The Munich Agreement of September 1938 - Essay Example

? The Munich Agreement of September 1938 The Munich Agreement of September 1938 Introduction The Munich agreement is a pact signed in September 1938 in Munich Germany to permit the annexation of Nazi Germans and the Czechoslovakia Sudetenland. Five head of states consisting of the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Benito Mussolini, and Edouard Daladier of France signed the agreement. The agreement’s signing, however, had no representation of Czech and Slovakia. This has made these states consider the agreement as a Munich dictate, whose aim was to allow the Germans to continue with the occupation of the Czechoslovakia land. The paper will discuss the reasons why Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement. Why Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement Neville Chamberlain was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at the time the Berlin agreement was signed in Munich Germany. He is seen as a conservative politician who operates under the appeasement policy. Throughout his tenure in office as British Prime Minister, he is portrayed as a leader who practiced anti-war policies and would do everything possible to ensure that peace prevail. This saw him sign the Munich Agreement despite being ridiculed and branded as a coward. This is because, Chamberlain considered the matter that was bringing disagreement between Germany and Czechoslovakia as something which could be solved diplomatically (Caputi 2000 p.187). He, therefore, sought for a diplomatic course by trying everything possible to convince Hitler who was much opposed to the agreement to concede, sign the agreement, and avoid war ((McDonough 1998). One of the main reasons Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement was to ensure that Britain maintained super power status in Europe, both in terms of the economy and imperial power. McDonough (1998 p.4) argues that chamberlain was an assertive politician who was realistic and able but was much aware that Britain was not in a position both military or economically to maintain control of the world. He, therefore, wanted Britain to retain its influence in Europe and retain the independence of Britain. For Britain to achieve its mission, Chamberlain felt that the best way to do this was by avoiding a world war, which was eminent (Parker 1993 P.48). He was, therefore, obliged to sign the agreement so that Britain can remain super power both economically and imperially. For a country to go into war, it needs to get support of the nation for it to be successful. Chamberlain signed the agreement because he was not sure as to whether he could get the support of his country in case he accepted to go into war (Grayson 2001). Before the signing of the agreement, Chamberlain kept seeking for the nation and cabinet support in his plan Z strategy in case war was unavoidable. He, however, did not get the kind of support, which made him doubt whether his nation would follow him into war. This prompted him to sign the agreement to avoid criticism from his nation (Caputi 2000 p.187). War is always associated with high costs, as it requires use of resources, arsenals and the army (Rowe 2004). Chamberlain felt that it was noble to for him to consider signing the Munich Agreement, which would prevent Britain from incurring such heavy costs associated with war. This shows that Chamberlain was not opposed to war as some historians branded him as a coward but instead he was being guided by moral values. It is only Germany that was prepared to pay these costs by ensuring that the fight for the annexation of Nazi Germans in Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain and government of France were however much opposed to subjecting their nations to these costs since the matter at hand to them was not worth the costs. This is seen in the Munich riddle that going to war need concrete cause, willingness, arsenals and the men, which to Chamberlain and Daladier were lacking according to Caputi (2000 p.192). Therefore, Chamberlain had no choice but to sign the Berlin Agreement. It is evident from the Cabinet records that Chamberlain was not opposed to going to war but was instead prevented from doing so by economic and financial constraints. The cabinet record shows how Chamberlain made tireless effort to increase the defense budget but could not succeed due to economic constraints. The economy of the country of the United Kingdom at the time was poor that could not allow the budget to be adjusted. Since he had no other option to help in equipping the soldiers with enough arsenals to justify the nation’s capability of winning the war, Chamberlain opted to sign the Berlin agreement (Caputi 2000 p.192). From a look at the mood of the nation at the time of the agreement, it is evident that the country was not ready to engage in war like activities. Chamberlain therefore had to go slow and not rush into putting his country at war. This is because Chamberlain felt that bureaucratic impertinence could have resulted into political unrest, which could have given the nation a bad picture before the international community (Caputi 2000 p.192). Chamberlain therefore had to avoid causing political upheaval by signing the Berlin Agreement, which at the end worked well (Perry, Berg &Krukones 2009). Any politician in the world always makes decisions that they feel appease the electorate. This is because they know that at the end of their term in the office they may still want to seek support from the electorate during the general election. Chamberlain being a conservative politician was not an exception to this fact. He therefore had to sign the agreement for him not to be portrayed as a dictator, which could make him lose favor of the electorate. From the previous elections, we find that Chamberlain he is lived so much by the electorate following his record of accomplishment of handling Britain’s foreign policy issues. From the previous elections, we find that Chamberlain was a politician who was so much loved by the electorate who gave him overwhelming support that resulted to his winning the seat. We find that he rose politically from being a mere member of parliament to become a Prime Minister. This is because the electorates liked him. He therefore did not want to disappoint the electorate by appearing to be a dictator, which would otherwise deny him votes at the coming elections. This prompted him to sign the agreement as per the wishes and mood of the electorate (Caputi 2000 p.192). Chamberlain is also credited with many achievements following how he has handled foreign policy that resonated well with the expectations of the nation. He also made several achievements when working as a chair of town planning. He saw the adoption of the first ever-planning schemes in Britain, which earned him a lot of praise from the nation. He is also