what was the main cause of world war 2 essay

• What Were The Main Causes Of World War II?

World War II  began on September 1, 1939, when  Germany invaded Poland . However, while this invasion was the sparkplug for the conflict, its underlying roots went back decades. Indeed, the legacy of the  First World War , economic turmoil in  Germany ,  Adolf Hitler 's worldview, Allied incompetence, and Japanese territorial expansion all contributed to the beginning of the war. 

World War I And The Conspiracies It Fostered 

World War I ended in November 1918. Having failed to win any sort of decisive victory on the Western Front, Germany signed the November 11 armistice as the loser in the conflict. However, this outcome angered many Germans, causing widespread domestic unrest that included mutinies, attempted coups, and assassinations. Amidst this turmoil, conspiracy theories emerged about what "actually" happened at the war's end. The most popular of these theories was the "stab-in-the-back" myth, the notion that Jewish and communist politicians had betrayed the army by accepting the armistice. Drawing on these beliefs, the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, or Nazi Party) eventually rose to power.

The Consequences Of The Treaty Of Versailles

One must also consider the  Treaty of Versailles , the peace treaty signed after World War I when assessing the causes of World War II. The terms of this agreement were as follows: Germany needed to give up all of its colonies and a significant portion of its European territory. There was also a stipulation that the German Army would be reduced to 100,000 men and that the Rhineland would be demilitarized. Germany was also forced to pay the equivalent of 33 billion American dollars in reparations to the Allied countries and take sole responsibility for the war. Much like the November Armistice, anger towards the Treaty of Versailles helped the Nazis rise to power. Furthermore, as will now be demonstrated, the agreement led to economic catastrophe in Germany. 

German Economic Turmoil In The 1920s And 1930s

To pay off the aforementioned reparations payments, the German government began printing money, resulting in  hyperinflation . Thus, by November 1923, one American dollar was worth 4.2 trillion Reichsmark (RMS). But, following the introduction of a new currency, the Retenmark, and the Dawes Plan, a more manageable series of reparations payments, the economy began to stabilize in 1924. This was all undone, however, with the onset  Great Depression  in 1929, and 33% of the working population was unemployed by February 1932. When combined with lingering anger toward the Treaty of Versailles and memories of the early 1920s, this paved the way for the rise of the Nazis. Indeed, after several elections in which they gained more and more support, Adolf Hitler was finally named chancellor on  January 30, 1933 . With the Nazis in power, Europe was now significantly closer to war. 

Hitler's Worldview

The major reason this was the case can be attributed to Hitler's worldview. To Hitler, "struggle," specifically struggle between races, characterized the nature of the world. Furthermore, he believed that gaining access to living space ( Lebensraum ) in the East, in particular the  Soviet Union  (USSR), was critical for the victory of the "Aryan race." This belief needs to be understood in conjunction with his understanding of Slavs and Jews. To Hitler, Slavs were inferior to Aryans, whereas Jews stood outside his racial hierarchy. Thus, "the Jews" were able to subvert the struggle-based nature of the world by introducing ideas, democracy, human rights, capitalism, and communism. Hitler thought that this was what happened in the First World War and was obsessed with preventing another such subversion of nature. This obsession, paired with the belief that the USSR was a Slavic state run by Jews, informed most of the Nazis' foreign policy decisions.

The Failure Of Appeasement

Another major reason for the Second World War was the Allies' failure to stop Hitler's aggressive foreign policy. For instance, in 1935, he reintroduced conscription. Then, on March 7, 1936, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. Despite these actions clearly violating the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies did nothing, hoping that giving Hitler what he wanted would prevent another war. However, this inaction only made him more aggressive. In March 1938,  Germany annexed Austria.  The Sudetenland, a region of  Czechoslovakia  that contained mostly German speakers, was  annexed in the autumn of 1938 , followed by an invasion of the rest of the country in early 1939. Ultimately, the invasion of  Poland  on September 1, 1939 was the final straw for the Allies, with  France  and the  United Kingdom  (UK) declaring war on Germany days later. By all accounts, appeasement had failed.

Japan's Desire For Territorial Expansion

Germany was not the only world power making aggressive foreign policy maneuvers during this period. Indeed, in the second half of the 1800s,  Japan  experienced massive population and economic growth. However, a lack of good farmland and few natural resources necessitated imperialism to sustain this prosperity. Thus, in the late 1920s, after years of military and diplomatic pressures, China gave Japan control of Manchuria's railways. Japanese forces then invaded Manchuria in September 1931 following a  self-inflicted railway bombing  and set up a puppet regime. Finally, following an exchange of fire between Chinese and Japanese soldiers near Peking in July 1937, Japan launched a full-scale invasion of China. With that, the  war in Asia  began.

In conclusion, the legacy of World War I needs to be understood as a cause of World War II. Furthermore, Hitler's worldview should be considered when assessing the motivations of key actors. Moreover, the Allies' desperation to avoid another conflict ultimately contributed to increasing tensions. Finally, Japan's desire for territorial expansion was the sparkplug for war in Asia. 

More in History

10 Deadliest Bridge Collapses In History

Emu War: Australia's Crusade Against Birds

The War of Alexander's Successors

What Killed Alexander the Great?

Where is Cleopatra's Tomb?

The Destruction Of The 7 Wonders Of The Ancient World

Best UK Destinations for Medieval Landmarks

What Was The Crisis Of The Third Century?

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

World War II

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 13, 2024 | Original: October 29, 2009

World War II, the largest and deadliest conflict in human history, involved more than 50 nations and was fought on land, sea and air in nearly every part of the world. Also known as the Second World War, it was caused in part by the economic crisis of the Great Depression and by political tensions left unresolved following the end of World War I.

The war began when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and raged across the globe until 1945, when Japan surrendered to the United States after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By the end of World War II, an estimated 60 to 80 million people had died, including up to 55 million civilians, and numerous cities in Europe and Asia were reduced to rubble.

Among the people killed were 6 million Jews murdered in Nazi concentration camps as part of Hitler’s diabolical “Final Solution,” now known as the Holocaust. The legacy of the war included the creation of the United Nations as a peacekeeping force and geopolitical rivalries that resulted in the Cold War.

Leading up to World War II

The devastation of the Great War (as World War I was known at the time) had greatly destabilized Europe, and in many respects World War II grew out of issues left unresolved by that earlier conflict. In particular, political and economic instability in Germany, and lingering resentment over the harsh terms imposed by the Versailles Treaty, fueled the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and National Socialist German Workers’ Party, abbreviated as NSDAP in German and the Nazi Party in English..

