Discussion on Primary Cause Of the Ills - Paper Example

Feedback to Keith

Keith agrees with the author that indeed the ills of the 20th century all came out of the World War 1 and consequently its failed peacemaking process. He explains that the Treaty of Versailles failed to create a peaceful coexistence among the people who were aggressors and those who had been affected by their aggression. I do agree with these assertions this is because despite this treaty being effective and bringing peace in Europe, this treaty left other people such as the German citizens weak and helpless. The Germans resented it, and they saw it as extremely unjust, in fact, the lack of favorable terms made Germans believe that their leaders who had been sent to negotiate the treaty had betrayed them. Keith continues to explain that lack of western support in developing stable governments in both newly formed states also left the door for political movements to grow, and this situation consequently inspired the rise of socialist and fascist movements. I believe these assertions are true this is because the rise of Fascism was a response to the harsh economic conditions and multiple social challenges that were occurring in Europe. Powerful countries like the USA, for instance, failed to join the League of Nations despite being Woodrow Wilsons idea to form a treaty. As a result, the treaty was not as strong as it could have been if these strong nations had joined. This created a situation whereby every nation was looking for itself, and it led to the rise of socialist and fascist movements. Consequently, other countries such as Italy who were unhappy with the treaty followed suit. However, I do not agree with the idea that the impact of mass casualties left people with the belief that it was okay to annihilate others. Basing on the idea that their objectives were genuine, rather it was the lack of a unified political leadership in their respective nations which led to the rise of ethnic tensions which preempted the Second World War. In general, Keith has done a good job in explaining his ideas about that of the author and using the evidence from Roberts ideologies he has managed to express his view fluently.

Feedback to Thomas

Thomas does not agree with the authors assertion that the First World War was the primary cause of the ills of the 20thCentury and its failed peacemaking process. He explains that most tensions throughout Europe existed before the First World War and even after the war and the peacemaking process. Well, these assertions are true, but our main focus here is whether the ills of the 20th century all came out of World War 1 or not. He continues to explain that the peace-making process which ended the WWI failed to completely address the tensions which existed prior the First World War and led to a series of conflicts between the First World War and the Second World War. Well, I fully agree with Thomas here, this is because it was during this period that a lot of Russian civil wars took place between the counter-revolutionists and revolutionist and also the nationalist. In fact, a lot of Russian lives were lost in these civil wars than were lost in the First World War. It is also important to note that these Russian civil wars also inspired near civil war occurrences in Germany, Austria, Italy, and Hungary. From my understanding, these conflicts set the foundation of the Second World War. Thomas also adds that many ethnic groups and Nations used the lack of a stabilizing force as a chance to establish themselves as influencing powers in Eastern Europe. This statement is true; this is because League of Nations was not strong enough to stabilize nations this gave an opportunity to radicals like the Germanys Adolf Hitler to seek for dominance and power. Finally, he explains that the peacemaking process only benefitted the Western Europe countries and left Eastern Europe countries in the worse state than before the war. Moreover, he states that the Nations such as Italy, Russia, and Germany experienced the rise of dictatorship after the WW1 and probably they would have become dictatorship even without the WWI or the peace treaties. Following the evidence, he has evaluated it is true conflicts would have happened in the 20th century even if the War had not occurred. Therefore, weighing his responses, I believe Thomass responses is more solid and convincing and most interestingly we have nearly these same views on the authors ideologies.