US to stay out of the war) broke out. down below list both sides viewpoints. isolationist viewpoint: Interventionist viewpoint: As pressure mounted for the US to do something FDR delivered a speech to Congress laying out four specific items that were at stake for Americans. What were they? During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America. The leaders of the isolationist movement drew upon history to bolster their position. In his Farewell Address, President George Washington had advocated non-involvement in European wars and politics. For much of the nineteenth century, the expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans had made it possible for the United States to enjoy a kind of “free security” and remain largely detached from Old World conflicts. During World War I, however, President Woodrow Wilson made a case for U.S. intervention in the conflict and a U.S. interest in maintaining a peaceful world order. Nevertheless, the American experience in that war served to bolster the arguments of isolationists; they argued that marginal U.S. interests in that conflict did not justify the number of U.S. casualties. President Woodrow Wilson In the wake of World War I, a report by Senator Gerald P. Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, fed this belief by claiming that American bankers and arms manufacturers had pushed for U.S. involvement for their own profit. The 1934 publication of the book Merchants of Death by H.C. Engelbrecht and F. C. Hanighen, followed by the 1935 tract “War Is a Racket” by decorated Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler both served to increase popular suspicions of wartime profiteering and influence public opinion in the direction of neutrality. Many Americans became determined not to be tricked by banks and industries into making such great sacrifices again. The reality of a worldwide economic depression and the need for increased attention to domestic problems only served to bolster the idea that the United States should isolate itself from troubling events in Europe. During the interwar period, the U.S. Government repeatedly chose non-entanglement over participation or intervention as the appropriate response to international questions. Immediately following the First World War, Congress rejected U.S. membership in the League of Nations. Some members of Congress opposed membership in the League out of concern that it would draw the United States into European conflicts, although ultimately the collective security clause sank the possibility of U.S. participation. During the 1930s, the League proved ineffectual in the face of growing militarism, partly due to the U.S. decision not to participate. Senator Gerald Nye The Japanese invasion of Manchuria and subsequent push to gain control over larger expanses of Northeast China in 1931 led President Herbert Hoover and his Secretary of State, Henry Stimson, to establish the Stimson Doctrine, which stated that the United States would not recognize the territory gained by aggression and in violation of international agreements. With the Stimson Doctrine, the United States expressed concern over the aggressive action without committing itself to any direct involvement or intervention. Other conflicts, including the Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, also resulted in virtually no official commitment or action from the United States Government. Upon taking office, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tended to see a necessity for the United States to participate more actively in international affairs, but his ability to apply his personal outlook to foreign policy was limited by the strength of isolationist sentiment in the U.S. Congress. In 1933, President Roosevelt proposed a Congressional measure that would have granted him the right to consult with other nations to place pressure on aggressors in international conflicts. The bill ran into strong opposition from the leading isolationists in Congress, including progressive politicians such as Senators Hiram Johnson of California, William Borah of Idaho, and Robert La Follette of Wisconsin. In 1935, controversy over U.S. participation in the World Court elicited similar opposition. As tensions rose in Europe over Nazi Germany’s aggressive maneuvers, Congress pushed through a series of Neutrality Acts, which served to prevent American ships and citizens from becoming entangled in outside conflicts. Roosevelt lamented the restrictive nature of the acts, but because he still required Congressional support for his domestic New Deal policies, he reluctantly acquiesced. The isolationists were a diverse group, including progressives and conservatives, business owners and peace activists, but because they faced no consistent, organized opposition from internationalists, their ideology triumphed time and again. Roosevelt appeared to accept the strength of the isolationist elements in Congress until 1937. In that year, as the situation in Europe continued to grow worse and the Second Sino-Japanese War began in Asia, the President gave a speech in which he likened international aggression to a disease that other nations must work to “quarantine.” At that time, however, Americans were still not prepared to risk their lives and livelihoods for peace abroad. Even the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 did not suddenly diffuse popular desire to avoid international entanglements. Instead, public opinion shifted from favoring complete neutrality to supporting limited U.S. aid to the Allies short of actual intervention in the war. The surprise Japanese attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 served to convince the majority of Americans that the United States should enter the war on the side of the Allies. America’s Long, Complicated History of Isolationism The war in Ukraine has triggered an outpouring of sympathy for the plight of the people under attack, but also a surprising amount of isolationist sentiment. It’s not the first time this has happened. For the last several weeks, U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance has argued that Americans should focus on their own borders, rather than global events in Europe. He is not alone. Recent polls suggest that at least 34 percent of Americans think the war in Ukraine should be their problem and the United States should have no role. This new generation of isolationists is only the latest in a long American history of isolationist sentiment. In September 1796, George Washington published his Farewell Address, encouraging future generations to “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.” To