Throughout history, negotiation has been a powerful tool used by world leaders to avoid violence and solve conflict. When negotiation succeeds all parties can feel that that have achieved their goals and met their expectations, but when negotiations go awry countries and relationships can be damaged beyond repair. The Munich Agreement of 1938 is a primary example of this type of failure, which was one of the catalysts to the start World War II and Czechoslovakia’s loss of independence. The Czech people were greatly overlooked during this agreement process, which still in some instances affects the country today. The 1930s were a challenging time for Europe and the powers within it due to the aftermath of WWI and the worldwide economic depression. Meanwhile, Fuhrer Hitler and the Nazi party were continuing their domination of Europe and threatening to invade Czechoslovakia, which many felt would most likely incite another World War. To prevent this England, France, Italy and Germany entered into an agreement, which would allow Germany to seize control of Sudetenland and is today known as the ‘Munich Pact’. Sudetenland had a large German population and its borders were in strategically strong areas for the German military. For negotiations to be successful there are many components that one must be aware of such as personalities of all parties, end goals of each person and the history from the country. England led the process with an appeasement policy as an attempt to mollify Hitler and the Nazi party and prevent war, which this pact did not. The Munich Pact is a perfect example of how negotiation can fail when all of the pieces do not fall correctly into place. When first beginning the negotiation process it is important to look... ... middle of paper ... ...en dealt with in a firm manor. Hitler was able to use his countries momentum and his negotiation skills to achieve what he wanted for Germany and made a deal he knew that he was not going to honor and eventually lead to WWII. Prime Minister Chamberlain also needed to be aware of possible deception that he was likely going to face with dealing with Germany. “When German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1929, Hitler’s promise that Sudetenland was his ‘last territorial demand’ was revealed for the lie it has always been. At best Chamberlain’s summit diplomacy has bought Britain another 11 month to prepare for war at the considerable expense of Czechoslovakia’s freedom”(Rathbone 19). In fairness, Chamberlin had avoided war for a period of time, but the consequences were much greater in the sense that war was inevitable and his people’s lack of faith.
Britain afford to pay for a war like this? The only way to pay for a
It failed to produce the desired results, but rather added fuel to the fire. At the Munich Conference the Big Four discussed the demands for the territory of Czechoslovakia and ultimately gave into Hitler’s request. While many people like Neville Chamberlain argued that appeasement was the best option Winston Churchill viewed it as a consequential decision. Churchill stated that he, “thinks of all the opportunities to stop the growth of Nazi Power which have been thrown away.” No action was taken to establish the security of Czechoslovakia making the Nazi’s more powerful. Appeasement did not defer the hostility that the desire for expansion brought on, but made it escalate. When Ethiopia was invaded by the Italians the emperor, Haile Selassie, was denied assistance from the Leage of Nations. He warned them what would happened if the aggressors were not stopped and wrote, “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.” Haile Selassie knew that aggressors were going to continue to seek for more land and that any nation could be attacked next. Not only was appeasement an effort to satisfy the demands of dissatisfied powers in hope of maintaining stability, but it was also the disregardance of possibly serious conflict. The League of Nations incapability to be a forceful united front allowed for the Axis Powers to become even more willing to break boundaries. Appeasement was used to be the path of least resistance, but it would never stop the
During the Peace Conference there was two themes that was very critical. The first is that each victorious European ally had betrayed the new diplomacy of President Woodrow Wilson and therefore deprived the postwar international order of its moral
...w by pursuing what they believed to be the “best-case scenario.” Hitler probably could have been stopped if the British had stood up to him in the Rhineland Crisis. Because it was so early in his pursuit for continental domination, he did not yet have the mainstream support that he would by the actual beginning of the war. If he had failed Germany early, perhaps he might have been overthrown. However, all of the agreements and dilemmas described were much too overwhelming for the British government to handle alone, and the optimistic results that the British hoped for would never transpire. After Hitler was able to manipulate the British into signing the Anglo-German Naval Pact, he knew that each nation and League could be dealt with separately in order to achieve his goals. It was during the Rhineland Crisis that the precedence for World War II was set.
Many believe that with the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War One, the prelude to World War Two was put in motion. At the time many Europeans, who were still hurting from the war, were not concerned that the restrictions put upon Germany were too stringent. But it gave Germans a reason to elect Hitler to the Chancellorship of Germany in 1933. While Britain tried to ignore the new leader of Germany, they could not ignore him any longer when the Saar Basin voted to return to Germany. As part of its World War I repatriations, the Saar Basin had been given to France because of the territory’s natural resources and such.1
Collective Security would have been a better option because even Chamberlain, a supporter of appeasement, knew that if it came down to it he would fight Germany. If he knew there was a possibility of having to fight Germany, using Collective Security to keep Hitler within his own country would have made him easier to
MacMillan points out that it always needs to be remembered that the conference took place in the aftermath of not only the worst world war, but at the time, the only one that had taken place. When the reader is able to learn the environment in which the treaty came to be, they are able to understand why it was unable to completely fix the problems in post-war Europe. Furthermore, MacMillan argues that the negotiators created the treaty within an atmosphere of fear. The negotiators had to deal with the possibility of being unable to return European civilization to its pre-war conditions. In addition, the negotiators had the fear that there was worse still to come. When looking at the background factors that went into creating the Treaty of Versailles by reading MacMillan’s work, the reader is able to have a better sense of the conditions in which the treaty was created. MacMillan’s perspective on the Paris Peace Conference allows the reader to view the negotiators as human, capable of making errors, instead of important political figures that could do no
David Reynolds has written and enlightening book named “From Munich to Pearl Harbor” discussing three main objectives dealing with World War II. The first of the three objectives is to provide a detailed and clear narrative story from the years between Munich to Pearl Harbor. The second of the three purposes or objectives of the book is to analyze and show how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the American people into a new perspective on international relations that were different from anything Americans had known. The last of the three objectives of the book is to show the developments between the years of 1938 through 1941. Many of these developments were very important later for the foreign policy of the United States not only during the Second World War but also during the Cold War complications with Russia and today with President Bush’s war on terror currently taking place in Iraq.
