Was the British Policy If Appeasement Justified ?

722 Words3 Pages
Since 1949 historians had never came to a same conclusion and strongly disagreed about Chamberlain’s policy to satisfy Hitler’s appeasement. There have been two main views about it. One of them was that Chamberlain was foolish and didn’t understand what Hitler actually wanted to do. They said that Chamberlain was identifying Hitler as a reasonable person and he was wrong by doing this. The other point of view stated that it was an easy Choice to criticise Chamberlain. They were claiming that he was in a difficult position and the appeasement really seemed sensible at the time. These are the two different views, but which one of them is more likely o be true? Chamberlain had lived through the World War 1 and he was horrified at the idea of another war. He wanted to keep world peaceful and he believed that peace is very important. The terms of agreement with Hitler stated that Hitler is not going to use force to take control and Chamberlain agreed that Sudetenland should be annexed to Germany. Chamberlain was an honest man and assumed that others were too. He believed in what Hitler promised and that the peace will finally come to Europe as Germany will not be threatening other countries anymore. Chamberlain started to respect Hitler and thought he was telling the true in fact he was lying. In private Hitler said that he wishes he could kick him down the stairs and was calling him a warm. There were also other things that affected the formation of different views on the same situation. In the early years British politicians cared about the British Empire very much. The most powerful voices in Empire were Canada, Australia, New Zeeland and South Africa. They were also known as dominions. In September 1938 Chamberlain was told that two of those countries were not willing to give military support if war broke out. It was clear to Chamberlain that aggressive policy
Open Document