NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... l war... Six months ago, I told the house of commons of my conviction that intervention in Spain was both bad humanity and bad politics. Nothing that has happened since has caused me to modify that judgement; some events have caused me to confirm it. " Clearly Anthony Eden is in strong support of the non-intervention policy.
He feels that by all European powers promoting this policy the risk of a general war is substantially reduced. Therefore he favours the system of collective security promoted by the League of Nations. However not everyone was in support of the non-intervention policy. An extract from J.
Gurney 91974) states that " The Spanish civil war seemed to provide the chance for a single individual to take a positive and effective stand on an issue which seemed to be absolutely clear. Either you were opposed to the growth of fascism and went out to fight against it, or you acquiesced in its crimes and were guilty of permitting its growth. There were many people who claimed it was a foreign quarrel and that nobody other than the Spaniards should involve themselves in it. But for myself and many others like me, it was a war of principle, and principles do not have national boundaries.
By fighting against Fascism in Spain, we would be fighting against it in our own country, and every other. " This source clearly states that the policy of non-intervention was utterly a disgrace, European powers should have intervened and overthrown the Fascist dictators. By doing so in this country would have sent a message that fascism would strongly be opposed in their own countries. However in the end Britain and France did not intervene which meant, eventually Italian and German help proved crucial in securing victory for Franco. Franco's victory was essentially another triumph for Hitler. He had again defeated France and Britain in that he had ignored non-intervention, which was also the policy of the league, and had continued to support Franco.
Democracy had again been discredited and authoritarian fascism appeared triumphant. National opinion too in the democracies was divided by the war. Vast differences of opinion existed, as how to deal with the 'fascist menace' proved evident. However this proved to be another example, which highlighted the true weakness of appeasement. The method of giving ground to the dictators in the hope that they would be satisfied and pacified was clearly limited. The backing down of the Italians over the "private submarine" incident showed what a firm stance could achieve.
However the lesson was not learned, Britain was again about to try and appease Hitler. The Treaty of Versailles stated in its terms that a German union with Austria was forbidden, and until 1938 none of Hitlers actions actually overridden the territorial frontiers established in 1919. A claim made by Hitler on the day of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland stated: " Germany has no territorial claims to make in Europe" However subsequent events proved how deceitful this was. Hitler's overall objective was the union of all German-speaking people into a greater Germany. Several attempts were made at this. In 1934 the German backed Austrian Nazi party made the first attempt at a possible union with Austria.
However it resulted in disorder and violence and was consequently banned by Austrian Chancellor, Dollfuss. The attempted overthrow of the Austrian government by the party resulted in the assassination of Dollfuss. This was indeed how far the party got in reaching its goal. Mussolini's hostility prevented Hitler from taking advantage of this attempt. As a result of this, in July 1936 a gentleman's agreement was formed between Germany and Austria, in which, Germany promised to respect Austrian independence and not to interfere in Austrian internal affairs.
However in January 1938 Austrian police uncovered plans by the Austrian Nazi party to cause trouble with the ultimate aim of "provoking German invasion. In response to this, the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg arranged a meeting with Hitler to prevent a Nazi overthrow. Consequently Hitler took the "offensive" and accused Schuschnigg of persecuting patriotic Germans and of breaking the 1936 agreement. The Austrian Chancellor retaliated and organised a plebiscite on the subject of union, which was thought to end in a negative response. As a result Hitler mobilised forces on the frontier, the arranged plebiscite was cancelled and Schuschnigg resigned. However this was all too late and German troops entered Austria on 12 March.
By the 13 March the German union with Austria was cemented. Consequently a further plebiscite saw a 99. 75 % vote in favour of Anschluss. British opinion to the Anschluss was mixed. Chamberlains policy was still to appease Germany's actions. However he did criticise the methods used to obtain the union the Austria, and called for the withdrawal of troops, however he did nothing to back this up.
The positive result of the plebiscite gave chamberlain an excuse for not reacting and therefore he still felt the policy of appeasement was working. It was also felt among the British that Germany had a limited number of reasonable demands. These demands arose from the Treaty of Versailles about which the British had begun to feel guilty. The union with Austria was perceived by many as an inevitable event, which should have occurred long ago. This opinion was highlighted from an extract from the editorial, Kilmarnock Standard, 19 th March 1938.
It states "Austria is no longer an independent country. It is one of the states that comprise Germany." It was natural and inevitable that such a union should occur sooner or later. Even in the Treaty of Versailles the possibility of it was foreseen... strictly speaking there is no good reason for opposing the union of Germany and Austria. However there were others who were less optimistic about the union of Germany and Austria. Many felt that as the union of Austria provided Hitler with control of the iron and steel industries and a springboard to invade South Eastern Europe.
