Preview

Why Did Britain and France Accept to the Munich Agreement?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2205 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Did Britain and France Accept to the Munich Agreement?
Why did Britain and France accept to the Munich Agreement?

On 29 September 1938, the four leaders of Germany, Italy, Britain and France signed an agreement on the fate of the Sudeten territory in Czechoslovakia, without the Czechoslovak authorities present, which, it would seem at the time, was a guarantee of peace. Such was the premise of the event, but in reality it represented the abandonment of Czechoslovakia (Weinberg, 1988: 165), by France in particular, and the naïve nature of the foreign policy of both Britain and France. It was a failure in upholding basic civil rights, and a manifest of weakness of the two countries to stand against the bully, Hitler. There are a few reasons for this: the inexperience in facing a new enemy, dictatorship, the times were bad for a war, (not many years had passed since the last Great War and the economies still felt the effects of the Great Depression,) the public opinion was against another war; the failure of the League of Nations, and the Locarno Treaty, in making countries work together, instead of following their own, selfish, ambitions, and, most important of all, the policy of appeasement, due to Neville Chamberlain.

Chamberlain's policy of appeasement rested on the theory that the objectives of Hitler were essentially “limited in scope... to reversing the wrongs which... had been done to Germany in 1919” (Thomson, 1990: 737). This fatal assumption that the fascist movement had limited objectives and the removal of nationalist grievances would satisfy it, was followed by years of false talks and sense of achieving peace, when the truth was quite the opposite. Furthermore, Chamberlain was inexperienced in foreign affairs, and he had a desire to reach Anglo-German alliance to follow up with what his father, Joe Chamberlain, had started (Adamthwaite, 1977: 62). By ensuing such an alliance, he would, at least on paper, bring peace, something that would be a major achievement for the Tories in the looming General



Bibliography: Adamthwaite, A. P. (1977) The Making of the Second World War. London, George Allen & UNWIN. Bell, P. M. H. (2007) The Origins of the Second World War in Europe. 3rd ed. Harlow, Pearson Longman. Boyce, R. and Robertson, E. M. (1989) Paths to War. Basingstoke, MACMILLAN. Eubank, K. (1963) Munich. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. Kitchen, M. (2006) Europe Between the Wars. 2nd ed. Harlow, Pearson. Price, G. W. (1939) Year of Reckoning. 2nd ed. Watford, Cassell. Ripka, H. (1939) Munich Before and After. London, Victor Gollancz LTD. Snell, J. L. (ed.)(1962) The Outbreak of the Second World War. Thomson, D. (1990) Europe since Napoleon. 3rd ed. Aylesbury, Penguin. Young, R. J. (1978) In Command of France. London, Harvard University Press.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    German Aggression Dbq

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Within two years of consolidating power over Germany, Hitler and the Nazi Party had commenced operations to reverse the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles which had treated the German people in an unfair manner. Among these reversals included foreign diplomatic measures which would ensure that Germany would annex the territories it had lost at the conclusion of World War One. In September of 1938, with Europe on the brink of yet another major war, Great Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain called the four powers – Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain – to convene in Munich and address German aggression against Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland. Among Neville Chamberlain’s goals for the conference was the notion to avoid…

    • 1107 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    DBQ world war 2

    • 2303 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Actions were taken that moved Europe toward war. The debate over the causes of World War II provides…

    • 2303 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • 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
  • 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

    Intimidation from Fascist leaders was a factor that led to the illogical events of World War II. Adolf Hitler, chancellor of Germany, justified his barbaric actions on his attempt to benefit the "superior" German race. The effects of his ambitions were displayed during the Munich Conference in 1938. Hitler invited the Prime Minister of Britain and the Premier of France and demanded that the Sudetenland become part of Germany. Due to France and Britain's fear of another war, Hitler's demand was accepted. The appeasement, or agreement in order to maintain peace, at the Munich Conference was said to have "saved Europe from a world war," as stated by William Shirer. Contrary to Shirer, Europe would still be involved in war and things would only get worse.…

