Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of WW1 on Britain
The impact of WW 1 on Britain
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of WW1 on Britain
History Homework - “Appeasement was a mistake.” Do you agree? Explain your answer. It could be argued that appeasement was a mistake because Hitler would have been defeated if Chamberlain had intervened at an earlier stage; for example, if Chamberlain had shown greater threat and opposition in response to Hitler’s occupation of the Rhineland, Hitler would most likely not have proceeded in his plans to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia. Indeed, if Chamberlain had not allowed Hitler to reclaim the Rhineland, not only would Hitler have felt discouraged to further disobey the Treaty of Versailles, he would not have regained the useful coal, steel and iron resources of the area. This meant that Hitler was harder to stop as he expanded more and more, and …show more content…
After the tragedy that was the First World War, Britain was too scarred by the wounds left from the fighting that another war over the occupation of Austria and Czechoslovakia was out of the question. As Phillip Larkin’s memorable poem, ‘MCMXIV’, professes: “Never such innocence, / Never before or since, / As changed itself to past / Without a word”. The First World War had such an impact on Britain that they refused to look at war the same way. Chamberlain was one of the majority of Britain’s public figures who did not wish to declare war upon any country without trying any other means necessary beforehand. Moreover, Britain’s physical detachment from the conflict (being isolated as an island) may have contributed to its inability to truly sympathise with the issue and value it as important enough to risk war over. This meant that the majority of people in Britain at the time agreed with Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement as it offered an alternative to the possibility of war, something that many were opposed to after the horrors of the previous
...Germany was also excessive, resulting in more hatred in the minds of its people. The Germans had more enthusiasm to annul the treaty, assisting the promotion of Hitler's goals. He was able to rise within the minds of the German people, allowing him to reach absolute power. And with this power, he pointed a gun back at the Allies, not knowing that they had one more bullet than he.
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
Yet during the time appeasement seemed to be logical, as stated in document 8 only the German people could take away Hitler’s power which is why the League tried to appease to Hitler. Also the League feared that if they defeated Germany, Russia would take over most of Europe in their absence. While those are good reasons to try to appease to Hitler, the League of Nations forgot one important detail, Germany wasn’t afraid of the League. Neville Chamberlain the prime minister of Britain was an avid supporter of appeasement, yet even he said he would fight Germany if they were trying to dominate the world by fear of its force according to document 5. What Chamberlain failed to notice was that is what Germany was trying to do.
Nazi-Soviet Pact and Appeasement The Nazi-Soviet was a non-aggression pact signed by the foreign ministers of Germany and Russia on 23 August 1939. When Germany and Russia reached this promise not to fight each other, they made a secret pact to invade and divide Polandand give the Baltic States to Russia. By signing the Pact, Germany was able to invade Poland from the west and the Soviet Union gained the eastern half of Poland as well as the Baltic States as well as gaining time to prepare for war against Germany. Why was the signing of the Pact a surprise?
...ain’s decision to actively pursue appeasement were, initially, his own expectations of himself, and his need to be the man seen as responsible for appeasing Germany. Secondly, Chamberlain’s believed that Britain needed time to recover, both economically and militarily from the last war. Thirdly, his own views of war and his naivety in foreign affairs certainly affected his decision, though not to the extent commonly believed. In any event, he certainly allowed Hitler more input than he should have had when it came to the Sudetenland, and he badly misjudged the threat posed by both Hitler and Mussolini. That cannot be denied. What can also not be denied is that the extra year that Chamberlain gave the democracies to prepare may well have been the difference between victory and defeat for the Allies.
Hitler was able to use his countries momentum and his negotiation skills to achieve what he wanted for Germany and make 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 when 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 months 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.
The 1920s had a good outlook towards peace, but near the end of the decade and throughout the 1930s signs of war were forming. Leaders arose in countries that were unsatisfied with the results of World War I. Germany, Italy, and Japan took aggressive actions, and neither the League of Nations nor the democratic countries were stopping them. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain suggested the policy of appeasement towards Hitler to keep peace. Europe moved closer to war as these actions were made. World War II was propelled by the lack of judgement by the League of Nations by continuous appeasing Hitler.
The Policy of Appeasement as the Most Important Reason for the Outbreak of the Second World War
...nland. There are mixed opinions towards this policy, and the question why historians have debated appeasement continuously over the passing decades. Many believe that Chamberlains policy of appeasement was fuled by a desire to do everything in his power possible to avoid war, and his belief that all European powers shared the dame feeling. The catastrophic events of World War one set in a deep fear and hatred of war among many. It is also felt that Chamberlain followed the policy of appeasement as a means to buy some time as he realised that British defences were hopelessly inadequate, as British military strength had been greatly reduced due to the commitment of disarmament. Even at the time of the Anschluss Britain was declared unprepared for war. Therefore to conclude, whatever the reasons for the continual policy of appeasement, it can be said that appeasement with the sole aim of preventing war did not succeed, however what it was seen to do was prolong the inevitable. Many strongly feel that the continual demands of Hitler were flared by the lack of opposition, and his continual greed for expansion, his demands were rarely attacked, simply given into with little hesitancy.
World War One had an inevitable effect on the lives of many young and naive individuals, including Wilfred Owen, who, like many others, joined the military effort with the belief that he would find honour, wealth and adventure. The optimism which Owen initially had toward the conflict is emphasised in the excerpt, in which he is described as “a young poet…with a romantic view of war common among the young” (narrator), a view which rapidly changed upon reaching the front. Owen presents responders with an overwhelming exploration of human cruelty on other individuals through acts of war and the clash of individual’s opposed feelings influenced by the experiences of human cruelty. This is presented through the horrific nature of war which the
The Most Flexible Man In Britain: How Winston Churchill Guided England Through Both War and Freedom in Two Reigns
In this paper I will argue about the songs, “Your King and Country Want You” and “Don’t Take My Darling Boy Away”, as they both provide the attitudes of a the British nation in regard to the war of 1914. The songs were generally use to deliver messages across the country to spread ideas and thoughts of the event, whether it be support or opposition.
Was Neville Chamberlain entirely responsible for starting World War II because he was so weak against Hitler? , Source F (150) a quote from The Yorkshire Post, supports the proposition in that it talks about Chamberlain encouragement of Hitler’s aggression by repeatedly surrendering to Germany and his misunderstanding of Hitler’s motives. This suggest that Chamberlain peace treaty with Hitler was the catalyst for war. Winston Churchill’s reaction to the Munich agreement supports the proposition in that he states that “And do not suppose this is the end. This is only the beginning” (p.g 155) referring to the abandonment of Czechoslovakia and the surrendering to Hitler every whim where he states that “[ Europe will ] be swallowed up by the Nazi regime ”(p.g
According to Jeffrey Record, a “reassessment of the history of appeasement in the 1930s,” (v) includes Hitler and the choice to stay unrivaled as a national threat and the lack of a threat after the end of World War II. Record also includes the security choices of the Anglo-French in the 1930s and how they were influenced by important factors that were either ignored or not understood. He goes on to say that hindsight and how it infuences our views on past events. Lastly, Record talks about how, “invocations of the Munich analogy to justify the use of force are almost invariably misleading because security threats to the United States genuinely Hitlerian in scope and nature have not been replicated since 1945” (vi).