To what extent can it be argued that appeasement was the cause of the Second World War?

Authors Avatar

To what extent can it be argued that appeasement was the cause of the Second World War?

Appeasement is defined as a

“ Policy of settling international (or, for that matter domestic) quarrels by admitting and satisfying grievances through rational negotiation and compromise, there by avoiding the resort to an armed conflict which would be expensive, bloody, and possibly very dangerous”(Kennedy).

This view by Kennedy suggests that the parties involved in appeasement were willing to negotiate and reach a settlement but with Nazism, there was rational thinking but they did not see themselves as bound by international laws or conventions, which meant that Appeasement was going to be hard.  

This policy was undertaken by Britain throughout the period from post World War One leading to the World War Two and has aroused significant disagreement among scholars.

The idea of Appeasement has been perceived through three schools of thought. The first being the “Traditionalists” such as Churchill and “Cato” whom suggested Appeasement was a poor idea leading up to the “Gathering storm” (Churchill) and that Chamberlain was “chief Among Guilty men” (Cato).

The second being the “Revisionists” such as Taylor whom suggests that Appeasement was justified considering the circumstances that surrounded Britain at the time, and the last thought being the “Post- Revisionists” such as Parker who suggests that while the circumstances were significant for appeasement, there were alternatives that could have been taken advantage of.

The weaknesses of the treaty of Versailles persuaded Britain to pursue a policy of Appeasement; due to the European tensions it caused especially economic tensions for example.

Keynes argued that by weakening Germany, Western allies would also be weakened, and fundamentally a weaker Europe would ensue.  

But Keynes was outspoken during his time but through the inter-war period his views became increasingly accepted, as it was Britain’s main foreign policy by trying to revise the treaty in order to settle any legitimate grievances that Germany had.

Another root in which appeasement lied in was the isolationist policy that Britain followed. This post revisionist idea suggests there were opportunities that Britain could have taken advantage of, but missed and because they were missed, Appeasement was the only viable strategy that could be followed. McDonough argues “self interest played an important part in the endeavour”. This quote suggests that Britain was only concerned with her own problems and her international position. Britain was naturally concerned for Germany as they were trading partners and Britain feared more of a strong French presence in Europe than a German presence. “There is more reason to fear for Germany than to fear Germany itself”  

Britain was also concerned with her empire as there were growing nationalist movements in countries such as Ireland and India. This meant that the British military had to spread across the empire and it will leave a weak British presence in Europe and with the weakness of Britain’s military, it enhances the motivation for Britain to follow the policy of appeasement. As the public and political parties were all against rearmament and meant that the only viable solution was to pursue the policy of appeasement.

These three factors correlate with each other to show the motivation behind appeasement being the policy followed. It can also be seen to set the seen for appeasement causing the Second World War but along with the justifiable grievances that Germany had caused by the Treaty of Versailles, Appeasement meant that Britain had to Appease Germany in order to prevent a future conflict in Europe.

In order to make an informed conclusion to whether or not appeasement was the correct policy to pursue, it is essential to look at the events and debates leading up to the out-break of world war 2.

(Evidence needed here) The system of collective security, which was in part demanded by the British Public, came in the form of The League Of Nations. This was to be a system in which international disputes between nations would be settled by negotiation. The responsibility of the League was to act as an arbitrator in disputes between nations and to provide effective collective security against any form of military aggression.

Join now!

There were mixed opinions towards the League. Sharp referred to the League of Nations as a "compromise agreement, which pleased none of the parties involved." It was also referred to by Foci, the military commander-in-chief of the allied armies at the end of the war as, "this is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". These statements clearly show the realities of the League.

The moral validity of the Treaty was always questionable and the location of the treaty was questionable as it was France who suffered the most in the war in infrastructure and also the number of casualties. Taylor a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay