There is an internal debate of whether appeasement could have been a means to stop Hitler, the orthodox view, with Historians such as Michel Foot who believed that Hitler could have been comforted and stopped before he was too strong. Winston Churchill believes that war had been unnecessary and could have been prevented if Hitler had been stopped earlier, and there were many “lost opportunities” such as the Rhineland in 1936, Czech crisis in 1938 and failure to recreate the triple entente in 1939. There were many alliances and agreements between countries up to and during the Second World War. Chamberlain believed that alliances would lead to the outbreak of war in Europe. While France saw her small alliances as a burden and believed that she might have to go to war to protect them. In reality, the alliance or pact with Poland caused or more accurately trigged the outbreak of war. The order of post world war one had collapsed and there was almost a shift back into old ideas whereby Hitler had disregarded the power of the League of Nations. Hitler didn’t believe that France and Britain would take any steps to stop him because they hadn’t in the past, the “lost opportunities” and therefore was prepared to risk war over Poland because of Russian support. It can be said that it was too let for appeasement and Britain and France could not given in anymore then they already had. Historians such as RJ Ovary argued that the Chamberlain’s policy had been accurate, they had forced Germany into a war earlier then Hitler has wanted and a time where Britain rearmament was at its peak. He believed that in the long run Uk’s ability to sustain resistance led to Hitler confrontation by the Us before he was ready for a total war Ovary argues that Hitler’s economic and military planning projected an awesome military power by the mid 40s if they were allowed to develop.
However historians also believed that Hitler was not appeasable and therefore war was inevitable. If Hitler was an internationalist and wanted to go war preventing him was harder, and the appeasement was only a short time method of preventing Hitler, who wanted to buy time for himself before war. Churchill and Shirer both suggest that Hitler wanted a war and had a plan which was based on radical aims. Churchill argues that Hitler’s plan of rearmament was focused on preparing Germany for a war, while his aim was to make Germany the most powerful country in Europe and later the world. Shirer also believed that the Hitler wanted to expand and was willing to use force as a means for this expansion and domination. He argues that Hitler wanted to undo the damage of world war and the treaty of Versailles and elevate Germany into a higher status. Evidence of this was the Hossbach Memorandum where Hitler outlined his own intention to acquire living space in Europe. It Hitler was intent on war, appeasement was almost impossible because it wasn’t possible to give into everything, especially if Hitler used brinkmanship.
On the other hand, historians such as AJP Taylor, believed that Hitler was an opportunist and was not intent on war. AJP Taylor suggested that Hitler was not planning a war in 1939 because he couldn’t sustain such a war. A.J Taylor degraded the importance of the Hossbach Memorandum claiming that it was largely daydreaming or at most part of a way to win conservatives into the idea of rearmament. Manson argues that Hitler was forced into a war because he wanted to divert attention away from inherent structural tensions and economic crisis. Similarly other historians such as Bullock and Carr have the same line of argument in suggesting that Hitler was a opportunist who used opportunities for his benefit and this is what led to war. In this case it can be said that Britain and France could have prevented through either appeasement, the recreation of the alliance of Russian – Britain and France as in 1914, the enforcement of the treaty of Versailles or through confrontation by the League of Nations.
In conclusion, it is hard to determine whether Britain and France could have prevented war because this question depends on Hitler’s intentions for war and to what extent Britain and France were ready to go to prevent the war, They had managed to prevent war earlier but where unable to use the same strategies in 1930 to prevent the war and this could be because Hitler in 1939, was prepared for war and was willing to risk it because of the Nazi-Soviet pact which saved him the fear of having a war on two fronts. The failure to recreate the entente of 1914, which would have threaten Hitler, the lack of will and capacity on France and Britain part and most importantly the view that Hitler was intent on war led to the failure in preventing war.
