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...
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.
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
The policy of appeasement ,used by the British and French in the 1930's, was not justified as it violated their League of Nations membership agreements, it encouraged Hitler's to become more aggressive and expand as well as allowing Germany's military and resource strength to increase. By allowing Hitler to take territories ,like the Austria and Czechoslovakia, the British and French increased Germany's military strength, their resources and boosted Hitler's confidence. The handing over of these territories also violated their League membership agreements as they were meant to protect their fellow member nations if they were under threat or 'invaded'. All of this lead to the German invasion of Poland and the start of the Second World War. Because of this, appeasement was not justified as it allowed all of this to happen and encouraged it in many ways.
ReplyDeleteAlthough in hindsight, Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement of Hitler seems like a bad idea, as it led to the invasion of Poland and the start of the first world war, at the time the policy seemed reasonable.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it allowed Britain and France more time to rebuild their armies and troops, which in the end helped them to win the war. Alongside this, the policy of appeasement putting off the war also helped Britain financially, as it was still struggling from the Great Depression, and a war would have put a severe dent in the already weak economy. Finally, at the time, Britain was more worried about the growing power of Communism in the East, and since Hitler was anti-communism, Chamberlain felt like they were helping the lesser of two dangers.
On the other hand, however, appeasement allowed Hitler to grow in confidence, as after each of his gambles such as invading the Sudetenland were greeted with no response, he was willing to take even bigger risks, and in the end the invasion of Poland was a step too far.
I think this quote by Churchill sums up the policy of appeasement quite well: “Britain was given a choice between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour, and they will get war”. This portrays how the policy of appeasement diminished the reputation of Britain in the eyes of the rest of Europe, as well as how in the end it was all in vain, as war happened anyway. For this reason, I think that appeasement of Hitler was not justified, and Britain and France should have stood up to Hitler as soon as he first showed signs of wanting to expand.
At the time of 1938, appeasement was justified especially for the security of Britain and good relations with Germany. Britain was not re-armed at this point and after having seen the strength of the German forces at Guernica, it was clear that the Germans had the ability to defeat the British. The Munich agreement helped to prepare Britain as they were 'scandalously unprepared, and were able to make good some of their defects during that year.' This appeasement helped to give Britain 'six months of peace in which [it] rearmed.' This appeasement also helped to establish greater bonds between Britain and Germany and especially for Chamberlain, he said that they ' are agreed in recognising that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance.'
ReplyDeleteAppeasement i believe was justified at the time due to 3 main reasons. Firstly was the public opinion and views on the Paris peace settlement, many Britons believed that Germany had been treated harshly in the Treaty of Versailles and so they believed Germany weren’t doing much wrong and so starting war would cause much anger. The second most important factor i believe was the belief that communism was a greater threat than Nizism and so people felt Hitler would help oppose the Communists. Finally it was justified due to the British belief that their armed forces were far too weak to battle at the time. One other reason is chamberlains reign as he was a strong believer in appeasement whereas Churchill was very against appeasement. Chamberlain was a also a factor in choosing appeasement.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many people are quick to point the finger at Chamberlin and quickly come to the conclusion that the policy of appeasement was a bad idea, there were some good intentions behind doing it. These mainly include that Britiain simply wasn't prepared to go to war at the moment. General Ismay stated to Chamberlin that "if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months' time, than to accept the present challenge", showing that he didn't want the public to know that Britain's military was not prepared to engage in a war at this time, so it was better to appease Hitler than to engage in a war they would have lost automatically. Chamberlin's other intentions behind appeasing Hitler were that he didn't know Hitler was so ambitious, so how could he know that the consequences would be so large? On the contrary, some people see Chamberlin's actions as cowardly. A major nation appeasing another major nation was shying away from business and showed that some major nations could give in easily to brute force, much to Hitler's pleasing. Winston Churchill famously said "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last", clearly displaying his dissatisfaction with Chamberlin's cowardly decisions. He also said "He was given a choice between war and dishnour. He chose dishnour and he will have war anyway." Either way, Chamberlin would have to deal with war, so he should have dealt with it confidently instead of backing out, bringing dishonour to his name when it wasn't needed. To conclude, I think that while people are wrong to immediately blame Chamberlin for appeasing Hitler because of the safety of the nation's army, he shouldn't have backed out of the vital decision, cowering away from war when courage was needed. This also inevitably lead to Poland being invaded by the Germans, triggering the Second World War.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many people are quick to point the finger at Chamberlin and quickly come to the conclusion that the policy of appeasement was a bad idea, there were some good intentions behind doing it. These mainly include that Britiain simply wasn't prepared to go to war at the moment. General Ismay stated to Chamberlin that "if war with Germany has to come, it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months' time, than to accept the present challenge", showing that he didn't want the public to know that Britain's military was not prepared to engage in a war at this time, so it was better to appease Hitler than to engage in a war they would have lost automatically. Chamberlin's other intentions behind appeasing Hitler were that he didn't know Hitler was so ambitious, so how could he know that the consequences would be so large? On the contrary, some people see Chamberlin's actions as cowardly. A major nation appeasing another major nation was shying away from business and showed that some major nations could give in easily to brute force, much to Hitler's pleasing. Winston Churchill famously said "an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last", clearly displaying his dissatisfaction with Chamberlin's cowardly decisions. He also said "He was given a choice between war and dishnour. He chose dishnour and he will have war anyway." Either way, Chamberlin would have to deal with war, so he should have dealt with it confidently instead of backing out, bringing dishonour to his name when it wasn't needed. To conclude, I think that while people are wrong to immediately blame Chamberlin for appeasing Hitler because of the safety of the nation's army, he shouldn't have backed out of the vital decision, cowering away from war when courage was needed. This also inevitably lead to Poland being invaded by the Germans, triggering the Second World War.
