History Forums

[admin]

I would like to see some discussion on what has been termed English appeasement of Hitler before WWII broke out. Was it a wise strategy, in order to buy time? Or was it appeasement, pure and simple, as some would have us believe?

Paul

[admin]

Re appeasement, it has to be appreciated that the Great War (W.W.I), was devastating for Britain despite Britain being a �winner�. Apart from the financial consequences and damage to the Empire, such was the way it was fought and the way men were recruited that the typical person had no wish to repeat the experience for the sake of peoples in other countries. Losses were far greater than expected, but more damaging was the huge amount of casualties, many permanent. The �Land fit for heroes� promised the soldiers was simply impossible to deliver. Conditions and standards of living went down afterwards. In respect of Chamberlain, he was totally genuine in his belief his remit was to do everything in his power to avert another war for Britain. He was a true �Apostle of Peace�. It was futile and he took things perhaps past the limit, but he was sincere in his efforts. If his elder brother Austin had been fit enough to become Prime Minister, things would have developed differently. Those who saw the inevitable were doing whatever they could within their power to prepare for war. The key sentiment here is �within their power�. Mobilising a nation�s war machine in a democracy does require the Prime Minister�s endorsement. One fortunate aspect was the build-up of fighter planes, largely thanks to the efforts of Dowding. If you wish, the eventual outcome could have been different if someone other than the bigoted, pompous Anthony Eden (Foreign Secretary) had dealt with Mussolini.

One small note, it's 'Britain', not 'England'.

No.9