Preview

Asses the View That Appeasement Was the Only Realistic Option for Chamberlain in 1938

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
747 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Asses the View That Appeasement Was the Only Realistic Option for Chamberlain in 1938
Asses the view that appeasement was the only realistic option for Chamberlain in 1938

Appeasement was the British foreign policy adopted by Chamberlain in the wake of World War Two. This policy was seen as cowardice and Chamberlain received huge criticism for maintaining it throughout the road to war and died with the title of the man who was too coward to stand up to Hitler and his Nazi Germany which led to World War One. Churchill, a very strong opponent of appeasement, notoriously said “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last”[1]. However it wasn’t till the late 1960s that official Government documents on the subject were publically released which created a new view on Chamberlain and appeasement and that it was the only realistic policy for Chamberlain and Britain to pursue.

One argument is the view that appeasement was the only realistic option because public opinion supported it and for Chamberlain to lead Britain to war would go against public favour. The First World War savaged Europe and Britain was hit very hard in terms of Human losses. Many families lost men within the family and left psychological scars nationwide. Chamberlain was therefore desperate to avoid another war on the continent at all costs. If Britain was to go to war they would have to rearm and build on their armed forces which had been neglected since world war one. However public opinion was that if Britain was rearming then they would be preparing for war, which was incredible unpopular. Evidence of this was in east Fulham by-election of 1933 the conservative who advocated rearmament turned a majority of 14,000 into a defeat by 5000 at the hands of his labour approach who supported disarmament. This illustrated the political affect that rearmament and policies that move towards War had which was a reason as to why Chamberlain saw appeasement as the only realistic option.

Historian Howarth exemplifies this in his book by saying

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Chamberlain suggested appeasement in hopes of keeping peace and avoiding war. He wanted to avoid war for as long as possible and keep the Europe out of war unless a bigger reason arose.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    ‘Britain’s attempts to appease Mussolini in the 1930’s were successful’ Explain why you agree or disagree with this view. (24 marks)…

    • 895 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another result of appeasement was Hitler gaining the support he needed as time passed. Lastly, Germany took control of Austria. The Holocaust and many other events could have been avoided if the world leaders did not choose to give in to the demands of Hitler. Even though the world leaders thought they were doing the right thing to protect their nation by standing by and doing nothing as Hitler went forth with his plans, they were actually hurting their countries even more because by choosing to appease Hitler, they allowed him to do things that would change the world…

    • 683 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War II DBQ

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In the early 1920s, as World War I ended, nations looked for peace as an outlet and hope for the future. As time passed, most countries were happy that the Great War had ended, however they were upset with the outcome. Since there were many costly expenses from the war, it caused many of the hostile nations to look for strong rulers for change. This allowed many harsh dictators to rise to power. These dictators were aggressive rulers and took forceful actions. In order to combat these aggressive rulers, other nations tried to resist war and give in to their demands. This type of action was known as appeasement. Not all countries felt the same way about this response; other countries believed that a collective security would work better.…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The world was plunged into World War II in 1939 for many reasons. There were reasons such as Japan invading Manchuria, Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia, and when Hitler defies The Versailles Treaty. Appeasement was one of the biggest things that lead to WWII. It basically just postponed the War from happening. The Most effective response to aggression at this time was surely collective security. Using Appeasement got the countries no where and didn't benefit them in the least.…

    • 838 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    France and UK came up with the policy of appeasement which was a policy with nazi germany that would allow hitler to take a lot more land than he was supposed to. The reason being is the policy was put into place so that the UK and france would let Hitler do what he wanted as long as he didnt do what they told him not to do. The policy of appeasement however did not work because Hitler was not someone you could appease. Once Hitler invaded poland the policy ended thus ending the reign of letting hitler walk all over…

    • 545 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    As Hitler’s power began to rise during the 30s, many Americans still believed that they could avoid the issue through a policy of appeasement (Document G), though it failed and both Britain and France…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    The Orthodox view that Chamberlain’s policy was foolish and ill-informed came into the limelight during and immediately after the war started, as people could now see the failure of appeasement. From 1939-1960s criticism of appeasement became immense; historians argue that Chamberlain gave into Hitler’s demands far too easily and that he gave in out of fear and to avoid a war. Source A1 is from the book “Guilty Men” which refers to appeasement as "deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying". Unlike Hitler, Chamberlain attempted to create peace from the very beginning, he said "We…

    • 5151 Words
    • 21 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    Appeasement which was done by chamberlain was to satisfy Germany for preventing war. Actually, at that time, Germany was demanding many things which it lost through Treaty of Versaille. Chamberlain who was British prime minister thought Germany was too punished and had rights to return their prohibited things, and he also thought if he did appeasement, it will make Hitler who was the leader of Germany satisfy and war won't happen. So appeasement started. Nowadays, in general, people think Chamberlain was wrong and he shouldn't do appeasement. But it isn't true. Even if appeasement failed and war started, I think appeasement was good.…

