Broward College

Appeasement Controversy Prior To World War II

Guillermo Gonzalez
Dr. Hernandez-Muzquiz
WOH2040
5 June 2016

Gonzalez 2
Appeasement Prior to World War II
Foreign Policy in Western Europe
In 1937, Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came to trust Hitler,
or at least believed Hitler was a reasonable man with whom he could negotiate. After Hitler
remilitarized the Rhineland, he promised Europe he was satisfied: First, we swear to yield to no
force whatever in the restoration of the honor of our people Germany will never break the
peace (Hallock 82). This apparent sentiment of truce turned to be a deceiving move by Hitler, as
history eventually revealed; Hitlers true intentions were in fact opposed to his rhetoric at the
time. In spite of Hitlers violation to the Treaty of Versailles, Prime Minister Chamberlain and
the League of Nations employed a policy of appeasement- a term which literally means to
pacify or conciliate- as an answer to Hitlers antics (Hallock 82). In the Prime Ministers
own words, As long as war has not begun, there is always hope that it may be prevented, and
you know that I am going to work for peace until the last moment (Hallock 82). Given Hitlers
clear negligence to follow the Treaty of Versailles and his deceiving speech tactics, appeasement
was not the best alternative to deal with Hitlers vanquishing approach, which is why it became
one of the most controversial foreign policies in modern history.
This foreign policy of appeasement was also a consequence of the League of Nations
incapability to deal with Hitlers strategy at the time. After Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in
March of 1936 and effectively violated both the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno
agreements, The League of Nations had every reason and right in the world to counteract but did
not, mostly because its membership could not come to an agreement as to how to respond
(Hallock 82). France was justifiably upset but military incompetent at the moment to respond on
its own. Poland had just signed a border agreement with Germany, and by virtue of this

Gonzalez 3
arrangement, Poland decided Hitlers action was legitimate, given Germanys position. Great
Britain agreed with France that Hitlers tactic was wrong, but did not view it as a threat in any
way, so the League of Nations did not react and instead sent Hitler the subtle message that they
were not willing (or perhaps not capable) to defend the Treaty of Versailles (Hallock 83). The
League of Nations did not have a more convenient alternative than appeasement in hopes that
Hitler would indeed keep his word, but history proved that this was unfortunately not the case.
Endorsed by a 99 percent approval rating from the German citizens and the lack of response by
the League of Nations, Hitler continued toward his goal of Lebensraum. To Hitler, the term
meant the acquisition of territory to the east (Russia) to allow for the growth of the Aryan, or as
Hitler referred to it, the superior race (Hallock 79). After Hitler proceeded to ally with Mussolini
and expand German borders, Britain and France tried to negotiate with Hitler, allowing him to
seize and occupy the Sudetenland as long as Hitler promised he wouldnt go further to
Czechoslovakia. The agreement was signed into treaty at the Munich Conference on September
30, 1938. On October 1st, German troops invaded the Sudetenland, and in March of 1939, Hitler
violated the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, further proving that
appeasement was the not the way to handle Hitler after all.
Despite of Great Britain and the League of Nations efforts to keep the peace, the
inevitability of World War II deemed appeasement as the worst alternative, which made this
particular foreign policy the most controversial; on one hand, Hitler was determined to reach his
goal of Lebensraum while showing clear signs of his intentions by violating treaties and
agreements, while on the other hand, the League of Nations was trying to conciliate. This
disparagement of tactics ultimately led to the most devastating war in human history, one which
represented an effort of total war on the part of all belligerents, and was truly fought all over the

Gonzalez 4
world (Hallock 112). All home fronts suffered the consequences, and the battlefields reached
from deserts to mountains and forests, across the vast oceans and seas into the air. Bombs,
invasions and burnings repeatedly assaulted most of the European civilization. Recent estimates
run as high as 70 million casualties when civilian deaths from disease and starvation are added
(Hallock 112). The controversy behind appeasement as a method to alleviate Hitlers efforts was
certainly justified.

Gonzalez 5
Works Cited
Hallock, Stephanie A. The World in the 20th Century A Athematic Approach. Pearson
Education, Inc. 2013.