Appeasment

• Historiography of appeasement


  The study of how historians have interpreted and written about the policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s
• Chamberlain


  • Seen as a hero for averting war
  • Supported by many Britons at the time
  • Received 40,000 letters of congratulations
  • Some MPs (like Halifax) supported appeasement more than Chamberlain did
• Chamberlain's appeasement policy

  Criticised by people like Churchill who thought it made war more likely
• The Guilty Men View 1939-48


  Appeasement was foolish and Chamberlain had been made to look weak and cowardly
• This view was promoted by Churchill and his friend, newspaper owner Lord Beaverbrook
• It was supported by the group called Cato
• The Guilty Men View


  • Claimed appeasement had strengthened dictators and weakened Britain, and failed to prepare for war after ignoring threats
• In 1945, Labour used this interpretation to attack the Tory party during the election
• Churchill's orthodox view 1948-60s


  Appeasement was wrong and Chamberlain had been misled by Hitler, but was not a bad person
• Churchill had opposed appeasement in the 1930s and was trying to prove he had been right
• Churchill said Chamberlain should have made a big alliance with Britain, France, USSR and US
• In recent years, historians have doubted Churchill's versions of events which portray himself as a hero
• Revisionist view 1960s-present


  Chamberlain had been right to appease Hitler as Britain was not ready for war in 1937 and nobody could have guessed at Hitler's next move
• This view was supported by historians like Donald Cameron Watt and Paul Kennedy
• They said Hitler grasped opportunities as they came along, so Chamberlain could not be entirely blamed as Hitler had no plan
• Many historians continued to argue that Churchill was right and Chamberlain was wrong
• Counter revisionist view, 1980s to present

  Chamberlain had misjudged because he was conceited and would not accept advice, and he was therefore partially responsible for World War 2
• This view was supported by historian Robert Parker
• New evidence from Russia gave information about Hitler and Chamberlain's discussions, whilst the Revisionist argument was seen as too simplistic
• Counterfactual history suggests things might have been even worse if Chamberlain had gone to war in 1938 and that Hitler might have won