Britain's Decision Making Toward Nazi Germany

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.

The Battle of Britain as a Turning Point in the Defeat of German in World War Two

To many, this made appeasement seem unnecessary because it had nothing to slow down in terms of military advancement. Instead of appeasement, a show of great force would have “caused Hitler to either stand down, or begin war with far less support than he had a year ago” (Document C). Great Britain did the opposite of this, and eventually gave into Hitler's demands. Giving Hitler what he wanted, which was Sudetenland, would only cause “Czechoslovakia to be engulfed in the Nazi Regime” (Document B). Germany’s docile state at the time of the appeasement made created little to no necessity for

Appeasement was not the right policy for Britain in 1938 because without this policy, Britain and France could have stopped Hitler and World War 2 from occuring.

Allied victory in 1945 was not always inevitable. Richard Overy comments in Why the Allies Won that ‘no rational man in early 1942 would have guessed at the eventual outcome of the war’ . The key aspect for the Allies in winning the war was the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. Despite evidence suggesting allied victory was achieved through military might alone, this essay will argue that victory in 1945 was down to a multitude of factors and cannot be solely attributed to the use of military. Therefore, other important influences with changed a possible German victory into an inevitable Allied victory which will be discussed include the entry of the USA into the war with its huge population and industrial capacity. In addition, the failure of

The Munich agreement aka Czechoslovak crisis is the most notoriously known example of the appeasement policy. In 1938, the British government was facing decision to allow surrender of Czechoslovak´s Sudeten to Hitler. Two years early in 1936, Britain had already gone through the situation under similar circumstances, when Hitler firstly had tested Britain´s firm policy. It was obvious that Germany had already shaken off the consequences of the World War One the Great Depression from its shoulders and started expended. Whereas, Britain was militarily limited and was dealing with other threats in the Far East, Germany was gaining strength and rearming.

Throughout the years 1933-1939, the Nazis consolidated and strengthened their power over the German people in a number of ways. The debate as to whether they depended on their broad popularity or on terror has been argued by historians ever since. The view given by Gellately in Source 4 strongly agrees with that in the question, whereas Evans, in Source 5 combines the terror and popularity aspects of the regime and says that the German people perceived terror as being popular. Johnson presents the view that the selective nature of Nazi terror created a sense of security for German citizens who should have nothing to worry about. However, on any level it

In the years since 1945, it has become increasingly evident that the alliance between the British and the United States was often in disagreement over the correct strategy to insure the final defeat of the Axis powers. Early on, both British and American staffs could agree that Germany represented a greater military threat than Japan, but they did not often see eye to eye on the strategy that would most efficiently defeat them.

Out of many things that can scare us, the transformation of a person or environment can truly terrify us. Transformation can be erratic and random, so one cannot expect what would happen next and does not allow us to gain control over it. This truly frightens us. As a little girl watching Ratatouille, I was very scared. Before, I thought that it was the rat that scared me, but I now realize that the abrupt changes in the setting was what actually scared me. For example Remy, the main character, starts off on a roof top, then inside a house, then down a sewage “river” in the first few minutes of the movie. To add on, the scenes changed very quickly not giving me a chance to get used to the environment. It unnerved me that I could not expect what would happen next. Transformation in character and setting can instigate fear in with their erratic nature and can develop an uncertainty of what will happen next. There are many examples in literature where a character or setting goes through a transformation that establishes a sense of fear in the audience. Some examples of transformation creating fear can be seen in “The Fall of the House of Usher” and “Where is Here?” with changes in the characters and abnormal changes of the houses. “The Feather Pillow” also features how transformation can induce fear when Alicia’s health worsens as the monster inside her pillow grows.

The first source that will be evaluated is J. Noakes and G. Pridham’s documentary “Hitler’s War | 1939”, created in 2001. The origin of this source is valuable because Professor Adam Tooze is a British historian and was Reader in Modern European Economic History at the University of Cambridge and professor at Yale University. He also wrote a book that provides an interpretation of the dramatic period of statistical innovation between 1900 and the end of World War II. Sir Richard John Evans, FBA, FRSL, FRHistS is a British academic and historian, best known for his research on the history of Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly the Third Reich. He wrote several books about history of Germany and Hitler. Furthermore this source represents a clear point of view and evidence about Hitler’s dreams and beliefs for Germany because Professor Tooze and Sir Richard J. Evans are experts in European Economic and history of Germany. However this source is limited in that Professor Tooze argues that all Hitler wanted from war was to create a new master race to create a stronger Germany but Sir Evans argues that Hitler’s dream was to conquer eastern europe to create an

This paper will examine the claim that “war is merely a continuation of policy by other means” in regards to World War II. It will first examine the broad context in which Clausewitz constructed this theory, that “war is merely a continuation of policy”, and then move on to widen the scope of investigation to that of Clausewitz’s theory in connection with WW2. Within the scope of WW2, this paper will specifically be inspecting how Clausewitz’s theory can be seen in the United States, Britain, and German policy and war strategy during WW2 . The German perspective of this paper will examine how economy played into German policy and how consequently, this contributed to Germany’s effort and success in waging a second world war. This paper will then explore FDR (United States) and Churchill’s (Britain) approach to policy and military objectives within WW2. Finally, the United States aspect will deal with how evident Clausewitz’s theory is when dealing with policy in Japan. The end result of this paper will be that of connecting the claim that ‘war is merely a continuation of policy by other means’ to the context of WW2, specifically the countries of the United States, Britain, and Germany and their political objectives and war tactics.

I have gathered you all here today, because recent events have really had the whole town in uproar… I thought I should remind y’all that Just because their are folk… white folk… that would discriminate against us coloured… that would go out of out their way to cause us trouble… Does not mean, we should prejudice these people and expect them all to commit such acts upon us all. Myself personally, rasin’ two white children, and tendin’ to their property, I ‘ave begun to truly see, that there are those who would help, and who would look out for our kind in times ‘o trouble. Mr Finch for instance, Is a man of kindness, a man who would fight for coloured folk in court even if he knew the odds were against him. I can bet that there be plenty ‘o other folks, who would treat us like human bein’s... Now… I been hearin’ crazy talk about startin’ a riot.

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.

It all begins on October 15, 1988 in Ottawa, Canada. 27 year old Beverly has just moved into her new house on Cherry Street believing that the suburban lifestyle will help her relax and figure out what she wants to do with. However, she does not know what adventures are to come from this house and what adventures lie ahead of her.

Because Hitler’s vision did not translate into an effective strategic plan, with clear strategic objectives a disconnect between what Germany wanted to achieve (ends), the way it wanted to achieve it (ways), and the resources it would choose to utilize (means) was created. As such, it is this disconnection that also played a large role in Germany’s failure to translate its tactical and operational victories into strategic success and overall victory. Examples of this disconnect and the calamitous effects are clearly present in a quick analysis of the Battle of Britain.