Was peace with Hitler ever possible?
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 07. 2023
- Hitler and the Nazi party came to power in 1933. He soon crushed all political opposition and made himself dictator. Europe’s leaders were desperate to avoid war. But were attempts to appease Hitler the right thing to do?
Visit the Churchill War Rooms and glimpse what life would have been like for staff working there during the Second World War?
Plan your visit: www.iwm.org.uk/visits/churchi...
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/my...
Follow IWM on social media:
Twitter: / i_w_m
Instagram: / imperialwar. .
Facebook: / iwm.london
Even Winston Churchill, his most outspoken critic and the man whose vision highlighted his predecessor’s short-sighted foreign policy, could not condemn Chamberlain, saying at his funeral, “It fell to Neville Chamberlain in one of the supreme crises of the world to be contradicted by events, to be disappointed in his hopes, and to be deceived and cheated by a wicked man. But what were these hopes in which he was disappointed? . . . They were surely among the most noble and benevolent instincts of the human heart-the love of peace."
Churchill fully supported "appeasement" until 5 October 1938.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw
Don't bother telling them this the old boomers still don't get it.
I would love to see Chamberlains personal and state papers. As I recall after Munich he did sign up on the biggest defence budget ever, including taking on the shadow factory idea for aircraft production. When I spoke to my father about the Munich 'Peace' he told me that everyone knew a war was coming soon which was why he joined the T.A. to do his bit.
The War wasn't a case of 'if' , it was just a case of 'when'.
Many of the government papers will be at the national archives. I don’t know where his personal papers, but Google or another commenter may be able to tell you.
@@DanielsPolitics1 I believe that many of the relevant papers were 'sealed' for various reasons and are still not available to study. Hence the uncertainty about Chamberlains thinking at the time.
As we all know the PM must act on what he knows and what 'intelligence' tells him. At the time Germany was thought to be better armed than it was in fact, whilst the PM would have known the true state of UK unpreparedness. , and the lead time to get new weapons into production, (Spitfire, Hurricane and Escort ships, etc) and to train new armies.
We can see how difficult that can be when looking at US Intelligence reports on the Soviet Bloc during the 1950-60's where it is now known that Russian equipment often only existed on paper, or was non operational. More recently Saddam Hussains weapons of 'Mass Destruction'. where government policy was influenced by faulty reports.
@@solentbum If there was concern about Germany being better armed than they were, wouldn't have been to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in war letting them attrite German forces than to carve it up piecemeal?
@@user-gl5dq2dg1jdepends whether they thought CZ would attrit the Nazis significantly, or just be a delay that led to immediate invasion of France. vs let the carve-up happen and get a delay to arm up while the Nazis were busy reorganising the conquered territory and _maaayyybe_ let the Nazis and Soviets upset each other enough to start shooting.
@@user-gl5dq2dg1j There was of course the problem of French reluctance, and USA isolationism, simple geography plus the Japanese in China . Even the Oxford Union 'King and Country' debate of 1933 would have affected decisions about going to war.
Chamberlain's position has to be viewed in the context of its time. Europe had only 20 years earlier emerged from a cataclysmic war. The scale of destruction and loss of life in WWI had scarred the nation and it is understandable that people would go to almost any lengths to avoid a repeat performance. But Chamberlain did authorise re-armament and prepare the country in case his policy failed. It is also arguable that because of appeasement the UK and France declaring war on Germany in 1939 came as a surprise to Hitler, who had believed he would face no significant consequences for invading Poland. This is supported by the length of the 'Phoney War', until Germany felt ready to attack the Allies in June 1940. And even then I understand his generals would have preferred another year.
The invasion of France began in May 1940.
@@alphamikeomega5728 yes of course.
Oh, and by the way, the labour party back then had a lot of sympathy for the Nazi party.
Keep in mind how long Chamberlain had been in Parliament - since 1918 - and that he’d been Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1931. He knew to the last penny what the Budget was for the Army during those years, so any claim that the poor state of the Army in 1938 was a surprise to him, is ludicrous.
One careful look at Czechoslovakia on the map would have shown Chamberlain that it wasn’t Czechoslovakia that Hitler was after…as much as the massive Skoda and Mlada Boleslava armament factories, arguably the biggest in Europe. It was only after Hitler obtained this massive infrastructure, that put Hitler on a sure war footing. To allow Hitler to obtain these factories without a shot being fired..was in a word, a disaster. Czechoslovakia had a standing army of 1 million well trained men, well equipped. Frances army had more divisions than Germany. There is very little doubt that had Hitler been challenged in Sudetenland, he would have faced a serious obstacle that would have set him back for years…not that this would have happened, as there were entire groups in the high ranks of the German military, ready to depose him at the first sign of a challenge. Czechoslovakia was No Poland, and Hitler would have won had they stood against him even alone…but he would have been bloodied beyond repair….and Chamberlain should have sensed this..instead of being driven by fear of another conflict. As Churchill famously said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and now you will have war.' - To Neville Chamberlain'…and boy was he right.
As Churchill once stated, "Feeding a hungry alligator merely makes him hungry for more."
I don't think he said it like that dude.
@@TheBottlenose33 Nope. He said 'crocodile' and he was talking about neutral countries in 1940, long after Munich.
Churchill was not exactly non biased, and Chamberlain died of cancer before Churchill dumped all the blame on him.
He said feeding the croc hoping he eats you last.
For your future use --- the actual quotation is "“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.” ~ Sir Winston Churchill, Reader's Digest, December 1954"
The parallels to the current international situation are uncomfortably close.
I still believe that war is an absolute last resort. Reading currently about the buildup to WWI makes me realise that once momentum for war builds up it is very difficult to stop it, regardless of considerations of logic and reason.
Logic and reason don’t come into it. Why have we allowed the racist leftwing vermin to constantly promote hatred towards whites? There’s nothing rational about that’s. Humans are largely emotional and irrational creatures
If you're alluding to the Ukrainian debacle, no, there's little connection. Germany had the might to do as it pleased for quite some time, there's zero chance (even if they wished to, which they don't) of Moscow expanding this war. Course one could say that'll depend on NATO actions.
@@feedyourmind6713 no, I believe the frightening rise of fascism in most Western countries is the bigger indicator of where we are heading.
@ayela562 Not sure true Fascism is abounding. Fascist policies, no doubt.
