To what extent can Britain's policy towards Germanybefore Munichbe defended?
To what extent can Britain's policy towards Germany before Munich be defended? Whether Britain's policy of appeasement towards Germany was the right policy to employ after the First World War has been highly debated among Historians of both a Counter Revisionist view such as R.A.C. Parker and Revisionist such as J.Charmley. It was appeasement which made Neville Chamberlain infamous and histories based upon Churchill's Gathering Storm that gave it a different post-war meaning which regarded appeasement as a policy of cowardice and surrender.1 Yet we must look beyond this misinterpreted turn of phrase and concentrate on its actual true meaning. Firstly, therefore, there is nothing ignoble about appeasement. To 'appease' means to conciliate, to listen to your opponent and try and meet his grievances. This was the pre-war understanding of the word, before it began to have such unpleasant over-tones. Such criticism of Neville Chamberlain, typical of Traditional historians like Cato and Churchill, is unjustifiable as at the time it could be seen as the most sensible option that was certainly supported by Charmley not to mention the public majority2. To understand Chamberlain's foreign policy we need to understand what Chamberlain was trying to achieve. When Chamberlain came to power in May 1937 he was never in any doubt as to his broad aim "we have a definite objective in front
What was "appeasement"?
What was "appeasement"? The definition of appeasement is to pacify someone, to avoid war at nearly all costs. It is more famously recognised as the policy implemented by Neville Chamberlain, following Hitler's attempts at taking over territory in Europe, prior to War World 2. Indications of appeasement could be witnessed during the 20s and early 30s. After World War 1, Britain definitely did not want another war. It was always looking to avoid military opposition with Hitler. In early 1938 when Hitler condemned what he called, the persecution of Germans by Czechs in the Sudetenland, Chamberlain searched for a way to resolve potential conflict peacefully. The attempted settlement of the Sudetenland crisis resulted in the Munich agreement. On 30 September 1938, Chamberlain established with Hitler that the 'German' parts of Czechoslovakia constituted Hitler's territory. Both parties agreed to avoid war. Britain was financially unprepared for war and the Allies were in fear of Communism spreading in Europe if Germany became weak. Chamberlain realised that Hitler's hunger for territory was unlimited, when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939. Chamberlain consequently announced an end to appeasement on 6 April 1939, and officially declared that it would defend Poland if it was invaded. This was not enough to stop Hitler invading Poland, commemorating the start of
"An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement?
"An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement? When Neville Chamberlain came to power in 1937, he was left with the problems of Nazi Germany to deal with. Chamberlain stuck to a policy of appeasement, making peace in Europe his main aim. He went to new lengths to try and prevent war, such as flying to Germany and discuss problems in person (shuttle diplomacy) which had not been done before. For his efforts in trying to keep the peace, perhaps Chamberlain was an honourable man. However there were weaknesses to his approach, such as his arrogance in refusing to listen to his Foreign Secretary Eden, which may be important factors to why appeasement inevitably failed. If not honourable, then appeasement was certainly a logical policy to undergo initially. Not only was Great Britain economically unprepared for a war, but the vast majority of British people did not want another war. World War I was said to be the 'war to end all wars', so preventing another war was certainly a logical decision, perhaps even a moral one. At this time there was also unrest in the Far East involving Britain's colonies. Britain was certainly not in the position to get involved in conflicts in the far east and in Europe. Neville Chamberlain said himself; "war wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing", therefore appeasement seemed the
What were the causes/origins of World War Two?
What were the causes/origins of World War Two? The biggest factor in the causes of World War Two was the appeasement act marked by the Munich agreement in 1938. The policy of appeasement used by Neville Chamberlain, while intended to maintain the peace of the Versailles Treaty, stalled the Allies and helped Germany when World War Two broke out. Letting Germany increase its navy, army, and air force, reoccupy the Rhineland, and give it the Czech Sudetenland all helped to strengthen the German position in Europe. It would lead to Germany taking over most of Europe easily in a matter of months. The British government of the time underestimated the threat of Nazi Germany, supposing that its only aims were to redress the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The underlining fact of this act was that it gave a chance to Hitler, but the distinguishing thing is that if Neville Chamberlain had "given in" to the conditions of an appeasement to any leader of a threatening country, it would still have come off with a negative effect and therefore, the biggest factor is not Hitler Although Neville Chamberlain tried to do what was right for the country, it never is right to give countries that are threatening yours land or money. The result of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement are the most severe out of all the factors. Appeasement led Hitler to believe that no one would oppose his
How far do you agree that 'the Appeasers' were guilty men?
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. After World War One both the British leaders and the public vividly remembered the horrific experiences of it and wished to avoid this at all cost. This meant that the public was in favour of any policy which would potentially avoid or at least delay war and so voted for a Party which followed the policy of ‘appeasement’. Winston Churchill before being elected as Prime Minister was very unpopular as he
Why was the Munich Agreement signed on 29 September 1938?
