Appeasement Policies: Britain And France

Appeasement Policies: Britain And France The appeasement policy was a policy adopted by Britain and France and it was a major player in the outbreak of the war. Appeasement was first introduced in the mid 1930s by Stanley Baldwin who was then the British Prime Minister. But it was Neville Chamberlain who changed this appeasement policy when he ascended to power in 1937. The British government defines appeasement as the settlement of issues through negotiation and compromise. The British were very committed to this policy and they followed it confidently with the hope that it will reduce the chance of a world war. Britain and France sought to appease Hitler not merely because it was militarily, economically and politically rational to do so, but because of personal judgments made by Chamberlain. It is clearly evident that right from the start, Chamberlain did not clearly understand Hitlers motive and to his best understanding, appeasement would be the best strategy to avert war. He assumed that Hitlers motive was just to ama ss and maintain power which means possibility for war would be trashed by German people. Sequence of events during pursuance of appeasement policy clearly illustrates that Chamberlain did not understand Hitlers motive at all and his approach to appeasement policy could not work. While appeasement policy was mainly meant to avert war, it did not serve its purpose as Chamberlain failed to understand Hitler and the Nazi motives in general. He did not take quick steps to rearm Britain because he did not see any threat to Britain in particular and to Western Europe in general from the Germans. Therefore Chamberlain felt free to pursue the appeasement policy and disregard a military alliance with France to wage a war against Germany. It is therefore evident that Chamberlain inaccurately thought that appeasement was the only means that would stop the way. He pursued the appeasement from his own convictions and that is why he went to Germany to meet Hitler without the approval of the cabine t. He trusted Hitler and he thought he would keep his word once his demands were met. He sought this appeasement so as to conciliate with Germany to have a stable Europe  [1]  . His personal view was that Germany would be satisfied with what he offered and especially the restoration of its former colonies. There are reasons that made Chamberlain seek appeasement with Hitler. One of them is that he represented the British citizens who did not want a war as they were in the process of healing the wounds from World War One. Also, he did not want to go to war with Germany because the fall of Germany would mean the victory of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. Chamberlain and the British citizens did not want this to happen. So Chamberlain was trying as much as he could to avoid a war with Germany and at the same time the spread of communism. The appeasement policy that Chamberlain campaigned for was merely to avoid war. He took a number of steps to ensure that the war did not happen but they failed at the end. He even traveled to Germany without Cabinet approval to pursue appeasement with Hitler. But it can also be seen as a strategy that he used in order to gain some time in rearming his forces  [2]  . The perception by Chamberlain of the methods employed by Nazi and the aim of Hitler was inaccurate. This inaccurate perception is what resulted into adoption of appeasement by Britain and France. Instead of preventing world war two, the appeasement policy can be said to be its cause especially after its failure. Chamberlain persisted in use of persuasion towards Germany rather than deterrent in addressing the grievances made by Hitler. In doing this he was convinced that Hitler wanted only to maintain power and if the grievances and demands that Germany raised were met, the German people would quench the possibility of a war  [3]  . Chamberlain thought that he could single handedly and as an individual avert the possibility of Second War through his appeasement. That is why he met Hitler on three separate occasions without Cabinet approval and without the presence of British ministers. Though there was a decrease in support from the British people and the foreign office, Chamberlain continued to believe strongly in this policy and he did not see its failure. He failed to address the arguments that were presented by allies who had been angered by the British foreign policy e.g. France. This made France an unwilling follower of Britain foreign policy even though France did not believe in its success. Chamberlain believed that any strong approach towards Hitler other than appeasement would anger him and possibly provoke him into starting a war. Therefore he did not emphasize on military production. The industries in Britain were freed to produce armaments by the recession of 1938 and the cabinet approved a potential war in February 1936  [4]  . Chamberlain was so blinded by appeasement policy that he did not assess any possible alternatives. He was confidence and optimistic that appeasement policy would succeed  [5]  . The alternative that was there was an alliance with the Soviet Union to counter Hitler but Chamberlain would not overlook the differences that Britain had with USSR on communism. He believed that in doing this, he would be giving communism a chance to spread. His erroneous judgments can be seen when he did not pursue a military alliance with France after the Munich conference when he had the chance to check the expansion of Germany. Instead he reasoned that appeasement would stop Hitler from expanding German territories. He therefore did not give any other alternative a chance  [6]  . The Versailles Pact which had been signed after the First World War with an aim of ending all wars was greatly hated by the Germans  [7]  . It was argued that the treaty, if it were to stand, wound ruin the economic status of Germany. This treaty is seen by some historians as the lead cause of the Second World War. Chamberlains misjudgment of Hitlers intention can be seen especially due to his surrender to Hitlers growing demands. This was clearly seen in 1940 when Chamberlain desperately wanted to maintain peace through fulfilling the demands made by Hitler. Chamberlain and Baldwin chose to neglect the armaments of Britain to the edge of national annihilation  [8]  . This therefore means that there were other possible alternatives but which Chamberlain failed to look at. Winston Churchill who came to power after Chamberlain viewed appeasement as a humiliation to France and Britain and he termed it as a long series of miscalculations and misjudgments of men and facts and which led Britain into an endless war with the Nazis  [9]  . Many Britons saw hope after the signing of the Versailles treaty. They wanted to avoid another war and that is why the British government had to give in to the demands presented by Hitler  [10]  . Britain felt that Germany had been treated unfairly due to the restriction imposed upon it. Chamberlain felt that if the restriction were lifted, Germany would become happier. This perception of Germany by the general population gave Hitler confidence and also provided him with an opportunity to acquire more lands without a war. The British economy was fairing very badly hence Britain was not ready for a war. It was not even in a position to fund and rearm its military force due to the bad economic status. So Chamberlain tried as much as possible to avoid a war with Germany. The way Hitler was progressing meant that there was not even time for Britain to organize war strategies and prepare its force. So Chamberlain had to find a way of avoiding war and/or gaining sometime to rearm the military. The only solution present was appeasement  [11]  . To the best of Chamberlain assumptions, German would not pursue another war after all the demands presented had been met. However, it is evident that Chamberlain did not understand the Hitlers motive. Chamberlain assumed that Hitler was only interested in maintaining power. Even when it became evident that Hitler were rearming, Chamberlain turned a blind eye and did not take any step to rearm Britain forces. However, Hitlers main aim was to make Germany as super power and a united Germany. He also wanted to enlarge the Germany territory through what he called recapturing of lost territories  [12]  . Hitler believed that German will become strong again only through the use of military aggression and war. He directly challenged the Versailles treaty in 1934 by rearming his armed forces and preparing them for war. This he did through production of tanks, submarines and aircrafts in huge masses. When it was announced that Hitler was rearming his military forces, which was in conflict with the Versailles pact, Britain and France protested to the League of Nations with the hope that it can be stopped  [ 13]  . The League of Nations did not try to stop these aggressive rearmament plans by Hitler on the grounds that there were no military or economic sanctions that had been imposed. It was due to the appeasement which made Hitler more confident. In short France and Britain simply turned a blind eye on this public breach of Versailles treaty. He was confident that France and Britain as the appeasers would not stop him. He did this knowing very well that he was flouting the Versailles treaty. Britain and France did not stop Hitler from taking over Rhineland because he was taking back what belonged to Germany originally. At this stage, France could have stopped the reoccupation of the Rhine region but she did not want to start a war with Germany due to the lack of support from the British. Hitler did not want negotiations with France. He instead wanted to deal with Britain and Chamberlain especially. This may be because Hitler saw a sign of weakness and poor perception in Chamberlain. This is what forced France to follow Britain in the pursuance of appeasement even though it disputed its success. In supporting Britain, France wanted a strong militarily alliance with Britain that could maintain a war with Germany once the appeasement policy failed. Though the pursuance of appeasement by France was manipulated by Britain, France would not back off because it had found an ally in Britain. Because France would not be in a position to fight Germany on its own, having Britain on its side was of great importance  [14]  . This was because France was undergoing a financial crisis, industrial hold ups and a shortage in skilled labor. Chamberlain thought that France was behind him in his appeasement policy but he failed to see the hidden agenda pursued by France in its support for appeasement. The politics and governance in France were different from those in Britain. While Chamberlain as an individual dominated the foreign policy in Britain, France had a rapid turnover of cabinets and governments. The indictments of appeasement in France focused on the whole political players but not on one individual. Chamberlain thought that by allowing Hitler to take over the region that formally belonged to Germany, he would at least stop there. Hitler invaded Austria in 1938 and he declared Anschluss. In doing this he was breaking the Versailles treaty. The Australian chancellor at the time pleaded with France and Britain to help but these two countries did nothing about it. Chamberlain sent a protest note