@@ayela562
Anything that’s not on the left is fascism…. Give me a break
It was a bad policy. Sure there were benefits to delaying the war but it was far mitigated by the negatives of allowing the nazis to consolidate politically and militarily
Exactly. It's not like the UK and France were rearming and Germany was twiddling its thumbs. It was expanding its military and might even further, with lots of extra captured resources and slave labour. It also allowed Germany time to commit atrocities on a grander scale.
As somebody who is striving to be a historian, this is one of my favorite debates that test historical perspective. It is incredibly difficult to remove our twenty-twenty hindsight vision on what happened to consider Chamberlain's perspective because he did have reasons to do what he did and it could be argued that he bought time for GB to prepare.
True, but Chamberlain did admit in his memoirs that he'd been duped by Hitler.
Even with 20/20 hindsight.....what if the Allies would have gone to war in late 1938?
Hitler's decision to annex Czechoslovakia (in March 1939) was breach of the treaty of Munich and also the proof that there was no way to stop him without a war (or, at the very least, the threat of war).
So, the British and French public was far more willed to accept the need to go to war in September 1939 than they would have been in October 1938.
Militarily speaking, Germany would have been in a much less favorable situation in an October 1938 war.
But what if they would have managed to defeat Czechoslovakia faster than expected? Would the British and French public been willed to continue the war?
What would have been the situation of Poland? They took a small part of Czech territory in October 1938 - would they have done the same in a alternate timeline with a war in late 1938, thus allying with Germany?
Lots of things that could have gone horribly wrong.......so, while going to war in 1938 would most likely have been the lesser evil compared to September 1939, we will never know what would have happened.
There is no need for twenty-twenty hindsight. All you need is see the things from Czechoslovakian side of border at that time. Czechs knew what was coming, but sadly nobody was willing to listen.
I recommend a book 'Countdown to war' by Geoffrey Cox. He was stationed as a reporter in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938 and writes about the whole topic and the way Britain deliberately looked away and listened only to Germany.
I do understand how misleading hindsight can make things. But man, when someone writes down that they want to conquer most of Europe in a manifesto presented as a memoir, and then launches a coup, seizes dictatorial power, and immediately and aggressively (to put it mildly) rearms his nation, it's really hard to give Chamberlain the benefit of the doubt.
I don't necessarily blame everyone involved, things are messy and apparently his book wasn't widely read, but they were literally, literally, told exactly what was going to happen. And then when it started, they continued to imagine that it wouldn't.
It is wise to doubt the promises politicians make to you. It is moronic and unforgivable to not heed the overt, unsubtle, undisguised threats they make.
@@tomaskoupil5994 I still wonder what would have happened if the Czecks said FU to Chamberlain and Hitler and said we will fight for our own country.
I have come to have the highest respect for all IWM videos. But this is perhaps the best one I have ever seen. Everything is put perfectly into the context of the time. The world did not yet understand the depths of Hitler’s evil. And that he never told the truth. Which he used to his great advantage. Bravo IWM…
I found truth is not the highest value of many politicians.
I think the Treaty of Versailles was not a good end or new beginning to the world order . It was a treaty that was going to cause problems regardless .
There was no "evil".
@@MarkHarrison733There isn’t really evil I guess. But he’s a pretty reasonable person to call evil. Regardless he lost disastrously and shot himself in a bunker.
Looking at the behaviour of Hitlers agents in the early days such as their attempts to capture and bring down Albert Einstein for predicting and preaching what would be coming with Hitler in charge were signs that foretold how dangerous Hitler was. Awesome that Einstein was rescued and hidden and protected as the nazis went to great lengths to get rid of him and anyone else smart enough to try to warn the Germans that lapped up Hitlers lies
Stanley Baldwin was as much to blame for 'Appeasement' as Chamberlain. And we would have had a 'third appeaser' had Lord Halifax been given the top job. Thank goodness for Winston Churchill. Thank goodness also for R J Mitchell, the designer of the Spitfire, and all those independent aircraft companies who gave us such well designed and efficient fighting machines that could deal with the German menace. All independent and private, working on their own initiative, with not a trace of nationalised industry to drag it down.
A lot of people use Chamberlain as a justification for modern geopolitical decisions while failing to understand the historical, political, and technological context. UK's domestic and imperial politics of that era wouldn't allow for a different policy.
The Right Cowardly Neville Chamberlain
Chamberlain was only the PM for the British part of the Anglo-French alliance. Daladier was his Fench counterpart. In the event of a continental land war against Hitler to protect Czechoslovakia, France would be the country providing the vast majority of the fighting force. Britain simply did not have any military presence in Europe at the time. So in the negotiation with Hitler, Daladier was the more important part of Anglo-French alliance and it was Daladier's attitude that decided war or peace for the talk in Munich.
The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to capture all the military equipment in the Sudetenland, including more than 400 tanks, 2,000 artillery canons, 500 AAA guns, a million rifles, & a billion rounds of small arms ammunition. If appeasement helped anyone to rearm, it was Germany…
How would you have stopped it?
@@julianshepherd2038 there was no stopping the war at that point; the right course was to defend Czechoslovakia
@@julianshepherd2038 IMHO Hitler would stop it himself, if he has seen resolute alliance of Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and with high probability also of Poland. Interesting fact is, that during Munich crisis German army was not mobilized. That suggests that Hitler was counting on disunity and political weakness of his opponents, but also indicates that he would not dare to risk war in autumn 1938. What would happen later is of course purely speculative exercise...
Reocupy the Rhineland
@@andrewsoboeiro6979 Defend it with what is the point being raised though. France was a shambles and risked a lot of political/revolutionary issues (even during the actual war, there was work stoppages organised by communists/socialists and the army was having issues even with a year of preparing). The British were also in no way, shape or form ready for war with both parties running on a non war election. Both armies/nations were planning a total industrial war mentality and their plans were set and ready for a 1942 war due to that, a war in which they would have more than enough trained men (important point, conscripts cant do much) and the equipment and vehicles to push it.
They knew they could win the war and expected to win it, the problem was that the French simply ignored their field commanders/had serious doctrinal issues which the Germans got extremely lucky in exploiting, any other plan and the Germans would likely have lost the war without France falling. Even the German commanders planned a war which would quickly see them obviously losing but take minimal losses, then 1 madman came to Hitler with "a great idea!" which was looney against France if France actually listened to its recon forces.
To sell out the Czechs in 1938 was a complete & shameful failure on the part of the French & British. No amount of time "gained" by doing so outweighed the additional strength it gave Germany nor the political clout the Allies lost in doing so. A black eye in the history of European diplomacy.
