• 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 ...

    So much positive change had already occurred in the years since World War II-the material progress, the victories against discrimination, the new horizons that had opened for education and creativity. But so much remained to be done as well in a country where homelessness, poverty, and drug addiction reflected the

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

    Sooner rather than later a relatively minor conflict would bring all the nations into a clash that would result in a war.

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

    Similarly, the formation of the Indian National Army under Subhas Chandra Bose21 to fight with Japan reflected not only the depth of nationalist convictions, but also the sense of nationhood within India. This growth of violence made military suppression the only antidote.

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

    Union, fifteen new republics emerged, each trying to find a way to cope with this newfound freedom. Slowly, the international community recognized the republics as independent and sovereign states. Consequently, most of them publicly announced that they would choose democracy as their form of government, in order to become full

  1. American History.

    New York was a very diverse colony and had a relatively high % of slaves as well, so the Duke was careful as he moved to establish his authority. For instance, in 1665 he passed The Duke's Laws [first applied only to English settlements on Long Island and then later

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

    The financial commitment of the Dawes Plan and diplomatic commitment in the League of Nations was very necessary for Britain and was definitely in the National interest. The financial commitment of the Dawes plan was also necessary because of the reduced funds put into the British military and the reduction in size.

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

    In fact, the one nation capable of taking on economic leadership - the United States - was not willing to do so, largely due to Congressional opposition to the cancellation of allied war debts and the reduction of trade barriers.

  2. Why did hitler bomb british cities?

    It makes all the decisions for the people, and makes sure the public get what they need. For instance, it is the government's job to supply the nation with food, clean water, soap to wash, etc. The British government knew that things would begin to run out sooner or later, so they rationed things such as food.

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