Acts Of Aggression By Germany And Japan In The 1930s

Motivation for Germany’s Reoccupation of the Rhineland

1. Research the examples of such acts of aggression below and fill in the chart for the motivations and consequences.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan both participated in aggression between 1930 and 1939 as their far-right administrations felt more empowered to disobey and undermine the international order. After Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the Germans grew more aggressive throughout Europe. At the same time, the Japanese, headed by Hirohito, were aggressive in Asia because they thought they needed more resources and were envious of China and Manchuria. They then launched a series of attacks and annexations on their own, securing as many regions as they could. Military, imperialism, nationalism, and the demand for natural resources were only some of the reasons these authoritarian regimes lashed out. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and Germany’s reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936 were two of the most significant acts of aggression which led to Second World War. While the reoccupation of the Rhineland by Germany in 1936 and the invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese in 1931 were both acts of aggression in the leadup to World War II, one can claim that the motivations for such actions differed as well as revealed some commonalities. Furthermore, the response of other world powers varied between the two countries, ranging from appeasement to condemnation on the part of major Western countries. Thus, the main aim of the essay is to analyse the acts of aggression done by these two countries, their motivation and the responses of the western powers.

Aggression was first used in international legal literature as a synonym for “crimes against peace” in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in article 6(A) (Nerlich 45). Since World War I, several treaties and official declarations, notably the Covenant of the League of Nations (article 10) and the Charter of the United Nations (article 39), have endeavoured to outlaw acts of aggression in order to secure the collective security of nations (Heing). Thus, in global politics, an action or programme of expansion carried out by the one state at the expense of another is referred to as ‘aggression’. Since the end of World War I, most countries have agreed to refrain from using force, which has necessitated the consideration of the issue of aggression in wars. A government is deemed an aggressor when it fails to heed a cease-fire order issued by the League of Nations or the United Nations in situations like these. Adherence to international responsibilities to refrain from the use of force has frequently necessitated the consideration of aggression in wars since World War I. If a government fails to obey a ceasefire order issued by the League of Nations or the United Nations, it is viewed as an aggressor by these organisations.

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles prohibited Germany (defeated in World War I) from stationing armed forces in a demilitarised zone in the Rhineland, a territory in western Germany that borders France, Belgium, and part of the Netherlands (Huang 123). According to the pact, the territory would be occupied by Allied forces, including US troops. On March 7, 1936, Hitler issued an order for German soldiers to reoccupy the zone, in flagrant violation of the pact. In 1936, German forces crossed the border into the Rhineland and militarised the region, a move that was largely overlooked by Britain and France as part of an appeasement strategy (Feren?uhová 880).

Consequence of Germany’s Reoccupation of the Rhineland

Following the Mukden Incident, the Empire of Japan’s Kwantung Army entered Manchuria on September 18, 1931, beginning the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Japanese forces invaded Manchuria, China, in 1931 in quest of raw materials to fuel their burgeoning industrial base (Itoh 87-88). The Japanese created the puppet state of Manchukuo after the end of the war in February 1932. After the Soviet Union and Mongolia’s victory in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation in mid-August 1945, they remained in control of the area. Although The United States and other nations voiced their disapproval of Japan’s actions, but did not impose any sanctions on the country.

For both Germany and Japan, one of the driving aspects is the abundance of natural resources in the wealthy areas of Rhineland and Manchuria. Moreover, both the countries disobeyed the international treaty by going against the Western powers and thus identifying themselves as able to challenge international rules and norms established by the Western powers. For decades, the Rhineland had been Germany’s primary supply of coal, steel, and iron. Due to German withdrawal from Rhineland as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, this region as well as its natural resources became the exclusive property of the Allies (Huang 124). During World War II, natural resources such as coal and iron ore were critical for military spending and continued military build-up, and Hitler’s invasion of Rhineland ensured that they would have access to both of these vital resources. Hitler also defied the international norms and laws set by the Western power thereby challenging the western dominance. The Germans were prohibited by the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles from maintaining armed forces within a 50-kilometer radius around the Rhineland (Desai, Bharat and Jay 210-212). Because it left Germany open to attack, Hitler loathed the word. He was adamant that he could defeat the combined forces and establish his value by ignoring the norm set by the Allied powers. Japan took a similar position when they invaded the Chinese region of Manchuria in order to get raw resources to power its burgeoning factories (Young 280-282). Furthermore, Imperial Japan disregarded previous treaty accords, despite the fact that Japanese forces in southern Manchuria were supposed to be guarding the train. On September 18, 1931, the Japanese installed a tiny explosive device adjacent to the rails held by Japan’s South Manchuria Railroad near Mukden in order to strengthen their grip over Manchuria. These events led to a battle between Chinese nationalists and the breaking of non-aggression treaties by the Japanese, disregarding Western orders. Invading Rhineland and Manchuria brought Japan and Germany closer together, highlighting their respective revisionist and expansionist aims during the height of the conflict.