Well said.
Why should Britain have sacrificed anything for Czechoslovakia?
@@seanlander9321 Smh. Before getting into the "why", your question seems to indicate that you feel Britain should not have sacrificed anything for Poland either; extrapolating from that then, Britain should have been unwilling to sacrifice anything for Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, the Netherlands etc. etc. Am I correct in that assessment of your feelings on the subject?
@@robertdickson9319 Very much so. The sacrifices Britain made for Europe were a complete waste and a thankless task. Quite frankly if Europe had remained as a German colony, Britain would have been much better off and a whole lot of trouble and loss would have been averted
@@seanlander9321 If that is your belief, the "why" reasons for helping Czechoslovakia are basically irrelevant - but in a nutshell, by taking over Czechoslovakia the Germans acquired a great deal of financial, economic & military wealth that helped fuel their rearmament & kept the German economy afloat for the next 2 years. Essentially it would have far easier to defeat Germany in 1938 than it proved to be in 1940.
I would argue that while some in Britain may think it was "a complete waste & thankless task", I think that the majority of Europe, especially the Europe of 1945, would disagree. The sacrifices of Britain (in addition to other countries) basically enabled the greatest period of peace & prosperity in European history. If you feel that the fruits of the past 75 years, both from a British & European perspective, were not worth it then there is not much I can say to that to change your mind.
Many people in 1938 felt the same way you do today - allow Germany a free hand in Europe. Britain can survive alone. Certainly Hitler wanted that as it would have made his desire to conquer Russia far easier to attain. Any further British independence after that, however, would have likely come with a price - maybe you would be willing to make that Faustian bargain but I don't think it would be the popular choice.
Enjoyable and informative bit of history. Well presented by the historian/ curator. Well done.
Appeasement has never worked.
Very true,just look at China or Russia
@@Dief1957 yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.
It doesn't work but if fuels modern capitalism
@@igorGriffiths What do you mean fuels modern capitalism
@@Dief1957 capitalists will do business with their countries enemies and endanger national security for profit, no morals in capitalism
And that's why we're arming Ukraine and not allowing Russia to take that territories, even if I think it won't be enough.
Mrstefano, west should also defend taiwan and this is a very important issue.
Hitler did not attack us, why attack Hitler?
-anti war people in the 1940s
Most of the populous of Luhansk and Donetsk are Russian speakers and want to be in the Russian federation. In the end inevitably there will be a negotiated peace. In my opinion those two territories will be in the Russian federation, Ukraine will be in the E.U but it won't be in NATO and then the sanctions will be lifted. But it will probably require Putin to resign, die or be overthrown. Stalin died, Khrushchev was overthrown.... Hmmm. Where is that super fast acting cancer the CIA created in the 60's ? or the legendary death ray beamed from space. :)
@@RaghulS-hj6vt USA (along with Philippines, Japan and Indonesia) should sign a defence pact and make a binding commitment to defend Taiwan.
"In war, whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers." -- Neville Chamberlain
War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.
That’s easy to say…. but pretending that the consequences of losing are no greater than those of victory, is utterly dishonest. If it is quoted in context, it shows how unfit Chamberlain was to face an aggressive Germany.
@@peterwebb8732 absolutely. If winning is so bad, try losing. Ask Poland.
What a bloody idiotic thing to say. Tell that to a Jew or an Israeli.
That's exactly what a man that gave in to the world's most infamous dictators. He might have been trying to avoid war but it didn't work. The Allies were both winners and victors.
Thank you for making & posting this.
You are one of very few channels that is not repeating Nazi lie about Sudetenland being taken away from Germany and being given to Czechoslovakia as a result of Versailles treaty. Thank you!
I missed that part somehow. I thought it was true. What's the true story?
@@michaelhowell2326
The true story is that the Sudetenland was part of Bohemia (old name of Czech lands) from very early mediaeval times. Even later, when Bohemia got ruled by Austria-Hungary, the region was still part of Bohemia. Look up any map from that period, it simply wasn't part of Germany.
Germans got there as settlers, invited by the rulers of Bohemia, to help settle and populate this mountainous area.
Look up map of Austro-Hungarian empire and you will see that it isn't part of Germany.
No-one says that the Sudetenland was taken away from Germany. Who said that? I'm interested in WW2 and have never heard that on anywhere. I've read Ian Kershaw's two book biography on Adolf Hitler and he never says that the Sudetenland was "taken from Germany". Most CZcams videos and documentaries say that the Sudetenland had millions of Germans and the Germans wanted it to be part of Germany as the majority of the population was German. The Sudetenland was never part of the Kaiser's German Reich. There's a reason why Posen became part of Poland instead of staying part of Weimar Germany. Same principle, as Posen was majority Polish so why should it stay part of Germany?
The problem with Munich wasn't giving the Sudetenland to the Germans, it was giving it to Hitler.
So which CZcams channels repeat that "Nazi lie"? and which videos?
@@tomaskoupil5994 But it was part of German Austria, and once the Austria-Hungarian Empire collapsed, the Austrians were prohibited from uniting with Germany, and Germans in Sudetenland went under the newly formed Czechoslovakia. So indeed, the Germans in Sudetenland were deprived of the right to have self-determination and join Germany.
@goldbullet50 that doesn't mean Germany had any sort of claim on that land. Germans living there or not
"It isn't possible to reason with someone who is unreasonable" - And that is true in case of Putin. But does everyone sees it?
yup, look at how many people wants to appease Russia right now instead of defend its victims. Meanwhile China has just about taken over the 9-dash line and no one is stopping them.
If Putin had leftist inclinations I guarantee the West would've started battling him early 2000s. Fascists get an initial pass by the West whereas leftists are actively engaged from the start
For anyone slightly aware of history and somewhat sane of mind, it should be clear that appeasement is what causes this war in Ukraine.
Sudetenland / Crimea
@@auto_revolt Indeed.
On September 3, 1939 it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany. A video examining the Ten-Year Rule and Britain's woeful lack of preparedness in 1938 might go some way to explaining Chamberlain's decision.
Yes, there is a very good reason Chamberlin has the debuffs he has in Hearts of Iron IV.
I don't know how valid this comparison would be, but it seems to me that failure to support the Ukraine would be similar to the abandonment of the Czechs by Britain and France.
Love your work, IWM 👍
It still baffles me that the European powers didnt see what was coming from Hitler. Especially after he started annexing territories...
