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

    The Tanzimat decrees (1839) were issued in exchange for support in Egypt. As Goodwin argues, 'in 1839, in return for the powers putting pressure on Mehmet Ali to accept hereditary governorship of Egypt, he issued [...] a reformist charter'.xlv Kinross describes the reforms beginning in 1839 as 'nothing less than the transformation of Turkey

  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. Why did Hindenburg appoint Hitler as Chancellor in 1933?

    The use of Posters campaigning against or for certain issues helped the Nazis immensely. They could show the people what they wanted to do for Germany for example: 'We want work and Bread', the campaign to give workers their jobs back in order for them to buy food.

  2. 'In the years 1933-37, German foreign policy was essentially nationalist rather than specifically Nazi'. ...

    To achieve further living space, Hitler would need an augmented military, aiming to achieve this through overthrowing the Versailles Treaty and reintroducing conscription, culminating in his announcement of a Luftwaffe in March 1935. It was not until these nationalist aims had been completed that that he could pursue his Nazi

  1. 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

  2. "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

  1. British dominance was unrivalled during the period of 1850-1929. How far do you agree ...

    Regardless of problems issued by competition, London was able to maintain its status as the world?s financial centre. Britain was able to remain at a high level above the close competition within the technological side of power and dominance. Between the periods of 1876- 1900, around 15 percent of the

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

    However alone these reforms would have not been enough to maintain the political status quo as methods such as nationalist success acted as a distractions to divert the people?s attention away from moderate nature of the reforms. Without a doubt nationalism was an important method in the maintenance of the

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