My mistake! I posted that forgetting that I had a specific topic.
Okay so appeasement. In this chapter, there is considerate focus on British appeasement. Reasons stated include a lack of enthusiasm for war because of the horrors of WWI and tight economic situations due to the depression, a desire to revise Versailles upon the opinion that it may have been too harsh, other worries including Japan and Italy, and Hitler's convincing argument that he, had few ambitions. Personally I think these are excuses. Hitler was very vocal in Germany regarding his goals, and anyone who heard him speak would know him to be ambitious. Additionally, the League of Nations was created as an international powerhouse dedicated to the promotion of peace, so Britain was acting alone. Any action they would have taken would have been supported by the League. Finally without actually revising Versailles, letting Hitler take any action he chose gave him power. The decision to lighten up was a fine one, but it needed to be done as an International pardon, not Hitler testing his boundaries. So tell me what you guys think, were British reasons for appeasing good or just excuses?
Generally I think Britain's reasons for appeasement were good; for that time. Looking back now, I find them to be quite stupid; but that's because I know the outcome of them. I can understand their fear of another war, although some what of a victory, was not something to desire a repeat of. All the causalities, money lost, and supplies lost did not paint a pretty picture. Plus, they were smart in believing that Germany may have been punished to harshly and they understood the revenge. They were trying to revise to make peace; I consider that to be smart and logical.The one thing that I don't find "good" about Britain's reasons was falling for Hitler's false speech. I don't understand how they could fall for it when the information was out there. But then again, I don't know how fast and accurate the information at hand was. But, for that time, I think Britain's reasons were good. Knowing the outcomes and how they should have done it in the long run, I think they were bad.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that every one of their reasons were good, but I also dont think that they need 10 different reasons. I think that not wanting another large scale war in itself is a good reason. I dont think that wanting to revise the treaty is a good reason along with thinking that Hitlers ambition. Many of the reasons are weak and seem to be excuses however I feel like there only really needs to be one really good reason, and that reason is the fear of another war.
ReplyDeleteI think that now, looking back, many of the reasons appear very weak, as if they were just excuses. However, I think that at the time things seemed different. Especially the one about the horrors of WWI. I think that at the time that by itself would have led many people to support Britain's policy. I think Britain was just trying to do the best they could and that their reasons seemed to them at the time to be strong ones.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren, that it was just a matter of the time period. It's true: appeasement generally does not benefit the sympathetic party. But what other options did they have? Britain felt that they risked another war with Germany, or a greater war. They did the best they could, but hindsight is 20/20. But I do agree with Kate on the bit about Hitler. In a sense, I think Britain feigned ignorance in the hopes that Hitler was not the threat he would turn out to be. They turned a blind eye to his vocality, to his wild fervor based on crazed nationality. To believe that he had few ambitions is nonsense, but Britain's hands were tied.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren too, that it looked good then, I mean you can't see the into the future and whats going to happen, but it looks stupid to us because we do know what happened. I honestly think Britian was doing the best it could at that point in time, so I think they were doing good job, they weren't making excuses.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though they were only excuses. Even if they did not have hindsight like us currently, the nations at the time should of atleast expected a little that Germany was getting a little to powerful.
ReplyDeleteI think British and French criticism of German upbuilding can be seen as a warning towards the League. However, taking any action of revision could have been seen as a weakening/threatened League of Nations or posed an opportunity for charismatic Hitler to step in and barter for less restrictions. Maybe the fact that Britain and France felt that the terms of the Treaty were so harsh led them to allow the minor German advances against the treaty.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I think that Britain and France had great reasons for appeasement, but German circumstances put any action from the League in a standstill. The threat of another war was growing with Germany's rising military. Britain and France claiming that their economies were in too poor a shape to invest in military spending against German growth is an excuse, though. They needed to go on a whim and throw whatever money and resources that were available to make their one stand against Germany before war could break out.
From point (5) in the book, p. 246. What would be worse- a Totalitarian society run by Hitler or a Communist Germany? Given the United States' view that communism would eventually run the country into the ground, wouldn't it have been better for Germany to become communist?
I like Kaylan's point that hindsight is 20/20. We all know how badly appeasement turned out for the Allies, but at the time they really just wanted to avoid another large-scale war. People remembered the horrors of WWI, and didn't want a repeat. They were willing to do anything to avoid it. That being said, I still thought that British prime minister Chamberlain was foolish to think that Hitler would keep his word. If he saw "ruthlessness...in his [Hitler's] face," Chamberlain should have picked up on the fact that Hitler wasn't slowing down any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI agree with AJ. I really don't think that Britain's appeasement was very intelligent. I think that Churchill (or whoever was leading Britain in 1933) should have put a stop to Hitler before he had the chance to build up the German military to what it was. The Allies knew that Germany was working on building weapons- what did they think that Germany was going to use tanks for? Sport?