    • 675 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The early period of the 1900 had marked history to all parts of the world with World War I and II. During this time, Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain had been major leaders with different views and beliefs separating them. While Winston Churchill was portrayed as the savior of the nation, Neville Chamberlain was totally the opposite. He had been harshly criticized as a failure who easily fell for Hitler's unjustified actions. However, Churchill acknowledges this man with magnanimous respect in his determination for peace and love during the difficult circumstance that he was in.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    First of all, one reason why appeasement was the most effective response because for the time being, it kept peace throughout Europe, and after only 20 years of peace from the Great War, people didn’t want another. While Chamberlain was secretly trying to get more time he claims that he is just trying to keep peace but if necessary, he will take action, “I shall not give up the hope of a peaceful solution…yet if it were sure that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by its fear of force, I should feel that it must be resisted…but war is a fearful thing” (Document 7). This quote signifies that although Chamberlain said he was a man of peace that if he thought it was necessary he would start a war. One problem with appeasement is that some people think that war could have been totally avoided if Hitler had been stood up, “because the Czech defenses were very strong… and because the German generals, conscious of Germany’s relative weakness at that moment, were actually prepared to attempt to remove Hitler” (Document 9). So if the British had stood up to Hitler and beat him, the war would have been over and Hitler subdued.…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Rational Appeasement

    • 15284 Words
    • 62 Pages

    Appeasement has few defenders+ Ever since Neville Chamberlain’s famous piece of paper failed to stop the Nazi advances in the 1930s, making concessions to an aggressor in the hope of preventing war has seemed to most observers rather foolish+ Winston Churchill ridiculed appeasement as the strategy of “one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last+” 1 Reasons for distrusting the policy were, in fact, noticed long before Munich+ Classical political thinkers from Thucydides to Machiavelli offer many statements of the anti-appeasement view+ Appeasement, many argue, is not just futile: it is self-destructive+ The danger is most acute when many potential challengers exist+ Acceding to one challenger undermines the appeaser’s reputation for resolve and encourages others to attack, starting a cascade of dominoes+ The argument received a compelling game theoretic formulation in the solutions of Kreps and Wilson and Milgrom and Roberts to Reinhard Selten’s…

    • 15284 Words
    • 62 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War 2 Dbq Essay

    • 424 Words
    • 2 Pages

    World War II is the cruel, black scar that marks the back of the Twentieth century. After World War I the seeds of World War Two were planted through the unbearable burdens put on the German people from the infamous treaty of Versailles. With the rise of the notorious dictator Hitler, the German people were hungry for a new beginning. Appeasement was one of the biggest things that lead to World War II. It basically just postponed the War from happening. Leaders arose in countries that were unsatisfied with the results of the past war, World War I. Italy, Germany and Japan took action and no one was stopping them. The Most effective response to aggression at this time was surely collective security. Using Appeasement got the countries nowhere…

    • 424 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Appeasement was the right policy for England in 1938. This is because It was based on the idea that what Hitler wanted was reasonable and, when his reasonable demands had been satisfied, he would stop. Appeasement was the only practical action that could be held during that time. England and France were not ready to get into another war. They already had severe damages that they couldn’t afford to get into another war. This gave them time to prepare for war since it is inevitable anyways. It also gave them time to prepare for old and broken equipment. Alliances needed to be made and through this, that was all possible. Also, through this policy, they were able to get public support. Appeasement also allowed Britain time to retool factories for war. Many Britons during that time saw Hitler as a defence against Russian Communism. This all happened because they thought that Hitler would soon be satisfied after remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexation of Austria and czechoslovakia. Wanted to please Hitler this way. The empire was already overstretched and its financial resources quite limited. The U.S. was isolationist. Soviet communism was feared, France was weak. This was all done to prevent war and preventing war is something needed to be done. Their objective was for the collaboration of all nations in building up a lasting peace for Europe. The Czechs, left themselves and told they were going to get no help from the Western Powers, would have been able to make better terms than they have got. This also gave the greatest chance of securing protection for the country. Czechoslovak State would’ve not been able to be an independent entity without this. Chamberlain remembered the slaughter of the…

    • 2172 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    I agree that the policy of appeasement had been a failure but to a certain extent. This is because, appeasement had failed to curb Hitler's appetite for power or land. In fact, what appeasement had done was it encouraged Hitler to demand for more and to go back on his words. Even though he had promised to stop, this was not to be. He took over Poland 6 months after he got the last territory that he had promised- Sudetenland. The point is, given how Hitler had taken advantage of the Allies' desire to avoid war, this only proves that indeed appeasement had been a failure. It was seen that eventually, the very act of appeasement only encouraged Hitler further to the point where he no longer kept his desire to be master of Europe a secret and this led to second world war in Europe.…

    • 495 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays