Interwar Period: Traversing Battle Zones and Concentration Camps. Essay Sample

The interwar period was the most challenging period for any European Jew. Together with my family, I was restricted for a few years at concentration camps before relocated to France, traversing battle zones. The escapade gave a chance to experience the real impacts of the two global wars that touched and left a substantial mark on the life of almost everyone throughout the world. For over 30 years, the economic development and integration of of the region was disrupted and hindered by wars, and regional trends severely distorted by extermination, combat, and migrations, as well as the retracing of borders. Wars had plunged the surrounding territories into conflict and contributed to ten million unexpected deaths. For instance, during the time Germany was predominated by World War II, where over sixty nations fought with the war resulting in fifty-five million premature deaths. In both wars, there were limited continuities, Austria, Germany and Hungry fighting Britain Russia and France for a significant length of the time (Kim, n.d.). Although punctured by an interwar period, the warring period can be comprehended as a solitary historical process. Though global, the process of the European dimension was crucial to it. In this manner, Europe was the principal theater of tremendous thirty-year strife of nationalisms and empires.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The first war was battled essentially by European powers across Europe; colonial and some non-European parties also assumed a role with others intervening later on (Jones, 2011). It created a divided continent that had spent a significant part of human and physical capital, the participating nations buried in debts and reparations, and unable to revert to economic and political stability. The second war started in Asia but rapidly spread across Europe and the world, and most participants comprehended that Europe fate would be decisive for the conflict's outcome. Without a doubt, it bodes well to see the two conflicts and the interwar period as a continuous period. The period was one of political and economic instability with modest rates of growth among European states. These years were a mind-boggling and dreary period, stamped profoundly by the shock of global conflicts and an interceding depression. The extreme military and political outcomes of the period are viewed as typical of economic failures and decadence of the twentieth century (Muhle, 2013). However, the monstrous rise in the living standards over the latter years of the twentieth century was empowered by technological advances, which persisted unhindered. As elsewhere, the rate of technological growth in Europe remained significantly high all through the interwar period and surpassed nineteenth-century benchmarks regardless of the economic, military, demographic and economic fiasco, which means that the war was not the forces behind the economic growth.

Globalization, War, and Imperialism

During the nineteenth century, empires and globalization were inseparably connected. The Russian leader Lenin noticed the relationship between the ascent of global enterprises, markets, and worldwide frontier empires. During the period, the great powers all viewed the colonial empire as an altogether legitimate national interest. Europeans were the supreme imperialists ever in the world's history, with one-third of the total global population living in European colonies, which spread across more than forty percent of the world's land mass. During the same period, Britain rule over four hundred million people and twenty percent of the world's land mass, its colonies stretching over to America, Africa, Australasia, and Asia. Its Empire and self-governing domains, for example, Australia and Canada, and provincial dependencies, for example, Nigeria and India, controlled almost one-fourth of the world populace and its land mass. Other European powers, predominantly the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Turkey, and Portugal lagged way behind. Outside Europe, the U.S. controlled some neighboring islands, same as Japan. 25 year later, Turkey and Germany had lost their colonies because of the peace treaties after World War I. Japan and Italy were in the first phase of the expansion across the Pacific and Mediterranean respectively. Without a doubt, taking a gander at the world from Rome, Tokyo, and Berlin, the lack of progress in the balancing of the colonial possessions throughout the world was the underlying issue: the established colonial powers had blocked the aspirations of the emerging imperialists. The quest for colonies by the emerging powers joined with their established colonies' defense contributed to the recurrent crises in the global balance and was seen to a large degree to be behind the world wars. As a result, the creative empire concept lost its authenticity (Blackford, 2008). The authenticity of the empire had never been powerful among colonial populations, and its subsequent decline was evident in the United States through the anti-colonialist foreign policy.