ReplyDeleteChamberlain’s policy of appeasement could be justified as it not feasible for most Britain to attempt to go to war, as they were still recovering from the Wall Street Crash. Therefore appeasement could have been the best option, as Britain could not afford to spend money on weapons and soldiers. Additionally, Britain wished to keep Germany on good terms, as any war could threaten the British Empire, especially of many of the empire countries, such as Canada and South Africa said that they would not support Britain in war. However, it could be said that the policy of appeasement cannot be justified as appeasement had the potential to make Hitler believe he could get away with more and be more aggressive. Hitler’s intentions of Anschluss were said by Churchill to be ‘calculated and timed’. This shows how Hitler’s intentions of aggression in order to expand territory was clear and appeasement would simply encourage his agenda. Overall, I believe that the policy of appeasement was justified at the time, however in retrospect it would have been better to use an alternative method to protect Britain from Germany.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement meant agreeing to whichever of their demands seemed reasonable in order to prevent them from starting a war. At the time appeasement seemed to be a good option because Britain would not be able to fight a War with Germany and keep their empire together (their navy could not be in the Atlantic and Pacific). If a war was started it was predicted that over a million people would be killed in 60 days of air raids. This can be shown by "the overwhelming majority of ordinary people, according to contemporary estimates, approved of what Chamberlain had done" (Source D). One reason why appeasement was bad was that war was probably inevitable and appeasing Hitler was just wasting time. Many historians and officials at the time said "if war with Germany has to come it would be better to fight her in say 6-12 months time, than to accept the present challenge" (Source F). That is why appeasement has been described as "feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat you last". Neville Chamberlain also broke one of the League's membership agreements. This showed that the major powers were breaking the laws of the League would their own wellbeing. In conclusion appeasement seemed justified at the time but, as historians look back on it, it seems ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteSome people such as Churchill disagreed with Chamberlain's policy of appeasement as it allowed Germany to re-arm its forces, claim back territories it had lost at Versailles and expand its borders in 1937-39. However Chamberlain policy was definitely justified. On September 20th 1938 General Ismay said that it was better to fight Germany in "six-twelve months' time, than to accept the present challenge. Then 2 days later Vernon Bartlett wrote that Britain was "scandalously unprepared" for any conflict with Germany. Overall the policy of appeasement was justified as it was necessary to hold of Germany for a period of time.
