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

To what extent was appeasement the correct policy during the 1930s?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent was appeasement the correct policy during the 1930s? Appeasement is widely connected with Neville Chamberlain, as it is known as the method used in the 1930s to prevent a war with Germany and to keep Hitler as an ally. Many believe appeasement was just a way for Britain to back down from its allies, and allow the stronger countries to gain power, wealth and money. This can be seen in the Manchester Guardian in February 1939, as appeasement is described as "a clever plan of selling off your friends in order to buy off your enemies." Others argue it was appeasement that prevented another crisis for so long after the First World War, and allowed Britain to once again build up its troops before standing up to its enemy. Although appeasement helped in the short term, in the long term it only proved to be encouraging towards Hitler and his aims to restore Germany. Many can argue that it was appeasement that encouraged Hitler to be aggressive. Each gamble Hitler took and got away with, the bigger the risk there was of his trying again. For example, when Hitler took the Rhineland in March 1936, in hindsight, evidence shows that the Nazi officers had secret orders not to shoot if opposed by British or French troops because Hitler had only 22,700 armed soldiers. ...read more.


This stated that Hitler was only taking the Sudetenland and would not conquer the rest of Czechoslovakia. This was welcomed by the British public as "peace in our time", but only 4 days later, Hitler said that he "regretted" that the previous arrangements were not good enough. This shows the fact that Germany's needs would never be fulfilled, that Hitler was not to be trusted and that appeasement was based on the huge mistake that Hitler was actually trustworthy. Appeasing Hitler also scared the USSR, who was a big defender of communism in the 1930s. Hitler made no secret of wanting to expand eastwards. The policy of appeasement showed the USSR that Britain and France would not help them if help was needed, and this scared the Soviet Union greatly. This led to anxiety in the USSR government and it also led to the loss of trust for Britain and France, because it was clear to the Soviet Union that they would not stand in Hitler's way. On the other hand, those who believe appeasement helped can argue that Hitler was right, and the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to Germany, restricting it too much and having too many harsh clauses. For example, Germany had to limit its army to 100,000 men, making it vulnerable and leaving Germany defenceless. It also forbade any alliances between Austria and Germany, but many Austrians were German-speaking, so felt they had a right to ally with Germany. ...read more.


Both British and French leaders in the 1930s remembered vividly the horrors of the First World War, with Chamberlain stating that "in war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers." This is emphasised by the statistics of World War I, as Britain lost almost one million men and France lost 1.3 million. Also, as so many men were lost and so much money was paid for the reparations, Britain did not feel physically and mentally ready for yet another crisis, and the policy of appeasement would give Britain enough time to re-arm and build back up its economy and morale. Although the "Great War" was won by the allies, the horrific experiences Britain and France had to go through led to the leaders wishing to avoid war at any costs, either until they were strong enough to fight or until Hitler's needs were fulfilled. It can be argued that appeasement was a failure in the long term, as ultimately it did not avoid another war. Historians may argue that appeasement bought time between the First and Second World Wars. This led to Britain and France having more time to re-arm, re-boost public morale and increase their economy. Many see appeasement as cowardice, and a way to let bullies succeed, but at the time appeasement was seen as the only reason another war hadn't already started. ?? ?? ?? ?? Olivia Choudhury 11/3/11 ...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

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE International relations 1900-1939 essays

  1. "Was the treaty of Versailles fair?"

    Firstly Germany lost 13% of its overall land to other countries. This would cause a problem and make the Germans unhappy as they would be less powerful. Also this would cause a lot of unrest with the non - native Germans.

  2. What were the consequences of the failure of the league in the 1930s?

    This pact was known as 'The Stresa Pact'. The League began to come up with many different sanctions such as banning tin, rubber and metals. This was hardly going to affect Italy. The idea of banning oil was raised but only came effective when Italy was well in Abyssinia.

  1. Was the Policy of Appeasement correct?

    Just after the treaty of Versailles, there was Punch magazine depicting Germany as a naked child from the treaty of Versailles. Now if Britain had stepped in and not followed the policy of appeasement and stopped Germany from rearming themselves, it would have been the equivalent the naked child trying

  2. Examine the main factors which led British Governments to follow a policy of 'appeasement' ...

    Even had the British people been prepared to take action to stop the aggressive acts of the 1930s, which it didn't, it is highly unlikely that the British forces would have had the ability to do so. For much of the decade Britain was unprepared for a large-scale war and

  1. Why Appeasement?

    These were feasible demands which would undo some of the unjusts of the treaty. Appeasing Hitler to do this was the right choice in Chamberlains eyes, the fair choice. There was no longer an aggressive attitude towards Germany and its development.

  2. To what extent did nationalism within the Austria-Hungarian Empire contribute to the outbreak of ...

    When Grey proposed a peace conference, Germany advised Austria to "halt at Belgrade". - France did not declare neutrality for believing a diplomatic victory with Britain on their side. - What was vital was the military consideration. The military men and statesmen became "prisoners of the railway time-table".

  1. Hitler and the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement was the final policy ...

    Finally, on September 28, 1938, Great Britain, Italy, and France allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland. This series of appeasement not only gave Hitler's Germany more physical power, but it also proved to Hitler that he could expand his empire with little retaliation from the other nations of Europe.

  2. Was appeasement a mistake?

    However Hitler may have known that and abused his temporarily power to cough out more demands knowing Britain couldn't step in...yet. Secondly Britain not wanting war neither did her British people as before 1939 public opinion in England was not in favour of war- those were around the times Hitler had got away with a few mild demands.

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