By the mid-nineteenth century, decolonization, by force or by consent, was at its peak within Dutch, British, and French empires. It is another sense in which the conflicts developed as a single historical process lasting between 1914 and 1945. Neither imperialism nor globalization was directly the cause of world wars. The Great Depression that led to economic interdependency of the incredible powers would render the global conflict impossible. Globalization had expanded the interdependency global and regional players, in this manner increasing war costs. In particular, increased openness had rendered the European states progressively defenseless against the prohibition of imported supplies. By increasing wages, the rate of economic growth had made the upkeep of standing armies increasingly costly. Businesses across Europe were discouraging the war and its flare-up was stunning (Etheridge, 2016). However, there were additionally countervailing factors, and industrialization of warfare was one of them. It increased the ruinous efficiency of military gear and provided industrialized states a greater combat capacity. Finally, the increased susceptibility to economic disruption presumably elevated the tendency of the players to gamble on a quick hostile, when war seemed likely. Both Germany and the United Kingdom spent less on their military than other great powers. Europe plunged into war by irreversible war strategies and communication failures based on impulse reactions that were typical for the ancient quest for security in military dominion. World War I was planned with Germany commonly considered as the culprit for the pre-914 diplomatic breakdown and arms race. Germany was unmatched by its rivals after starting the arms race and was driven along these lines gambled on the pre-emptive strike in 1914. In this manner, the prewar weapons contest, boosted by the scramble for colonies, was a central cause, though the industrialization of arms production contributed particularly to the extent and degree of the destructiveness of the war.

The economic dimension of the weapons contest behind the war in 1914 was not exceptional. The industrial revolution merged with the financial reforms amid the nineteenth century, allowed Western states to expand military spending without unnecessarily burdening economies. In the pre-1914 period, most nations were burdened by military spending, with the U.S. ascending economic leader position due to reduced spending on the military. The arms race was inspired by both restraint and rivalry, with countries flexing the financial muscles to match up to their rivals' efforts and others exploiting the modest restraint of the American and British economic giants. The sources of the Great War are regularly perceived in the union of two fiercest coalitions. However, on inspection of statistical evidence for proof of strategic interaction, it has been discovered that the coalition was eventually wasteful and practically insignificant in the spending choices, although an alternate picture with respect to the reasons for World War II. In the interwar period, burdens associated with the military were, by and large, higher than before 1914. Thus shares of budgetary defense were consistently lower, frequently much lower. As other rearmament was postponed, Hitler increased the military burden of Germany to twenty percent from two percent between 1933 and 1938. The Japanese rearmament drive was still progressively noteworthy, with a twenty-three percent military burden and over fifty percent share in defense during the period. Mussolini was less fruitful in rearmament just as in his endeavors to understand the new Roman Empire, with the military burden of Italy closing to five percent in 1938. Accomplishing high rates of output from the military, same as in the Soviet Union, was not a valuable military value, because the tremendous rate of technological change rendered a considerable lot of the armaments created earlier out useless. Policies of most states oscillated between armament and disarmament (Hagood & Grant, 2012). Most of the small states were inactive until post-1935, yet some had high military burden dating back to 1920s (for example Finland and Portugal). Sweden marked the period with an enormous allocation of resources to the military, which declined observably before the end of the century. Sweden, being a member of the League of Nations since its inception, embodies an active pursuit of the policy of disarmament. The Swedish rearmament was moderate to respond to the compounding global security climate, and its economic cost of the military remained marginal until 1939. It along these lines mimics the moderate response of the United States to the new race for weapons in the late 1930s.

Development and Dictatorship

Before 1913, the more democratic nations in Europe were the wealthiest nations, while monarchial and aristocrat establishments were debilitating in poorer countries, such as Spain, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, and Turkey (Muhle, 2013). In so far as popular governments seldom fought each other, the peace prospects in Europe ought to thusly have been improving. Measuring the political regime based on the Polity 2 index, which subtracts totalitarianism from democracy scores to end up with a political regimen composite index with a value between +10 and -10, for strongly democratic and strongly autocratic respectively. It was revealed that during the period, seven of the ten nations with the gross domestic product above the European average had accomplished a positive Polity index - same as the fifty percent of the ten poorer nations. However, World War I was propelled through the mobilizations of the more autocratic European powers: the governments of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia. The legitimacy of the regimes that initiated the Great War was decimated. In Austria, Germany, Russia, and Hungary, the governments fell. Austria and Germany turned out to be more democratic, with Hungary and Soviet Russia supporting autocratic systems. However, where majority rule government grew, it was delicate. The conditions of the 1920s and mid 1930s could scarcely have been less ideal, and by the late 1930s the new law based constitutions had been superseded by a new form of dictatorship in Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the greater part of Eastern Europe, whereas Russia shifted to communist absolutism from monarchical regime at no time (Kim, n.d.).