• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

"An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement? When Neville Chamberlain came to power in 1937, he was left with the problems of Nazi Germany to deal with. Chamberlain stuck to a policy of appeasement, making peace in Europe his main aim. He went to new lengths to try and prevent war, such as flying to Germany and discuss problems in person (shuttle diplomacy) which had not been done before. For his efforts in trying to keep the peace, perhaps Chamberlain was an honourable man. However there were weaknesses to his approach, such as his arrogance in refusing to listen to his Foreign Secretary Eden, which may be important factors to why appeasement inevitably failed. If not honourable, then appeasement was certainly a logical policy to undergo initially. Not only was Great Britain economically unprepared for a war, but the vast majority of British people did not want another war. World War I was said to be the 'war to end all wars', so preventing another war was certainly a logical decision, perhaps even a moral one. At this time there was also unrest in the Far East involving Britain's colonies. Britain was certainly not in the position to get involved in conflicts in the far east and in Europe. Neville Chamberlain said himself; "war wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing", therefore appeasement seemed the most obvious solution. As a politician Chamberlain had his strengths. ...read more.

Middle

By equality Hitler probably meant scrapping all the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. This response shows that Hitler was not interested in peace, but fighting for what he wanted, which should have shown Chamberlain he was not interested in appeasement. Maybe this should have made Chamberlain realise that appeasement was a weak policy where Hitler was concerned. Perhaps the most alarming indication that Hitler was unappeasable was the fact that he signed the Munich agreement without reading it through thoroughly. Instead of making Chamberlain notice how insignificant this therefore made the Munich agreement, he returned to Britain as a 'hero'. This makes Chamberlain seem much more of a na�ve politician than an honourable one. Instead of pursuing with appeasement when Hitler seemed less than dedicated to it, Chamberlain should have concentrated more on rearmament and gaining allies in preparation for a war which was imminent. Chamberlain was right to an extent to surround himself with people willing to work towards the same goals, and who believed in the same as him, as without this a government is essentially a weak one. However Chamberlain was not willing to listen to opinions of people that disagreed with his in any way. This is a weakness for any politician, as politicians need to work together and point out possible improvements in each other's ideas. Chamberlain was not honourable in sidelining his foreign secretary Eden, as this was a sly move. Eden was interested in making allies, whereas Chamberlain was interested in lessening enemies. ...read more.

Conclusion

Appeasement was certainly an honourable policy to the extent that it was a moral and ethical one, as it was designed to prevent war. It is easy to use hindsight to discredit Chamberlain's attempts, as war inevitably did break out in 1939. However he went to new lengths, such as 'shuttle diplomacy', to negotiate with Hitler, who was a difficult man to work with as Chamberlain admitted. Perhaps Hitler was always the stronger character and politician, who was determined to fight for his beliefs, not have things given to him, which could be why appeasement failed. However, Chamberlain's attitude towards his foreign secretary Eden was incredibly arrogant. Had he worked with Eden, ensuring they built strong allies such as the USA, this could have deterred Hitler from declaring war. This shows how Chamberlain allowed pride and reputation to dictate his politics and diplomacy. Chamberlain gave Hitler too much leeway, and should have realised sooner that Hitler was not interested in appeasement, but war. Therefore he should have put more into rearmament and ally-building sooner. Chamberlain showed great honour in his determination to try and prevent war, and in essence appeasement was an honourable policy. However appeasement was obviously failing as Hitler made more and more demands, which somehow defeats its honour. Neville Chamberlain had serious flaws to his character and dealings with appeasement which too took away from his honour, as did his and Eden's approaches toward each other. Therefore initially appeasement was honourable, as was Chamberlain for pursuing it, but both began to lose their honour when appeasement was obviously failing, and Chamberlain was leading through naivety and over-confidence in his own judgement and powers of persuasion. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?

    4 star(s)

    However, when Mary I became queen in 1553, the country was once more thrown into religious turmoil. By this stage, it seems as if it would have been more sensible to keep the country's religion in the form it was, and Mary's own policies caused the further crisis.

  2. Was Hitler a weak dictator?

    problem of intelligence police having sometimes more influence than him it's a constant to argue that his power was very limited. We can't argue against the fact that Hitler actually got rid of any element in his way that affected his policies or power.

  1. "Hitler's foreign policy successes between 1936 and 1939 rested on his remarkable tactical skills ...

    As the referendum was so unexpected, there was no plan from this point onwards. Hitler began to exert pressure through right-wing Austrian parliament members, demanding that the referendum be cancelled and that Seyss-Inquart replace Schuschnigg as Chancellor. From here on however, Herman Goering became the "man of the hour".

  2. Hitlers Germany

    Despite the effort to woo workers, the latter remained mostly with the SPD or transferred their allegiance to the KPD. The Nazis gained support in lower-middle-class areas in the small towns and countryside of northern, western, and eastern Germany, areas that were heavily Protestant.

  1. The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust. How valid is this assessment ...

    The validity of the assessment that "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" could also be disputed by the actions that took place on the 9th and 10th of November 1938.

  2. Apeasement Did the policy of appeasement go to any great lengths toward stopping the ...

    Especially the Liberal party of the time who were the most consistant critics of the policy. As it became evident that the policy of appeasement had failed in 1939 and that Britain would in fact go to war, the Liberal Leader Sir Archibald Sinclair expressed his feelings on the achievements

  1. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    to the Jewish question, at a time when the intention of the party of was to take on an enormous deportation programme leading to total extermination in work camps in occupied Soviet territory after the end of the war. The source suggests that the ?change in situation? was that the

  2. Even after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939, Neville Chamberlain was reluctant ...

    There is evidence of Chamberlain acting upon this notion even within the Polish Crisis in March 1939, whereby Britain made some allowances within their guarantee to Poland for appeasement. This is shown by the fact that within The Guarantee Britain were committed to protect Poland?s independence only, this meant that

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work