"An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men"-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement?

Authors Avatar

“An Honourable Policy Pursued by Honourable Men”-Is This a Fair Assessment of the Policy of Appeasement?

        When Neville Chamberlain came to power in 1937, he was left with the problems of Nazi Germany to deal with.  Chamberlain stuck to a policy of appeasement, making peace in Europe his main aim.  He went to new lengths to try and prevent war, such as flying to Germany and discuss problems in person (shuttle diplomacy) which had not been done before.  For his efforts in trying to keep the peace, perhaps Chamberlain was an honourable man.  However there were weaknesses to his approach, such as his arrogance in refusing to listen to his Foreign Secretary Eden, which may be important factors to why appeasement inevitably failed.

        If not honourable, then appeasement was certainly a logical policy to undergo initially.  Not only was Great Britain economically unprepared for a war, but the vast majority of British people did not want another war.  World War I was said to be the ‘war to end all wars’, so preventing another war was certainly a logical decision, perhaps even a moral one.  At this time there was also unrest in the Far East involving Britain’s colonies.  Britain was certainly not in the position to get involved in conflicts in the far east and in Europe.  Neville Chamberlain said himself; “war wins nothing, cures nothing, ends nothing”, therefore appeasement seemed the most obvious solution.

        As a politician Chamberlain had his strengths.  From the outset he never did trust Hitler or Mussolini, which means he was not totally unaware of their danger.  Had Chamberlain made decisions involving Hitler or Mussolini without being aware of their aggressive natures, he would undoubtedly have been a naïve and somewhat stupid politician.  However he was careful in his decision-making and made it clear how little he trusted Hitler. Chamberlain also surrounded himself with people he knew, and who supported his ideas.  His original foreign secretary, Eden, did not agree with Chamberlain’s approach, and they did not get on.  Chamberlain put his faith in someone he knew, Lord Halifax, to partake in diplomatic talks with Hitler in Germany instead of Eden. Although this was undermining Eden, it could be argued that without full support, a government is essentially weak.  Having a weak government at this time would be just the thing Hitler would look for.  Therefore Chamberlain was not wrong to ensure he had a team of people all working toward the same goal.

Join now!

        Chamberlain’s ‘Plan Z’ is definitely commendable, as it shows the lengths he went to, to work out Hitler’s plans and try and keep the peace. Chamberlain flew to meet Hitler in Berchtesgaden which had not been done before in British politics.  Hitler wanted to reclaim the Sudeten land, and Chamberlain agreed.  Although some critics would view this as giving in and encouraging Hitler to make more demands, in the short term it was a good decision.  Very few people were prepared to go to war over the Sudeten land, including France who even had an alliance with Czechoslovakia.  The reality ...

This is a preview of the whole essay