All he wanted was the return of Germany's territory.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw sure, bud
@@major_kukri2430 France invaded Germany in 1939, and the USSR invaded Poland and Finland in 1939.
@@major_kukri2430 He said on 19 July 1940, "I asked from Poland something no other German statesman could have dared. I asked for the return of the old German provinces, then only with a plebiscite. If Churchill and the warmongers felt half the responsibility toward Europe that I did they never would have started the war. On September 2, 1939, war still could have been avoided. The British and the French wanted war, however they wanted a three-year war in order reap profits from their war investments ... After 18 days the Polish campaign ended. Then I issued an appeal to responsible men. I warned all against war, particularly the French against the pursuance of a war which would be horrible. This only served to incite the Franco-British warmongers, who saw their war profits most endangered. They began, however, to call it danger to civilization and culture."
@MarkHarrison733 ok. Then what was he doing being in literally every other country? I'm not buying that he only wanted old German territories when somehow he was in North Africa, eastern Europe, and committing a full-on genocide. Remember, u have decades' worth of hindsight.
Always a good day when the imperial war museum uploads
I agree!! I went to the museum a few years ago and was thoroughly impressed!! Such a gem!
@@Dotthel Nice, I myself had the pleasure of visiting their london museum a few weeks ago and found it amazing
I have found it is increasingly a museum set up to eulogise Churchill.
Seems wrong to label the British aristocracy anti semitic to the exclusion of the rest of British society. Across British society as a whole there were not uncommon anti jewish views
A pretty minimal proportion, though. What other countries opened up for the Kindertransport? (That's a fairly genuine question)
@@andrewflindall9048 True, Britain took in 20,000 Jews before the war started overall, more than anyone else iirc from my college days.
Just as an anecdote I also knew an old man - who's dead now so I can say this - who admitted to me with some pride I might add to firebombing Jewish shops with his friends in Glasgow when they were growing up in the 1940s as teenagers. They were working class boys and they must have felt very hostile to new Jewish businesses opening shops in their area and thought they had to do something. Which just goes to show how much anti-Jewish sentiment there was in British society at the time. When I heard all this I remember it coming out of nowhere and just finding the whole story perculiar
Outstanding presentation! Thank you!
The economy of Weimar Germany was starting to recover by 1932/3. Read AJP Taylor on the Origins of the Second World War, with Hitler as an opportunist and the failure of Britain and France to confront Germany from the re-militarisation of the Rhineland.
Nicely done. For such a short presentation it covers the important points very well. One criticism of graphics, when showing Germany and Chekoslovakia (Sp. ouch) one should color in Austria as black as well to show its attachment to Germany and how the Cheks were surrounded from the west as well. Really a very untenable position for them.
Great video, thanks for the history lesson.
The current war between with Ukraine and Russia over Russia wanting to steal Ukraine’s East makes for an interesting validation of Churchill’s stance on appeasement. Would World War II had been so globally devastating if Hitler had to fight for all of Czechoslovakia, instead of being given a back door.
Well, the parallel would've been if France and Britain had provided war materiel to Czechoslovakia for it to fight for its independence. This is not war footing, but just enough to make Hitler think twice about declaring direct war on both of them. Evil men hellbent on conquest, like Hitler and Putin, only listen when they're stopped and beaten soundly with full force. If Hitler had experienced such forceful resolve from the Allies early on, he would've thought twice about being so aggressive by 1939 and 1940.
@@pdruiz2005 it’s been said Hitler didn’t conquer Europe, allied leadership lost Europe.
@@AFGuidesHD Rubbish.
The war in Ukraine has nothing to do with a desire to "steal land". It is solely about demilitarizing Ukraine, forcing neutrality upon it and creating a buffer zone between Washington Pact forces and Russia. The Russians did not appreciate the US installing Anti-Russian stooges in Kiev back in 2014. After 8 years of waiting and empty promises from the US , Russia decided to invade to force the situation. Would the US tolerate a militarized, openly Anti US regime in Mexico and/ Canada ? Of course not !
Would WWII been as devastating, if GB and France had not declared war on Germany over Poland, which they couldn't even defend in any capacity?
If you look who gets off the plane at Croydon Airport behind Chamberlain, it’s Alec Douglas-Home,. He hadn’t yet become Earl of Home, and was known by a junior title. He was then a bag carrier, but 24 years later, he became pm.
Yes, of course, being that Hitler admired England's domination of the world and his desire for an alliance.
It can be argued that Britain's condemnation of Italy's annexation of Ethiopia contributed significantly to World War II. Had Britain, who at the time, had its empire, not done this Italy would have stood up against German annexation of Austria in 1938 as it had in 1934. As it was the condemnation led to Italy drawing closer to Germany thus being a major contributing factor to the outbreak of war in 1939.
Interesting idea. I have no idea of it's possible merits, but in principle, it goes to show how extremely difficult it is to acess decisions even after the fact. So passing judgement on Chamberlain and others is really impossible. Yet, we all have to decide things everyday, and tend to want to think it matters one or the other way what we decide. Hence perhaps our want to evaluate historical decisions - particularly by others!
@@andersgrassman6583 Baldwin was Prime Minister during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War.
Attlee threatened to bring down the government when Chamberlain tried to increase the size of the RAF.
Superb summary.
What is the point of the irritating “background” ( not so background) muzak ?
I'm surprised the IWM would continue to push the narrative that Chamberlain was a passive-appeaser, when the evidence shows that British rearmament stepped up massively during his tenure as Prime Minister. It was the actions of Chamberlain that saw the BEF actually be in a position to embark to fight a campaign in France as the only wholly mechanised force, and the RAF have the capacity in manufacturing, pilot training, and airfield availability to win the Battle of Britain.
Two things can be true at the same time.
Chamberlain understood Hitler better than we give him credit for, as is clear from the private correspondence he had with his sister. His appeasement of Hitler was to buy time given Britain's woeful unpreparedness for war, which is why he stepped up rearmament.
British rearmament did not stop the British-led Allies from loosing all of (the continental) Europe to the totalitarian powers. German rearmament which was way faster did prevent it. It was way faster because of the unwillingness of the appeasers to acknowledge the fact that the war was on the horizon, so they made the rearmament half-hearted until it was late. Irrational people that either view the world as a zero-sum, or lose-lose game whatever happens, rarely understand carrots, as they think that by sacrificing the carrot one just makes a gambit and will spring a trap. Stick, on the other hand, is more in-line with their thinking and therefore is infinitely more effective. If you want to stop a dictator, show him a big stick and a willingness to use it, as it was done in CW1. If you want to dictator to win, try to make a deal with him and try hard to think that he holds the interests of his nation dear to his heart (spoiler he's not, at least not as the outsiders view them)
Appeasement is NOT a byword for weakness. It IS weakness.
