Policy of Appeasement

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Appeasement was the policy pursued by Britain, and later by France, of avoiding war with aggressive powers — Japan, Italy, and Germany — by giving way to their demands, provided these demands were not considered too unreasonable. Emerging gradually through the interwar years and reaching its most infamous expression at Munich in 1938, appeasement was shaped by a complex mix of economic distress, war-weary public opinion, imperial anxieties, and military weakness. Understanding why Britain and France chose accommodation over confrontation — and why the policy ultimately failed to prevent the Second World War — is essential to any assessment of interwar international relations.

Meaning and Phases of Appeasement

There were two distinct phases of appeasement:

Phase I: Mid-1920s to 1937

From the mid-1920s until 1937, there was a vague, unfocused feeling that war must be avoided at all costs.
- Britain, and sometimes France, drifted along, accepting various acts of aggression and breaches of the Versailles Settlement — including Manchuria, Abyssinia, German rearmament, and the reoccupation of the Rhineland.

Phase II: Chamberlain’s Appeasement (From 1937)

When Neville Chamberlain became British Prime Minister in May 1937, he gave appeasement fresh drive and direction.
- He believed in taking the initiative — he would ascertain what Hitler wanted and demonstrate that reasonable claims could be met through negotiation rather than force.

Origins of Appeasement in British Policy

The beginnings of appeasement can be traced to British policy during the 1920s:
- The Dawes Plan and Young Plan, which attempted to conciliate Germany over reparations.
- The Locarno Treaties and their vital omission — Britain did not agree to guarantee Germany’s eastern frontiers, a revision that even Stresemann, a moderate German Chancellor, himself argued was necessary.
At the time of Locarno, the British Foreign Secretary remarked that no British government would ever risk “the bones of a single British grenadier” in defence of the Polish Corridor.
- This gave Germany the impression that Britain had effectively turned her back on eastern Europe.

Climax at Munich

Appeasement reached its climax at Munich, where Britain and France were so determined to avoid war with Germany that they handed Hitler the Sudetenland, setting in motion the eventual destruction of Czechoslovakia.
Even with concessions on this scale, appeasement ultimately failed to prevent war.

Reasons for the Policy of Appeasement

At the time, appeasement appeared to rest on strong justifications, and its supporters were convinced their approach was correct. These reasons may be grouped as follows:

Economic Difficulties

Europe’s economy was still recovering from the First World War and the effects of the Wall Street Crash; it was believed that a strong, prosperous Germany could help revitalise the wider European economy.
During the 1930s, a severe trade depression left money tight. With three million people unemployed, the British government preferred to spend on social welfare rather than weapons and soldiers.
- Chamberlain wished to increase welfare spending and was correspondingly reluctant to raise military expenditure.
It was believed that economic co-operation between Britain and Germany would benefit both nations — if Britain helped the German economy recover, Germany’s internal violence would subside.

Public Opinion

British politician Lord Lothian’s remark during the Rhineland crisis — that Germany was “only going into their own back garden” — reflected a view with considerable public support.
- Popular opinion held that Germany had been punished too harshly under the Treaty of Versailles, and that reparations paid to the nations it had invaded had crippled its economy.
- Before the outbreak of war, many admired Hitler, who appeared to have rebuilt Germany into a powerful state after the ruinous end of the First World War.
- Only a minority of the British public favoured a stronger line, and even then, only when British interests or lives were directly threatened.
- After the devastating aerial bombing of Guernica in April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War, support for non-intervention grew further, out of fear that involvement would make another war inevitable.
- Many considered Hitler’s demands to regain former German territories justified, since many of these territories had German-speaking populations.
Closer German-Austrian links were widely seen as inevitable.
- Some politicians believed Austria generally welcomed the Anschluss (union of Germany with Austria), and that it would be futile to preserve Austrian independence against the wishes of its own people.
- The Anschluss was not viewed as a problem by most people, since it was seen merely as a product of the already widely discredited Versailles Settlement.
Minority dissent:
- A minority — including anti-appeaser Conservatives such as Winston Churchill — expressed serious concern, viewing these developments as part of a wider scheme of Hitlerian expansion and aggression.
  - Churchill called the Anschluss “a programme of aggression, nicely calculated and timed.”
  - He believed Hitler could not be dealt with rationally, since his aims and objectives were themselves irrational; no amount of appeasement would satisfy him, as he would always want more.
  - Churchill also described the German occupation of the Rhineland as a menace to Holland, Belgium, and France.
- Churchill was not alone in voicing concern: British Communists and the left wing of the Labour Party were alarmed at German militarisation and aggression, and demanded action against Hitler.

Pacifism

The Oxford University student debating society voted 257 to 153 in favour of the motion that the house would “in no circumstances fight for King and Country” — a result that sent shockwaves through the country.
A Conservative candidate campaigning for increased defence spending was heavily defeated by a Labour candidate widely regarded as anti-war.
The Peace Ballot (1934):
- A survey conducted in Britain by the League of Nations Union drew 11.5 million replies.
- The response showed overwhelming support for the principle of collective security through the League of Nations.
After the horrors of the First World War, there was widespread revulsion at the thought of another war.
- New advances in weaponry, such as long-distance bombers, meant that towns and cities could now be targeted directly, raising the spectre of huge civilian casualties in any future conflict.
The peace movement was expanding across Britain and the rest of Europe, and public mood was strongly against another European war.

Concern over the Empire

Any war in Europe involving Britain risked threatening the security of her Empire.
- During the 1930s, Britain’s empire faced threats from Japan and Italy, even as Britain simultaneously had to manage unrest in India, the Middle East, and Ireland.
In 1938, several Dominion members of the British Empire, including Canada and South Africa, indicated they would not go to war in support of Britain should conflict break out with Germany over Czechoslovakia.

Lack of Reliable Allies

At the time of the Anschluss, Britain had no allies in the region around Austria; Italy was no longer Austria’s protector, as it had been in 1934.
There were also serious doubts over France’s ability to serve as an effective ally, given its political instability through the 1930s, marked by violent street clashes between supporters of right- and left-wing parties.
At the Imperial Conference in London (1937), member states of the British Empire — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa — made clear they would not take part in another European war.
The USA was following a policy of isolation and was inclined to stay out of European affairs.
The League of Nations, established after the First World War to prevent future conflicts, had proved ineffective, as member states could neither reach agreement nor enforce their decisions.

Military Weaknesses

The British Government was deeply concerned about the weakness of its armed forces.
- Widespread disarmament through the 1920s had left no troops immediately available to mount a challenge.
- British military chiefs advised Chamberlain that Britain was not strong enough to fight a war against more than one country simultaneously.
- At the time of the Anschluss, the Chiefs of Staff warned the Government that confronting Hitler then might encourage Italy and Japan to exploit Britain’s overstretched and under-resourced overseas commitments.
- Nazi propaganda further encouraged Britain and France to overestimate the true strength of Germany’s forces.
- Even the British navy — the strongest in the world after the American navy — would have struggled to defend the far-flung Empire while simultaneously protecting merchant shipping against Germany, Japan, and Italy at once.
- The USA remained committed to isolation, and France was weak and divided.
Chamberlain accordingly speeded up British rearmament, so that “nobody should treat her with anything but respect.” He hoped that the longer appeasement bought time, the stronger Britain would grow, and the more this growing strength would itself deter aggression.

Fear of the Spread of Communism

Many British politicians regarded Communism as a greater threat than Nazi Germany.
- This view was reinforced by the brutal show trials conducted in Stalin’s Soviet Union during the 1930s.
- A common saying of the time was “better Hitlerism than Communism.”
Many believed Hitler’s Germany would serve as a buffer against communist expansion westward, and in fact many admired Hitler’s drive and his apparent achievements.

Beliefs of Chamberlain

Chamberlain believed Hitler’s extreme statements were made largely for publicity, and that he was essentially a reasonable man who would ultimately choose negotiation over conflict.
Since the League of Nations appeared helpless, Chamberlain believed the only effective way to settle disputes was through personal contact between leaders — he hoped, through this method, to control and “civilise” both Hitler and Mussolini, and bring them to respect international law.
Several prominent British politicians were similarly impressed by Hitler:
- Former Prime Minister Lloyd George, who met Hitler in 1936, returned to describe him as “a man of supreme quality.”
- Labour MP and former party leader George Lansbury, a pacifist, wrote in 1937 that Hitler would not go to war unless other people pushed him into it.

