Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are accounts that British Prime Minister Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler because he just didn't want Britain involved in a war at that time. Others also argue that Chamberlain was naive and gullible.

Given the clear provocations of Germany during this time, why did Chamberlain actively choose to appease Hitler leading up to World War 2? Furthermore, why didn't parliament and influential advisers seek to override his decisions?

share|improve this question
add comment

7 Answers

up vote 29 down vote accepted

I would say it was a combination of a few reasons that made Chamberlain, and by extension, the British government during that time, willing to appease Hitler ambitions.

First it had been less then two decades since WWI, which Britain was a major player in, and the memories of the horror of trench warfare, mustard gas and other supplementaries that that came with "The war to end all wars" would have put the kibosh on any hawkish actions that would have led to another war of that magnitude, as 1939-1945 would prove it would be. This is why Chamberlain figured if appeasing Hitler with such actions and "treating him with kid gloves" prevented sending his nation into another great war, so be it.

Second, the Nazi government's darker side was for the most part, mostly unknown, hadn't happened yet (aka the "Final Solution"), and what little had leaked out was dismissed or ignored. Meanwhile the powers that be in the Western World saw their hardline take on communism as a wonderful thing, which earned them a bit of leeway in annexing half of central Europe.

Third, Europe didn't have many allies at the time that would have joined them should they declare war on the Germans. Italy and Spain were firmly in the Axis camp, the United States was staunchly isolationist in nature, and Russia wasn't much happier to deal with Britain then it was with Germany. While Britain had her colonies, most were far from Britannia and not of a size to where they could match Germany's military might, plus most were vulnerable to a resurgent Japan, who was also in the Axis camp.

References: WWII history classes, WWII references books (can't remember the name of it as I don't have it any more, will continue to search)

share|improve this answer
1  
Upped this. Even when war started, they didn't really want it and hoped it would go away before any real shooting started. Hence the phoney war at the start of WWII. –  Rincewind42 Oct 12 '11 at 4:33
3  
Good answer but one correction: the USSR was not unwilling to deal with Britain. It was British which did not want to deal with the USSR at the time. –  Anixx Dec 27 '11 at 3:41
3  
The USSR played a double game with both Britain and the Nazi. It ended in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as it was in the best interest of both Nazi Germany and the USSR. –  Sardathrion Feb 6 '12 at 13:26
3  
@Anixx - Quite. To be more specific, getting help from Russia meant smaller allied countries like Poland and the Czeck's allowing Soviet armies to march through their territories. They were just as afraid of Soviet "help" as they were of Nazi aggression. –  T.E.D. May 4 '12 at 15:50
2  
w.r.t. to ignorance of Hitler's "final solution"/racism, remember that racism and classism wasn't really as unpopular throughout Europe at the time. Open discrimination against people based on race or sex or religion was not illegal. Anti-Semitism wasn't unheard of either. Chamberlain was born ~ 10 years after Jews were allowed elected to Parliament. The horrors of what Nazi Germany did, has changed human society. –  Rory Jun 15 '12 at 12:44
show 1 more comment

This question is a case study for anachronism, or rather how knowing what happened next influences our interpretation of historical actors at the time they make their decisions. In this case, we are looking back from Blitzkrieg France 1940 rather than ahead to a repeat of 1914.

Hitler decided in early 1938 that it was time to start the war for Lebensraum. As evidenced by the way the war started in 1939, it didn't matter too much what Chamberlain did. The war started when Hitler decided it was time. At the end of September 1938, Hitler got cold feet about starting his war. Chamberlain allowed him a way out.

When Chamberlain returned to London waving the piece of paper in his hand, it was not the Munich Agreement. It was Hitler's signature that Germany would "behave as a big boy" and have its grievances addressed through diplomatic means, i.e. not through aggressive war. Hitler did not intend to sign it, but was outfoxed by Chamberlain in the reception that followed the signing of the Munich agreement.

So why did he do the Munich agreement and why the piece of paper?

Look back at what happened 1914 to 1918, and then to 1939 to 1945. If you're going to go through that, you want to be damn sure that the cause is just. No doubts. No shadows.