Winston Churchill during the 1913-14 debate over naval estimates:
“We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”
The Munich Agreement never failed. It was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable pact with Poland after it had invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938-39 that led to World War II.
He should have pressured the anti-Semitic fascist regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
The best opportunity to stop Germany from expansion was in 1936 when the Germany military occupied the DMZ along the French border. Had the WWII allies stood together, Hitler would have lost face. But that didn't happen.
Very well said. Thank you.
I have to thank you for this reportage as the citizen of the Czech Republic. It was very interesting to see the view of the UK on a history of my own nation.
Of course you like the same lies!!!
Was Chamberlain wrong to appease Hitler? I thought this question had been answered many years ago... 84 years ago to be exact
There are a few small errors here. I’m surprised the IWM overlooked them. The Germans did not take over all of Czechoslovakia in the spring of 39, and the Versailles treaty had little to do with high unemployment in 1933.
Judging by the title, I expected more than merely a summary of the events leading up to the war.
This video doesnt mention that it wasn't simply Hitler vs Czechoslovakia, but Poland and Hungary were also aiming for territorial gains. Also doesnt mention that rhe defensive alliance was between Czechoslovakia and France, stemming from the 1920s. Also doesnt mention the sinple geographic fact that the UK had no realistic way of defending Czechoslovakia against Germany (and Hungary, and maybe even Poland), and the Royal Air Force needed more time to build its strength.
Chamberlain traded an impossible defense of Czechoslovakia for time to continue rearming. It was the smart move at the time. The situation in Fall 1939 was considerably different, the build up to WW2 wasnt linear or simple.
Correct, France and the Soviet Union had a mutual assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia formed in 1935. This was viewed by Hitler as a security danger to Germany.
We can debate the measure of reasonable actions to maintain peace. However selling out your sovereign allies is about as craven as could be imagined.
What do you mean by allies though. We may be sympathetic to Ukraine at the moment but no country is going to declare war on Russia as we aren't formal allies with Ukraine.
The Czechs weren't a British ally, they were a French and Soviet ally.
We were not strong enough to fight Hitler when Chamberlain was PM!
Chamberlain delaying the war helped the Allies in the long run. Hitler moaned he should have gone to war earlier but was prevented by being appeased at first...
To protect Czechoslovakia, it would be a land war and the British Army could only muster 2 fully equipped infantry divisions for deployment at the time. Chamberlain's appeasement bought Britain a bit more time. By the battle of France, the British Army managed to field 13 divisions in Europe but even that was very tiny when compared with the 141 German divisions Hitler deployed.
it is worth noting that Czechoslovakia had a very good, fairly large and well-equipped
modern army and airforce.
it was entirely possible that it could have successfully defended itself
against the 1000 (12) year reich, which was itself not as well prepared as the Brits and French thought it was, while the Czechoslovaks were.
the Czechoslovaks were told by the "great powers" at the time, that they could expect no help.
the Czechoslovak government felt it had no choice but to acquiesce, and so an opportunity to
potentially save Europe and the world from the depredations of the big h and his murderous cronies,
was lost.
Neville Chamberlain had an excellent record as PM, and I'm sure he really believed in appeasement. It's a shame he went down in history for this policy. Unfortunately he didn't have the necessary foresight as Churchill did. And that's why appeasement of Putin hasn't even been tried in the past year. When he invaded Ukraine I wondered if it was a second Czechoslovakia. Even worse, since war in Ukraine would be bad for Europe's economy, as it obviously was.
Nuts! Putin was appeased 3 times. Once in 2008 in Georgia Invasion, in the Syria Civil War, were Russian Interests are defended because assad regime supports them and 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. And as history repeats itself the appeasement didnt work. Only thing you can argue helped was to give more time to prepare caus UA couldnt hope to defend in 14 than in 22, they have been training and preparing since then
@@balian9177 Crimea wasn't so much appeasement as a successful Russian "fait accompli"; they had taken Crimea before anyone really had time to react.
'Neville Chamberlain had an excellent record as PM' 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
@@deek0146ut like Hitler's annexations, people who were paying attention (not, like, reading classified intelligence or are just perpetual cynical cranks, just people who were watching what was happening in the open) knew it was coming.
And I'm not a military expert, so I can't speak to what level of general preparedness existed in the region, but it wasn't an instant done deal situation, and if there had been any level of actual Western military response to the crypto separatists and transparently disguised Russian soldiers, it wasn't something Russia would have been ready to fight over.
That foresight from Churchill was to allow the Japanese to invade Australia while keeping our troops in Europe. That is why Curtin opened our country to the USA. Britain NO Churchill had let us down
In answer to the original question, 'was peace with Hitler ever possible?', the matter of 'peace with whom?' has be be raised.
I'm not going into to the specifics of each country because the answer would simply take too long to write.
The overall answer is probably 'no' but that doesn't mean that the result of the Munich Agreement was the wrong one.
From the British perspective, Chamberlain knew full well that war was coming, probably with Germany and he was rearming as quickly as possible.
Unfortunately, the topic is usually clouded with absolutes about 'appeasement', which didn't play much of a role in this and the question of abandonment of Czechoslovakia, which is entirely debatable.
Labour would not let the government rearm in 1935-38.
Attlee even threatened to bring down the government when Chamberlain tried to increase the size of the RAF.
Source?
@@robertcottam8824 Every biography of Attlee.
@@JamesRichards-mj9kw
Such as?
I have a ‘Reader’s Pass’, allowing me access to all primary sources, recorded in the ‘Anglophone/sphere’, published since 1679, available (free) and accessible within 14 working days. That’s how academia works.
If you inform me as to where you found this Attlee bombshell, I’d be delighted to check from say, Hansard or any published diaries etc.
If you are interested in serious study, then you too can acquire such a pass. They are free and available to ALL UK residents over the age of twelve. It’s that simple - in theory. But the will to do could be difficult to summon.
Thus: Where I can I find this Attlee revelation when I visit my nearest library on Monday?
Pip pip.
