Lyon government in Australia

Customer inserts name here
Customer inserts course name here
Customer inserts date here
Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc334962411 \h 3Appeasement PAGEREF _Toc334962412 \h 3The Lyons government and the policy recommendations for the Sudeten Crisis PAGEREF _Toc334962413 \h 5The Menzies government and policy recommendations PAGEREF _Toc334962414 \h 5Analysis of the Situation PAGEREF _Toc334962415 \h 7Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc334962416 \h 7References PAGEREF _Toc334962417 \h 10
Introduction
The Lyon government was in power in Australia from 1932 to 1939 while the Menzies government was in effect from 1939 till 1941 and then again from 1949 to 1966.[A Martin, Robert Menzies: A life: volume one, Melbourne, 1993.]
Both the Menzies and Lyons governments have been under world scrutiny for using appeasement as a diplomacy tool.
Many researchers have critiqued them and many papers have been written about their policy tools but recent analysis has yielded that their policies were more profound than they were made out to be under the given circumstances.
Before going on to discuss the policy recommendations given by both governments to London for two crises that were similar in nature and very close together chronologically, it is important to consider some elements of diplomacy that have been popularly used by the governments.
Appeasement
Appeasement is termed as the main policy that the governments of Australia followed in time of the Second World War. Appeasement does not mean that the government of Australia sided with the views of Hitler and were likely to condone him in his measures.[Garry Woodard, ‘The Diplomacy of Appeasement`, Quadrant, vol. 43, no. 1-2, 1999, pp. 48-53.]
But it does mean and has included the fact that Australia thought it fit to give in to the demands of the dictator in order to try and avoid a world war which was more detrimental to the world at large, and this would be their diplomatic overture in order to avoid the war.
Many authors have criticised the two governments of Australia in their soft stance and for their policy recommendations that suggested fulfilling a dictator`s demands in order to maintain peace in the world.[C Waters, ‘Understanding and Misunderstanding Nazi Germany: Four Australian visitors to Germany in 1938`, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 41, no.3, 2010, pp. 369-84.]
However what these critics do not notice is that the government of Australia was not actively involved in the decision making process and its suggestion were rarely heeded. Moreover much of what the Australian learnt about the progress of the war and the preceding crisis was through second hand sources such as newspapers and meetings with British counterparts.[S Aster, ‘Appeasement: before and after revisionism` Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol.19, 2008, pp. 443-480.]
In such an event the Australian policy makers cannot be given to have known the full impact of the Hitler government. And although four visitors had been to Germany in 1938, they were too small a sample to make a difference to the pubic thought in Australia, even though one of them became the Prime Minister for the country.
In any case, the Australian government`s appeasement overtures were with a view of establishing peace and not giving way to conflict, but unfortunately they trusted the wrong dictator to live up to his words, and despite them giving in to his demands, Hitler continued to forge ahead with his objective of Lebensraum- conquering more territory.[G Ramraz-Ra'ukh, Aharon Appelfeld: the Holocaust and beyond, Indian, Indiana University Press, 1994.]
The failure of the Australian government to understand the type of person that Hitler was and their luck where Hitler continued despite being appeased and despite his demands of Sudetenland being fulfilled carried on, have led the policy of appeasement adopted by Australia to be thoroughly criticized. Had Hitler stopped after his demands were fulfilled, this policy would have been termed as a great one, which had in its aftermath avoided losses of millions of lives.[W Mommsen & L Kettenacker, The Fascist challenge and the policy of appeasement, London, 1983.] [D S Bird, J.A. Lyons, the tame Tasmanian: appeasement and rearmament in Australia, 1932-39, North Melbourne, Vic., 2008.]
This is the policy that both the governments adopted, and unfortunately for the Lyon government, Lyon died and Menzies took over the reins of the government making the government give similar recommendations at both times of crises.
The Lyons government and the policy recommendations for the Sudeten Crisis
The Sudeten Crisis started in Czechoslovakia when Hitler proclaimed himself as the leader of ethnic Germans in the country and a troop build-up started between the two countries. Termed as the Sudeten Germans, the minority group in Czechoslovakia started agitating for autonomy. Chamberlain met with Hitler as did the French premier and they agreed to relegate the land as Sudetenland in order to appease him and to avoid a war. However, none of the Czech representatives were invited to this event, leading to a creation of Sudetenland being given to Germany in 1938.
This policy of appeasement did not work towards avoiding a war and this part was subsequently invaded by Germany in March the next year.
Policy recommendations coming from Lyons regime in Australia were those seeking to appease Hitler in order to avoid the world getting involved in the war.
According to the memoirs left behind by the four Australian visitors to Germany in 1938, all of them observed the oppressive nature of the regime and yet, the most important visitor who was to be a Premier for Australia - Robert Menzies, was one who thought and convinced the other cabinet members in Australia towards a policy of appeasement to the dictator.[C Waters, ‘Understanding and Misunderstanding Nazi Germany: Four Australian visitors to Germany in 1938`, Australian Historical Studies, vol. 41, no.3, 2010, pp. 369-84.]
The Menzies government and policy recommendations
The Menzies Government down-played the event of the war, that was subsequent to the Polish crisis. The Australian government was recommending and hoping for negotiations and peace measures during the time that the British and Germany in the pre-war era. The premier dubbed the eve the crisis to be one where Australia was at the Brink of War, signalling to the people, that there was still hope that no war would actually happen.[‘Australia enters the war, September 1939-April 1940`, in Australian War Memorial, 2012, viewed on 9 September 2012, ]
In fact he went on to say that the 1st week of September 1939 was an improvement over the previous week, even though he added that people still needed to be precarious. Overall his government was giving the signal of a high possibility that negotiations would take away the threat. Even their policy recommendations to Britain we...