Preview

Was Britain's Policy of Appeasement Justified?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
604 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Was Britain's Policy of Appeasement Justified?
There are two opinions that modern historians have when it comes to Britain's policy of appeasement with Germany back in the late 1930's. Some historians would say that the appeasement with Hitler wasn't justified at all and that Chamberlain was a weak-minded person, whom thought that Hitler would be reasonable (this was because Chamberlain was a very honest man and a trustworthy politician, who was naïve in thinking that other politicians would be the same). Other historians would argue that Chamberlain did not have any other choice at that very point and time, and the mounting stress from the people, who were looking for peace, clouded his thoughts and as a result, a policy of appeasement was considered. They would argue that appeasement seemed very sensible, and the right move at the time. There are a number of reasons that support both sides and opinions of this matter.

A factor of why the appeasement may be justified was the growing concern for the British Empire. The most powerful dominions in the Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, all greatly supported and favored appeasement. If appeasement was not to be made, these self-governed ‘dominions' would not support Britain if war would come to Czechoslovakia. And on September 1st, 1938, this news became official and Chamberlain was told that the South African and Australian governments would not help Britain if war would break out. It became clear and apparent that an aggressive approach to Germany would split the empire. And in fact, British military leaders supported the idea of appeasement because they were terrified of fighting multiple countries at once (Italy, Germany, Japan). All of this information made it clear that almost everyone favored an appeasement over any kind of war. Many people now would criticize this as people believe that appeasement is an act of weakness, with no self resolve. And with Hitler on the rise to power, he may have looked upon this as an

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Chamberlain suggested appeasement in hopes of keeping peace and avoiding war. He wanted to avoid war for as long as possible and keep the Europe out of war unless a bigger reason arose.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    German Aggression Dbq

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He also points out that his policy served to repair the damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain further states: “Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czecho-Slovakia from invasion and destruction.” There existed no other solution to German aggression against Czechoslovakia. With the Munich Agreement signed, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, without an Agreement, it still would have been likely that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Thus, Chamberlain remains blameless for German aggression because the German Empire would have invaded Czechoslovakia in either case. After establishing his innocence, Chamberlain states the inevitability of war against the German Empire: “Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?” How can any of the European powers trust the German Empire after the Munich Agreement was so abruptly ripped up? Any further peace talks will not produce satisfying results because there will always be doubt regarding the German intent to expand its territory. Chamberlain…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Intimidation from Fascist leaders was a factor that led to the illogical events of World War II. Adolf Hitler, chancellor of Germany, justified his barbaric actions on his attempt to benefit the "superior" German race. The effects of his ambitions were displayed during the Munich Conference in 1938. Hitler invited the Prime Minister of Britain and the Premier of France and demanded that the Sudetenland become part of Germany. Due to France and Britain's fear of another war, Hitler's demand was accepted. The appeasement, or agreement in order to maintain peace, at the Munich Conference was said to have "saved Europe from a world war," as stated by William Shirer. Contrary to Shirer, Europe would still be involved in war and things would only get worse.…

    • 436 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There is always a consequence for not standing up to stop a situation at the first sign of trouble. Unfortunately, that consequence was one that the world had to pay because the world leaders did absolutely nothing to stop Hitler at the first sign of trouble. They just let Hitler continue with what he was doing in order to “keep the peace”. However, they didn’t realize that by letting Hitler do these things, they were opening a door to a world tragedy that would change history as we know it forever. Some of the factors that contributed to appeasement being incorrect was Sudetenland becoming German territory, Hitler gaining more support as time went on, and Germany taking control of Austria.…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War II DBQ

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One of them being that Germany was frustrated over the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was upset that they had to follow unfair demands, including paying for all of the damages of World War I, lessening their armies, and limiting their military. In time, an aggressive ruler in Germany came to power named Adolf Hitler. Hitler felt that the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, so he did the opposite of what the treaty stated and put all the money into building a stronger military. As time went on, Germany wanted to reunite their brother land (doc 1). Since other powerful countries feared the power of Hitler and his army, they gave into him, following the policy of appeasement. They agreed to the terms in which the “Big Four” gave Czechoslovakia over to Germany in order to resist war (doc 4). Hitler believed it was their right to the land because Germany owned it, post-World War I. In addition, at the start of World War II, most nations were in a worldwide depression. This state of depression, made it easier for aggressive and charismatic rulers to take control over weak nations. The people hoped the powerful rulers would help to fix and change the economy. Many of the great powers thought it was a good idea to give into appeasement. On the other hand, many disagreed and argued that by giving into one demand today would cause the nation to weaken “tomorrow” (doc…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Munich agreement encouraged Hitler to take more land and spread militarism. Neville Chamberlain should have stopped Hitler in his tracks, and gathered Allies to defend Poland, as well…

    • 471 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I think the most effective response is with out a doubt collective security. (Doc 4) In 1938 Britain, France, and Italy met with Hitler to discuss his demand for the Sudetenland. Hitler got what he wanted from this meeting because of appeasement. Europe was happy from this because it avoided war. This did not benefit the Czechs at all though. For some reason Neville Chamberlain favored appeasement. (Doc 5) He thinks appeasement is the best way because he believes war is a "fearful thing." He thinks that appeasement will benefit Europe. Winston Churchill disagreed with Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. (Doc 6) He believed that keeping peace depends on holding back the aggressor. He also thinks we lost many opportunities in the quest for peace. He believes it was the people in control of our political affairs fault. Another view on appeasement was also put out there by A.J.P. Taylor. It stated that since the majority of German people put Hitler into power they were the only ones that could turn him out. Also he said some "appeasers" feared that the defeat of Germany would be followed by Russian domination over most of Europe. In another excerpt an author named Keith Eubank states that stopping Hitler prior to 1939 was not an issue. (Doc 9) He says that Hitler had too massive of a force and that nothing he had done had been considered that dangerous at that point in time. All this options but still if the rest of the country didn't do something besides just keeping appeasement Hitler was going to just keep demanding more and more. This would have left Europe ten times worse off. They made the right choice on going into Collective Security. They should have done this from the beginning instead of wasting so much time and losing so much, to just end up going into war anyways, just later in time. Collective Security…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What would today be like if Britain wouldn?t have been involved in World War II? Britain played a major role in the war and had many major victories. ? I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat? (Churchill). Britain was considered a powerful force during World War II at sea, land and air due to expertly executed tactics, strong leadership, and the support of allies and troops.…

    • 519 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    France and UK came up with the policy of appeasement which was a policy with nazi germany that would allow hitler to take a lot more land than he was supposed to. The reason being is the policy was put into place so that the UK and france would let Hitler do what he wanted as long as he didnt do what they told him not to do. The policy of appeasement however did not work because Hitler was not someone you could appease. Once Hitler invaded poland the policy ended thus ending the reign of letting hitler walk all over…

    • 545 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    q. Failure of appeasement, Munich: This marks the end of creating an international policy. Hitler went through a series of marches with no opposition. Appeasement is the idea of giving someone what they wants to get them to shut up, even though it isn’t good for them. The Munich Conference Hitler lies and promises that the expansion was over. Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf explained he was going to continue…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Obama VS Chamberlain

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages

    When Chamberlain went to Munich on September 29th, 1938, to ask Hitler to discontinue, as he would have said, his plans to take over Poland, Chamberlain had good intention, but bad execution. He claimed that the appeasement was for, "The peace of our time," and that his agreement with Hitler, that which Hitler publically disregarded 7 days later, would allow Europe to continue war-free, sparing it from the trauma and anxiety associated with war. It is well known that Chamberlain failed utterly to accomplish anything with the appeasement, and war did in fact break out the following year. Recently, President Obama went to Geneva to negotiate peace terms with Iran regarding them physically possessing nuclear weapons, and failed to accomplish anything. In fact, Iran slapped America in the face by completely undermining America's request, and this is the cause for much controversy and ill feelings toward Obama as of late.…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Hitler’s power began to rise during the 30s, many Americans still believed that they could avoid the issue through a policy of appeasement (Document G), though it failed and both Britain and France…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the 1930s, lots of politicians in both Britain and France came to see that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles had placed restrictions on Germany that were unfair. Hitler's actions were seen as understandable and justifiable.…

    • 922 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The First World War ended in an Allied victory, but the economies of Britain and France were shattered. In order to rebuild their economies, they had to disarm rapidly. The First World War had also given rise to strong anti-war sentiments, especially in Britain and France. Germany, who was blamed entirely for the outbreak of the First World War, received harsh reparations and was forced to sign the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which made Germany lose territory, as well as limited her armaments. This sparked resentment in the Germans who felt injustice that the war was entirely blamed on them which was prominently evident in Adolf Hitler who rose to power as Fuhrer of Germany in 1933. The highly nationalistic Nazi leader came into power a goal: to make secure and to preserve the racial community and to enlarge it. He hated the Versailles settlement and wanted to destroy it, hence fore building up the army and recovering lost territories to preserve German race. Therefore the in contrast to the Allies, Germany under Adolf Hitler was aggressive and influenced by revisionism. In attempt to preserve peace and not start a war with Germany, Britain and France, the two great powers gave in to Germany instead of standing against the aggressive Hitler. Appeasement is a term often applied to the overly acquiescent foreign policy practiced by Neville Chamberlain when dealing with Hitler’s Nazi regime. However, instead of preserving peace that Britain and France desperately wanted, it ironically allowed Hitler who did not have concrete plans on how to achieve his goals, to exploit their weakness and used situations in his advantage, which then resulted in the Second World War. While some may agree to this stand, others argue that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning as seen from his book Mein Kampf and later on…

    • 2372 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Higher History

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages

    There was a large lack of confidence in British defences in 1938, they were poorly equipped and what they did have were nothing compared to new modern warfare equipment other countries possessed. It’s strongly arguable that by September 1939 Britain were far more prepared for a war with Germany and if they had rushed into it a year before, they would have gotten destroyed. At the end of the war Hitler claims that if he’d got war when he wanted it in 1938 he would have won. In comparison many believe that Czechoslovakia was the most well defended country in Europe at the time, they had a strong army and their borders would be difficult to pass through. Without British and French support they would not react however, if all three parties had come together it is possible they would most likely to have been powerful enough to overthrow Hitler from the very start. Opinions considering this situation are very much split for the overall success of the Munich agreements.…

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays