0
Great Britain and France are solely responsible for the appeasement policy and its failure to prevent WWII.
What else can I help you with?
What were Neville Chamberlain's main features in policy of appeasement?
Chamberlain thought that by appeasing Germany and Hitler, he could prevent war. Chamberlain, and many in Britan, thought that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh and by giving back the land taken from Germany (and more) they would make Germany/Hitler happy and war would never come.
Should the immigration policy change?
No, but it should be enforced though.
The failure to perform an act that should have been performed is?
nonfeasance
How did the battle of bannockburn start?
Dont ask me :P you should of listened in lessons you FAILURE so dont copy and paste it .... FAILURE
Who is blamed for starting World War 2?
Who was to blame for the outbreak of the Second World War? Was it Adolf Hitler or was it the appeasers of Britain and France? Was Hitler to blame for attacking Poland and others or was it people like Neville Chamberlain who should have taken a firmer stand against Germany. Many feel the appeasers are to blame. Appeasement is the policy of avoiding war with aggressive powers by giving way to their demands if they are not too unreasonable. Therefore during my essay I will be discussing whether appeasement was the wrong policy at the wrong time during the 1930's. The majority of the British public were against war in the 1930's. This was shown in the peace ballot of 1935 where the majority favoured peace. The oxford debate also backed up this point. Another indication was the great reception Chamberlain received when he returned from Munich in 1938. The treaty of Versailles favoured Britain. The prime minister at the time Lloyd George had hoped for a "stern" peace. His hope was granted. The League of Nations was "the cornerstone of British foreign policy". The League of Nations was not strong and had failed to do its job. Britain may have took this route due to the economic crisis in Britain at the time or the terrible state that the British forces were in at the time. Also the British feared the idea of war and they may have felt that Germany and Italy had been unfairly treated at Versailles. It was also felt that the disarmament conference of 1932 in Geneva had been a success due to the ban on bombing and the limitation on tanks and armed forces. The use of chemicals had also been stopped. But this was not a success. Germany and Russia voted against and eventually in 1933 when Hitler came to power he withdrew Germany from the world disarmament conference and began to openly rearm. (His army had risen to 550,000) So why did this happen. It may be due to the foreign policies of Hitler and Mussolini for that matter. It was well documented that Hitler had wanted to unite all Germans and German speakers into what he called "greater Germany" in his book Mein kampf and his ideology of lebensraum, which translates to living room. He had many stages in how to achieve this. Firstly was the Rhineland where Adolf Hitler marched his 22,000 troops back into the demilitarised zone on March 7th 1936. This was a clear act of aggression which had broken the Versailles and Locarno treaties. Britain chose to ignore this saying it was an outdated concept and were committed to appeasement. Some may say it was not feasible to use military force. A quote for Anthony. Anthony Eden sums it up. He says: "Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland was an occasion when the British and French governments should have attempted the impossible". It is true to say that Hitler may have backed down or have been overthrown if force had been used. It was unfortunate that Hitler was rightly confident at the time due to factors of British sympathy and another crisis, this time in Abyssinia due to Mussolini. Abyssinia was invaded in October '35 despite Abyssinia's innocence at the wal wal incident, and even offering to give up some of their territory and a placate on Mussolini. It was clear that some action had be taken because this was also breaking treaties but yet again, due to appeasement, nothing done. Britain and France were more worried about their relationship with Italy that Abyssinia and they didn't want to antagonize Mussolini. They also didn't want to break the stresa front. They took the wrong option and chose appeasement and came up with the Hoare Laval pact, which stated Italy was to be given Abyssinian land and economic rights. The pact had to be discredited because it caused outcry in public. These two events show, to me, that appeasement was definitely the wrong policy because they had went against all the Britain had stood for e.g. collective security. It also gave the impression the aggressors were being rewarded and it gave them confidence in the future to keep going with their demands. The Spanish civil war is another example where the governments of Britain and France took up the policy of non - intervention in the war lead by Leon Blum, the leader of France. The powers of Italy and Germany yet again broke rules and showed that appeasement was ineffective and quite simply a policy that would not work. The British and French were clearly hoping that disarmament would work with the French suggesting four years of supervising armament levels. But in the end this form of appeasement didn't work either and it was ended in early 1934. The British and French didn't see that this was a failure of appeasement. Following on Britain thought they could appease Germany by offering the Anglo German naval agreement stating the Germans could have an naval fleet 35% the size of the British. It failed to work. The French and Italians felt the British were too unreliable and led to a fall out and a break of the stresa front. It was also seen as a poor basis for a stance against aggression and weakened the case for appeasement, it only made Germany stronger. The French were clearly satisfied to settle for non-intervention in the Spanish civil war because Blum was terrified of Germany. Britain's main reason for non-intervention was in with their policy of appeasement - they didn't want to make an enemy of Franco or Mussolini. There was also the worry of "the bomber will always get through". The events after the Nyon conference show that maybe a firmer stand would have been more effective. British and French navies were to destroy non-Spanish ships in the med. The piracy finally stopped. The question is whether this stance would have worked in other situations. The argument for appeasement is not helped by the claims that it was Hitler's policy from the beginning to start a war. The Hossbach memorandum was shown to have Hitler ideas including a war. "Germany's problems could only be sorted by a matter of forces. Although this may only be speculation it may show that Hitler never had peace on his mind and if this were the case then the policy of appeasement would have been no use. The Sudetenland crisis was a key event. These sequences of events show the difficulty of justifying appeasement due to the fascist aggression. In Hitler's aim of uniting all Germans he had to overcome the problem of 3.5 million Germans living in Czech Sudetenland. Hitler was warned not to go in by Britain France and Russia. This seemed to anger Hitler and it seemed to make war look inevitable. Then Neville Chamberlain, who was very much in favour of appeasement, managed to negotiate with Hitler at three meetings