In 1938, Hitler's cause celebre was national self-determination, the liberation of oppressed German minorities whose desire was to come "Heim ins Reich." The Anschluss with Austria. The liberation of the Sudeten Germans. The Daniziger Germans. Causes that seem morally right, that Germans understand to be just causes.

If this doesn't make sense in 2014, then step back and look at Putin in Crimea. An "oppressed" Russian majority that "wants to return to Russia." Nobody could dispute that the Crimea was Russian until Krushchev arbitrarily handed it to Ukraine SSR in 1954. Russia has nuclear weapons. Is it worth starting a potentially world destructive war over that? What if one could point at injustices to Russians in the Donbass? If Putin were to make a stink and then invade in order to "rescue" them, would it be worth fighting a war?

Hitler's propaganda was that he was liberating oppressed ethnic Germans. Chamberlain offered him to put his money where his mouth was. The rationale was to make Hitler prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his true intentions were aggressive.

BTW the UK was in no condition to fight a war in 1938, and knew it would not be ready for several more years. They had high hopes for their navy and "sanction" power of the blockade.

Also, Hitler and Chamberlain both knew it would be a couple years before the UK and France were otherwise ready to do much militarily. It was more about easing Germans psychologically into the war mode, keeping supply lines open as long as possible, and keeping options open as possible as to when exactly to attack Western Europe before turning eastward again.

In the end, Chamberlain got to look the chump, but in return go to war with Britons grimly behind him.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The Horror of another large scale war. Many believed that another large war would be much more horrific than ww1. There was a belief that "the bomber always gets through" it was thought that in any major conflict there would be many many civilian casualties even to the victors. The German propaganda about the strength of the Luftwaffe was believed, and the British air defences were not regarded as being up to scratch.

share|improve this answer
add comment

My answer will probably be very unpopular here, I'm afraid. :(

One of the causes for appeasement was democracy: most people were opposed to any military actions and the politicians had to cater to the populace. In his monumental book "World War II" Winston Churchill writes about a former Prime Minister Baldwin ordering unilateral disarmament of Royal Air Force, even though he knew from intelligence reports that Hitler was taking steps to revive Luftwaffe. When asked why he was doing that Baldwin blatantly replied that he needed pacifists' votes to win the election. He couldn't quite publish the intelligence reports in the papers, so he chose to act as blindly as an average voter would.

share|improve this answer
    
Well, if that is so, then why did the democratic countries eventually go to war with Hitler? –  Felix Goldberg Oct 3 '13 at 7:13
1  
They delayed well beyond reasonable, until it wasn't possible to lie to themselves that the war could be avoided. Even after declaration of war British and French didn't get into action for many months, certainly nothing has been attempted throughout the rest of 1939. Similarly, US help to British prior to December 1941 had to be downplayed to the public because average American was against the war. FDR and Churchill were very careful about framing arms supply as "Lend-Lease", bullshitting about the extent of US navy patrol, etc. –  Michael Oct 3 '13 at 14:13
add comment

There's another reason that I don't see fleshed out in any of the existing answers and that is that Britain lacked the means for war in 1938.

Max Hastings, in his book "Inferno: The World at War 1939 - 1945" argues that the British (and French) did not have the military equipment or trained men to go to war and that even their treaty to intervene on behalf of Poland was more about deterring Hitler than about any realistic effort to save the Poles.

Hitler did not anticipate the British and French declarations of war. Their acquiescence in his 1938 seizure of Czechoslovakia, together with the impossibility of direct Anglo-French military succour for Poland, argued a lack of both will and means to challenge him.

There are several references to Britain's soldiers being under-prepared and poorly equipped in the early chapters of the book.

Additionally, Britain's main strength was its navy, which was not a valuable asset in a continental war. In 1938 Britain's regular army consisted of 230,000 men, distributed around the Empire, mostly employed as policemen or peacekeepers. I can't find a precise, cited number for Germany's army in 1938, through a Google search several online sources give a size of around 36 divisions with a strength of around 600,000.

