• 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 ...

    been quite within their right, under the terms of the Versailles Treaty to enter Germany and expel the troops back to the position stated in the Versailles Treaty. The French did not act because they were militarily too weak, indeed at this time they had a larger standing army than

  2. How far did the reforms during the period 1826-39 contribute to the eventual fall ...

    [...] The first part of his great task the Sultan carried through with perspicacity and resolution; in the second he failed'.xli From the outset, Mehmet Ali was a thorn in the side of the Sublime Porte, as Kinross put it, he was the Sultan's 'menacing vassal'xlii.

  1. 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

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

    Point 3 of these instructions shows this by stating "no German will any longer but from a Jew... it must be carried out by the whole and must hit "Jews in their most sensitive spot". However point 11 from the same piece of legislation states "Do not harm a hair on a Jews head."

  1. Explain the role of Czechoslovakia in the appeasement story.

    This was the greatest moment of that September for the Czech people. Although the British government did not advise them to mobilise they said that they could no longer tell them not to mobilise. So on hearing this news Benes immediately ordered the mobilization of the Czech forces.

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

    Khrushchev?s, the large scale resettlement of parts of the population to the country?s remoter areas[38]. However, contrary to previous Russian policies, Khrushchev?s would usher in a period where agricultural investment took priority over industrial investment.[39] Production of Cereals went from 82 million tons in 1952, to an average of 132

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

    an overall outcome or goal to reach and then his subordinates concluded the best approach in order to reach this target. Sometimes appointing two or more people to complete the same or similar task in order to reach different methods of completing this chosen vision and normally picking the most radical of the two to go ahead with.

  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