Did you know? As early as 1923, in his memoir and propaganda tract "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle), Adolf Hitler had predicted a general European war that would result in "the extermination of the Jewish race in Germany."

After becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933, Hitler swiftly consolidated power, anointing himself Führer (supreme leader) in 1934. Obsessed with the idea of the superiority of the “pure” German race, which he called “Aryan,” Hitler believed that war was the only way to gain the necessary “Lebensraum,” or living space, for the German race to expand. In the mid-1930s, he secretly began the rearmament of Germany, a violation of the Versailles Treaty. After signing alliances with Italy and Japan against the Soviet Union , Hitler sent troops to occupy Austria in 1938 and the following year annexed Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s open aggression went unchecked, as the United States and Soviet Union were concentrated on internal politics at the time, and neither France nor Britain (the two other nations most devastated by the Great War) were eager for confrontation.

Outbreak of World War II (1939)

In late August 1939, Hitler and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact , which incited a frenzy of worry in London and Paris. Hitler had long planned an invasion of Poland, a nation to which Great Britain and France had guaranteed military support if it were attacked by Germany. The pact with Stalin meant that Hitler would not face a war on two fronts once he invaded Poland, and would have Soviet assistance in conquering and dividing the nation itself. On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland from the west; two days later, France and Britain declared war on Germany, beginning World War II.

On September 17, Soviet troops invaded Poland from the east. Under attack from both sides, Poland fell quickly, and by early 1940 Germany and the Soviet Union had divided control over the nation, according to a secret protocol appended to the Nonaggression Pact. Stalin’s forces then moved to occupy the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and defeated a resistant Finland in the Russo-Finnish War. During the six months following the invasion of Poland, the lack of action on the part of Germany and the Allies in the west led to talk in the news media of a “phony war.” At sea, however, the British and German navies faced off in heated battle, and lethal German U-boat submarines struck at merchant shipping bound for Britain, sinking more than 100 vessels in the first four months of World War II.

World War II in the West (1940-41)

On April 9, 1940, Germany simultaneously invaded Norway and occupied Denmark, and the war began in earnest. On May 10, German forces swept through Belgium and the Netherlands in what became known as “blitzkrieg,” or lightning war. Three days later, Hitler’s troops crossed the Meuse River and struck French forces at Sedan, located at the northern end of the Maginot Line , an elaborate chain of fortifications constructed after World War I and considered an impenetrable defensive barrier. In fact, the Germans broke through the line with their tanks and planes and continued to the rear, rendering it useless. The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was evacuated by sea from Dunkirk in late May, while in the south French forces mounted a doomed resistance. With France on the verge of collapse, Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini formed an alliance with Hitler, the Pact of Steel, and Italy declared war against France and Britain on June 10.

On June 14, German forces entered Paris; a new government formed by Marshal Philippe Petain (France’s hero of World War I) requested an armistice two nights later. France was subsequently divided into two zones, one under German military occupation and the other under Petain’s government, installed at Vichy France. Hitler now turned his attention to Britain, which had the defensive advantage of being separated from the Continent by the English Channel.

To pave the way for an amphibious invasion (dubbed Operation Sea Lion), German planes bombed Britain extensively beginning in September 1940 until May 1941, known as the Blitz , including night raids on London and other industrial centers that caused heavy civilian casualties and damage. The Royal Air Force (RAF) eventually defeated the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) in the Battle of Britain , and Hitler postponed his plans to invade. With Britain’s defensive resources pushed to the limit, Prime Minister Winston Churchill began receiving crucial aid from the U.S. under the Lend-Lease Act , passed by Congress in early 1941.

Hitler vs. Stalin: Operation Barbarossa (1941-42)

By early 1941, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria had joined the Axis, and German troops overran Yugoslavia and Greece that April. Hitler’s conquest of the Balkans was a precursor for his real objective: an invasion of the Soviet Union, whose vast territory would give the German master race the “Lebensraum” it needed. The other half of Hitler’s strategy was the extermination of the Jews from throughout German-occupied Europe. Plans for the “Final Solution” were introduced around the time of the Soviet offensive, and over the next three years more than 4 million Jews would perish in the death camps established in occupied Poland.

On June 22, 1941, Hitler ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union, codenamed Operation Barbarossa . Though Soviet tanks and aircraft greatly outnumbered the Germans’, Russian aviation technology was largely obsolete, and the impact of the surprise invasion helped Germans get within 200 miles of Moscow by mid-July. Arguments between Hitler and his commanders delayed the next German advance until October, when it was stalled by a Soviet counteroffensive and the onset of harsh winter weather.

World War II in the Pacific (1941-43)

With Britain facing Germany in Europe, the United States was the only nation capable of combating Japanese aggression, which by late 1941 included an expansion of its ongoing war with China and the seizure of European colonial holdings in the Far East. On December 7, 1941, 360 Japanese aircraft attacked the major U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii , taking the Americans completely by surprise and claiming the lives of more than 2,300 troops. The attack on Pearl Harbor served to unify American public opinion in favor of entering World War II, and on December 8 Congress declared war on Japan with only one dissenting vote. Germany and the other Axis Powers promptly declared war on the United States.

After a long string of Japanese victories, the U.S. Pacific Fleet won the Battle of Midway in June 1942, which proved to be a turning point in the war. On Guadalcanal, one of the southern Solomon Islands, the Allies also had success against Japanese forces in a series of battles from August 1942 to February 1943, helping turn the tide further in the Pacific. In mid-1943, Allied naval forces began an aggressive counterattack against Japan, involving a series of amphibious assaults on key Japanese-held islands in the Pacific. This “island-hopping” strategy proved successful, and Allied forces moved closer to their ultimate goal of invading the mainland Japan.

Toward Allied Victory in World War II (1943-45)

In North Africa , British and American forces had defeated the Italians and Germans by 1943. An Allied invasion of Sicily and Italy followed, and Mussolini’s government fell in July 1943, though Allied fighting against the Germans in Italy would continue until 1945.

On the Eastern Front, a Soviet counteroffensive launched in November 1942 ended the bloody Battle of Stalingrad , which had seen some of the fiercest combat of World War II. The approach of winter, along with dwindling food and medical supplies, spelled the end for German troops there, and the last of them surrendered on January 31, 1943.