to Berlin  [15]  . He addressed the cabinet after Hitlers army crossed the border and he blamed both Germany and Austria. Even though, he condemned strongly the methods used by Hitler to annex Austria  [16]  . Chamberlain saw Hitler as a man who can be trusted and in his intervention he persuaded the president of the republic of Czech to hand over Sudetenland to the Germans. In doing this, Chamberlain thought that this was the last demand that Hitler would ask for. The annexation of Australia in 1938 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia as a whole is what opened the eyes of the appeasers and they saw that no matter how much they tried to appease Hitler, war was inevitable. After giving in to all the demands made by Hitler and his continual invasion of Europe, the appeasers realized that the appeasement policy was a failed policy. Chamberlain did not see Czechoslovakia as an issue that could result to war. He had simply assumed that it was just a conflict between two neighboring countries and that their conflict could not result to a world war. In 1938, Chamberlain is said to have observed: How horrible. Fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!  [17]  . This quote suggests that the reason why Chamberlain pursued appeasement was to keep Britain safe while allowing Germany to control other nations. As long as Hitler did not interfere with Britains interest, Chamberlain was committed in pursuing appeasement. He believed that Hitler would be only interested in Eastern Europe and would not care to head Western Europe. That is why Britain and France did not take any military action when Germany started its rearming, the remilitarization of Rhine land and the Anschluss with Austria. The reason why the British policy of appeasement was vague in the 1930s was because the British politicians were unable to accurately the greatest threat to Britain and therefore come up with appropriate means and strategies to deal with them. Therefore Britain did not make any attempt to unite with America, USSR or France  [18]  . Though the British people were at first excited by Chamberlains avoidance of another war, the public opinion changed in 1938-8 after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. The public mood in France and Britain changed and Chamberlain chose to ignore this and instead continue with appeasement secretly. He had ordered that the word appeasement be used as little as possible in his speeches  [19]  . The famous peace in our time speech that was delivered by Chamberlain on September 30, 1938 showed that Hitler was a man who could not be trusted. It also showed that appeasement policy had failed as a means to prevent war. The main reason why Britain and France embraced the appeasement policy was because they did not want the whole of Europe to be dragged into a world war by Hitler. It was a policy being persued due to the lessons learnt from world war one. Appeasement policy can be seen as a bad policy that was aimed at achieving world peace while sacrificing some countries like the way Britain and France did to try and appease Hitler at the mercies of Czechoslovakia. Though the appeasement policy led to the strengthening of Germany, and the breakout of war, there are other reasons why France and Britain adopted this policy. These two countries were faced with economic problems in the 1930s. The British economy was severely weakened by the Wall Street crash of 1929 which made the government put the rearming of its armed forces on hold. Chamberlain wanted as much as possible to avoid war. That is why he adopted the appeasement policy. On the other hard, France was not in a position to maintain a war. It needed the support of Britain. It is because of this that it followed Britain in seeking the appeasement. This was because he wanted peace and stability that would allow economic growth for the whole of Europe. The Britons had a positive attitude towards the appeasement in the hope that it would reduce the chances of a war outbreak. Thus it can be concluded that appeasement was a British government policy that was fully supported by the citizens. Britain did not want a war between it and Germany. This was because it was threatened by communist USSR and not because it feared Germany. In case Germany fell, there was a possibility of spread of communism and Britain did not want this to happen. That is why it was in the favor of appeasement policy. Another fear that embraced Britain was forming a coalition with USSR which was its bitter rival. That is why Chamberlain desperately sought for appeasement at the mercies of other countries just to make sure that they did not join hands with USSR in a war against Germany  [20]  . The signing of the Munich agreement is viewed by many as a betrayal especially by Britain. What Chamberlain was doing is to buy some time to rearm British forces. Hitler on the other hand thought it as a weakness and a sign of fear of the appeasers  [21]  . This was a great mistake as all that the appeasers wanted was to preserve the world peace. This is what made him bold and gain confidence and a sen se of security. . Hitler had managed to convince the appeasers that he had no any intentions of aggression through his peace propaganda. This had in a way fooled Britain and France who were not in favor of a war but wanted world peaceful coexistence. The appeasers continued to adopt the appeasement policy and this assured Hitler that they would do anything just to avoid a war. This made him think that he could continue to expand his demands and the appeasers would still continue to give in to them. It was this appeasement policy that gave Hitler a foundation and a base to increase the