Preview

Neville Chamberlain's Policy of Appeasement between 1937-1939

Best Essays
Open Document
Open Document
5151 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Neville Chamberlain's Policy of Appeasement between 1937-1939
‘As a strategy it was foolish, complacent, ill-informed and ultimately disastrous.’ How valid is this assessment of Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement between 1937-1939?
The policy of appeasement is arguably one of the most contentious of our time; views on appeasement vary, but in some way appeasement can be defined as reconciling or even acquiring peace by the means of concessions or gifts. In terms of appeasement in politics, it is the settlement of international quarrels by satisfying grievances through ‘rational’ negotiation and ‘compromise’ in order to avoid conflict. Prior to Chamberlain’s use of appeasement the word did not have a negative connotation, but due to the nature of the result of Chamberlain’s policy the word has brought along with it the idea of weakness, cowardice and self-deception which often may not be the case. When analysing Neville Chamberlain’s usage of appeasement we must decipher and take into account a number of things, the first being Britain itself, the economic and political state of the country, the voice of the people and the Briton’s views of Germany, Hitler and Nazis; we must explore the pressures that were on Chamberlain’s shoulders and where he stood with Hitler, his beliefs regarding Appeasement and the intentions behind his decisions and identify the prior relationships between the countries involved.
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

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    B7 (Biotin): Depression, lack of intestinal absorption, inflamed bowel syndrome, skin irritation, hair loss, poor muscle control, seizures, development delayed…

    • 1806 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Working to the Fuhrer

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Kershaw examines Hitler’s reign during the 1930s in his essay “Hitler.” The term “working towards the Fuhrer” is instrumental to Kershaw’s depiction of Hitler during the Third Reich. According to Kershaw, through “‘working towards the Fuhrer’, initiatives were taken, pressures created, legislation instigated- all in ways which fell into line with what were Hitler’s aim, and without the dictator necessarily having to dictate.”1 Kershaw argues that the radical action that leduo222222222222 to policy formation was often times provoked from below, and not by Hitler himself.…

    • 1028 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    German Aggression Dbq

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He also points out that his policy served to repair the damage caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Chamberlain further states: “Really I have no need to defend my visits to Germany last autumn, for what was the alternative? Nothing that we could have done, nothing that France could have done, or Russia could have done could possibly have saved Czecho-Slovakia from invasion and destruction.” There existed no other solution to German aggression against Czechoslovakia. With the Munich Agreement signed, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. On the other hand, without an Agreement, it still would have been likely that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Thus, Chamberlain remains blameless for German aggression because the German Empire would have invaded Czechoslovakia in either case. After establishing his innocence, Chamberlain states the inevitability of war against the German Empire: “Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?” How can any of the European powers trust the German Empire after the Munich Agreement was so abruptly ripped up? Any further peace talks will not produce satisfying results because there will always be doubt regarding the German intent to expand its territory. Chamberlain…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The erosion of Neville Chamberlain’s# reputation was brought about quickly as his policy of appeasement failed to prevent WW2. The Cato# collective branded him as a criminal in the ‘Guilty men’#. Churchill# further reinforced this view telling the commons “England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war.”#. These more orthodox views starkly contrast the reactions of the public and media pre-war. Hailed as a hero “Most newspapers supported Chamberlain uncritically, and he received thousands of gifts, from a silver dinner service to many of his trademark umbrellas.”#, with newspapers such as the Stockholm Tidningen# suggesting he receive the Nobel peace prize, Strasbourg renaming her streets overnight and the Telegram# concluding "Your name will go down in history as a statesman who saved civilisation from destruction”#. Ultimately appeasement, “the reduction of tensions between two states by the methodical removal of the principal causes of conflict and disagreement between them, which might otherwise lead to war.”# may not have been the only realistic option, but it was certainly an option and it was taken forward. Used as a synonym for weakness and ‘giving in’ in today’s world, there are Historians who argue that Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement was weak and lead to WW2 such as L.B. Namier, while there are also historians, such as A.J.P Taylor, who argue it was the only realistic option for him, during the years 1936-38.…

    • 2327 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Policy appeasement contributed to the outbreak of war in sept. 1939 because by appeasing Hitler Britain and France gave him the confidence to believe he could ask for anything he wanted. This only reinforced what they’d already shown him, which was they wouldn’t take action if he wanted him broke the treaty, such as when he took over other parts of Europe, such as Sudetenland in 1938 and reoccupying the Rhineland. This made him stronger and more powerful, which made him more likely to start a war because he thought he was more likely to win or for Britain and France not to react in the first place because even though they said that they’d start war if he attacked Poland, he didn’t believe they would. So he invaded and WW2 broke out as promised. Appeasement couldn’t ever of stopped Hitler; it merely suspended war, which made war more likely in sept. 1939 because it gave Britain and France more time to re-arm which meant they were more likely to declare a war they could actually win.…

    • 708 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Germany was becoming the strongest country, and the appeasement of Britain related to this problem so much. Why? Because Britain didn't (not couldn't) rule Germany and actually Hitler got more power. It means the WWⅡ was coming from here because Hitler made the WWⅡ directly. I think the Appeasement was a big mistake of Britain and I want to give four specific reasons. But before that, I want to give both sides of examples to look at the appeasement widely. Was the Munich agreement right or wrong? A positive side can say it made UK prepare or pretend the WWⅡbecause it could guess the WWⅡ was coming. It also means Britain could save deaths. Actually, Hitler…

    • 962 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The years leading up to the declaration of war between the Axis and Allied powers in 1939 were hard times for Europe. Who knew Hitler, a man who had started off with hardly any power, would become the powerful dictator he was. Life was made difficult to live for those who did not reach Hitler’s…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    European countries often thought that this was the proper actions to take. Appeasement is far from an effective way to dealing with aggressions. Appeasement has to do with the aggression of the axis nations in World War II. This took place when Italy invaded Ethiopia. Eventually to conquer and avenge the loss to Ethiopians in 1896. Haile Selassie, Ethiopian king, appeals to the League of Nations. To no avail. Which was led by Britain and France, to aid in fighting off Mussolini’s forces. The League of Nations proved ineffective. This proves that Britain and France disliked any fight. Haile wanted to stop the Italian aggression. If the aggression was not stopped, he, the aggressor, would attack others. Aggressors should not be appeased (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 2). As seen by Winston Churchill, the aggressor must be stopped, Britain, France, and the other countries must join together in a collective security to stop aggression. They should have stopped Hitler when he seized Austria or threatened Czechoslovakia, which was later taken over. The British government is to blame, as it weakened the League of Nations and did not build up their defenses leaving the state in a disaster. The British government also didn’t stop Germany from rebuilding the army. It is pointed out to us that Winston believed that Britain lost the chance to increase Nazi Germany. (AS SEEN IN DOCUMENT 6). (AS SEEN IN EXCERPT 7), Kennan…

    • 960 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Appeasement was the policy adopted by the British and French prime ministers in 1930s towards Germany. The aim of which was to settle international quarrels by satisfying Germany’s grievances, thereby avoid the resort to war which in other words, maintain peace. There are several reasons to why the appeasement policy was adopted. Such as, Britain and France were both suffering from economic depression and thus felt that they could not afford to spend a large expenditure on arms to combat Germany. Besides, there was a feeling that the treaty of Versailles was too harsh towards Germany and it was reasonable to reduce the policies.…

    • 362 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This belief was reinforced when Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler at Munich and gave into his demands for the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. Stalin now believed that the main objective of British foreign policy was to encourage Germany to head east rather than west. Stalin now decided to develop a new foreign policy. (6)…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Failure of Appeasement

    • 1011 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Hitler’s determination to achieve a better Germany caused Nazi aggression which led to the failure of appeasement. The appeasement policy encouraged Hitler to act aggressively and each time he was appeased, it inflated his appetite and confidence to act aggressively to achieve his aims. At the same time, any act of appeasement stood little chance of satisfying him. He would always want more and the more he was appeased, he more aggressive he became to get what he wanted. The appeasement policy also made him more confident his is plans and it also made Britain and France look weak. Thus, instead of controlling peace and negotiating Hitler’s demands, the appeasement policy made Hitler more determined and confident causing him to act aggressively which attacking Poland. This destroyed the appeasement policy’s main aim of preventing a general war and thus…

    • 1011 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The anti-violent practices followed were not able to stop the outbreak of the Second world war thus showing that violent actions must have been taken to stop Hitler. “Great Britain and France, convinced that Hitler was not bluffing, decided that the only way to avoid a general European War was to accept the principle of self-determination, even for Czechoslovakia”(Snyder, 437). According to Snyder Britain and France knew that there was a very real possibility of war and in sticking to the practices of the appeasement non-violent actions were taken but even then the outbreak of the war had followed, showing that the practices of appeasement by Neville Chamberlain were not effective. This was just one example of how the British policy of appeasement failed to stop the outbreak of World War…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Threat of communism, also explains why the appeasement was justified. The biggest problem was the Briton and France couldn't protect many of the countries from Hitler. For example Czechoslovakia and Poland are two good examples of counties that were…

    • 799 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good 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
  • Good Essays

    Records from that time, such as the Chronicles of the Second World War, report his repeated outbursts of deluded grandeur. He had No-Ownership of reality: Countries would not keep surrendering themselves to him for nothing, but that did not stop him making impossible demands. His greed was made even worse by leaders of other countries whose reactions were based on No-Ownership of reality: for example, the failed appeasement attempts of then-Prime Minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, and others. In so doing, they fed his Refusal of…

    • 740 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays