Podcasts > Stuff You Should Know > Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

By iHeartPodcasts

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.

Listen to the original

Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Sep 30, 2025 episode of the Stuff You Should Know

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

1-Page Summary

Factors Leading To Appeasement Policy Towards Nazi Germany

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.

The Specific Appeasement Policies Enacted by the Allies

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 Impact and Consequences of the Appeasement Policy

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 and Leadership in Appeasement Policy

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.

Alternate Histories: What if Allies Took a Different Approach

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

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The Treaty of Versailles' harsh terms may have been seen as necessary at the time to ensure Germany would not be able to start another war.
  • Appeasement was not solely due to public pressure but also a strategic choice by the UK and France, who were not ready for another war economically or militarily.
  • The Anglo-German Naval Agreement was also a strategic move to engage Germany diplomatically and potentially moderate its actions.
  • The Munich Agreement can be seen as a last-ditch effort to avoid war, which many leaders genuinely believed was the best course of action at the time.
  • The policy of appeasement may have bought the Allies crucial time to rearm and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Germany.
  • The failure to act against German aggression was not just due to appeasement but also due to a lack of readiness and the hope that Hitler could be contained.
  • Public opinion is often swayed by the desire to avoid war, and leaders may have been acting on what they believed were the democratic wishes of their populace.
  • Chamberlain and Daladier's advocacy for appeasement was in line with many contemporary strategic thinkers who underestimated Hitler's ambitions.
  • The shift in public sentiment after Kristallnacht was not universal, and some still believed that appeasement was the right approach.
  • The suggestion that France could have easily repelled German forces during the Rhineland remilitarization overlooks the complex political and military considerations of the time.
  • Early intervention during the Rhineland remilitarization might not have deterred Hitler and could have led to an earlier start of WWII, which the Allies were not prepared for.
  • The speculation that not declaring war after Poland's invasion could have led to a USSR-Germany conflict ignores the possibility that Hitler could have consolidated his gains and become even stronger.

Actionables

  • You can analyze decision-making in historical documentaries by identifying moments of appeasement and considering alternative outcomes. While watching, pause at key decision points and jot down how different choices could have led to different historical consequences, similar to the pivotal moments before WWII. This exercise sharpens your critical thinking and understanding of cause and effect in history.
  • Start a book club focused on historical fiction set in the interwar period to explore the human side of political decisions. Choose novels that delve into the lives of characters during the 1920s and 1930s, discussing how the political climate and decisions like appeasement affected their lives. This can deepen your empathy and provide a more nuanced understanding of the era's complex social dynamics.
  • Engage in role-playing games (RPGs) that simulate diplomatic scenarios from the 20th century. Create or participate in an RPG where you must navigate international politics, make decisions on appeasement, and deal with the consequences. This interactive approach can give you a personal sense of the challenges leaders faced and the impact of public opinion on policy decisions.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

Factors Leading To Appeasement Policy Towards Nazi Germany

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.

Aftermath of WWI and Treaty of Versailles Left Germany Depleted, Creating Environment for Nationalist Sentiment and Nazi Rise

Germany emerged from WWI significantly weakened.

Versailles Treaty Fueled German Resentment, Desire to Regain Power

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.

Germany's Interwar Economic Hardships Fueled Hitler's Nationalist Appeal

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.

Reluctant UK and France Pursue Appeasement to Avoid War

Still recovering from the previous conflict, the UK and France sought to ward off a second global war.

UK and France, Recovering From WWI, Lacked Military Readiness to Confront Nazi Germany

...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Factors Leading To Appeasement Policy Towards Nazi Germany

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The Treaty of Versailles alone did not cause the rise of Nazism; other factors like the Great Depression and internal political dynamics also played crucial roles.
  • Some historians argue that the appeasement policy was not just a result of military unpreparedness but also a strategic choice influenced by contemporary beliefs about war prevention.
  • The notion that the UK and France were not militarily ready to confront Germany is contested; some argue that they had sufficient resources but lacked the political will or strategic foresight.
  • Public opinion in the UK and France was not uniformly in favor of appeasement; there we ...

Actionables

  • You can explore the impact of historical events on modern society by starting a book club focused on historical fiction set in the interwar period. This can deepen your understanding of the societal shifts that occur after major conflicts and how they might parallel current events. For example, reading and discussing "All Quiet on the Western Front" or "The Book Thief" can provide insights into the human side of historical narratives, fostering empathy and a more nuanced view of history's impact on the present.
  • Enhance your critical thinking skills by playing strategy-based board games that simulate political and military decisions, such as "Diplomacy" or "Hearts of Iron." These games can help you grasp the complexity of international relations and the consequences of appeasement or aggression, mirroring the strategic challenges faced by European leaders during the 1930s.
  • Develop ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

The Specific Appeasement Policies Enacted by the Allies

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.