NB: I have a copy of ‘Citizen Clem’ (2017) John Bew’s excellent biography of Attlee in my own private library. In fact, I have it in front of me as I type.
There’s nowt to which you allude in it. 🙈
There’s nothing in Hansard either. I just checked…
@@robertcottam8824 Even wikipedia mentions it in detail:
Throughout the 1920s and most of the 1930s, the Labour Party's official policy had been to oppose rearmament, instead supporting internationalism and collective security under the League of Nations.[46] At the 1934 Labour Party Conference, Attlee declared that, "We have absolutely abandoned any idea of nationalist loyalty. We are deliberately putting a world order before our loyalty to our own country. We say we want to see put on the statute book something which will make our people citizens of the world before they are citizens of this country".[47] During a debate on defence in Commons a year later, Attlee said "We are told (in the White Paper) that there is danger against which we have to guard ourselves. We do not think you can do it by national defence. We think you can only do it by moving forward to a new world. A world of law, the abolition of national armaments with a world force and a world economic system. I shall be told that that is quite impossible".[48] Shortly after those comments, Adolf Hitler proclaimed that German rearmament offered no threat to world peace. Attlee responded the next day noting that Hitler's speech, although containing unfavourable references to the Soviet Union, created "A chance to call a halt in the armaments race ... We do not think that our answer to Herr Hitler should be just rearmament. We are in an age of rearmaments, but we on this side cannot accept that position".[49]
In June 1936, the Conservative MP Duff Cooper called for an Anglo-French alliance against possible German aggression and called for all parties to support one. Attlee condemned this: "We say that any suggestion of an alliance of this kind-an alliance in which one country is bound to another, right or wrong, by some overwhelming necessity-is contrary to the spirit of the League of Nations, is contrary to the Covenant, is contrary to Locarno is contrary to the obligations which this country has undertaken, and is contrary to the professed policy of this Government".[52] At the Labour Party conference at Edinburgh in October Attlee reiterated that "There can be no question of our supporting the Government in its rearmament policy".[53]
Great archive footage of the Munich meeting
"One worth trying"? It is undeniable that an offensive campaign in 1936 for the Rhineland or a defensive campaign in 1938 for Chechoslavakia would have been better for the Allies than the defensive campaign in 1940. In fact, Hitler had ordered his commanding general during the Rhineland campaign to retreat if he saw the French Army was moving in. Appeasement was a failure, and those who lived through it had no doubts as to that.
Well said.thank you.
Another amazing video. Did anyone else catch Stalin dropping a sword at 10:04?
Chamberlain had little choice as I think he knew asking those who had fought in the first world war to send their children to fight for a place they may not have heard of and which they had no emotional tie with would never have worked.
Neville Chamberlain is the living embodiment of the old maxim about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Hindsight is always 20/20. After the bloodshed of WWI - the "war to end all wars" - there was no appetite in Britain for combat, nor in France.
I have to dispute the passing remark at 3:43-3:55 about Churchill not being a warmonger. Churchill was a strong supporter of British imperialism.
It's debatable (wrong?) to say that Britain and France were not ready for War at the time of Munich and bought time, because: 1) The Czech army and defences were of high quality and modern (compared to Poland). 2) Germany was less prepared than in 1939. 3) Hugely important: Litvinov was the Jewish foreign minister of the USSR and wanted to back Czechoslovakia. Seeing the West abandon Czechoslovakia led Stalin to replace him with Molotov and pursuer his own pro-Nazi/appeasement policy. Tory Chamberlain and his appeaser pals were more terrified of Communism than the Nazis.
they weren't ready for war. its not about the Czechs or Polish, but domestic mobilisation, defences, and industry. They were not prepared for this in the 1930s.
Britain was certainly not ready for war in any shape or form in 1939. No way. Where do you get your history from ? I got mine from talking to people who had been in the army or air force at the time. My father joined the Royal Armoured Corps in 1941. They had nothing much to fight with except very lightweight unreliable tanks with ineffective guns. The hills round me are peppered with RAF training aircraft crash sites as they could not navigate accurately in poor weather. No way were we ready for war.
Chamberlain should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig.
His unworkable pact ensured Stalin invaded fascist Poland in 1939.
We should always strive for peace. Once it started, France had a huge army but rolled over quickly. Perhaps, Chamberlin should have had a red line for the Nazi’s first con quest, which we found out later was a test of European will.
The very reason why we need organisations such as NATO.
We do not need them over in the Pacific
@@jacktattis That's why SEATO exists.
And history repeat itself again
Chamberlain betrayed the Czechs at Munich, betrayed Poland with an empty promise to come to its defense, and betrayed the Jews of Europe by all of the above plus slamming the exit door shut to the “Jewish National Home” (by implementing the White Paper on Jewish Immigration to Palestine). Nobody that I knew personally from that generation thought of Chamberlain or his policies as being honorable. Quite the contrary.
Most people judges with a mindset of today and forget about colonial mindset. Chamberlain had to prioritize over Europe and deal with the empire that was already in decline politically and economically. From imperial mindset it was all very logical - he knew that one more war would destroy the empire so he put his bet to avoid it. He did not have to sacrifice any colonies - Great Britain pushed Mussolini into Hitler's arms when they tried blocking the expansion in Libia and Ethiopia. Before 1935, Mussolini was seeking an alliance with Britain and signed Stresa Pact, but Britain's imperial policy alienated Italy quickly. Once teamed with Mussolini, Hitler became confident enough to raise his bets. Overall, Chamberlain had little choice, either give up the empire, or start a war.
It is worth noting that the German General Staff was adamantly opposed to the invasion of the Rhineland in 1936 knowing full well that they were not remotely ready to oppose the French who had the largest standing Army in the world. German troops had orders to immediately retreat if France repelled them. General von Brausich (sic) Chief of the High Command, had an order on his desk for the Arrest of Hitler and the Nazi chiefs if that occurred,with the Army seizing the Government. France stumbled. WWII was guaranteed.
Not enforcing the military restrictions of the Versailles treaty was part of the appeasement, not the reason for it.
What was the position of the Baldwin government on this ? Of Anthony Eden ? Of Lloyd George ?
Would they have supported France if France had taken military action ?
Wik says that "Eden's statement firmly ruled out any military assistance to France."
The Dominions apart from NZ had made it clear at the 1937 Imperial Conference that there was no enthusiasm to get involved in another European war less than 20 years after the last one. Chamberlain had to face the reality that Britain's prestige would have suffered a body blow if the Empire had not offered support to the war effort.
