Diplomacy: To what extent was appeasement justified / to what extent were Britain and France to blame for WW2? Flashcards
Introduction
Although appeasement did encourage Hitler & lead to his invasion of Poland, the appeasers could not have known this at the time and they cannot be blamed for what they believed to be the best solutions at the time, especially since they believed that Hitler would be satisfied after being appeased.
Paragraphs
P1: Gave Hitler confidence and led him to believe that Britain would not take action against his invasion of Poland
P2: Facilitated the growth (economically, military, and territorially) of Germany that enabled Hitler to invade Poland
P3: Br and Fr faced domestic issues and were not ready to go to war & thought that appeasement would prevent war
P4: Public opinion concerning the horror of another war (could not have known that it would ultimately lead to war)
Gave Hitler confidence- examples
-The Munich conference was the agreement that permitted Germany’s annexation of the Sudetenland (an area of Czechoslovakia with a substantial German population) and was signed on September 29th, 1938. Neither the British nor the French saw good reason for a war to preserve Czechoslovakia, which had only been created in 1918.
-Lack of response to Abyssinian –> relationship between Italy and Germany that strengthened them both
Gave Hitler confidence- explanations
-This gave Hitler confidence because by having his demands agreed to, Hitler took this as assurance that British and French intervention would not be an obstacle to his expansionist endeavors.
-Appeasement meant that Hitler gambled on that policy continuing when he invaded Poland – the trigger for war.
Gave Hitler confidence- historiography
-The historian AJP Taylor argued that Hitler did not have a clear plan on how to carry out his foreign policy aims and was simply reacting to the actions of other European leaders.
-Ultimately, he believes that it was Britain and France’s actions that encouraged the Fascist dictators to go to war as they would not have done so if they didn’t think they stood a chance at winning.
Gave Hitler confidence- counterargument
The alternative to this would have been going to war when Br and Fr were not strong enough economically or militarily, which could have also been catastrophic.
Facilitated growth of aggressor states- examples
-When the Germans publicly announced in 1935 that Germany would rebuild its military, there was little response on the part of the British and the French, and many in Britain and France praised this action. Germany began conscription (army expanded to 1 million) and expanded its navy and air force.
-When Hitler sent German troops into the Rhineland in March 1936, an act that was in direct defiance of the terms of the treaties of Versailles and Locarno, the British government chose not to intervene.
Facilitated growth- explanations
-This lack of reaction can therefore be considered cowardly, since this event was still early on in the events that led to war, and the British and French had the opportunity to intervene and prevent Germany from rearming but chose not to.
-This rearmament gave Germany the strength to later invade Poland in 1939, the trigger of the Second World War.
-At the same time, other European nations had had to disarm due to the Great Depression, therefore deepening the military disparity between Germany and other countries.
Br and Fr domestic issues- examples
-E.g. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression put off military spending- British and French were not ready to go to war and the effects of the depression were devastating for Britain’s industrial areas, with unemployment reaching 2.5 million by 1930.
-Between 1936 and 1938, the franc had to be devalued three times to help pay for rearmament.
Br and Fr domestic problems- explanations
-France and Britain were in no state to be going to war and spending money on military equipment.
-Also, they considered the threat of the spread of Communism from the Soviet Union to be a bigger threat and they thought that Germany could be a buffer to communism and a potential ally if war broke out with the Soviet Union.
Public opinion about war- examples
-Europe was still recovering from the Great War not only economically, but also socially.
-The UK lost 886,000 soldiers and 2,000 civilians in the war and France lost 1.3 million soldiers. The populations were traumatized and would do anything not to go into another war.
Public opinion about war- explanations
Ultimately, as democracies, Britain and France had to persuade public opinion to support a war, and due to the still raw trauma of WW1, people were not willing to risk a war just to put Hitler to justice.
Public opinion concerning war- historiography
The historian James Sheehan argues that the alternative to appeasing Hitler was fighting him and even the threat of war would not have stopped him. Chamberlain and Daladier could not have known that their actions would lead Hitler to invade Poland in 1939.
Additional thing to add somewhere: Hitler stating he would be satisfied with Sudetenland
They did not want to fight Hitler at a time when they were not prepared for it and they believed that he would eventually be satisfied. At the Munich Agreement, he stated that he no longer desired any more territory. Therefore, they couldn’t have known that their actions would enable him to eventually invade Poland.
