WHY DID BRITAIN FOLLOW A POLICY OF APPEASEMENT?

Impact of First World War Hardly a family had escaped a loss or injury of a loved one Had been fought as a moral crusade a war for democracy and a “war to end all wars” Britain’s policy in the 1920’s and 30’s was a continuation of this mood

Membership of the League of Nations A policy of conciliation, negotiation, and concession seemed to be consistent with membership. Collective security would deter aggressors Appeasement was a way of reinforcing the League When league was discredited appeasement become the alternative to the League

The fear of financial cost of a war A strong economy was essential for a strong defence Military people worried that the nation could not rearm Politicians argued the Br. Could not afford to rearm

The political cost Oxford University Debate in Feb. 1933 “This House will in no circumstance fight for King and Country” East- Fulham by-election Oct. 1933 So called Peace Ballot of 1934/5 millions of pupil signed a petition stressing the use of non-violent methods to solve disputes

Political Cost All of these would appear to demonstrate strong anti-war feelings and possible (certain?) defeat facing any government trying to introduce re-armament

Feelings over the Treaty of Versailles Policy of appeasement also arose out of feelings of guilt The reparations and the punitive treatment of Germany The widespread belief that much of the territorial clauses were unjust Br. Was ready to admit German grievances and was prepared to something about them

Stronger Germany necessarily a bad thing? Might bring about political and economical stability to Central Europe A valuable trading partner and in the 1930’s Br. Needed this A prosperous and contented Germany less likely to veer towards political extremism Would also ,therefore, be a defence against Communist Russia, which seemed more of a threat than a Nazi Germany

Similarly in the Far East Japan could contain Russian expansion Invasion of Manchuria was reprehensible BUT, the Chinese were weak, decadent, corrupt,and too internally divided to be worth supporting

Britain not strong enough? No real alternative since the country was not strong enough to face dictators alone and had no reliable allies Overextended navy Cuts in all the armed forces Believed that Germany and Italy were too strong and modern

The Bomber would always get through Governmental figures suggested huge civilian casualties would result Britain ill-prepared for air defences RAF had until later no effective fighters or longer range bombers Shelters, radar etc still to be developed Images of Guernica