Appeasement Essay

In his mind, the establishment of this “League of Nations” as it would come to be called, would be an essential part of the post-war peace treaties. In Wilson’s opinion, the USA would have to play a major role in this League of Nations. In Wilson’s eyes, that was the only way to guarantee a lasting peace.

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

The British and French policy of appeasement in the 1930s towards Adolf Hitler and Germany is historically viewed as a feeble attempt to avoid war. In their essay, Wishful Thinking or Buying Time? The Logic of British Appeasement in the 1930s, Norrin M. Rispsman and Jack S. Levy analyze appeasement purely as a tool of statecraft, and not under what circumstances appeasement can be a successful policy. They argue that appeasement is not only used to reduce the possibility of war with an adversary, but it can be used to conserve resources against a more immediate threat, isolate an adversary, or to buy off time to build up a deterrence against that adversary (151). Delving beyond the typology of appeasement, they analyze historical British documents

The Treaty of Versailles was a mockery of what Woodrow Wilson had wanted for the betterment of the world and the longevity of world peace. But the Triple Entente had different views on the consequences for the Central Powers and the world. Britain, Russia, and France had shot down Woodrow Wilson’s one by one, until it came to the League of Nations. The League of Nations, a world saver, a world changer, was also heavily restricted by the Triple Entente. But, it would be accepted as long as the U.S. applied to the Triple Entente’s terms, this outraged the United States. We had entered the war on our own behalf, seemingly saving the Western World itself, but we had to comply? The U.S. Senate was outraged, Wilson was defeated, and the League of Nations spun out of control. It still remained without the U.S, but was neglected by weak and spiteful leaders, causing a spiral downwards to a mere joke nearing the end of the 1930s. But, the League of Nations had shown that The Great War was over, and the time for the Roaring

The League failed when attempting at worldwide disarmament. This barely even got started as the ‘Big 4’ only reduced their armed forces by a miniscule amount before worrying about self-defence. Britain’s excuse was it had to ‘protect’ other weaker nations. Only the Germans ended up disarming. This did not go down well, as these few selfish nations had put their own interests ahead of world peace, which was supposed to be their mission and purpose. The League lost respect for this, but this is their only large failure in the department of agreements and treaties.

Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic

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

This week’s reading analyzed three view points in regards to the British’s decision making towards Nazi Germany. I found the opinions of Andrew Barros and Talbot C. Imalay to be the most interesting. They believed the British’s use of appeasement was due to their actual perception of Nazi Germany. This perception would gradually change over time. British decision making evolves from the British assumptions and beliefs about Nazi Germany. Throughout Barros and Talbot’s argument, the reason for appeasement and the British’s development of a new opinion of Nazi Germany are very logical.

Overall, I believe the faliure of appeasement isnt the main reason for the outbreak of the second world war because it bought Britain time to prepare for conflict. The failure of the League Of Nations to prevent expansionist foreign powers was to blame. It didnt enforce sanctions on Italy, Germany and Japan (as seen in the manchurian crisis) and allowed them to gain the confidence to begin the

When Neville Chamberlain became British Prime Minister in 1937, a policy of appeasement had already begun, Chamberlain adapted it as his own policy “He would find out what Hitler wanted and show him that reasonable claims could be met by negotiation rather than by force” (Lowe). The policy of appeasement’s success is debatable. Although it can be accountable for contributing to World War Two, it did delay a possible war that the Allied powers were not prepared for. It is only with hindsight that it can be said that appeasement was unsuccessful as it was purely justifiable at the time.

It was World War I and chaos and turmoil abound. The Allied nations, in an effort to end the war, wrote the Treaty of Versailles which created the League of Nations. The League’s intent was to govern over the treaty as well as unite nations in hopes to deter future wartime engagements. Germany, Japan, and Italy had other intentions however, and in 1939 the beginning of the Second World War erupted. This caused the League of Nations to dismantle due to its ineffectiveness.

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.

The League of Nations played a small role in the outbreak of war. The two key nations involved in the league were Britain and France, however, as Posselt states one key weakness of the league was that the USA was not involved. The leagues policy of collective security meant that nations would co-operate to preserve peace to avoid an upscale war, following the losses of ww1. The league had no form of military body, relying on its power to condemn aggressors. The League of Nations policy of Collective security proved incapable of dealing with fascist aggression.

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.