How significant was the policy of appeasement to the success of Hitler's foreign policy aims before 1939? Explain your answer. [40]

This question asks you to evaluate the significance of appeasement in enabling Hitler to achieve his foreign policy aims. "How significant" requires you to weigh appeasement against other factors, including Hitler's own determination and the broader international context.

Arguments that appeasement was highly significant:

• Appeasement, pursued primarily by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and supported by French leaders, was based on the belief that Hitler's demands were limited and reasonable, and that satisfying them would preserve peace.
• When Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland in March 1936, Britain and France took no action. Germany's military was still relatively weak in 1936, and a firm response might have forced a withdrawal and potentially weakened Hitler's domestic position.
• The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935) allowed Germany to rebuild its navy to 35 per cent of British strength, effectively condoning German rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
• At the Munich Conference (September 1938), Chamberlain and French Premier Daladier agreed to the transfer of the Sudetenland to Germany without consulting Czechoslovakia, believing this would be Hitler's final territorial demand. This stripped Czechoslovakia of its border defences and made its subsequent occupation in March 1939 far easier.
• Appeasement created a pattern of concession. Each success made Hitler more confident and more ambitious, while progressively weakening the strategic position of the Western democracies. By the time Britain and France guaranteed Poland in March 1939, Germany was far stronger relative to the Allies than it had been in 1936.
• Appeasement also had diplomatic consequences. The Soviet Union, excluded from the Munich Conference, lost faith in collective security with the West, which contributed to Stalin's decision to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact in August 1939.

Arguments that other factors were also significant:

• Hitler's own determination and willingness to take risks were the driving force behind German expansion. His foreign policy aims were set out in Mein Kampf and remained consistent: revision of Versailles, unification of German-speaking peoples, and Lebensraum (living space) in the east. Appeasement enabled but did not cause these ambitions.
• The weakness of the League of Nations and its failure over Manchuria and Abyssinia had already demonstrated that aggression would not be effectively opposed internationally.
• The isolationism of the United States and the distrust between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union limited the options available to Britain and France.
• Some historians defend appeasement as a rational policy given the circumstances. Britain and France were militarily unprepared for war in 1936-1938. Public opinion was overwhelmingly against another conflict so soon after the First World War. The horror of modern warfare, particularly the fear of aerial bombing, made leaders desperate to avoid war.
• Rearmament programmes begun during the appeasement period strengthened Britain's defences. The RAF's fighter strength and radar network, which proved decisive in the Battle of Britain in 1940, were developed during the period of appeasement.
• It is debatable whether earlier confrontation would have prevented war. Hitler might have backed down over the Rhineland, but his ambitions were deep-rooted and he might simply have tried again later, better prepared.

How this question is marked (Paper 4, 40 marks):

• Level 5 (33-40): Balanced argument assessing appeasement alongside other factors, with specific evidence and a sustained evaluative judgement.
• Level 4 (25-32): Both the role of appeasement and other factors discussed with detail; some evaluation.
• Level 3 (17-24): Detailed on appeasement or other factors, but not effectively balanced.
• Level 2 (9-16): Some relevant knowledge but limited analysis.
• Level 1 (1-8): Vague or general statements.

Examination approach: A strong answer distinguishes between appeasement as a cause and appeasement as an enabling condition. Appeasement did not make Hitler aggressive; he was already committed to expansion. But it allowed him to achieve his goals without opposition until it was too late to stop him easily. A sophisticated conclusion might argue that appeasement was very significant because it allowed Hitler to achieve his aims progressively and without cost, but that it reflected broader structural weaknesses in the international system (American isolationism, Soviet distrust, League failure) rather than simply the personal misjudgement of Chamberlain.