Appeasement - A Study in Interpretation Flashcards
1
Q
What is the ‘essence’ of the ‘popular majority’
(Well done Chamberlain) view of appeasement?
A
- Most people in ‘37-38 approved.
- Chamberlain a ‘hero’ after Munich - felt he had avoided war.
- “He kept the spectre of war at bay for as long as he could”.
2
Q
Why did the ‘Popular’ view develop? (Context)
LEGACY of WWI - BBC VIDEO SUMMARY
THE STATE OF BRITISH ARMED FORCES
A
- Legacy of WWI - People still haunted by the scale of the war - 10 million dead.
- WWI meant to be the ‘War to end all wars’.
- Don’t want it again and not for Czechoslovakia.
- The country was not ‘united’ behind going to war
- Attitudes towards the Peace Treaties had changed - Germany & Hitler had some genuine grievances.
- He did the only thing available to him - Even the French referred to him as “the first artisan of peace”.
- Numerous proposals for renaming streets, starting funds and erecting statues are contained in the French press, and Le Figaro states that the British prime minister should be immediately invited to Paris so that all can acclaim him.
- One paper suggested starting a fund so that monuments and statues might be erected to the “saviourof modern Europe” in every capital in the world.
- Strasbourg has overnight renamed streets: the Avenue de la Paix is now the Avenue Neville Chamberlain.
3
Q
Why was the ‘popular majority’ view so short-lived?
A
- Realisation that Munich did not guarantee peace - only ‘gave peace a chance’
- Within months of Munich Hitler invaded the rest of Czecholovakia (March 1939)
- Much ‘Guilt’ over Munich - esp. that Czechs not invited to determine their own fate.
- Opinion polls showing people did not trust Hitler.
4
Q
Chamberlain’s critics
A
- Winston Churchill and David Low
- Churchill - called Munich a ‘Total defeat’
- David Low’s adopted an ‘intentionalist view - depicted Hitler as always having a ‘plan’ for War. Chamberlain blind to this.
5
Q
What is the ‘essence’ of the ‘Guilty Men’ interpretation of appeasement?
Who were the ‘guilty men’?
A
- Appeasement a foolish & cowardly policy and IMMORAL.
- It only served to strengthen Hitler’s position and weakened Britain’s.
- It was an encouragement to dictators.
- The guilty men were Chamberlain and his Cabinet
6
Q
Why did the ‘Guilty Men’ view develop? (Context)
A
- People felt ashamed of Munich Agreement.
- Attitudes hardened after war breaks out - especially after early defeats and evacuation of Dunkirk.
- Develops between 1939 and 1948 (Based on the terrible experience of another World War)
- Genuine fear A GERMAN INVASION.
- Scapegoat needed - easy to blame Chamberlain and Appeasement
7
Q
What was the short and long term of the ‘guilty men’ interpretation?
A
- The immediate impact of ‘Guilty Men’GUILTY MEN was significant - it helped Churchill defeat Halifax to become Prime Minister.
- In the longer term, Appeasement became a dirty word politicians didn’t want to use (Used later on by the USA to justify their policy of containment of communism)
8
Q
What are the ‘weaknesses’ of the Guilty Men interpretation?
A
- Too crude and simple - showed no understanding of the complexities of the issues / problems facing Chamberlain at the time.
- Not based on analysis but ‘emotion’ - written by 3 journalists (sensationalist)
9
Q
‘Orthodox’ view - Churchill
Interpretation 3
A
- Appeasement was wrong
- Appeasers misjudged Hitler
- Chamberlain’s motives may have been ‘genuine’ BUT he misjudged Hitler. (Chamberlain was not a ‘bad man’)
10
Q
Why might we be a little ‘cautious’ about Churchill’s interpretation?
Was he the ‘prophet of truth?’
