Discuss the reasons why, in the period 1934-38, British critics of appeasement had such a limited impact on British policy towards Germany.
The supporters of appeasement came from diverse groups, such as the Conservative Party, the Church of England and a number of right wing extreme elements. The only significant group on the centre left to support Chamberlain were pacifists. The very way in which such influential groups gave support to the policy, meant that it would be an even greater challenge for the opposition to discredit it
Few Tories favoured direct military involvement in European problems. Sir Arnold Wilson, a Tory MP, was not alone in calling for a return to a policy of isolation from European problems, supported by armaments but uncommitted to upholding collective security of taking part in any alliance system. Tories saw little other alternative to appeasement. There was strong conservative opposition to forming an Anglo-French alliance. This was because of the belief that French belligerence towards Germany was a major cause of European tension. McDonough argues that "The only other possible candidate for an alliance was the Soviet Union", but the Soviet Union was perceived in a worse light by many Tories then the Nazis themselves.
The Tory MP at the time, Sir Edward Grigg explained that "most Conservatives prefer the German system to the Russian because it is nationalistic in spirit and does not seek to unbalance...class lines." The League of Nations was far less popular in Conservative party circles then it was amidst those of Liberals and Labour party. "Tories saw European issues "through the narrow prism of British self interest and doubted whether collective security could deter military aggression." ...
... middle of paper ...
... of a driven man, full of a blinkered determination for peace such as Chamberlain, for he held such a powerful influence in parliament and government. They had to wait for the policy to prove itself foolish, or to fail if not foolish, for the chance for them to take over and implicate a stronger policy against Hitler, by this time war had already began however, and they had limited options. Perhaps if these men were in power before Munich, Hitler might have been deterred from going to war and Britain better prepared, with greater munitions and allied agreements to face the German armed forces. The tremendous unity against Nazi Germany during the Second World War owes more to the critics of appeasement, then it does to the supporters, for these men took over Chamberlains helm, where he had failed to keep peace, and bravely stood up and faced Hitler's war machine.
In the 1930s, European governments found it necessary to appease Hitler and Mussolini. Appeasement is the word that clearly sums up the policies and actions that were taken by the European governments. There were a few reasons that these concessions were offered by European countries: none of the countries wanted another World War, the devastating effects that the Great Depression had on each country, and the European governmental chaos and political turmoil was widespread.
with Hitler, which allowed him to increase his Navy by thirty – five percent than
Britain afford to pay for a war like this? The only way to pay for a
These were all problems the Liberal Party had to face and combined meant national support for the Liberal was severely hindered. Dangerfield argues that it was not the war years that caused the failure of the Liberal Government but that the damage was caused long before 1914. He argues that before the outbreak of war they were already deceased. Yet there are many criticisms that are aimed at Dangerfield and his ideas, many believe he overlooked the achievements of the Liberals, the impact of New Liberalism and he made many other misjudgements that make his assessment of the pre war era for the Liberals inaccurate. Numerous bills the Liberals put forward were rejected by the House of Lords, which were dominated by Conservatives who used the House of
We shall become members of the Reichstag in order that the Weimar ideology should itself help us destroy it.”(Doc 7). This shows another Nazi member talking about conservative ideas and military forces which made this party tough competition for the republic to beat. Even the Communist Party encouraged militarization, and they were on the opposite end of the spectrum. This can be seen in the political cartoon by George Grosz, depicting a large communist military force.
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.
The foreign policy of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 was different than any other country during that era. Their distinct approach to ruling came from the nation’s many diverse philosophies. Furthermore, every basis of motivation and control came from the beliefs in which they so strictly followed. Many aspects, such as, communism, fascism, and nationalism, influenced these ideologies.
The next day, Hitler said that the English response meant that the German attack would commenec on Britain in a few days. Looking back at how these events unfolded, everyone should be glad that Hitler made such a mistake. I, for one couldn't believe that Hitler made this mistake. Throughout reading this entire book Hitler usually makes swift, decisive actions that get results and that is why Lukacs stresses this string of events in the book.Overall, this book is wonderfully written on a very interesting topic. The reader is put in the middle of a war of nerves and will between two men, one of which we have grown up to learn to hate. This only makes us even more emotional about the topic at hand. For a history book, it was surprisingly understandable and hard to put down. It enlightened me to the complex problems that existed in the most memorable three months this century.
- They believed that they were surrounded by well-organized enemies (other political parties) they felt defensive about Liberalism, nationalism and popular sovereignty
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
Compare and contrast the attitudes of GMD and CCP to the first united front. (1924-27)
After the discontinue of the World War II, the Britain succumbed to an illusion that she could remain in a status of one of the world’s greatest superpowers, because at that time, she still possessed a huge empire as well as a fairly good relationship with the United States of America, a country that always achieved a status of the world’s superpower. Both of these countries were also shared a good partnership in the Cold War as well. As a consequence, Britain still considered herself as one of the major countries that can influence the world affair as Ernest Bevin , the Foreign Secretary of Britain after 1945, did. His purpose was to remain Britain as one of the three major powers like the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:
The world plunged into World War II in 1939, from the unsettlement between countries. Different countries had different ideas about world affairs. Some countries preferred appeasement and other countries preferred collective securities to solve problems such as the turmoil in Germany. According to the circumstances of Europe during 1939, from economic depression and unsettlement between countries, collective security was the best answer. Appeasement was attempted, but it turned out to be a failure.
German history is seen as a ‘painful issue for thousands of Germans and other Europeans’ . However it has interested many historians over the years into inquiring how and why Hitler came to power and how much of this was to do with the failure of parliamentary democracy in Germany. To fully ascertain to what extent these events have in common and what reasons led to the fall of democracy and rise of the Nazis, each have to be looked at individually. Also it seems beneficial, to be able to evaluate these in the relevant context, to look at the situation in Germany was in prior to 1920.
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 of 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.