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

In the light of what was known at the time Britain's policy towards Germany in the period 1933 - 1936 was entirely sensible and understandable. How far do you agree with this opinion?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Yehuda Abayahoudayan In the light of what was known at the time Britain's policy towards Germany in the period 1933 - 1936 was entirely sensible and understandable. How far do you agree with this opinion? The British opinion towards Germany during this period was to avoid conflict at almost any cost. After recently having undergone what was regarded as one of the bloodiest wars Britain had ever seen, no one was in a mood to start another. Instead a policy of appeasement was implemented, it was thought that negation and punishment via trade sanctions would deter Germany from perusing an aggressive foreign policy. In 1933 Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, soon after in the years 1935 - 1936 Britain allowed him to break the TOV just so that conflict could be avoided. During the years 1919 - 1933 Britain's attitude towards Germany was increasingly sympathetic. The TOV was having its toll on the German economy, the reparations clause in particular. The French were not as forgiving as the British, they believed in hostile action against Germany to make sure the Treaty was upheld. At this point i time Anglo - Franco relations were sour, the French occupation of the Ruhr caused Germany suffer hyper inflation thus falling into a depression. ...read more.

Middle

So far all of Britain's policies towards both German rearmament and Hitler's coming to power at this point in time was both sensible and understandable. The French were building the Maggot Line, a great line of defences down their border with Germany, so German rearmament was merely seen as a defence measure against their hostile French neighbour. Even if this rearmament was not justified by French hostility there is not much Britain could actually do. The only way to stop Germany would have been to send troops into Germany and stop production of arms and munitions or to go war with Germany. The British public as I am sure you are aware was not willing to support either of these actions, more so Britain did not have the available troops or finances to fight another war with Germany without crippling their economy. As for Hitler himself it is true many politicians were weary of him yet since his rise to power he had portrayed himself as an honourable trustworthily politician who wanted to defend his country and further enhance Anglo- German relations. To a large extent Britain was dependent of the actions of other nations to make any different course of action possible, in particular France and Italy. ...read more.

Conclusion

On the whole I would have to conclude that Britain's actions were thoroughly understandable and almost entirely sensible. Britain was fully aware that if she wanted to prevent Germany from perusing any of her threatening policies, military action would have to be taken. Both British public and government opinion was very "anti war", this was supported by Britain's weak economic position at the time. Britain could not afford nor did she possess the army required to wage a war with Germany. Most of Germany's actions had no effect on Britain in the short run, so a policy of appeasement was seen as a way to delay the problem until it could be solved, thus solving it before it could cause Britain any immediate problems. However was this policy of appeasement entirely sensible, the constant appeasement of Hitler rather than satisfying him, instead encouraged him. After seeing time and time again that the European superpowers was willing to appease, he attempted to size as much power and territory until he was no longer appeased. Yet he hoped that when that time came he would have seized enough power to deify the European powers and eventually conquer them. Which he would have done if it was not for the involvement of the USA and USSR. ...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. Was the appeasement of Nazi Germany by Britain and France ever anything more than ...

    Germany, the main reasons were due to public opinion and incorrect information on the invading force.

  2. Hitlers Germany

    to the vibration of the human heart with the delicacy of a seismograph, or perhaps of a wireless receiving set, enabling him, with a certainty with which no conscious gift could endow him, to act as a loudspeaker proclaiming the most secret desires, the least admissible instincts, the sufferings, and

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

    the Jews as scapegoats for failures such as World War One, Germany's faltering economy and high unemployment and also in the outbreak of World War Two. This piece of evidence is clearly a publication from a biased newspaper that is in strong support of the Nazi Party.

  2. Why did Hindenburg appoint Hitler as Chancellor in 1933?

    but he must go through the democratic process, winning the vote of the people; even though he himself was against the democratic government, it was his best option for taking control. The change of the party name in 1920 meant that within the name National Social German's workers party there

  1. The political establishment in Germany succeeded in maintaining political status quo through a policy ...

    Von Burlow feared the socialists would upset the status quo so wanted to create a broad front against them, he did this using Sammlungspolitik, which aimed to build an alliance between conservatives, liberals, industrialists and junkers. He aimed to achieve this alliance by using a series of nationalist ideas.

  2. How far did government policies change towards agriculture in Russia in the period 1856-1964? ...

    agricultural sector.[34] The Virgin Lands campaign (1953)[35] was Khrushchev?s first plan to remedy the failings of agricultural sector ? such as very low productivity[36] ? by cultivate the unused lands of western Siberia and Northern Kazakhstan.[37] This was not new; Stolypin had done this during his Land Reforms, involving, like

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

    This caused much confusion within the Nazi party and inner conflict between the main leadership of the Nazi party which often meant they were constantly in a power struggle with different departments, each despised the other, mostly competing for Hitler's attention and acknowledgement, each time becoming more ruthless and radical

  2. How far do you agree that to what extent were Nazi policies entirely successful? ...

    But despite how effective it was and could have been it was never going to be successful considering Hitler's 'ultimate ambition': war. The New Plan would never have been have been sustainable in a wartime situation. The New Plan was clearly a success of Nazi initiative and policies as an

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