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

Why did Britain and France pursue a policy of appeasement? Was it successful?

Extracts from this document...


Why did Britain and France pursue a policy of appeasement? Was it successful? In the late 1930s Britain, under Neville Chamberlain, and her ally France adopted a policy of appeasement. This meant that they wanted to keep the peace and avoid entering a war at any cost, even if it meant making concessions towards potential aggressors, particularly Germany ruled by the dictator Adolf Hitler. Britain and France adopted and pursued this policy for a variety of reasons, though it was eventually abandoned in September 1939. Appeasement was hugely popular amongst the British and French public. The suffering of the Great War was still very much in living memory and people wanted to avoid repeating it at all costs. There was also a fear that because of the advances in technology if there was a war it would be much more horrific than the previous one. The British and French governments knew that if they got involved in a war there would be a huge public outcry, so they pursued a policy of appeasement. As well as being unpopular war was also expensive. Following the depression Britain and France were in poor economic health. Even if they had wanted to fight a war it would have been unlikely that they could have afforded it. ...read more.


They believed that if they pursued appeasement and didn't go to war with Germany then Germany would provide defence against the spread of communism. In conclusion Britain and France pursued a policy of appeasement in the late 1930s for a variety of reasons. Public opinion was very much against war, as the horror of the first one was still in living memory. Britain and France could not afford to fight a war; they were more concerned with the social situation in their own countries, and with protecting their empires. They also saw it as unnecessary as they believed Hitler was just trying to unite German speaking people, and the breaking of the terms of the treaty of Versailles didn't matter as it was too harsh on Germany anyway. Britain and France also felt that the might need Germany as a defence against Russian communism. As Britain and France did eventually go to war in 1939 many saw appeasement as a failure. However this was not necessarily the case. Britain was not ready for a war before 1939. She did not have the money or the forces. By pursuing a policy of appeasement until 1939 Chamberlain bought Britain time to strengthen her forces, particularly the air force. The extra aircraft that were produced later became vital to Britain in the war, by the end of 1939 Britain had more aircraft than Germany. ...read more.


Though with hindsight a war seemed inevitable at the time Britain and France were unsure of Hitler's intentions, and therefore believed that by pursuing appeasement they could keep the peace. In conclusion, it is easy to say with hindsight that the policy of appeasement was a failure, but it did have some successes, for example it gave the British time to build up their forces. It was also the case at the time that people underestimated Hitler's desires, and believed that war could be avoided, hence were desperate to do so. However appeasement could have been considered more successful if it had been brought to a halt earlier. Appeasement was a successful policy whilst Britain and France still believed that Hitler only wanted to unite German speaking people. However when he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia it became clear that his intentions were far greater, which clearly suggested appeasement was not going to be the solution. Though going to war at this point would have meant Britain and France had less forces than they did in 1939 they would have had the advantage of the Czechs and the Russians as allies so the lack of weapons would not have been such a disadvantage. Therefore appeasement was a successful policy in the beginning but ended up as a failure because it was allowed to continue too long. If it had been stopped earlier it would have been considered successful throughout the course of its application. Lula Teunissen, 11H 07/05/07 ...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. Why did Britain pursue a policy of appeasement in the early 1930's?

    The League of Nations consisted of four permanent members; Britain, France, Italy and Japan, whilst other members could be elected - apart from Germany who was excluded. The League had few successes but even so, British public opinion states that people had faith in the League and believed it to be an effective force against conflict.

  2. What was "appeasement"?

    An argument against appeasement, is a speech by Winston Churchill: "A firm stand by France and Britain, under the authority of the League of Nations, would have been followed by the

  1. Assess to what degree war was inevitable in France at the end of the ...

    the growth of the railways from the mid nineteenth century further facilitated movement. However I would argue that the aftermath of the Great War brought positive changes as food prices rose steadily and peasants enjoyed greater affluence. Moreover the post-war period was one of rapid industrial growth and greater mechanisation,


    SOURCE A Atomic bombs could not destroy the Red Army. The Russian defence to atomic attack is easy to spot. They occupy countries in Europe with infantry and tanks and defy us to drop atomic bombs on Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary etc.

  1. Assess the reasons why Britain reduced its Empire between 1939 and 1964.

    Although British officials dominated the key posts in the civil service, barely one per-cent of the civil population was British. There were many disturbances and large unrest throughout India, the British government made some concession to the demand for a greater share by Indians in the local affairs.

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

    being Britain's debtor to its creditor acutely reflects the gradual decline in the strength of Britain's economic grasp over India. Coupled with the realisation that it was no longer necessary to have political control as a prerequisite of stable trade, the economics of Britain's situation appears to make withdrawal beneficial.

  1. Armed forces.

    And again, it reinvigorated the economic life of the City of London and allowed for yet another relocation of businesses and housing for the masses of that city. The advantages of the railways were apparent to virtually everyone. These were the days when progress was seen as a universal good

  2. Multicultural Britain.

    The work they chose relied on their existing skills or involved skills that could be learned quickly and had a number of simple recurring procedures. All the work could be done in small grounds, such as houses, cellars e.t.c. The work was done by a small number of people.

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