protected the way would be clear for the great fight against Judeo-Bolshevism in the Soviet Union, and the gaining of a Lebensraum for the superior Aryan German race. Since coming to power in 1933, Hitler had. completed the first phase of his program save for the making of a British alliance or at least their promise of neutrality in any upcoming European war of revisions. Realizing that the British would need some coercing to accept his program, and that if war was to come with the west his eastern. border must be secured, Hitler relied on his great ability to play the game. of power politics and shocked the world by allying with his sworn enemy.
Appeasing Hitler was primarily done for one goal; to avoid war and the many terrible things that came along with it. When World War I finally ended in 1918, millions of lives and dollars were lost. As a result, discussing problems seemed to be in everyone’s best interest. No one should ever be blamed for not wanting war because it’s very serious and not something that should be dealt with lightly. With saying that, appeasement was simply a negotiation, a way to solve problems without fighting, and nobody had a way of knowing what Hitler planned to do in the future. As Mackenzie King stated “Hitler appeared to be ‘a man of deep sincerity and a genuine patriot” (King, 1937) meaning that he seemed like the type of person who could obey rules and negotiate his problems, without causing conflict. Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain once said, “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is, that we should be digging t...
Churchill’s parliament position was really weak as the former prime minister Chamberlain stayed in position in the War Cabinet and he and his loyalists took control of the conservative party. Many of them distrusted Churchill. Churchill’s test came soon enough to prove his power. When everyone in the parliament got convinced to negotiate and sign a peaceful agreement with Hitler, Churchill refused. Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler never met. Churchill was the only logical man who could perceive things as they are. When Roosevelt and many other leaders were convinced that Hitler was just a strong statesman, he actually could see that they’re fooled and that Hitler was the bloodiest fascist warmonger. Churchill made a speech to his cabinet, (he was very well-known for his passionate speeches) while the Cabinet was too close to go through a negotiation with Hitler and Hitler was too close to win the war. He calmly started with his speech with the following words: “I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with that man” and finally ended up with these: “And I’m convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last let it end only when
In order to stop the fighting between countries, Europe needed to put some actions into effect because appeasement was not working. Germany proved that by disregarding the Versailles Treaty. According to Hitler after disregarding the Versailles Treaty, “I look upon this day as marking the close of the struggle for German equality status…the path is now clear for Germany’s return to European collective cooperation” (Document 3, 1936) This quote explains a vast difference between Hitler’s and the other European countries' views. With Hitler’s affirmation to make Germany equal and even more powerful than the other European countries, the other European countries would have to set up collective security because they would have very little insight on what Hitler would be planning; leading to more destruction. Now, Europe would be more prepared if Hitler decided to attack. A quote from Winston Churchill explaining why collective security is the right answer is, “…I think all of the opportunities to stop the growth of Nazi power which have been thrown away. The responsibility must rest with those who have control of our political affairs. They neither prevented Germany from rearming, nor did they rearm us in time…Thus they left us in the hour of trial without a strong national defense or system of international security” (Churchill). That quote explains how collective security is the best answer to stop war and the destruction Hitler is
In conclusion, the policy of appeasement was described by some scholars as ineffective. The fact that the policy of appeasement failed to avert World War 2 is a direct justification that it was a wrong-headed policy. The policy allowed Germany to reconstruct its military slowly and eventually was prepared to go into war to defend its military triumph. Chamberlain was aware of Hitler’s ambitions, but thought that the best alternative to deal with his ambitions was negotiations. This was a misguided move which the world is able to learn from.
Hitler (like most Germans) hated the Versailles Treaty and he didn’t want to follow the rules made by it. In fact, step by step he broke the laws. The first step he took was to increase the German army. Germany was only allowed to have an army of 100,000 men, no airforce, no tanks and no submarines. But in an interview with the Daily Mail on March 9, 1935, Goering revealed that there was a German airforce. One weak later Germany also announced that it had an army of 500,000 men. France and England didn’t even object to this. In 1936 Germany signed a treaty with England saying that Germany was allowed a navy one third the size of the British navy. Germany was rearming fast. It wasn’t hard thanks to the good economic growth. But the rearmament was so expensive that in 1936 it was clear that Germany was soon to go into an economic crisis if nothing was done.
It has been almost a century since the first Paris Peace Conference was hold, but even until now, it is a popular yet also controversial event in the history of the world. The Paris Peace Conference took place in 1919 involving more than 1,000 representatives from over 30 nations. The results of the Conference are five treaties regarding terms that, according to the Conference, shall prevent any upcoming conflicts among nations. Although World War II started only after 15 years, nonetheless, the treaties did function as a buffer between countries. Although many resolutions were discussed, the negotiation of the Conference revolves around four main topics, reparation from the previous war losses or limitations on the main Central Power, Germany, self-recognition, President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, and the annexation of land.