Munich Pact Dbq Essay

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 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

As Hitler’s continued presenting speeches of annexation of Czechoslovakia, war appeared to be forthcoming. Czechoslovakian allies Britain and France were neither compared nor compelled to be involved in military confrontation with Germany. The British Prime minister Chamberlain went to Germany to discuss the situation

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

Central European nations and Great Britain were in a stat of decimation after the brutality of World War I. European’s living in Great Britain and France desired peace and stability. This lust for harmony resulted in demilitarization of central European powers and an apathetic attitude towards the rising Nazi regime. The Czechoslovakian Sudeten land crisis exploited Great Britain and France’s neglect, forcing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler’s wishes. Opposing Hitler’s plan would result in another great war. Knowing the condition of his country, Chamberlain reluctantly appeased Hitler buying time so that Great Britain could prepare for war.

England and France, fearing another war established a policy of appeasement to by time and rearm its forces. The European countries believed that Hitler would only retake the Sudetenland; this land was historically Germany's homeland(6). This was another mistake by France and England because with the Sudetenland he gained the famous Skoda armament factories and was ultimately a more dangerous military opponent(6). Until the remainder of Czechoslovakia was swallowed in 1939 all Hitler had done seemed reasonable(6). Until then he had only tried to obtain lands where ethnic Germans lived(6). The disregard of the Treaty of Versailles would be the main factor that allowed Germany to regain their power and ultimately bring the world into another war.

Notably missing from the creators of this document was Czechoslovakian leadership who had little to no input when it came the decision-making. When this particular group of actors came together they had incredibly different agendas and goals when it came to the pact and the Germans annexation of more land. These various aims became blatantly clear when the final agreement was reached and the eventual aftermath it caused. Naturally, all of these leaders were first and foremost worried about the expectations of their people and government. Many critics of the deal say that Prime Minister Chamberlain’s appeasement for Hitler and the Nazi party failed not only the Czech people but much of Europe as well(Strang 481). When this process first began it was obvious that Europe did not want to begin another war, which German seemed to be plating the seeds for, and were doing everything in their power to prevent violent conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir give a speech in the following days of the Munich massacre to the Israeli parliament, where she made an emotional claim about finding every person who was involve with the attack. The Israeli government was so in shock about the attack, in response they wanted something more direct then indirect because, it was more personal to them. Prime Minister Meir and an Israeli cabinet members created a top-secret committee called ‘Committee-X’, a covert counterterrorist campaign in response for the killing of the Israeli athletes and people related to Palestinian terrorism. One of the members of this committee was General Aharon Yariv, Golda Meir’s Counter-terrorist advisor who stated that he told the Prime

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

     Britain’s policy of Appeasement (May/June 1937 – March 1939) was also a cause of World War Two. Neville Chamberlain became the British Prime Minister on May 28, 1937, and followed the policy of appeasing Germany, believing that all Hitler wanted to do was unite German-speaking people. In doing so, Hitler would break the Treaty of Versailles but Chamberlain did not believe Hitler would cause war. Churchill disagreed, citing Mein Kampf (1924) where Hitler has written that Germany must regain lands ‘in the East… by the power of the sword.’ Little did Chamberlain know that he had misinterpreted Hitler’s aims.

Appeasement was destined to fail because Hitler could never be satisfied and the appeasers did not understand they were dealing with an aggressive, unreasonable dictator. Hitler Nazi ideologies stated the future of the German people could

The Third Reich, instead, centered itself with the concept of power as Adolf Hitler had the final say in both domestic legislation and German foreign policy, which was guided by a racist belief. They made increasingly aggressive territorial demands along with threatens of war is they were not met. An evidence for this would be when Hitler began the secret building of Germany’s army and weapons, and then broke the terms of the Munich Agreement – a policy of appeasement used by the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, and invaded the rest of