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

To What Extent Can The Term ‘Appeasement’ Be Applied To British Foreign Policy In The Inter-War Period?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To What Extent Can The Term 'Appeasement' Be Applied To British Foreign Policy In The Inter-War Period? The application of Appeasement to British Foreign policy post World War One remains a highly debated topic amongst historians, mainly regarding the use and reasons for the policy and its ineffectiveness. Appeasement generally refers to 'The policy of settling disputes by peaceful means and compromise rather than by resort to war'1. It is mostly associated with the policies of Neville Chamberlain in the build up to the Second World War, however its origins go back to the Treaty of Versailles right after the Great War. This essay will attempt to investigate how far the policy was applied to Foreign Policy in the inter-war years through exploration of the period in two phases, post war up to 1937 and then 1937 onwards under Chamberlain. It will also attempt to look for possible alternatives to appeasement and the failures of the policy. Post Versailles appeasement was a basic principle of British Foreign policy. In August 1919 cabinet agreed, 'it should be assumed that the British Empire will not be engaged in any Great War during the next ten years and that no expediatory force is required for this purpose.'2 Therefore the 10-year rule was introduced, though it was extended past 1929, rearmament did not begin again until 1934. ...read more.

Middle

In secret ministers felt the league was useless but they had to respond to public opinion to support the league. This was particularly disastrous against Mussolini in Abyssinia. Another way in which public opinion shaped actions was with regard to rearmament. Due to the 'never again' mentality there was huge public opposition to rearming, particularly as it may antagonise Hitler. However it is important to note that this could have been mask for the real reasons against rearmament, the idea that Britain was not economically stable enough particularly after the Depression of 1929, Britain simply couldn't afford a huge rearmament programme at the time. One vital reason for Appeasement rather than conflict was due to Britain's global commitments. A Foreign Office memo of 1926 laid out Britain's defence obligations. Britain had obligations as a member of the league, was signatory to the Paris, Washington and Locarno treaties and had commitments in Egypt, Abyssinia, the Middle East, Portugal, the entire Commonwealth and British Empire which consisted of Australia and New Zealand as well as India and Singapore and large areas of Africa and the Caribbean. This was a highly impossible task, Britain did not possess the military or economic strength to defend such a far-flung Empire and when challenged could not assert herself. Appeasement stepped up to a whole new level in the 1930's particularly when Chamberlain came to power in 1937. ...read more.

Conclusion

Another alternative could have been for all out rearmament however this would have had serious economic repercussions. We could argue that it did not really matter what sort of policy Britain adopted as Hitler was so bent on expansion regardless. It is important not to over estimate the policy of appeasement. Darby states that appeasement was 'not peace at any price - it was a policy of accommodation and adjustment but accommodation that did not disturb British interests.'8 Therefore there was only so far Britain was prepared to go in order to negotiate. It was not able to get out of hand. In the 1920's there was never any real negotiation. It was a policy of passive appeasement, Britain just let occurrences happen and pass her by, and it only really became active under Chamberlain. Chamberlain tried to use the policy to its full extent. It should be noted though that at the same time a policy of rearmament was also in place. Appeasement may have been used to quite an extent however it failed to stop the war. But it did provide Britain with one advantage. It brought valuable time and delayed the war. This was vital as Britain was in no way ready for a war earlier on. ...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 International History, 1945-1991 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 International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Now, it seemed likely that the Cold War would no longer exist as the pivot around which all American politics revolved. However much politicians were unaccustomed to talking about anything without anti-communism as a reference point, it now seemed that they would have to look afresh at problems long since

  2. To What extent was German Foreign Policy responsible for the outbreak of general European ...

    It had to break at some stage and in 1914 it did. The alliance system that was in place for much of the start of the 20th century also contributed to the sense of inevitability. The alliances provided links across which a crisis could spread until eventually all the great European powers were involved.

  1. The role of foreign policy on democratic transitions in Armenia and Azerbaijan

    In other words, they would eradicate the old soviet system and accept liberal demcocracy. Needless to say, it did not quite occur that way, nor has it been so easy. Considering the fact that even before the disintegration of the Soviet Union Armenia and Azerbaijan were in the midst of

  2. To what extent was independence a gift from Britain.

    The general rise of mass protest would put vast moral and eventually economic pressure on Britain however threat of such large crowds turning to violence also appealed to some nationalists. While the 1857 Mutiny was a violent expression of anger, it is not until insurgence in 1905 that such actions were distinctly nationalistic.

  1. How Strong was Opposition to Continental Commitments in the 1920's

    Britain could not risk war breaking out so it was important to appease Germany and the Dawes plan was the first step of appeasement by making it easier for them to pay off the reparations. These commitments were therefore necessary and in the national interest as they were making pacifism

  2. American economic foreign policy and the origins of the cold war

    As prices fell and unemployment spread, the major industrial countries hastened to protect their native industries by raising barriers to foreign goods and devaluating their currencies. From 1929 to 1932, world prices plummeted forty-seven percent, the value of world trade by sixty percent, and employment in industrial countries by twenty-five

  1. American History.

    colonists would threaten their role as middlemen between other Indian groups and the Europeans. - The Pequot War began with the death of two English traders [not by Pequots], which caused an English raid on a Pequot village. The Pequots then attacked in April 1637, and a Massachusetts Bay expedition

  2. Reasons for the increasing support given to NSDAP by the German people in the ...

    The overall changes in the Nazi party's progress and success in electoral terms correspond to "the events of discontinuity" quite clearly as outlined by Sebastian Haffner in The Meaning of Hitler; "...In the 1920s through his oratory and demagogy Hitler hardly ever gained more than 5% of all Germans as

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