all in Germany - Berchtesgaden, Bad Godesberg and finally Munich for the Munich conference which stretched appeasement to all limits which was called a "negotiation" but it was really giving Hitler all he had asked for. This was probably a step to far for appeasement. This was letting Hitler do anything he wanted and it was at this stage, if not before, that the policy of appeasement should have been dropped. This point of appeasement failing is backed up a month later when Germany invaded Poland which was the final straw for the appeasers and war was declared. The one thing to debate is whether this should have been done earlier. The liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair shows his feelings on the matter with his comment "we have eaten dirt in vain". Many people relate the policy of appeasement to the weakness of Britain and in particular Neville Chamberlain. Britain were weak due to disarmament and were still unprepared for war in 1938. But on the other hand it is said that the German military and their strength was exaggerated and in the early stages that they would have been beaten if Britain and France had stood up to them. There is also evidence that Hitler may have pulled out of the Rhineland if he was questioned. The Rhineland was probably the turning point. This gave Hitler the confidence to continue and he then knew he would be confronted with appeasement and not force. Historians who have justified appeasement in the past have said the empire was weak and would not support them in war or the military was weak or even that chamberlain was trying to buy time. The argument of chamberlain buying time can be levelled with that it gave the Germans more time and they also got stronger. In Conclusion I would say that the arguments that have been presented definitely suggest that appeasement was the wrong policy to take during the 1930's. Although the British public were in favour of peace British policy was not suitable or successful. The league of nations didn't work neither did disarmament or collective security. The events of the Rhineland and Abyssinia also showed that appeasement was never going to work with these two fascist powers. If there was ever going to be a time to ditch the appeasement policy then this should have been the time.
What was the appeasement and why did churchill oppose it so strongly?
Appeasement was the policy of European democracies that aimed to avoid war with the dictatorships of Germany and Italy. Churchill was unusual in believing that Germany menaced freedom and democracy and should be resisted over Czechoslovakia.
What did the policy of appeasement Britain a chance to do?
Hitler's Appeasement was a policy of concessions accorded to Nazi regime in Germany by the British government under Neville Chamberlain and allies. There were many reason behind this policy but chiefly the Allies felt that Germany was accorded a raw deal under the treaty of Versailles and British forces at the time did not match German military juggernaut and were not in a position to fight a war.
Winston churchill opposed Neville chamberlain's policy of appeasement which he deemed?
Winston Churchill opposed Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement because he saw and new what Hitler was doing and new that he was getting stronger, he stood up and said this but was the only one who did so...He didint say appeasement was a bad idea he just thought after Hitler had broken his promises a couple of times he thought that they should have stopped and used aggression and stopped Hitler while they could.
What did Chamberlain claim England should do while pursuing the policy of appeasement?
Chamberlain claims England should seek by means all power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.
What type of insurance does a construction estimating company require?
Well you should have a general liability policy that covers the business and you should also have an errors and omissions policy that covers you for any errors or omissions that you my be responsible for.
How would Neville Chamberlain have defended the policy of appeasement?
It was an attempt to avoid war. Nobody wanted to go through all of that death and destruction, yet when an enemy is intent on destroying you, you must fight. In the case of Germany, they were intent on ruling all of Europe and eventually the world. No amount of appeasement would have deterred Hitler. He believed it to be the Aryan right. It's a lesson we should have learned. No amount of appeasement will deter radical Islam. They too are intent on ruling the world.
Should President Obama be responsible for the failure of the Affordable Care Act going to effect?
No because he is not very productive in the process in health care.
Why did Neville Chamberlain allow Hitler to annex the Sudetenland?
They were afraid of the effects of standing up to Hitler in case of another war. Both Britain and France were horrified from WW1, and they were both still not ready to fight. So they used the policy of appeasement to give Hitler what he wanted, if it was within reason. Also, people in britain thought that the Treaty of Versailles- which is what took the Sudetenland land from Germany in the first place was too harsh, and that Germany should be treated more equally.
Can a non resident relative be listed on your personal auto insurance as a driver?
Any person who drives your vehicle should be listed as a driver on your auto insurance policy. Not only should they be listed but according to the policy terms you are required to notify the insurance company of any and all drivers and household residents. If a person has an accident while driving your vehicle and you have not listed that person as a driver you could be guilty of material misrepresentation and the claim could be denied by the insurance company. In the terms of the policy both the company and the policyholder both have requirements that they are responsible for. The policyholder is responsible for being truthful, providing answers to their questions, and paying the premiums on a timely manner. The company is responsible to pay claims that they are responsible to pay under the terms of the policy.
What is a responsible government policy for managing natural resources?
A responsible government policy for managing natural resources should prioritize sustainability, ensuring that resources are used in a way that meets present needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own. This includes implementing regulations that promote conservation, investing in renewable resources, and encouraging responsible consumption practices. Additionally, engaging local communities in decision-making processes can enhance accountability and effectiveness in resource management. Overall, the policy should balance economic growth with environmental protection.
Are you compensated for personal items in your car that got destroyed?
That depends on who is responsible for the damage. If someone else was responsible then their insurance should cover your damaged property. If you are at fault then you will have to make a claim on a homeowner or renter's insurance policy of your own, if you have one.
Do you need insurance for yourself if all you want to do is practice driving with your dad on a learner's permit?
Your dad should add you to his policy, if you crash during training, someones insurance would need to be responsible, and if you are not on a policy, no insurance company will pay the claim.
