cartsman wrote:
In terms of appeasement, it is worth remembering that just 20 years earlier Britain and France between them had lost well over 2 million casualties out of a combined population of 80 million at the time. That's about 6% of the male population, must be getting on for 20% of 18 to 30 year olds. That's going to have a pretty big impact on your appetite for another war, and in Britain's case they've always been reluctant to get involved in land wars in Europe unless they really need to anyway.
That's fair. Folks pitch on Chamberlain for appeasement but he accurately represented the feelings of the Brits (and the French). The incredible casualties of WW1 had turned the huge optimism of the Victorian age, into something gray and despondent. The appeasement was not Chamberlain's fault. The Brit and French people had their hearts ripped out by WW1. They were desperate to prevent another conflict.
But when I think of appeasement, I think of the Brits and French failing to stand up to the Germans when they started breaking treaties re. re-armament, or occupied the Czech Sudatenland. The options for the Brits and French, in those situations were not great. Invade Germany because the Germans were (deniably?) rebuilding their military? Or for the Sudatenland, attack all the way across Germany in an attempt to kick the Germans out of Czech? These were both terrible options.
But the Rhineland was different, I'd argue. The French, if they'd really wanted to, could have in 24hrs, put 10x as many troops into the Rhineland as the Germans had. It was a complicated period tho. I'm sure, in the academic world, there's lots of conflicting ideas.
Books @ Amazon "If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart