Appeasement: Yay or Nay?

It was clear in 1939 that Britain's policy of appeasement had failed when Hitlers actions demanded for more and Chamberlain continued making concessions hoping it would be his last demand
1. This eventually left Britain and France no option but to make a stand and declare war on Germany when they invaded Poland
2. Churchill found Chamberlains policy of appeasement a weakness for Britain and Hitler could not be trusted and the British public also thought this too
Appeasement was based on avoiding war, making concessions and trusting Hitler. However this may be the wrong policy for Britain to follow because if they had of acted more decisively and chose a more strict policy, such as resisting to Hitlers actions; then maybe Hitler wouldn't of drove Europe to war and Britain and France wouldn't of needed to act against Germany to protect Poland's independence
Arguments in favour
1. WW1 shattered Britain as it was the most devastating wars to ever happen. 20 million people died and and economies were destroyed. The effects of the 'Great Depression' were still rubbing off in Europe and there was no way Britain was in a good financial state to afford a war
2. Some people felt sorry for Germany due to the harshness of the T of V. Many thought it was unfair and saw it was acceptable when they took back lost territory such as the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, reuniting with 'Anschluss' and even the occupation of the Sudetenland being acceptable
3. The Soviets were making reforms to make their country stronger, so keeping on Hitler's 'Good Side' seemed like a good idea as he was a strong anti-communist who may prevent communist spreading from future attempts by the Soviets
4. Policy of Appeasement may have been made up as a cover for that Britain is simply not ready for war (theory-1936). It gave Britain an excuse to rearm and build up military defences to fight the inevitable war with Hitler in the future
  1. Britain had a better chance of winning in 1938-9 when they had built up their armed forces (500 million spent that year)
Arguments against
1. As appeasement was built on trust and people acting honourable, Hitler found this as a weakness and began taking advantage of this policy when he kept demanding for more and saw each concession made by Chamberlain as a weakness. He started believe that Britain or France would not stop him and he would rapidly become stronger
2. With this policy Britain and France wanted to avoid war at all costs, they both were so determined to keep Hitler 'Happy' that they started to resent other countries such as the 'Soviets' who would have been a great ally at war when faced with Hitler as he would of had been force to fight on two 'fronts'. However due to Britain and France not inviting Stalin to the Munich conference he did not trust them and certainly did not want to be on friendly terms with they as he was very suspicious. They did not aim to keep peace with independent countries who they promised to keep their 'independence' in the treaty of Versailles (Czechoslovakia- gave the Sudetenland to Germany without them being invited or consulted with at the Munich Conference).
3. Without the belief in appeasement Britain and France could of stopped Hitler without war. If French/British troops resisted at the Rhineland Hitler even said he would have ordered his troops to retreat, but Britain and France were weakend

Nächster

Appeasement: Yay or Nay?

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von milliewernyj17 vor mehr als 11 Jahre