Essay: To what extent do historians disagree about the primary motivations behind Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement?

Introduction
Appeasement relates to a political policy, in which a nation makes concessions in the face of a warlike nation or dictatorship in order to preserve peace and avoid conflict. Historians acknowledge that in some circumstances, appeasement is necessary however on the topic of Chamberlain’s government it becomes an issue mainly because different historians had different schools of thoughts on the matter. Chamberlain has faced criticisms due to being seen as inadequate and incompetent, on how Hitler operated and what key decisions to take when it came to facing the Nazi regime. This was shown by the orthodox view which focused on the downfalls of Chamberlain, and what he could have done to relieve some tension between Britain and Germany. Despite the criticism which Chamberlain faced as being prime minister, not all viewed him in a negative light. Some actually saw his work as exalted, due to his skill of improvising in the face of a tyrant such as Hitler. This was displayed by the Revisionist view, which placed an emphasis that Chamberlain did the right thing under his policies of appeasement, and the fact that world war two was inevitably going to break out. The period of 1990’s proved to be a significant change, into the judgment of Chamberlain’s government and his motivations for enforcing appeasement. Drawing upon the evidence provided by the orthodox and revisionist view, post-revisionists was birthed. The aim of this view was to provide a balanced argument of what Chamberlain did well, and what alternatives he should have provided. Throughout this essay, the view and evidence provided by each school of thought will assess on determining if Chamberlain adopting appeasement was the right approach.
Orthodox view
The main representation of the Orthodox view would be through the group known as CATO. Originally created in 1940 by three journalists, Michael Foot, Michael Owen and lastly Peter Howard, the group published a book known as Guilty Men which gave an insight, on how tensions were rising between Britain and Germany. CATO raise a key point by arguing that Chamberlain had not done enough to rearm the British forces because it left them vulnerable to an attack by the German army. In 1935 when talking about the general security of Europe, Chamberlain commented: ” we must at all events be sufficiently armed ” which indicated that Britain was to start rearmament soon. However eleven months later on the night before the general election Chamberlain admitted that “this sufficiency in arms had by no means been achieved” therefore going back on his word. CATO criticise Chamberlain heavily on not doing enough to rearm Britain because it left them open to an attack from the Germans. An example of this in 1937 a civil war had started in Spain, where Germany ripped some clauses in the Treaty of Versailles which showed an indication that it was important for Britain to rearm because of the German advancement. CATO go on to show that Chamberlain was a weak leader because he was noted for saying in 1938 ” the terrifying power that Britain was building up has a sobering effect” however, six months later Hitler marched his troops to Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain went to meet Hitler’s demands. This evidence is important as CATO stress how Chamberlain was a weak leader by showing that he did not speed up rearmament when Germany was making notorious acts such as building an army.
The basis of CATO’S argument arose mainly because they saw it as the “unnecessary war” this, along with the fact that Guilty Men was written during the war, gave a good indication that CATO had a warlike attitude for patriotism and condemned Chamberlain for submitting to Hitler. No doubt, CATO raise an excellent point as to why Chamberlain promised to rearm Britain against Germany, however, later on, he went back on his word and admitted that rearmament was not achievable therefore leaving Britain defenceless. However CATO does not take into account the fact that the public was against going to war, and this initially was one of the main motivations which drove Chamberlain to follow appeasement. This was proven in the 1935 League of Nations Peace Ballot where eleven million voted that Britain should support disarmament. This clearly undermines CATO’s argument as they do not take in consideration that besides economic factors hindering any chance of Britain rearming, the public was against going to war which gave Chamberlain a strong reason to pursue appeasement rather than going to war head-on with Germany. Without a doubt, the peace ballot, was a reliable factor in Chamberlain adopting appeasement, as support for the League was extremely strong, with Britain having their own League of Nations supports club, which gave a true reflection of the public’s opinion on disarmament as the statistic of eleven million people highlighted mass support. In addition when weighing up CATO’s argument it’s important to mention that they did not have access to government documents (available in 1960 under the 30-year clause) which greatly challenges the reliability of their argument, as they did not have multiple sources to justify their claims. Therefore this means that their argument was biased since they did not have a range of opinions from different individuals to strengthen their viewpoint
Furthermore, another orthodox historian John Wheeler-Bennett agrees that Chamberlain should be criticised for pursuing appeasement however he takes a slightly different approach to CATO. Bennett argued in his article that Chamberlain was naiveas he was humiliated at Munich by Hitler, where Hitler promised peace which actually never came and that war was inevitable as Hitler had his mind set on conquering therefore appeasement was bound to fail. Given the viewpoint of both historians, it’s typical of the orthodox view to criticise appeasement, however, Bennette’s argument would be considered more strongly as Chamberlain was indeed fooled by Hitler on broken promises, therefore showing that Chamberlain was to blame based on his own actions rather than CATO which place an emphasis on factors which Chamberlain could not prevent such as the state of the economy hindering rearmament. This is easily more valid than CATO’S view on rearmament since factors such as the economy and public opinion were beyond Chamberlain’s control and he was initially forced to adopt it.
As a result considering the evidence and viewpoints of CATO and the orthodox view, their argument is invalid. This would be mainly because CATO criticised Chamberlain’s government on limited evidence and pushed their own agenda, such as from Guilty Men one of the authors Michael Foot commented at the prelude of the book ” I can testify that the whole affair was contrived in a rush and rage”. This evidence can be challenged, as the author could have said this in hopes of disregarding much of the criticism which CATO received, therefore not making it authentic. Also, CATO criticised chamberlains government without facts as the book was contrived in a rage therefore showing it was written more based on emotions rather than on factual information. Also, Michael Foot carries on to state that “our aim was to secure changes in men running for the war” therefore some of the events could be produced in bias light to show Chamberlain’s government as ineffective mainly because CATO was focused on achieving their own political change. Because of this the judgements and evidence provided by CATO, in criticising Chamberlain lack validity and is questionable.
Revisionist view
The main principles of the revisionist view would be that they believed Chamberlain, was right to stall and appease Hitler. One of the most famous individuals which played a primitive role, in the revisionist approach would be John Charmley. Charmley stresses that Chamberlain had to adopt appeasement, in order to buy time because there were no significant allies to form an alliance. From Charmley’s book (Chamberlain and the Lost Peace) he commented that the British army in Moscow reported that the recent purges in Stalin’s army had a “disastrous effect” on the Red Army’s “morale and efficiency” such as sixty-seven percent of officers and high ranking officials were wiped out. This is a clear indication that Russia was not a strong ally of Britain as most of their senior commanders have been killed hence making the army lack considerable leadership. Charmley places a strong emphasis on this as the Soviets were literally in ruin and since they weren’t “capable of carrying a war into enemies territory” Chamberlain was practically forced into adopting appeasement as he had no suitable ally to provide an alternative.
Revisionists, unlike CATO, had a more detailed insight into events since they had government documents which became available in 1960, therefore providing them with evidence from a number of sources to base their points across, which CATO did not have. Because of this, it makes revisionists arguments such as Charmley’s more reliable since he used official British reports from Moscow describing the situation of Russia’s army and how the Soviets were too weak to aid Britain effectively. This is beneficial as by using many sources Revisionists are able to see what factors severely undermined Chamberlain in pursuing other alternatives besides appeasement, and unlike Orthodox historians, this insight is the main reason why Revisionists ( Charmley) support Chamberlain. However, Revisionists tend to ignore the fact that besides Russia, Chamberlain could have pursued an alliance with France. This was largely ignored by Chamberlain as Britain has a profound distrust between France and rather to reconcile they chose to ignore it. This greatly undermines the Revisionist view as it highlights that Chamberlain did, in fact, have other alliances in which he could have pursued however he chose to not, rather than what revisionists claim that Britain had no “suitable” and effective ally in aiding them.
