Instituted in the hope of avoiding war, appeasement was the name given to britain's policy in the 1930s of allowing hitler to expand german territory unchecked. Was the appeasement policy justified in britain history essay appeasement was a method used by great britain and france this investigation would bring up the justification, or rather not, of appeasement. Britain's policy of appeasement during the 1930s was justified as it protected britain and postponed war so countries were at least able to preparebritain was still recovering from the wall street crash of 1929, they thought a strong germany could help countries in europe recover via trade. Appeasement was justified by the interaction between the factors of a poorly equipped military that had to provide a global defence for all of britain's territories, an anti-war mindset among the population, and economic circumstances that pointed to the avoidance of a large-scale conflict.
The policy of appeasement is justified against by: chin ning and holly ap ease [uh-peez] verb (used with object), ap eased, ap eas ng to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment pacify soothe: to appease an angry king. Appeasement was a policy, that first started developing in the 1920s, coined by britain and later used by france of avoiding war with aggressive powers such as japan, italy, and germany, by giving way to their demands (unless they were too unreasonable. Ten minute history - the weimar republic and nazi germany (short documentary) - duration: 10:00 ten minute history 768,995 views. Appeasement, the policy of making concessions to the dictatorial powers in order to avoid conflict, governed anglo-french foreign policy during the 1930s it became indelibly associated with conservative prime minister neville chamberlain.
Britain followed a policy, later known as appeasement, of giving hitler what he wanted this was for the following three years after the naval agreement was signed in 1935 there were many british people, including politicians, who were in favour of and agreed with the policy. In 1936, the policy of appeasement was justified on the plea of self-determination when germany denounced the locarno pact and france protested, the reply of britain was that german troops were marching in their own territory. Appeasement was unquestionably followed by britain and france to avoid the horrors of another world war the mood of pacifism was immensely strong and few could believe that another such conflict could ever be justified.
The policy of appeasement is known as one of the most cowardly and shameful things in britains past basically we gave our enemies what they wanted to save our own skins, and all it got us was another war. A factor of why the appeasement may be justified was the growing concern for the british empire the most powerful dominions in the empire, such as canada, australia, new zealand and south africa, all greatly supported and favored appeasement. The policy of appeasement was used by the two leaders of britain and france to maintain world peace however, it was revealed that hitler was a tyrant and a dictator and craved for more power when just when britain and france gave in to him.
Appeasement was not a policy that was a madcap idea of one man, at the very least if chamberlain was at fault he was not alone and with two other prime ministers of a similar mindset, he was arguably following not leading policy. Why was the appeasement being a popular policy a reason for it all politicians in a democratic country have to take account of public opinion if they want to survive public opinion in britain and france for peace was overwhelming in the 1930s - deeply impacted by ww1. Was appeasement justified (hint: think about britain and france's appeasement policy) -require your ―fictional‖ hitler to answer as he might have in 1938. The nazi soviet pact played a greater part in causing war in 1939 than did the policy of appeasement- how far do appeasement in the 1930s also played a big role in causing the second world war.
- justifying appeasement appeasement was the foreign policy followed by the british and french governments in the 1930s, whereby they did not attack or confront other governments, specifically that of germany's, when international laws were breached, but rather gave into some of the demands to keep the peace. In the years before munich, appeasement was seen as preserving britain's ontological security: it was a grand strategy that was not only expedient and rational but was a foreign policy—perhaps the only foreign policy—that resonated with britain's self-identity. Appeasement meant that when war did come through actions such as the occupation of the rhineland and rearmament but most did not see germany as a more overwhelming threatarguments for appeasement continued: there was a desire for peace.
- a study on neville chamberlain's appeasement - the intention of this brief study is to demonstrate how the policy of appeasement implemented by the british government, and, above all, neville chamberlain, was the only rational solution to relate. The policy of appeasement is what allowed hitler to successfully transfer troops to the rhineland in 1936 which led to further military actions (eg the annexation of austria.
Led to appeasement as britain already felt as though the treaty was not being followed anyway so felt it was a suitable policy to continue despite germany failing to follow different parts of it the government would not be prepared to go to war to support this treaty. -this can be concluded that the defense of the empires was a key foreign policy aim of britain and france in the 1930s and it also helps to explain why the policy of appeasement was adopted 5 saving themselves from the threat of communism. •appeasement was in line with the league of nations values •it bought britain time- historian ajp taylor suggested that britain was not ready for war in 1938, they had only started to re-arm in 1937, appeasement bought them time to prepare for war was the policy of appeasement justified. Thus appeasement was the right policy for britain as it did not deteriorate britain's morale as quick when compared to the point where britain went to war straight away another justification was because britain did not have the financial resources to launch another war.