Arthur Neville Chamberlain

was a slap in the face. Hitler soon became bitter over the treaty and over the loss of German The

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.

With Germans of all outlooks desperately seeking solutions for the nation's problems, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party began their climb to power. 'Hitler was gifted with effective political talents. He offered an explanation for Germany's defeat, and a vision of Germany's future destiny, that played upon the fears, prejudices, and hopes of many Germans. He promised to rebuild Germany's power and restore its prosperity' (Isaacman, 16). This won the support of many Germans. Hitler was such an effective speaker that anything he said was believed even if it was not true.

As stated in the New York Times, "...Germany today cast off the last shackles fastened upon her by the Treaty of Versailles when Adolf Hitler, as commander-in-chief of the Reich defense forces, sent his new battalions into the Rhineland’s demilitarized zone. . . ." (Document3). Hitler had challenged every condition in the Treaty of Versailles and violated every negotiation made. Territorial aggression and pushed every limit he was given, that disrupted peace. Hitler himself expresses his idea as stated "Oppressed territories are led back to the bosom of a common Reich, not by flaming protests, but by a mighty sword" (Document1). He also, rebuilt the German military and used extreme nationalism to unite Germany. A British historian, A.J.P Taylor expressed, " ...Hitler when he had come to power by constitutional means and was apparently supported by a large majority of the German people?"(Document8). Hitler had gathers supporters through his ideas and his speeches of hope. Hitler's leadership threatened the whole continent of Europe's peace. If his leadership was the ignition to the fire then state or the economy kept the fire running through the

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

Prime Minister Chamberlain suggested the best way to deal with Hitler was a policy of appeasement.

The appeasement policy was not ideal for Europe. It proved to allow Hitler opportunities to gain control over most of Europe. Winston Churchill, a politician and army leader, stated that, “I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances.”(Document B). Churchill believed that if France or Britain put in an effort to strategize and stop Germany, they would have prevented Germany from invading Czechoslovakia. Churchill also further states that, “... I ventured to … pledge that in conjunction with France and other powers they would guarantee the security of Czechoslovakia … and I still believe that if that course had been followed events would not have fallen to this disastrous state…”(Document B). This shows how Europe had many chance to stop Hitler by working together.

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.

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.

Assess the view that appeasement was the only realistic option for British policy towards Germany between 1936 and 1938

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

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

Winston Churchill’s headstrong resiliency in the face of danger defined his career as a war leader. Former Prime Minister David Cameron states,” He was an incredible leader for our country, and indeed for the whole free world, at an impossibly difficult time.” (1). Five months before his inauguration, Churchill gave his speech “House of Many Mansions” wherein he urged the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and other world

“Hitler did not act alone in the conduct of foreign policy in the 1930’s neither did he dictate its course exclusively.” In the early years of Hitler’s reign Taylor was correct to identify him as an ordinary statesman because during this time there was a different formation of Government compared to the later years in the war. However, it is difficult in retrospect to dispute that Hitler was a normal statesman when looking at atrocities of his domestic policies such as; the extermination of Jews in concentration camps. The war was still in the public memory when ‘Origins’ was published and the myth created about Hitler that he was a madman with brutal policies was strongly embedded in society, therefore to argue against this would obviously create much controversy.

It is difficult to examine leadership as a concept without mentioning Winston Churchill. He was at once a brilliant, petty and compassionate man. He is lauded in many texts as one of the greatest leaders of all times for his actions during World War II, and he received awards as the most recognizable person and greatest leader in the twentieth century. The qualities of leadership he displayed though can be widely debated because he was one thing before the public and another to the people closest to him. There is no doubt that without the redoubtable courage of Winston Churchill Strongly leading the charge, Britain, and maybe the world, would not have survived the chaos of World War II. But, he also did do some amount of harm because of his blind self-confidence. The research paper is about the leadership of Churchill, and it looks specifically at his background, capabilities, and then gives conclusions based on his life that give clues as to what leadership actually is.