On June 6, 1944–celebrated as “D-Day” –the Allies began a massive invasion of Europe, landing 156,000 British, Canadian and American soldiers on the beaches of Normandy, France. In response, Hitler poured all the remaining strength of his army into Western Europe, ensuring Germany’s defeat in the east. Soviet troops soon advanced into Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania, while Hitler gathered his forces to drive the Americans and British back from Germany in the Battle of the Bulge (December 1944-January 1945), the last major German offensive of the war.

An intensive aerial bombardment in February 1945 preceded the Allied land invasion of Germany, and by the time Germany formally surrendered on May 8, Soviet forces had occupied much of the country. Hitler was already dead, having died by suicide on April 30 in his Berlin bunker.

World War II Ends (1945)

At the Potsdam Conference of July-August 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman (who had taken office after Roosevelt’s death in April), Churchill and Stalin discussed the ongoing war with Japan as well as the peace settlement with Germany. Post-war Germany would be divided into four occupation zones, to be controlled by the Soviet Union, Britain, the United States and France. On the divisive matter of Eastern Europe’s future, Churchill and Truman acquiesced to Stalin, as they needed Soviet cooperation in the war against Japan.

Heavy casualties sustained in the campaigns at Iwo Jima (February 1945) and Okinawa (April-June 1945), and fears of the even costlier land invasion of Japan led Truman to authorize the use of a new and devastating weapon. Developed during a top secret operation code-named The Manhattan Project, the atomic bomb was unleashed on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August. On August 15, the Japanese government issued a statement declaring they would accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, and on September 2, U.S. General Douglas MacArthur accepted Japan’s formal surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

African American Servicemen Fight Two Wars

World War II exposed a glaring paradox within the United States Armed Forces. Although more than 1 million African Americans served in the war to defeat Nazism and fascism, they did so in segregated units. The same discriminatory Jim Crow policies that were rampant in American society were reinforced by the U.S. military. Black servicemen rarely saw combat and were largely relegated to labor and supply units that were commanded by white officers.

There were several African American units that proved essential in helping to win World War II, with the Tuskegee Airmen being among the most celebrated. But the Red Ball Express, the truck convoy of mostly Black drivers were responsible for delivering essential goods to General George S. Patton ’s troops on the front lines in France. The all-Black 761st Tank Battalion fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and the 92 Infantry Division, fought in fierce ground battles in Italy. Yet, despite their role in defeating fascism, the fight for equality continued for African American soldiers after the World War II ended. They remained in segregated units and lower-ranking positions, well into the Korean War , a few years after President Truman signed an executive order to desegregate the U.S. military in 1948.

World War II Casualties and Legacy

World War II proved to be the deadliest international conflict in history, taking the lives of 60 to 80 million people, including 6 million Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust . Civilians made up an estimated 50-55 million deaths from the war, while military comprised 21 to 25 million of those lost during the war. Millions more were injured, and still more lost their homes and property. 

The legacy of the war would include the spread of communism from the Soviet Union into eastern Europe as well as its eventual triumph in China, and the global shift in power from Europe to two rival superpowers–the United States and the Soviet Union–that would soon face off against each other in the Cold War .

Photo Galleries

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

The Road to War: understanding the causes of World War II

The Second World War was one of the deadliest and most devastating conflicts in human history, claiming the lives of tens of millions of people across the globe.

While the war's causes are complex and multifaceted, it is generally agreed that a combination of factors, including economic instability, political tensions, and territorial ambitions, contributed to the outbreak of hostilities in 1939.

World War II began when Nazi Germany invaded Poland on the 1st of September 1939.

However, this single action was not the only reason why the world fell into a global conflict for the second time.

Instead, there were both long-term and short-term causes that meant that the attack on Poland began the war. 

Long-term verses short-term causes

Every historical event occurs because of a series of events that happened beforehand. Things that directly lead to another event are called ‘Causes’.

Some causes occurred immediately before the event began, while others existed for several years before they caused the event.

• Causes that occurred only a few hours, days or weeks before the event are called 'Short Term Causes'
• Causes that existed for years, decades or centuries before the event are called 'Long Term Causes' 

Long-term causes of WWII

1. the treaty of versailles.

When World War One ended in 1918, the various countries involved had to decide how to punish Germany for starting the war.

To do this, leaders from countries across the world met at the Palace of Versailles in France in 1919 to create an official document to outline the specific punishments.

This document was called the Treaty of Versailles.

Each of the leaders had different desires for what to do to Germany. Prime Minister Clemenceau of France wanted the punishment to be severe so that Germany would not have the strength or resources to start another war.

On the other hand, the President of America, Woodrow Wilson, had a 14-point strategy that he believed would create world peace in a way that wasn't too harsh to Germany. 

However, the final treaty was particularly cruel. There were five things in the document that enraged a lot of Germans:

• Germany had to accept full blame for starting World War One
• Germany had to pay 6,600 million pounds for starting the war
• Germany was not allowed an army larger than 100,000 men, and was allowed no thanks, air force nor submarines.
• Germany had to give up control of a region called the Rhineland, which was an important industrial centre
• Various parts of Germany were handed over to other countries and Germany was banned from ever joining with Austria (called the Anschluss )

These terms sent Germany into a deep economic crisis in the 1920s, with many people losing jobs and struggling to feed their families.

Just when Germany was recovering at the end of the decade, the Great Depression hit, which sent Germans into poverty again.

The German people were outraged and blamed the Treaty of Versailles for their suffering.

In the hope of finding a solution to their problems, the Germany people voted for Adolf Hitler, who promised to undo the terms of the treaty.

2. Hitler's military aggression

After Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he immediately began ignoring the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

He began increasing the size of the Germany army and investing in the latest military equipment and strategies.

In 1934, he officially increased the size of the army beyond the 100,000 limit and created a German air force.

The rest of the world were fully aware that these things were occurring, but they didn't intervene to enforce the terms of the treaty, because many people in other countries had come to believe that the treaty was too harsh, and they were willing to give Germany some flexibility.

Then, in 1936, Hitler marches German troops back into the Rhineland. This was a clear moment of military aggression, and it may have been a test to see what the rest of the world would do.

Even though the rest of Europe was alarmed and voiced concern, no punishments were handed to Germany, and they were allowed to occupy the region again.

Britain in particular didn't respond to Hitler's actions, as it was preoccupied with its own domestic economic and political issues at the time.

The British politicians believed that the general public did not want to engage in another costly conflict so soon after the devastation of World War I.

Additionally, the British government believed that Germany's actions were not necessarily aggressive, but rather an attempt to restore its own territorial integrity. 

Some leaders were sympathetic to the German cause since they thought that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and we willing to grant Hitler some concessions if it meant that another world war could be avoided.

Hitler was now more confident that he could expand further, and aimed to take back former German lands that had been taken away after World War One.

In March 1938, he marched into Austria, where Hitler forced the Austrian people to vote on whether they would like to join with Germany into a single country.

The results of the vote indicated that 99% of Austrians wanted Anschluss, which Hitler then promised to create.

"Anschluss" was the term used to describe the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany.

Alarmed, Austrian leaders called on Britain and France to intervene. When these countries sent their concerns to Hitler, he simply promised that the Anschluss was the end of his military invasions, and Europe said that they believed him and did nothing.

However, Hitler had no intention of stopping there and, six months, he sent a demand to the neighbouring country of Czechoslovakia to hand back the former German region of the Sudetenland or face invasion.

Short-term causes of WWII

1. chamberlain's appeasement strategy.

The Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, thought that Hitler's threat was too much of a warning to ignore.

As a result, he met with Hitler three times during September of 1938 to try and find a way of preventing any future war.

Most of Europe still remembered the horror of the First World War, and Chamberlain believed that the world should do anything they could to avoid a repeat of that.

Chamberlain believed that he could 'appease' Hitler, which meant that Chamberlain wanted to find a way to make Hitler happy enough that he wouldn't start another war. 

Following their meetings, Hitler and Chamberlain signed the 'Munich Agreement', which stated that Hitler would be given the Sudetenland if he promised not to invade Czechoslovakia.

Chamberlain was pleased that Hitler had signed a promise to do no further military conquests, while Hitler was pleased that he had been able to take back a former German region.

Chamberlain's approach to avoiding the outbreak of another war by satisfying Hitler's territorial demands is known as 'appeasement'.

2. Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia

Unfortunately, Hitler had no intention of stopping there. In March 1939, he invaded Czechoslovakia anyway.

Despite the promise made to Chamberlain, no European country stepped in to stop Germany.

Hitler came to believe that Europe was so afraid of war that he could continue to invade other countries and there would be no punishments.

However, the rest of Europe began to realise that fear of war was simply allowing one country to do whatever they wanted, and that something had to be done.

When information began circulating that Hitler was now preparing to invade Poland, a number of European countries realised that war might be a real option.

3. Hitler's invasion of Poland

Both Britain and France made a formal declaration to Hitler that if he invaded Poland, that they would declare war on him. Chamberlain was convinced that the clear threat of war would be enough to scare Hitler.

Hitler, by contrast, was convinced that Britain and France were bluffing. He thought that his recent experience with these countries showed that they were too afraid of another world war to follow through on their threats. 

So, on the 1st of September 1939, German troops invaded Poland. Upon receiving word of this attack, Britain declared war on Germany and the Second World War began.

Further reading

What do you need help with, download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

The World War II: Impact and Consequences Essay

World War II had a great impact on social order and international relations between the nations and continents. A major influence on international policies was the relations between the two opposite camps, the Allies and the Axis, and the views each held of the other. The Allies and the Axis were reluctant to follow any line that risked running into the antagonism of the other for fear of alienating their ally and therefore endangering one of the precepts of their distant policies (Gordon 32). In an epoch of growing international anxiety and doubt, Germany remained one of the few relatively sure supports upon which they could depend on. Certainly, in the formulation and conduct of international war policy the significance attached to the views and position of the other was considerable, indeed the contacts and discussions between them were often decisive. The history of World War II suggests that the greatest impact this war had in African and Asian countries was through the processes of decolonization and modernization coming to these geographical regions.

World War II changed the landscape of North Africa and opened new opportunities for independence. The countries became independent immediately after the end of the war, but the war changed the national consciousness and self-determination of the nations. For either to be successful the cooperation of their partner across North Africa was considered imperative. Neither the Allies nor the Axis was prepared to take any initiative alone: among diplomatic, military and political circles there was a refusal to act either against Italian hostility in North Africa or German treaty violations in Europe without the guaranteed support of their partner (Hargreaves 65). This perceived incapability to operate without the backing of the other extended at several vital junctures to the point where the Allies and the Axis allowed the other, possibly willingly so, to determine their own policies (Gordon 65).

The main African countries involved in World War II were under Italian rule and included the Italian North Africa, the Italian east Africa. Also, such Asian Middle East countries as Iran, Syria and Lebanon were involved. The outcome this emphasis placed on the other’s strategy was to strengthen the case for appeasing Italy and Germany. Each was depressed from taking a firm posture by the belief that the other was not committed to a policy of confrontation. During the first months of World War II, the countries recognized that, whatever their public statements, the British were not committed to a hard line over Italian hostility (Hargreaves 77). Later, following the reoccupation of the Africa, a similar sight was held in London of French attitudes. Equally important, each knew, indeed it was explicitly stated, that their ally would not act without them and without having first received a formal promise of their support. The Allies and the Axis pacification policies were further reinforced by the denial to accept a trade-off by which support for a policy of resistance against one fascist aggressor would be exchanged for the promise of support against the other (McGowen 87). The only result of these political maneuvers was to further damage their relations, with each berating the other for failing to provide the necessary support. In fact, these often hurtful exchanges had more to do with seeking to place the onus for (in)action onto their ally’s shoulders than with any wish to adopt a policy of resistance towards fascist hostility (Gordon 63). “Between Cairo and Cape Town operational activities were at first confined to a few ports and airfields. Freetown, an important staging-post and assembly-point for naval convoys, was quickly affected” (Hargreaves 51). The outcomes drawn from these common considerations, firstly, that it was impossible to act without the backing of their ally and, secondly, that their union was no more than half- hearted in its desire to oppose Italy or Germany (and also that they lacked the means even if they had desired to accept such a policy), accentuated their already unsure policies, impeded any firm answer, and acted as a further impetus to the policies of appeasement.

