Appeasement Was The Only Realistic Option For British Policy

One of the most controversial documents of World War 2 was the appeasement signed on September 30, 1938 in Munich, Germany. The document known as the Munich Pact gave Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler in hopes he would not seek additional territory. Before the appeasement was signed, Nazi Germany had previously taken multiple aggressive actions. In 1937, it had attacked a small city in Spain and in 1938 (before the appeasement was signed) it had invaded Austria. The Prime Minister of Britain began negotiations with Hitler in pursuit of achieving another war, which resulted in appeasement. This appeasement encouraged Hitler’s aggression as he gained confidence to attack and attempt to gain more territory. Ultimately, this was the wrong policy for England to pursue in 1938. The Munich Pact, as it was known, was unnecessary, gave Germany time to rearm, and 7f.

In my opinion, appeasement was a huge mistake on the part of the Allied nations. It allowed Nazi Germany to gain an enormous amount of power, consequently posing a threat to all of Europe. Appeasement encouraged Hitler’s aggression as he gained increased confidence after capturing each new piece of land without any intervention by the League of Nations. The policy of appeasement is what allowed Hitler to successfully transfer troops to the Rhineland in 1936 which led to further military actions (e.g. the annexation of Austria). The occupation of new lands by Germany also contributed to the increase in German strength. For example, the Rhineland provided Germany with stronger defense of its borders against France and Belgium. Austria provided

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

1938 Appeasement: Good or Bad for England? How does one prevent war? For England in the 1930s, they tried to prevent war against Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany through the policy of appeasement. Appeasement is a foreign policy through negotiation that is used to make peace with aggressive countries and prevent war. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler to attempt to appease Germany, signing the Munich Pact, which gave Czechoslovakian land to Germany in exchange for stopping their aggression.

Britain still hoped to avoid the war at this time and offered an appeasement to Germany stating that they would willing give Sudetenland to them if they left the rest of

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

The Final Solution is the most controversial topic of German History as its origination is not clean cut, whilst it would be simple to place emphasis on Hitler and his World View for the destruction of all Jewry there are other factors such as WW2 which must be taken into consideration in analysis of the Final Solution. Other factors include the polarised view of a lack of formal mechanisms and coherent policy, both of which were fuelled by an honest desire to pursue the will of the Fuhrer to commit, as described by Layton ‘The darkest deed of the Third Reich.’ Throughout this essay it will be

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

Answer this question from the perspective of Britain, France, and the United States and within the context of the early 1930s. How do you think each country would react to the situation in Germany as described by Rumbold and Messersmith? Your response should reflect the domestic context of each country in the early 1930s.

“In March 1936 German troops thrust into the demilitarized area west of the Rhine River. His act violated the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nations sputtered out a worthless condemnation. Roosevelt remained aloof.” (Davidson, 2008)

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 1936, defying the Treaty of Versailles (1919), Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. He marched 30,000 troops into Cologne on March 7, 1936. France, with 250,000 troops mobilized, remained passive because Britain would not support her. Britain took the view that Germany was ‘marching into her own back yard.’ To show that his remilitarization was popular, Hitler held a plebiscite, which showed that 98% were in favor. He went on to build his own defensive fortification, the Siegfried Line.

If Britain and France had abandoned their policy of appeasement and retaliated against Hitler's aggression war could have been averted. Appeasement was deeply embedded into British foreign policy, even to the the extent were they would not honor their military commitments to France under the Treaty of Locarno, that if Germany were to remilitarise the Rhineland, Britain would offer them support. So, when Hitler ordered armed cars to enter the Rhineland in March 1936, France failed to retaliate. This was the ideal time to have halted Hitler as Allan Bullock quotes Hitler saying “If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs”, because Germany was still militarily weak and war would have lasted six weeks rather than six years. However, the appeasers were determined to stop any violence, that they failed to see, according to Keith Eubank, had they “retaliated against the remilitarisation with force, the German military units would have withdrawn and perhaps Hitler would have been overthrown; the drift to war would have been halted and World War II averted”.

The year was 1940; the world’s second great World War was in full swing, with Britain and Germany at the forefront. The fall of Britain’s closest ally, France, stunned the British Empire and threw it into disarray. Through the chaos, Winston Churchill emerged. Churchill would be an inspiring leader who was able to rally the entire nation in times of hardship. Through his leadership, the “British Bulldog” would face the Axis powers and come out victorious, as well as become a public hero for the British people. Yet, immediately after the war, Churchill did not return to the prime minister seat because of a shocking defeat in his re-election, despite his immense reputation he gained from the war. Though lauded by the British population for his prowess as a wartime leader, Churchill’s conservative politics were out of touch with a population ready for post-war relief and led to his defeat in the 1945 election.

Abstract Since Munich, appeasement—a policy of making unilateral concessions in the hope of avoiding conflict—has been considered a disastrous strategy+ Conceding to one adversary is thought to undermine the conceder’s reputation for resolve, provoking additional challenges+ Kreps, Wilson, Milgrom, and Roberts formalized this logic in their 1982 solutions to the “chain-store paradox+” I show with a series of models that if a state faces multiple challenges and has limited resources, the presumption against appeasement breaks down: appeasing in one arena may then be vital to conserve sufficient resources to deter in others+ I identify “appeasement” and “deterrence” equilibria, and I show that when the