be clear, Washington was not advocating for isolationism. He encouraged active trade agreements and recognized that the day would come when the U.S. would wage war on behalf of its interests. Until then, the U.S. should not meddle in the centuries-old conflict between European empires because the war had nothing to do with American concerns. Washington’s successors picked up his mantle and drew further boundaries between the Western and Eastern hemispheres. In James Monroe’s 1823 annual address, he declared that the Western Hemisphere was closed to further European colonization and intervention — a principle that became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Just over 80 years later, Theodore Roosevelt issued his own corollary, asserting that the U.S. would enforce the Monroe Doctrine and maintain order as a last result, through military means if necessary. These foreign policy dogmas are based on the geographic position of the United States. Flanked by relatively friendly neighbors in Mexico and Canada, and the vast Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, it was easy for many Americans to say what happens in Europe stays in Europe. Until it didn’t. In July 1914, the Great War broke out between the major powers in Europe. France, Russia, and Great Britain lined up against Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. Over the next two years, the U.S. supplied France and Great Britain with weapons, ammunition and equipment, but remained neutral because Americans generally wanted no part in a European conflict. As trench warfare snaked across France, isolationists referenced Washington’s words to defend inaction. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson even campaigned with the slogan “He kept us out of the war.” As the war on the Western Front settled into a quagmire, German leadership sought to break the British naval blockade. In early 1917, the German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann sent a telegram to Mexico, promising help with reclaiming territory in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Around the same time, the German navy also adopted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, hoping to cut off shipping to Britain. They knew that the loss of ships, lives and trade would eventually force the U.S. into the conflict but hoped they could carve out an opportunity for German forces to win the war quickly before that happened. In Wilson’s formal declaration of war in April 1917, he described it as a battle “against human greed and folly, against Germany, and for justice, peace and civilization.” Yet, that was also true in 1914 when the war began. The Zimmermann telegram and unrestricted submarine attacks — new additions to the 20th century — demonstrated that the effects of war could quickly leap across the Atlantic. No longer could Americans hide behind the protection provided by the ocean. If war was inevitable, therefore, many observers questioned whether it might have ended sooner if the U.S. had been involved from the beginning. Just a few decades later, when the threat of European war once again loomed on the horizon, that realization had been forgotten. Most Americans concluded that the Great War had been a colossal mistake. This time, they would not sacrifice blood and treasure for European nations that seemed determined to destroy each other. Once again, the U.S. supplied all manner of food, weaponry and ammunition to the British in their fight against the Nazis, but again sought refuge behind their Atlantic borders. It took another attack, this time by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, to force the U.S. to fully commit to defeating the Axis Powers. When World War II finally ended in September 1945, the international community was determined to learn from the experience this time around. American participation in new institutions designed to prevent war, like the United Nations, reflected an increased willingness to engage with nations across the Atlantic. Similarly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) created a system of collective security to deter aggression by promising allied support in the event of an attack. Over the next several decades, isolationist sentiment abated and increased as the U.S. over-extended itself and retrenched after conflict. The loss in Vietnam convinced a new generation of Americans, who hadn’t been alive to witness WWII, that the U.S. had no business meddling in the affairs of other nations. A similar pattern occurred a few decades later after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. While many Americans viewed the war in Afghanistan as just, the invasion of Iraq led to a new wave of isolationism in response to an unnecessary war. These most recent lessons loom large in public memory, especially as most of the World War II generation have passed away. Without their knowledge and experience, younger generations have forgotten that what happens in Europe rarely stays there. In the age of rapidly advancing technology and an increasingly interconnected international community, an attack on one democracy will be felt on American shores. Today, many Americans might think that the war in Ukraine has nothing to do with us. The war is far away, and no treaties require our involvement. Yet, the conflict is fundamentally a fight between autocracy and democracy. The remaining World War II veterans know that Ukraine might be the target today but will not be the last if authoritarianism wins. We bury our heads in the sand and hide behind the protection of the Atlantic Ocean at our peril. question to the article above: how did Americans react to events in Europe and Asia in the early years of World War II? Response should be a paragraph long with a clear thesis statement, evidence to support thesis and analysis in your own words. PT III of the Coming of War While relations were not particularly firm between Japan and the United States prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the two nations did have a relationship involving trade. What changed this relationship? 2. Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941? 3. Listen to the lecture and watch the below video to Describe the attack on Pearl Harbor. Remembering Pearl Harbor Mp4 Remembering Pearl Harbor After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States found itself in a war they had tried to avoid. Outline below some of the things the U.S. did to mobilize in preparation for war: - - - - - 2. Why would Japan have had the advantage in the early years of the war? 3. In your own words, summarize the early years of WWII in the Pacific.