This level of power in the hands of Hitler was perceived by many as a "disastrous set of circumstances in which more War and destruction could inevitably be foreseen." This pessimistic view was shared by Winston Churchill 1938, in which he states "The public mind has been concentrated upon the moral and sentimental aspects of the Nazi conquest of Austria small country brutally struck down, its government scattered to the winds, the oppression of the Nazi party doctrine imposed on a catholic population and upon the working classes of Austria and Vienna... But there are some things which I have not seen brought out in the public press... Vienna is the centre of all the communications of all the countries, which formed the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, and all of the countries lying to the south east of Europe... The mastery of Vienna gives to Nazi Germany military and economic control of the whole of the communications of south eastern Europe, by road, by river, and by rail. What is the effect of this upon what is called the balance of power. " Here Churchill is voicing his concerns for the safety of Europe, he acknowledges that the balance of power is unwisely tilted to wards Germany, which will inevitably result in more demands and possibly war.
The victory of the Anschluss proved yet again that Hitler could get away with international bullying. The British policy of appeasement was clearly failing to control the demands of Hitler. Yet Chamberlain was till rigorously adhering to its policy. The next stage, which highlighted Britains policy of appeasement, related to the sudetenland. It became clear that Hitlers conception of a "greater Germany" was not content with the Anschluss.
His sights were now set on Czechoslovakia where he demanded the Sudetenland, which contained around 3 million Germans. The Sudetenland was initially given to the Czechs by the treaty of St Germain in 1919 for practical and defensive reasons. Therefore they and Germany had a legitimate grievance. The Sudetenland was crucial for Hitler if he was hoping to move against Poland or Russia. It had a well-organised army and its own arms industry. It was in the end, Britains attitude however, which largely determined the fate of the Sudetenland and ultimately Czechoslovakia.
Chamberlain was not convinced that the Sudetenland was a great enough issue to go to war over. Anxious to avoid war he attended a conference held in Munich in September 1938, in which Hitler was also in attendance. Following his policy of appeasement Chamberlain agreed that Hitler could have the Sudetenland, but no more of Czechoslovakia. War seemed to have been avoided as Hitler claimed this was the last of his territorial demands. British opinion to this development was mixed. A.
Taylor, the origins of the Second World War states "British policy over Czechoslovakia originated in the belief that Germany had a moral right to the Sudeten German territory, on grounds of national principle. The victory for self-determination would provide a more stable more permanent peace in Europe. " This statement from Taylor clearly supports the actions of Chamberlain at Munich, and is also in agreement with the British foreign policy of appeasement. By meeting Germany's demands Taylor believes that Chamberlain has avoided the cataclysmic events of World War 1. However there were opponents to this view.
As described in a letter to the editor of the Scotsman signed "an ashamed peace-lover. "am sure that on hearing the result of the Munich conference over the wireless in the early hours of Friday morning, thousands of people all over the world would be shocked and humiliated. Hitler and Mussolini have got practically everything they asked for without firing a shot, and their prestige instead of being diminished in their own countries has gone up by leaps and bounds. Czechoslovakia the victim had no opportunity of a say in the deliberations, which sealed her fate... At the crucial moment Britain and France have shown clearly that they are unwilling to fight for Czechoslovakia but...
They are willing to guarantee that she hands over her industry, property etc to Hitler as it stands... Britain and France have thrown Czechoslovakia to the wolves. " This letter clearly disapproves of the actions and decisions, which took place in Munich. It also questions the policy of appeasement, in that the letter criticises the fact that Hitler and Mussolini are time and time again getting their demands met. The letter also attacks Britain and France for not supporting Czechoslovakia especially when France had an agreement with her. It places sole responsibility on Britain and France for the state of Czechoslovakia. However a year later Hitler broke the agreement, and sent German troops to occupy Prague.
Chamberlain reacted at once claiming that Hitler had gone to far and must now be stopped. The poles also rejected Hitlers demands for Danzig, Britain and France promised to help Poland if Germany attacked. Hitler was however somewhat less worried by these claims, as in the past Britain and France had made threats but done nothing in carrying them out, instead they always followed their policy of appeasement. So Hitler took little notice. He grew tired of waiting for Poland to negotiate, so once Hitler had secured a non-aggression pact with Russia, the Germans invaded Poland on 1 st September 1939, and accordingly Britain and France declared a state of war against Germany. Therefore it can be said that the British foreign policy of appeasement essentially died on 1 st September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, some historians argued that it died when the Germans took Prague, others say the Sudetenland.
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 full 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.
Free research essays on topics related to: policy of appeasement, germany and austria, hitler and mussolini, treaty of versailles, britain and france
Research essay sample on Policy Of Appeasement Britain And France
