As Winston Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”[1] In this case Britain was feeding Germany with power and time which allowed her to re-arm and prepare for a full scale war which broke out on September 1st, 1939. [2] The trigger of war was the invasion of Poland in 1939 supplemented by long term factors which built up international tension between Nazi Germany and neighbouring countries. However, these events should not be classified as primary reasons for the outbreak of World War Two. The main reason should in fact be Britain and France’s unwillingness to stand up to Germany and appease her in a greatly beneficial manner. This is because the appeasement policy they chose to adopt was the catalyst for the strengthening of Germany and moreover their more rational demands. As A.J.P. Taylor said: “It was said at the time, and has often been said since, that 7 March 1936 was "the last chance", the last occasion when Germany could have been stopped without all the sacrifice and suffering of a great war.” [3] If Chamberlain had said no and stood up to Germany’s demands as A.J.P Taylor argues, there could have been a lessening of the loss of lives or maybe even a prevention of war at an early stage. As Churchill remarked, let it not be said that the English have no word for “no”
The policy of appeasement adopted by Britain was unnecessary and ultimately had many negative consequences. One of the major acts of appeasement Britain was involved in was the Munich Agreement signed on September 30th, 1938. [4] The happening of such a disastrous event which was a major component in the on course towards the Second World War deserves a degree of criticism on Neville Chamberlain’s behalf. Allowing this ruinous incident to occur was morally wrong as they did not even consider inviting a Czechoslovakian representative as they were the country that was being discussed. On the other hand it had also left Britain and France in a much weaker position. As William Shirer says: “The year’s breathing space said to be ’gained’ by Munich left Britain and France in a much worse position compared to Hitler’s Germany than they had been at the Munich crisis.” [5]William Shirer describes the signing of the Munich agreement as “THE SURRENDER AT MUNICH: SEPTEMBER 29-30, 1938.” [6] In other words it was Britain and France surrendering to Hitler’s demands. The only person that had the opportunity to stand up to Nazi Germany’s geographical expansion or as the Nazis described “the need for lebensraum” was Neville Chamberlain. In not doing so, Neville Chamberlain was not only deceiving the Czechoslovakians but he was also unknowingly making Germany stronger and the Western Democracies, Britain and France weaker. From William Shirer’s perspective Chamberlain actions should be disapproved of. On Neville Chamberlain’s third visit to Munich to discuss with Hitler what would happen with the Czechs moving out of the Sudetenland. The Prime Minster objected to the condition that the Czechs moving out of the Sudetenland could not even take their cattle with them. This was a demand of the Godesberg. In return Hitler exploded saying “Does this mean that the farmers will be expelled but that their cattle will be retained?” “Our time is too valuable to be wasted on such trivialities” he shouted at Chamberlain.[7] So in return the Prime Minister dropped the matter. This not only shows that Chamberlain was weak when it came to political discussions with leaders such as Hitler. Perhaps it even shows his inconsideration for the Czechoslovakian population that were moving out of the Sudetenland as he did not stand up for them. We can also understand that all the other demands by the Czechs would most likely have been ignored as they were not even allowed to take their cattle with them. However, the most vital point we should get from this is that Chamberlain did not work as hard as he could of for Britain and for the Czechs. Britain was part of the covenant of the League of Nations and he was representing the British people and the League itself. As Neville Chamberlain said during the Czech Crisis: “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country, between people whom we know nothing… I am myself a man of peace to the depth of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me. But if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by force I should feel that it must be resisted….”[8] What Neville Chamberlain is saying here is quite contradictory to his actions. Why does he contemplate there being a nation wanting to take over the world by force? This is maybe because he sees Germany becoming more of an aggressor and he knows that Hitler is progressing in the direction of war. But in fact, he gives into Hitler at the Munich Conference and does not stick with what he says about resisting aggression and maintaining world peace. From an extremists perspective you could even say that he was blindly aiding Nazi Germany in preparing for World War Two. This can be confirmed as there were secret German and Italian documents revealed much later, showing that Hitler and Mussolini had already agreed at the Munich meeting that they would fight “side by side” against Britain.[9] William Shirer writes in The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich: “ With the instinct of a genius rare in German history he had divined not only the weaknesses of the smaller states in Central Europe but those of the two principal Western democracies, Britain and France, and forced them to bend to his will. He had invented and used with staggering success a new strategy and technique of political warfare, which made actual war unnecessary.” [10] From this extraction we can understand that Neville Chamberlain was “useless” at the Munich agreement. Hitler was able to manipulate both him and his appeasement policy and the level of demand at the Munich Conference. As A.J.P.Taylor said: “They were men confronted with real problems, doing their best in the circumstances of their time.” [11] There were real problems at hand, the Munich Crisis for one, but Chamberlain had made very mild accomplishments. He also did not deal with the problem rationally. William Shirer also argues that Germany was in no position to go to war on October 1, 1938. That Germany would not last against Czechoslovakia and France and Britain, “not to mention Russia.” If Germany had gone to war, she would have been quickly defeated. If Hitler had initiated a direct attack on Czechoslovakia he might have been overthrown by Haider and Witzlebnen and their confederates that were planning on arresting him. [12] Britain and France were in a weaker position What I am trying to argue here is that Chamberlain in fact accomplished very little or in fact nothing in going to Munich. What he had accomplished from going to Munich was Hitler’s signature on a piece of paper that was later destroyed as he invaded and took over Czechoslovakia not long after his promising of peace. As William Shirer argues, the Munich agreement had actually put Britain and France in a weaker position. So in conclusion, Chamberlain deserves heavy criticism on his actions at the Munich conference. He was inconsiderate of the welfare Czechoslovakian people even that he was a leader of the League of Nations. He did little or nothing to prevent the take over of the Sudetenland. He gave in Hitler’s demands and was manipulated and deceived. So what did Chamberlain really accomplish?
