changing interpretations of appeasement Flashcards
Well done Chamberlain!
Popular, majority view, 1937-38
Appeasement was necessary. Chamberlain kept the spectre of war at bay for as long as he could. He gave peace a chance.
Still haunted by WW1, British people wanted to avoid war at all costs. The country was not united behind the idea of going to war over Czechoslovakia
Euphoria did not last however as people soon felt guilty about Czechoslovakia. Most people in Britain realised that the Munich agreement brought only a chance at peace, not much more - they had understood that Chamberlain had not really created lasting peace
Chamberlain was cheered and applauded when he returned from Munich. Only one minister resigned in protest. The US ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy, was also a strong supporter of Chamberlain’s policies.
There were powerful critics of Appeasement at the time, including politicians such as Winston Churchill and political cartoonists such as David Low. Their numbers grew steadily.
The ‘Guilty Men’
Popular and political view, 1939-1948
Appeasement was a foolish and immoral policy that weakened Britain and strengthened the dictators
The course of WWII caused a major shift in attitude towards Chamberlain and appeasement. A book called ‘the Guilty Men’, published in 1940, argued that appeasement had strengthened Hitler and left Britain defenceless. The war went badly for Britain at the beginning, soldiers had to be evacuated from Dunkirk and the possibility of German invasion was real
From ‘The Guilty Men’ - Hitler had stated his intentions for war as early as 1923 in Main Kampf so Chamberlain knew what he was up to
When Churchill became prime minister, he decided he wanted to continue fighting however Lord Halifax believed that Britain should make peace with Hitler. ‘The Guilty Men’ supported Churchill and pointed out the fact that war was inevitable and by continuing to let Hitler do what he pleased we were only strengthening him when we should have been arming ourselves and preparing to fight a war
The appeasers misjudged Hitler
Churchill/Orthodox view, 1948-1960s
Appeasement was a mistake but Chamberlain had acted with the best intentions. Churchill also tried to put forward the idea that he was the only person who had opposed the policy. His view remained influential from 1948 onwards
Churchill had lost the 1945 election and had spent his time writing the history of WW2, he also wanted to make sure his own place in history was secure by writing his version of it.
Churchill’s views influenced politicians as well. For example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s US president Harry Truman took a very aggressive stance against the USSR, called the Truman Doctrine. As late as 2003, British prime minister Tony Blair argued that it was important not to repeat the mistakes of Appeasement
Rehabilitating Chamberlain
Academic revisionist view, 1960-1990s
Chamberlain was in an impossible position and he did the best that could have been done under the circumstances. Hitler didn’t plan a war he was an opportunist and Chamberlain could not have known war was coming
For example, A.J.P Taylor in 1961 said Hitler did not have a plan but merely grasped opportunities as they came along so Chamberlain cannot be blamed
In 1965 Cameron Watt argued that Chamberlain had lots of problems and Hitler was just one of them, he had few options and very limited resources
The 1960s were the age of radical thinking where traditional views were being questioned. During the 1960s, the USA’s dislike of appeasement had drawn them into a war in Vietnam. This seemed to suggest that appeasement may not have been a bad policy because without it Britain may have ended up in the same position. In 1958, the British government passed the Public Records Act, this meant that official government papers were made available following the thirty year rule. This allowed historians to study documents from the Treasury, the armed forces, the Foreign Office and many other departments to gain an understanding of the concerns that Chamberlain and his ministers had to face.
Chamberlain back on trial
Academic counter revisionist view, 1990s-2000s
This view counter argued the revisionist view and said that Chamberlain overrated his own abilities and importance and thought he could talk Hitler into being reasonable and he ignored the advice of officials and colleagues about the threat Hitler posed
For example, in 1991, revisionist historian Donald Cameron Watt argued that as well as the factors the revisionist emphasised, the behaviour and personality of Chamberlain also played a part.
In 1989 the Cold War ended and historians had access to German documents from the time which gave historians new insight into Appeasement particularly the dealings between Hitler and Chamberlain.
