How far was Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler justified?

How far was Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler justified?

A cartoon depicting the meeting between Hitler and Chamberlain at Munich in 1938

The 'scrap of paper', or non-aggression pact, securing "peace for our time"

Appeasement Timeline

TASK

Read the materials - see the resources menu on this page - with care. Go beyond the core. Explore, with purpose. 

Plan your argument - two paragraphs, with clinching argument at the end. 

Success citeria:

• Two sides addressed fully
• Well selected evidence that is explained and used to develop your judgement
• Evaluation of 2/3 pieces of evidence in terms of usefulness and reliability.
• An argued, evidenced conclusion. 

When you have read, planned, written and then read over your draft, make any corrections, then post as a 'comment' below. 

Competing claims:

Winston Churchill, who replaced Chamberlain as PM in 1940, was a long-time critic of appeasement and his predecessor (see the BBC clip below). Indeed, in his Nobel Prize wining 'The Gathering Storm', he claimed that Britain and Chamberlain could and should have challenged Hitler earlier and not negotiated with him. As reflected in him being voted our 'greatest Briton' in a recent poll, the victorious wartime leader's criticism of Chamberlain conditioned the majority view: Chamberlain precipitated war and brought dishonour on Britain. In essence he adopted the wrong policy. In particular, overestimating his own diplomatic skill and underestimating Hitler. The consequence of these errors saw the outbreak of another World War.  

Led by Historians such as A.J.P.Taylor, from the 1960s, away from the pain of the post-war situation, Historians started to revisit appeasement and challenge Churchill's view. Indeed, Historians focusing on the economy and intelligence reports from the military, such as Dilke and Kennedy, have placed significant emphasis on the increased military budget from 1937, with a marked uplift connected to the Munich Agreement in 1938. In essence, when connected to the concept of 'buying valuable time' in order to successfully challenge Hitler militarily, it is claimed that in reality, although there were still strategic errors within Chamberlain's summit diplomacy and his inaccurate reading of Hitler, he managed to lay the foundations for defeating fascism. 

Perhaps then, this evidence should be examined with care. If they are right, references to Chamberlain's policy as a disaster, bringing bloodshed and dishonour on Britain requires redress.

So, over to you... 

Watch:

The BBC have produced several videos of value:

1. The Munich Agreement - A one minute summary of the issues.
2. The Policy of Appeasement - Events surrounding appeasement explored in depth, including Chamberlain's motivation and Churchill's opposition to the policy.

3.  Professor Reynolds: Chamberlain and the Munich Crisis of 1938. Coruscating.

BBC intro blurb reads:

David Reynolds, Professor of International History at Cambridge University... examines Neville Chamberlain's hubristic misreading of Hitler at Munich in 1938. Chamberlain has gone down in history as a naive old buffer with his policy of 'appeasement', but Reynolds retraces the testy battle of wills in which it was the dictator who lost his nerve at the last moment.

Quotes

Chamberlain on Hitler

“In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness of his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon.”


Historian Norman Davies

“Chamberlain’s three rounds with Hitler must qualify as one of the most degrading capitulations in history.”


Winston Churchill on the Munich Agreement.


“England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war.”

Mr Joy

@Pjoyhistory