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

    However the Balkans Crisis of 1908 when Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina killed all Austro-Russian co-operation. It convinced Serbia Austria aimed to destroy it and it also convinced the Russians that the Austro-German unity was a direct threat to them.

  2. To what extent was Hitler solely responsible for the Holocaust

    Goldhagen has argued that it was not impossible for the German society to protest against the actions of the Nazi regime and its persecution of the Jews, for they had expressed their discontent with the party on several other occasions.

  1. What was "appeasement"?

    Examples include speeches delivered by Neville Chamberlain himself: "What we had to consider was the method, the conditions and the time of the transfer of the territory."1 Chamberlain is explaining the real reasons for implementing this agreement and how serious it was to strategically map out his actions.

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

    Preferring to draw on the audience's emotions he would keep the content pitched at the lowest level. Making them listen to what they wanted to hear would give the responders a sense of security which they would compare with the instability of the country.

  1. The Foreign Policy of the Lone Superpower

    Furthermore, public diplomacy often present many differing views as represented by private American individuals and organizations in addition to official U.S. Government views." It further adds that, "Traditional diplomacy actively engages one government with another government. In traditional diplomacy, U.S.

  2. Did The League of Nations Have any chance of long Term Success?

    Therefore, three of the world's most powerful nations (potentially for Russia and Germany) played no part in supporting the League. The two most powerful members were Britain and France - both had suffered financially and militarily during the war - and neither was enthusiastic to get involved in disputes that did not affect western Europe.

  1. Indian History. To what extent did large dams built before 1990 fulfil Nehru's ambitions?

    As Nehru had hoped, dams eventually lessened the effects of droughts, managing 'to break India's dependency on food imports' (Khilnani, 2004, p. 93). The benefits were not immediate, as during the 1950s and 1960s there were regular food shortages, with the nation becoming heavily dependent on American nutritional aid (Khilnani, 2004, p.

  2. Why did hitler bomb british cities?

    For instance shop keepers giving food away, and sometimes rehearsed interviews where people saying how they 'dam hope Hitler gets what's coming to him' and how they want the war to go on until they totally destroy Germany. These scenes usually addressed the issues that some people felt, such as

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