# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 1: Translation: “German is the Saar”

# data[].attributes.body
The Saarland were the rich coal-fields in the south-west of Germany. However, in 1920, Germany's defeat in World War 1 lead to the creation of the Treaty of Versailles. Article 45 of the treaty stated that the Saarland and its coal production must be given to France for 15 years. After these 15 years, in 1935, a plebiscite was held where the inhabitants of the Saar could vote whether to stay in France or return to Germany. 90% voted to return to Germany. Therefore, the Saar returned to German occupation through a legal plebicite and a fair vote, without violating the Treaty of Versailles by any means.

Was appeasement justified?
There were no disagreeing views on this event as the Saarland's return to Germany did not break any terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, the whole of Europe accepted the outcome of the plebiscite. Furthermore, the Saarland's reunification with Germany was seen as Germany being repaid for the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, which the victors of WW1, namely Britain, France, and Italy, were likely keen to remove from their conscience. All in all, appeasing Germany by allowing them to occupy the Saarland was the right decision from the Leauge of Nations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 2: Hitler examines Germany's large army

# data[].attributes.body
The Treaty of Versailles called for the demilitarisation of Germany including no conscription, a limit of 100,000 volunteers, six battle ships, no submarines, and no air force. However, Hitler reintroduced conscription and built up German's military, including creating an air force. This was Hitler's first push against the Treaty of Versailles. In his perspective, Hitler seeked to see how far he could push the Leauge of Nations, and if they would ever respond to his violation of the treaty with anything other than Appeasement. The members of the Leauge of Nations including Britain, France, and Italy condemned Hitler for rearming against the Treaty of Versailles and formed the Stresa Front, made to resist any further attempts from Germany to go against the treaty. However, this was undermined by Britain's appeasement in the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which leagally allowed Germany to rearm her navy, though weaker than Britain's.

Was appeasement justified?
Yes: One of the main goals of the Leauge of Nations was to encourage disarmament for the prevention of wars. However, the disarmament conferences of 1923 and 1932-33 had failed, leaving Germany and the other countries defeated in WW1 as the only disarmed countries. Therefore, the only option was to appease Germany by allowing them to re-arm.

No: In 1932, the Leauge of Nations proposed that all members would have an equal army, which Germany then walked out on, clearly because Hitler did not want an equal army, but a much stronger one. Therefore, Hitler's intentions were clear from the begining, especially after he publicly announced the reintroduction of conscription in Germany and his ambitions to build the German army to 550,000 men. Considering this, appeasing Germany at this stage only encourages the strength of the army and Hitler's drive to use it.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1936, Hitler invaded the Rhineland while the League of Nations was busy with the Abyssinian crisis. He claimed that the Franco-Soviet pact was hostile to Germany. Under the Treaty of Versailles, the Rhineland was to remain a demilitarized zone. So, he directly violated the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno pact, which was a symbol of peace in Europe at the time.

There could have been repercussions from the League of Nations, but Hitler believed that Britain and France would do nothing.  Chamberlain believed that Hitler's actions were reasonable, and the Rhineland was not worth risking another international conflict over. France overestimated Germany's military strength and did not retaliate

Was appeasement justified?
Yes: France and Britian were not in the position to fight over the Rhineland. Germany was also a buffer to prevent the spread of communism. France was weak and destitute after World War I. Moreover, the British population was heavily against war at the time. They believed that Germany had the right to militarize its own sovereign land.

No: France and Britain should have certainly taken a military stand against Germany. They exhibited that breaking the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles would have no consequences. France could have successfully prevented the militarization of the Rhineland.

This led to the increased popularity of Hitler in Germany. Mussolini was also ostracised from the league of nations. The militarization of the Rhineland planted the seeds for their future allyship in World War II.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 4: Austrians wave Nazi flags and Heil Hitler as Nazi troops parade on Austrian streets

# data[].attributes.body
The Austrian Nazi party attempted to seize power, but the chancellor, Dolfuss, was assassinated. This incited civil war where the Austrian Nazi party used terror methods to destroy hundreds of their enimies. The new Chancellor, Schuschnigg, wanted Austria to remain independent, but the ongoing unrest from the Nazi party made him desperate to appease them to some extent. Schuschnigg organized a plebiscite where Austrians could vote to either remain independent or unite with Germany. However, Schuschnigg altered the voting rules to exclude younger votes, as they were more likely to sympathize with the Nazi party. Hitler used this as a pretext to invade Austria, signing the order for troops to do so. Luckily, Austria quickly appointed a Nazi chancellor, and Hitler's troops peacefully paraded in Austria. At a later date, a fair plebiscite was held and 99.73% of the Austrian population voted to form a unification with Germany. Though the Treaty of Versailles forbid the union of Austria and Germany, neither Britain nor France did anything at any point during the whole affair.

