Realistic Option for Chamberlain in 1938 Essay Example for Free

Realistic Option for Chamberlain in 1938 Essay Asses the view that appeasement was the only realistic option for Chamberlain in 1938 Appeasement was the British foreign policy adopted by Chamberlain in the wake of World War Two. This policy was seen as cowardice and Chamberlain received huge criticism for maintaining it throughout the road to war and died with the title of the man who was too coward to stand up to Hitler and his Nazi Germany which led to World War One. Churchill, a very strong opponent of appeasement, notoriously said â€Å"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last†[1]. However it wasn’t till the late 1960s that official Government documents on the subject were publically released which created a new view on Chamberlain and appeasement and that it was the only realistic policy for Chamberlain and Britain to pursue. One argument is the view that appeasement was the only realistic option because public opinion supported it and for Chamberlain to lead Britain to war would go against public favour. The First World War savaged Europe and Britain was hit very hard in terms of Human losses. Many families lost men within the family and left psychological scars nationwide. Chamberlain was therefore desperate to avoid another war on the continent at all costs. If Britain was to go to war they would have to rearm and build on their armed forces which had been neglected since world war one. However public opinion was that if Britain was rearming then they would be preparing for war, which was incredible unpopular. Evidence of this was in east Fulham by-election of 1933 the conservative who advocated rearmament turned a majority of 14,000 into a defeat by 5000 at the hands of his labour approach who supported disarmament. This illustrated the political affect that rearmament and policies that move towards War had which was a reason as to why Chamberlain saw appeasement as the only realistic option. Historian Howarth exemplifies this in his book by saying â€Å"chamberlains desire to avoid war matched the anxiety of the British people about being bought into a conflict like that of 1914-1918†[2]. Chamberlain wanted to represent and pursue the population’s interests, and in going to war he felt that he would have portrayed them incorrectly. When the opportunity of  going to war with Germany with the support of Czechoslovakia he stated â€Å"a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing†[3]. This insinuated that he was not prepared to risk British lives and go against public opinion for a nation on the other side of Europe of which Britain had not previously been closely tied with. Therefore appeasement was once again the only realistic option. On the other hand it can be argued that Chamberlain was appointed the Prime minister of Britain and should therefore know Britain’s best interests and should not be influenced by public opinion if it was against Britain’s security and wellbeing. Chamberlain knew the situation far greater than the populace of Britain and should therefore make the best informed decision without being influenced by public opinion. Simon Peaple enforces this by stating â€Å"newsreels and press reports provided only limited coverage of the crisis, so public opinion on the matter was limited†[4] . This therefore insinuates that the public did not have a great enough understanding to influence the decision of a well informed Prime minister. Churchill, Chamberlains biggest opponent in office and biggest critic of appeasement said in one of his speeches â€Å"I have been told that the reason why the government has not acted before was that public opinion was not ripe for rearmament. I hope that we shall never accept such a reason as that. The government has been in control of overwhelming majorities in both houses of parliament. There is no vote which would not have been accepted wither overwhelming strength†[5]. This speech by Churchill comments that public opinion should not have influenced government foreign affairs nor should they influence a decision to rearm in the interests of national security especially when the Government in power had the vast majority and could have passed any law that was seen as suitable for Britain and therefore appeasement was not the only realistic policy in terms of public support. [1] Churchill speech [2] 20th century history 1979 by Howarth [3] Chamberlain speech [4] European diplomacy 1870-1939 by Simon Peaple [5] Churchill speech on public opinion on the 22nd may 1935

