This echos my question in #Out-of-the-Foxholes-Qs but I thought it would be interesting to open the topic up to discussion here in general.
In the years and months leading up to the Second World War, there was undoubtedly a policy of appeasement from the allies (particularly Great Britain) towards German expansionism; however with the benefit of hindsight this has often been blamed to be an allied failing that led to war.
My question for discussion is: Could the Allies realistically have done anything to prevent German expansionist policies WITHOUT it leading to war? It seems, to me at least, that had the Allies taken any course of action after the rise of the National Socialists to power in Germany that it would inevitably led to war. Therefore is Chamberlain promising “peace in our time” just the cries of a nation desperate to avoid another conflict on European soil?
I debated this with my history teacher a few months back, and he said the following:
Chamberlain had seen the horrors of The Great War, what it did to an entire generation of young men, and wished nothing but to stop something of that scale from happening again. He felt it was his duty as PM to do anything in his power to prevent another war with Germany. This is why he appeased Hitler, because he wanted to save his population from another slaughter, at the cost of giving a racist maniac control over Czechoslovakia. In my opinion, the whole ineptitude argument therefore ceases to be meaningful, because he was doing the only logical thing he could have done in his position.
One of the reasons for appeasement was that the UK was not ready for war. It was still building up is capacity to fight.
Sometimes appeasement works, say in the case of Saddam Hussein. We didn’t invade Iraq and he didn’t externally cause trouble.
Sometimes appeasement doesn’t work, for example in the case of the present day South China Sea. China has continued to claim more territory even when we try to make agreements.
Thinking out aloud, there might be an aspect of fascism or communism that doesn’t recognise the rules of international norms. @Spartacus wrote a great article on fascism that’s discussed this.
Could Chamberlain have failed to see that Hitler’s political ideology was so radical the normal predicted outcomes of diplomacy would not occur?