Was appeasement justified?
Yes: Treaty of Versailles' forbiding of the unification of Austria and Germany could have been seen as unfair, especially in that it seperated two German-speaking populations. Therefore, appeasing Germany, who claimed at the time to only seek to unify the German populations across Europe, will have been an obvious choice to maintain peace, which is what the British and French population seeked.

No: Though the Anschluss was against the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stated that it was "not a moment for hasty decisions or for careless words," but at the same time acknowledged that the Anschluss "intensif[ied] the sense of uncertainty and insecurity in Europe" and also commented on the "flexibil[ity]" of Britain's "defense programs." Britain was fully aware of the growing power of Germany after the Anschluss and were worried by it, enough to give thought to their defense programs.

Britain might have only appeased Germany for the sake of peace, but they were aware enough of the situation to be worried by it, which is enough of a sign to stop Hitler. Nonetheless, they failed to do so and only incited Hitler to seek more. Here, appeasement was unjustified.

# data[].attributes.body
On 29th September 1938, the Munich conference was held to decide whether Germany should be given the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia or not. At this conference, the leaders of Germany, Italy, and Britain were present. Hitler’s argument was that there were many Germans on the border of Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland. His apparent motive was to unite all ethnic Germans under one rule. He also claimed that the Germans living in Czechoslovakia were being mistreated, as a pretext for seizing that land.

At the Munich conference, they decided that the Czech army at the German border should disarm, allowing nazi troops to enter. The Munich agreement agreed to give Sudetenland to Germany because they wanted to avoid war. This was done without consulting the leaders of Czechoslovakia at all. The agreement also entailed that all nations should focus on disarmament, and on building their economy. Churchill at this time was outraged, as he did not trust Hitler at all since he had previously broken the Treaty of Versailles.

Was appeasement justified?

Yes: Appeasement was justified to a certain extent, since Hitler did appear to have a reasonable motive for his actions. If there truly was mistreatment of Germans in Czechoslovakia, it would have been irresponsible to allow it to continue. Germany was a sovereign nation and was allowed to do as it wished with its military. War could have easily broken out had the other leaders disagreed. The conference symbolised peace.

No: Despite Hitler's arguments appeasement was not justified and did lead to World War II. Allowing Hitler to further expand his territory was a careless decision, and it exposed his greed. After breaking the Treaty of Versailles by first remilitarizing the Rhineland, and then joining with Austria, it was impossible to deny that Hitler would be after Czechoslovakia now too.

# data[].attributes.body
On March 15 1939 German troops marched into Czech land and took over Bohemia against the terms agreed upon at the Munich Conference. This invasion marked the end of appeasement as it broke the trust of the countries present at Munich, including Chamberlain. Hitler lost many supporters as they saw his true intentions to garner power and annex land across Europe. Now, it was aware that Hitler had no motive for a 'greater Germany' since he had now occupied all of Czechoslovakia, not just the Sudetenland. Britain's leaders began to realize that war was the only method to stop Hitler
France was not going to do anything as they believed they were weaker than Germany at the moment and could not face the loss they did in the first world war. However, they did vow to defend Poland in case of invasion. The League of Nations took no action against Germany.

Was appeasement justified?

Yes: In order to prevent all-out war between the nations, appeasement can be justified. Hitler's motive was to unite all Germans under one rule. He wished to strengthen his army. If Russia is able to create a union with satellite states, why shouldn't Germany? If sacrificing Czechoslovakia is what
it took to satisfy Hitler and prevent another bloody war, that is what Britain would be alright with giving. France and Britain had struggling economies at the time and could not afford such a war.

No: However, appeasement was not justified. Seeing as Hitler had directly broken his word and misled the League of Nations, there should have been some serious repercussions against him. Appeasing Hitler's decision to invade Czechoslovakia meant that he now had its valuable coal, iron, and steel resources. The fact that no action was taken displayed that the powerful, international organisation of the League of Nations would simply allow Hitler to do as he wishes, and will not follow through on his actions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Fig. 7: Joseph Stalin (left) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (right)

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler had never hidden his distaste for communism and in association, Soviet Russia. Therefore, when Russia and Germany suddenly signed a ten year non-aggression pact, the world was shocked. It benefited Stalin as he wasn't ready for war, seeing as his 5 year plans had not yet been completed. The non-agression pact would give him time to prepare, and it was later revealed that Stalin and Hitler were also planning to split the eastern europe, another motivation to sign the pact. As for Hitler, having Russia as an enemy means that Germany would have to fight armies on both eastern and western fronts: namely Britain, France, and Russia.

Was appeasement justified?
Yes: In Stalin's perspective, appeasing Germany by signing the USSR/Nazi pact generally benefited him. It bode him time to develop Russia's economy and army, as well as coming with the promise of gaining land in Eastern Europe. Here, appeasment is justified as appeasing Germany would benefit Stalin as much as it would Hitler.