When considering the African and Asian responses to Italian hostility in East Africa, a contrast has been made between ‘the complicated “game” and the determination of the English Government; of a strong-willed British administration wanting to do all it could to halt Italy and defend the League but being held back by the cynical policies of the French (Hargreaves 66). The obvious contradiction with France’s traditional record of determination in upholding the settlement and the League, and with Great Britain’s previous half-hearted and flexible approach towards both, is explained away by a supposed dual volte-face in which each at the same time assumed the mantle of the other. This actually rapid and total about-turn in policy simply cannot explain the complexity of the Allies and the Axis policies. For both there were numerous issues to be taken into account, some pushing towards opposition to the Axis ambitions and defense, others towards maintaining Italian friendship through acceptance of her expansion at Africa’s expense. Although these were not felt equally, there were strong cases made on either side of the dispute in both countries (McGowen 34). In their respective parliaments, governments and public views the war crisis produced widely divergent, and often contradictory, opinions towards the Axis. The result was that neither was firmly attached either to opposing or conniving at Italian hostility. For the Allies and the Axis leaders the importance of the Africa crisis, coming at a critical time in international affairs, lay in its repercussions beyond Africa – in the Mediterranean, in Europe, and above all in their future relations with Germany (Gordon 49). Not surprisingly, their opinion turned as much towards Berlin as towards Rome, Addis Ababa or Geneva throughout the whole affair. Faced with growing evils in Europe, complicated by an expansionist Japan in the Far East, the significance of Italy greatly increased. With Germany rearming and clearly seeking to expand to the African and Asian continents and east the value of Italian support could not be overlooked. The result was an effort, led by the French but closely followed and supported by London, to tie Italy more closely to the western camp. “Political doctrines apart, all France’s African subjects suffered new hardships in consequence of the interruption of peacetime patterns of production and trade, and of increased demands by their rulers” (Hargreaves 53).

Not only was there a concern not to estrange their union and to keep as close to them as possible but both the Allies and the Axis also considered that their own policy could not be successful without the fuIl and active participation of each other. This refusal to operate outside a joint Allies approach acted throughout the crisis as a restraint on the policy initiatives that emerged from the Allies and the Axis whether they were for greater concessions or stronger coercive measures. Although for Great Britain the issue was less one of dependence there was still a great emphasis placed on Paris (McGowen 65). This was certainly much in evidence when consideration was given to the issue of sanctions. The issue of French military support should Italy attack the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean in some ‘mad dog’ attack was repeatedly raised. Equally, there was a general insistence that France should prepare fuIl-scale armed operations against Italy before sanctions could even be considered, and any policy of opposing Italian ambitions was simply considered impossible without the full military and diplomatic support of the French (Gordon 69). The war in Asia took place between Japanese and communist Chinese armies aimed to protect their national interest and became independent.

Time and again the Allies pointed to failure to provide this as a reason for their own unwillingness to consider sanctions. At the same time they insisted on the necessity of keeping in step with France and made this principle of their policy clear to all involved. British statements that they had no understanding with African countries, their demands that before sanctions were apprised upon France must be prepared to undertake large-scale military operations (in fact, take the brunt of these as well as from any Italian retaliation) and their refusal to offer in exchange for French support over Africa a guarantee of British support for future sanctions against Germany, only added to the general suspicion in Paris (Hargreaves 74). British demands that a sanctions policy be adopted, and moreover that it be led by France, met with little support (McGowen 48). French leaders, aware of British silence on this issue, saw no reason to do anything other than drag their heels – certainly they often argued that London would be only too pleased if sanctions were avoided.

Similar to Africa, Asia was intestinally involved in the war with poor military resources and colonial state power. It has been argued that the crisis posed a straightforward, if awkward, choice for the Allies and the Axis between resistance and appeasement, between threats (backed up if necessary by collective action) and sufficient concessions to Italy to prevent her from resorting to arms combined with pressure on the Asians to concede. In this the choice that confronted Paris and London over Asian nations reflected the wider and longer-term choice over policy towards the fascist powers. The choice was not, though, so simple. The recognized pattern of appeasing Mussolini and the desire to preserve the advantages of Italian friendship pushed them in one way; concern for the League and for the widespread public support it enjoyed pushed them in another (McGowen 65). Neither Government, though, saw the option in such stark terms. For both it was an issue of attempting to balance the many demands placed on them. Nor were conciliation and coercion considered as being equally exclusive but rather as two paths to be followed simultaneously. Both the Allies and the Axis were pushed towards what were often incompatible options by conflicting advice and concerns. The understandable inclination was to seek to avoid these alternatives, to preserve both Italian co-operation in Europe and the prestige and force of the League; neither France nor Great Britain accepted that by attempting to keep both they would fall between two stools (Gordon 77). The World War II led to formation of Asian states including the Republic of China (under Communist regime,) The North and South Korea, the Taiwan, and Vietnam. The decolonization process touched Indochina, Algeria, Indonesia and Madagascar, the dominion of India and Pakistan. Such states as Israel and Palestine were created in the Middle East.

The story of the Allies and the Axis policies towards the African and Asian countries is in large part that of how the Governments sought to come to terms with this dilemma. Neither saw a simple choice between coercion and conciliation and in neither country was the eventual outcome of the debate a clear decision either to resist or to cede to Italian demands. When faced with the threat and then the fact of Italian hostility against a fellow member of the League both France and Great Britain worked fervently to find a diplomatic solution (Hock 101). The central, seemingly insoluble, problem remained how this could satisfy both the League and Italy; how Italian needs could be sufficiently fulfilled to keep her in the anti-German camp while not delivering a fatal blow to the League and to the system of collective security. Such hopes proved to be based on an unfounded optimism or, more probably, on an irresolution characteristic of both countries’ leaderships. At the heart of British and French policies lay what were to prove intractable problems arising from inherent inconsistencies (McGowen 51). Furthermore, however understandable the policies pursued, they were always poorly adapted to the nature of Mussolini’s power. Given this, it is not surprising that their open rejection of effectual sanctions and their public acceptance of Italy’s need to expand did little to convince Mussolini of the need to accept anything less than the complete annihilation of North Africa. This gulf between fascist Italy and the democracies always worked against a successful resolution of the crisis along the lines envisaged in the Allies and the Axis. The weaknesses inherent in such an approach and the basic incompatibility of the two halves of the dual-line were never fully accepted by the Allies and the Axis policy-makers (Gordon 88).

Pushed in often opposite directions by various international and domestic considerations, the Allies and the Axis policies in Asia and Africa were equally ambivalent. The first inclination for both was to temporize, to leave the problem to others, to urge conciliation all round and to attempt to avoid the awkward dilemma posed by Italy’s hostility (Hock 103). Driven by conflicting advice, interests and considerations, weakened in their formulation by the absence of decisive leadership and in their application both by material weaknesses and the lack of Anglo-French solidarity, ended in failure: the League was ruined as an instrument of peace-keeping, the Italian alliance permanently damaged and mutual relations strained almost to breaking point. “The secretary of state entered 1941 certain that he wanted no confrontation with Japan over China or Southeast Asia until the situation in Europe had improved” (Lee 14).

