Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:47:20.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Perspectives on Appeasement: Some Implications for International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

J. L. Richardson
J. L. Richardson
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get access

Abstract

Historical research since the opening of the British archives in the late 1960s has brought about a substantial revision of the image of appeasement that had generally been accepted after World War II. Yet the traditional image has scarcely been questioned in contemporary writing on international relations. This article examines some of the central themes in recent studies relating to appeasement: the “structural” approach, which offers a new overall interpretation; the economic, military, and intelligence “dimensions” of British foreign policy in the 1930s; and the breaking down of traditional stereotypes of the roles of Chamberlain and Churchill. This reappraisal has important implications for the discipline of international relations, its view of the origins of World War II, and theories of international structural change.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , April 1988 , pp. 289 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Watt, , “The Historiography of Appeasement,” in Sked, Alan and Cook, Chris, eds., Crisis and Controversy: Essays in Honour of A.J.P. Taylor (London: Macmillan, 1976), 120Google Scholar–21.

2 Skidelsky, , “Going to War with Germany: Between Revisionism and Orthodoxy,” Encounter 39 (July 1972), 58Google Scholar.

3 Watt (fn. 1), and “Appeasement: The Rise of a Revisionist School,” Political Quarterly 36 (No. 2, 1965), 191–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Taylor, , The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961Google Scholar).

5 Wheeler-Bennett, John W., Munich: Prologue to Tragedy (London: Macmillan, 1948Google Scholar); Namier, Lewis B., Diplomatic Prelude (London: Macmillan, 1948Google Scholar), and Europe in Decay (London: Macmillan, 1950Google Scholar); Bullock, , Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (London: Odhams, 1952Google Scholar); Churchill, , The Second World War, I: The Gathering Storm (London: Cassell, 1948Google Scholar).

6 Ibid., x.

7 Feiling, Keith, Life of Neville Chamberlain (London: Macmillan, 1946Google Scholar); Viscount Temple-wood (Sir Samuel Hoare), Nine Troubled Years (London: Collins, 1954Google Scholar).

8 Morgenthau, , Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4th ed. (New York: Knopf, 1967), 61Google Scholar.

9 Hartmann, , The Relations of Nations, 3rd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 96Google Scholar.

10 Holsti, Kalevi J., International Politics: A Framework for Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 435Google Scholar. Holsti's details are surprisingly inaccurate: there were no diplomatic negotiations over Austria, and Danzig was not surrendered to Germany. The League of Nations had ceased to count in policy thinking after 1936.

11 Waltz, , Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979), 175Google Scholar–76.

12 Chan, Steve, International Relations in Perspective: The Pursuit of Security, Welfare and Justice (New York: Macmillan, 1984), 88–89Google Scholar. Britain and Czechoslovakia were not allies.

13 Morgenthau (fn. 8), 6.

14 Taylor (fn. 4), 278.

15 See, e.g., Thorne, Christopher, The Approach of War 1938–9 (London: Macmillan, 1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar) and Robertson, Esmonde M., ed., The Origins of the Second World War: Historical Interpretations (London: Macmillan, 1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

16 Watt, Donald C., Personalities and Policies: Studies in the Formulation of British Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century (London: Longmans, 1965), 100–116Google Scholar.

17 Medlicott, William Norton, British Foreign Policy since Versailles (London: Methuen, 1968Google Scholar); Northedge, Frederick S., The Troubled Giant: Britain among the Great Powers, 1916–1939 (London: Bell, 1966Google Scholar).

18 Medlicott, William Norton, Britain and Germany: The Search for Agreement, 1930–1937, Creighton Lecture, 1968 (London: Athlone Press, 1969Google Scholar); reprinted in Dilks, David, ed., Retreat from Power: Studies in Britain's Foreign Policy of the Twentieth Century, I (London: Macmillan, 1981), 78–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Northedge (fn. 17), 617–30.