Another revisionist who strengths and agrees with Charmley would be AJP Taylor, Taylor argued that Chamberlain had to adopt appeasement as Britain could not rely on their ally the US to come and support them. This was clearly shown from his book the Origins Of The Second World War, where he commented that “the Americans have been too busy with the New deal to have time for Europe” which impacted Britain as they relied heavily on loans from the US in order for the British economy to function. Taylor’s claims have been brought up based on the evidence of US foreign policy, where they noted that they were more interested in domestic than international affairs, which was only backed by Roosevelts New Deal. Furthermore the fact that the US was focusing on “isolationism” and could only provide “moral disapproval and this was turned less against dictators than the powers” meant that America was hardly concerned with Hitler’s motivations and objectives as they were focusing on their own domestic problems. In addition, Taylor stresses that America would have only got involved in European affairs if the Soviets did, the problem of Hitler would have been “solved if the two world powers Soviet Russia and United States were drawn in European affairs”. This clearly shows that Chamberlain was forced to adopt appeasement as America was unreliable and uninspired to commit to European problems. Therefore it’s clear to see that the typical Revisionist view would be that Chamberlain had no choice but to champion appeasement.
Overall taking the evidence and accounts of both historians the revisionist view is valid in some respects. This would be mainly because Chamberlain was limited in pursuing alliances since Russia suffered a huge blow towards their army, which impacted them being a suitable ally for Britain as their leadership ranks were in complete chaos, therefore, leaving their army in complete ruin and unable to fight a power such as Germany. Secondly the fact that Britain’s closest ally the US were uninspired to be involved in European affairs due to following their policy of Isolationism and new deal meant that Britain was left vulnerable as they did not have the protection of a superpower such as America. In addition, the fact that America placed a greater emphasis towards powers rather than dictators only showed that Britain could not rely on the US to support them unless Russia got involved which meant that until that happened Britain was exposed. These are intriguing points, however, Churchill an Orthodox historian argues that Chamberlain ignored to negotiate with France despite their mistrust and having limited options, only showed that Chamberlain was not trying hard enough and chose to have selected alliances. This greatly undermines him and the Revisionist view as he did not explore all of the solutions or alternatives which were presented in front of him. However overall I believe that Chamberlain was right to champion appeasement as Britain were in no circumstance ready to go to war, and the fact that they had limited options and hardly any allies only strengthened this motivation for appeasement.
Post-Revisionist view
Chamberlain was viewed in a variety of ways, due to adopting his policy of appeasement. However, post-revisionists, such as Ripsman and Levy argue that Chamberlain adopted appeasement in order to buy time for Britain because the economy was not able to produce rapid rearmament. This was proven from Ripsmans and Levy’s book (Wishful Thinking) which noted the “British economy could not sustain the rapid and extensive rearmament effort” which was supported by the fact that all British leaders recognised that mass rearmament “lacked the economic strength” to make it successful. This was shown by Ripsman and Levy by the economy not having enough skilled workers to produce rapid rearmament, such as from using government statistics they showed that three million people were unemployed which was an indication that due to high unemployment Britain did not have enough skilled workers to get rearmament done therefore pushing Chamberlain to adopt appeasement. Unlike Charmley, Ripsman and Levy tend to focus more on internal problems within Britain which were hindering their chance of pursuing other alternatives, in comparison to Charmley’s argument of alliances being Britain’s main reason for appeasement. Given the fact that post-revisionists had a better hindsight of the events which occurred due to their writing in 1990, meant that their claims would have been more reliable as they provided a balanced view of Chamberlain’s successes and faults, in comparison to Orthodox and Revisionist historians who’s argument was based on a particular belief.
However not all post-revisionists shared the same beliefs about Chamberlain as Ripsman and Levy did, for example, R.A.C Parker, another post-revisionist historian goes on to criticise Chamberlain on not pursuing an alliance with the USSR. This was highlighted from Parker’s book Chamberlain and appeasement, where he mentions that “collaboration with the Soviet Union was undesirable”. This shows that Chamberlain restricted Britain’s chance to form an alliance due to his own beliefs rather than seeing Russia as an invaluable ally against Germany, also RAC Parker stresses that Chamberlain failed to realise that Russia could indeed combine with Germany or form an alliance which would have caused even more tensions throughout Europe. For example, Germany and Russia made the “Nazi-Soviet agreement” which was met by Germany and Russia promising peace to each other, Parker argues that Chamberlain “misled the Soviet government” which forced them to make an alliance with Hitler at the expense of the Soviet Union”. Parker explains that Chamberlain missed the opportunity of applying pressure to Hitler, because of his doubts and unwillingness which led to a missed opportunity for securing an Anglo-Soviet relation. Without a doubt, Parker raises a reliable point such as Chamberlain misleading the Soviet government, as Chamberlain took too long to negotiate and was uneasy about an alliance with the Soviets due to their relationship with America. However Ripsman and Levy’s point is more valid as economical restraints such as the fall in trade by forty percent and lack of workers, meant that the British economy was crippled and could not go to war even if Russia was strong enough to fight, Parker fails to realise this and focuses on Chamberlain’s actions of not forming an alliance with Russia, without considering state of the economy. For example, the Great Depression and Wall Street crash affected Britain heavily. Because of this, it makes Parker’s argument flawed as he does not take into consideration that even with an alliance Britain would not have been able to fund themselves through a war.