demands after every successful conquest that he achieved. Conclusion There are many opinions and views about the appeasement policy with some critics saying it was a betrayal and sacrifice of some nations for the benefit of others. Others say that it was Chamberlains strategy of buying time to rearm Britain. But from Chamberlains point of view, all that he wanted was to avoid another world war. It is not the appeasement policy that triggered the world war two but instead it was the greed of Hitler to enlarge the German territory and make Germany a superpower. The failure of the appeasement policy was because it was only Chamberlain who fulfilled his part of the bargain. He was convinced, on trying to appease Hitler that he (Hitler) was an honest trustworthy and honorable man which was a mistake and a misjudgment on his part. Chamberlain felt that he had been betrayed by Hitler and that his appeasement policies were failing him. That is when he decided to take on a hard line approach towards the Nazi. Britain and France began rearming themselves. Italy on the other hard invaded Albania in April of 1939. It was Hitlers invasion of Poland that made these two countries declare war and Second World War officially began on 3rde September 1939. Though he really wanted to avoid the war, there came a time that he knew that war was in evitable. It was only after the failure of the negotiations between him and Hitler that he declared war against Germany Teleworking what it is? Teleworking what it is? Teleworking what it is? TELEWORK is a form of organising and/or performing work, using information technology, in the context of an employment contract/relationship, where work, which could also be performed at the employers premises, is carried out away from those premises on a regular basis. This agreement covers teleworkers. A teleworker is any person carrying out telework as defined above. (Emilio Gabaglio, Georges Jacobs, Andrea Bonetti, Rainer Plassmann, 16.07.2002 EU agreement among ETUC, UNICE/UEAPME and CEEP, p. 2). So it can be stated that teleworking is arrangement between employer and employee in which an employee regularly performs officially assigned duties at home or other work sites which are convenient for the employee. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM in US), describes telework as an alternative work arrangement for employees to conduct all or some of their work away from the primary workplace. The work location can be a residence, a telecenter, an office closer to the employees residence, or another acceptable location. The telework schedule may be fixed or episodic.(U.S. Office of Personnel Management, http://www.opm.gov/index.asp, date taken 29.01.2010).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Teleworking is also named telecommuting, flexiwork, sometimes flexiplace, e- commuting, e-work, telework, working at home (WAH), or working from home (WFH). Different types of teleworking. In general there are three types of telework: full time, part time, and situational. Full time telework means that the employee performs and completes all or almost all duties outside of a traditional office. In this meaning full time teleworking can be named as home-based work. Part time telework means that the employee performs and completes duties outside of a traditional office on a regularly scheduled basis, but not five days per week. For instance, the employee may telework one or more days a week, every two weeks, or several days in a month. Situational telework means that the employee do not telework on a regular basis. This type of telework may happened in case of medical problem, weather or hazardous conditions, that do not allowed employee to get to traditional office in a safe condition and way, sometimes situational telework may be caused by preparing special project which needs high concentration and doesnt need present of the employee in traditional office. Ursula Huws, an Associate Fellow of IES, is an established international authority on teleworking, states different approach to types of teleworking. The five main types of teleworking according to Ursula Huws are: Multi-site teleworking This form of teleworking means that employee rotates between working on the employers premises and working elsewhere. Typically, the secondary worksite is the home, but it may be a telecottage, telecentre or other outpost. Tele-homeworking Tele-homeworking means work which is based only in the home and carried out for a single employer, even if the worker does not have formal employee status. This type of teleworking generally involves fairly low-skilled work carried out by people who are tied to the home by the need to care for children or other dependants. Freelance teleworking Freelance teleworkers, in contrast to tele-homeworkers, work for a different clients, rather than a single employer. Mobile teleworking Mobile teleworking has evolved from more traditional types of work, which can be qualified in groups such as travelling sales representatives, inspectors or maintenance engineers. The new technologies, especially the development of portable equipment such the notebook computer, the mobile telephone, the portable fax machine, have created type of mobility which allowed increase of amount of professional, technical and managerial work that can be carried out on the road. Relocated back-office functions The first four categories of teleworking involve activities which employee can carry out in isolation away from the employers premises. Relocated back-office is other form of teleworking which takes place on remote office sites. Many big companies have been noticed a rapid growth in specialist centres carrying out activities such as data entry, customer service, airline bookings, telephone banking and mail-order. These centres operate on a subcontracted basis or under the direct control of an employer located at a distance. These type of teleworking face different problems including: lack of promotion prospects, health and safety problems and equal opportunities issues, for instance fairly low-paid work carried out by women (Teleworking: Guidelines for Good Practice, Huws U. Report 329, Institute for Employment Studies, 1997.). Teleworking advantages and disadvantages to employers and employees.