credited for reforming the war industries when working as a director of National Service in Britain. Chamberlain did not wish to lose these accreditations by adopting a policy that was not favorable with the nation like going to war when the country was not ready. He therefore had to prove himself as a good strategist by avoiding war and signing the Berlin Agreement (Perry, Berg &Krukones 2009). Chamberlain being a diplomat had to sign the agreement to maintain their close ties with Germany (Caputi 2000 p.198). He felt that if he could have opposed the annexation of Nazi German and the Sudetenland becoming free and independent from Czechoslovakia, this could have destroyed their close relations with Germany and would have resulted into a world war. At the same time, he wanted the good relations between Britain and Czechoslovakia to remain intact (Rowe 2004). Therefore, Chamberlain had to use a diplomatic strategy to win the two nations and maintain stability of European nations. We find Chamberlain travelling to Germany occasionally to meet Hitler and persuade him to come to talks and avoid waging war, which could have severe consequences (Hucker 2011). Chamberlain also signed the treaty to ensure that reconciliation between powers prevails. He also felt that the Munich agreement would act as a good precedent for nations that consider fighting as the best way of solving conflicts between them to reconsider and seek diplomacy and reconciliation. The signing of Munich Agreement in fact helped ease nation between the nations and gave the two nations a chance to reconcile among themselves. The Munich Agreement is still being used by the European Council to solve diplomatic issues affecting different nations for which Chamberlain was championing. Through diplomacy, and reconciliation, Britain was able to reconcile with German at the time the relations between the Germany and Britain became sore over Britain’s entry into conflict between Germany and Australia (Social Studies School Services 2001). From the way Chamberlain handles himself, it is evident that he signed the Berlin Agreement because he felt that Hitler was telling the truth. From a meeting held between Chamberlain and Hitler at Berchtesgaden in Munich, Chamberlain argues that he had obtained an assurance from Hitler that he is not intended to occupy the Czechoslovakia or other parts of Eastern Europe but was instead interested only in the annexation of the Sudetenland (Caputi 2000 p.184). After getting such an assurance from Hitler, he returns to London believing that an agreement could now be reached between Germany and Czechoslovakia and peace, which he had been clamoring for, will finally prevail. This shows that the fact that Hitler convinced him is what prompted him to sign the agreement (McDonough 1998). According to Chamberlain, appeasement is a policy governed by common sense and not fear. Chamberlain is signing of the Munich agreement was therefore not an act of cowardice but was a common sense (Taylor 1980). This is because, in his opinion he felt that it was right for the minority Germans leaving at the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia needed to be granted annexation to avoid instances of killing as was witnessed when a Czechoslovakian soldier killed a German while he was found crossing the Sudetenland boarder. Chamberlain therefore felt that it was important and right for him to consider adoption of an appeasement policy to ensure that the Germany and Czechoslovakia signs a Munich Agreement that grant an annexation to the German citizens to avoid war from erupting. From the look of things, it is evident that if Chamberlain could not have come in with his appeasement policy, a World war could probably have erupted following the high tensions that had built between Germany and Czechoslovakia. To Chamberlain the Munich Agreement was a moral act and not done out of cowardice as observed by Taylor (1980). Chamberlain also felt that by signing the Munich Agreement, this would help in providing justice and peace to the Czech. The signing of the agreement was also a matter of respect and the fact that most leaders of from the British and French nations were in full support of the Germans. This is portrayed from the fact that the Chamberlain’s cabinet supported the appeasement policy to enable the Germans secure annexation of its citizens in Czechoslovakia. The approval of the Munich Agreement by his cabinet is therefore one of the contributors of his signing of the agreement. This is evident from the fact that before Chamberlain makes any diplomatic; he has to seek for an approval of the cabinet to enable implementation of his appeasement policies pragmatic and successful. If the cabinet could have been opposed to the agreement, it could have been hard for Chamberlain to sign the agreement as this could have caused uproar from politicians and the government (Taylor 1979). In conclusion, The Munich agreement was signed as a matter of avoiding imminent war between Germany and Czechoslovakia and their allies, which could have resulted into a world war. From the events the precedes the agreement, it is evident that Chamberlain the British Prime minister at the time signed the agreement in order to secure a stable European Peace and avoid the war in to keep in line with his appeasement policy. A number of factors influenced his signing of the agreement. These factors included the fact that he wanted peace to prevail between Germany and Czechoslovakia. He was also interested on keeping his image and reputation and not to be perceived as a dictator, which could not have gone well with the electorate for he is a politician and is keen on winning votes. Chamberlain was also keen at maintaining good relationship with Germany. He therefore had to do as per the wishes of Germany, with the approval of his cabinet. Reference List Caputi, R.J (2000). Neville Chamberlain and appeasement. Massachusetts, Danvers Grayson, R.S., (2001). Liberals, international relations, and appeasement: the liberal Party, 1919-1939. Southgate, London: Frank Cass Publishers. Hucker, D. (2011). Public opinion and end of Appeasement in Britain and France. Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing. McDonough, F. (1998). Neville Chamberlain, appeasement, and the British road to war. New Frontier in History. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press Publishers Perry, M., Berg, M., Krukones, J., (2009). Sources of European History Since 1900 Parker, R. (1993). Chamberlain and appeasement: British policy and the coming of the Second World War. New York: St. Martin’s Press Publication Rowe, C. (2004). Britain 1929-1998. Oxford, London, UK: Heinemann Educational publishers Social Studies School Services (2001). World War II War in Europe DBA. Culver City CA, Jefferson Blvd Publishing Tailor T. (1980). Munich: The Price of Peace. Vintage Books Publication Read More