Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How far was Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement misguided
How far was Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement misguided
How far was Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement misguided
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
French Foreign Policy and the Coming of War
During this critical time not much attention was turned to France, as
the entire spotlight was on Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement and
Hitler’s aims. The Orthodox view of France was described as of a
deeply divided and politically unstable country, which was obsessed
with security and defense. France was definitely not ready for war,
and therefore eagerly agreed to the policy of appeasement. It
preferred negotiating with Germany at this stage rather than fighting
it. The other reason for why France was standing up behind Britain so
much and tried to never argue with it was because France was scared of
losing British support if war with Germany would arise.
J-B. Duroselle argued that all the instability and weakness in France
comes from the indecisiveness of its foreign policy. For example
during years of 1932-1940 there were no less than 16 different
coalition governments in power. The other argument was also made by
René Girault, who said the other problem that made French policy so
weak was the fact that the French were not preparing for war, but for
inevitable defeat. Their morale was completely down.
However there was a major difference in the views of France and
Britain towards appeasement policy and that was that Chamberlain saw
appeasement as a bold and positive policy, born of military weakness,
but sympathetic to German grievances, while the French saw appeasement
as a negative and stoical policy, illustrating that all their effort
own efforts to prevent a German revival had failed. It was at this
point that the French realized all of their failures, and therefore
obviously felt little or no sympathy towards German problems. Their
main aim was to prevent war as long as possible and not to make
Germany feel better. The thought of another war was unbearable for
them and therefore the French officials based its strategy on defense
and diplomacy. Different historians have different views about the
French actions, e.g.
- Adamthwaite thinks that if only they were more energetic, the French
To summarize the book into a few paragraphs doesn't due it the justice it deserves. The beginning details of the French and Ind...
At the end of the 18th century, an undeclared war was going on between the United States and France because of the recent XYZ affair; triggering a positive reaction by Federalists like Fisher Ames to convince the authorities to make the war official. Not knowing what to do, President John Adams appointed former-President George Washington as commander of the army to hopefully resolve the issue with France through diplomacy (as was Washington's stance).
At first, the French won many decisive battles with the aid of its allies against the British Empire. Both countries, however, were relatively equal in size and power at the time, but that would soon change. The British began to turn the tide as they made significant leadership changes in government and amassed their army, particularly their navy, to counter the Allied forces.3 With the new change of leadership, Britain began to pour more effort and money into this war.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Despite Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933, their rearmament program which directly violated the Treaty of Versailles and Italy’s occupation of Ethiopia in 1935, Britain continued to appease the leaders in order to avoid conflict. Firstly, Britain was suffering from an economic crisis following the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression making it extremely vulnerable in the event of a war. Additionally, Britain couldn’t reach out to anyone for support; the USA practiced isolationism and communist Russia wouldn’t make a good ally. Furthermore, the British people were against another conflict and were still recuperating from World War I. The aforementioned reasons explain the rationale behind British appeasement policy in the
During the eighteenth century, France was one of the most richest and prosperous countries in Europe, but many of the peasants were not happy with the way France was being ruled. On July 14, 1789, peasants and soldiers stormed the Bastille and initiated the French Revolution. This essay will analyze the main causes of the French Revolution, specifically, the ineffectiveness of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the dissatisfaction of the Third Estate, and the Enlightenment. It will also be argued that the most significant factor that caused the French Revolution is the ineffective leadership of King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
middle of paper ... ... It was easy for him to threaten, and hard for him to conciliate.” (pg. 216) Finally, Taylor explains, after Britain’s failure to help reach an agreement, the aggression dragged both France and Britain into war with Germany. Taylor’s perspective on the origins of the Second World War, although controversial, is not one so easily dismissed.
The French Revolution evokes many different emotions and controversial issues in that some believe it was worth the cost and some don't. There is no doubt that the French Revolution did have major significance in history. Not only did the French gain their independence, but an industrial revolution also took place. One of the main issues of the Revolution was it's human costs. Two writers, the first, Peter Kropotkin who was a Russian prince, and the other Simon Schama, a history professor, both had very opposing views on whether the wars fought by France during the Revolution were worth it's human costs. Krapotkin believed that the French Revolution was the main turning point for not only France but for most other countries as well. On the other hand, Schama viewed the French Revolution as unproductive and excessively violent.
... many French commanders not even knowing where their own subordinate units were located.11 The French placed their defense in old, outdated tactics of static warfare. Gone were the days of two sides slugging it out against prepared reinforced defense structures. Closely integrating concentrated armor, infantry, and closely supported by aviation assets all combined to crush France in a matter of only six weeks. France was simply not prepared for this new age of warfare.
The French Revolution began after some of the great philosophers such as John Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau were establishing contracts and trying to create a way for people to have a government without a king or at least without a king being in control. The king during that time was King Louie XVI and his queen was a young woman by the name Marie Antoinette. The royal couple was not well liked due to the careless spending and lack of concern for the citizens beneath them. France was on the verge of becoming bankrupt and the crops did very poorly leaving people suffering, starving and fighting for food.
The Real Cause of the French Revolution For hundreds of years historians have tried to find out the real cause
France aimed to get revenge on Germany for the Franco - Prussian war of 1970 - 1971 where France were disastrously defeated, Germany aimed to stay free from an invasion from France and keep Austria-Hungary happy as France and Austria- Hungary were on either side of German, and Russia wanted an ally so it could feel safe form Germany.
The aim of the plan was to avoid fighting two wars at once (France and Russia)
During the late 18th century, both France and the British colonies in America experienced wars the opened the eyes of nations. The French Revolution and American Revolution drastically changed political thinking. In the French Revolution, monarchism was abandoned and political power was given to the people until the country became out of control, and a military dictatorship was necessary to regain control of France. In the American Revolution, a new nation was formed as the British colonies tore themselves away from the English monarchy. In the end, both France and the new United States of America moved away from absolute rule by a king or queen and wanted to put the political power in the hands of their people. However, there are many differences as well as similarities along the way to their political reformation.
In conclusion, the policy of appeasement was described by some scholars as ineffective. The fact that the policy of appeasement failed to avert World War 2 is a direct justification that it was a wrong-headed policy. The policy allowed Germany to reconstruct its military slowly and eventually was prepared to go into war to defend its military triumph. Chamberlain was aware of Hitler’s ambitions, but thought that the best alternative to deal with his ambitions was negotiations. This was a misguided move which the world is able to learn from.
... has been shown in 1792, there were many different individuals and groups which hoped to be strengthened by war. Napoleon had crushed opposition at home by his victories abroad. French foreign policy had become a reflection of the uncertainties of French government, France and the French people had acquired the reputation of being restless and dangerous as they involved the rest of Europe in their quest for a regime that would prove to be permanent and satisfactory. France had always been living dangerously.