Evaluating Historical Perspectives

Historical concept under examination: When did the policy of appeasement end within the British government?

Perspective A: Orthodox perspective. After Hitler failed to follow

through on his promises made at the Munich Conference Perspective B: Revisionist perspective. Although public rhetoric
(September 1938) to cease aggressive expansion if he were given ceased to indicate appeasement was dominating British decision-
the Sudetenland, the British government realised that making after the seizure of CZ, British actions in the lead up to,
appeasement was ineffective and ceased to approach foreign and the first few months of the Second World War indicated that
affairs in this way after Hitler snatched the rest of appeasement was at least somewhat a consideration in British
Czechoslovakia. decision making up until the end of 1940.

Sources/Evidence used by both perspectives:

- Cabinet papers detailing official cabinet meetings and decisions

made by the British government
- Official communications between the German and British
governments

Are there any differences in the value either perspective places on these
sources?

- Orthodox perspective much more highly values minutes of

cabinet meetings than revisionist perspective

Sources/Evidence used only by Perspective A: Sources/Evidence used only by Perspective B:

- Letters from Prime Minister Neville

Chamberlain to his mother and sisters,
written during his Prime Ministership

Why was this not used by Perspective A?

- Letters were not published until 2005, so

Why was this not used by Perspective B? this was not available for the perspective
A when this perspective was being
developed

What aspects of Perspective A author’s What aspects of Perspective B author’s

background could be influencing their background could be influencing their
interpretation? (Culture, nationality, political interpretation? (Culture, nationality, political
leaning, academic background, school of history leaning, academic background, school of history
etc.) etc.)
- Perspective A was largely developed by - Perspective B was developed some 60
British historians from prestigious years after the event, when evaluations
academic institutions (mainly Oxford). of British statesmanship had changed,
Oxford historians from this time period and it was recognised that the public
value British sensibility and tend to and semi-public statements of
overemphasise statesmanship, and governments often did not reflect the
interpret government documents such true motivations behind their actions
as cabinet papers as representing the
true intentions of the actors involved.

Evaluation (who is more correct and why?) (Annotated example):

Whilst both the orthodox and revisionist perspectives acknowledge that appeasement ceased in the public rhetoric after Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in late 1938, the revisionist
perspective argues that appeasement continues to influence the actions of the British government at least until the end of 1940. The orthodox argument is based primarily on British cabinet
papers, which suggest that delays in acting against the German government can be accounted for by a need to rearm Britain in preparation for full-scale war. For example… This perspective
certainly relies on the assumption that official government documents such as cabinet papers reflect the true motivations of British leaders. However, the revisionist perspective has
benefitted from the recent publication of the personal letters of Neville Chamberlain, who frequently asserted to his mother and sisters throughout 1940 that he was confident that, given
more time, Hitler would back down and cease his aggressive expansionism. For example… This particular source certainly lends validity to the revisionist perspective, giving insight into the
true motivations of the British Prime Minister, while simultaneously undermining the orthodox perspective which relied only on sources that were always intended for public consumption.
Thus, in light of the inclusion of Chamberlain’s letters, it appears that the revisionist argument is more supported than the orthodox perspective, suggesting that appeasement did influence
British decision making beyond the seizure of Czechoslovakia.