19 Kennedy, , “The Study of Appeasement: Methodological Crossroads or Meeting-Place?” British Journal of International Studies 6 (October 1980), 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 187.

20 Theda Skocpol makes a similar point in discussing structural explanations of revolutions: “Any valid explanation of revolution depends upon the analyst's ‘rising above’ the viewpoints of participants to find important regularities across given historical instances.” States and Social Revolutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 18Google Scholar.

21 See Medlicott (fn. 18); also Northedge, Frederick S., Freedom and Necessity in British Foreign Policy (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972Google Scholar).

22 E.g., Gilbert, Martin, The Roots of Appeasement (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1966Google Scholar).

23 Kennedy, , “The Tradition of Appeasement in British Foreign Policy, 1865–1939,” British Journal of International Studies 2 (October 1976), 195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 195.

24 Gruner, , “The British Political, Social and Economic System and the Decision for Peace and War: Reflections on Anglo-German Relations, 1800–1939,” British Journal of International Studies 6 (October 1980), 189–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Schroeder, , “Munich and the British Tradition,” The Historical Journal 19 (No. 1, 1976), 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar–43.

26 In addition to the writings of Kennedy, above, see Gottfried Niedhart, “Appeasement: Die britische Antwort auf die Krise des Weltreichs und des internationalen Systems vor dem zweiten Weltkrieg” [Appeasement: The British answer to the crisis of the world empire and the international system before World War II], Historische Zeitschrift, 226 (No. 1, 1978), 67–88, and Reinhard Meyers, Britische Sicherheitspolitik 1934–1938: Studien zum aussen-und sich-erheitspolitischen Entscheidungsprozess [British security policy 1934–1938: Studies of the decision-making process on foreign and security policy] (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1976).

27 In 1933, the share of social services in British public expenditure was 46.6%, compared with 33% in 1913; the share of defense was 10.5% and 29.9%, respectively. Payment on the national debt had increased from 6.1% to 21.4%. Kennedy, Paul, The Realities Behind Diplomacy: Background Influences on British External Policy, 1865–1980 (Glasgow: Fontana, 1981Google Scholar), 240.

28 In Kennedy, Paul M., Strategy and Diplomacy 1870–1945 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983), 87–106Google Scholar.

29 Schroeder (fn. 25), 242–43.

30 Niedhart (fn. 26), 86, 88; Klaus Hildebrand, “‘British Interests’ und ‘Pax Britannica’: Grundfragen englischer Aussenpolitik im 19. and 20. Jahrhundert” | “British interests” and “Pax Britannica”: Basic questions on English foreign policy in the 19th and 20th century], Historische Zeitschrift 221 (No. 3, 1975), 637–38.

31 Northedge (fn. 17), 628.

32 Northedge (fn. 21), 3–4.

33 Schroeder (fn. 25), 242.

34 Shay, , British Rearmament in the Thirties: Politics and Profits (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), 277Google Scholar–78, 287–88.

35 Kennedy, Paul M., “‘Appeasement’ and British Defence Policy in the Inter-war Years,” British Journal of International Studies 4 (July 1978), 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar–77; Peden, G. C., British Rearmament and the Treasury: 1932–1939 (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1979Google Scholar); Parker, R.A.C., “Economics, Rearmament and Foreign Policy: The United Kingdom before 1939—A Preliminary Study,” Journal of Contemporary History 10 (October 1975), 637CrossRefGoogle Scholar–47, and “British Rearmament 1936–9: Treasury, Trade Unions and Skilled Labour,” English Historical Review 96 (April 1981), 306Google Scholar–43; Dunbabin, J.P.D., “British Rearmament in the 1930s: A Chronology and Review,” The Historical Journal 18 (No. 3, 1975), 587–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Peden, George C., “Keynes, the Economics of Rearmament and Appeasement,” in Mommsen, Wolfgang K. and Kettenacker, Lothar, eds., The Fascist Challenge and the Policy of Appeasement (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1983), 142Google Scholar–56.