Anglo-German Naval Pact 1935 Allowed German Naval Rebuild, Overlooked Treaty Violations

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.

Deal Seen As Gesture to Appease Hitler and Reintegrate Germany Into European Powers

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.

Policy Failed to Curb Germany's Military Expansionism

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.

Munich 1938: Czechoslovakia Sacrificed To Nazi Germany For No Further Demands

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.

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The Specific Appeasement Policies Enacted by the Allies

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • The Anglo-German Naval Agreement can be seen as a pragmatic step by Britain to manage and contain German naval rearmament within agreed limits, rather than allowing Germany to rebuild its navy without any constraints.
  • Some historians argue that appeasement was a strategic choice by the Allies due to their unpreparedness for war, both militarily and in terms of public opinion, rather than a naive disregard for the threat posed by Nazi Germany.
  • The policy of appeasement may have bought the Allies crucial time to rearm and prepare for the inevitable conflict, which could be seen as a strategic delay rather than a failure.
  • The Munich Agreement can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid a war over territory that was predominantly inhabited by ethnic Germans and where there was significant support for unification with Germany.
  • It's argued that the decision at Munich was made under the belief, albeit m ...

Actionables

  • Reflect on personal and professional decisions by journaling about times you've compromised your values for short-term peace, and consider alternative actions you could have taken. This self-reflection can help you recognize patterns in your decision-making and encourage you to stand by your principles even when it's challenging. For example, if you've ever agreed to a colleague's questionable request to avoid conflict, write it down, and brainstorm ways you could address the issue directly while maintaining a professional relationship.
  • Use historical examples like the Munich Agreement to facilitate discussions with your family about the importance of involving all stakeholders in decision-making. During a family meeting, you could bring up a decision that affects everyone, such as moving to a new city, and ensure each member has a say. This practice reinforces the value of inclusivity and consent, drawing a parallel to the historical exclusion of Czechoslovakia and emphasizing the consequences of ignoring the voices of those impacte ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

The Impact and Consequences of the Appeasement Policy

Appeasement critically shaped the events leading up to WWII, with far-reaching impacts on European stability and the power dynamics of involved nations.

Appeasement Enabled Nazi Germany's Military Growth and Territorial Expansion, Leading to WWII

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.

Czechoslovakia's Resources Boosted Germany's 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.

Appeasement's Failure: Allies' Inaction Against 1930s Nazi Aggression

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 Undermined UK and France's Credibility to Counter the Nazi Threat

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.

Allied Weakness and Reluctance to Confront Aggression Eroded Their Diplomatic Influence and Power

The Allies' failure to act against several breaches of the Treaty of Versailles by Nazi Germany, inclu ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The Impact and Consequences of the Appeasement Policy

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Anschluss of Austria in 1938 referred to the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany, where German troops entered Austria without facing any resistance. It was a significant event that marked the union of Austria with Germany, a move that violated international agreements and contributed to the escalation of tensions in Europe before World War II. The Anschluss was a key step in Hitler's expansionist policies, aiming to unite all German-speaking peoples under one nation. The annexation was met with mixed reactions internationally, with some countries condemning it as a violation of Austria's sovereignty.
  • The acquisition of the Sudetenland referred to Nazi Germany's annexation of a region in Czechoslovakia primarily inhabited by ethnic Germans. This event was a key part of Hitler's expansionist aims in the late 1930s. The Sudetenland was strategically important to Germany due to its industrial capabilities and geographic location. Its annexation without resistance from major European powers like France and Britain showcased the failure of appeasement policies and emboldened Hitler's aggressive territorial ambitions.
  • The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty signed in 1919 after World War I, imposing significant penalties on Germany. It required Germany to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay reparations to the Allied Powers. The treaty's "War Guilt" clause held Germany responsible for the war and its consequences, a provision that was heavily criticized for its severity.
  • The remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 involved Nazi Germany sending military forces into the region, violating previous treaties. This move was a significant breach of the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Treaties. France and Britain did not respond militarily due to a lack of preparedness and public opposition to intervention. The event is seen as a pivotal moment that emboldened Hitler's expansionist ambitions.
  • The Munich Conference, also known as the Munich Agreement, was a meeting in 1938 where Germany, the UK, France, and Italy agreed to allow Nazi Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia kno ...

