The Munich Agreement of September 1938 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Munich Agreement of September 1938 - Essay Example 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 f or 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 su pport 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