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Telework brings a variety of advantages and disadvantages to employees and employers in many different aspects from work environment to health issues. I am going to point and describe, in my opinion, the most important benefits and negatives of telework to both employers and employees. Advantages to employers. Increase of employees productivity, because telework help to avoid common interruption to work in traditional office, what provides to better concentration. Employees are not late to work because of travel difficulties or unpredictable events, for example breakdown of a car, delays in public transport. Advantages of a health matter in meaning employees take off less time due to illness: employees who are long-time unwell and not able to work in traditional office, might be able to work from home, employees during recovering period from serious illness might be able to work from home, because employees who work alone are more isolated, they are less likely to contact or spread diseases such as flu, colds, viruses, etc. working in private, convenient place for employees is less stressful and could be less exposure to pollution, it can cause that teleworkers can be generally in better health, employees who work at home, obviously, are less likely to be injured while commuting. Employee work at home is fully using productive time for only work, compare to traditional office where at the end of work usually employees start to prepare to leave and clear their desk few minutes before the end of the work day. Help in recruiting process because: flexible working is more attractive, especially to graduated young people, employers have much more possibilities to seek employees, especially among disabled, people who take care of young children or the elderly, it is also encouraging to seek potentially employees away from city centres or even from different regions and countries. Reducing costs in everyday using of traditional office: saving in reducing employees benefits, for instance company car, fuel, public transport season tickets, parking spaces or payable car park permissions etc., saving in reducing or eliminating catering subsidies or the facilities themselves. Advantages to employees. Telework help to avoid common interruption to work in traditional office, what provides to faster implement projects and reduce wasting of time. Travel difficulties are avoided. From employee site it means: avoid loss of pay because of lateness or non-arrival, avoid stress on the way to work place. Less time taken off due to illness: if employee is too ill to come to traditional office, might still be well enough to work at home, employees during recovering period from serious illness might be able to work from home and finish priority projects on time, work alone employee is less likely to contact or spread diseases such as flu, colds, viruses, etc., improved general health because of less stress and exposure to pollution. Better personal safety, because reducing risk of accident on the way to work and back. More time to spend with family because time to travel to work is reduced to zero. In this meaning more time in case of family illness, household maintenance etc. Possibility to reduce cost of living through: living out of city centre in cheaper areas, reduce fuel cost, car maintenance because travel to work and back is excluded. Disadvantages to employers. Managers has only a little or even lack of control over employees who work on teleworking base. Because lack of control, managers cant check the productivity, they assess employees work only through deadlines of projects submissions. Security issues of data stored and general database; if employees work on their own PCs or laptops, do they have proper programs installed to secure companys data stored. Issues included persuade employees to work harder and more productive if manager cant see process of their work; how many brakes they take etc. Lost of physical contact with clients and employees; disadvantages connect with lack of reed of body language of employees their physical reaction on different situations and tasks, their way of socialising: making friendships with one another can show manager of employees ability to work in group, leadership etc. Disadvantages to employees. Employees work on telework basis, in their chosen places, cant compare their productivity to employees who work on regular basis in companys office. It can produce some kind of frustration and unfair feelings. Employees who work on telework basis can be afraid of additional costs of working at their chosen places for example: decorate an area for their Home Office, have extra phone lines installed, buy additional computer equipment and software to protect data and system, furnished their Home Office. Employees working at home will have to do own typing, filing and other office function. Telework employees will lose subsidised food beverages, company car, public transport etc. (1995-1999 Telework Analytics International, Inc. All Rights Reserved, http://www.teleworker.com/pro_con.html, taken 27.02.2010).