Appeasement

Views on Appeasement in the 1930s and 1940s

In the 1930s, most people were in support of appeasement, however, by the time the 1940s had come around, many had changed their minds.

Support

Many people supported appeasement in the 1930s when it was practiced in relation to Hitler and Mussolini. This was because they could remember the horrors of WWI or had experienced it themselves.

Opposition

Churchill was a strong opponent of appeasement, believing that it would lead to war, which turned out to be true.

'Guilty Men'

A book was published by three historians, under the name Cato, in the 1940s, called Guilty Men, blaming Chamberlain and his supporters for the outbreak of war.
The book also criticised Britain’s lack of preparation for war.
Given the threat posed by Nazi Germany after it had conquered France, this view was most prevalent during the 1940s.

Continuing Arguments on Appeasement

Different views have emerged among politicians and historians around the issue of appeasement since it was practised in relation to Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s.

The 'orthodox' view

In the two decades following WWII, a more moderate view emerged among historians, which argued that appeasement had been an error but the intentions of the leaders were good.
Personal attacks on Chamberlain were avoided under this new ‘orthodox’ view.

The 'revisionist' view

Chamberlain’s legacy was further rehabilitated under the ‘revisionist’ view, which held largely from the 1960s to 1990s, which said that:
- He was in an impossible position and did the best he could.
This view arose partly because classified documents from the 1930s became available in Britain to historians such as Donald Cameron Watt and Paul Kennedy after 30 years.
The 'revisionist' view is the only one held by historians which advocated for appeasement as the best policy option at the time.

The 'counter-revisionist' view

More recently, a ‘counter-revisionist’ view has emerged:
- Chamberlain was a fair politician but his views on appeasement were inexplicable.
This view was influenced by releases from the Soviet archives after 1990.
Robert Parker pointed out in 1993 that Chamberlain did not listen to those who told him to stand up to Germany, and that he had betrayed his promise to Czechoslovakia, who had had no representation at the 1938 Munich Conference.

1Key Topics

1.1Conflict & Cooperation 1918-1939

1.1.1The Treaty of Versailles

1.1.2The Terms of Versailles 1

1.1.3The Terms of Versailles 2

1.1.4Versailles & the League of Nations

1.1.5LoN Successes & Failures

1.1.6LoN Failure - Upper Silesia

1.1.7LoN Failure - Corfu & Washington

1.1.8End of Topic Test - Treaties and Agreements

1.1.9The Great Depression

1.1.10Tension in Europe in the 1930s

1.1.11WWII & Failure of the League of Nations

1.1.12End of Topic Test - Tension in the 1930s

1.1.13Grade 9 - Conflict & Cooperation

1.2The Cold War 1945-c.1989

1.2.1Emerging US-Soviet Rivalry

1.2.2Communism in the 20th Century

1.2.3The Truman Doctrine & Marshall Plan

1.2.4East-West Alliances

1.2.5Berlin Crises

1.2.6The End of the Berlin Wall

1.2.7End of Topic Test - East & West

1.2.8Build-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis

1.2.9The Cuban Missile Crisis

1.2.10Cold War Conflict - Vietnam

1.2.11Cold War Conflict - Afghanistan

1.2.12End of Topic Test - The Cold War 1945-1989

1.2.13Grade 9 - The Cold War

1.3From the End of the Cold War to 9/11

1.3.1Reagan & Gorbachev

1.3.2Consequences of the Soviet War in Afghanistan

1.3.3End of Topic Test - End of the Cold War to 9/11

1.3.4Grade 9 - The End of the Cold War

2Changing Interpretations

2.1Changing Interpretations

2.1.1Appeasement

2.1.2The Responsibility for Cold War Tensions

2.1.3End of Topic Test - Appeasement

2.1.4Grade 9 - Changing Interpretations

Jump to other topics