Chamberlain believed that Hitler was a man who could be relied on-why did this make Chamberlain appease Hitler

Question

what could chamberlain trust hitler on?

Answer 1

I think it is always difficult to write a short answer, that is in some way 'worded better' than online encyclopedia's, and therfore it is probably not worth simply repeating the 'opinions' of your first poster.

However what should probably be looked at is not the facts which led to Chamberlain declaring 'peace in our time', but whether Chamberlain was at fault and could he have prevented war, if as Churchill suggested, he took a hard stance against Hitler.

It has to be appreciated that Britain, and in this case Chamberlain, was under considerable pressure to appease Hitler, not just from Lord Halifax and the rest of his cabinet, but from the country as a whole. Father' s, who had fought in the horrors of WWI, didn't want there sons to go through the same ordeal as them, how many of us would? and lets not forget, Churchill, following the disatourous Gallipoli campaign, was not exactly thought of 'ideal leadership' material.

Therefore it is, I think understandably that Churchill was desperate to believe Hitler did not have visions of grandeur, but what this did achieve was 'rob Hitler of his war with Czeckoslavkia', whilst betraying the British Empire as weak.

Despite all of this, the war may still have been brought to a premature end, had Chamberlain ordered the RAF to bomb Germany cities as soon as they invaded Poland. However Chamberlain still refused to be the first to strike,thus allowing the German forces to retreat from Poland, and prepare for an advancment of Western Europe. This was, in my opinion, Chamberlains greatest mistake, rather than simply wanting to see the good in someone like Hitler.

After all, Chamberlain is not the only one guilty of appeasment, where would we be,today, if the world had listened to Chirac et al, when they were trying to appease Sadamm Hussein, although that is open to opinion.....

Answer 2

Extract from Wikipedia :

It should be remembered that a policy of keeping the peace had broad support; had the Commons wanted a more aggressive Prime Minister, Winston Churchill would have been the obvious choice. Even after the outbreak of war, it was not clear that the invasion of Poland need lead to a general conflict. What convicted Chamberlain in the eyes of many commentators and historians was not the policy itself, but his manner of carrying it out and the failure to hedge his bets. Many of his contemporaries viewed him as stubborn and unwilling to accept criticism, an opinion backed up by his dismissal of cabinet ministers who disagreed with him on foreign policy. If accurate, this assessment of his personality would explain why Chamberlain strove to remain on friendly terms with the Third Reich long after many of his colleagues became convinced that Hitler could not be restrained.

Chamberlain believed passionately in peace for many reasons (most of which are discussed here), thinking it his job as Britain's leader to maintain stability in Europe; like many people in Britain and elsewhere, he thought that the best way to deal with Germany's belligerence was to treat it with kindness and meet its demands. He also believed that the leaders of men are essentially rational beings, and that Hitler must necessarily be rational as well. Most historians believe that Chamberlain, in holding to these views, pursued the policy of appeasement far longer than was justifiable, but it is not exactly clear whether any course could have averted war, and how much better the outcome would have been had armed hostilities begun earlier, given that France, as well, was unwilling to commit its forces, and there were no other effective allies: Italy had joined the Pact of Steel, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact, and the United States was still officially isolationist.

Answer 3

Chamberlain would have done anything for peace....at any price. However, what he didn't realize was that Hitler would not have peace any way, shape, or form. Chamberlain did his best it seems, but it wasn't good enough, and was eventually replaced. I think it's bad that people were ashamed of him, in a way. I kind of admire people like him who go the extra mile. It's just that in this world, the hard and calloused will always ride roughshod over the naive and good natured.

Answer 4

to apply a cricketing analogy. He grew to become into the nightwatchman who saved batting to permit a stick to on. as quickly as the spin bowlers have been further in, he stayed on the wicket too long. He did enable Westminster to appreciate that Churchill were best and that Stalin grew to become into no longer the main danger to Britain and its Empire yet Germany, additionally he did the best element. as quickly as conflict grew to become into declared on Sunday third September 1939, Chamberlain appointed Churchill Minister of the Admiralty. Which further on the Admiralty to sign the entire fleet, with purely 3 words "Winston is back". Chamberlain died of maximum cancers on 9th November 1940, he grew to become right into a poorly guy who grew to become into in a sparkling international which he in straight forward terms partly understood, he had seen the horror of WW1 and maximum of the folk in Britain did no longer desire a repeat, additionally oftentimes forgotten, u.s. grew to become into seen as a real achieveable danger throughout the Nineteen Thirties, so Germany grew to become into no longer constantly seen because of the fact the enemy and a threat in any respect circumstances, that's oftentimes ignored. Chamberlain wanted to stay away from conflict if achieveable, if no longer a minimum of we'd desire to constantly be arranged, appeasement gave the country time, from the mid Nineteen Thirties for any commercial development equipped there grew to become into an empty "shadow" development erected so as that when conflict got here there grew to become into spare capacity for re-armament.

Answer 5

It was about all he could do. Britain was woefully unprepared. Plus the English people had not backed him. They were still suffering from the effects of WWI. I think he has not been treated fairly since.