Prior to WWII, Adolf Hitler took upon the position of a dictator in Germany. By doing this, he had given himself full control of all of Germany’s forces and due to his views, started WWII. This led to many atrocities occurring, including the holocaust. Although, WWII may have been prevented if the League of Nations took the path of collective security instead of appeasement when dealing with Germany. The League of Nations should have taken a much more aggressive approach when Hitler became dictator and imposed his beliefs onto his country, invoking nationalistic and retributionalistic feelings against countries that had forced them into this situation. Additionally, they should have taken action against Germany when they had remilitarized …show more content…
“There is to be no European war… the price of that peace is… the ceding by Czechoslovakia of the Sudeten territory to Herr Hitler’s Germany” . Germany had taken over part of Czechoslovakia using militaristic means and was released by the League of Nations with no punishment still following the path of appeasement. The League of Nations had no assurance that Germany was going to stop invading other countries other than what Hitler had said during the meeting, yet they had still not penalized Germany in any way. Additionally Italy, Germany’s ally, had invaded Ethiopia adopting Hitler’s plans to invade countries that held native speakers. This had shown that the alliance threatened the peace in Europe which called for the League of Nations to act. However, the League of Nations had failed to act once more against the alliance due to appeasement. If the League of Nations had acted against the alliance, then WWII would most likely not have started. If would not have started because Italy would have repercussions, such as military sanctions and Germany would not have any protection from the south if a war was to break out. Collective security should have been used by the League of Nations against Germany and Italy because they were threatening the peace of