Appeasement In The 1930s

Appeasement was arguably the only realistic option for British policy towards Germany between 1936 and 1938 when considering the fact that appeasement permitted Britain to rearm, thus preparing her more effectively for war, whilst also giving her the moral high ground. Nevertheless, for some “appeasement has become a dirty word, synonymous with weakness and defeatism in the face of naked aggression” since Britain’s policy of appeasement succumbed to Nazi aggression and failed to actually prevent war. Subsequently many historians argue that alternatives including a ‘Grand Alliance’ and military intervention in the Rhineland (1936) and Czechoslovakia (1938) would have been better options. However, when considering the several hindrances to these alternatives including political and public stance, financial difficulties and the depth of pacifist objection, it appears that appeasement was the only realistic option.

In the 1930s, European governments found it necessary to appease Hitler and Mussolini. Appeasement is the word that clearly sums up the policies and actions that were taken by the European governments. There were a few reasons that these concessions were offered by European countries: none of the countries wanted another World War, the devastating effects

Document 2 indirectly supports the idea that pro-appeasement ideologies towards German military expansion were also causes that led to World War II by explaining how the League of Nations believed that through appeasement treatment Germany will eventually be satisfied and seize to conquer other lands yet they were wrong therefore once Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had conquered lands all the way to Poland the allied powers, Great Britain, France, United States, and Russia, declare war on Germany with the hope of stalling Nazi expansion and eluding the possibility to falling into his power. Document 5 is a speech by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain which explains how appeasement was the only way to maintain peace in Europe after World War I and how Britain would only become involved in major conflicts not an invasion of a state. Document 5 is biased since it was written by a prime minister’s point of view that is pro-appeasement and supports the idea that such is the only way that Germany can be stopped without the need of war. Document 5 supports the idea that pro-appeasement ideologies towards German military expansion were also causes that led to World War II by listing textual evidence on how leaders such as Neville Chamberlain allowed Adolf Hitler to spread his Nazi regime through the use pro-appeasement ideals however such

Through the book ‘Europe’s Last Summer’ David Fromkin tackles the issues of pre WWI Europe, and the surrounding political, economic, social, debacles that led paranoid countries to go to arms after nearly a full century of relative peace within the European continent. While Fromkin certainly points his fingers to all the nations of Europe his primary focus lies with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Though he continues to stress throughout much of the book that Kaiser Wilhelm II and Archduke Ferdinand were fervent keepers of the peace within their nations, the fault of the war ultimately could be laid at the feet of their two nations and their constant attempts at war-mongering. He claims the war could have been avoided for the moment, had all the nations of Europe wanted peace, but the two bad eggs of Europe drew them all into an unavoidable general war.

Decisions for War, 1914-1917 by Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig investigates the origins of the First World War detailing individual country’s reasons for entering the war. Historians at War by Anthony Adamthwaite explores how scholars have understood the origins of the Second World War throughout varying times and differing national view points. Both works share a common theme of determinism; a retrospective notion placed on historical events by historians that Europe was inescapably predestined to go to war and that nothing nor anyone could inhibit that. Both remark that this popular approach does a disservice into the explanation of war as it does not accurately depict the economic and social agency present in Europe at the time. In

During the 1930s, American’s public opinion and policy toward isolationism was contributed from the psychological and physical effect of the Great Depression and the tragic losses in World War I. Isolationists “advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics” ("American Isolationism in the 1930s - 1937–1945 - Milestones - Office of the Historian"). Neutral Acts were aimed to prevent Americans from being drawn into foreign wars. Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany, invaded Poland; which sent France and Britain into war honoring their commitments to Poland. France and Britain were not prepared for war and needed aid. Although the United States proclaimed neutrality, President Roosevelt

