There are two opinions that modern historians have when it comes to Britain's policy of appeasement with Germany back in the late 1930's. Some historians would say that the appeasement with Hitler wasn't justified at all and that Chamberlain was a weak-minded person, whom thought that Hitler would be reasonable (this was because Chamberlain was a very honest man and a trustworthy politician, who was naïve in thinking that other politicians would be the same). Other historians would argue that Chamberlain did not have any other choice at that very point and time, and the mounting stress from the people, who were looking for peace, clouded his thoughts and as a result, a policy of appeasement was considered. They would argue that appeasement seemed very sensible, and the right move at the time. There are a number of reasons that support both sides and opinions of this matter.
A factor of why the appeasement may be justified was the growing concern for the British Empire. The most powerful dominions in the Empire, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, all greatly supported and favored appeasement. If appeasement was not to be made, these self-governed dominions' would not support Britain if war would come to Czechoslovakia. And on September 1st, 1938, this news became official and Chamberlain was told that the South African and Australian governments would not help Britain if war would break out. It became clear and apparent that an aggressive approach to Germany would split the empire. And in fact, British military leaders supported the idea of appeasement because they were terrified of fighting multiple countries at once (Italy, Germany, Japan). All of this information made it clear that almost everyone favored an appeasement over any kind of war. Many people now would criticize this as people believe that appeasement is an act of weakness, with no self resolve. And with Hitler on the rise to power, he may have looked upon this as an...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document