5. international relations - controversy1: appeasement Flashcards
what is view 1 ?
- 1936-1939
- pro- appeasement policy/ immediate view
- Chamberlain’s actions reflected public opinion
what is the context of view 1 ( pro appeasement policy )?
- many people supported appeasement because they could still remember the horror of the first world war and they knew that Britain was not prepared to fight a war
what is the content of view 1 (pro appeasement policy)?
appeasement was the policy adopted by Chamberlain in an attempt to prevent war with Germany. He sought conciliation over conflict.
Chamberlain received 40,000 letters in support
thousands of ordinary people lined the streets to cheer him in support
what was the controversy of view 1 ( pro appeasement policy )?
People like Churchill were strongly against appeasement and criticised Chamberlain and thought that the appeasement policy made more more likely
after Czechoslovakia was conquered, there was a very strong feeling among the British people of the need to work with the USSR before the Nazi Soviet pact was signed
People quickly realised that the Munich agreement had brought only a chance of peace not a guarantee
what is view 2?
- 1940-1948
-“ guilty men” view - Appeasement was a disaster and chamberlain was a fool
what is the context of view 2 (guilty men)?
-Chamberlain and his advisers were branded as coward and is having made defeat to Germany a very real possibility
-They further attack Chamberlain government for Britain’s war or lack of preparation going into the wall. There was massive underspending on the military which meant that Britain’s forces were simply not ready for the conflict.
- people felt ashamed about the Munich agreement and scared that the war was not going well and Germany may invade. Chamberlain was the obvious scapegoat for these fears.
what is the content of view 2 (guilty men) ?
-Chamberlain and his advisers were branded as coward and is having made defeat to Germany a very real possibility
-They further attack Chamberlain government for Britain’s war or lack of preparation going into the wall. There was massive underspending on the military which meant that Britain’s forces were simply not ready for the conflict.
what is the controversy of view 2 (guilty men)?
- views on Chamberlain softened somewhat after he died in 1940
- In 1945 the labour party used the fact that the conservative party had been responsible for the appeasement policy against them and Churchill was unseated as prime minister
what is view 3?
- 1948-1960s
- churchills orthodox view
- appeasement was a mistake but the leaders had good intentions
what is the context of view 3 ( orthodox )?
- Churchhill said that appeasement was wrong and Chamberlain had been misled by Hitler but was not a bad person
- Cold War-2 superpowers emerged at the end of the second world war- the USA and the USSR- churchill was scared that the USA and its allies would appease the USSR and so was trying to prevent this
what was the content of view 3 ( churchills orthodox view )?
- “gathering storm” was published by Churchill in 1948 which was a book about the causes of the second world war
- The view makes it clear that Chamberlain was a decent man who had to be reasonably personally brave in order to follow our policy that was at least trying to save lives and prevent war
- Churchill presented himself as essentially being the only person to oppose the policy in the 1930s
what is the controversy of view 3 ( churchills orthodox view )?
-some historians have criticised the view and Churchill personally for using the book more a way to make himself look good rather than to promote a balanced viewpoint
- In recent years historians have doubted churchill’s version of events which portray himself as a ‘hero’
what is view 4?
- 1960s- 1990s
- revisionist view
- Chamberlain was in an impossible position and did the best he could
what was the context of view 4 ( revisionist )?
- this was a time of radical thinking in other areas of society when traditional views were being questioned
- The USA’s conflict in Vietnam was going badly at that time and some interpreted this as proof that appeasement may not have been a bad policy
what was the content of view 4 ( revisionist )?
- supported by Donald Cameron Watt and Paul Kennedy
- Government documents which became available in 1966-69 revealed that Britain was not prepared for a war before 1939
- britain did not have the money, the military or the technology to take on Germany leaving appeasement as the only reasonable choice
-hitler just seized opportunity as it came along so Chamberlain could not have predicted what Hitler was going to do
what was the controversy of view 4 ( revisionist) ?
The problem with the documents that were used by these historians is that they came from the government at the time and so they reflect what the government thought at that time
what is view 5?
-1990s - present
- counter revisionist view
- Chamberlain was a fair politician but with an inexplicable and inexcusable view on appeasement
what is the context of view 5?
by the mid 1990s the view that Chamberlain had no choice in appeasing had started to be challenged particularly with the release of new documents from the USSR which showed its attempts to work with Britain
Chamberlain ability to deal with Hitler , and his strange refusal to listen to anyone who tried to push him to stand up to Hitler were questioned
what is the content of view 5?
The biggest criticism of Chamberlain in this view, which is still the view held by most historians, is that Chamberlain betrayed Czechoslovakia
However, most historians now say that aparta from his pursuit of appeasement Chamberlain was a decent man and a reasonable politician
This view portrayed Chamberlain as at least partly responsible for appeasement and its consequences and portrayed Chamberlain is failing to understand Hitler , refusing to listen to his advisers, being arrogant in his own abilities and betraying Czechoslovakia
what is the controversy of view 5?
This interpretation had more of an impact academically than publicly
Some histories have used count of actual history to defend the revisionist view and try work out what would’ve happened if Chamberlain had gone to war earlier
