Question

in this excerpt, the author argues that the discussion about stopping hitler prior to 1939 was not an issue, for several reasons.
... neither the people nor the government of britain and france were conditioned to the idea of war.... before september 1, 1939, hitler had done nothing that any major power considered dangerous enough to warrant precipitating starting a major european war. nor was there any existing coalition that could have opposed hitlers massive forces. for britain sought to appease hitler and the french feared a repetition of the bloody sacrifices of 1914 - 1918. stalin wanted an agreement with hitler on partitioning europe and the united states rejected all responsibility for europe.
source: keith eubank, origins of world war ii, thomas y. crowell co., 1969 (adapted)
what evidence did this historian give for his belief that hitler would not have been stopped prior to 1939?
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________

Explanation:

The text presents several points. First, neither the people nor the governments of Britain and France were ready for war (conditioned to the idea of war). Second, before September 1, 1939, Hitler's actions were not seen as dangerous enough by major powers to start a war. Third, there was no existing coalition that could oppose Hitler's massive forces. Fourth, Britain was appeasing Hitler, France feared a repeat of World War I (1914 - 1918 bloodshed), Stalin wanted an agreement with Hitler on partitioning Europe, and the US rejected responsibility for Europe.

Answer:

• People and governments of Britain and France not ready for war.
• Hitler's pre - 1939 actions not seen as war - warranting by major powers.
• No existing coalition to oppose Hitler's forces.
• Britain's appeasement, France's WWI fear, Stalin's partition plan with Hitler, US rejection of European responsibility.