What was the policy of appeasement, and in what sense (if any) did it fail?.
The definition of appeasement changed over time. The word itself comes from the old French apaiser which means literally to make peace'. Of course it became a dirty word. The appeasers had invited German aggression, and hence the Second World War, through their weakness and willingness to compromise and conciliate. In the canon of history of this period, these guilty men' were set against a standard (as epitomized by Churchill) of men who urged England not to compromise with evil but to face the dictators with courage and conviction'. I will come to the extent and nature of opposition to the policy of appeasement in a moment, but it is enough here to note that it is an emotive term with its own baggage, which can make a more evenly-handed assessment difficult. .
Parker makes the important point that the policy of appeasement, rather than being an amorphous kind of weakness in the face of bullying, was truly a policy. It was a choice of approach in the face of different options. Firstly I will argue that the forces which determined this policy choice were overwhelmingly strong, and that opposition presenting an alternative was divided, inconsistent or both; and second that as far as the question of failure was concerned, all policies of peace were bound to fail in the face of Hitler's foreign policy aims and Britain's commitment to maintaining some kind of balance of power in Europe. .
The parameters of appeasement still need some defining however, both geographically and chronologically. The policy of conciliation towards Germany was only one aspect of British foreign policy. It is important to remember the global aspect of Britain's perspective, especially in terms of Empire - thus an understanding of 1931 is essential. Also as far as it was a policy of ensuring peace and security on the continent, appeasement is a story that goes back as far as the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