No: Hitler had never made secret his ambtions for Germany's skyrocketing strength in and influence over Europe in his reintroduction of conscription and aquirement of Austria and Czechoslovakia. With this in mind, Stalin should have been aware of Hitler's likelihood in occupying Eastern Europe by himself, exluding Russia. Furthermore, Hitler has clearly proven himself not to be trustworthy as he broke his promise to stop seeking more land after attaining the Sudetenland by demanding Czechoslovakia. Therefore, Stalin should have understood that Hitler was likely to break the non-agression pact and invade Russia, as he did in 1941. Having considered all of this, Stalin appeasing Hitler by signing the USSR/Nazi pact not justified in likelihood of Hitler breaking it.

However, Stalin lacked the benefit of hindsight and it would be understandable for him to prioritise the success of the 5-year-plans over questioning Hitler's intentions. Seeing as, on face value, the USSR/Nazi pact benefited Stalin, it would make sense at the time for him to sign.

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler demanded a union with Danzig as there were many ethnic Germans there. He also wanted to build Autobahn (highway) through the Polish corridor and unite his German land. Meanwhile, Poland does not want to lose the Polish corridor. It held their valuable ports. So, they allied with Britain and France. So, on September 1st, 1939 Hitler invaded Poland.
Chamberlain is furious, he declares war on Germany in two days, with France. Britain responds by bombing raids on Germany after three days.

Meanwhile, on the eastern front, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact means USSR will not attempt to defend Poland.

Now the league of nations was completely collapsed: Italy and Japan (and Germany) were against Britain and France.

Was what the allies did justified?

Yes: Invasion of Germany was necessary at the time. Now that Poland was lost to Germany, Germany now had the military might of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. This means that swift action had to be taken against Germany, with Britain and France as a united front.

No: Full-scale war could have been prevented by further appeasing Hitler and allowing him to build the Autobahn through Poland. The partitioning of the land after the first world war was already controversial, and Hitler had the right to unite his land.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/07/04/australias-valley-eyewear-apologizes-ad-jasenovac-death-camp/757549002/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australian-based firm Valley Eyewear was forced to apologize on Tuesday after an advertising video it made on the site of the Jasenovac concentration camp in modern-day Croatia caused a storm of criticism. Users have also called for a boycott of the company's products.

The black and white video, which has since been removed, shows a male and a female model wearing Valley Eyewear sunglasses inside a bleak concrete room and walking around concrete structures, before cutting to a wide shot of the two walking away from Jasenovac's Flower Memorial.

The recognizable structure, designed by architect Bogdan Bogdanovic, was built in 1966 to honor the memory of the camp victims.

The Jasenovac death camp in Croatia was run by the Ustasha, the fascist regime allied with Nazi Germany during World War II. Camp historians have determined the names of 83,145 killed at the site, including more than 20,000 children. Most of the victims were Serbs, alongside Roma and Jews. Some experts believe the total number of victims to be much higher.

According to screenshots of deleted Valley Eyewear posts, the company said the ad for their "Black" line of sunglasses was "filmed on location in Croatia at one of World War II's most historic and darkest locations. JASENOVAC."

The advertising video was made "[i]n memory of the tens of thousands of people that perished at the site."

"Why not just go to Auschwitz?," asked Twitter user Julian Nyca, who shared the screenshots.

Director of Jasenovac Memorial Ivo Pejakovic told the Serbian newspaper Vecernje Novosti that his organization only learned about the ad through media reports.

"We don't have any fences, walls or barriers, and of course you could record inside the site. There are security guards, but they cannot know who would use the photos and for which purpose," Pejakovic said.

By Tuesday evening, all the posts featuring videos and photos of Jasenovac had been pulled from the Valley Eyewear accounts.

Commenting on the controversy for DW, company's founder Michael Crawley apologized and said that "a few images have been taken completely out of context."

Crawley said he had traveled around Eastern Europe with his team in an attempt to capture the "Spomeniks;" futuristic former Yugoslavia monuments that include the Jasenovac memorial.

"I have been in contact with the head of the Jasenovac memorial and one of the heads of the Jewish community in Australia to send our apologies," he wrote, adding that the firm had pulled the ads "since some images have offended people which was NEVER what we had wanted in a million years."
This article originally appeared on DW.com. Its content was created separately to USA TODAY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australian firm Valley Eyewear apologizes for shooting ad at World War II death camp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The black and white video, which has since been removed, shows a male and a female model wearing Valley Eyewear sunglasses inside a bleak concrete room and walking around concrete structures, before cutting to a wide shot of the two walking away from Jasenovac's Flower Memorial.

# data[].attributes.body
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gHyHAMnZNrV0CZ1LYi0Ww0Pgd7EsBkbBkX2cPrq9E7o/edit?usp=sharing