What a huge, burdensome paragraph. However, with the wealth of facts and real, hard analysis of every point raised, at this stage I think it’s entirely justified,
The consequences of the Munich Agreement were drastic in terms of damage done to Czechoslovakia. After the Munich agreement, The Poles and Hungarians were also keen for territory in Czechoslovakia. They were threatening military action against the defenseless nation. The Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck insisted on annex Czechoslovakian land. They took 650 square miles of territory around Teschen which accounted of a population of 280,000 inhabitants where more than 50% were Czechs. [13] On November 2nd, Hungary took 7500 square miles containing a population of 500,000 Magyars and 272,000Slovaks. [14] From this we can confirm that the Munich agreement had heavily injured Czechoslovakia as it was from now on defenceless against countries that it could have defeated before the betrayal of Britain and France. However, what is more astounding is Czechoslovakia’s destruction of transportation, services and communication that it previously had. Their entire system of rail, road, telephone and telegraph communications was disrupted.[15] But that was not all. According to German figures, Czechoslovakia lost 66 per cent of its coal, 80 per cent of its lignite, 86 per cent of its chemical, 80 per cent of cement and textiles and 70 per cent of its iron, steel and electric power.[16] This is actually the most shocking consequence of Munich. The previously prosperous nation was divided and bankrupt. They were economically, socially and politically annihilated in one night because of Chamberlains incapability of handling the crisis at hand. Above all of this, if you take into consideration the amount of lives lost because of the Munich Agreement and the decree of the Nuremburg Blood laws after Czechoslovakia became part of Germany. There were 3,500,000 Jews living in Czechoslovakia and only twenty thousand of them managed to escape. The rest were all killed during the six years of Nazi reign over the country. By considering these factors the Munich Agreement was a very disastrous event. It completely ruined a country, its people and everything it represented.
Appeasement was unnecessary and by doing so, it elevated each of the crises at hand. Hitler was able to manipulate the Chamberlain and demand for more. In return, he became more and more aggressive and demanded even more as time progressed. The appeasement policy was generally a failure with minute accomplishments which could in fact be cancelled out as positive factors as they were more beneficial for Hitler and regime.
Historiography- 4/4
Skill- 4/4
Understand Question- 4/4
Knowledge ¾- Seems limited to Czechoslovakia
Meets demands of Question- ¾ Can’t be a true evaluation without seeing it in the context of events outside Germany and over the long-term. Nothing about Hitler’s actions 33-38 or about Mussolini’s role.
Given the overall result, I will forgive the day lateness
18/20
[1] http://www.enotes.com/famous-quotes/an-appeaser-is-one-who-feeds-a-crocodile-hoping-it
[2] The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William Shirer, page 546.
[3] The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor, page 134.
[4] The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William Shirer, page 380
[5] Ibid, page 390
[6] Ibid, page 380
[7] Ibid, Page 382.
[8] http://www.earthstation1.com/WWIIAudio/Chamberlain_on_Czech_Crisis_09.27.38_LL.wav
[9] The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich, William Shirer, page 385.
[10] Ibid, page 387
[11] The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P Taylor, page 25
[12] Ibid, page 391
[13] Ibid, page 387
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
[16] Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment