Appeasement 1938 - Lacking Context?

Appeasement before the Second World War is often regarded as a completely failed strategy. Additionally, Neville Chamberlain is often portrayed as the sole scapegoat. Yet, one needs to look at the context, namely the global one of British Empire, but also the diplomatic one, because many believed that various diplomatic strategies lead to the outbreak of the First World War.

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE - SPOILS OF WAR ««

»» SOCIAL MEDIA ««

Military History NOT Visualized is a support channel to Military History Visualized with a focus personal accounts, answering questions that arose on the main channel and showcasing events like visiting museums, using equipment or military hardware.

» SOURCES «
Jackson, Peter: Europe – The failure of diplomacy, 1933-1940. In: The Cambridge History of the Second World War, UK, 2015, Volume: p. 217-252

French, David: British military strategy. In: The Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I, UK, 2015: p. 28-50

Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Band 1: Ursachen und Voraussetzungen der deutschen Kriegspolitik (English Version below)
ENGLISH VERSION: Germany and the Second World War, Volume 1: The Build-up of German Aggression

Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt (Hrsg.): Deutsche Militärgeschichte 1648-1939 in sechs Bänden. Bernard & Graefe Verlag; München, 1983.

John R. Ferris: ‘Indulged in all too little'?: Vansittart, intelligence and appeasement. In; Diplomacy and Statecraft, 6:1 (1995), p. 122-175

» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone

[federalfarmer]

One must not forget the French situation in the late 30’s. A centrist head of government, Daladier, was caught between the communist left and fascist right. For him to stay in power he had to deal with both sides, and France almost had a civil war over it. This made France much less useful in dealing with German aggression than if it had a stable internal political structure because the French government had to legislate with their public opinion in the back of their head, not with stopping Germany per se. This put the burden of dealing with Germany on Great Britain, which didn’t work out too well.

[LucioFercho]

You should also have mentioned the other two main UK concerns at the time, Japan and the USSR, in that context Germany appeared to be the most reasonable alternative for an agreement thus allowing them to focus on the other threats.

[SinOfAugust]

By bypassing conventional British diplomatic apparatus, Chamberlain essentially gambled on his personal ability to read the German intentions and the power of his influence on them. He gambled and he lost. And the responsibility for the outcomes, whether the result was going to be positive or negative, which would normally be shouldered by the collective apparatus, was personally his.
The gamble was not totally foolish, but nevertheless, the heat he received was well deserved.

[aon]

Looking back to this video 5 years later, its almost like a lost world. I think it would be very hard to say this today. You would be drowned by haters.

[SedanChevy]

It's almost like politicians sometimes try to negotiate and choose the better, not necessarily ideal, options- rather than just throwing down and going to war.

[jon-paulfilkins]

There was also information being fed to the British government from their own staff that overstated the numbers and rediness of the axis forces and understated the forces available to themselves.
2 family stories.
From my Nan: Her father swore that he would rather see his sone dead and burried than have them fight in another war like the one he served in. Though he died in 1930 (gas damage to his lungs finally go him) it gives you some idea of the strength of feeling some people had about another war. He got his wish. While one was in a protected job and never served (industrial ventelation rather vital in munitions and cloth fatcories to prevent explosions). The other was drafted and would die of a burst ulcer in training.
From Grandad: After the Germans annexed what was left of Czechoslovakia, he was drafted in the first wave into the navy. His recived wisdom at the time was that the Royal Navy was genuinely worried if the Italians joined the Axis and their Navy came out fighting and in force, there was little the Royal Navy could do to stop them. No one knew the Italians lacked fuel and lubricants to even send out a token force outside of their protecting the supply runs to their colonies.

[coventryboy]

You mention it briefly, but it's worth reiterating that appeasement was popular with the British public because of the carnage of the first world war. Further, Hitler & Fascism was viewed favourably by large parts of the British establishment (including the Royal Family) & by large parts of the British press most notably Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail.

[noldo]

Few points fron Czech PoV:
1, In the east, it is rarelly being called a Munich agreement, or a an Appeasement, but usually ad a Dictate, or most commonly The Munich Betrayal.

2, Living next to Germany for centuries, we, as same as Polish, knew, that peace is just a temporal anomaly, and that the war with Germany will come. Thats among others why Czechoslovak arms production was so big, and why there were so many so well trained army pilots, who could have served later for the RAF. The polish squadron was having the top ratings and quite a list o faces for a reason. Czechoslovak army by 1936 was having larger land army and bigger arms production than the US.

3, Appeasement never works. As someone said - when you a have a good intention in one hand, you have to have a club in the other. Otherwise you'd lose both. General opinion on the west now in here is that in the end, when it gets though, they always give up and never do anything for anyone, treaty or not, like we can see now with the Kurds. The Polish saved the a*es of UK in the WWII on so many places, were given then to papa Stalin, and now in the UK are being attacked on the street just for being Polish ...

[mikehunt]

You cant just say "Peace in our time" without the remaining part of that statement, that the Munich agreement was the first step to a more global agreement in Eastern Europe. Keep in mind Neville's father was the lead negotiator in both attempts at an Anglo-German alliance before WWI and his brother, Austen, was the lead negotiator of the Locarno Treaty, which implied Germany's eastern borders (Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland) were negotoable. Neville's claim of a private, off the record, conversation Hitler had no further territorial demands, should be treated as a mere posturing without some further evidence of such representations from Hitler. After all, this is the guy whose 1932 presidential slogan was "We are intolerant".

[pestilenceplague]

I hate how most people forget that the Soviet Union also invaded Poland.

[auditedpatriot]

In 1938, Germany had barely formed 2 panzer divisions, and the Czechs were among the best armed States in Eastern Europe with 38t tanks coming out of their factories. Some souces say Hitler's General Staff would have thrown a coup if Hitler had defied England and France by prematurely starting a 2 front war they clearly could not have won. Mousolinni had also defied Hitler prior to this, believing Hitler would have no chance in such a conflict. When the West caved on the Czechs, Hitler picked up the Skoda Works and enough tanks and arms to form at least another 2 armored divisions. The weakness shown by England and France proved to Hitler, Musolinni, Stalin and others that the West is a fickle ally and Hitler is the best bet if you want to survive. Not unlike when Obama let Gaddafi, Mubarak and half of Iraq fall to radicals while Putin took Crimea and saved his allies in Iran and Syria from that fate.

[DC]

Good presentation, I think you are spot on Chamberlain made a number of mistakes the Rhineland crisis, not at least going around Anthony Eden, with Lord Halifax, such Eden then resigned, but as you say parliament at the time agreed. This started the road to Munich. Though I do wonder was this part of his strategy to buy time, he had forced the resignation of the air minister for lack of progress in 1938, with the shadow factory strategy of initially 9 factories for engines and the new prototype fighters and bombers coming on line by the car industry and to work with the British integrated air defences being developed. Most of these factories are now housing estates but the famous ones still exist, Jaguar and Land Rover, at Castle Bromwich and Solihull, Bentley at Crewe and Airbus at Broughton. These factories were in place and working flat out before the Battle of Britain once Lord Beaverbrook was brought in by Churchill. So yes Chamberlain is remembered and judged for appeasement but should also be remembered for building the RAF. There is a view had Churchill been in power he would have built alliances against Hitler, to deter or overthrow. I agree with you Hitler wanted war, so would have gone to the East.

[Luredreier]

Another factor is that appeasement had already been proven to work with the Americans earlier.
Britain was losing relative economic, political and military power vs other major powers like the Americans.
Britain agreed to unfavorable trade agreements with the Americans in order to maintain peace (both the americans and brits had plans in case of a war between the two powers).

Anyway, the brits managed to avoid a war with the americans, and after WW1 the idea of a new war was extremely unpalatable both for the goverment and the people.

So yeah, appeasement of Germany was a thing, and not without reason.
Quite the countrary, they had good ones.

[HSMiyamoto]

Like the dog that did not bark in a Sherlock Holmes story, the repeated declarations of neutrality by the USA, including laws against making and selling weapons to warring countries, foreclosed the options of France and Britain in confronting Germany. Even expert historians tend to ignore that, but men like Chamberlain were certainly aware of US policies in that direction.

[Thomas]

I read an article in WWII magazine called "Sympathy for the Neville" which brought up that if war were declared in 1938 Britain would have been even less prepared than they were in 1939 so appeasing the Germans, and thus delaying the war gave Britain longer to prepare for the inevitable war. So in that context appeasement worked for the British it delayed the outbreak of war long enough for them to prepare for the war. The article claimed/implied (it's been a while sense I've read it) that Britain may have lost without the extra time. I find that dubious but there's no doubt that they would have been off worse.

[TheAHform]

You need to pay more attention to the fact that Europe had endured the horror of WW1, so people just didn't want to fight. If Putin "liberated" Russians in the Baltic republics would we emulate Chamberlain or Churchill? I think we would find every reason not to fight because we dread the consequences.

[daltonagronomo]

I'm a Brazilian and I live in Brazil. Chamberlain was an eugenics' supporter. He was with cancer and would die in 1940 of this disease. Chamberlain wanted to have peace and existence of the British Empire. Chamberlain was looking for to make the good, but he failed completely. Chamberlain became the scapegoat, when he did the thing that British public opinion, press and British parliament, wanted he to do.

[grizwoldphantasia]

Another aspect that most people know nothing of is that Europe did not have stable national borders. Czechoslovakia was created out of thin air, and badly at that: half of it, the Sudetenland, spoke German, leaving a lot of people on both sides of the borders wanting to change them. The Austro-Hungarian breakup after WW II spawned a lot of "fake" countries whose borders were not quite as arbitrary as in the Arab countries or in African colonies, but they didn't make anyone happy. Yugoslavia left the same problem behind when its communist regime fell, and that was just 30 years ago. WW II's end shifted Poland west so the USSR could grow at the expense of Germany.

One of my recent surprises was a short article which said that at the beginning of WW I in 1914, there were only two democracies in Europe -- Britain and France. Every other country was a monarchy, and not a constitutional one, just a simple monarchy. I don't know enough details to know how much quibbling one can do over some of those countries, but it was generally true to an extent which is unfathomable today.

[randomcoyote]

IIRC there was also a view that Mussolini's Italy would be able to "moderate" Hitler and influence him to be a little less aggressive; that Mussolini was the "senior partner", an equal to Hitler's Germany, and more rational. Plus, many (at least earlier) probably thought Hitler's aggressive talk was just posturing for his domestic supporters, and not to be taken too seriously.

[johnyricco]

I don’t think the British expected appeasement will stop a world war, rather it would lead to war between the Nazis and the Soviets, which is why they rebuffed Stalin’s offer of an alliance to defend Czechoslovakia. Britian and France hoped to buy time and defeat who ever was left standing after a Soviet-German war. Stalin then surprised them by forming an alliance with Germany, making sure the war would be between Germany and France plus Britain instead. This almost worked, except Germany won the war far faster and with lower cost than expected.