In the end the Empire outright ended as a result of WW2, and the Commies eventually had all of Asia that had lingering consequences apparent to this day. Oh so f-ing clever.
If you are presented with a war, you should face it and go to war, or otherwise if you choose to submit, you should follow it through to the end.
Half-arsed compromises at what's essentially wartime would only lead to the submission and war at (roughly) the same time, and on the worst possible terms, to boot.
what was the alternative?
Anti war and peace terms was surprisingly popular , people forget this.
I think mostly because Britain was battle fatigued from ww1
Mandella Effect: "Peace IN OUR Time." Chamberlin never said that. "Peace FOR OUR TIME."
This is disturbingly similar to recent events in easteen Europe
Faced with simultaneous challenges from Japan, Italy, and Germany, a Britain fatally weakened by the Great War had few realistic options. An alliance with the Soviets was repeatedly on offer, but few British politicians were interested. Neither were the Poles, without whom such an alliance wouldn't have been effective. The Americans could have made a difference, but were similarly unwilling to get involved. (According to Ian Kershaw, in May, 1940 the US were trying to cut a deal to negotiate an end to the war through Mussolini. So appeasement was not just a British phenomenon.) The Russians seem to have worried that while fearing Hitler, the British hoped he would turn against the Soviet Union, not go west. In this, they may have been correct.
What about a British - French military alliance in Spring 1939. Has that betrayal been forgotten?
It was appeasement that allowed Germany to commence rearmament and appeasement that allowed Hitler to gain the initial successes that firmed up his power-base in Germany.
Arguing that British unreadiness is a justification for appeasement, is arguing that appeasement justified more appeasement. Germany was initially even more unready , and would have remained so had the military restrictions of Versailles been enforced. Choosing to ignore Germany’s treaty breaches and choosing to not be ready to respond were part of the appeasement policy and should not be separated.
I know logistically it wasn't possible back then, but it would've been interesting to see what would've happened if France and the UK had provided war materiel to the Czechoslovaks, if that would've stopped Hitler in his tracks as that nation fought fiercely for its independence. Something similar to what is happening in Ukraine now against an aggressive Putin. This war is now bleeding Putin dry and destabilizing his regime only a year in. The same with Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia--if the French and British had provided full military support to Ethiopia, but not gotten directly involved, would that have made Hitler think twice about antagonizing the Western Allies? We shall never know.
Britain and France did not have the ability to defeat Germany.
It's my understanding that NC knew that England was not ready for war and that some type of deal with Hitler would buy time to prepare for the war he knew was coming
As Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1931, he knew how starved for resources the British Army was, years beforehand. It was not as though he only learned about it in 1938.
Music too loud, can't hear commentary
See “The Spectre of War” by Jonathan Haslam. In it he makes a very strong case that the appeasement policy was also fuelled by fear of international communism - that a strong Germany would be a buffer against Soviet Russia.
Lore of Was peace with Hitler ever possible? Momentum 100
It depends on whose perspective you are looking at the question from. Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland. Soviets also invaded Poland but war wasn't declared on them. At least a Cold war style peace with Hitler was possible from the British perspective only after the Soviet Union fell. Peace from the French perspective would have meant a coalition with Germany against the Soviet Union which wouldn't have been likely.
We fought the wrong enemy.
Would.
Language just continues itself then got eliminated by epicurianism
Even if PM Chamberlain had decided that the Sudetenland within Czechoslovak sovereign territory was a definite no-no, what could he have done? He could not deploy stealth bombers or tomahawk cruise missiles, nor could he send an aircraft carrier close enough to this landlocked country. At the time of the Munich Agreement in September of 1938, where was the world’s condemnation for what was settled? (That I need to find out). The military deficiency was still obvious when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Probably Britain knew that it had to act in concert with the French in order to intimidate Hitler into behaving. But that would be fine if both countries had been militarily prepared by 1938. They were far from it.
Why no mention of Danzig?
a better question: At what point did Europe, and the world at large, pass the point of no return with peace?
Less than 20 years after the horror of the Great War and one can understand the desire to avoid a war. Easy in hindsight to judge that Hitler was playing a risky game that worked for a time. We know now that Hitler would have backed down if Britain & France had responded more strongly. Hitler was a gambler.
Chamberlain--and almost every British leader--believed 'the bomber will always get through'. The British military predicted that, should general war break out with Germany, six million civilians would be killed in the bombing (about 60,000 civilians eventually died). They simply believed that the German airforce could bomb unmolested. Churchill probably had a better intelligence service than did the British government. In addition to the two government people mentioned in the video, he had many other sources. Most importantly, Churchill understood that radar would change the formula for bombing; Chamberlain apparently read the report on nascent radar and failed to understand its potential. If the French and British had opposed the retaking of the Ruhr Valley, high members of the Germain command were prepared to arrest Hitler and his government; when they capitulated without any action, the high command meekly withdrew their prepared arrest warrant ("Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and Manchester's biography of Chirchill).
I have recently heard that Chamberlain's conundrum was how to eliminate the Nazi threat in Central Europe, figuring the Russians would get involved and if that happen, how would they get the Russians out of Central Europe later? Has anyone heard of this, and have I stated it correctly?
The Soviet Union (to give them their correct name) could never have been seriously involved.
A peculiar nature of the treaties of the 1930s is that most of the pointed eastwards, particularly the French ones. According to a French military strategist Capt. Andre Beaufre, the French spent the interwar period signing all kinds of crackpot treaties with Eastern European countries. The principal idea was to beat up the USSR. But strangely enough that wasn’t all.
But let’s have a look at how the treaties worked.
The French had a treaty with Czechoslovakia.
The French had a treaty with the Soviet Union.
The British had a treaty with the French but no treaty with Czechoslovakia.
All this was complicated by the concurrent Spanish Civil War.
If Germany had attacked Czechoslovakia, France had agree to come to her aid. But how? How would they be able to defend Czechoslovakia against Germany?
Petain suggested going through Belgium but everyone knew Belgium wouldn’t agree. Gamelin suggested Alsace Lorraine but both of those plans would have violated their treaty with the British, which was of a defensive nature only. How could France have defended Czechoslovakia? By going around the long way, through Italy and Yugoslavia?
No way anyone was going to allow for that.
The Soviet Union had the same problem. To defend Czechoslovakia would require them to pass through one or more other countries, which could not have been done easily. There are certain niceties to be observed, even in war.
