Interpretations of Appeasement and the Cold War

Appeasement - Popular majority view (1937-1938)

Huge support of Chamberlain, as he kept war at bay for as long as he could, giving peace a chance.

Developed by:

The memory of WW1

Support for going to war over Czechoslovakia was weak.

Shown by positive public reception on his return from Munich, thousands cheering him on. Also applause in Parliament.

Churchill, and David Low were the most prominent critics.

Appeasement - Popular and political view (1939-1948)

Appeasement was a foolish, cowardly, and immoral policy that strengthened dictators and weakened Britain.

Developed by:

The outbreak of WW2

Shame about Munich

Publication of Guilty Men (by Cato), which criticised the British leaders from 1931 onwards.

This book helped Churchill defeat Halifax (his opponent), and he became the leader of Britain's war policy.

Appeasement - The orthodox view (1948-1960s)

Appeasement was a terrible misjudgement, even if based on good motives. Chamberlain should've tried to form a 'grand alliance' of Britain, France, the USA, and the USSR to stop the Axis.

Developed by:

The 'Churchill Factor' - Churchill was well known for his self-promotion, and wanted to make sure his reputation did not suffer after losing the 1945 election

The Cold War, Churchill saw the USSR as a threat, and believed that the USA and its allies should always stand up to Stalin and not repeat past mistakes

Churchill published The Gathering Storm about his history of WW2

John Charmley was the main critic.

Appeasement - Academic revisionist view (1960s-1990s)

Chamberlain was in an impossible situation and did the best he could've.

Developed by:

A period of radical thinking during the 60s

The USA's dislike of Appeasement drawing them into the Vietnam War

New British sources from the time due to the Public Records Act (papers could be studied 30 years after their creation).

Associated with Donald Cameron Watt, Paul Kennedy, and David Dilks.

Academic counter-revisionists criticised this view.

Appeasement - Academic counter-revisionist view (1990s-2000s)

Chamberlain's personality and assumptions meant he could not deal well with the situation, so he was at least partly responsible for it.

Developed by:

Historical debate, some historians did not agree with the revisionist view as it let Chamberlain off the hook

New Soviet sources, after the end of the Cold War archives from the USSR became available to historians, which had German documents that gave details of dealings between Hitler and Chamberlain.

Associated with Donald Cameron Watt, who changed his view.

Revisionist historians criticised this view as they questioned what alternatives were open to Chamberlain.

Cold War - US orthodox view (1940s-1960s)

Blamed the USSR

Backed up by movies: The War of the Worlds, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Make Mine Freedom (US govt film), and other propaganda

Developed by:

Red Scare (1950s), Senator McCarthy claimed there were spies in the US govt and other institutions

Personal experience, many orthodox historians had been involved in the events they were talking about

Lack of sources, US ones were secret, no access to the USSR at all

Associated with Thomas Bailey, George Kennan, and Herbert Feis

William Appleman Williams and EH Carr criticised this view

Cold War - US revisionist view (1960s-1970s)

Blamed the USA

The USA provoked the war by the 'Open Door' policy

Critical of the orthodox view, as it had overstated the Soviet threat

Developed by:

Cuban revolution, during Cuba's communist takeover, the USA were aggressive and empire-building, but were also trying to stop Soviets from building their own empire.

Vietnam War, the USA had supported a corrupt regime in Vietnam

Challenges to status-quo, there were many new views on issues, encouraging new ways of thinking

Supported by William Appleman Williams, Joyce and Gabriel Kolko, and Thomas G Paterson

Criticised by Herbert Feis and traditionalists

Cold War - post-revisionist view (1970s-1989)

Caused by the USA and USSR's reactions to each other's actions, mistrust and misunderstandings

The Cold War was not inevitable

Developed by:

Historical debate, post-revisionists were challenging both orthodox and revisionist views for being too simplistic in blaming one side

Thawing of the Cold War, the US started a process of détente, they agreed the SALT in 1972, they also met to discuss human rights in Helsinki

Supported by John Lewis Gaddis

Criticised by Carolyn Eisenburg

Cold War - new Cold War Historians (1989 onwards)

Blamed USA and USSR

Blame is divided, we can't be sure

The end of the Cold War led to...

New Soviet sources, millions of new sources to consider

The Reagan factor, in the final years of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan had an aggressive policy towards the USSR, referring to it as the 'Evil Empire', influencing many orthodox historians

Criticised by Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe

Reagan was criticised by Revisionist historians