ReplyDeleteThe policy of appeasement was justified. Although Chamberlain was giving in to Hitler’s demands, and giving him what he needed to expand his territories and military. Chamberlain did this in the hope that it would prevent war. Winston Churchill said “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.” which shows how Chamberlain was defending his own interests as opposed to the safety of less powerful countries. Churchill also said “The government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war too.” Chamberlain was trying to do anything to prevent war, and was able to put other countries in serious danger in order to do that, but war happened anyway. Although Chamberlain is seen as cowardly, he was right to be worried about war. The British military at the time was weak and Chamberlain was worried about having to fight the Japanese and the Germans, fearing his Navy wasn’t strong enough. Also Britain had a lack of powerful allies, with France’s military being in a very bad state, and the US not wishing to be involved in european affairs. Chamberlain also feared for the civilian population of Britain, and the danger of bomb raids. It was calculated that in 6 days, German bombers could kill 1 million Londoners. The threat of communism was very serious in Britain and Chamberlain was more worried of communist invasion than fascist states taking over, so he gave in to Hitler, hoping it would stamp out communism. In The Chosen Few, William Gallacher wrote “Many prominent representatives of the Conservative Party…. Would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of socialism in this country.” Although appeasement was a method of preventing war and it failed to do so, at that time Britain wasn’t ready to go to war, and Chamberlain was buying time to build up the military and resources.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe that appeasement was justified. I think that the three main factors in deciding this are: economic/war related, the British empire and the threat of communism. As Britain's economy was suffering due to the Wall Street Crash/Great Depression of 1929, the British government simply could not spend money on their armed forces but instead they had to spend money on people's social wellbeing. This was shown as military spending was reduced twice, in 1919 and 1928, and this meant that Britain would not be able to withstand a potential large scale war against Germany, as this would have large economic and social impacts, and that this causes this factor to be the most important, as the impacts would be larger and more widespread than for the other factors Also, as Britain wanted to protect their empire, I believe that appeasement was a justified way to do this, as Britain at the time believed that by giving Germany some countries in Central Europe, Germany would not extend their territorial desires elsewhere, and this would allow Britain to keep its empire. Hugh Christie tells us this as he tells us that Goering wants a 'free hand in Eastern Europe' and Britain firmly believed at the time that this was all Germany wanted. Finally, Britain wanted to completely eradicate any threat of communism, as they believed that this was very detrimental to a capitalist society, and they thought that the best way to do this was by appeasement, which would use Germany as a defence against any soviet plans to invade Europe, as Germany shared Britain's hatred of communism. The historian William Gallacher tells us that 'representatives of the Conservative Party' ... 'would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative to the establishment of Socialism in this country.' These factors are why overall I believe that the policy of appeasement was justified at the time, and the most important factor in this were economic/war related factors
ReplyDeleteIn 1938, the policy of appeasement was justified. In September of 1938 Britain were in no position to fight a war. The general of the armed forces, General Ismay wrote to the British Cabinet and said this: 'If war with has to come it would be better to fight her in six months time, than to accept her present challenge.' This proved that even the general of the British army knew that Britain was not ready. On top of this, many people did not want war with Germany and some even sympathized with them. In February 1933 the Oxford union voted overwhelmingly in the favour of 'This house under no circumstances will fight for king and country'. This proved to the government that many people who were still recovering from the first world war were in n way ready to fight again. Also, Britain's empire had been damaged severely by the first world war. What it needed to do was focus on rebuilding trade within the empire and from the empire. Many people in the UK new this and felt that they had no business stopping Hitler from breaking what they believed to be the over-harsh treaty of Versailles. This combined with the memory of WW1 and overwhelming public appeasement meant Chamberlain was right to appease Hitler in 1938.
ReplyDeleteSam Norgren
Britain's policy of appeasement during the 1930s was justified as it protected Britain and postponed War so countries were at least able to prepare.Britain was still recovering from the Wall Street Crash of 1929, they thought a strong Germany could help countries in Europe recover via trade. After 1929, Britain had three million unemployed therefore, Chamberlain was reluctant to have a strong ally rather than a strong enemy. Secondly, the British government was concerned with its weakness and vulnerability militarily, they would not be able to fight wars against Japan and Germany and expect to win any of them. Britain had massively disarmed in the 1920s however after the Munich agreement of September 1938, Britain used that year to rearm, their army grew from 200,000 to 683,000 and the airforce grew from 3,000 to 8,000. Finally, many Britons thought that the Germans had been too harshly punished by the Treaty of Versailles and so there was a strong influence within Britain which wanted Germany to become a strong nation once again. Overall it is clear that Britain had no choice but to adopt this policy of appeasement because of it's duty to prevent War from breaking out, although they failed they still postponed the start of the War.
ReplyDeleteBritain's policy of appeasement during the 1930s was justified as it protected Britain and postponed War so countries were at least able to prepare.Britain was still recovering from the Wall Street Crash of 1929, they thought a strong Germany could help countries in Europe recover via trade. After 1929, Britain had three million unemployed therefore, Chamberlain was reluctant to have a strong ally rather than a strong enemy. Secondly, the British government was concerned with its weakness and vulnerability militarily, they would not be able to fight wars against Japan and Germany and expect to win any of them. Britain had massively disarmed in the 1920s however after the Munich agreement of September 1938, Britain used that year to rearm, their army grew from 200,000 to 683,000 and the airforce grew from 3,000 to 8,000. Finally, many Britons thought that the Germans had been too harshly punished by the Treaty of Versailles and so there was a strong influence within Britain which wanted Germany to become a strong nation once again. Overall it is clear that Britain had no choice but to adopt this policy of appeasement because of it's duty to prevent War from breaking out, although they failed they still postponed the start of the War.
ReplyDeleteAs Churchill said in 1934 ‘an appeaser is someone who feeds the crocodile, hoping he will be eaten last’, and in truth, this accurately reflects the appeasement policy of Britain in the late 1930’s. On September 20th 1938, General Ismay wrote to the British Cabinet saying ‘If war with Germany has to come it would be better to fight her in say six-twelve months time’ this accompanied by the fact that Vernon Bartlett called the British army ‘scandalously unprepared’, suggests the true reason behind the dangerous policy of appeasement was the inability of the British army to compare to the Germany army, which had been rearming openly since 1935 (and secretly since 1933). Chamberlain’s hands were tied, as stated by A.J.P Taylor an ‘overwhelming majority of ordinary people ... agreed with what Chamberlain and done’, this suggests that Britain had been prevented from rearming, as most British people wanted peace, therefore it was a justifiable decision to appease Hitler, in order to buy time for the British to prepare. In fact, it is apparent that the fault does not lie in the policy of appeasement itself, but Chamberlain’s inability to see that he was being manipulated by Hitler. Chamberlain’s main mistakes lay in the fact that he believed Hitler ‘was a man who could be relied upon’, this left him blind to Hitler’s manipulatory tactics, that included highly aggressive demands before finally negotiating preferable but less aggressive agreements. Within the space of two weeks, Hitler was able to trick Chamberlain and the French Première into handing the Sudetenland over to him (the Munich Agreement of 30th September 1930). This shows the role of the appeasement policy in sparking World War II. However, in conclusion, it is clear that although the way Chamberlain’s government went about the appeasement policy was a fatal blunder, the policy of appeasement was simply the only option of the British army, and granted them a lucrative extra year to rearm, and was therefore justified.
ReplyDeleteBritain’s military had been weakened after the War and disarmament had weakened it further. Vernon Bartlett believed that ‘the British forces … were scandalously unprepared’ and it would have taken a lot of time and cost a lot of money to regain its strength. For this reason, General Ismay told the British Cabinet that ‘it would be better to fight her in say six-twelve months’ time’ as this would allow the military to recover. Appeasement with Germany could allow this to happen and so Chamberlain’s policy was justified.
ReplyDeleteAppeasement with Germany could also allow them to become Britain’s ally. Britain had lost many of her allies after the war, for example America did not want to get involved in European affairs again. Chamberlain also wanted to trade with Hitler and appeasement would have helped him with this. Finally, it would also have been incredibly difficult and expensive for the Royal Navy to fight a war in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans whilst still controlling the empire so peace would have favoured the Royal Navy as well as most of the general public who did not want another war.
The use of the policy of appeasement from 1937-39 can be justified to a large extent. Britain's armed forces were significantly weaker than that of Germany's due to the fact that Germany had completely rearmed by 1935 while Britain only began rearmament to rearm in 1936. The fact of the British armed forces being weak is supported through General Ismay's letter to the cabinet whereby "it would be better to fight her[Germany] in say six to twelve months". Furthermore the bombing of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War meant that the German Army was far better prepared than the British. Therefore the Britain needed to prevent the break out of another war as it’s army did not have the ability to fend off an attack.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1930s, Europe’s economy was still recovering from the effects of the Wall Street Crash and so Britain had to spend the majority of its resources on social welfare and rebuilding industries rather than on the military. Therefore it was unable to increase military spending. This further weakened the British army. Consequently Britain could not rely on its military as a deterrent against a threat from Germany and so need to adopt a policy of appeasement.
The policy of appeasement at the time, although was not the correct policy, it was justified. Britain was in a pracarious position at the time. A report from someone living at Godesberg at the time stated in 1960, "The British forces, one is told, where scandalously unprepared." The general in charge of the entire British Army also stated "War with Germany has to come it would be better to fight her in say six-twelve months time." The British had no way of knowing the state of the German Army due to Hitler's secrecy about his forces so it would've been a lack of judgement to declare war without significant intelligence.
ReplyDeleteIt was further justified but the fact that no one knew about how destructive, aggressive and threatening the politically ideology of fascism was. Communism was considered the major threat as it was spreading westwards. William Gallacher in 1940 said "It is no exacgeration to say that many prominent representatives of the Conservative party....would welcome Hitler and the German Army if they believed that such was the only alternative than establishing socialism in this country". It was therefore understandable and justified to seek an ally in Hitler against the USSR