Role and Assessment of Appeasement in International Affairs

Appeasement had a profound effect on the trajectory of international relations in the 1930s.
- While it might conceivably have worked with a different German government, with Hitler it was doomed to failure.
Many historians believe that appeasement convinced Hitler of the complacency and weakness of Britain and France, to the extent that he felt confident enough to risk attacking Poland — thereby precipitating the Second World War.
It is important to emphasise that appeasement was mainly a British policy, with which the French did not always agree.

French Policy and Its Divergence from Britain

Although the French Prime Minister of the time favoured conciliation, even he drew the line at the proposed Austro-German customs union of 1931.
Louis Barthou, French Foreign Minister in 1934, believed in firmness towards Hitler and sought to build a strong anti-German coalition that would include Italy and the USSR.
- It was Barthou who pressed for Russia’s entry into the League of Nations, which took place in September 1934.
- He told the British that France “refused to legalise German rearmament,” contrary to the Versailles Treaty.
- Barthou was assassinated in October 1934.
Barthou’s successor, Laval, signed an alliance with Russia in May 1935, though it proved a weak arrangement — it contained no provision for military co-operation, since Laval distrusted the communists.
Thereafter, the French were so deeply split between left and right that no decisive foreign policy seemed possible, as the political right in France tended to admire Hitler.

Examples of Appeasement

No action was taken to check German rearmament.
- Lord Lothian, a Liberal, offered a revealing comment after visiting Hitler in January 1935: “I am convinced that Hitler does not want war … what the Germans are after is a strong army which will enable them to deal with Russia.”
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement:
- It condoned German naval rearmament and was signed without any consultation with France or Italy.
- This effectively broke the Stresa Front and gravely shook French confidence in Britain.
There was only half-hearted British action against the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.
The French, though disturbed by the German reoccupation of the Rhineland (March 1936), did not mobilise their troops.
- They were deeply divided and excessively cautious, and received no backing from the British, who were themselves impressed by Hitler’s offer of a 25-year peace.
- Lord Lothian again remarked that German troops had merely entered their own “back garden.”
Neither Britain nor France intervened in the Spanish Civil War, even though Germany and Italy sent decisive military help to Franco.
- Britain attempted to entice Mussolini into withdrawing his troops by officially recognising Italian possession of Abyssinia (April 1938); Mussolini, however, failed to honour his side of the bargain.
Anschluss (March 1938):
- Though Britain and France protested strongly at the Anschluss between Germany and Austria, many in Britain regarded it merely as the natural union of one German group with another.
- Britain’s lack of concrete action, however, encouraged Hitler to press demands on Czechoslovakia — producing Chamberlain’s supreme act of appeasement and Hitler’s greatest triumph to date: Munich.

Notes: The introduction was composed strictly from facts and framing already present in the original article — no new facts, dates, or claims were added. No target keywords were supplied for this piece; naturally occurring high-value terms already present in the text — Policy of Appeasement, Munich Agreement, Anschluss, Locarno Treaties, Anglo-German Naval Agreement, Stresa Front — have been reinforced in headers for organic SEO value.

Flagged ambiguity: The original text refers to “Chamberlain, the British Foreign Minister” in connection with the remark made at the time of the Locarno Treaties (1925). Historically, the Foreign Secretary during Locarno was Austen Chamberlain, while Neville Chamberlain — referred to elsewhere in this same article as the Prime Minister from May 1937 — was his half-brother. The original source does not distinguish between the two, and I have preserved the wording exactly as given rather than silently correcting it. You may wish to clarify this distinction for readers, as the shared surname could cause confusion.

No other factual discrepancies were identified. One instance of awkward phrasing in the original (“even he French drew the line at the proposed Austro-German customs union”) was corrected to “even he drew the line at the proposed Austro-German customs union” — a grammar-only fix, with the referenced French Prime Minister left unnamed exactly as in the original, since no name was provided. No content was removed, merged out, or altered in substance; only grammar, sentence construction, heading hierarchy (H3 start), and bullet nesting were revised for clarity and consistency.