origins, results, and future alternatives Free Essay Example

Neville Chamberlain, one of the greatest advocates of appeasement also wanted to, “construct an air force powerful enough to moderate Hitler’s aims, stop him from launching an attack against the United Kingdom, and spare the cost of expanding the Army for operations on the continent. “14 Even though appeasement was the current policy in practice in Britain many of its leaders saw the need for a real answer to the problem developing as Germany strengthened and gained ground. Germany had already taken Czechoslovakia and had it eyes set on new territory.

“The SIS and connections in Germany stated that a German invasion of Poland was imminent, with Lithuania next on the list. “15 The German invasion of Poland was relatively peaceful and Britain gave further appeasement to German in this case. Germany was claiming hardships were visited upon German’s in Polish territory created after WWI and said they were simply reuniting their population. The amazing thing is that the press, which had so fully supported the idea of appeasement, was falling to the wayside along with Chamberlain’s government.

“By so closely associating itself with the fortunes of Chamberlain’s government, it was now tarred with the same brush of failure and naivety that was to bedevil Chamberlain himself until his ultimate fall from grace in May 1940. “16 The one institution that British people so heavily relied on was actually miss informing them of current on goings at home and abroad. Appeasement may not have been the best policy in the long run but it certainly had promise early on in negotiations.

“There were indeed early signs that Hitler was not seem particularly hostile to Britain.

“17 Hitler saw Britain in a different light than he did France and the Soviet Union. France had taken a position against Germany, suspecting rearmament early on and levying sanctions against Germany to try to stop them. Britain suspected the same but, “there was little disposition to join France in a policy of sanctions. “18 The assumed need for cooperation between Germany and its neighbors led to the British decision to allow for appeasement rather than taking a much stronger stance on Germany’s actions. At Munich in 1938 officials from several different nations met and discussed possible alternatives to all out war in Europe.

“Halifax first set out the evidence and concluded that if Hitler had decided on war, the only deterrent which would be likely to be effective would be an announcement that if Germany invaded Czechoslovakia we should declare war upon her. “19 Then he decided to discredit his own point saying that the deterrence would not deter and appeasement was the only feasible policy at the time. The leaders in Britain also feared that, “success in British policy might produce in Hitler a feeling of being thwarted and therefore make him even more dangerous. “20 Alternatives to Appeasement

The main alternative to appeasement discussed throughout the time leading up to WWII and in the decades following the conflict was the League of Nations. There were many different ideas of the possible role of the league on nations, “some thought of it as a means of organizing armed resistance to aggressors, others saw it as a substitute for military defense, or a means for negotiation and conciliation. “21 The League set up by two Treaties after WWI embodied the new idea that humanity could abolish war. The problem was that many of the world players were not even a part of the League of Nations.

The next more radical idea was the proposed arms control and disarmament, which was used during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The new old idea, which received so much criticism during the middle twentieth century, is appeasement. “Adams alluded to a veritable flood tide of current appeasement offerings, with no perceptible ebb in the near future. “22 Appeasement got a bad name after the events and it use leading up to WWII but in all actuality the idea does have promise. Many who believe the League of Nations could have helped if it was stronger point to the United Nations of today as example.

The truth is that half of the missions that the UN has undertaken in the last fifty years are still ongoing and have yet to be resolved. Considering this, it is not really conceivable to say the weak League of Nations could have had any effect on the conflicts that caused WWII. The one thing that could have stopped the onset of WWII was possibly a preemptive strike by the British and the French. The world may have seen the Britain and France as the aggressors in this case because the rearmament process in Germany was not yet common knowledge.

Appeasement may not be the best policy but some see it as the only policy. There are always the ideas of sanctions and embargos but they do little more than appeasement. The truth is that the sanctions and embargos actually hurt the population of a given country more than the leadership of a country. The rich and powerful will always be able to secure the goods they need to sustain power, the poor are the ones who starve in the streets because the world powers have decided to use embargos and sanctions to limit a governments power.

The development of the United Nations as a fixture in world politics has seemed to slow the progression of war in recent conflicts. Many multilateral organizations have been organized in the last fifty years that also help to curb conflict among world powers. The World Trade Organization (WTO) now, “covers broader areas of international trade in fact, approving its creation raised fears tat it may threaten national sovereignty in some countries. “23 Organizations such as the WTO give control of disputed to corporations and companies rather than individual governments.