Having unsuccessfully turned to each other for a lead, ministers and their military advisers looked to Great Britain for a way out of their predicament. Safe in the knowledge that British opposition would rule out any military response, the new direction was instructed to open talks under the auspices of the League. The crisis was, however, far from over (Hock 107). The importance of Asian theater was that for the Allies, all hopes of improving relations with Germany were dependent on one thing – the support of France. Everything turned on first neutralizing any French demands for action and then winning her over to the appeasement of Europe. For the Government in London the present dangers, and future possibilities, all revolved around an agreement with Paris. Both approached the events from this same sense of weakness (McGowen 38). Attempts to look to other allies (in the case of France to Poland, the Little Entente, the Soviet Union and Italy; for Great Britain to her Dominions) never got off the ground. Faced with growing threats in Europe, the Mediterranean and North Africa, Great Britain had to abandon her inclination to be the arbiter of Europe (Hock 106).

Their immediate reactions, however, were often to condemn their partner as much as the aggressor. The French attacked what they regarded as Great Britain’s lack of solidarity, their failure to provide adequate commitments to the defense of Western Europe, and for playing too much to a German tune. They also questioned the inconsistency with which the British sought to apply the Covenant against Italy while denying its value in Europe. In London French intransigence was blamed for the long-lasting failure to reach a settlement with Germany (McGowen 23). The inherent issues in relations between Britain and France in Asia were heightened by the fact that before either reached a policy decision the other’s attitude was solicited and, despite a pronounced lack of confidence, their support made an essential precondition for any diplomatic move (Kelly 81). Throughout both crises each constantly referred to the attitudes of other actors. In turn, the League, the United States, France’s Eastern European allies, British Dominions, and numerous other states as far apart as Turkey and Japan, were considered in policy deliberations. What really mattered, however, was the attitude of their partner across the Channel. Beyond the limitations imposed by material resources and the broad outlook and aims of the two leaderships, it was these considerations that each gave to the other’s position that was the major determinant of international policy (McGowen 87).

In Asia and Africa, the Allies relations were marked by requests and refusals for action against international hostility: British attempts to halt Italian ambitions in Ethiopia were blocked by French unwillingness to follow their lead; over the Asia the roles were apparently reversed, with Great Britain’s non-co-operation holding back the French. In both cases there is much in this that is simply myth. The myth, however, both at the time and since, proved to be remarkably useful. Consequently it took deep root (McGowen 47). That the Allies tensions were added to by these diplomatic exchanges is evident. Over the crisis the British disapproval of the French failure to stand by them was strongly voiced. In return, Paris attacked what many there considered to be Great Britain’s willingness to raise the stakes to dangerous levels.

Those successes offered twin rescue to a beleaguered Imperial Army. First, the colossal drain of the China “incident” might at last be ended by an occupation of French Indochina that would nearly sever the remaining flow of Western aid to Chiang Kai-shek. It was a perversion of the “total war” officers’ original attempt to achieve autarky (Lee 16).

In both cases these connections had a direct and lasting collision. In large part these divergences make clear the failure to overcome either crisis successfully (McGowen 54; McGowen 66).

In sum, African countries and Asian nations were the stronger partners is beyond doubt. The greater reliance of the Allies on ally was shown in the frequent use made of the unequal relations. None the less, the Allies retained a clear edge of political maneuver and took its own part in the policy of pacification. The direct insinuation of their recognized interdependence was a refusal to maneuver in the political arena outside the boundaries of what was jointly agreed and applied. World War II proposed great opportunities for Asian and African nations to become independent but it also ruined their cultural and social achievements. Their interdependence also meant that the world’s powers chose to bow to the other’s position. Critics told that the world’s powers would adjust their position to that of dependent nations. This is a mistaken impression and expression. The debate constantly placed Asian nations at the centre of their decisions and any action to resolve the war crisis, either along the path of further concessions or greater pressure on the Axis, was based on winning co-operation.

Works Cited

Gordon, J. W. The Other Desert War: British Special Forces in North Africa , 1940-1943 Greenwood Press, 1987.

Hargreaves, J.D. Decolonization in Africa ; Longman, 1996.

Hock, D. Legacies of World War II in South and East Asia . Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007.

Kelly, O. Meeting the Fox: The Allied Invasion of Africa, from Operation Torch to Kasserine Pass to Victory in Tunisia . Wiley, 2002.

Lee, L.E. World War II in Asia and the Pacific and the War’s aftermath, with General Themes: A Handbook of Literature and Research . Greenwood Press, 1998.

McGowen, T. World War II. Childrens Press, 2002.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 20). The World War II: Impact and Consequences. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-war-ii-the-impact-and-consequences/

"The World War II: Impact and Consequences." IvyPanda , 20 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-war-ii-the-impact-and-consequences/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'The World War II: Impact and Consequences'. 20 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "The World War II: Impact and Consequences." October 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-war-ii-the-impact-and-consequences/.

1. IvyPanda . "The World War II: Impact and Consequences." October 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-war-ii-the-impact-and-consequences/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The World War II: Impact and Consequences." October 20, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-world-war-ii-the-impact-and-consequences/.

• The Neutrality of Vatican City During World War II
• The Second World War Choices Made in 1940
• Effects of the Pact of Steel Agreement on World War II
• World War II History
• United States and the Axis Powers
• The European Theatre of Operations in WWII
• World War II in Eurasia and America
• Churchill's Attempts to Defeat the Axis Powers
• Wartime Conferences of World War II
• Promoting Production During World War II
• Female Russian Snipers: From Second World War to Present Day
• World War II and Germany’s Invasion Plans
• The Battle of Iwo Jima: Peter Chen and Cyril O’Brien Points of View
• Experience and Perspective Amphibious Operations
• Investigation of War Causes Between the USA and Japan

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

Chapter 13: The Causes and Consequences of World War II

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 236466

• 13.1: Introduction
• 13.2: An Unstable Peace
• 13.3: Theaters of War
• 13.4: Keeping the Home Fires Burning
• 13.5: Out of the Ashes
• 13.6: Key Terms
• 13.7: Section Summary
• 13.8.1: Review Questions
• 13.8.2: Check Your Understanding Questions
• 13.8.3: Application and Reflection Questions

• International

March 27, 2024 - Baltimore Key Bridge collapse

By Kathleen Magramo , Antoinette Radford, Alisha Ebrahimji , Maureen Chowdhury , Elise Hammond , Tori B. Powell and Aditi Sangal , CNN

Our live coverage of the Baltimore bridge collapse has moved here .

