Introduction

The dictionary defines appeasement as the attempt to bring about peace, quiet, ease, or calm. In history, however, the word usually has to do with a specific event: the unsuccessful effort by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain to appease Adolf Hitler to avoid World War II. Today, people often bring up appeasement as an example of failure. They call Chamberlain a weak leader who was fooled by Hitler. Many believe that if Chamberlain had not tried to appease the German dictator, the war might have been avoided. Chamberlain should have taken a tough approach from the beginning, they say.

It is true that Prime Minister Chamberlain did little to stop German aggression after 1935. So did the leader before him, Stanley Baldwin. At that time, people still remembered the bloody First World War. Few in Britain or France were willing to risk yet another devastating war with Germany. However, many Brits also believed that the Treaty of Versailles had been unfair to Germany. Sure, Hitler had broken the treaty. He boosted Germany’s armies and moved troops into the Rhineland area. This area was supposed to be free of soldiers. Still, the British thought the moves were fair. Many even preferred fascism to the sort of communism beginning in Stalin’s Soviet Union. So, in the mid-1930s, appeasement was a very popular policy for Europeans. The hope was that agreeing to limited German expansion would satisfy Hitler.

Chronology of Appeasement

But Hitler continued to violate the Treaty of Versailles. He began invading Germany’s neighbors. People in Britain and France grew concerned. Many spoke against German expansion. Still, the British and French governments took no serious action. Here’s a chart of each German move and the British and French appeasement that followed:

Table 1: Chronology of Appeasement

Chamberlain in the Rearview Mirror

Looking back now, it seems obvious that appeasement was a bad method. To many, Chamberlain allowed the spread of Nazism across Europe. But at the time, this was far from obvious. Until the war started, many French and British citizens wanted their leaders to do anything to keep them out of another war. They hoped that, if they gave Hitler what he wanted, he would be satisfied and they might avoid war. When Germany invaded Poland, however, many realized that conflict was going to happen. At that point, the public started to judge Chamberlain’s appeasement harshly.

Appeasement was favored by just about everyone in Europe until late 1939. However, it has come to represent failure.

The Specter of Appeasement

Since World War II, some politicians have even used Chamberlain’s failed appeasement to justify conflict. Some examples are below.

U.S. President Harry Truman, writing about his decision to go to war in Korea in 1950:

I remembered how each time that the democracies failed to act, it had encouraged the aggressors to keep going ahead. If this was allowed to go unchallenged it would mean a third world war, just as similar incidents had brought on a second world war.

U.S. President Lyndon Johnson spoke about Vietnam. He said that America would stand up to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong political group. It would be done in a way that Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler and the Nazi government, Johnson hinted.

Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of England from 1979 to 1990. Someone criticized Britain’s involvement in the first Iraq war. She responded: “I seem to hear the stench of appeasement in here.” Hans Magnus Enzensberger wrote for the Los Angeles Times just before the first Gulf War. He said that talk of Saddam Hussein as a new Hitler is no “exaggeration.” Enzensberger said people should not underestimate Hussein’s dangerousness.

Using Hitler and appeasement as a reason for war certainly grabs one’s emotions. Many modern-day “villains” get compared to Hitler. However, none of them are anywhere near as harmful as he was. Critics say that comparing dictators to Hitler over and over is false and dangerous. The worry is that it overlooks the real threat Germany posed to the world. The comparison can be used to start a war that may not need fighting. For example, the quotes above made Saddam Hussein out to be the next Adolf Hitler. In fact, his country couldn’t win an eight-year war with its neighbor Iran. Nor did he pose a threat to the entire world. Iraq’s army was nowhere near as powerful as that of 1930s Germany. There was little evidence to suggest that Hussein would use that power beyond his immediate neighbors. Still, many people called him a madman. Anyone who disagreed with going to war with Hussein was called weak like Chamberlain. This thinking helped launch two questionable wars.

Conclusion

It seems that as wars continue, Neville Chamberlain will remain the great historical wimp. People use his story to spark fears and justify conflict. But more recently, many historians have tried to show him in a new light. The background reasoning behind his actions was at least understandable, they believe. Perhaps this historical project to explain Chamberlain’s thinking is good. It may help begin a real debate about the main differences between negotiation and appeasement. Maybe we can learn more about what was happening in Europe during the 1930s and from the failures.

1 Not their exact words, but you get the idea!