• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Nazi-Soviet non-agression pact! (1 Viewer)

Grublet

New Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
8
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Need help answering this question:

2009 – To what extent was the policy of appeasement responsible for the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939.


The only thing I can think of is that appeasement made Germany stronger every time something was given to Hitler
and that appeasement gave Hitler growing confidence

ANYTHING ELSE!?!?!?!?!?

Thanks :)
 

JT145

ON is my homeboy
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
1,678
Gender
Female
HSC
2016
Think about why appeasement was Britain and France's preferred strategy.
Britain and France had no desire to return to war. After the atrocities of WWI there was still very high anti-war sentiment. They could not see themselves going to war over German self-determination (as the occupation of the Ruhr, Rhineland, Austria and Sudetenland) could be justified under Germanic self-determination. It was also in Britain's interest to have a stronger Germany (economically) for trade, as Britain's economy was also in ruins having loaned off everything to the USA. This anti-war sentiment also meant that Britain essentially had a very small army (when combined with the League of Nations' [ambiguous] rearmament clause) and it was in no position to attack Germany before 1938. France's army was also largely defensive behind the Maginot Line and had no means of invading German territory.

Appeasement was also due to the League of Nations' lack of success with Collective Security (just write 2-3 sentences on this in your essay as it's a separate syllabus dot point). The failure of the LON to intervene in Manchuria and Abyssinia (in 1931 and 1935 respectively) meant that collective security was an unrealistic strategy.

However appeasement failed to factor in the account that Hitler's territorial ambitions could never be fulfilled by appeasement. His quest for Lebensraum included the conquest of the whole of Eastern Europe, territorial concessions that could not be granted by Britain and France. Hitler's ambitions could only be achieved by war, which was the very thing appeasement attempted to mitigate. Paul Kennedy would argue that ‘Hitler was fundamentally unappeasable and determined upon a future territorial order which small scale adjustments could never justify’. Appeasement hopes for peace in that Hitler's territorial hunger could be sated after the granting of territory- in which it could not be. It served to strengthen Hitler's confidence and it was only after Britain and France realised that appeasement would no longer work as it would disrupt the European balance of power too much they went to war over Poland.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top