37 Peden (fn. 35), 89.

38 Ibid., 92. One aspect of appeasement that has not been discussed above, but that also throws light on the complexities of the nexus between economics and politics in the late 1930s, is “economic appeasement”—the attempt to use economic leverage and incentives to induce Germany to move back from its autarchic policies and, by way of particular agreements, move; toward liberal trade relations. This topic has been explored in depth by Bernd-Jiirgen Wendt. For a summary of his book, Economic Appeasement: Handel und Finanz in der britischen Deutschland-Politik, 1933–1939 [Economic appeasement: Trade and finance in British policy toward Germany, 1933–1939] (Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1971), see Wendt, “‘Economic Appeasement’—A Crisis Strategy,” in Mommsen and Kettenacker (fn. 36), 157–72. See also C. A. MacDonald, “Economic Appeasement and the German ‘Moderates,’ 1937–39,” Past and Present, No. 56 (1972), 105–35. For a view that draws attention to British reluctance to favor political considerations over market forces, see Kaiser, David E., Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War: Germany, Britain, France, and Eastern Europe, 1930–1939 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980Google Scholar).

39 Peden (fn. 35), 59 and passim; Watt (fn. 16), 103.

40 Peden (fn. 35), 152–60; Smith, Malcolm, British Air Strategy between the Wars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 210Google Scholar–26.

41 Dunbabin (fn. 35), 590–91; Howard, Michael, The Continental Commitment: The Dilemma of British Defence Policy in the Era of Two World Wars (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974), 104Google Scholar–12.

42 Peden (fn. 35), 205; Shay (fn. 34), 297.

43 Shay (fn. 34), 92–133, 246–63; Parker (fn. 35, 1981), passim; Middlemas, Keith, Politics in Industrial Society: The Experience of the British System since 1911 (London: Deutsch, 1979), 244Google Scholar–65.

44 Smith (fn. 40), 140–226; Meyers (fn. 26), 303–32.

45 Peden (fn. 35), 113–17, 160–167; Gibbs, Norman H., Grand Strategy, J: Rearmament Policy (London: H.M.S.O., 1976), 323Google Scholar–74.

46 Peden (fn. 35), 160–67.

47 Howard (fn. 41), 97–122; Bond, Brian, British Military Policy between the Two World Wars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980Google Scholar). Dennis, Peter, Decision by Default: Peacetime Conscription and British Defense, 1919–1939 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972Google Scholar).

48 Bond (fn. 47), 337–38, suggests that there is a case for the contrary view; but he also shows that the senior officers who favored an Expeditionary Force for the Continent held highly conservative opinions on mechanized warfare, while advocates of the latter (such as Liddell Hart) were opposed to creating an Expeditionary Force.

49 Howard (fn. 41), 95.

50 Murray, , The Change in the European Balance of Power, 1938–1939: The Path to Ruin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 62–64Google Scholar.

51 See Andrew, Christopher, Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (London: Sceptre, 1986Google Scholar); Hinsley, Francis Harry, British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, I (London: H.M.S.O., 1979), 3–85Google Scholar; Wark, Wesley K., “British Military and Economic Intelligence: Assessments of Nazi Germany before the Second World War,” in Andrew, Christopher and Dilks, David, eds., The Missing Dimension: Governments and Intelligence Communities in the Twentieth Century (London: Macmillan, 1984), 78–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 261–65; Wark, , “British Intelligence on the German Air Force and Aircraft Industry, 1933–1939,” The Historical journal 25 (No. 3, 1982), 627CrossRefGoogle Scholar–48; Dilks, David, “Appeasement and ‘Intelligence,’” in Dilks, (fn. 18), 139–69; Watt, Donald C., “British Intelligence and the Coming of the Second World War in Europe,” in May, Ernest R., ed., Knowing One's Enemies: Intelligence Assessment before the Two World Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 237–70Google Scholar.