Counterarguments

  • The policy of appeasement may have been a rational strategy at the time, considering the trauma of World War I and the widespread desire to avoid another devastating conflict.
  • Some historians argue that appeasement bought critical time for the Allies to rearm and prepare for the inevitable conflict with Germany.
  • The economic and political conditions of the 1930s, including the Great Depression, made it difficult for the UK and France to engage in a major conflict, potentially justifying their initial reluctance to confront Nazi Germany.
  • The moral and strategic justifications for the Munich Agreement and other acts of appeasement were more complex than simply a failure to act, including a genuine belief that these concessions could lead to a lasting peace.
  • The effectiveness of the UK and France's military response once the war began suggests that their strategic and political preparations, although delayed, were not entirely inadequate.
  • The notion that appeasement allowed Germany to secure control over Europe before the war could be challenged by the argument that Germany's military might and strategic advantages would have been fo ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

Public Opinion and Leadership in 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.

UK and France Support Appeasement to Avoid Conflict

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%.

Polls: Majority of UK Approved Appeasement After Munich Agreement

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.

Public Receptive to Appeasement due to War Aversion and Military Distrust

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.

UK and France Political Leadership: Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier's Key Role in Appeasement Policy

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, British PM, Advocated Appeasement to Preserve European Peace and Stability

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 ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Public Opinion and Leadership in Appeasement Policy

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • Public opinion may not have been as uniform as polls suggest, as polling methods of the time may not have captured a representative cross-section of society.
  • Approval rates for appeasement after the Munich Agreement might reflect relief over the avoidance of immediate war rather than strong support for the policy itself.
  • The shift in public opinion post-Kristallnacht might have been more complex, with some segments of the population still hoping for peace despite the atrocities.
  • Chamberlain's advocacy for appeasement could be criticized for being short-sighted and underestimating Hitler's ambitions.
  • The effectiveness of Chamberlain's strategy to buy time for Britain to rearm is debatable, as it could be argued that it also gave Germany time to strengthen its military.
  • Daladier's hesitance to confront Germany might be seen as a failure of leadership rather than a reflection of a divided government. ...

Actionables

  • You can enhance critical thinking by examining historical decisions and their outcomes. Start by reading about key events leading up to World War II, then list the decisions made and their immediate and long-term consequences. This exercise will help you understand the impact of decision-making and the importance of considering long-term effects.
  • Develop a habit of seeking diverse perspectives before making important decisions. For instance, if you're faced with a significant choice, like changing careers, gather opinions from people in both your current and prospective fields, as well as from neutral parties. This approach can provide a more rounded view and prevent the echo chamber effect that can lead to narrow decision-making.
  • Practice scenario planning in your persona ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Why Would Anyone Want to Appease Hitler?

Alternate Histories: What if Allies Took a Different Approach

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.

UK and France Intervening In 1936 Rhineland Remilitarization Could Have Checked Hitler's Early Power and Halted Further Expansionism

The hosts ponder on a scenario where the UK and France had decided to intervene when Germany remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936.

Allies Could Swiftly Repel the Small German Force Entering the Rhineland, Undermining Hitler's Standing

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.

Early Confrontation Could Have Deterred Hitler, Changing WWII Events

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.

Allies' Non-declaration in ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Alternate Histories: What if Allies Took a Different Approach

Additional Materials

Counterarguments

  • Intervening in the Rhineland could have escalated into a larger conflict prematurely, with the Allies potentially not as prepared for a full-scale war as they were in 1939.
  • The decision not to intervene in the Rhineland was influenced by the widespread desire to avoid another war so soon after the devastation of World War I, which is a valid consideration that the Allies had to take into account.
  • The belief that early confrontation could have deterred Hitler assumes that he would have responded rationally to military setbacks, which is not guaranteed given his later aggressive actions despite strategic disadvantages.
  • The idea that not declaring war in 1939 could have led to the USSR and Nazi Germany weakening each other assumes that they would have engaged in a conflict that significantly drained their resources, which is not certain.
  • The non-declaration scenario also overlooks the potential human cost and suffering in Poland and other countries that could have been caught between the USSR and Nazi Germany without Allied interv ...

Actionables

  • You can explore the impact of early intervention by playing historical simulation games that allow you to alter key events and observe the outcomes. For instance, games like "Hearts of Iron IV" or "Making History" offer scenarios where you can decide to confront a threat early on, similar to the hypothetical situation of the Allies confronting Hitler in the Rhineland, and see how this changes the course of history within the game.
  • Start a book club focused on alternate history novels to understand the ramifications of different historical outcomes through storytelling. By reading and discussing books like "Fatherland" by Robert Harris or "The Man in the High Castle" by Philip K. Dick, you can gain a deeper appreciation for how pivotal moments can alter the course of history, akin to the potential early deterrence of Hitler's actions.
  • Engage in role-playing debates with friends ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA