Was the British Policy of Apeasement justified?

Question

this is based on the history heading to the 2nd World war...(please give more than just a yes or no answer, thanks!)

Answer 1

Unfortunately you won't get much sense on this from simple-minded fools who compare the situation in Britain in 1938 with modern situations, or who see diplomacy in the context of heavily armed nations in schoolyard terms.

The British military was very weak in the mid- to late 1930s. After the depression, all nations cut their expenditure, and the countries that had been decimated in WW1, and seen little reward for it, were not keen to spend scarce resources in weapons.

Hitler had very effectively convinced everyone in the West that he was even more heavily armed than he actually was- though Germany was spending far more on armaments than other nations. By 1938, Britain and France were falling over themselves to redress this, but designing and producing weapons would take time.

Many felt Hitler's earlier demands were quite justified, as it was felt the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh. So nobody cared too much when he re-took the Rhineland, or joined with Austria- both these moves were popular with those affected. Hitler pushed his luck in demanding the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia- but again this was a German-speaking area taken away by Versailles- so to many observers it was far from Hitler 'bullying' his way into other countries- it was self-determination for the local populations.

The Sudetenland demand was, however, for part of Czechoslovakia to be turned over, and thus this event was more shameful, in hindsight, than the others (which are in fact hardly discussed). It produced the most famous incident of the appeasement period, Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' speech after returning from Munich where he sold out the Czechs but guaranteed the sovereignty of Poland. When Hitler invaded Poland, he expected no reaction but war was declared- so he was only 'appeased' so far.

But even after the declaration of war, France and Britain could do little militarily to help- they were still building up. So those who say someone should have stood up to Hitler earlier avoid the fact that there was no way to do this.

On top of these factors, it should be remembered that Japan and Italy were also expanding, and the mechanism of the League of Nations was being found to be ineffective. This made the problem to be confronted all the more daunting, and the situation more confused. Money was scarce in the 30s, and there were few resources available for prosecuting wars when every Western nation had many thousands homeless, unemployed, and even starving.

Appeasement was not justified, but this is much clearer in hindsight than it was at the time. Even so, to bought time for Britain to militarily prepare for the war- and bear in mind they only just survived in 1940- if the Battle of Britain had have been fought in the previous summer, it might well have been lost, and control of Europe would have been passed to Nazis and Communists exclusively.

Answer 2

Appeasment was correct for the time. Yes maybe if France had stepped in and stopped the Rhineland being a buffer zone, the Hitler Regeime may have stopped and changed direction, but remember, the chances of the Allied Nations actually being able to repulse or defeat any German conflict was difficult given the time, money, pacifism.
It is a well known fact the over the Czech crisis (munich agreement), France was in the throws of Political upheaval and still reeling from the great depression, the Empire was just starting to rearm and was more concerned with what Italy was up to and Most of the Dominions had already stated in the Empire Meeting of 1938 to the British Goverment that they would not support armed action. Indeed in 1939 when Germany finally invaded Poland, France was still on the borderline of doing anything, South Africa was undecided and India if it had been given a chance would never have declared for the Empire.
At the end of the Day, the 3 years that the Democratic Countries had to rearm, convert forces and prepare where a great comfort and went a long way to ensure the forces where at least more ready for the conflict.

Answer 3

Essentially appeasement was pretty much the only option England had at the time. Sure, they could have raised a big stink, even declared war on Germany. But, they really didn't have the military forces to back up that kind of stance.

Personally I think they still should not have attempted appeasement, it looks very cowardly and I'm sure even Chamberlain really didn't think it would work for long. I think some kind of symbolic severing of diplomatic ties would have been better.

The really sad part is that England didn't do more to build up their military after the appeasement gambit was played. They really should have known that trouble was just over the horizon. I know they did try to build up they forces, but I think if they had taken drastic measures, the may have been able to blunt the German advances in France. Of course it would have helped if the French had followed suit.

Answer 4

On the assumption, possible at the time, that Hitler was a reasonable man, it was justified. Also, to look at it in a more cynical light, that it gave Britain time to re-arm. Still, this wasn't the outlook of the appeasers. Someone said that to Chamberlain after Munich, and he replied, 'But you don't understand. I have brought peace.'
On the other hand, war in 1938 would have brought Hitler everything he wanted. There would have been no action on the western front, and before long the German armies would have been in Prague, leaving nothing for Britain and France to fight about, and with a population largely against the war because Hitler's initial stated aim was only to 'free' the Sudetan Germans. Peace would probably have followed, giving Hitler everything he got in 1938 and early 1939, and making it much harder for Britain and France to support Poland.
Instead, violating the Munich settlement in spring 1939 was Hitler's big mistake. It convinced everyone that Hitler had to be stopped.

Answer 5

I think knowing what we know now, how disastrous WW2 was, etc - we know apeasement was not the answer, and was in a way postponing the inevitable. However, Britain was still recovering from WW1, and both the people and the industry could not physically cope with going to war again, which is how apeasement came about. Chamberlain was just trying to keep everyone happy in a way.

Answer 6

What it did was to give the UK.gov more time to built up our own armed forces in readiness for the coming war ahead. You have to remember that the RAF in c1936-38 were still flying biplanes which would have been utterly destroyed by the Luftwaffe's ME109's. Thankfully, by 38-39 the RAF started building up squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes. When the Battle of Britain came in 1940 it was a close fought thing, but a victory for the RAF and for Britain.

Apeasement is never ever really justifiable. But what choice did we have? None. In any event, the people of Britain were as divided on the issue of going to war then as we still are today over the Iraq and Afghanistan war[s].

Answer 7

Appeasement never works. When you appease a bully, the bully knows he can get more. Hitler wanted Germany to rearm. The British and French said "no". He ignored them. He wanted to re industrialize. They said "no". He did it anyway.

Hitler said Austrians were really Germans (he was Austrian) and he was going to bring them into the German fold. They said he shouldn't, but he did and they did nothing except tell him if he tried something like that again, there would be dire consequences.

So he made more threatening noises about war and Chamberlain (British PM) decided he could reason with him. So they met, and Hitler said "let me have the Sudetenland and I will stop". Chamberlain said "we have peace in our time". A short lived peace it was.

I would like somebody to show me when appeasement ever worked. You want peace? Peace comes after the bully is defeated.

Answer 8

you could argue either yes or no:

yes: britain was just not redy to fight another war. world war 1 had demoralised the country so much and it had cost the government a lot of money. if neville chamberlain (prime minister) had declared war sooner eg. when Hitler began rearmament or when he invaded Czechoslovakia he ran the risk of losing to the Nazis.

no: britain should have declared war sooner. the extra time enabled hitler to keep committing atrocities in germany and other conquered countries etc. it also enabled him to keep rearming and building up his armed forces.

hope this helps =]

Answer 9

As it turned out, no it wasn't. Chamberlain gave land he did not own or control to Hitler, who simply assumed the Brits and France would give him more.

Answer 10

Looking at the results, I would say only if, behind all that, they were arming as fast as they could.