50 Years of Speed :: essays research papers

The Goodyear Thunderdome was the first purpose built Oval speedway outside of the continent of America. Construction started in November 1984 and it was officially opened by the Mayor of Keilor on August 3rd. 1987 although it was christened by Americans Richard Petty, Bobby Hillin Jnr. and Rodney Combs along with local men Jim Richards,Graeme Crosby and Gary Rush. The first race was only a couple of weeks later when a 300 Km. Touring Car race was run on the combined Oval/road circuit.The race was won by Terry Sheil and John Bowe in a Nissan Skyline(the only time a Japanese car has won on the Thunderdome) from the Commodore of Larry Perkins and Bill O’Brien. Allan Grice had been quickest in practise with a lap of 1m.45.74s and he also set the fastest lap in the race with a time of 1m.46.17s. Later that year another race took place on the combined circuit and this was a round of the World Touring Car Championship.Pole position went to Klaus Ludwig in an Eggenberger Ford Sierra with a 1m.42.92s but in the race it was his team mates Steve Soper and Pierre Diuedonne who took the honours from Emanuelle Pirro and Roberto Ravaglia in a BMW M3. The race was not without problems as it began to rain very heavily just before the start and so for the only time a race was run on the Thunderdome in the wet. The other feature was that the combined circuit goes in a clockwise direction (same as for AUSCAR) which was fine for the locals but not so good for the European Fords and BMWs. The first Oval meeting was held on February 28th. 1988 and it was a mixture of Americans, mostly from the Winston West series,and Australians. A bonus for the organisers was that just 2 weeks before the event Bobby Allison, one of the imported stars, won the biggest NASCAR race of them all, the Daytona 500, giving the Thunderdome a huge publicity boost.

Bugusa Inc Worksheet

University of Phoenix Material BUGusa, Inc. , Worksheet Use the scenarios in the Bugusa, Inc. , link located on the student website to answer the following questions. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. , Advertisement Has WIRETIME, Inc. , committed any torts? If so, explain. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)—Brenda Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain. Janet has signed a contract with BUGusa she is committing intentional tort because she is intentionally leaving one company knowing that she has an agreement.She is intentionally leaving them to go work for the competitor so that she can get more money. She can be held liable for any harm or money loss for BUGusa because she has left the department with a signed contract. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc. , may have for Walter’s actions. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. , Plant Parking Lot—Brenda What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer.In any par king lot or company if there is a crime committed on the duty most of the time the employer is liable for what happens to the employee on company time. Since the lights were out on the dock and there was no one there to help the delivery person. I think that BUGusa is liable for the mishap. The company needs to make sure that there are enough lights to keep everything lit and visible. They are strict liability because they are held liable for an act regardless of intent or willfulness and plus this is an abnormal dangerous activity.BUGusa should have signs up to say that they are not responsible for any unsupervised or stolen property on the premises if they do not want to get held responsible for what happens. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian) What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally) Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc. , for what torts? Explain your answer.

Black September Palestinian Movement and Jordanian War

Black September is both the name of Jordans ruthless war on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in September 1970 and of a Palestinian commando and terrorist movement created in the aftermath of the war to avenge the Palestinians losses in Jordan. Arab nations colloquially referred to Black September after King Husseins 1970 crackdown on the PLO because of the brutality of the three-week war, which put an end to the PLOs rogue state-within-a-state in Jordan as well as its guerilla attacks on Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory in the West Bank. Hussein, who was the target of numerous assassination attempts by the PLO and other Palestinian factions, and whose authority had been in doubt, first signed a cease-fire agreement with the PLO in late September  1970; he then expelled PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and the PLO in early 1971. The PLO migrated to Lebanon, weapons and destabilizing designs in tow. The Black September movement was created by the breakaway Palestinian faction of Fatah to avenge the loss of Jordan and more directly target Israelis by terrorist means. On Nov. 28, 1971, Black September assassinated Jordanian Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tel while he was on an official visit to Cairo. The group targeted the Jordanian ambassador to Britain the following month. But its most notorious attack was the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in September 1972. In turn, Israel launched an assassination squad to target members of Black September. It killed several of them, but also killed innocent people through 1973 in Europe and the Middle East. Fatah eliminated the movement in 1974, and its members joined other Palestinian groups.