ReplyDeleteThis may be a little too much to ask- we are talking about Britain, who had just gotten out of a bloody war and did not want to get entangled in fighting again. However, I honestly think that when Germany began to reacquire the land it had lost in the Treaty of Versailles should have been a sign for Britain to step in and tell Hitler that he needed to step down- or, at the very least, made him give up the territories he had retaken. He had shown no signs that he was going to slow down once he started capturing land. Britain was just scared- and because of this, they made the ridiculous assumption that Hitler would just "burn out."
I think that, to a great extent, we cannot judge british actions today because we don't really understand the fear of another war... Maybe appeasement seemed like a viable option to chamberlain when he considered the alternative- getting his people into another war that they definitely didn't want. However, when Churchill came into office, I think he saw the broader picture, though it is also important to remember that he worked with chamberlain for many years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melissa on this one. Britain was so desperate in not wanting to get into a war maybe going with appeasement was a way they could forget about the possibilities of going to war. Like Melissa said we don't understand the fear of another war so its hard to think like the British did. However in the end it was just an excuse though but an understandable one at that.
ReplyDeleteI think that we probably have to think about the League of Nations with a little more perspective. This isn't the strong, unified body that we picture when we think the United Nations, it was unorganized and full of countries with widely varied view points. At the time, there probably wasn't a lot that the League of Nations could have done. They didn't have an army, or any real influence that was going to have an effect on Germany. Also, most countries were just desperate to avoid war, like Melissa said. I can see how appeasement would have become the policy without a lot of questions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kaitlyn, (minus the fact that it's the League of Nations)we need to think of this as a bunch of countries trying to figure things out after a war. Hitler was trying to make this disorganization work to his advantage, and he succeeded. He managed to slip through the cracks in the midst of all this other chaos. I can see exactly why appeasement became the standard policy very clearly. Now there's the question of if it was right or not. Clearly it didn't succeed, but what other options did they have? Try to make war when all of their countries were in ruins? If WWII had to happen, it's probably best that appeasement held it off for a few years until the counties could get themselves together.
ReplyDeleteI think that Britain was just using excuses to avoid going to war with Germany. But I can't really blame them. WWI was horrible for everyone. Britain certainly did not want to rush into another war that could be just as bloody. So they appeased Hitler and Germany in an attempt to circumvent war. Was it the right decision? No. But you can't blame Britain for acting the way that they did.
ReplyDeleteMost of you understand the purpose of British appeasement, to prevent another war. Personally, I think the the Treaty of Versailles was the mistake. The entire point of punishing Germany was to prevent them from becoming a threat. Was appeasement a mistake? Of course, but the greater mistake (for Britain, France, and the US) was not listening to Wilson's 14 Points, and if France and Britain were unwilling to enforce the Treaty of Versailles, why did they severely punish Germany in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI think to answer Mr. Geary's question it was the matter of the scapegoat again. Just as Germany blamed to Jews for all of their problems, the Allied Powers used Germany as the scapegoat for world war I. But to answer Kate's question I think that Britain's motivation for appeasement is highly understandable, I mean didn't countries getting involved in each other's business start World War I in the first place? And wasn't WWI indirectly the cause for the position their current poor economic state?
ReplyDeleteOpe, Hi again. I think that Tess has a point with "getting involved in each other's business". The main powers were afraid of pushing Germany because they didn't want another war, but also, they probably lost a lot of support from more minor powers because there was just a lot of hesistancy to get involved in anything that wasn't directly related to your own country. I think that, in response to the Treaty of Versailles, we have to consider that there is a difference between the Allied leaders who angrily signed the Treaty of Versailles, and the leaders who were left to actually carry out its conditions. France had a new Prime Minister every two years, sometimes every year. Britain's David Lloyd George ended his term in 1922, followed by a series of short-termed Prime Ministers and the United States obviously didn't have Wilson anymore, being that he was dead. And then we were suffering Harding and Hoover and Coolidge. So, really, this leadership shouldn't be held responsible for the Treaty of Versailles being so strict. They didn't exactly sign up for it.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Britain was trying to do the right thing with appeasement, because the last think they wanted was another war. However, Mr. Geary said that the point of punishing Germany was to prevent them from becoming a threat, so it doesn't make sense for Britain to then turn around and go appeasement-crazy with Germany. It's completely contradictory! It would be like punishing a little kid for starting a fight with another kid, and then offering him a piece of candy as a bribe to not start another fight. I think that Britain and the rest of the League of Nations should have just stuck with the Treaty of Versailles and enforced it properly.
ReplyDelete