Preview

Why Appeasement Was The Right Policy In Response To Germany

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1301 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Appeasement Was The Right Policy In Response To Germany
Abby McGuire Ms Burke World History May 23, 2024.

Why Appeasement was the Right Policy in Response to Germany?

The interwar period was one of the most fragile times in Europe as the nation grappled with the effects of World War I and the chaos from the Great Depression. As a new power formed in Germany with the name of Adolf Hitler, the Allied Powers had to decide whether to keep peace or resume the conflict between regions. The Treaty of Versailles was a punishment towards Germany that limited their economic and military power. In response, Hitler targeted these conditions, forcing Britain to find approaches to avoid a second war. As raising concerns grew, Great Britain needed to find a way to rearm and form a commonwealth. Appeasement was
…show more content…
). The Treaty of Versailles forced Britain to take more cautious steps while the targeted nation was in rage. In June 1935 the British signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement with Nazi Germany which “allowed Germany to maintain a naval force much larger than what they were permitted to maintain under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles' (USHMM, 2023). Not only did this prevail as a solution to prevent a naval arms race between nations, but also a way to acknowledge part of the damage they caused with the Treaty of Versailles (USHMM, 2023). By 1938, Chamberlain spoke up at the United Kingdom’s House of Commons and defended the Munich conference by stating, “that we should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them [...]” (Chamberlin Doc A). This is exactly what the method of appeasement aims to do, whether they exceed or not. The harshness of the Treaty of Versailles played such a crucial role in making appeasement the right choice because it compelled Britain and France to adopt this strategy in order to buy time and avoid immediate conflict. By choosing to not carry out immediate conflict, they were led into war they were far more prepared for. The second reason why

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Why was the world plunged into WWII in 1939, what is the most effective response to aggression, appeasement, or collective security?…

    • 436 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    WWII DBQ

    • 907 Words
    • 4 Pages

    During the early 1920s, World War I had just ended, and many countries were not happy with the outcome. The Treaty of Versailles was a poor settlement to World War I, and left three particular countries unhappy; Germany, Italy, and Japan. The Treaty of Versailles left many limitations on Germany, and failed to give Italy and Japan the recognition they deserved. During the 1930s, these countries decided to take action, and fight for what they wanted. Though both appeasement and collective security were taken in response, collective security proved to be the more effective response to the aggression.…

    • 907 Words
    • 4 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
  • Good Essays

    I believe that appeasement was the reason for the breakout of World War 2, as Hitler had violated so many rules of the Treaty of Versailles and invaded so many countries without having anyone stop him. The Policy of Appeasement failed to work, as the more land and power Hitler received, the more he wanted to get. Britain and France should have taken matter in their own hands and stopped Hitler before it was too late, rather than simply allowing him to do whatever he wanted, whenever he…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The First World War ended in an Allied victory, but the economies of Britain and France were shattered. In order to rebuild their economies, they had to disarm rapidly. The First World War had also given rise to strong anti-war sentiments, especially in Britain and France. Germany, who was blamed entirely for the outbreak of the First World War, received harsh reparations and was forced to sign the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which made Germany lose territory, as well as limited her armaments. This sparked resentment in the Germans who felt injustice that the war was entirely blamed on them which was prominently evident in Adolf Hitler who rose to power as Fuhrer of Germany in 1933. The highly nationalistic Nazi leader came into power a goal: to make secure and to preserve the racial community and to enlarge it. He hated the Versailles settlement and wanted to destroy it, hence fore building up the army and recovering lost territories to preserve German race. Therefore the in contrast to the Allies, Germany under Adolf Hitler was aggressive and influenced by revisionism. In attempt to preserve peace and not start a war with Germany, Britain and France, the two great powers gave in to Germany instead of standing against the aggressive Hitler. Appeasement is a term often applied to the overly acquiescent foreign policy practiced by Neville Chamberlain when dealing with Hitler’s Nazi regime. However, instead of preserving peace that Britain and France desperately wanted, it ironically allowed Hitler who did not have concrete plans on how to achieve his goals, to exploit their weakness and used situations in his advantage, which then resulted in the Second World War. While some may agree to this stand, others argue that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning as seen from his book Mein Kampf and later on…

    • 2372 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Even though the Treaty of Versailles was meant to end future conflict, all it did was Influence a World War.Some of the reasons why include Germany wanting their land back, wanting a full army, having to pay billions of dollars to all the allied nations, and how the treaty made Germany feel as a whole.…

    • 690 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In March of 1936, Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, which was the ultimate act of appeasement, because the political powers at the time failed to stand up to him. The author displays this by labelling one of the “spineless leaders” as the Rhineland. The source is critical of appeasement and how it allows dictators to walk all over everybody, which is exactly what Hitler did in the years leading up to, and during World War…

    • 883 Words
    • 4 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

    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

    It all started when Britain and France started negotiating with Hitler on the matter of Czechoslovakia and whether its occupants should accept the new German rule of their land. The leader of the Nazi Party eventually convinced both Chamberlain and Daladier, representatives of England and France, respectively, that refusal to cooperate would result in certain war. With no other way out in sight, the two countries retreated, convincing the Czechs that submission was the only safe alternative. At the Munich Agreement, Britain and Germany signed a peace treaty, which resulted in Hitler’s occupation of what would soon be a dismantled Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain returned home, claiming to have secured “peace for our time”. Truthfully, he could not have been more mistaken.…

    • 667 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
  • Better Essays

    Two month later, after WWI, leaders gathered in Paris to make a treaty, the treaty of Versailles. This treaty like all treaties in history, was to help maintain peace and to prevent war. But in this case, it is not the same. The treaty actually encouraged war, than to prevent it (nv.cc.va.us).…

    • 2429 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Best Essays

    This paper will take a critical look into what the policy of appeasement was about, the factors that led Britain and France to adopt it, its advantages, disadvantages, and the impact it had on the World War 2. The policy of appeasement is a diplomatic policy that allowed enemies to find a common ground with one another to avoid war. The term was very common after the World War I because no country wanted to be involved in another war. The consequences of the First World War threw Europe into economic, political and social instability. Britain and France were not prepared for another war as their economies were in bad shape following the great depression on Wall Street crash. The First World War had left various undesirable impacts in the world. Moreover, amongst a genuine desire for peace, there was always the old British desire that no single party should rule Europe.…

    • 1943 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hitler; Wwii

    • 2243 Words
    • 9 Pages

    During 1935-39 Britain and France used the policy of Appeasement in a conscious manner to avoid war entirely. Britain and France were obliged to continue Appeasement as they had already seen the atrocities of 1914-18 and had a strong commitment to maintain peace in Europe. There was a mutual…

    • 2243 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays