Britain 's Policy Of Appeasement

In my opinion, Appeasement was the wrong policy to enact. I completely do not agree with it and if the allies had dealt with Germany firsthand, both appeasement and war would have been avoided. By enacting appeasement, The British government chose to give into Germany’s outrageous demands in order to avoid another devastating outbreak of war. This made the British seem as if they did not want to take action against Hitler. Several sources, a prime example a British political cartoon published in British magazine “The Punch” by critics in 1937. This cartoon portrays the British using appeasement as an excuse to do nothing and waiting for the ticking time bomb Hitler to turn against them. This is important because “The Punch” was an important influence on public opinion; which revealed that even the British

During these times there has been advanced in technology, nuclear bombs, guns, etc… there are nations that are very strong but aggressive, this is because their leaders desire to be better than any other country.   These countries are violent, they would put their people at risk just to be more powerful. There is also lack of trust when it comes to negotiations with Korea and Russia. Having an appeasement is only going to give Korea and Russia the satisfaction of power and is going to show fear that the other countries have. Also later on like what happened in World War I with Germany where they made an agreement to invade a certain land and in the end abuse of the benefit and betrayed the agreement, these aggressive nations will want more.

From historical point of view, the British Appeasement policy to Third Reich resulted, to a great extent, from cooperation and balanced power between Continental States

Germany also rushed into war as a way to prove them as a capable new entity on the European map. It glorified war to its youth as being a speedy rite of passage for young men where they would be able to get shipped off to war so as to gain manhood, and return to their families in a matter of a few weeks. However this was incredibly unrealistic in every sense once the war started heating up; many would be gone for long periods of time and possibly not return at all. Going to war was glorified to such an extreme extent in Germany and was the cause for the greatest loss of life in history in what is now called the ‘Lost Generation’. While Germany thought its antagonistic actions in war were justified in supporting their modern views and ideas, old-fashioned Britain felt their behavior was warranted in that they were trying to defend the old regime that had dominated Western Europe for centuries.

Today, the Appeasement policy that Britain and France in the period of German aggression, was one of the main factors historians would consider to have caused the Second World War. Had the British or any of the Allied powers, intervened in Nazi expansionism, the war could have been prevented as early as 1936, when Germany violated the Treaty of Versailles with the occupation of the Rhineland. The Appeasement is seen as the act of cowardice and of poor judgement of the world powers. Britain, in particular, is in the spotlight. It was still considered the major power as well as the leader the rest of the world looked upon to champion democracy and to uphold its position as the winner of the first world war. There are arguments that with

One of the initial reasons as to why appeasement was in place was due to the opinion of the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain believe that Nazi Germany had an elaborate plan. He believed that

It was believed that the appeasement was created by Britain to back down from their allies, and allow the stronger countries to gain power, wealth and money[1]. However, it gave the appearance that appeasement was put into place to avoid any problems that will be involved in war. The reason that the people tried it avoid was because they were still grieving from WWI and they wanted to not cause another war. This resulted in the people into not stopping Hitler from doing certain activities. For example, when Hitler was expanding his military and going against one of the rules from the Treaty of Versailles, the different countries didn't stop him from doing so. Instead the nations let Hitler expand the military and the people let Hitler do what

A major difference between 1956 and the 1930s was the British position’s position on the morality continuum. The Anti-Appeasement position championed by Churchill during the 1930s had aged very well. By 1956 the horrors of world war two were still fresh memories for all adult Britons and Churchill’s historical writings seemed to cement this view.

The policy of appeasement was used between 1935 and 1939 by the League Of Nations towards Nazi Germany. It involved making concessions to Germany, allowing Hitler to do things such as Anschluss and invade the Sudetenland. Many historians, including Winston Churchill, critisied appeasement at the time.

There are many arguments for and against appeasement before WW2. Appeasement was a policy between Britain, France and Germany. The policy meant that the allies would give Germany what they wanted as long as they didn’t start a war or cause trouble. The Dictionary definition of appeasement is: (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace. Many people now oppose the policy but not many people did at the time apart from the MP Winston Churchill.

Factors Which Lead to a Policy of Appeasement in Britain In the period 1931-38, there were several reasons that the policy of 'appeasement' was taken up by the British government. There were both long and short-term reasons that contributed. The most important, I believe was Britain's belief in Pacifism. The public could not support the war in terms of soldiers, and the government could not support a war financially.

After the mass amount of life lost in World War One, many countries, through the League of Nations, opted to prevent future conflict. Due to the failure collective security, the idea that countries could discourage aggression, appeasement became a policy adopted in the 1930s, especially by the British. Appeasement was developed in the belief that countries such as Germany were unfairly treated in the Treaty of Versailles. It was used in hope to prevent Germany and Italy going to war. “Appeasement was seen to be magnanimous, good business, idealistic and a form of security.” The policy of appeasement was widely pursued by Britain and France in the 1930s, refers to attempting to satisfy Germany 's demands by negotiation and compromise in order to avoid another 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. Despite large extent the policy of appeasement in the outbreak of war it is superseded by other factors as well.

The third long-term factor is Britain’s European policy against political integration in Europe. Britain in the previous centuries consistently maintained the policy of preventing any power to alter the balance of power in Europe. The European Union was not an exception for the British. The country did not change its policy of remaining distant and attentive to European affairs in the 20th century. Churchill stated the traditional British attitude to Europe in 1953.

Political and economic stability was something that was fought hard for during the inter-war period from 1919 through 1939. World War I had a prolific and traumatic influence on how the British people as well as British statesmen influenced, created, and protected foreign policy. This wasn’t something that transformed overnight; rather it took the entire hiatus spent in-between wars to get Britain back on a course with political development. Although, early British foreign policy looked promising to some, the interwar period proved to be a determining factor in Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, which ended in substantial lose of life and upwards of seventy-plus bombings that hit London in the 1940s bombing raids known as “The Blitz.” With the number of foreign policies the United Kingdom has been included on it was difficult to determine the success to failure ratio, which focused my attention on the debated failure of three major foreign diplomatic events that’s shaped the course of history. The Treaty of Versailles, The Manchurian Crisis of 1931, and Neville Chamberlin’s appeasement were all long-term failures involving British foreign policy. These “failures” helped and shaped tension as well as the Second World War.

“The Italians, had discovered the method of preventing any monarch from rising to such a degree of power as was inconsistent with the general liberty” articulates the author of The History of the reign of Charles V, one of the many books, that I surveyed for my undergraduate research paper entitled “British Foreign Policy in the XVIII Century: The Struggle for an European Balance of Power”. As indicated by the title, this project explores a provocative but yet scarcely studied, other than the works of renowned military historian Jeremy Black, facet of British Foreign policy which made Britain a global power and through for example American Independence laid the foundations for the current state of international relations. In brief my research paper argues two main points, the history of the balance of power theory predates modern Europe and its current state, and how British foreign policy was influenced not only by British desire for balance of power in Europe, but by geographic, historical, parliamentary, political and economic influence on foreign policy.