1. Issue 4 Thinking about what you have learned so far……
How successful was British foreign policy in containing fascist aggression between ?

2. When faced with fascist aggression, what exactly were British aims????
Avoiding war – obviously!! Why?
Dealing with grievances (legitimate?)-Why?
Reduce international tension – through LoN if possible – negotiate, disarm. Why?
Protect the Empire – Why?

3. Abyssinia 1935
Britain had a dilemma: should it help to protect Abyssinia or try to keep Italy onside? (What was happening around the same time?)
If Britain intervened to stop Mussolini then would lose a potential ally
Britain needed to be able to use the Med to get to empire in Far East
Hoare Laval Plan seemed like good idea-it would stop the war and keep Italy sweet. BUT – completely against LoN rules, looked like fascist aggression acceptable, self interest won = Appeasement in action

4. Verdict on issue?
Britain did not come out of it well – aggression worked – Italy won
Hoare Laval Plan showed Britain and France as underhand and shallow, Western ‘club’
Britain seen as ineffective
Fascists encouraged, moved closer together

5. Rearmament
Against ToV but Hitler argued that it was legitimate, felt threatened etc
Although Britain could justify Anglo-German Naval Agreement (How?), did it actually encourage rearmament? France appalled though and ratified Franco-Russian treaty in 1936, Britain appalled!

6. Verdict Again, fascist aggression not contained
Public confused, one minute signing Stresa Front to stop German aggression, next minute allowing rearmament
Britain allowed revision of ToV when it should have been stopped
Stresa Front no more
Increased tension in Europe

7. Rhineland Crisis 1936 Broke ToV, Locarno, LoN ineffective
Why did Britain allow it?
Hitler argued that he was justified (why?)
Britain angry at Franco Russian alliance because gave credence to Germany’s claim to feel threatened
Too harsh, back garden
It didn’t come as a surprise to government, Eden had already indicated to Hitler he could ‘have’ the Rhineland in exchange for an ‘air agreement’
Public didn’t think it was a threat-nobody was hurt
Better Hitlerism than Communism, if Hitler removed then who would take over?

8. Verdict- Britain successful?
Short term perhaps yes, Government argued that a grievance of Peace Settlement sorted successfully
BUT actually Britain caught off guard by cunning Herr Hitler, he was further encouraged
Long term – chain of events began here, Britain’s ‘ally’ France looked to Eastern Europe then led to Czech Crisis 1938

9. How did Britain become involved in Eastern European tensions?
France was spooked by remilitarisation of Rhineland and wanted to act.
Britain persuaded France not to do so, and publicly promised that it considered French national security was vital to both their interests.
From then on Britain was linked to France and Britain had to become involved in any French crisis

10. So what?
French had spent huge amounts on Maginot Line – defensive mentality
But remember, France had made alliances with Eastern Europe in the 1920s(Poland 1921, Czech 1924) so by that statement regarding France’s security being vital, Britain was under pressure to help France if she needed it.

11. Verdict-successful handling?
No, war over Rhineland was never going to happen.
Hitler never had any intention of fulfilling promise with Eden
French remained resentful and scared
Hitler started to build Siegfreid Line then looked to the east to fulfil Lebensraum

12. Spanish Civil War 1936-39 Nationalists won over Republicans
Importance to you is how it was affected by behaviour of major European powers.
Britain didn’t want war to spread, non-intervention decided on
BUT did not take action over the dictatorships that did intervene = appeasement – why?

13. Why non-intervention?
Many in Conservative Government stood to lose financially if Republicans won
Britain did not have a strong enough army yet, had only started to rearm in 1936
Scared of Communism
However, people of Britain divided, they didn’t want war but workers supported Republicans in the main. Some joined International Brigades as was seen as ideological war.
BUT non intervention without stopping the fascists actually helped the Nationalists to win

14. Verdict? Success that European war avoided
BUT argued it was immoral disguised as a good thing because
LoN and Britain should have done something because Republicans were legitimate government. Democracies looked bad and confidence of Fascists boosted. Britain argued that it was civil war and they shouldn’t intervene but they didn’t stop Italy and Germany
Russia realised it could not rely for help from Britain and France, led to Nazi-Soviet agreement 1939
Public happy that war was avoided by Britain

15. Anschluss March 1938
Again, against ToV yet Britain and France did nothing
It did not come as a surprise, Hitler had already tried in 1934
Realistically, what could Britain do?
ToV too harsh, and anyway, Austria was far away, they were effectively German?
Churchill a voice in the wilderness, argued that Germany was made stronger-resources etc but many didn’t understand what ‘the fuss was about’

16. Verdict?
Anschluss weakened Britain’s position, it did not resist aggression
Britain knew about Lebensraum policy, Hossbach Memorandum 1937 made it clear that Hitler had planned to take over Austria and Czechoslovakia
Once he controlled Austria, next logical step would be Czech
This appeasement policy was making it easy for Hitler, and remember, France had alliance with Czech, Britain had said that French security was vital=Britain now committed in Eastern Europe
Now no small country believed Britain or France would help them. Appeasement was seen as a selfish British plan to help only themselves.

17. So overall how did appeasement do in containing fascist aggression between 1935 and 38?
On the one hand it was successful ie no European war up to 1938 and Britain stayed at peace
On the other hand rules of LoN broken, ToV shattered, democratically elected govts overthrown without consequences, smaller/weaker states taken over
OK,Britain did avoid war but Fascists encouraged
Perhaps the only positive for Britain was that it bought time to rearm so that when war did break out they had a fighting chance (forgive the pun)