Churchill & Appeasement New Perspective Article What features of Churchill’s wartime leadership have led to him having such a good reputation. What is the revisionist view of Churchill, and on what evidence is it based ? What criticisms are made of Churchill?

Traditional View Churchill was ignored by Chamberlain, had he listened earlier war could have been avoided. Finally a disastrous policy of appeasement was replaced by the heroism of resistance. Mussolini was right: seeing Chamberlain in his ‘uniform of a bourgeois pacifist’ acted on Hitler ‘like the taste of blood to a wild beast’. Under Churchill, however, Britain would either have deterred Hitler or taken him on in better circumstance than those prevailing in September 1939.

Churchill had initially shown support for Hitler whose rise to power ‘cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force’ he had shown.” and hence ‘we may yet live to see Hitler a gentler figure in a happier age’. 1920’s and 30’s Showed sympathy with Italian fascists Favoured disarmament & did not call for increased provision of fighter planes or naval spending Did not oppose Japanese aggression in Manchuria or invasion of Abyssinia Declined to bring down Baldwin’s govt. over Hoare Laval pact Did not oppose Re-militarization of the Rhineland by Germany Supported neutrality over Spain, whilst secretly hoping for a Franco victory. Supported Chamberlain as Tory Party leader in 1937

Hitler’s foreign policy was misinterpreted as being calculated, when in reality there was a large element of opportunism. His calls for a Grand Alliance were impractical there were no reliable allies Hitler held no respect for Stalin’s forces The French were weak Hitler was not to be deterred There is little evidence to support the claim that GB would have been in a better position to fight in 1938 than 1939 Edmund Ironside, one of the most senior generals of the British Army, wrote in his diary: Chamberlain is, of course, right. We have not the means of defending ourselves and he knows it. He is a realist, and any plan he could devise was better than war … We cannot expose ourselves now to a German attack. We simply commit suicide if we do… What a mess we are in.

Post Revisionist View Chances of an Anti-Hitler coup before the war were in fact highly remote Churchill’s main argument with the govt. had been over the speed and extent of rearmament. Churchill had been in opposition to Baldwin and Chamberlain in his calls for military production to be given priority over civilian. He had called for GB & France to obtain “position of superior force” in 1936 After Anschluss he called for a Grand Alliance to prevent further German hostility. After initially hoping for peaceful conclusion over issue of Sudetenland he demanded GB & France defend Czechoslovakia Chamberlain wrote that Churchill was “nearly always wrong” and instead found “peace for our time”

Post Munich Daily Mirror described him as “most trusted statesman in Britain..for years he warned of dangers which have become terrible realities” Chamberlain’s unwillingness to ally with Russia contributed to the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact 23rd August. His reluctance was acknowledged by the Russians, as was Churchill’s willingness.

Churchill would probably have been more successful in obtaining a pact with the Soviets. Although ambivalent at the beginning, did not under-estimate Hitler Urged for research into aerial bombardment Wanted to divert production from civilian to wartime production. Combatitive spirit from the start However Entering war in 1938 would have divided public opinion Rapid rearmament may have led to economic collapse as predicted by Chamberlain What could have Churchill have done differently ?