A final reason to refute this historian’s claims that World War I had a lesser long term impact than World War II is that such a claim necessarily implies that the two conflicts were disconnected. In fact, World War II occurred directly as a result of World War I because of the economic, political, and social consequences of peace. The peace treaties that the Allies created to punish Germany and the other Central Powers in 1919 created the conditions necessary for another large scale conflict. While Woodrow Wilson hoped to diminish such a possibility through the creation of the League of Nations, this organization ultimately failed to prevent aggression from Germany, Japan, and Italy. The economic instability in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, a direct result of the Treaty of Versailles, brought Hitler to power, and it was the failure of the League of Nations as a keeper of the peace which allowed Japan to successfully conquer Manchuria. …show more content…
World War I devastated Europe physically, politically, and economically, and it resulted in the deaths of millions. Only about two decades passed between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II, and many advocates of appeasement had personally experienced the atrocities of modern, total warfare. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his supporters calculated that another total war would further scar the continent, result in the deaths of millions more soldiers and civilians, and further weaken Europe's position as the center of world power. They also feared that a new war would result in the spread of communism in Europe. Appeasement is often considered among the most crucial causes of World War II, which means that World War I directly created the conditions necessary for the outbreak of another total