“the Arguments in Favour of Appeasement Were Overwhelming” to What Extent Do You Agree with This Statement in Relation to the British Governments Decision to Appease Germany and Italy Between the Years 1933-36?
“The arguments in favour of Appeasement were overwhelming” To what extent do you agree with this statement in relation to the British governments decision to appease Germany and Italy between the years 1933-36?
There are many arguments for and against appeasement in the 1930’s but the general nature of the GB public at this particular time was one of approval towards Chamberlains ‘Active Appeasement’ policy. There are many good reasons why Chamberlain chose appeasement as his way of tackling the nation’s problems but was appeasement the right decision? Could we maybe have prevented the terrible consequences that came about as a result of appeasement if Chamberlain had gone down a different path? One of the key arguments for using appeasement at the time was because of Britain’s imperial, Economic and defence weaknesses. They had a lack of unity or coherent organisation in the empire therefore if they were to have to go to war they would not be ready. The threat of Arab and Indian nationalism would hinder this as soldiers would be needed to control rebellions and uprisings and that would mean less soldiers fighting in the war. The immense cost of world war one had made the cost of maintaining the empire, rearming and rebuilding Britain difficult as they would not be able to rearm fast enough to fight. There were also doubts of the integrity of the empire, would they even want to fight in another war to sort out something in Europe that has nothing really to do with them. The impact of world war one had made the GB feel vulnerable. Despite some recovery this decline continued raising fears bankruptcy if another war was declared Taking all this into account appeasement would seem the right way to go to help prevent war as Britain’s defence was weak and they were clearly not ready to fight in a war due to the mess of the empire and economic problems like the cost of war. There was a widespread feeling in Britain that Germany had been hard done by at Versailles
There are many arguments for and against appeasement in the 1930’s but the general nature of the GB public at this particular time was one of approval towards Chamberlains ‘Active Appeasement’ policy. There are many good reasons why Chamberlain chose appeasement as his way of tackling the nation’s problems but was appeasement the right decision? Could we maybe have prevented the terrible consequences that came about as a result of appeasement if Chamberlain had gone down a different path? One of the key arguments for using appeasement at the time was because of Britain’s imperial, Economic and defence weaknesses. They had a lack of unity or coherent organisation in the empire therefore if they were to have to go to war they would not be ready. The threat of Arab and Indian nationalism would hinder this as soldiers would be needed to control rebellions and uprisings and that would mean less soldiers fighting in the war. The immense cost of world war one had made the cost of maintaining the empire, rearming and rebuilding Britain difficult as they would not be able to rearm fast enough to fight. There were also doubts of the integrity of the empire, would they even want to fight in another war to sort out something in Europe that has nothing really to do with them. The impact of world war one had made the GB feel vulnerable. Despite some recovery this decline continued raising fears bankruptcy if another war was declared Taking all this into account appeasement would seem the right way to go to help prevent war as Britain’s defence was weak and they were clearly not ready to fight in a war due to the mess of the empire and economic problems like the cost of war. There was a widespread feeling in Britain that Germany had been hard done by at Versailles