Leading up to the First World War (WWI) was a series of crises -- Serbian unification efforts, the Ten-Point Ultimatum from Austria to Serbia, the Kruger Telegram, the Dreadnought Race, the Moroccan Crises of 1905 and of 1911, the Balkan Wars, and the Bosnian Crisis -- that generated significant conflict and division among the countries of Europe, all of which seemed to lay the foundation for the start of WWI. With concern for its own power and security in a rapidly changing Europe, Germany set out to undermine the power of as well as the alliances between other European countries. In his book The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to War in 1914, Christopher Clark points out that, while ‘not one of the great powers has escaped the

that Hitler was a “sincere man who had no intention to provoke a war.” He too,

This essay analyses the origins of the Second World War by briefly summarizing the events from 1919-1939. However, most emphasis is put on the amount of responsibility the Treaty of Versailles deserves for the outbreak of war. Other than analysing the Treaty of Versailles on its own, it also analyses the effects of the 1929 Wall Street Crash on the world, the rise of Fascism and Nazism, as well as the rise of Adolf Hitler, the failure of the League of Nations and the appeasement of the Fascist and Nazi regimes by Britain and France throughout the 1930s. Hence the Treaty of Versailles plays a

On June 28th 1919, in the Versailles Palace of France, the treaty of Versailles officially ended World war one. The signers of this treaty implemented certain restrictions on Germany that were to guarantee Germany would never start another world war. This begs the question, “what did the end of one war have to do with the start of World War Two?”. The evidence shows that it was this treaty’s influence on Adolf Hitler that led to the Versailles Treaty’s ultimate failure and provoked the start of the next world war. Because of this treaty Adolf Hitler’s economic plan, proposed while he was seeking political election, was focused on rebuilding and reclaiming Germany. This went hand in hand with the nationalist ideas of the Nazi party.

Moreover, while Jews in Germany were being tormented and war was approaching, Great Britain did not want to take part. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the British from 1937-1940, decided to sign an appeasement “a peace treaty” with Hitler stating that the British only wanted peace (Neufeldt, 109). However, Hitler already had his plans, and the

Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic

Appeasement was a less effective response to aggression because fewer countries agreed with the Munich Agreement. Some of Adolf Hitler’s ideas were stated in Document 1 such as needing colonies in order to enter colonial politics and that oppressed territories were not demoted to nothing by protests but by countries with stronger military forces. Haile Selassie, the emperor of Ethiopia, asked the League of Nations fro help in stopping the invasion after Italy attacked Ethiopia. When the League of Nations’ response was ineffective, Selassie stated “God and history will remember your judgment. It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” (Doc.2). This statement is like karma; because the League of Nations didn’t help Ethiopia, it would be attacked and get no help. This statement is in the point of view of Ethiopian people, but also for other European countries because when countries are without help, the country it asks will later be without help also. They will be in the same situation as the country asking for its help; “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” Document 5 is in the point of view of the British. Document 5

In order to fully understand how Britain’s decision to go to war against Germany is best explained one must engage into the debate revolving around the question of the extent to which Britain and other countries were responsible for causing war. This helps explain the intention Britain had for war which is vital in understanding their decision making process to cause war in the first place. Some schools of thought have come to the conclusion that it was everybody or nobody- the continent “slithered over the brink into the boiling cauldron of war without any trace of apprehension or dismay.”1 That analysis will be considered in this essay as will the widespread thesis that it was Germany’s aggression which not only created the preconditions for war, but also triggered Britain into war with the political imbalance of power being created from the growing naval and colonial expansion of Germany. Other factors that help explain why Britain went to war against Germany

The policy of appeasement was widely pursued by Britain and France in the 1930s, when it referred to attempting to satisfy Germany's demands by negotiation and compromise, which would avoid war. However due to its failure the policy of appeasement, to a large extent was responsible for the outbreak of war in 1939. It is clear that if the Western Powers had retaliated against Hitler, war could have been avoided, it encouraged Hitler, Hitler could never be appeased, and that it prompted the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Despite large extent the policy of appeasement in the outbreak of war it is superseded by other factors such as the Treaty of Versailles.