In this episode of Stuff You Should Know, the hosts examine the historical context and motivations behind the Allies' appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. They explore how the aftermath of World War I—including the Treaty of Versailles and widespread economic hardship—influenced British and French decisions to accommodate Hitler's expanding territorial demands, particularly through agreements like the 1938 Munich Agreement.
The episode delves into public sentiment during this period, with polls showing strong initial support for appeasement policies. The hosts also consider alternative scenarios, such as how early intervention during the Rhineland remilitarization might have altered the course of European history, and examine how the policy of appeasement ultimately enabled Nazi Germany's military growth and territorial expansion before World War II began.

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
In the aftermath of WWI, Germany emerged significantly weakened by the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed strict military limitations and substantial reparations. These punitive measures, combined with severe economic hardships including hyperinflation, created fertile ground for Hitler's nationalist appeal. Meanwhile, the UK and France, still recovering from WWI and facing strong public pressure to avoid another conflict, began pursuing a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany.
Two key examples of appeasement emerged during this period. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 allowed Germany to rebuild its navy, effectively overlooking violations of the Versailles Treaty. More significantly, the 1938 Munich Agreement saw the UK and France sacrifice Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland to Nazi Germany without Czechoslovakia's consent. While British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain celebrated this as bringing "peace for our time," Hitler breached the agreement just seven months later by invading the rest of Czechoslovakia.
The policy of appeasement enabled Nazi Germany's unchecked military growth and territorial expansion. The annexation of Czechoslovakia provided Germany with crucial resources, including munitions factories and conscripted labor. The Allies' repeated failure to act against German aggression, including the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the Anschluss of Austria, severely undermined their diplomatic influence and allowed Nazi Germany to secure a controlling position in Europe before war officially began.
Public opinion strongly favored appeasement, with surveys showing approximately 75% of the UK population supporting the Munich Agreement. Both Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Édouard Daladier advocated for appeasement, believing it would preserve peace and provide time for rearmament. However, public sentiment began to shift following Kristallnacht, as more people recognized the dangers of Hitler's regime.
The hosts discuss potential alternative outcomes, noting that in 1936, France had 100,000 troops near the Rhineland border and could have easily repelled the 35,000 German forces entering the area. They suggest, citing Churchill, that early intervention during the Rhineland remilitarization might have deterred Hitler and prevented WWII. They also speculate that if the UK and France hadn't declared war after Poland's invasion in 1939, the USSR and Nazi Germany might have exhausted themselves fighting each other, potentially changing the course of European history.
1-Page Summary
The years following WWI and the Treaty of Versailles played a significant role in prompting the UK and France toward a policy of appeasement with Nazi Germany.
Germany emerged from WWI significantly weakened.
The Treaty of Versailles was punitive towards Germany, limiting its military forces to 100,000 troops, demanding the dissolution of most of its navy, returning territories, and imposing substantial reparations. This not only financially strapped the country but also demoralized the populace, who felt shamed and vengeful as a result of the heavy penalties imposed.
During the Weimar Republic, Germany experienced hyperinflation, stemming directly from the financial implications of the Versailles Treaty. The economic hardships of the interwar period laid the groundwork for Hitler's nationalist appeal as he promised to resurrect Germany's standing.
Still recovering from the previous conflict, the UK and France sought to ward off a second global war.
...
Factors Leading To Appeasement Policy Towards Nazi Germany
During the interwar period, the Allies adopted a number of appeasement policies that aimed to prevent conflict but ultimately failed to stop the march towards World War II.
The Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 is one such policy where Britain tacitly endorsed Germany's violations of the Treaty of Versailles by allowing them to rebuild their navy. Britain had intelligence, including an agent named Carl Krueger in Germany's U-boat design office, which confirmed that Germany was indeed reconstructing its fleet despite the treaty's prohibitions. Despite this, the UK struck a deal with Germany, signaling a willingness to let them rebuild their navy.
This deal was seen as a gesture aimed at appeasing Adolf Hitler and reintegrating Germany as a power in Europe. It was a clear signal from the Allies that they were prepared to overlook violations in an attempt to maintain peace.
However, this policy did not curb Germany's military expansionism. Instead, it was just the beginning of a series of pacifying actions that would embolden Hitler's aggressive ambitions.
The Munich Agreement of 1938 epitomizes the policy of appeasement. The deal, which involved ceding the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany, was brokered without Czechoslovakia's presence, effectively sacrificing the sovereignty of an ally to placate German ambitions.
The Specific Appeasement Policies Enacted by the Allies
Appeasement critically shaped the events leading up to WWII, with far-reaching impacts on European stability and the power dynamics of involved nations.
The policy of appeasement significantly contributed to the onset of World War II. It permitted Nazi Germany's military growth unchecked and allowed territorial advances that would ultimately bolster its wartime capabilities.
The annexation of Czechoslovakia provided Nazi Germany not only with munitions factories and resources but also manpower through conscripted labor. This acquisition tipped the military balance significantly in favor of Germany, giving them substantial strength and resources to draw upon.
Despite the lessons supposedly learned from the punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, which contributed to a resentful Germany, the appeasement policies of the 1930s failed. The Anschluss of Austria by Germany and the acquisition of the Sudetenland went unchecked by France and Britain. The host states that the acquisition of Czechoslovakia and the cache of its resources by Germany demonstrated the stark failure of appeasement; it showed the Allies’ reluctance to intervene even when Nazi Germany flagrantly contravened agreements, such as those laid out during the Munich Conference. These inactions were emblematic of appeasement's failure and led directly to the outbreak of WWII.
Appeasement not only allowed for Nazi territorial gains but also undermined the credibility of the United Kingdom and France to counter the Nazi threat effectively.
The Allies' failure to act against several breaches of the Treaty of Versailles by Nazi Germany, inclu ...
The Impact and Consequences of the Appeasement Policy
The policy of appeasement leading up to World War II was influenced greatly by both public opinion and the political leadership of the United Kingdom and France.
The idea of appeasement was rooted in the hope that by conceding to some of Hitler's demands, further aggression could be avoided. In the United Kingdom, surveys indicated that only about 25% of the population favored a "determined policy" against Hitler, while an overwhelming majority supported appeasement, particularly after the Munich Agreement, with approval rates as high as 75%.
After the Munich Agreement, British public opinion heavily favored appeasement. The hosts highlight that even after this agreement, the public still showed strong support for appeasement as a political strategy.
The British and French publics were receptive to appeasement due to an aversion to war and distrust of military engagement following the First World War. Many wished to delay conflict to allow more time for rearmament. However, public opinion began to shift following the Kristallnacht in Germany, with more people recognizing the dangers of Hitler's regime.
Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, and Édouard Daladier, the French Premier, played significant roles in appeasement policies as evidenced by their willingness to negotiate with Hitler in Munich, instead of opposing his demands.
Chamberlain championed appeasement as a means to buy time for Britain to rearm, thereby preserving European peace and stability. He was Britain's Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940 and his approach to appeasement was guided by the belief that con ...
Public Opinion and Leadership in Appeasement Policy
In this podcast segment, the hosts discuss how the course of history might have been altered if the Allies had adopted different strategies in the lead-up to World War II.
The hosts ponder on a scenario where the UK and France had decided to intervene when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.
As the podcast notes, France had 100,000 troops near the Rhineland border and could have easily repelled the 35,000 German forces that moved into the area. Czechoslovakia and Romania were prepared to support France and Britain if they chose to confront Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland. This suggests that an early and decisive reaction by France and the UK could have significantly undermined Hitler's early show of power and potentially halted his further aggressive moves.
The hosts speculate on the effects of a potential early confrontation, discussing the Allies' five to one armament superiority over Germany at the time. They suggest that such an action might have dissuaded Hitler from proceeding with his expansionist agenda. Referring to Churchill's indication that a stance of deterrence rather than appeasement could have prevented WWII, the hosts imply that intervening during the remilitarization of the Rhineland might have deterred Hitler and changed the course of events, possibly averting the war.
Alternate Histories: What if Allies Took a Different Approach
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