However, a major criticism of Ripsman and Levy would be that they place too much emphasis on the state of the British economy, and do not take into account that factors such as alliances were another key motivation for Chamberlain pursuing appeasement. For example, America was not interested in European politics and this was proven by the fact that most Americans focused on Roosevelt’s New Deal. Also the fact that they suffered the Great Depression only further indicated that they were focused on solving their own problems than aiding Britain. France certainly distrusted Britain along with the fact that it would of accounted as a weak ally, historian Alfred Sauvy shows that “France’s violate political state and its weak economy and military” would of made France a weak ally for Britain.
Overall unlike Revisionist and Orthodox historians, the post-revisionist view is a more complex approach as not all historians within the same view share the same beliefs. For example, Ripsman and Levy argued that Chamberlain had to adopt appeasement mainly because of the state of the British economy. Given the circumstances in which Britain was in, this is a strong point as no doubt Britain could not function since by using official statistics it outlined that Britain was in war debt up to seven billion. This is a vital figure as it highlights just to what extent the British economy was hindered to, this along with not having enough skilled workers only gave Chamberlain more reason to pursue appeasement as they could not rearm. However Parker shares a different view, he criticises Chamberlain mainly on the fact that he did not capitalise on the opportunity of an Anglo-Soviet alliance, which could of initially setback Hitler greatly. Considering this argument, Parker does raise a fair point as Chamberlain did stall and mislead the Soviets mainly because he thought of them as untrustworthy. However the fact that Parker ignores that the Soviets faced a crushing blow to their army, only weakened his argument in comparison to Ripsman and Levy’s since even if an alliance was made, they would not be a suitable ally for Britain as they initially lacked strong leadership attributes. Therefore given both viewpoints and evidence, Chamberlain pursuing appeasement was the right cause, as the British economy could not undertake war without bankrupting itself first, therefore making Ripsman’s and Levy’s argument towards appeasement due to economic factors valid.
Conclusion
Buying time refers to the policy employed by Chamberlain of appeasing Hitler in order to prevent further German rearmament and to initially buy time for Britain. Different schools of thoughts have different views on this argument and what Chamberlain should have done. Post-revisionists such as Ripsman and Levy argue that Chamberlain was forced to adopt appeasement, mainly because the economy could not support rapid rearmament. AJP Taylor, a revisionist supports the view that Chamberlain was right to follow appeasement, mainly because they didn’t have support from their greatest ally the US. CATO, however, share a different view and argue that Chamberlain did not do enough to rearm the British economy, thus leaving them vulnerable to a German invasion. Given the evidence and the viewpoints provided, Post-revisionists have the strongest argument. This is because Ripsman and Levy outline how economic factors such as Britain not having enough skilled workers, led to the economy not being able to support rearmament. This undermines CATO’S point because it shows that CATO doesn’t take into consideration external factors such as the Great Depression impacting the economy, which Chamberlain had no control of. As a result, Ripsman and Levy show how internal factors hindered Britain’s chance of going to war and led Chamberlain to appease
No doubt alliances were a key factor in deciding if Chamberlain was right to approach appeasement, however not all schools of thoughts shared the same beliefs. RAC Parker a post-revisionist criticises Chamberlain for not pursuing an alliance more closely with the French. This was shown in 1939, where Chamberlain “led the government after Munich in rejecting the option of a French-British alliance”. CATO, however, argue that Chamberlain should have pursued an alliance with Russia to add additional pressure on Germany. However, not all views agreed with this. Revisionists such as John Charmley criticise CATO and support that Chamberlain should have adopted appeasement, mainly because there were no key allies strong enough to assist him.