Skip to main content

If Hitler began to expand Germany's territory, how did he conquer much of Europe so quickly?

Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe very quickly as he expanded Germany’s territory. There were reasons why he was able to accomplish this.


Germany was able to move through Europe very fast. Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland all fell into Germany’s hands before the war began. Part of the reason why this happened was that the Allies were so busy dealing with the effects of the Great Depression, they ignored Germany’s initial aggressive actions. When Germany began to build up their military and move it into the Rhineland, no action was taken. The same thing occurred when Germany annexed Austria. When the Allies gave part of Czechoslovakia to Germany with the Munich Pact, and when Hitler broke that agreement by taking the rest of Czechoslovakia, people knew that war was likely. That occurred when Germany invaded Poland.


Hitler had built a strong German military. Most of the countries in Western Europe weren’t prepared to deal with this lightning-fast moving military. German airplanes would dive bomb the places they were attacking. Then, the army would move in and control the country. This led to the fall of many countries in just a few months beginning in April 1940. Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and France were conquered by Germany. By the end of June 1940, only Great Britain remained in Hitler’s path of conquering Western Europe.


Germany was able to conquer a lot of land in a short period of time for a variety of reasons.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more