52 Andrew (fn. 51), 559, 566–73.

53 Dilks (fn. 51), 146–49.

54 Hinsley (fn. 51), 76.

55 Ibid., 78–79; see also Wark (fn. 51, 1984), 81–82.

56 Meyers (fn. 26), 19, 23; translation by the present author.

57 Watt (fn. 16), 164–66; Middlemas, Keith, Diplomacy of Illusion: The British Government and Germany, 1937–39 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972), 44Google Scholar; Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler: British Politics and British Policy, 1933–1940 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 178CrossRefGoogle Scholar–79.

58 Niedhart (fn. 26), 69; Meyers (fn. 26), 32.

59 Medlicott (fn. 18), 11–25.

60 See ibid., 31.

61 Feiling (fn. 7), 350, 354, 357, 360.

62 The assumptions behind British policy in 1938 are discussed in Middlemas (fn. 57), 184–88, and in Taylor, Telford, Munich: The Price of Peace (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 618Google Scholar–33. Taylor's work offers the fullest account of the Munich crisis. Chamberlain's uncertainty concerning Hitler was expressed frequently. His comment to his private secretary on the Anglo-German declaration signed after the Munich Conference provides a striking example: “If Hitler signed it and kept the bargain, well and good; alternatively, if he broke it, he would demonstrate to all the world that he was totally cynical and untrustworthy” (p. 60).

63 Cowling (fn. 57), 190–206, 293–352.

64 Taylor (fn. 4), 203.

65 For a recent discussion of Butler's views, see Stafford, Paul, “Political Autobiography and the Art of the Plausible: R. A. Butler at the Foreign Office, 1938–39,” The Historical Journal 28 (No. 4, 1985), 901CrossRefGoogle Scholar–22.

66 John P.D. Dunbabin, “The British Military Establishment and the Policy of Appeasement,” in Mommsen and Kettenacker (fn. 36), 186. Wark makes similar observations (fn. 51, 1984), 87–89, 99–100.

67 See, e.g., Aster, Sidney, 1939: The Making of the Second World War (London: Andre Deutsch, 1973Google Scholar) for the most satisfactory general account of British policy in 1939, which, however, does not fully resolve this question.

68 Cowling (fn. 57), 257–352.

69 Medlicott (fn. 18), 32.

70 Thompson, , The Anti-Appeasers: Conservative Opposition to Appeasement in the 1930s (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 43–44Google Scholar.

71 Cowling (fn. 57), 235–39.

72 Reynolds, David, “Churchill and the British ‘Decision’ to Fight On in 1940: Right Policy, Wrong Reason,” in Langhorne, Richard, ed., Diplomacy and Intelligence during the Second World War: Essays in Honour of F. H. Hinsley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 166Google Scholar.

73 Howard (fn. 41), 89.

74 Ibid., 89–90.

75 See, e.g., James, Robert Rhodes, Churchill: A Study in Failure, 1900–1939 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1970), 230Google Scholar–33.

76 Churchill (fn. 5), 150. For critical comments on The Gathering Storm, see James (fn. 75), 221–22.

77 See Thompson (fn. 70), 85.

78 Ibid., 106–10; James (fn. 75), 261–64.

79 Earl of Avon, , The Eden Memoirs: Facing the Dictators (London: Cassell, 1962), 346Google Scholar, 366–67.

80 Cf. Ernest R. May: “‘Anti-appeasers’ had their own illusions which were almost equally distant from reality. They believed that Hitler could be deterred from aggression by the threat of war. Few suspected that Hitler wanted war.” May (fn. 51), 520.

81 This school of thought, as well as that which focuses on Hitler's goals and program, is discussed in Hiden, John and Farquharson, John, Explaining Hitler's Germany: Historians and the Third Reich (London: Batsford, 1983), 110Google Scholar–29.

82 Hildebrand, Klaus, The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich (London: Batsford, 1973Google Scholar; published in German, 1970); also “Hitlers ‘Programm’ und seine Realisierung 1939–1942” [Hitler's program and its realization, 1939–1942], in Manfred Funke, ed., Hitler, Deutschland und die Ma'chte: Materialien zur Aussenpolitik des Dritten Reichs [Hitler, Germany and the powers: Materials on the foreign policy of the Third Reich| (Kronberg: Athenaum, 1978), 63–93; Andreas Hillgruber, Hitlers Strategic: Politikund Kriegführung, 1940–41 |Hitler's strategy: Politics and the conduct of war] (Frankfurt am Main: Bernard & Graefe, 1965); Bullock, “Hitler and the Origins of the Second World War,” in Robertson (fn. 15), 189–224.

83 Andreas Hillgruber, “England in Hitlers Aussenpolitischer Konzeption” [England in Hitler's foreign policy thinking], Historische Zeitschrift 218 (No. 1, 1974), 65–84; Henke, Josef, England in Hitlers politischem Kalkül, 1935–1939 [England in Hitler's political calculations, 1935–1939] (Boppard: Harald Boldt Verlag, 1973Google Scholar); Henke, “Hitlers England-Konzeption—Formulierung und Realisierungsversuche” [Hitler's conception of England: Formulation and attempts at realization], in Funke (fn. 82), 584–603.

84 Thorne, , The Limits of Foreign Policy: The West, the League and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931–1933 (New York: Capricorn, 1973Google Scholar); Meyers (fn. 26).

85 Thome's work is discussed more fully by Jones, R. J. Barry, “The Study of'Appeasement’ and the Study of International Relations,” British Journal of International Studies 1 (April 1975) 74–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 In a recent article, Meyers suggests that Thomas Kuhn's concept of the paradigm might be adapted to throw new light on appeasement by viewing it as illustrating a tradition of international political thought—the “Grotian” tradition discussed by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull. See Meyers, Reinhard, “International Paradigms, Concepts of Peace, and the Policy of Appeasement,” War and Society 1 (May 1983), 43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 The special issue, British Journal of International Studies 6 (October 1980), edited by Paul Kennedy and John E. Spence, includes Kennedy (fn. 19), Gruner (fn. 24), and contributions by Stephen G. Walker, Aaron L. Goldman, and Naomi Black.

88 Jones (fn. 85), 73–74.

89 Quester, Deterrence before Hiroshima: The Airpower Background of Modern Strategy (New York: Wiley, 1966Google Scholar).

90 Smith (fn. 40), 140–97.

91 Alexandroff, Alan and Rosecrance, Richard, “Deterrence in 1939,” World Politics 29 (April 1977), 404CrossRefGoogle Scholar–24.

92 Mearsheimer, , Conventional Deterrence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983Google Scholar).

93 Chan (fn. 12). For discussions of deterrence along these lines, see Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 58–113Google Scholar; George, Alexander L. and Smoke, Richard, Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974Google Scholar).

94 Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939, 2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1946), 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

95 Waltz (fn. 11).

96 Waltz, Kenneth N., Foreign Policy and Democratic Politics: The American and British Experience (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967Google Scholar); Katzenstein, Peter J., ed., “Between Power and Plenty: Foreign Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States,” special issue, International Organization 31 (Autumn 1977), 587–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

97 Schroeder, Paul W., “The 19th-century International System: Changes in the Structure,” World Politics 39 (October 1986), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 In addition to the authors cited in fn. 93, Glenn H. Snyder and Richard Ned Lebow have made substantial contributions. See, for example, Snyder, Glenn H. and Diesing, Paul, Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making and System Structure in International Crises (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977Google Scholar), and Lebow, , Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981Google Scholar). For a recent overview, see Hill, Christopher, “History and International Relations,” in Smith, Steve, ed., International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 126Google Scholar–45.