When you take away the focus of the argument there is no more argument. The conditions around the world have also improved as a whole, when people are happy they are much less likely to involve them selves in unnecessary conflicts. Individuals left to them selves do not start wars greed and the need of power is what brings on war. The real question is whether the time of global conflict and world war has really passed and if so that is the reason that appeasement seems to be working now where it did not in the 1930s.

The idea of war is a much more terrible thing now that it was just fifty years ago. You no longer have people in trenches and small divisions. Most all of the power countries in the world have some form of weapons of mass destruction, be it nuclear, chemical, or biological. There is a much greater risk to human life and to the world economy today than there was in the earlier part of the twentieth century. The formation of the UN and the progression of the idea of collective security have served to further peace in the years since WWII.

Collective security is defined as, “aggressive and unlawful use of force by any nation against any nation will be met by the combined force of all other nations. “24 Summary The doctrine of Britain leading up to the Second World War was obviously not the right way to deal with Hitler and the Third Reich. The question posed by many prominent historians is, was there any way to approach the oncoming conflict that would have actually stopped it. The are few answers to many of the questions and no other situations in history that really compare in magnitude and scope to the situation in Western Europe during the 1930s.

Britain decided to try and handle the problem in a manner to allow itself time to prepare for a coming world war. The British government was in a difficult position because the United States was following their policy of hands off in Europe and the Soviet Union had signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. The French were most threatened but had no real leverage in the scope on International Politics. The French people, economy, and leadership had been devastated by WWI and were still in the process of recovering when Hitler’s war machine took hold in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

The world looked to Britain for leadership and they provided what they saw fit. There were terrible repercussions but any approach taken to the growing power of German would likely have turned out the same. Millions of people from Allied and Axis powers alike gave their lives in WWII and appeasement was a contributing factor. The determination and greed of Germany’s and Japan’s leadership and armed forces were the real reason for the onset of WWII. The policies taken by Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States only allowed time for the Axis powers to gain strength.

The only real option other than the policy followed was to strike preemptively and there is no question that decision would have been questioned for centuries to come. WWII was seen as the war to end all wars much like WWI but will there ever be a war to end all wars that leaves anyone behind. Conflict is a fixture of society all around the world and as long as there is money to be made, territory to be gained, and religion to be disputed there will be war.

Appeasement doesn’t cause that, people do. Notes 1. R. A. C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement British Policy and the Coming of the Second World War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), 1. 2. James Lee Ray, Global Politics Seventh Edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998), 25. 3. James Lee Ray, 25. 4. Gustav Schmidt, The Politics and Economics of Appeasement (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986), 226. 5. Robert j. Caputi, Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement (London: Associated University Press, 2000), 149. 6. Benny Morris, The Roots Of Appeasement (London: Frank Cass, 1991), 48. 7. Benny Morris, 48. 8. Benny Morris, 67. 9. Benny Morris, 67. 10.

Scott Newton, Profits of Peace The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 102. 11. Gaines Post Jr. , Dilemmas of Appeasement British Deterrence and Defense, 1934-1937 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 297. 12. Gaines Post Jr. , 299. 13. Gaines Post Jr. , 25. 14. Gaines Post Jr. , 26. 15. Scott Newton, 105. 16. Richard Cockett, Twilight of Truth Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998), 121. 17. Keith Robbins, Appeasement (New York: Basil Blackwell Inc., 1988), 50. 18. Keith Robbins, 51. 19. R. A. C. Parker, 156. 20. R. A. C. Parker, 157. 21. R. A. C. Parker, 307. 22. Robert j.

Caputi, 212. 23. James Lee Ray, 235. 24. James Lee Ray, 399. Bibliography Caputi, Robert J. Neville Chamberlain and Appeasement 2000. London: Associated University Press. Cockett, Richard. Twilight of Truth Chamberlain, Appeasement and the Manipulation of the Press 1998. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Morris, Benny. The Roots Of Appeasement 1991. London: Frank Cass. Newton, Scott. Profits of Peace The Political Economy of Anglo-German.

Appeasement 1996. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Parker, R. A. C. Chamberlain and Appeasement British Policy and the Coming of the Second World War 1993. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Post, Gaines Jr. Dilemmas of Appeasement British Deterrence and Defense, 1934-1937 1993. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Ray, James Lee. Global Politics Seventh Edition 1998. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Robbins, Keith. Appeasement 1988. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc. Schmidt, Gustav. The Politics and Economics of Appeasement 1986. New York: St. Martin’s Press.