The goal of German reoccupation of Rhineland is to cultivate a strong German emotion based on the philosophy of nationalism. It was embarrassing that German forces were not allowed to enter the Rhineland. Despite Germany’s economic and political dominance in the region, many people were upset that they couldn’t do anything they wanted in their own nation. Hitler achieved a major propaganda coup by reoccupying Rhineland and therefore boosting national spirit (Huang 129). Adolf Hitler and the Nazis also promoted the Nazi belief that the Aryan race was destined to govern and prosper in Germany under their reign. This meant that the expansion and empire of other races in surrounding regions was jeopardised. On the other hand, the Great Depression led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, Japan’s overpopulation led to a serious lack of natural resources, and they turned to China. For the sake of raw supplies and more room for its burgeoning populace, Japan first invaded Manchuria in 1931 (Grul 250-252). As a result, although nationalism and propaganda remain Germany’s major priority, capturing Rhineland would have provided the nation with national solidarity and upliftment. On the other side, the invasion of Japan was more of a strategic choice to maximise the natural resources gained during the Manchurian conflict.

The annexation by both Germany and Japan resulted in widespread condemnation from the western powers but no military action was taken by the western powers. For instance, in case of Germany, no action was taken despite France consulting with the United Kingdom and lodging objections with the League. It was said by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that public opinion would not enable the UK to back its commitments to France. Moreover, both United Kingdom and France later would sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler (Churchill 4-5) . The same step was taken in case of Japan, other nations, including the United States, decried Japan’s aggressiveness, but resisted any economic or military sanctions against the country.

Finally, it is important to note that both Japan and Germany launched annexation with the dual goals of expanding and acquiring resources. Although there are some differences in motives behind the aggression but more or less it was being guided by revisionism as well as aggressive militarism. Furthermore, the western powers’ replies have been so inadequate that both nations have considered future territorial expansion. The Allied nations’ lack of response to these military forces was primarily to blame for the start of a full-fledged cold war.

References

Churchill, Winston S. “Why did attempts to appease to Hitler fail?.”

Desai, Bharat H., and Jay B. Desai. “On the Century of Peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles: Looking Back to Look Ahead.” International Studies 57.3 (2020): 201-222.

Feren?uhová, Bohumila. “The Re-Militarization of the Rhineland on 7 March 1936: A Question of Frontiers and International Security (also) in Central Europe.” Historický ?asopis 63.5 (2015): 877-899.

Gruhl, Werner. “The Great Asian-Pacific Crescent of Pain: Japan’s War from Manchuria to Hiroshima, 1931 to 1945.” Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice (2017): 243-58.

Henig, Ruth. The Peace that Never was: A History of the League of Nations. Haus Publishing, 2019.

Huang, Hanson. The British Perception of the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, 1936. Diss. 2016.

Itoh, Mayumi. “Manchurian Incident and the Long March.” The Making of China’s War with Japan. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, 2016. 85-111.

Nerlich, Volker. “The Crime of Aggression and Modes of Liability. Is There Room Only for Principals.” Harvard International Law Journal 58 (2017): 44-47.

Ovcharenko, ?. ?. “The Demilitarization Of The Rhineland And The Rhine CRISIS OF 1936.” Cherkasy University Bulletin: Historical Sciences 02 (2016).

Young, Louise. “When fascism met empire in Japanese-occupied Manchuria.” Journal of Global History 12.2 (2017): 274-296.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order