Leo Amery's Imperialist Alternative to Appeasement in the 1930s

Leo Amery has long been seen as one of the leading figures in the anti-appeasement movement. However, key aspects of his case against government foreign policy are not addressed in previous work. This article considers Amery's reputation pointing out that it is problematic to characterize him a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Twentieth Century British History 2006-01, Vol.17 (4), p.489-515
Main Author: Grayson, Richard S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Amery, Leo
Appeasement
Central Europe
Economic bloc
Foreign Policy
Germany
Government Policy
Great Britain
Imperialism
Interwar years
Nationalism
Political stability
Stability
Strategic planning
United Kingdom
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Leo Amery has long been seen as one of the leading figures in the anti-appeasement movement. However, key aspects of his case against government foreign policy are not addressed in previous work. This article considers Amery's reputation pointing out that it is problematic to characterize him as an ‘anti-appeaser’ because he did not rule out concessions to Germany and was willing to see Germany dominate Central Europe. However, he differed from the government in advocating a Danubian economic bloc to create stability and satisfy some German desires. This flowed from Amery's imperialism and his economic nationalism. Meanwhile, he fervently opposed colonial concessions, believing that German grievances could only be satisfied in Europe. Considering whether Amery was an ‘anti-appeaser’ or a ‘real appeaser’, the article analyses Amery's doubts over whether to support Neville Chamberlain over the Munich agreement. It concludes that although Amery disagreed with Chamberlain more on tactics than strategy, these alternative tactics were significantly different from government policy. As such, aspects of the anti-appeasement case should be seen as being more nuanced than previously recognized, and the imperialist dimension of it should be understood.
ISSN:0955-2359
1477-4674
DOI:10.1093/tcbh/hwl027