Explain the reasons for the policy of appeasement, focusing on the Munich Agreement of 1938, and assess its effects

What this dot point is asking

SEAB wants you to explain why Britain and France followed the policy of "appeasement" in the 1930s, giving way to Hitler's demands to avoid war, with the Munich Agreement of 1938 as the key example. You should be able to explain the reasons for the policy, describe the Munich Agreement, and assess its effects, weighing the arguments for and against it. The task combines explanation (why they appeased) with judgement (was it wise, and did it make war more or less likely?). A strong answer presents both sides before reaching a balanced view.

The answer

What appeasement meant

Appeasement was the policy, mainly associated with the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, of giving in to some of Hitler's demands in the hope of satisfying him and avoiding war. The idea was that if Hitler's reasonable grievances were met peacefully, he would be content and the peace of Europe could be preserved. Britain and France allowed Hitler to break the Treaty of Versailles step by step, through rearmament, the Rhineland and the Anschluss, without taking strong action. Appeasement reached its climax in 1938 over Czechoslovakia.

Why Britain and France appeased

There were several reasons for the policy. The most powerful was fear of another war. The First World War had killed millions and left deep scars, so the public and leaders alike were desperate to avoid a repeat. Second, Britain and France felt militarily weak and unprepared, and appeasement bought time to rearm. Third, many people believed the Treaty of Versailles had been too harsh on Germany, so Hitler's demands to undo it seemed partly justified. Fourth, some leaders feared communism more than Nazism and saw a strong Germany as a useful barrier against the Soviet Union. Finally, Britain in particular faced problems across its empire and the effects of the Depression, and did not want a costly European war.

The Munich Agreement, 1938

The great test came over the Sudetenland, the German-speaking border region of Czechoslovakia that Hitler demanded in 1938, threatening war. To avoid this, Chamberlain met Hitler several times and finally, at the Munich Conference in September 1938, Britain, France, Germany and Italy agreed that Hitler could take the Sudetenland. Czechoslovakia, the country losing the land, was not even invited to the conference and had to accept the decision. Chamberlain returned to Britain to cheering crowds, waving a piece of paper and declaring he had secured "peace for our time". Many people were hugely relieved that war had been avoided.

The arguments over appeasement

Whether appeasement was wise is a classic debate. In its favour, supporters argue it was a reasonable attempt to avoid a terrible war, that Britain and France were not ready to fight and needed time to rearm, and that public opinion strongly wanted peace. Against it, critics argue that appeasement was a disastrous mistake: it gave Hitler land, resources and confidence, making him stronger and bolder; it sacrificed Czechoslovakia and its defences; and it convinced Hitler that Britain and France would never fight, encouraging him to push further. The strongest evidence against appeasement is that in March 1939, just six months after Munich, Hitler broke his promise and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia, proving he could not be satisfied.

The effect on the coming of war

Appeasement's effect on the war is the heart of the dot point. By giving way repeatedly, Britain and France let Hitler grow stronger and more confident, which arguably made war more likely and harder to win when it came. The seizure of the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 finally convinced Britain and France that appeasement had failed and that Hitler had to be stopped. They abandoned the policy, guaranteed to protect Poland, and stood firm when Hitler turned on Poland later in 1939. In this sense, appeasement did not prevent war but delayed it, on terms that favoured Hitler, until the powers were finally willing to fight.

Examples in context

Example 1. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia. At Munich, Czechoslovakia, a democratic ally with strong border defences in the Sudetenland, was forced to give up that region without being consulted. Losing the Sudetenland also lost the mountains and fortifications that protected the country, leaving it defenceless. When Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, it could not resist. This shows how appeasement sacrificed a friendly state and handed Hitler a strategic prize.

Example 2. The guarantee to Poland. After Hitler broke the Munich promise and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, Britain and France finally abandoned appeasement. They guaranteed to defend Poland, Hitler's likely next target. This change of policy is why, when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war. The shift from appeasement to firmness marks the end of the policy and the start of the war.

Try this

Q1. Who was the British Prime Minister most associated with appeasement? [3 marks]

• Cue. Neville Chamberlain, who led the policy and signed the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Q2. Explain why fear of another war led Britain and France to appease Hitler. [5 marks]

• Cue. The First World War had killed millions and left deep scars; the public and leaders were desperate to avoid a repeat, so they gave way to Hitler's demands rather than risk another conflict.

Q3. "Appeasement was the main reason the Second World War broke out." How far do you agree? [8 marks]

• Cue. Argue appeasement encouraged Hitler and made him stronger, but weigh it against Hitler's own aggressive aims and actions; judge whether the policy caused the war or merely failed to prevent it.