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

How far do you agree that 'the Appeasers' were guilty men?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐How far do you agree that ?the Appeasers? were guilty men The term ?appeasement? has been used to describe the response of British foreign policy makers in the 1930s to the rise of the Nazi Germany as a dictator power. It is seen as a policy of making one-sided concessions, often at the expense of other countries with nothing offered in return except promises of better behaviour in the future, in a vain attempt to satisfy the aspirations of Hitler. Because the policy ultimately failed so spectacularly in its primary purpose of avoiding war, its practitioners, ?the Appeasers?, have been the subject of much criticism and derision and hence been branded guilty men. I believe this is a fair judgement of the group of men, in particular Neville Chamberlain, who let politics get in the way of what, was clearly the wrong action to take and who are responsible for all of the lives lost in the Second World War which ultimately needn?t have happened in the first place. ...read more.


Hitler always went back on his promises and the flawed policy of appeasement was based on the mistaken idea that Hitler was trustworthy. If he and his other Cabinet Ministers had stood up to Hitler than he could have been stopped a long time before he was in a position to wage war. If you consider the amount Hitler was able to get away with (allowing Germany to rearm, remilitarise the Rhineland, invade Austria and Czechoslovakia and re-build its naval fleet), it seems ridiculous that the British leaders could have been so blind as to think that Hitler would not want more. When Hitler invaded Poland, he was very surprised when Britain finally ?put their food down? and finally stood up to him. The policy of appeasement also scared the USSR as it sent the message that Britain and France would not stand in Hitler?s way. Hitler made no secret of his plans to expand eastwards for ?Lebensraum? and therefore made the USSR at risk of invasion from Germany. ...read more.


A more contentious argument is that it bought time for British rearmament. This is of course true but it also gave Germany more time to rearm and in the end, Germany had a stronger army than Britain. The policy of appeasement tried to both prevent Hitler from going to war and then in turn rearm Britain so its military was ready if Britain did go to war. This compromise between the two meant that Hitler was in a very strong position with control over much of Europe and then still led to a war fighting against him. Although appeasement was not the right policy to uphold, the situation was exacerbated when Neville Chamberlain finally stood up to Hitler. Arguably if we had just let Hitler take Europe, we wouldn?t have had to fight a war and would have been able to make a treaty with Germany. Albert Einstein said that: ?You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war?. However as a direct result of ?the Appeasers?, a war was started which was to be the most bloody and deadly war that the world had ever seen, making it clear that they were guilty men. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE International relations 1900-1939 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
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work