A
- Churchill was a great ‘self-publicist’ - worried about his post-war reputation! (Had lost ‘45 election to Labour)
- Wrote a 20 volume history of WWII - self-promoting. ‘History will judge us kindly’, He said to Stalin in Tehran in 1943, “because I shall write the history”. (which he did!)
- He wrote in a way that suggested only he opposed appeasement & that Chamberlain made no effort to put together an anti-German alliance. NOT true
- Gave impression he was a lone voice opposing appeasement - he was not.
- Chamberlain could hardly have been that bad a choice as prime minister, or Churchill would hardly have seconded his nomination - a fact he somehow omitted from his memoirs!
- He even won the Nobel prize for literature; but would the Booker prize for fiction have been more appropriate?
11
Q
Churchill’s central argument & its critics
A
- He claims he alone called for a ‘grand Alliance’. (Of the USA and USSR) & his plans were rejected outright by Chamberian - who made no effort to form one.
- As far as the Foreign Office was concerned, Churchill’s ideas were misguided.
- America, the first part of the ‘Grand Alliance’, was still an isolationist power. It had no army capable of intervening in Europe and no politician arguing for such a policy
- With regards to Russia - apart from a widespread ‘fear’ of communism, on the military front there were very real doubts about whether the recently purged Red Army would be a match for the Germans.
- Also - France could not be relied upon - it was badly politically divided.
12
Q
How did post-war political developments help consolidate this ‘orthodox’ view?
A
- A new war (Cold War) was brewing between the USA and the USSR
- Churchill saw communism as a major threat (1946 Iron Curtain speech)
- Communism had to be confronted - no appeasement - look what that had achieved
- Did not want to make the same mistake twice! (No appeasing the USSR)
13
Q
How far has the ‘orthodox’ view persisted?
A
- The central tenet of the orthodox view - ‘appeasement is weak’ persisted
- Truman (50s) - tough line against communism
- Kennedy (62) - brink of war over Cuba
- Tony Blair (2003) - warned of appeasing Saddam Hussein in Iraq
14
Q
What is the ‘essence’ of the Academic revisionist view?
Interpretation 4
A
“Rehabilitating chamberlain” - pro-Chamberlain (1960s-1990s)
- Chamberlain in an impossible situation
- Hitler had no ‘clear’ plan - difficult to determine how to respond to him
- Few resources available to Chamberlain
- AJP Taylor (1961) - Hitler was an opportunist - why should Chamberlain be blamed for this?
- Donald Cameron Watt (1965) - Chamberlain facing more than just one problem - Hitler one of many. Appeasement the ‘right’ policy
15
Q
Why did the ‘rehabilitating Chamberlain’ school of thought come about in the 1960s? (Context)
A
- The 60s a period of ‘radical thought’
- US involvement in Vietnam war going badly! Perhaps Appeasement would have been a better option?
- Public Record Act - release of documents which provided a clearer picture of the many issues facing Chamberlain (economic, Empire, military, USA, fear of USSR etc)
- Views about the nature of Hitler’s dictatorship as unpredictable - how could Chamberlain possibly respond - Appeasement was the ‘right’ policy.
17
Q
What are the key supporting arguments of the academic revisionist view?
POLITICAL
A
- Public opinion - Chamberlain could not justify war in 1938 - he could in 1939 (Sympathy for Hitler, Germany and the Treaty of Versailles - after ‘39 Hitler had become and expansionist not a revisionist)
- Britain could not rely on the USA - it was isolationist.
- France did not have the ‘will’ to fight
- There was as much genuine fear of communism as there was fascism
22
Q
How did the revisionists challenge the counter-revisionism?
A
- via counterfactual history (what if) esp.
- Historian, Niall Ferguson - created a computer-based simulation called, The Calm and the Storm,
- He tried to ‘test’ (preemptive strategy test) what might have happened if an anti-Hitler alliance had been formed before 1939.
- What was the outcome of his ‘test’ - Britain was invaded! Not what he had expected.
