Why Neville Chamberlain Believed in Appeasement

Neville Chamberlain is often criticized for his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany in the 1930s. However, a closer examination of the historical context and Chamberlain's rationale reveals a more nuanced and understandable perspective.

Understanding the Context of Appeasement

It is crucial to understand that chamberlain knew a war with Germany in September 1938 would be disastrous for Britain (Sep 1938). His approach to appeasing Hitler was rooted in his desire to give Britain time to prepare for war while maintaining the semblance of peace. When the reality of Hitler's betrayal through the invasion of Poland became apparent, Chamberlain had no choice but to take Britain to war. This decision reflects a strategic move to avoid the carnage of World War I which had just occurred about two decades earlier.

The Impact of World War I

Chamberlain, like many of his contemporaries, had experienced the horrible slaughter of World War I. The memory of the Great War was still vivid, and the desire to avoid a similar disaster was understandable. His choice to prioritize peace over immediate military conflict was, at the time, a considered decision driven by historical trauma.

Debunking the Myth of Appeasement

The characterization of Chamberlain as a proponent of appeasement is flawed. The policy of appeasement is an after-the-fact description, focusing on a single event at the Munich Conference concerning Czechoslovakia. Other events, such as the reoccupation of the Rhineland and the annexation of Austria, are often overlooked. Chamberlain's inability to foresee Hitler's true intentions as a lying psychopath was a grave miscalculation but not a reflection of his broader policy or intentions.

Considerations in 1938

Multiple factors influenced Chamberlain's decision to pursue appeasement in 1938. Britain's exhaustion from World War I and the subsequent austerity measures had resulted in underfunding of military preparations. By 1938, there was already increased spending on military readiness, given the known German rearmament efforts.

Chamberlain believed Hitler when he claimed the Sudetenland was his only territorial issue. This belief was not entirely baseless, as Hitler's promise aligned with the principle of national self-determination for ethnic Germans. The idea that Germans should be united under one banner, as in the case of the Sudetenland, was a significant factor in Chamberlain's decision.

Limitations and the Fall of Appeasement

The Munich Conference in 1938 marked a turning point. Within six months, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, revealing his deceit. Once Chamberlain realized he had been fooled, it became clear that appeasement was no longer a viable option. Six months later, this was evident regarding Poland, and Hitler initiated World War II.

It is important to note that Chamberlain did not advocate for large increases in military spending or immediate preparation for war. Instead, he returned from Munich with a piece of paper that intended to symbolize peace. His decision to prioritize peace over immediate military action was not justifiable, but it was not driven by a desire to avoid preparation.

Churchill's Perspective and Legacy

Churchill's assessment of Chamberlain during this time offers insight into the situation. He stated, "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war." This phrase encapsulates the dilemma faced by Chamberlain and highlights the harsh reality of the situation.

Two years after the events, in the wake of Chamberlain's death from cancer, Churchill provided a more balanced view, stating, “Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events to be disappointed in his hopes and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? What were these wishes in which he was frustrated? What was that faith that was abused? They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart – the love of peace, the toil for peace, the strife for peace, the pursuit of peace even at great peril and certainly to the utter disdain of popularity or clamour.”

While Chamberlain's mistakes are undeniable, his actions were driven by sincere intentions and a belief in peace. His legacy is marred by hindsight, as Hitler's true intentions were not so apparent at the time.

In conclusion, while Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was flawed and proved to be ineffective, it was a rational response to the challenges of the time. History often judges with the benefit of hindsight, and Chamberlain's legacy is a testament to the complexities of foreign policy and the unpredictability of dictators.