This was further complicated by the fact that the _Anschluss_ had totally wrecked the Czech strategy because it exposed the south west border, rendering the Sudeten defences irrelevant.
It wasn’t that there was any great fear that the Soviet Union would stay. It’s just that nobody wanted to get into cahoots with Uncle Joe.
Operation Unthinkable!!! 😉
Don't forget how much appeasement went on for the USSR itself -- with Baltics and part of Romania and part of Finland being occupied by the Reds. If only some British-led NATO-like arrangement would have been in place, that would have been an effective recipe. The European countries at the time were too small and too poor to defend themselves against Germany or USSR, but FGS together they stood more of a chance than France and Britain, deprived of all of their possible allies because of their incessant appeasement and the betrayals that followed it.
Finland almost stopped the USSR occupation forces dead, FGS... Europe was siding with Hitler because they saw the weakness of the Anglo-French alliance, as now peoples would side (are already doing so) with China because of the weakness of the US/West as a whole. No one wants to be the next Ukraine, mired in a nation-killing war that could've easily ended with more allied support. A lot of people (or at least the leaderships) want to be like Iran, receiving the nuclear and conventional weapons from Russia and China, and being allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't irritate their masters too much.
No one wanted to be like Baltics or Chezhs. People wanted to be like Hungary.
Correct. France and the Soviet Union had a joint treaty to defend Czechoslovakia which was signed in 1935. If the French had declared war on Germany to defend the Czechs in 1938, the Soviets would have been obligated by the terms of the treaty to enter the war and fight for the Czechs too.
@@thethirdman225 A historian wrote a book about this question, Hugh Ragsdale, "The Soviets, the Munich Crisis, and the Coming of World War II." The French general Gamelin said the Soviets would reach the battle across Romania and pour into Czechoslovakia.
It strikes me that the War in Spain (1936-1939) is not even mentioned, where with the complicity of Great Britain the greatest opportunity Europe had to stop fascism was wasted, and the Spanish people were left completely alone in a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
Good pick up sir , it is said the German airforce gained experience in a Spanish assault.
@@keithcitizen4855 It is not just said, it is a fact that the Germans field tested most of the war material they used during the first years of WWII in Spain. The role played by Great Britain, as creator and promoter of the "Non-Intervention Committee", which left the democratic government of the second Spanish republic in conditions of inferiority to the fascists, is one of the greatest shames in history, and has a prominent place in the annals of infamy.
Appeasement did not start with Checkoslovakia. It started when Britain and France refused to enforce that military restrictions imposed by the Versailles treaty.
I always thought appeasement was a huge mistake, until I spoke to an older guy who said, on the contrary, it bought Britain time to rearm, make strategic and tactical changes to infrastructure, and prepare for the war that would be coming soon....and he was right. Britain was not ready for conflict in 1938. Whether it should have been is another matter
The title should be "Was peace with Churchill ever possible?" instead
The thing about the Sudetenland crisis is it could have led to Hitler's defeat if Chamberlain had stayed out of it entirely. The German people weren't on board for war and Hitler's generals were prepared to overthrow the Führer, expecting the Czechs, who had a decent military, to put up stubborn resistance. If the war went badly they felt the public would have been on board or at least stayed largely neutral during a coup. They communicated as much to British intelligence, telling them to ignore Mussolini's call for a summit. But Chamberlain had it in his head that he could prevent war and he truly believed if Hitler was able to restore the German border to what it was prior to WWI that he would be placated, at least long enough for Britain and France to arm up properly.
For his part, Hitler was pissed when Mussolini recommended a peace conference. He was ready to go to war and believed the Sudetenland Germans would rise up and help him defeat the Czechs. The real shame of it is, if they could have put their differences aside, and if they would have read the tea-leaves correctly, the Czechs and Poles could have entered into an alliance, forcing Hitler to fight a two front war right off the bat. That would have given the generals all the impetus they needed to stage their coup. Unfortunately, after Munich, Hitler's popularity was through the roof and the generals willing to stage a coup lost their heart. We all know what happened next. One of history's great what if's I suppose.
That's how weird Hitler can be. He preferred to go to war just to get something that he can get for free through peaceful means.
Chamberlain seems to have thought that Hitler was someone who could be reasoned with and who would be satisfied once certain demands had been met. The very strong, and in tiself not unjustified, desire to avoid another massive and costly war played a major role in that as well. Unfortunately for Chamberlain Hitler was anyhthing but a reasonable person and someone who in fact desired war, even if he was more concerned with the east than with France and England. Hitlers mistake was that he thought he could invade Poland (as a first step to the USSR) without getting into a war with France and England.
There is an interesting paralel with today, when you look at Putin's Russia. Russia attacked and threatened several neighbors over the years without too much pushback from US/EU/NATO. Many in the west thought Putin could be reasoned with as well and the desire to avoid a massive conflict and preserve the flow of energy (gas and oil) played an obvious role in this. But just like Hitler Putin thought he could get at Ukraine without any serious interference from the West. He too thought wrong (of course he also vastly underestimated the will and ability of Ukraine to resist and overestimated his own military's capability, which didn't help his judgement).
I think there are two other factors which the film does not cover, both relating to World War 1 and both of which significantly contributed to appeasement. Firstly, the reason that WW1 started in the first place was great powers standing firm against each other and not compromising. During the July crisis, the stakes were raised by no one wanting to appease any other great power and a general belief that standing firm would get powers to back down. Had there been a willingness to compromise the world war might have been avoided.
Secondly WW1 had a great effect on the public psyche in the UK and France. In the years after the euphoria of winning the war ended the younger generation was attracted to the idea that that the war was a waste of time and achieved nothing. By the 1930s public opinion had turned against the war and Churchill, who did not come out of WW1 all that well having been sacked, was pushing against the tide of public opinion. No one wanted another loss of life similar to the first world war and there was a lot of justified fear that a new war would be even worse. Chamberlain was trying to give the public what they wanted.
The other thing that occurs to me and could have been mentioned is that the perceptions of appeasement left a legacy that scarred the decades following the war. for example it was used to justify the Suez Crisis. the Vietnam War, and even the Iraq war.
If Churchill had the job, the war would have been over in 1938
Munich was not really Chamberlains folly it was giving up the Treaty Ports, the Irish Free State's neutrality costing at least 300 ships and 5000 lives and god knows how many more with the loss of their war cargoes.