By this time, Hitler had full-scale rearmament going on and his armed forces were technologically ahead of their time. This was because Hitler had to start his army practically from scratch as the treaty of Versailles had left him with near enough nothing so he could introduce new weapons and equipment into the forces with less expenditure than he would have had otherwise and this meant that the forces were well prepared for.
Chamberlain’s appeasement policy was necessary for him to postpone any war (even though they would not have seen it coming) to get a chance to rearm as quickly as possible, get the economy into an interwar-economy, and get the country prepared for war. It also gave Britain a chance to form new alliances and sort out some kind of a plan of action should war happen so that they would be prepared and not in a state of panic when it came.
The statement shows that the author may see appeasement was a well thought out policy and that Chamberlain was wise in the fact that he never fully relied on peace and never saw it as an inevitable thing.
I think chamberlain saw that the country was not in a ready economic state for war and the people would not be happy to go into another war like world war one. World war one would have been how many of the people would have assumed the next war would have been as it was in many of their lifetimes and they would have related it to what they knew already and this would have made them ultimately reject war. Chamberlain chose a policy that the people of his country would have maybe followed easier and would keep Britain stable for the meantime so that when war came they would be more or less prepared and more willing to go rather than putting up a fight.
I can infer from the quote that maybe the author is trying to set the record straight that other historians had said that Chamberlains policies were weak and a way for him to keep things cool and simple when there was a war ready to be fought and he just kept putting things off, but R.A.C Parker says that this is not true, and if there was a bigger quote I could probably see that he backs this up with fact.
In my opinion, the war was going to happen anyway, and appeasement did not make it any more likely than either the weakness of the League of Nations or Hitler's desire to be a world dominator. Appeasement did mean, however, that the war took place on a much larger scale than it would have if something had been done sooner as Hitler may have not drawn his entire population of native Germans home from other countries such as Poland and would not have had the scale of army that he had by the time war had commenced.
France and England should not have practiced Appeasement during the 1930’s as Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy launched themselves into increasingly aggressive military and foreign policies during the mid-1930s, the other Western nations hoped to avert a crisis by negotiating with these countries and coming to compromises that would not anger Hitler or endanger their countries’ welfares. In addition to this could have been a better policy for Britain to adopt, unless there were other reasons as to why chamberlain adopted appeasement over this. However, unfortunately, he did not have the hindsight that we have today and could not see that he should not have appeased an aggressor, as this was what made Britain an easy target for Germany to manipulate.
It is clear to see that chamberlain clearly believed that a policy of Appeasement would work as he continued to try to get it to work until it was clear that war was inevitable and the fact that he did keep trying is evidence that he knew the implications of war and what it would bring.
Neville Chamberlain fully shared the public horror at the thought of the destruction, which another war would bring, and how a vigorous, and therefore expensive, defence and foreign policy would distract from pressing problems at home. He was a decent man who held a sincere belief that reasonable negotiation and goodwill could overcome the diplomatic problems of the day. In any case, there was no thinkable alternative. Some historians think Chamberlain's policy of appeasement made little sense. After all, Hitler made no secret of his aim to dominate Europe and the world. He was a ruthless tyrant who was prepared to use war to achieve his evil ends. In consequence, the only correct policy was to stand firm against him at the earliest opportunity. They argue that appeasement simply whetted his appetite and encouraged him to make fresh demands. With each surrender, Germany grew stronger and more dangerous.
It is easy with hindsight to see both sides of the argument because I can see what happened since all of this and I can say what would have been better to do, but Neville chamberlain did not have this advantage and had to try and see what was better for the country and what might prevent war. To him it might not have seemed as though war was inevitable, and if he did see this, to prevent it may have been a better option anyway so that he could get the army into a better state and run more money into it.
I think that the statement is a valid interpretation as it explores the fact that Chamberlain saw war as unnecessary when there would be a perfectly good, non-violent alternative that would not cost lives and that Chamberlain knew what he was doing. I can infer this, as I know from my own knowledge that Chamberlain had previously held other positions of high responsibility and he would not have been made prime minister unless he had the initiative and capability to do his job well, and the same for all the other roles he had previously undertaken.
The author would also have other knowledge that I do not and be able to back up his points with substantial evidence so I think that the statement is a valid interpretation of Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement.
