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

Was Chamberlain's policy of appeasement the best policy to deal with Hitler in 1938?

Extracts from this document...


Was Chamberlain's policy of appeasement the best policy to deal with Hitler in 1938? By Richard Ward wattsvilleblues@hotmail.com International concern for sustained peace grew proportionally to the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany. After being elected Chancellor in 1933 and declaring himself F�hrer in 1934, Hitler continued to rebuild Germany by rearming in 1935 and retaking the Rhineland in 1936. It was clear to most that he was a man with ambitions for both himself and for Germany, but it was not clear exactly what he wanted. He had written his aims down eight years previous to his election, but his comments in 'Mein Kampf' ('My Struggle') were either not taken at face value or ignored. After retaking the Rhineland in 1936 and uniting Germany with Austria to form Gro�deutschland in the Anschluss of 1938, Hitler began to make demands that were not so anticipated. He demanded that the mountainous Sudetenland be made part of Germany, on the grounds that the population was predominantly German. To most (Czechs excluded), this was seen as entirely reasonable and was granted at the Munich Conference of September 1938. The conditions set were that Hitler would not invade Czechoslovakia and instead work with Chamberlain's Britain and Daladier's France towards international peace. ...read more.


In the Pacific, Japan poised dangerously near to Australia and New Zealand. Withdrawing military support from these areas would almost certainly prove disastrous. Fifthly, it wasn't clear until Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 quite what Hitler's aims were. He appeared as two; one Hitler discussing fishing amiably with Chamberlain trying earnestly to restore Germany to its pre-1914 status, and a second Hitler declaring the Slavic nations as an oxygen-wasting rabble. Sixthly, any alliance with Stalin in Russia was unlikely due to Chamberlain's intense dislike of Communism. Stalin was more murderous than Hitler, a fact overlooked by the British public favouring perversely the greater of two evils. Added to all this, there naturally was little alternative presented by Chamberlain's National Government to appeasement. In hindsight, though, an alternative was presented by R.A.C. Parker, Oxbridge historian. He suggests that Chamberlain could have offered France an alliance, supported by a B.E.F. presence on the border. In return for this, France would change their military stance from defensive to offensive. France had had cause to enter the Rhineland since 1936, when it was remilitarized. They did not cross the Rhine for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which was the overwhelming French desire to not repeat the events of 1914-18. ...read more.


It would have surely been disastrous for Britain to have entered into a conflict for which it was not prepared. The population was also not going to volunteer itself either for the effects of inflation or the burden of increased taxes. Singularly, Chamberlain can be defended on the grounds that his hesitation and half-measures actually saved Britain from a war it would never have won if started in March 1939. From the 1960s, the informed judgement of Chamberlain has been more appreciative of the constraints under which he was operating. The country remembered just how much they lauded Chamberlain and his meaningless (although they were not to know this at the time) little piece of paper. If Chamberlain had entered into war at the first sign of German aggression, he would have been cast in the same light as Winston Churchill, then a warmongering political renegade. Chamberlain was also bound by the inability to mount an effective B.E.F. representation on the continent. Britain had disarmed post-1918 (made popular by public opinion and the League of Nations) and had a small army backed up by a strong, yet overstretched navy. The Royal Navy was responsible for the defence of the British Empire, and so was represented in part over most of the world. The policy of appeasement, as applied by Neville Chamberlain was the best policy to deal with the politically ambiguous Hitler in 1938. ...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. Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

    Stalin saw opposition everywhere. He erratic as he got older. Stalin saw opposition everywhere. He told Khrushchev: 'I trust nobody, not even myself'. The assassination of Kirov in 1934 was used as an excuse to strike against opponents. In the terror that followed, Stalin personally signed many death warrants.

  2. Hitlers Germany

    For all its efforts, it was apparent by the end of 1932 that the Nazi party was in considerable trouble. As Joseph Goebbels remarked in his diary: "The year 1932 was one eternal run of bad luck. One must beat it into pieces....

  1. Evaluate historical comparisons of Hitler and Stalin and their regimes

    He is always fully aware of the significant differences, Bullock points out that, "They came from dissimilar backgrounds, national traditions and civil loyalties,"8 But what he manages to do find common characteristics that transcend the obvious disparities in their origins and nature.9 The importance of Bullock's book is he explains

  2. 'At Munich Hitler gained what he wanted and achieved conquest without firing a shot' ...

    The British also urged Hitler to make demands' Again this shows how Hitler didn't plan the unfolding of events, others presented opportunities even beyond his expectations. In terms of the French, Taylor suggests that perhaps Hitler didn't plan for a war and didn't intend to use military force to overthrow France in Europe.

  1. Why Did the British Mass Media support the appeasement of Hitler in the years ...

    Middle East and India, as well as having to deal with Italian and German expansion, Britain faced threats to her Asian interests from Japanese expansionism. Negotiating with Germany, the greatest and closest of these threats, appeared to be a prudent policy.

  2. Was appeasement the only option open to Britain in 1938-1939?

    It was this common belief in avoiding war which was to lead to the policy of appeasement being stigmatised with shifting of blame and responsibility between the great states of Europe, as each country sought to cite its non

  1. How far were the policies of Chamberlain in facing the challenges from Nazi Germany ...

    In this way, he can, to some extent, be accused of being autocratic, but not negligent. When Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1937, he faced the task of dealing with many problems. He faced problems from Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Japan.

  2. Even after the German occupation of Prague in March 1939, Neville Chamberlain was reluctant ...

    Within an alarming report from Duff Cooper of Chamberlain?s return from Berchtesgaden, written only a year prior to the invasion raises the point that Chamberlain had been deceived and deluded by Hitler. If it is taken as true that Chamberlain with ease had been manipulated by Hitler?s flattery and false

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