The policy of appeasement is arguably one of the most contentious of our time; views on appeasement vary, but in some way appeasement can be defined as reconciling or even acquiring peace by the means of concessions or gifts. In terms of appeasement in politics, it is the settlement of international quarrels by satisfying grievances through ‘rational’ negotiation and ‘compromise’ in order to avoid conflict. Prior to Chamberlain’s use of appeasement the word did not have a negative connotation, but due to the nature of the result of Chamberlain’s policy the word has brought along with it the idea of weakness, cowardice and self-deception which often may not be the case. When analysing Neville Chamberlain’s usage of appeasement we must decipher and take into account a number of things, the first being Britain itself, the economic and political state of the country, the voice of the people and the Briton’s views of Germany, Hitler and Nazis; we must explore the pressures that were on Chamberlain’s shoulders and where he stood with Hitler, his beliefs regarding Appeasement and the intentions behind his decisions and identify the prior relationships between the countries involved.
The Orthodox view that Chamberlain’s policy was foolish and ill-informed came into the limelight during and immediately after the war started, as people could now see the failure of appeasement. From 1939-1960s criticism of appeasement became immense; historians argue that Chamberlain gave into Hitler’s demands far too easily and that he gave in out of fear and to avoid a war. Source A1 is from the book “Guilty Men” which refers to appeasement as "deliberate surrender of small nations in the face of Hitler's blatant bullying". Unlike Hitler, Chamberlain attempted to create peace from the very beginning, he said "We