    • 436 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War II DBQ

    • 713 Words
    • 3 Pages

    One of them being that Germany was frustrated over the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was upset that they had to follow unfair demands, including paying for all of the damages of World War I, lessening their armies, and limiting their military. In time, an aggressive ruler in Germany came to power named Adolf Hitler. Hitler felt that the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles was unfair, so he did the opposite of what the treaty stated and put all the money into building a stronger military. As time went on, Germany wanted to reunite their brother land (doc 1). Since other powerful countries feared the power of Hitler and his army, they gave into him, following the policy of appeasement. They agreed to the terms in which the “Big Four” gave Czechoslovakia over to Germany in order to resist war (doc 4). Hitler believed it was their right to the land because Germany owned it, post-World War I. In addition, at the start of World War II, most nations were in a worldwide depression. This state of depression, made it easier for aggressive and charismatic rulers to take control over weak nations. The people hoped the powerful rulers would help to fix and change the economy. Many of the great powers thought it was a good idea to give into appeasement. On the other hand, many disagreed and argued that by giving into one demand today would cause the nation to weaken “tomorrow” (doc…

    • 713 Words
    • 3 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

    To be able to nurture America, the founding fathers strongly believed in isolationism because unique geographical position America was in. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, illustrated the fact that the country isn't compatible with European interests, and warned the country about alliances. Although America was isolationist, they still built up their economy, expanded their borders, and intervened in neighboring wars. In 1867, called Seward’s Folly, the United States purchased Russian land, now known to us as Alaska, marking the new beginning of American imperialism, the colonized colonizing.…

    • 197 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Second World War: A Military History. New York: Thomas Dunne /St. Martin's, 2011. Print. Diehl, Lorraine B.…

    • 1793 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    World War II was arguably the largest and most destructive war in history. It shaped the world we live in today and its shadows can still be found. Battles were fought on multiple continents, the air, and the sea. The many facets of the war have been explored by scholars and students for over 65 years. The many causes, the results and the importance of the battles won or lost lies in the eyes of the author. It can easily be assumed that this war flared from the cinders of World War I, but complexity of it expands from there. Similar to WWI, there were many conflicting situations leading up to the war, (Treaty of Versailles, Hitler and Mussolini’s actions, and failure of appeasement and the League of Nations) but Germany’s invasion of Poland set the wheels in motion (parallel to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in WWI). This resulted in Britain and France declaring war on Germany in September 1939 (historyonthenet).…

    • 660 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Ww2 Good War?

    • 3183 Words
    • 13 Pages

    [ 7 ]. Talbot Imlay, Facing the Second World War: strategy, politics and economics in Britain and France 1938 – 1940, (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003), 111.…

    • 3183 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    He achieved this through his utilization of logos and pathos. When Chamberlain said “If out of the struggle we again re-establish in the world the rules of good faith and the renunciation of force, why then even the sacrifices that will be entailed upon us will find their fullest justification”, he gives good moral reasons why the British must enter the conflict against the Nazi’s. He describes the Nazi’s again by using logos and pathos, saying, “As long as that Government exists and pursues the methods it has so persistently followed during the last two years, there will be no peace in Europe. We shall merely pass from one crisis to another, and see one country after another attacked by methods which have now become familiar to us in their sickening technique”. He explains that the effect of letting the German people do as they please is that Europe will be plunged into years of struggle, with violence and plagues of death being the toll. Chamberlain needed the emotional support of his citizens. He used pathos in this address to win their trust. He gains his audience back by using pathos and reminding them of grim times, such as World War One, it is still fresh in nearly every ones minds. Chamberlain says, “The thoughts of many of us must at this moment inevitably be turning back to 1914, and to a…

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The representatives in the conference decided to give Hitler what he wanted. He felt that most Europeans would be happy they wouldn’t have to fight a war, though Czechoslovakia wouldn’t be happy because they had to give away their land.…

    • 728 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Higher History

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages

    There was a large lack of confidence in British defences in 1938, they were poorly equipped and what they did have were nothing compared to new modern warfare equipment other countries possessed. It’s strongly arguable that by September 1939 Britain were far more prepared for a war with Germany and if they had rushed into it a year before, they would have gotten destroyed. At the end of the war Hitler claims that if he’d got war when he wanted it in 1938 he would have won. In comparison many believe that Czechoslovakia was the most well defended country in Europe at the time, they had a strong army and their borders would be difficult to pass through. Without British and French support they would not react however, if all three parties had come together it is possible they would most likely to have been powerful enough to overthrow Hitler from the very start. Opinions considering this situation are very much split for the overall success of the Munich agreements.…

    • 673 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays