Appeasement 2 (AQA GCSE History): Revision Notes
Appeasement 2: Growing criticism and opposition
Introduction
While many British politicians initially supported appeasement as a reasonable response to Hitler's demands, not everyone agreed with this approach. As Hitler's actions became more aggressive throughout the 1930s, criticism of the policy grew stronger. Understanding these arguments against appeasement helps explain why the policy eventually failed and how tensions escalated towards war.
The debate over appeasement was not just about foreign policy - it reflected deeper questions about how democracies should respond to dictatorial regimes and whether compromise or confrontation was the better path to peace.
Arguments against appeasement
Hitler was deceiving everyone about his true intentions
Critics argued that those who supported appeasement were fundamentally wrong to believe Hitler when he claimed he was only interested in correcting the wrongs of the Treaty of Versailles. The evidence suggested that Hitler had been consistently lying about his limited aims. For years, he had been publicly stating that force was the only way to make Germany strong again, yet appeasers chose to ignore these warnings and should have taken his threats more seriously.
Warning Signs Ignored: Hitler's own writings in Mein Kampf and his public speeches consistently promoted aggressive expansion and the use of force. Critics argued that appeasers were willfully blind to these clear statements of intent.
Missed opportunities to stop Hitler's expansion
Opposition voices pointed out that there had been several chances to challenge Hitler effectively, but these opportunities were wasted. A key example was the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936. If France had challenged this action militarily, Hitler would have been forced to retreat, as Germany was not yet strong enough to fight a major war. Each time Hitler was allowed to succeed without consequences, he became bolder and more difficult to stop.
The Rhineland Crisis of 1936
When Hitler ordered German troops into the demilitarised Rhineland:
- German forces were small and poorly equipped
- Hitler later admitted he would have withdrawn if challenged
- France had military superiority but chose not to act
- This success gave Hitler confidence for future expansion
The failure to act here is often seen as the crucial missed opportunity to stop Nazi aggression early.
Moral objections to abandoning vulnerable countries
Many people argued that it was morally wrong to abandon countries like Austria and Czechoslovakia to Nazi control. The policy essentially meant sacrificing these nations and their populations to Hitler's regime. People in these countries suffered greatly under Nazi occupation, particularly Jewish populations who faced persecution and violence. Critics believed that more should have been done to protect these vulnerable populations from Nazi aggression.
Human Cost of Appeasement: The policy had devastating consequences for millions of people in occupied territories. Jewish communities, political dissidents, and other minorities faced immediate persecution, deportation, and violence under Nazi rule.
Stalin's security concerns
The policy of appeasement also created problems with the Soviet Union. Stalin felt threatened by Hitler's expansion but believed that appeasement meant he couldn't rely on support from Britain and France if Germany attacked the USSR. This lack of trust would later influence Stalin's decision to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939, which shocked the Western powers and made war more likely.
The Nazi-Soviet Pact was partly a result of Stalin's loss of faith in Western commitment to stopping Hitler. This agreement effectively removed the threat of a two-front war for Germany, making invasion of Poland much safer for Hitler.
Winston Churchill's opposition
Winston Churchill emerged as one of the most vocal critics of appeasement throughout the 1930s. By 1939, Churchill was openly opposing the policy because he believed Hitler would continue pushing for more territory and power regardless of any concessions made to him.
Churchill famously described appeasement with the quote: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." This colourful metaphor captured his view that trying to satisfy Hitler's demands would only delay, not prevent, an eventual attack on Britain.
Churchill's Prescient Warning: Despite being in the political wilderness for much of the 1930s, Churchill consistently warned that Hitler's appetite for expansion was unlimited. His speeches and writings from this period proved remarkably accurate in predicting the course of Nazi aggression.
The escalation of tension
As Hitler's demands grew bolder, it became increasingly clear that appeasement was failing. The progression from Hitler testing the waters with small actions to making major territorial gains showed a clear pattern of escalation. Each success encouraged him to make even greater demands, leading to the crisis that would eventually trigger the Second World War.
The Pattern of Escalation: Each successful act of aggression that went unchallenged made Hitler more confident and his next demand even bolder. This created a dangerous cycle where stopping him became progressively more difficult and costly.
Understanding hindsight
When evaluating arguments for and against appeasement, it's important to remember that we have the benefit of hindsight - we know how events actually unfolded. People making decisions in the 1930s couldn't have known for certain what would happen next. However, critics of appeasement argue that the warning signs were there for those willing to see them, and that alternative approaches might have prevented the catastrophic war that followed.
Historical Perspective: While we must be careful not to judge historical figures too harshly based on knowledge they didn't have, many of the arguments against appeasement were being made at the time by politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens who recognised the dangers of the policy.
Timeline of key events
- 1936: Remilitarization of the Rhineland - missed opportunity to stop Hitler
- 1938: Anschluss with Austria - Hitler gains confidence
- September 1938: Munich Agreement over Sudetenland - appeasement reaches its peak
- March 1939: Hitler occupies rest of Czechoslovakia - appeasement clearly fails
- August 1939: Nazi-Soviet Pact signed - Stalin loses faith in Western allies
- September 1939: Germany invades Poland - Britain and France declare war
Key Points to Remember:
- Critics argued that Hitler had been lying about his limited aims from the very beginning
- Several opportunities to stop Hitler were missed, particularly during the Rhineland crisis
- Many people believed it was morally wrong to abandon countries like Czechoslovakia to Nazi control
- Churchill consistently opposed appeasement, comparing it to "feeding a crocodile"
- The policy created mistrust with Stalin, pushing him towards a deal with Hitler instead
- Each successful act of aggression made Hitler bolder and harder to stop
- Warning signs about Hitler's true intentions were available to those willing to see them