This lack of military preparedness and strength in comparison to Germany should therefore also be considered as part of Chamberlain's reluctance to go to war.

share|improve this answer
3  
Let's not forget the exaggerated size of the Luftwaffe, and the tremendous overestimation of the effects of air power before the war. –  David Thornley Feb 6 '12 at 5:04
    
Note that Churchill counters this by pointing out the surprising quality of Czech preparedness, particularly their industry. Czech factories provided a surprisingly large number of early war tanks for the Germans, tanks that continued to be used even in the invasion of Russia. –  Paul Hutton Mar 28 '12 at 19:44
    
Sorry, to clarify my comment, Churchill posits that the Czech military would have been a valuable addition to any early allied resistance against Germany; instead it became a liability. –  Paul Hutton Mar 28 '12 at 19:46
2  
The Czechs possessed the Skoda Works, the single largest arms complex in Europe, which they inherited from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The "best" thing that might have happened is that Czechs went to war against Germany, and it was destroyed in the process. Instead, it was surrendered to Germany intact, and became a GERMAN asset, that produced one quarter of the ammunition used by Germany in World War II. –  Tom Au May 6 '12 at 16:26
add comment

Initially, Hitler's position regarding Czechoslovakia was considered "reasonable" by Chamberlain and others.

"Czechoslovakia" was an artificial creation, as evidenced by the fact that the two parts separated voluntarily in 1992, after the end of the Cold War. In 1938, the country had seven million Czechs in today's Czech Republic, three and a half million Germans (in the Sudetenland), two million Slovaks (in Slovakia), plus some others, mainly Ruthenians and Hungarians.

Originally, Hitler's demands for the "repatriation" of the Sudetenland, and its Germans seemed "reasonable." Even the Czechs were willing to give up almost half of the disputed territory to reduce the "minority" (German) population. The problem was that the cession of the mountainous Sudetenland in 1938 left the rest of the country defenseless against invasion.

When Hitler swallowed ALL of the Czech "Republic" in 1939, Chamberlain woke up, and signed a mutual assistance treaty with Poland, the next likely victim. But Hitler's "salami" tactics had confused the issue long enough for him to succeed.

share|improve this answer
2  
+1, but my problem with this is that it is a bit to generous. Most accounts I have read indicate that Hitler was actually trying to provoke a war over Czechoslovakia. That's probably what made his threats so effective. If they'd give it to him for free, then fine. He could easily move on to the next country with a large German minority. But he wanted a war. –  T.E.D. May 4 '12 at 15:57
    
@T.E.D. Interesting point. That's the way it looks to us, of course. But that's not the way it looked to Chamberlain in 1938. He changed his mind, but that was in 1939. –  Tom Au May 4 '12 at 16:00
    
@TomAu It may not have looked to Chamberlain like he wanted war, but Hitler was actually terribly disappointed when it happened without a war. –  David Navarre Aug 15 '12 at 21:34
    
@DavidNavarre Do you have a reference for this statement? –  Felix Goldberg Oct 3 '13 at 7:12
    
@FelixGoldberg I wish I'd footnoted it there. A quick search reveals this reference to David Reynolds indicating that Hitler was disappointed in Reynolds' 2007 book, "Summits: Six Meetings that Shaped the 20th Century" fsmitha.com/h2/ch21bmunich.htm While it's certainly not where I'd read it, it is a source and indicates that it has been in at least a few places. –  David Navarre Oct 3 '13 at 21:05
add comment

The main reason was because nobody in Europe wanted another war, as WWI was still fresh in the mind and nobody wanted to relive that. He most likely hoped that Germany would stop and he wouldn't be the Prime minster in office during the second world war. This however wasn't the case and the war started anyway. The same reason other bodies didn't stop him is the one he held, they didn't want to see Britain in another war either.

Source

The Beginnings of WWII, The History Channel

share|improve this answer
9  
History Channel is not a good source. –  quant_dev Oct 12 '11 at 10:39
2  
@quant_dev - OMG are they a bad source. Few things make me angrier than the mystic crap my kids come to me convinced of because they saw it on The History Channel. The point itself is quite true though. –  T.E.D. May 4 '12 at 15:58
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.