Here's what you should know about the Key Bridge collapse

From CNN staff

Officials recovered the bodies of two construction workers who were on Baltimore's Francis Scott Key Bridge when it collapsed early Tuesday morning after a 984-foot-long cargo ship collided into a pillar.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore called the collapse Wednesday " a global crisis ."

"The national economy and the world's economy depends on the Port of Baltimore. The port handles more cars and more farm equipment than any other port in the country," Moore said.

Here's what you should know:

• The victims: The six people who are presumed dead were from Mexico Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, according to Col. Roland L. Butler Jr, the superintendent of Maryland State Police. Two bodies were recovered and have been identified as Alejandro Hernandez Fuentes from Mexico and Dorlian Ronial Castillo Cabrera from Guatemala. The two workers were filling potholes on the bridge and were later found trapped in a red pickup truck in about 25 feet of water, Butler said. The FBI is handling notifying the victims' families, Butler said.
• Recovery efforts: Authorities are pausing search efforts for the four other workers who are presumed dead, because additional vehicles are encased in concrete and other debris, making it unsafe for divers, Butler said. Once salvage operations clear the debris, divers will search for more remains, he said.
• The investigation: The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation into the fatal incident, according to the agency's chair Jennifer Homendy. During a Wednesday news conference, Homendy said there were 21 crew members and two pilots on board the Dali cargo ship when it crashed into the bridge. She also said a senior NTSB hazmat investigator identified 56 containers of hazardous material, and that some containers are in the water. The agency received six hours of voyage data from the ship and the investigation could take 12 to 24 months to complete, Homendy said. She emphasized that NTSB will not analyze information collected or provide conclusions while on scene of the collapse.
• Looking forward: Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said rebuilding the bridge will not be "quick or easy" but that it will get done. He said there are four main focus points ahead: reopening the port, dealing with supply chain issues until its reopening, rebuilding the bridge and dealing with traffic issues until the bridge is rebuilt. Biden  pledged the full support  of the federal government in the response and recovery efforts. His administration has already conveyed a sense of urgency to open up federal funding to remove debris and ultimately rebuild the bridge. Maryland has submitted a request to the Biden administration for emergency relief funds "to assist in our work going forward," Moore said Wednesday.

It's almost impossible to place people on the bow of ship due to the unstable structure, fire official says

 From CNN's Sarah Engel

Baltimore City Fire Chief James Wallace said Wednesday that the cargo ship's bridge structure and containers at the bow remain unstable.

"It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, and very dangerous, to place people on the bow of that boat right now," Wallace told CNN's Kaitlan Collins.

"Naturally, we're still very cognizant of the fact that there are hazardous materials on board the vessel itself," Wallace said, alluding to the National Transportation Safety Board saying earlier that 56 containers were carrying hazardous materials.

Wallace said his team is relying heavily on aerial recognizance, including drones. "That's the only way we're able to see in," he said.  

He added that the aerial surveillance has "been able to really assure us right now we have no [chemical] reactions on board." 

"It's just utter devastation," NTSB chief says of the bridge collapse site

From CNN's Aditi Sangal

Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, called the site of the Key Bridge collapse "devastating."

"It's pretty devastating, certainly, seeing not just what's going on with the cargo containers, but just looking at what was a bridge span — three bridge spans that is pretty much gone. It's just utter devastation," she said at Wednesday evening's news briefing.

She added that she is thinking of families who lost loved ones and those who are waiting to reunite with their lived ones.

NTSB interviewed the Dali's captain and some other crew members today, agency chief says

The National Transportation Safety Board has interviewed the ship's captain, his mate, the chief engineer and one other engineer today, according to Chair Jennifer Homendy.

The two pilots on board the Dali at the time of collision will be interviewed tomorrow, she added.

Cargo ship's voyage data recorder is basic when compared to an airplane's, NTSB chair says

From CNN's Tori B. Powell

The voyage data recorder on the cargo ship Dali was a "newer model" but is considered basic when compared to that on an airplane, according to National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy.

"But it is very basic compared to say, a flight data recorder, where we would have 1,000 parameters," she said at a news conference on Wednesday.

The NTSB chief investigator Marcel Muise added:

"It's not a ship-wide system recorder, so most of the sensors that are being recorded are from the bridge. So things like GPS, the audio, rudder feedback, rudder commands are recorded on there. But not engineering, the temperature of each cylinder, power distribution sensors."

There were no tug boats with Dali at the time of the collision. That's normal, NTSB chief says

There were no tugs with Dali when the cargo vessel collided with Baltimore's Key Bridge, which is normal protocol, according to National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy.

Remember: At 01:26:39 on Tuesday, Dali's pilot made a general very high frequency (VHF) radio call for tugs in the vicinity to assist, the NTSB investigator Marcel Muise had said.

"The tugs help the vessel leave the dock, leave the port and get into the main ship channel. And then they leave. Once it's on its way, it's a straight shot through the channel. So there are no tugs with the vessel at the time. So they were calling for tugs," she said.

NTSB chair says she saw some containers that were carrying hazardous materials in the water

National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said she did see some of the 56 containers that were carrying hazardous materials in the water.

When asked how many

When asked how many containers of hazardous materials were in the water, Homendy said:

"I did see some containers in the water, and some breached significantly on the vessel itself," she said. "I don't have an exact number, but it's something that we can provide in an update."

Homendy said that a preliminary report should be out in two to four weeks.

This post has been updated with more quotes from Homendy.

Bridge did not have any redundancy, unlike the preferred method for building bridges today, NTSB chair says

Baltimore's Key Bridge did not have any redundancy, which is included in the preferred method of building bridges in the present day, according to National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy.

"The bridge is a fracture critical," she explained. "What that means is if a member fails that would likely cause a portion of, or the entire bridge, to collapse, there's no redundancy. The preferred method for building bridges today is that there is redundancy built in, whether that's transmitting loads to another member or some sort of structural redundancy. This bridge did not have redundancy," Homendy said.

There are 17,468 fracture critical bridges in the United States out of 615,000 bridges total, she said, citing the Federal Highway Administration.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Home — Essay Samples — War — Aftermath of World War II — The Effects of World War Ii in the World

The Effects of World War Ii on The World

• Categories: Aftermath of World War II World History

About this sample

Words: 1068 |

Published: Dec 18, 2018

Words: 1068 | Page: 1 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: War History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1644 words

8 pages / 3615 words

2 pages / 771 words

2 pages / 689 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Aftermath of World War II

World War II (WW2) stands as one of the most defining events of the 20th century, reshaping the course of history. This essay will meticulously explore the multifaceted dimensions of WW2, encompassing its historical and cultural [...]

Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness. Schocken, 1997.Szabłowski, Zenon. 'Between Forgiveness and Unforgiveness.' UNESCO Courier, vol. 52, no. 11, 1999, pp. 41-43.Behreandt, Dennis. [...]

World War II, which lasted from 1939 to 1945, was a global conflict between two military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. The Axis alliance consisted of Japan, Italy, and Germany, while the Allies alliance included France, [...]

World War 2 lasted from 1939 to 1945 with majority of battle being fought overseas. Once Australia was heavily involved, over 200,000 women joined various work forces. Whilst in the beginning women felt helpless fighting the war [...]

Anthony Doerr’s remarkable novel, “All the Light We Cannot See,” is a literary piece that moves briskly, efficiently, and beautifully in precise and pristine sentences. Every sentence is a lyrical poetry that the author [...]

In the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War, the world was in ruins because of the mass destruction brought upon it. It was recorded that in the 1990’s, one of the deadliest genocide cases since World War II had occurred [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Advertisement

Israeli troops pull out of a major Gaza hospital after a two-week battle.

The soldiers left widespread devastation after battles with Palestinian militants in and around the Al-Shifa complex. “Now it looks like a wasteland,” a surgeon at the hospital said.

• Share full article

By Aaron Boxerman and Iyad Abuheweila

• April 1, 2024

Israeli soldiers withdrew from Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City after two weeks of fighting in which they killed around 200 Palestinians and arrested hundreds of others, the Israeli military said on Monday. The troops left widespread devastation in their wake after extended gun battles with Palestinian militants in and around the complex.

Taysir al-Tanna, a longtime vascular surgeon at Al-Shifa, said many of the hospital’s main buildings — including the emergency, obstetrics and surgical wards — had been badly damaged in the fighting, and the main gate had been smashed.

“Now it looks like a wasteland,” Dr. al-Tanna said.

Mahmoud Basal, a spokesman for the Palestinian Civil Defense, said bodies were scattered in and around the complex. The final death toll remained unclear, he said, as some corpses were either under the rubble of destroyed buildings or were believed to have been buried.

“Even outside the complex itself, there are blocks of buildings that were knocked to the ground,” and people were searching for the occupants in the rubble, Mr. Basal said.

The Israeli military said the roughly 200 Palestinians it killed were militants, and that its soldiers had arrested around 900 people it suspected of being militants at the Shifa complex over the past two weeks, including senior commanders in groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It said two Israeli soldiers were killed and eight were wounded in the raid.

Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, the Israeli military spokesman, blamed the destruction on the militants, saying they had fortified themselves inside hospital wards, fired on soldiers and refused calls to surrender. “We had to fire on the buildings in order to stop that and to kill the terrorists,” he said.

Israeli forces evacuated displaced civilians sheltering in the compound as well as some patients, and placed other patients in a building away from the fighting, Admiral Hagari said. The World Health Organization said on Sunday that at least 21 patients had died since the Israeli raid began in mid-March, though their causes of death were unclear. By this weekend, just 107 patients remained — 30 of them bedridden — without drinking water and with only minimal medication, the Gaza Health Ministry said in a statement.

Israeli forces first raided Al-Shifa in November, maintaining that Hamas militants had built a command center in tunnels underneath it. Hamas and the hospital director insisted the facility was solely a refuge for civilians.

The Israeli military later publicized some evidence to support its case, including by showing reporters a fortified tunnel constructed underneath the hospital grounds. An investigation by The New York Times suggested that Hamas had used the site for cover and stored weapons there. Critics argue that Israel failed to substantiate its original claims about Al-Shifa’s military value.

After little more than a week, Israeli troops withdrew in compliance with a brief cease-fire. But as the war ground on, Israeli forces closed in on the hospital again in mid-March in an attempt to root out what they said was a renewed insurgency by Palestinian armed groups in northern Gaza.

“Hamas and Islamic Jihad have started to rebuild themselves in the north,” said Admiral Hagari. “And they re-based themselves inside Shifa.”

Hamas has not commented on the new allegations that it was using the hospital as a base, but in a statement it accused the Israeli military of summarily executing Palestinians inside. The group’s armed wing has repeatedly said that its militants were fighting with the Israeli military around Al-Shifa over the past two weeks.

Hamas called the destruction at the hospital “a horrific crime” that Israel had perpetrated “with full and unlimited support from the administration of U.S. President Biden.”

Before the first Israeli incursion, Israel gave the hospital more than a week’s notice ahead of its forces entering the complex, giving militants hiding there an opportunity to flee, Admiral Hagari said. This time, Israeli soldiers launched a surprise attack, raiding the area in the middle of the night, he added.

In a visit to Al-Shifa on Saturday, Herzi Halevi, the Israeli military chief of staff, declared the raid “extremely successful.” Lt. Gen. Halevi said the operation had let militant groups know that “a hospital is not a safe place” for them.

Asked about the destruction at Al-Shifa, Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said the Biden administration was concerned over Hamas’s repeated activity within hospitals, as well as “how Hamas appears, how they appear to have been able to reconstitute in a hospital so quickly.”

“This just points to how challenging Israel’s military operation is, because Hamas has intentionally embedded themselves into civilian infrastructure, into these hospitals,” Ms. Jean-Pierre told reporters.

Aaron Boxerman is a Times reporting fellow with a focus on international news. More about Aaron Boxerman

Our Coverage of the Israel-Hamas War

News and Analysis

Seven aid workers  with World Central Kitchen were killed when their convoy was hit by an Israeli strike in Gaza . Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel called the strike “a tragic case of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people.”

After the deadly strike on World Central Kitchen workers, other aid groups in Gaza said they were more concerned than ever about the safety of their staff members .

Thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets to call for early elections to oust Netanyahu . Many of them believe he has put his political survival  ahead of the broader interests of the Israeli people.

Internal Roil at TikTok: TikTok has been dogged for months by accusations that its app has shown a disproportionate amount of pro-Palestinian and antisemitic content to users. Some of the same tensions  have also played out inside the company.

Palestinian Detainees: Israel has imprisoned more than 9,000 Palestinians suspected of militant activity . Rights groups say that some have been abused or held without charges.

A Hostage’s Account: Amit Soussana, an Israeli lawyer, is the first former hostage to speak publicly about being sexually assaulted  during captivity in Gaza.

A Power Vacuum: Since the start of the war, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has done little to address the power vacuum that would appear after Israeli forces leave Gaza. The risks of inaction are already apparent in Gaza City .