Why was the Munich Agreement signed on 29 September 1938? The Munich Agreement was an agreement between Britain, France, Germany and Italy by which a part of Czechoslovakia called the Sudetenland was ceded to Germany. To understand why the agreement was signed it is necessary to look at what had been happening in Europe during the previous twenty years. After the First World War Germany had been severely punished. It had been forced to give away land and money and was not allowed to have a proper standing army. Czechoslovakia was an artificial country constructed partly from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire and as a consequence about one quarter of its population was German. During the 1930s Adolph Hitler came to power as Chancellor of Germany. He used his position to become dictator and brought about many changes in Germany. He successfully seized land such as the Rhineland and the Saar And was not stopped by any other country. He gradually built up the size of his army, navy and airforce for example, the anglo-german treaty that allowed them to increase the german navy to 35% of Britain's, and again was not stopped. He used the Luftwaffe (the german air force) in the Spanish Civil War to bomb places like Guernica. He made a pact with the other Fascist State, italy and the two tried to distablise the solidarity against germany by keeping on reasonably good terms with
British Policy of Appeasement May 1937 - March 1939.
British Policy of Appeasement May 1937 - March 1939 On May 28th 1937, Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister of Britain. The next 2 years of his leadership of the Conservative government was largely associated with the foreign policy that later became known as Appeasement. Following on from the First World War, Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after its defeat, and thought that the German government had genuine grievances that needed to be addressed. He also thought - erroneously, as it turned out - that, if he agreed to some of the demands made by, AdolfHitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, that he could avoid a European War. Neville Chamberlain's Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, did not agree with the policy of appeasement and on the strength of his convictions he resigned in the February of 1938. Eden was immediately replaced by Lord Halifax, who, whether by coincidence or not, happened to agree with this policy; Halifax had already developed a good relationship with the German government. After his first visit to Nazi Germany he made it known to his friends that, he thought the regime was fantastic, that he liked all the Nazi leaders, including Geobbels, and was generally very impressed and, "amused." In the November of 1937, Neville Chamberlain sent his new Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, to Germany to meet,
How did Appeasement lead to the outbreak of the Second World War ? The First and Second World Wars are considered two of the defining events of the 20th century
How did Appeasement lead to the outbreak of the Second World War ? The First and Second World Wars are considered two of the defining events of the 20th century. But when looked at in detail, and with such historical distance, how will these two events be perceived? I think it possible that the two wars were interconnected that really there was a "new Thirty Years War," and that World War Two really just grew out of the unsolved problems of World War One. The evidence seems to show that WWI was the catalyst (what broke it down) for the Second - and the unsuccessful solutions of the Treaty of Versailles and the short-sighted failure of the Great Allies (Britain and France). They didn't act quickly enough. The unsolved problems and the unwillingness of the Allies to address the issues of WWI made a second war unavoidable. The inter war years were just a break before the countries returned to complete what had not been finished. The countries were able to have a rest and recover. Churchill once told Roosevelt that he thought WWII should be called, "The Unnecessary War."; why have a second one when they could have finished them off in the first. He also said, "There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left for the world from the previous struggle." It's not assured that this lesson has actually been learnt.
British Appeasement:Origins, Results, and Future Alternatives.
British Appeasement: Origins, Results, and Future Alternatives The idea of appeasement is synonymous with Neville Chamberlain. Leading up to WWII the British government led the way in world foreign policy. Neville invented neither the policy nor the word but when Hitler came to power it became Neville's personal doctrine.1 The accepted definition of appeasement is, "conciliatory compromises offered in the hope that the aggressors would be satisfied and thus cease their aggression. The obvious failure of this policy gave appeasement the bad name that it still has."2 The Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, pushed cooperation with the Third Reich much farther than most of his Cabinet colleagues or the British people would have. Despite this fact appeasement was not the exception among worldviews but the norm, many other nations were allowing the Third Reich and their military machine almost free reign. Following WWI Germany had been relieved of its remaining military might and forced to stop production of weapons. The British government is often criticized for it position and policies leading up to the second world war but the fact is their position was the same as any other powerful nation, they were just the most visible in the world stage. The international community did little to slow German aggression and build up after Hitler gained power. The United States
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement against Germany
After World War I Germany limped back, licking its wounds that the Treaty of Versailles had so mercilessly rubbed in salt. As one looks back on the events leading up to World War II it has to be asked whether France and England helped to start World War II by their actions at Versailles. It seems that the revenge that the Allies took at the Treaty came back to haunt them with the aggression of Hitler in 1936. However, we can not blame Neville Chamberlain for something with which he had no part. Chamberlain's actions in the years 1936 to 1939 are enough to help one appreciate the dilemma he found himself in. Chamberlain did not, in the beginning, realise exactly what Hitler was after. Hitler was after vengeance for Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles, but Chamberlain did not realise that Hitler was after domination of Europe. When confronted about Germany's plan to attack Czechoslovakia Chamberlain responded, "I think it would be wrong to assume that the German government has any intention of doing such." The eyes of the world were on Chamberlain's every move, criticising, praising, and waiting. With the pressure of the world on his shoulders Chamberlain proceeded cautiously not wanting the tensions to explode. Historically, Britain had followed a foreign policy of appeasement and not getting involved with the rest of Europe. Thus the word "appeasement" applies to
