Appeasement was a rational and calculated foreign policy. It was intended to prevent the possibility of a Second World War, In 1961 AJP Taylor published The Origins of the Second World War, where he lays out the Revisionist argument, that Hitler was not looking for World domination, but simply ‘continuing the policy of previous German governments in seeking eastward expansion’ (3). Taylor tries to argue that by trying to make Germany the most dominant power in Europe or the world he is no different from leaders of German history such as those in World War 1. However, although Taylor wrote persuasively and was one of the most important historians of the 20th century, his book received a lot of criticism for his ‘cavalier use of primary evidence’ (4) as well as some of the conclusions he reached after cherry picking source material that fit his narrative. Taylor also did not mention Hitler’s or the Nazi’s ideology at any point in his book as a driving force for wanting world domination. Gerhard Weinberg published Hitler’s second book that shows that instead of Hitler being an opportunist like Taylor tries to argue ‘Hitler had some very definite, fixed ideas on foreign policy before he came to power’ (5). Appeasement is a factor that is only relevant late in the origins of the Second World War, After German remilitarization and aggressive foreign policy, after the Great Depression, and long after the incredibly harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1961 AJP Taylor published The Origins of the Second World War, where he lays out the Revisionist argument, that Hitler was not looking for World domination, but simply ‘continuing the policy of previous German governments in seeking eastward expansion’ (3). Taylor tries to argue that by trying to make Germany the most dominant power in Europe or the world he is no different from leaders of German history such as those in World War 1. However, although Taylor wrote persuasively and was one of the most important historians of the 20th century, his book received a lot of criticism for his ‘cavalier use of primary evidence’ (4) as well as some of the conclusions he reached after cherry picking source material that fit his narrative. Taylor also did not mention Hitler’s or the Nazi’s ideology at any point in his book as a driving force for wanting world domination. Gerhard Weinberg published Hitler’s second book that shows that instead of Hitler being an opportunist like Taylor tries to argue ‘Hitler had some very definite, fixed ideas on foreign policy before he came to power’ (5) Appeasement in an international context is a policy of diplomacy that involves making territorial, material, and political concessions to an aggressive power to avoid conflict (1). The policy of appeasing the Germans did not lead to World War 2 as it is a preventative measure to try to stop war. The policy was fully enacted in 1937 by Neville Chamberlain (2). The country, in this case, Britain makes concessions to avoid war, and due to Germany’s actions in Poland, they still go to war. Appeasement was not a significant factor in the Outbreak of war in 1939, as war would have taken place with or without the policy, due to Hitler’s long-t
erm plans which involved conquering lands of foreign nations. Counter revisionists such as RAC Parker argue that Chamberlain overestimated German military strength tried to manipulate the public in favor of appeasement and was overcautious in rearming. The counter Revisionists believe that Chamberlain still kept faith in appeasement even when it was certainly doomed to fail, in September 1939. Appeasement was not responsible for the Second World War; however, it did not meet its goal of stopping a war, a very unrealistic goal due to Hitler’s ideology and foreign policy. However, due to support for appeasement from the public due to the horrors seen in World War 1, it is easy to see why politicians would enact this policy. However, there were differing opinions of contemporaries especially in the 1940s once the war had started. ‘Cato’ was a pseudonym for three journalists, who published ‘Guilty Men’ (6) in 1940 and argued that Chamberlain, Baldwin, and MacDonald had not been strong and facilitated the Nazi expansion. They argued that all those who were associated with appeasement should exit the government due to their colossal failure. However, they wrote this one year after the war had broken out making it very easy to point out the grand failure during the war. although Cato was popular, and their published work was successful in spreading the message that the government’s inaction did not stop the war they had a far more popular politician that agreed with them. Winston Churchill opposed appeasement from the mid-1930s, in his book The Gathering Storm he states that ‘there was never a war more easy to stop’ (7). Churchill believed that Britain should have intervened in 1934 or 1935 to stop the Nazis from rearming or forming a powerful air force. Other anti-appeasement historians believe that Britain should have taken a stand after the remilitarization of the Rhineland. Although Britain could have stopped the war by intervention in Germany during remilitarization and not by appeasing them, these are both methods of trying to stop a war. and this shows us that the factors that led to the start of the war were already in place by the time prevention was necessary, Germany had remilitarized, Hitler and Nazi ideology were very popular in Germany, Hitler’s Foreign policy was beginning to become very aggressive and expansionary to create the ‘lebensraum’ that he wanted, as well as more long-term consequences such as dissatisfaction with the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles. Appeasement was not why World War 2 was fought, however, if it was replaced by an effective policy, World War 2 would have never been fought. The counter-revisionists seem to have been closest to correct, appeasement was a foolish policy put in place by Neville Chamberlain and the political elite to try to promote peace, however, they seriously misunderstood The Nazi’s and Hitler’s aims in Europe due to their idealism. Appeasement was popular as it was said to be able to make sure Britain could keep their empire as well as not have to relive another world war. However, the appeasers held these goals to such great importance that they could never stand up to Hitler to truly avoid a second world war.