Appeasement Dbq

The view of appeasement has been debated amongst historians. Richard Overy agrees with the appropriateness of the foreign policy during 1936-1938 in terms of Britain’s economic conditions and interest. While, historian R.A.C Parker disputes the view that appeasement was the only policy to pursue where alternatives to appeasement should have been considered. In contrast Martin Gilbert holds a different view as he suggests that Chamberlain was right to adopt the policy of appeasement because it was the conventional and sensible option as the policy was continued by Chamberlain predecessors. In addition, Gilbert evokes a more balanced view, disputing that appeasement was unsuccessful during 1938 particularly with the Munich crisis .
Appeasement

refers to the verb appease meaning to satisfy and agree to the demands of individuals . This became the British foreign policy in 1936-1939 as the foreign policy is when the government tries to secure its interests and encourages international work to improve common issues of development of the economy, trade and climate that the country face . The basis of British Foreign policy during 1936-1939 was implemented to maintain peace amongst countries because it seemed the most favourable option and to avoid another destructive war such as the First World War.
Appeasement appeared appropriate due to Britain’s circumstances during the 1930s as they were economically and militarily weak so, Britain was unable to fight a war earlier than 1939.This can be supported by levels of British military aircraft production, as in 1936 Britain had only 1,877 combat and non-combat aircraft compared to Germany who had 5,112 . Therefore, if Britain had gone to war earlier than 1939, they could have been at a disadvantage because the aircraft numbers were lower than Germany’s. Hence, appeasement was a suitable policy to pursue because up until 1939 Britain was behind Germany’s rapid military and economic recovery. So earlier confrontation toward Germany from Britain could be considered suicidal. As it was not until 1939 to 1940 where Britain had achieved 15,049 aircraft production in contrast to Germany 10,247 as Britain was strong enough to fight. Therefore, appeasement was sensible and pragmatic as arguably the policy allowed Britain time to rearm and regain economic strength.
However, to some extent appeasement may have not been entirely appropriate in terms of Britain’s economic and military position. As there were stages during 1936-1939 where Britain may have been able to oppose Germany instead of continuing to adopt appeasement. Although, appeasement was suitable as a basis of British foreign policy during British economic struggle. As Britain were in huge war debts of over £850 million to USA . Despite this they still deposited money into military expenditure during 1936- 1939 . This could suggest that Britain was economically preparing for a possibility of war where they could have rearmed at a faster rate than Germany and may have deterred Hitler to reconsider his aims.
Appeasement was sensible and appropriate because it matched British position in international affairs.

However, there are several points to discuss on whether appeasement should have been abandoned earlier for example key points such as firm action against Germany’s occupation of Rhineland, negotiations of Czechoslovakia and Sudetenland could have deterred Hitler. The appropriateness of appeasement can be disputed in terms of occupation of Rhineland in 1936. The Rhineland was included in the treaty of Versailles where Germany could not regain or place troops in that region. However, Hitler violated this rule of the treaty and sent over 20,000 soldiers to the Rhineland to rearm and grow . As France and Britain did not intervene against Hitler. This meant that early intervention from Britain or France could have prevented Hitler to expand his army. As Hitler had less German troops to occupy Rhineland if France confronted them. So, Hitler sent troops to remilitarise the area to expand on their army. Whereas, France could have defeated Hitler’s soldiers. However, the French government was hesitant to challenge German troops without the aid of Britain. Therefore, this implies Hitler’s aims were as of an opportunist where, it can be considered that Hitler was testing whether the French and British army would respond to Hitler’s clear defiance against the treaty of Versailles. Thus, a firmer stance instead of appeasement could have been

made.
Furthermore, appeasement was considered suitable and favourable amongst the British public and government opinion.

For instance, the policy of appeasement was hugely agreed on in terms of public opinion. Evidence supports that this view on appeasement was settled amongst the public as Chamberlain acknowledged the strong view of maintaining peace with European countries. This can be considered as the Locarno pact in 1925 was signed by Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain and Italy to secure post war settlement . Therefore, the aims of the British foreign policy were to adopt a middle position of conciliation amongst Europe. The public polls around 1936- 1938 presented that people opposed a potential outbreak of war. This was influence by the devastation of the First World War as there were approximately 900,000 people killed in WW1. Therefore, many people including Chamberlain himself wanted to avoid another war . Particularly Chamberlain personal experience of having to lose a cousin in WW1 also contributed to the continuation of appeasement as a basis of British foreign policy. On the other hand, there was a change in public opinions polls as newspapers showed that the public was unsure if appeasement would guarantee peace. In addition, the public polls during 1936 to 1938 did not fully represent the actual opinions of the public against a possibility of war. Therefore, the true view on appeasement amongst Britons must not be fully representative of the appropriateness

of the policy. Ultimately, appeasement was an appropriate policy to adopt as it suited Britain’s position. However, Britain could have asserted a stronger stance against Hitler’s opposition to the treaty of Versailles. Therefore, at the point where Hitler was demanding more from Chamberlain appeasement should have been abandon