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

Was the Policy of Appeasement correct?

Extracts from this document...


Was the Policy of Appeasement correct? Fifteen years after the end of the Great War, Adolf Hitler had risen to power becoming the Chancellor of Germany promising to make Germany great again by abolishing the treaty of Versailles. During the interwar period, the allied countries in Europe (Britain and France) had become economically poor and so they did not have many military resources. Appeasement is "the policy of settling international quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, thereby avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly dangerous.". It was introduced by Stanley Baldwin but taken to a new level by Neville Chamberlain. In this case, it referred to meeting Hitler's demands, hoping that he will be placated maintaining peace in Europe. WWI had been the 'war to end all wars' and after seeing the horrors of this war the majority of the British public thought that appeasement was the correct policy to follow, however appeasement was definitely the wrong policy for Britain to follow. Firstly, appeasement meant that Germany could gain enough power to start another war; the main aim of the treaty of Versailles was to stop Germany from doing this. In the treaty of Versailles, it was explicitly stated in the military clause that 'Germany cannot have an air force or an army of over 100,000 men'. ...read more.


The league did nothing. This must have give Hitler the courage to rearm Germany and after he got away with that Hitler was in the confidence that nobody would have the courage to get in his way. In addition, the idea of appeasement after the treaty of Versailles was pointless. The four main victors of WWI came together to produce a treaty that would help to maintain peace and order in the world. When they created this, they intended that Germany follow the treaty to ensure that Germany could not start a war. The idea of making a set of rules and then deciding that no punishment should be given to those who break the rules is wrong. This also means that Germany is not being punished for WWI another aim of the Treaty of Versailles so the idea of appeasement is mocking the Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, the treaty tried to prevent the outbreak of war and appeasement may have stopped a war with communists. Britain saw communism in Russia as a big threat to British society and Germany was seen as a buffer zone to prevent communism from travelling westwards. After the Russian civil war and the allied intervention, it is obvious that a vulnerable country will go towards communism. It was clear what would happen if Germany remained vulnerable; there would be many communist revolutions. ...read more.


Some people, like Winston Churchill, say that appeasement is 'dishonourable' and 'selfish'. In the Munich agreement, Chamberlain decided to sign off the Sudetenland to Germany in the hope that it would prevent a war. This can be seen as dishonourable as Chamberlain did not have any right to sign off a piece of another country just to protect his own country from a war. Furthermore, it would seem selfish as Britain is an Island and there a sea between Germany and Britain so it would feel relatively safe giving Germany what she wants in the hope that any consequences will not directly affect Britain. In conclusion, appeasement was the wrong policy to follow. The main reason why Britain adopted appeasement was that they did not know how far Hitler would go. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it was clear that Germany had been preparing for a full-scale war. The most critical issue at hand here is the fact that the more appeasement Hitler gets, the more resources he will have. When a war is in the creating and the tensions are rising, it is important to stop the war as soon as possible. Appeasement is delaying the war meaning that the war is going to more fierce and more horrific, so right from the very beginning with the rearmament with Germany, although it was not clear what Germany's intentions were, no chance should have been taken and Germany should have been stopped using force if required. ...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?"

    punishment of Germany, other countries fought on her side and, equally, had to be dealt with. These countries were Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey. Austria-Hungary had to sign two peace settlements, indicative of the fact that this state was shortly to be divided into two.

  2. Dear Diary, It was the start of the Christmas month and I was ready ...

    The Luger fired a 7-round clip of 9mm ammunition. The pistol was originally a Swiss gun then it was given to the Germans then we got it by copying it for our selves. Webley Pistol- This is a pistol, which Officers only use but I nicked it from one of them without him noticed.

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

    The Treaty of Versailles limited Germany's army to 100,000 men, which Hitler saw as unfair and unreasonable. In 1935, Hitler made the decision to once again build up Germany's army, and by 1939, Germany's army had almost ten times the amount of soldiers it originally had in 1932, with a massive number of 950,000 men.

  2. How far can Germany be held responsible for WWI?

    As each country was trying to outdo the other, an arms race built up, resulting in mutual unrest, mistrust and suspicion between European's Great Powers. Michael Howard agrees with this, affirming that each announcement of increased armaments' expenditure by one of the European powers before 1914 was viewed as a threat by its perceived rival.

  1. Why Appeasement?

    Giving Britain the chance to strengthen and win the war. Chamberlain believed Hitler was being reasonable with his demands. He was rightfully taking back what was once theirs. The Rhineland, Sudetenland and to re-establish the 3 million citizens they lost due to the treaty of Versailles.

  2. Was it the British governments' policy of appeasement which led to war breaking out ...

    3 He was aware he could not risk war, as Britain was too weak. Her economic decline was rapid yet her worldwide commitments were larger than they had been before the First World War. The British public certainly didn't want another war4.

  1. How fair is Louise Shaw's Interpretation on Chamberlain? The interpretation revolves around the idea ...

    more if fails to include many of the issues Britain faced: It does not consider the economic problems Britain was facing after the effects of the Depression, the incredible debts it had to pay from the First World War, the public opinion (that would not support going to war), the

  2. Was appeasement a mistake?

    However Britain probably thought that delaying Hitler was vital even if it meant handing over allies to produce time for re-armament ever since WW1.

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