Example research essay topic: Spanish Civil War Policy Of Appeasement - 2,135 words

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

Did the policy of appeasement go to any great lengths toward stopping the outbreak of war or did it simply delay the inevitable? The task of explaining why appeasement, has been continuously addressed by historians over the years. To date, there is still no single cause identified. Nonetheless there is however a general consensus amongst historians that the frightful events of world war one, distilled a sense of fear and regret amongst British society, and consequently Britain strived to prevent any future war, through whatever means necessary. In the aftermath of World War 1, lay a mutual understanding between the British government and society that never again should a catastrophe such as World War 1 occur, it was described as the "war to end all wars" reinforcing the view that it was a cataclysmic event which should never be re-enacted upon society. British public became disillusioned with the use of force in international relations and as a result sought an approach consisting of an effective system of collective security.

In post war society anti-war books, films and poems all became increasingly well liked and several pacifist pressure groups were formed with the sole aim of achieving peaceful solutions to international problems. These groups were known as The Peace Pledge Union, The Peace Society and the No More War Movement. World War 1 essentially left Britain in a state of mourning, and accordingly thousands of war monuments were erected, and an annual day of mourning and remembrance was established, known as Remembrance Sunday. This was an attempt to pay tribute to those heroes lost in the war and to act as a subtle reminder of the devastation caused by the war in a bid to prevent any future conflict. As a result of the desolation a common consensus was becoming apparent amid the general public, which was that, there were no clear societal gains from the war and the obvious economic, and political decline of the country showed no gains in that sector either. Hence the reduction of arms and peace became vote winners in elections.

Appeasement can be defined as " a disposition to avoid conflict by judicious concession and negotiation." Neville Chamberlain noted that the British public would not wish nor accept another war. Therefore the British government sought to follow a policy of appeasement. However, everyone did not share the acceptance of the policy of appeasement. Looking on with hindsight many historians have condemned the actions of Chamberlain and his government.

Especially the Liberal party of the time who were the most consistant critics of the policy. As it became evident that the policy of appeasement had failed in 1939 and that Britain would in fact go to war, the Liberal Leader Sir Archibald Sinclair expressed his feelings on the achievements of appeasement " We have eaten dirt in vain" This statement is clearly expressing the fact that Britain has tolerated the deceitful acts of Germany to no avail or successes. That the policy of appeasement was deemed to fail from the onset. Concluding that the policy was pointless as it only prolonged the inevitable. In order to make an informed conclusion to whether or not appeasement was the correct policy to pursue, it is essential to look at the events and debates leading up to the out-break of world war 2. The system of collective security, which was in part demanded by the British Public, came in the form of The League Of Nations.

This was to be a system in which international disputes between nations would be settled by negotiation. The responsibility of the League was to act as an arbitrator in disputes between nations and to provide effective collective security against any form of military aggression. There were mixed opinions towards the League. Alan Sharp had referred to the League of Nations as a "compromise agreement, which pleased none of the parties involved. " It was also referred to by Marshall Foch, the military commander-in-chief of the allied armies at the end of the war as, "this is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." These statements clearly show the harsh realities of the League. It was indeed a harsh peace, which did not completely satisfy the needs of all countries involved.

Many feel it was essentially an opportunity for France to impose harsh repercussions on Germany for the destruction of her country. The main provisions of the League were The German army was to be limited to 100, 000 and conscription banned. The navy was also to be reduced to a coastal force and the building of submarines and battleships were forbidden so too, was a German air force. She was also to lose European territory including Alsace-Lorraine, Even, Malmedy, North Schleswig, West Prussia, Poznania, and parts of Upper Silesia and Memel, and all her non-European colonies were to be placed under the control of the League of Nations. The Saar coal mining region was to be placed under the leagues control until 1935 and all foreign currency and gold was to be confiscated.

A union with Austria was forbidden and Germany was ordered to pay 6, 600 million in reparations in war damages and pensions inflicted on Britain, Italy and France. She was also forced to accept guilt for starting the war and had to agree to accept a democratic constitution. Britain especially held a widespread consensus that the treaty of Versailles had punished Germany too harshly for starting and losing the First World War. Thus Britain to an extent felt that the unjust nature of the treaty might provoke Germany to reverse the terms of the peace by force. Thus Britain and France instead of backing the League and collective security, preferred appeasement. Therefore the League lacking strong support, failed to curb the aggressors.

This was highlighted in the event of 7 th March 1936 when Germany Remilitarised the Rhineland. Under the treaty of Versailles the Rhineland was declared a demilitarised zone, this can be looked upon as an act of aggression as it breaks the terms of the treaty of Versailles, and also the Locarno agreement. Hitlers decision to remilitarize the Rhineland at this stage of events was triggered by the fact that Britain and France were to preoccupied with the Abyssinian crisis to pay much attention to his actions, the remilitarisation also took place on a Saturday which meant limited resistance. Hitler Reckoned that by the time those who were in a position to take any action were back at work it would all be over. However whilst acknowledging his army was in no position to withstand French opposition, Hitler ordered his troops to withdraw if such opposition occurred. The French however offered no such opposition.

Instead the French sought the support of Britain, however the view that Germany had been to severely treated at Versailles was dominant within British society and Chamberlains policy was to appease Hitler's actions stating that "Germany has the right to station their troops anywhere within its own country. " Continuing with this view lord Lothian sated they are "only going into there own back garden. " These statements clearly act in favour of appeasement, expressing that military action against Germany's actions was not necessary as she is clearly retaliating against the unjust nature of the Versailles settlement, remilitarizing her troops in a part of her own country was seen as no clear threat towards Britain and France. However Britain did accelerate her rearmament programme. The view that the reoccupation of the Rhineland was no threat to France was heavily challenged by Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, stating that "Another idea which ought to be combatted was the prevail ant one that the occupation of the Rhineland was no threat to France. It was a threat because so long as the Rhineland was demilitarised, the Germans in order to invade France through Belgium, would have to use large forces to hold the Rhineland and their striking forces would be reduced.

After occupying the Rhineland, they could fortify it, hold the frontier with a relatively small force, and greatly increase their striking force on the northern bank. " Therefore Eden is clearly stating that the remilitarisation f the Rhineland was indeed a clear threat to France and international peace. Winston Churchill was also a clear critic of the policy of appeasement stating that " We cannot look back with much pleasure on our foreign policy... the violation of the Rhineland is serious because of the menace to which it exposes Holland Belgium and France. " Therefore Churchill is expressing that the undermining of democracy was a serious event when taken in context. Historically speaking, the appeasement of Hitler over the reoccupation of the Rhineland has been extensively criticised.

With the benefit of hindsight it has been perceived as the "last chance" to stop Hitler, without war had been lost. However this criticism is not fully conclusive as to stop Hitler would indeed have fundamentally required military action, which neither Britain and France were ready for due to the strong consensus amongst their societies for the avoidance of any military conflict, which had resulted in slow military rearmament. ] The next stage in which Britains policy of appeasement was increasingly tested was the Spanish civil war. The civil war, which erupted in Spain in July 1936, was perceived by the majority of Europe as a struggle between the aggressive and advancing doctrine of fascism and the weakening force of democracy. It was essentially a divided nation - fascism v democracy The Spanish civil war was initially the result of an army revolt, which broke out against the Spanish left-wing republican government. Francisco Franco assumed the leader of the revolt, a quick victory was anticipated however the eventual outcome spanned over several years, with violent carnage committed by both sides.

The French leader Leon Blum was sympathetic towards the republican government, but was fearful of a right wing backlash. The decision by Blum to restrict aid to the Spanish government was taken due to Britains claim that they would not support him in the event of a war against Germany. Blum therefore suggested a policy of non-intervention by all European powers be promoted. Consequently the British government were enthusiastic of this policy but always presented it as a French initiative. Therefore the non-intervention committee included Britain, France Russia, Germany and Italy. The republicans felt they could effectively win the war if foreign powers could be persuaded to stay out.

However Mussolini and Hitler broke the agreement and sent extensive help to Franco. Italy sent at least 40, 000 troops equipped with mobile artillery, armoured cars, fighters, and reconnaissance planes. Mussolini regarded Franco as a friendly fascist and therefore was prepared to help. Hitler however was seen to provide even more extensive aid to Franco, this is because he realised that Britain and France would not take a stand. He provided vital planes to transport Franco's army across from Morocco in early weeks of war; he also sent troops but no more than 10, 000. He also provided an increasing amount of superior equipment, which in large part allowed the successful nationalist advances of 1938 / 39.

This may have been the result of the weaknesses of the League of Nations, as the league failed to enforce the non-intervention policy. The league initially called for the withdrawal of foreign participation, but did nothing to back up its demands. The Republicans also claimed that the policy of non-intervention was illegal since it denied help to a government recognised by the league, while failing to stop German and Italian aggression against that government. However by this stage in time the league had come to be recognised as a spent force.

However one success was British and French patrolling of Mediterranean to stop activity of 'private submarines' (in use by Italians). British and French navies were ordered to attack any submarines or aircraft attacking non-Spanish ships. This demonstrated that it paid to be firm with fascists. British opinion on the breach of the non-intervention policy was mixed. Some of the left wing groups for example, the I. L.

P and the Communist Party wanted the government to support the republic against Spanish fascism, however the Labour part under its new leader did not want to become involved and Chamberlain was determined on non-intervention as he saw "no sense in preparing for war over a quarrel in a country so far away that we know little of. " Anthony Eden also supports the policy of non-intervention. He states "The policy of non-intervention has limited and bit-by-bit reduced the flow of foreign intervention in arms and men into Spain. Even more importantly, the existence of that policy, the knowledge that many governments, despite all discouragement were working for it, has greatly reduced the risk of a genera...

Research essay sample on Spanish Civil War Policy Of Appeasement